Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Coercion through Taxation

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:58:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Natnl. Government often taxes the people of the states to provide for local 'state' projects of all kinds.

Not just to provide for the "general welfare" of those states too poor to sustain their own, but also to relatively rich states like NY who (being that the whole is no more than the sum of it's parts) ought to be more able to provide for themselves than the Natnl. government should.

Now funneling the money from the people of the states through the Natnl. govt. and then to the projects of the states, seems to me not only to be an unnecessary step, but one which serves no purpose whatsoever, but to be a lever by which the National government can coerce the states, on issues in which they have no legal jurisdiction.

This is why I think such "pork" provisions, when not going to help provide for the "general welfare" of poor states, are arguably unconstitutional.

For the Tenth amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And being that that "pork" legislation serves no purpose but as a means for the National government to coerce powers from the states, and punish them for not giving them up (by taking the taxes for their state projects but not giving the money to it)

It's only real purpose is to undermine the constitution.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:04:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:00:27 AM, Volkov wrote:
One question: are the states complaining?

Just b/c people aren't completely aware of what's goin on doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of Volkov.

The National Governments just a big Child molester handing out candy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:08:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:04:41 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Just b/c people aren't completely aware of what's goin on doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of Volkov.

The National Governments just a big Child molester handing out candy.

Aha. I somehow doubt the various state governments would be so easily taken advantage of.

Did it ever cross your mind that the states are actually working in unison with the feds to grab pork for themselves? The various senators/congresspeople are known to have ties with their states' legislatures and executive. I'd wager that the states are influencing this pork for themselves, and they're completely happy to go along with it.

Greed, graft and corruption at its finest.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:09:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Kind of off topic, but here's a little poem I wrote of my favorite two amendments

Of Amendments 10 and 9

I have but one problem with Democracy,
That is It can still lead to Tyranny

This, our Fathers Founding sought to fix
By laying "Rights" as our Founding Bricks

Rights Divine, Eternal, Natur'al,
Which cannot so eas'ly be held in thrall

The government limited to that which is written,
Going beyond being expressly forbidden

This, such that rights unspoken are protected
From those both good, and bad, intentioned
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:10:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:08:17 AM, Volkov wrote:

Did it ever cross your mind that the states are actually working in unison with the feds to grab pork for themselves?

They like the Candy, they don't know the true cost.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:13:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:10:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
They like the Candy, they don't know the true cost.

I don't think they care, matt. I really don't. So long as it gives them an advantage and something in return, they're probably quite happy. Plus, I doubt the USFG holds as much power as you're positing - the states lend support to the feds in exchange for some pork, or at least the representatives do.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong about the amendment, or the floundering of the Constitutional limits - I just think you're in the minority of those that care. Its a shame, really - such a nice Constitution is barely held to outside of judicial circles.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:13:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:09:40 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Kind of off topic, but here's a little poem I wrote of my favorite two amendments

I kind of see Amendments 9 & 10 as working together to limit the nature of the Fed. Govt.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:17:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:13:49 AM, Volkov wrote:

I don't think they care, matt. I really don't.

Yeah, I suppose I agree. And one would think the Constitution would be rather important :(
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 8:33:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:00:27 AM, Volkov wrote:
One question: are the states complaining?

I didn't know an abstract entity could complain.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 9:25:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 7:13:59 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/20/2010 7:09:40 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Kind of off topic, but here's a little poem I wrote of my favorite two amendments

I kind of see Amendments 9 & 10 as working together to limit the nature of the Fed. Govt.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com...

Srsly dude, Amendments 9 and 10 couldn't limit a sleeping baby in a stroller.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 10:55:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Srsly dude, Amendments 9 and 10 couldn't limit a sleeping baby in a stroller.

They don't but they should.

The only reasonable interp. of the two is that the Fed. Gov. is completely limited to doing that which is spelled out in the constitution, as any further would be offending against reserved powers or rights.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 11:10:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 10:55:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Srsly dude, Amendments 9 and 10 couldn't limit a sleeping baby in a stroller.

They don't but they should.

The only reasonable interp. of the two is that....
Is that they are meaningless nonsense that exists to convince idiots that you can have a constitution for limited government and still grant such broad claims of power as the Commerce Clause.

