Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years!

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:38:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's official. An unnamed investor in Bain Capital has stated that he had access to Romney's personal tax returns and can verify that Romney went 10 years without paying taxes!

I bought some stock in a company... I remember the first thing the company sent me was an information packet with the CEO's personal tax filings.

Oh, and Romney's dad would be embarrassed by his son.

Of course, Harry Reid isn't claiming that any of this is true. It just 'might' be true.

Romney 'might' be a felon, or he 'might' be a tax-avoider, or he 'might' be a disgrace to his family. I really can't wait to hear what he 'might' be next.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I understand your whole 'we need to pay homage to our murderous, maniacal overlords', but it is ethically and logically bankrupt.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:48:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:46:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I understand your whole 'we need to pay homage to our murderous, maniacal overlords', but it is ethically and logically bankrupt.

I empathize with your position, but I do believe the topic at hand is in regards to practical politics.

Let's stay on topic, hm?
turn down for h'what
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:46:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I understand your whole 'we need to pay homage to our murderous, maniacal overlords', but it is ethically and logically bankrupt.

I'm fairly sure he's being sarcastic, based on this:

At 7/31/2012 9:38:42 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I bought some stock in a company... I remember the first thing the company sent me was an information packet with the CEO's personal tax filings.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:18:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:49:10 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/31/2012 9:46:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I understand your whole 'we need to pay homage to our murderous, maniacal overlords', but it is ethically and logically bankrupt.

I'm fairly sure he's being sarcastic, based on this:

At 7/31/2012 9:38:42 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I bought some stock in a company... I remember the first thing the company sent me was an information packet with the CEO's personal tax filings.

No, it's true!

Really!

... really...

fine, you caught my subtle hint... :/
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 3:58:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apparently anonymous hacked the IRS and found his tax returns:
http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:14:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:58:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Apparently anonymous hacked the IRS and found his tax returns:
http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

I'd take it with a big bowl of salt. http://newsone.com...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 5:17:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I heard he invested in Hitler, and has been paying tribute each year to the anti-American Lizard Empire of G'dun 7.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 6:53:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:58:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Apparently anonymous hacked the IRS and found his tax returns:
http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

This is exactly why I will not vote for him even though he is a Republican. The Founding Fathers believed in Civic Republicans and paying back one's debt to society. They believed in civic obligations. Romney is a slimeball who only cares about himself. I wish Ron Paul had won the nomination.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:22:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 6:53:54 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 3:58:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Apparently anonymous hacked the IRS and found his tax returns:
http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

This is exactly why I will not vote for him even though he is a Republican. The Founding Fathers believed in Civic Republicans and paying back one's debt to society. They believed in civic obligations. Romney is a slimeball who only cares about himself. I wish Ron Paul had won the nomination.

Who really cares about the Founding Fathers? What did they do that was so wonderful?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 7:57:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 7:22:46 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 6:53:54 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 3:58:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Apparently anonymous hacked the IRS and found his tax returns:
http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

This is exactly why I will not vote for him even though he is a Republican. The Founding Fathers believed in Civic Republicans and paying back one's debt to society. They believed in civic obligations. Romney is a slimeball who only cares about himself. I wish Ron Paul had won the nomination.

Who really cares about the Founding Fathers? What did they do that was so wonderful?

They established this great country and protected our liberties from tyranny. I'll take them over a greasy eel like Romney any day.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:10:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apparently harry Reid started the rumor in an interview with the Huffington Post, claiming he hear the story from an investor in Bain. So we are supposed to believe that the IRS during the Clinton Administration never checked for tax filing, and that a politician like Romney was flaunting the law. Nah.
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:18:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:10:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Apparently harry Reid started the rumor in an interview with the Huffington Post, claiming he hear the story from an investor in Bain. So we are supposed to believe that the IRS during the Clinton Administration never checked for tax filing, and that a politician like Romney was flaunting the law. Nah.

Actually, the hacker group known as Anonymous stole the 2008 tax returns from the IRS and provided us evidence of this.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 9:16:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:58:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Apparently anonymous hacked the IRS and found his tax returns:
http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

Wow. That stuff would be toxic for him if we all knew that.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 9:59:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 8:18:33 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Apparently harry Reid started the rumor in an interview with the Huffington Post, claiming he hear the story from an investor in Bain. So we are supposed to believe that the IRS during the Clinton Administration never checked for tax filing, and that a politician like Romney was flaunting the law. Nah.

