That’s exactly what I said. The government (elected by the people) needs to force it’s citizens to follow the democratically crafted laws and regulations (right thing) because otherwise people won’t do the right thing.
Are just focused on the most fundamentalist literalist interpretation of what I said? It was a metaphor. I wasn’t talking about flu shots!
Which ones? Larceny? Not a violent crime, but force is justifiably used to combat it. Trespassing? Not a violent crime, but force is justifiably used to combat it.
Speeding, parking tickets, fraud, tax evasion, drug abuse etc. Lemme guess you think when we were discussing government “force” you only thought we meant physical force, huh?
If taxes go away, then the pool of tax money goes back to the people. Since they have a greater ability to buy things inflation happens and that pool of tax money effectively dossapears, and the only money still going to “charity programs” is what was being privately donated before. Maybe I am not explaining it clearly
Dude, it’s not.
This:
and this:
Are miles apart. One is logical, I think these things are the right thing to do and I think our tax dollars should go to paying for them. Reasonable. The other is authoritarian and illogical (because power shifts). I think people are selfish assholes and they should be forced to do the right thing because otherwise, they won’t.
You sure you’ve thought this stance through?
So, during the Jim Crow era, the government needed to force its citizens to follow the democratically crafted laws and regulations (right thing) because otherwise people won’t do the right thing?
Uhuh…
At any rate, if you can’t see the discrepancy there’s no point in continuing, but you shouldn’t be confused as to why some people think what you’re advocating is authoritarian.
Ya, you’re not getting it. I’m bowing out of this convo.
Do you know how a fiat currency works? If taxation goes away the government goes away and if the government goes away that paper in your pocket is worthless. That pool of money is now worth a) less than the paper it is printed on or B) whatever the market decides it’s worth (probably nothing).
But, lets just assume the government still exists and we still use paper money at face value. The total pool of money hasn’t change, at all. The people would have more money to spend, true, but the government would be spending zero. Net spending would not increase. The government doesn’t put tax dollars in the bank… They spend them. All of them and then dollars we don’t have. Eliminating taxation in our theoretical world where the government doesn’t need taxes to function would more than likely not cause inflation in and of itself.
Speeding and parking tickets could be legitimately dealt with by force, if there were a choice regarding the taxation used to pay for roads. They can be as is, because the government owns the roads. Parking tickets are often written on private lots, which is entirely justifiable.
Fraud is closely related to the initiation of force, and can certainly be dealt with by force.
“Drug abuse”(which is not legally a crime, to the best of my knowledge) does not involve force or fraud, so initiating force to deal with it is wrong. Possession of drugs could certainly be legitimately punished with force for the same reason trespassing can be.
Tax evasion can’t be legitimately dealt with by force. The proper punishment would be to deny a tax evader access to anything publicly funded.
“Lemme guess,” you’re completely unaware that all laws and regulations are backed by force.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. You can’t enforce laws and regulations unless they’re backed by force. High five!
Explain it then?
Must you?
If we’re defining the right things as right because the government says so then, yes, we must.
I don’t think interning Japanese Americans is the “right thing” just because “The government (elected by the people) needs to force it’s citizens to follow the democratically crafted laws and regulations (right thing) because otherwise people won’t do the right thing.”
I don’t think the various Jim Crow laws were the “right thing” just because “The government (elected by the people) needs to force it’s citizens to follow the democratically crafted laws and regulations (right thing) because otherwise people won’t do the right thing.”
So on and so forth. I don’t think a law/regulation is the right thing because the government says so. I doubt he does either, but I can only comment on what he writes.
*Pointing out there’s a difference between threat/use of force for laws consented to versus saying people need to be forced to do “the right thing” as determined by the government is not me saying laws created by the government is the right thing. A lot of laws created by government are the exact opposite. I think you’re trying to combine two separate points of discussion.
And again, this just goes back to what I originally said:
It may be what you meant, but it wasn’t what you said. You said government is there to force people to X. Government can’t legitimately force people to X. Government can legitimately use force to combat attempts to force people to X.
I’m doing just fine, thank you. As is my tribe, overall.
I don’t need the help of Princess One Drop (D-MA) or any of the other Democrat assholes who view me as an ignorant savage unable to succeed without the help of Great White Liberal Fathers (or alternatively view my material success and living in a house with central heating and Netflix as an abandonment of my culture to be decried about in National Geographic).
Affirmative action has been a giant pain in my ass my entire life. I was a National Merit Scholar. Great SAT and ACT. Great athlete. Perfect GPA. Highly decorated soldier, US ARMY.
Oh, but I was a born-on-the-res Apache, so I must be a moron who got to school and got a job based on Affirmative Action.
And dipshit investment bankers who think I must be a AA hire engineer in a meeting – WHEN I OWN THE FUCKING COMPANY.
AA is a disgrace. It does zero to help with discrimination. It’s actually a (sadly, pretty logical) hindrance to qualified minorities.
Are those who assume you benefited from AA, Republicans or Democrats? Just curious. For the record I do agree that AA has some serious issues.
They’re investment bankers. You can bet your ass they weren’t voting for higher taxes.
This to me is one of the great tragedies of AA. I’ve worked with wonderfully talented people from Africa, South America, Asia and the good-old USA and I can’t imagine the stigma they face because people assume they are AA hires. I’ve heard colleagues speak those words before when they weren’t remotely true. This was in fortune 500 corporate setting so ALL of them were certainly filling a quota, but almost all of them could stand perfectly well on their own two feet.
I’ve also worked with a small handful of AA hires who, to be perfectly blunt, had no business being in the position they were put in. I have exactly one college-level accounting class (albeit quite a bit of on-the-job experience) but I once found myself needing to explain very basic manufacturing accounting concepts to our new plant controller of color. He was let go about a month later when it was abundantly clear he was not able to do the job. This was after he relocated his family across the country to take this job.
The white liberal HR director put him in a position to fail by hiring him because of his skin color and in spite of his qualifications. I would have relayed my impression of him to her, if not for my fear of being thought of as racist by my company’s HR director. I just quietly tried to help him without mentioning his shortcomings to upper management.
I’m guessing some of the people who were part of his interview process felt the same. I can’t imagine how he could have been hired otherwise. This is a guy who didn’t understand the concept of a multi-level bill of materials or variances on a work order, let alone the higher-level cost-accounting functions of a plant controller. He got hired because of how he looked, period.
I can’t blame him for accepting a six figure job offer, but his very short stint at that organization probably didn’t do him any favors either.
Well I don’t know if they are Republicans or Democrats.
But they are liberals from New York that hate Trump.