Fed. Gov. is completely limited to doing that which is spelled out in the constitution
The Commerce Clause spells out that the Federal Goverment can legally get away with whatever it wants as long as they can somehow relate it to interstate commerce (which they can do with anything) and there isn't a specific prohibition.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 11:51:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 11:10:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/20/2010 10:55:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Srsly dude, Amendments 9 and 10 couldn't limit a sleeping baby in a stroller.

They don't but they should.

The only reasonable interp. of the two is that....
Is that they are meaningless nonsense that exists to convince idiots that you can have a constitution for limited government and still grant such broad claims of power as the Commerce Clause.

Fed. Gov. is completely limited to doing that which is spelled out in the constitution
The Commerce Clause spells out that the Federal Goverment can legally get away with whatever it wants as long as they can somehow relate it to interstate commerce (which they can do with anything) and there isn't a specific prohibition.

Regulating commerce "among the several states" is different from regulating commerce within the United states. As you said, applying only to interstate commerce.

However, I would also say, given the nature of the clause and surrounding clauses in the article, it would be reasonable to interpret the clause as being directed at regulating on how individual states policies must mesh with other states. (as it was initially interpreted)

I do hate the broad commerce clause, but given the 9th and tenth amendments, which came after, are meaningful, I think the only reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause is a narrow one of coming up with rules of state relations for economic policy.

The broad interpretation you speak of interprets away all of the unspoken rights of the 9th amendment, and thus makes it meaningless.

However being that the 9th amend. was added after the Commerce clause of art.8, it takes precedence over that older portion, and ought to be assumed to have meaning, and ought to be assumed to replace earlier conflicting portions.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 8:13:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 11:51:37 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/20/2010 11:10:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/20/2010 10:55:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Srsly dude, Amendments 9 and 10 couldn't limit a sleeping baby in a stroller.

They don't but they should.

The only reasonable interp. of the two is that....
Is that they are meaningless nonsense that exists to convince idiots that you can have a constitution for limited government and still grant such broad claims of power as the Commerce Clause.

Fed. Gov. is completely limited to doing that which is spelled out in the constitution
The Commerce Clause spells out that the Federal Goverment can legally get away with whatever it wants as long as they can somehow relate it to interstate commerce (which they can do with anything) and there isn't a specific prohibition.

Regulating commerce "among the several states" is different from regulating commerce within the United states. As you said, applying only to interstate commerce.
All commerce is interstate or has interstate effects.

I do hate the broad commerce clause, but given the 9th and tenth amendments, which came after, are meaningful, I think the only reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause is a narrow one of coming up with rules of state relations for economic policy.
That's given a false premise. They aren't meaningful, they only withdraw things not already spoken for-- in other words, they withdraw nothing, they cancel nothing in the original constitution.


The broad interpretation you speak of interprets away all of the unspoken rights of the 9th amendment, and thus makes it meaningless.
It IS meaningless. Specifically, the 9th amendment only states it does not "Deny or disparage" the unspoken. This does not mean it affirms them.
It does not deny or disparage my right to a free lifetime supply of fried human brains, but neither does it affirm it :)


However being that the 9th amend. was added after the Commerce clause of art.8, it takes precedence over that older portion
It would: If it didn't specifically disavow such precedence by only talking about what's not enumerated earlier.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 8:36:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 8:13:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It IS meaningless. Specifically, the 9th amendment only states it does not "Deny or disparage" the unspoken. This does not mean it affirms them.
It does not deny or disparage my right to a free lifetime supply of fried human brains, but neither does it affirm it :)

10: those powers not granted to the Fed. in the constitution, are reserved to the states, or the people

Powers are rights to act, 9 says those innumerable reserved powers are not to be disparaged by the existence of ones explicitly spelled out.

In amends. 9&10 The idea is that it does not need to affirm each "right", if what you're doing doesn't conflict with the powers of the Federal govt. as spelled out in the constitution (and it's not outlawed by the state you're in) you have the right to do so.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 8:41:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 8:36:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 8:13:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It IS meaningless. Specifically, the 9th amendment only states it does not "Deny or disparage" the unspoken. This does not mean it affirms them.
It does not deny or disparage my right to a free lifetime supply of fried human brains, but neither does it affirm it :)

10: those powers not granted to the Fed. in the constitution, are reserved to the states, or the people
And-- the commerce clause grants pretty much every power imaginable, gg for that amendment.