Actually, the hacker group known as Anonymous stole the 2008 tax returns from the IRS and provided us evidence of this.

Did you even read the article? It is obviously a freakin' joke. Furthermore, since when did it become the responsibility of the individual to ensure that the government could tax as much of his livliehood as possible? When I read the joke article my first thought was, "damn, I wish I knew who Romney's accountant was in 2008." This whole argument is loaded and statist to the core; it makes me sick just thinking about it.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:12:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 9:59:56 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:18:33 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Apparently harry Reid started the rumor in an interview with the Huffington Post, claiming he hear the story from an investor in Bain. So we are supposed to believe that the IRS during the Clinton Administration never checked for tax filing, and that a politician like Romney was flaunting the law. Nah.

Actually, the hacker group known as Anonymous stole the 2008 tax returns from the IRS and provided us evidence of this.

Did you even read the article? It is obviously a freakin' joke. Furthermore, since when did it become the responsibility of the individual to ensure that the government could tax as much of his livliehood as possible? When I read the joke article my first thought was, "damn, I wish I knew who Romney's accountant was in 2008." This whole argument is loaded and statist to the core; it makes me sick just thinking about it.

The thing that is scary is that I thought it was true at first. lol. "Compulsive Liar Syndrome?" Excellent.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:21:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 9:59:56 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:18:33 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 8:10:48 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Apparently harry Reid started the rumor in an interview with the Huffington Post, claiming he hear the story from an investor in Bain. So we are supposed to believe that the IRS during the Clinton Administration never checked for tax filing, and that a politician like Romney was flaunting the law. Nah.

Actually, the hacker group known as Anonymous stole the 2008 tax returns from the IRS and provided us evidence of this.

Did you even read the article? It is obviously a freakin' joke.
Based on what?
Furthermore, since when did it become the responsibility of the individual to ensure that the government could tax as much of his livliehood as possible?
People have to give back to society. I shouldn't be paying more in taxes than Romney is or paying a higher percentage than he is.
When I read the joke article my first thought was, "damn, I wish I knew who Romney's accountant was in 2008." This whole argument is loaded and statist to the core; it makes me sick just thinking about it.

Anarchy leads to statism because of violence. Anarchy is not sustainable and is just prone to letting the biggest brutes rule.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:41:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Based on what?

http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Based on other articles on the same exact site, and a lack of sources.

People have to give back to society. I shouldn't be paying more in taxes than Romney is or paying a higher percentage than he is.

Ah, the ethical altruism fallacy. Do you really want to make the argument that people live for the sake of other people, and not for themselves? People should only pay what they are obligated to pay according to the rules of the tax code, and if the tax code has loop holes then there is nothing wrong with using those. There is however, something wrong with the system that creates those loop holes and tax credits.

Anarchy leads to statism because of violence. Anarchy is not sustainable and is just prone to letting the biggest brutes rule.

I'm not an anarchist, and you don't have to be an anarchist to be opposed to statism. I believe that the government has a very limited role, and that it should stick to that and not take a liberal interpretation with the constitution.
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:54:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:41:14 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Based on what?

http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Based on other articles on the same exact site
Ok, I see. The site is a joke site. However, there was nothing intrinsic about the article indicated that it was false.
and a lack of sources.

That honestly doesn't mean it's false. Woodward and Bernstein were correct about Watergate, and they didn't have what we would have recognized at the time as a legitimate sources (seriously, they had a guy named "Deepthroat" as their source). It just means that the article is not citing the sources.
People have to give back to society. I shouldn't be paying more in taxes than Romney is or paying a higher percentage than he is.

Ah, the ethical altruism fallacy. Do you really want to make the argument that people live for the sake of other people, and not for themselves?
If people only lived for themselves, society wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if they form society in order to benefit their own ends, they are still agreeing to follow social and moral customs and provide for common benefits so that they receive protections from society.

You agree that society is not inherent to humanity, right? Why would anybody join society if not for mutual protection? Nobody is supposed to violate my rights in the state of nature anyways. I don't join society so that people don't violate my rights; I join it so that we provide a common system for promoting rights.

If Mitt doesn't want to live in a society, he can move to Somalia. He is always free to leave society and join anarchical regimes if so he wishes. We shouldn't have to provide for him if he's exploiting us, however.
People should only pay what they are obligated to pay according to the rules of the tax code, and if the tax code has loop holes then there is nothing wrong with using those
The tax code has loop holes because people worm their way out of paying taxes. The introduction of those loop holes is immoral and violates the fabric of society.

You're argument is analogous to saying that if the people in power agree to let me commit a crime without punishing me, I can commit it if I want to. Just because the people in power and letting Mitt get away with exploiting society does not mean that he should do it.
. There is however, something wrong with the system that creates those loop holes and tax credits.

People therefore have a moral obligation not to take advantage of such problems. This is basic ethics. If something is wrong, don't do it even if those in power are going to look the other way. Mitt has not sense of ethics, which is why he will not be receiving my vote in this next election.
Anarchy leads to statism because of violence. Anarchy is not sustainable and is just prone to letting the biggest brutes rule.

I'm not an anarchist, and you don't have to be an anarchist to be opposed to statism. I believe that the government has a very limited role, and that it should stick to that and not take a liberal interpretation with the constitution.

I agree. Show me where in the constitution it is written that millionaires should not pay taxes.

Also, you cannot be opposed to statism if you are a minarchist. Minarchists are statists. You are opposed to a particular conception of statism, but not to statism itself.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:54:27 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:41:14 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Based on what?

http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Based on other articles on the same exact site
Ok, I see. The site is a joke site. However, there was nothing intrinsic about the article indicated that it was false.
and a lack of sources.

That honestly doesn't mean it's false. Woodward and Bernstein were correct about Watergate, and they didn't have what we would have recognized at the time as a legitimate sources (seriously, they had a guy named "Deepthroat" as their source). It just means that the article is not citing the sources.
People have to give back to society. I shouldn't be paying more in taxes than Romney is or paying a higher percentage than he is.

Ah, the ethical altruism fallacy. Do you really want to make the argument that people live for the sake of other people, and not for themselves?
If people only lived for themselves, society wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if they form society in order to benefit their own ends, they are still agreeing to follow social and moral customs and provide for common benefits so that they receive protections from society.

All for their own purpose still. What's your point?

You agree that society is not inherent to humanity, right? Why would anybody join society if not for mutual protection? Nobody is supposed to violate my rights in the state of nature anyways. I don't join society so that people don't violate my rights; I join it so that we provide a common system for promoting rights.

Why do you say that? I think people DO join societies to protect their rights. Meaning, have them not violated. The only systems that actively promote positive rights are ones that are willing to take away the rights of others to give them to others. Promoting positive rights is an inherent Robin Hood mentality.

If Mitt doesn't want to live in a society, he can move to Somalia. He is always free to leave society and join anarchical regimes if so he wishes. We shouldn't have to provide for him if he's exploiting us, however.

Oh ho ho. The ol' Somalia rebuttal. You so silly.

Anyway: you're suggesting that the only way that a person's negative rights shouldn't be violated is if they actively choose to have them not violated. Which is wrong to an insane degree. A person's rights should only be surrendered by a positive, voluntary action. Inactively surrendering rights is a bullsh1t idea.

People should only pay what they are obligated to pay according to the rules of the tax code, and if the tax code has loop holes then there is nothing wrong with using those
The tax code has loop holes because people worm their way out of paying taxes. The introduction of those loop holes is immoral and violates the fabric of society.

Then the society shouldn't have allowed the loopholes to begin with.

You're argument is analogous to saying that if the people in power agree to let me commit a crime without punishing me, I can commit it if I want to. Just because the people in power and letting Mitt get away with exploiting society does not mean that he should do it.
. There is however, something wrong with the system that creates those loop holes and tax credits.

People therefore have a moral obligation not to take advantage of such problems. This is basic ethics. If something is wrong, don't do it even if those in power are going to look the other way. Mitt has not sense of ethics, which is why he will not be receiving my vote in this next election.

So I take it you're a subscriber to the lesser-of-two-evils mantra?

Anarchy leads to statism because of violence. Anarchy is not sustainable and is just prone to letting the biggest brutes rule.

I'm not an anarchist, and you don't have to be an anarchist to be opposed to statism. I believe that the government has a very limited role, and that it should stick to that and not take a liberal interpretation with the constitution.

I agree. Show me where in the constitution it is written that millionaires should not pay taxes.

Also, you cannot be opposed to statism if you are a minarchist. Minarchists are statists. You are opposed to a particular conception of statism, but not to statism itself.

I think he's referring to colloquial statism: the idea of authoritarianism.

Obviously he supports statism in the literal sense, but not the common usage of statism sense.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:58:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:34:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:54:27 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:41:14 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
Based on what?

http://www.freewoodpost.com...

Based on other articles on the same exact site
Ok, I see. The site is a joke site. However, there was nothing intrinsic about the article indicated that it was false.
and a lack of sources.

That honestly doesn't mean it's false. Woodward and Bernstein were correct about Watergate, and they didn't have what we would have recognized at the time as a legitimate sources (seriously, they had a guy named "Deepthroat" as their source). It just means that the article is not citing the sources.
People have to give back to society. I shouldn't be paying more in taxes than Romney is or paying a higher percentage than he is.

Ah, the ethical altruism fallacy. Do you really want to make the argument that people live for the sake of other people, and not for themselves?
If people only lived for themselves, society wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if they form society in order to benefit their own ends, they are still agreeing to follow social and moral customs and provide for common benefits so that they receive protections from society.

All for their own purpose still. What's your point?

They have a contractual obligation to work for the benefit of all. That's what civic republicanism is about.
You agree that society is not inherent to humanity, right? Why would anybody join society if not for mutual protection? Nobody is supposed to violate my rights in the state of nature anyways. I don't join society so that people don't violate my rights; I join it so that we provide a common system for promoting rights.

Why do you say that? I think people DO join societies to protect their rights. Meaning, have them not violated.
So the government doesn't have an obligation to protect us from harm and invasions, right?

No need for police that provide for common internal defense.

No need for an army that provides protection from external invaders.

No need to ordain and establish a constitution to promote the general welfare.

After all, we just form society so that we don't harm each other, right?

That doesn't even make sense. Rights precede government. We're not supposed to harm each other anyways. Why would I join society and restrict my own liberties for a benefits that I'm already supposed to have under the state of nature?
The only systems that actively promote positive rights are ones that are willing to take away the rights of others to give them to others.
That means that they're not implementing them properly. A deliberative democracy (civic republic) implemented properly would solve for this problem.
Promoting positive rights is an inherent Robin Hood mentality.

Negative rights don't make sense in the realm of society.
If Mitt doesn't want to live in a society, he can move to Somalia. He is always free to leave society and join anarchical regimes if so he wishes. We shouldn't have to provide for him if he's exploiting us, however.

Oh ho ho. The ol' Somalia rebuttal. You so silly.

Personal attacks don't defeat my argument. Your beloved anarchist society is a failure. In fact, the only reason it has a minimal amount of security is because there are smaller government-type structures that enforce laws.
Anyway: you're suggesting that the only way that a person's negative rights shouldn't be violated is if they actively choose to have them not violated. Which is wrong to an insane degree. A person's rights should only be surrendered by a positive, voluntary action. Inactively surrendering rights is a bullsh1t idea.

When we derive benefits from society, we agree to give up our liberties. The very act of taking benefits is an expression of consent. As I noted, you are free to leave at any time; nobody is compelling you to remain.
People should only pay what they are obligated to pay according to the rules of the tax code, and if the tax code has loop holes then there is nothing wrong with using those
The tax code has loop holes because people worm their way out of paying taxes. The introduction of those loop holes is immoral and violates the fabric of society.

Then the society shouldn't have allowed the loopholes to begin with.

Society didn't. The leaders did for personal reasons.
You're argument is analogous to saying that if the people in power agree to let me commit a crime without punishing me, I can commit it if I want to. Just because the people in power and letting Mitt get away with exploiting society does not mean that he should do it.
. There is however, something wrong with the system that creates those loop holes and tax credits.

People therefore have a moral obligation not to take advantage of such problems. This is basic ethics. If something is wrong, don't do it even if those in power are going to look the other way. Mitt has not sense of ethics, which is why he will not be receiving my vote in this next election.

So I take it you're a subscriber to the lesser-of-two-evils mantra?

Why not? Those are the choices I have. I can't vote for anybody else because that makes it more likely that Mitt will win.
Anarchy leads to statism because of violence. Anarchy is not sustainable and is just prone to letting the biggest brutes rule.

I'm not an anarchist, and you don't have to be an anarchist to be opposed to statism. I believe that the government has a very limited role, and that it should stick to that and not take a liberal interpretation with the constitution.

I agree. Show me where in the constitution it is written that millionaires should not pay taxes.

Also, you cannot be opposed to statism if you are a minarchist. Minarchists are statists. You are opposed to a particular conception of statism, but not to statism itself.

I think he's referring to colloquial statism: the idea of authoritarianism.

Obviously he supports statism in the literal sense, but not the common usage of statism sense.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 1:12:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ah, the ethical altruism fallacy. Do you really want to make the argument that people live for the sake of other people, and not for themselves?
If people only lived for themselves, society wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if they form society in order to benefit their own ends, they are still agreeing to follow social and moral customs and provide for common benefits so that they receive protections from society.

All for their own purpose still. What's your point?

They have a contractual obligation to work for the benefit of all. That's what civic republicanism is about.

They only do if said contract is literally entered into by a person. A contract is not inheritable.

You agree that society is not inherent to humanity, right? Why would anybody join society if not for mutual protection? Nobody is supposed to violate my rights in the state of nature anyways. I don't join society so that people don't violate my rights; I join it so that we provide a common system for promoting rights.

Why do you say that? I think people DO join societies to protect their rights. Meaning, have them not violated.
So the government doesn't have an obligation to protect us from harm and invasions, right?

No need for police that provide for common internal defense.

No need for an army that provides protection from external invaders.

No need to ordain and establish a constitution to promote the general welfare.

After all, we just form society so that we don't harm each other, right?

That doesn't even make sense. Rights precede government. We're not supposed to harm each other anyways. Why would I join society and restrict my own liberties for a benefits that I'm already supposed to have under the state of nature?

Strawmen, the lot. We form a society voluntarily to protect each other's rights negatively. All of what you said would be done in a voluntary agreement to PREVENT breaching of rights. That's negative right-based action.

The only systems that actively promote positive rights are ones that are willing to take away the rights of others to give them to others.
That means that they're not implementing them properly. A deliberative democracy (civic republic) implemented properly would solve for this problem.

Resources, property, things, are all finite. Positive rights inherently mean SOMEONE will lose. Whether that is done voluntarily or not is the key.

For example: if a society wants to enforce the positive right to someone's life, that means that people must keep said person alive. Resources must be taken from some to serve others. If a society says people have a positive right to, say, education, some's resources must be taken to serve that positive right of someone else.

Promoting positive rights is an inherent Robin Hood mentality.

Negative rights don't make sense in the realm of society.

Really? Who says?

If Mitt doesn't want to live in a society, he can move to Somalia. He is always free to leave society and join anarchical regimes if so he wishes. We shouldn't have to provide for him if he's exploiting us, however.

Oh ho ho. The ol' Somalia rebuttal. You so silly.

Personal attacks don't defeat my argument. Your beloved anarchist society is a failure. In fact, the only reason it has a minimal amount of security is because there are smaller government-type structures that enforce laws.

It wasn't a personal attack, or meant to be one. It was an offhand comment. Calm down.

Honestly, I don't have some "beloved" anarchist society.

Anyway: you're suggesting that the only way that a person's negative rights shouldn't be violated is if they actively choose to have them not violated. Which is wrong to an insane degree. A person's rights should only be surrendered by a positive, voluntary action. Inactively surrendering rights is a bullsh1t idea.

When we derive benefits from society, we agree to give up our liberties. The very act of taking benefits is an expression of consent. As I noted, you are free to leave at any time; nobody is compelling you to remain.

But you're suggesting that it's right that a person gets to lose their rights by default because ancestry said so. That's perverse.

People should only pay what they are obligated to pay according to the rules of the tax code, and if the tax code has loop holes then there is nothing wrong with using those
The tax code has loop holes because people worm their way out of paying taxes. The introduction of those loop holes is immoral and violates the fabric of society.

Then the society shouldn't have allowed the loopholes to begin with.

Society didn't. The leaders did for personal reasons.

Then it's the people's responsibility, if they entered into that contract, to actually choose a fitting leader. And if they're unwilling to do that, or unable because of the system THEY created, tough sh1t.

You're argument is analogous to saying that if the people in power agree to let me commit a crime without punishing me, I can commit it if I want to. Just because the people in power and letting Mitt get away with exploiting society does not mean that he should do it.
. There is however, something wrong with the system that creates those loop holes and tax credits.

People therefore have a moral obligation not to take advantage of such problems. This is basic ethics. If something is wrong, don't do it even if those in power are going to look the other way. Mitt has not sense of ethics, which is why he will not be receiving my vote in this next election.

So I take it you're a subscriber to the lesser-of-two-evils mantra?

Why not? Those are the choices I have. I can't vote for anybody else because that makes it more likely that Mitt will win.

No you don't. You have a sh1tload of other choices. And no, it won't make him more likely to win. You're taking away your vote from everyone, INCLUDING Mitt.

And to be frank, nothing will change if you keep that mentality. And if you don't like it, again, it's your responsibility to change it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 1:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:12:54 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Ah, the ethical altruism fallacy. Do you really want to make the argument that people live for the sake of other people, and not for themselves?
If people only lived for themselves, society wouldn't exist in the first place. Even if they form society in order to benefit their own ends, they are still agreeing to follow social and moral customs and provide for common benefits so that they receive protections from society.

All for their own purpose still. What's your point?

They have a contractual obligation to work for the benefit of all. That's what civic republicanism is about.

They only do if said contract is literally entered into by a person. A contract is not inheritable.

I agree. That's why they don't have to enjoy society's benefits; they can choose to not take them and leave when they please.

It's not like society is hiding the fact that they have to fulfill obligations in order to obtain benefits. It's actually pretty explicitly discussed.

So the government doesn't have an obligation to protect us from harm and invasions, right?

No need for police that provide for common internal defense.

No need for an army that provides protection from external invaders.

No need to ordain and establish a constitution to promote the general welfare.

After all, we just form society so that we don't harm each other, right?

That doesn't even make sense. Rights precede government. We're not supposed to harm each other anyways. Why would I join society and restrict my own liberties for a benefits that I'm already supposed to have under the state of nature?

Strawmen, the lot. We form a society voluntarily to protect each other's rights negatively.
You don't protect each other's rights negatively. Protection implies positive action.
All of what you said would be done in a voluntary agreement to PREVENT breaching of rights. That's negative right-based action.

Yeah, because if I agree to not violate your rights (which I'm already supposed to do under the state of nature), that really does protect us from external invaders.

Society exists for positive obligations. Negative obligations already exist in the state of nature, so there literally is no reason to form a society if we already have those obligations. Plus, just because we agree not to violate rights doesn't mean that we are protecting rights. Mutual defense is not two people deciding to not harm each other; it occurs when two people decide to defend each other from external harms in addition to not harming each other.

Resources, property, things, are all finite. Positive rights inherently mean SOMEONE will lose. Whether that is done voluntarily or not is the key.

Not necessarily. Society can provide for a baseline and then let natural inequalities take hold. That's what the Framers wanted; they advocated that all citizens be granted baseline services (like housing and land).
For example: if a society wants to enforce the positive right to someone's life, that means that people must keep said person alive. Resources must be taken from some to serve others. If a society says people have a positive right to, say, education, some's resources must be taken to serve that positive right of someone else.

So what? Joining society is voluntary and we all agree to this when we join. Rights are not being stripped if they are curtailed voluntarily.

Really? Who says?

The Founding Fathers

John Rawls

Alan Gewirth

Even Nozick tacitly concedes this when he discusses how societies are formed.

It wasn't a personal attack, or meant to be one. It was an offhand comment. Calm down.

No, it was definitely a personal attack.
Honestly, I don't have some "beloved" anarchist society.


But you're suggesting that it's right that a person gets to lose their rights by default because ancestry said so. That's perverse.

That's not even close to true. You benefit from services that you know you have to pay for. You can choose to exit society if you want. Nobody is forcing obligations on you; you are choosing to accept them by accepting services with full knowledge that you will have to compensate society for them.

It's not like taxation is a big secret that nobody knows about.

Then it's the people's responsibility, if they entered into that contract, to actually choose a fitting leader.
Who controls the media?

The elite.

Who controls the system of governance?

The elite.
And if they're unwilling to do that, or unable because of the system THEY created, tough sh1t.

The other thing they can do is force the system that they created to protect them to obey them. It's not tough sh!t.It's simple. Romney doesn't pay taxes; he doesn't get elected. It's completely fair. You're claiming that we shouldn't fix the system and bring it back to what the Framers wanted. It's our system, and we have the right to fix it.

No you don't. You have a sh1tload of other choices. And no, it won't make him more likely to win. You're taking away your vote from everyone, INCLUDING Mitt.

The main race is between Mitt and Obama. This election will be close, and Obama needs every vote he can get to defeat the slime.
And to be frank, nothing will change if you keep that mentality. And if you don't like it, again, it's your responsibility to change it.

We can change it by showing Mitt that we don't tolerate slimes like him who pay less taxes than the middle class does.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 3:05:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
DN hijacked my rebuttals; what a bastard. I'll add that Somalia is a poor example, because Somalia actually has a lot of really strong governments that like to fight each other. Somalia isn't a minarchist or even an anarchist society.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 3:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:05:38 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
DN hijacked my rebuttals; what a bastard. I'll add that Somalia is a poor example, because Somalia actually has a lot of really strong governments that like to fight each other. Somalia isn't a minarchist or even an anarchist society.

Moreover, virtually all quality of life indicators are up since the collapse of the somali government. http://mises.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:26:22 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:

Helter.

1 - Neither you, nor anybody in the middle class, pays as much taxes as Mitt Romney. You'll probably not match one year of his taxes in your entire life. To say he isn't paying his fair share is stupid.

Do you enjoy the same national defense as Mitt Romney? Yes. Do you pay as much as he does to support it? No.

Do you enjoy the same roads as Mitt Romney? Yes. Do you pay as much as he does to support it? No.

2 - The middle class only pays about 6% on average.

3 - Using an obviously joke article to support your point is just sad. Before you pick up ammo, make sure it's not going to explode in your face.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 5:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 4:48:56 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/1/2012 1:26:22 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:

Helter.

1 - Neither you, nor anybody in the middle class, pays as much taxes as Mitt Romney. You'll probably not match one year of his taxes in your entire life. To say he isn't paying his fair share is stupid.

Do you enjoy the same national defense as Mitt Romney? Yes. Do you pay as much as he does to support it? No.

Do you enjoy the same roads as Mitt Romney? Yes. Do you pay as much as he does to support it? No.

Romney has more advantages than I do. He has better access to government, he influences politicians more easily, has better access to the media, etc. He should pay more for those advantages.

On top of it, government is like a business, and businesses can charge different prices for the same services. Prices do not have to be fixed; businesses have a right to charge people whatever amount they wish for their services.
2 - The middle class only pays about 6% on average.

People at the upper end of the middle class pay more than he does.
3 - Using an obviously joke article to support your point is just sad. Before you pick up ammo, make sure it's not going to explode in your face.
Even though the article is a joke, he still pays a lower percentage than other people do even though they make less.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 5:53:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 5:31:49 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 4:48:56 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Romney has more advantages than I do. He has better access to government, he influences politicians more easily, has better access to the media, etc. He should pay more for those advantages.

On top of it, government is like a business, and businesses can charge different prices for the same services. Prices do not have to be fixed; businesses have a right to charge people whatever amount they wish for their services.

And you know what? He pays more than you do. MUCH more.

Everything the government spends money on, he pays more into than you do.

2 - The middle class only pays about 6% on average.

People at the upper end of the middle class pay more than he does.

Nope. Top 25-10% only pay 8%.

And at the same percentage, Romney will still pay MUCH more than anyone making $60k, $100k, or $500k.

3 - Using an obviously joke article to support your point is just sad. Before you pick up ammo, make sure it's not going to explode in your face.
Even though the article is a joke, he still pays a lower percentage than other people do even though they make less.

Not many. You have to be in the top 5% to pay a higher percentage than he does. The top 10%-5% only pays 11.4%.

Like I said, don't pick up ammo to use unless you know it's not going to blow your nose off.

It's stupid to blame the people who are actually paying the bills. And it's usually the people who are mooching that are complaining.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13