In amends. 9&10 The idea is that it does not need to affirm each "right", if what you're doing doesn't conflict with the powers of the Federal govt. as spelled out in the constitution (and it's not outlawed by the state you're in) you have the right to do so.
But since reserving almost anything does conflict with the powers as spelled out, that leaves very little content :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 8:42:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 8:36:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

In amends. 9&10 The idea is that it does not need to affirm each "right", if what you're doing doesn't conflict with the powers of the Federal govt. as spelled out in the constitution (and it's not outlawed by the state you're in) you have the right to do so.

This effectively limits the Fed govt. to justifying every last thing they enforce, on others, by naming how some part of the constitution gives them that power.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 8:50:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This effectively limits the Fed govt. to justifying every last thing they enforce, on others, by naming how some part of the constitution gives them that power.

And yes, people do cite the commerce clause for everything, And I think that requires an absolutely ridiculously expansive understanding.

And I think if people actually knew the shaky foundation on which so much government action stands they would be offended.

This understanding is clearly in conflict with the 9th and 10th, b/c as you said it basically interprets any meaning they ever had away.

Being that we can Assume they're not meaningless, I think this interpretation of the commerce clause is bogus and should only be applicable if the 9th and 10th are repealed.
They cannot be completely nullified by something that predated them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:00:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 8:50:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
This effectively limits the Fed govt. to justifying every last thing they enforce, on others, by naming how some part of the constitution gives them that power.

And yes, people do cite the commerce clause for everything, And I think that requires an absolutely ridiculously expansive understanding.
No more expansive than saying the ability to make laws includes the ability to pay a cop's salary. If an action that isn't prohibited serves to regulate interstate commerce, it falls under the commerce clause.

Anything can be nullified by something that predates it when it specifies it isn't talking about the things covered by that predating thing and everything or nearly everything in reality is covered by it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:07:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:00:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 8:50:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
This effectively limits the Fed govt. to justifying every last thing they enforce, on others, by naming how some part of the constitution gives them that power.

And yes, people do cite the commerce clause for everything, And I think that requires an absolutely ridiculously expansive understanding.
No more expansive than saying the ability to make laws includes the ability to pay a cop's salary.

The constitution specifically states that the congress shall have the power to pass any legislation necessary for carrying out their powers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:14:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:07:12 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 9:00:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 8:50:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
This effectively limits the Fed govt. to justifying every last thing they enforce, on others, by naming how some part of the constitution gives them that power.

And yes, people do cite the commerce clause for everything, And I think that requires an absolutely ridiculously expansive understanding.
No more expansive than saying the ability to make laws includes the ability to pay a cop's salary.

The constitution specifically states that the congress shall have the power to pass any legislation necessary for carrying out their powers.

Including the power to regulate interstate commerce.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:20:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:14:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Including the power to regulate interstate commerce.

lol... :0 You got me there....

So, what would your ideal state be?? Just drop the commerce clause and prevent the states from interfering in free commerce?

Or would you want someone to have some kind of power to regulate on commerce?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:27:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:20:32 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 9:14:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Including the power to regulate interstate commerce.

lol... :0 You got me there....

So, what would your ideal state be?? Just drop the commerce clause and prevent the states from interfering in free commerce?
Pretty much. Within the country, free commerce (with enforcement of property rights). In international trade, either free trade or a total embargo if the country to be traded is unfree and it is deemed that the situation is such that trading with it will make it more capable of being a threat. Never any option in between with any given country.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:44:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:27:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Pretty much. Within the country, free commerce (with enforcement of property rights). In international trade, either free trade or a total embargo if the country to be traded is unfree and it is deemed that the situation is such that trading with it will make it more capable of being a threat. Never any option in between with any given country.

I'm definitely sympathetic to the position (especially regarding any and all small scale regulation), but I don't feel comfortable not having any source of regulatory power of systemic stability issues, like mandates on minimal capital requirements for financial corporations and the like.

Yes, it does eventually boil down to people doing what they want with their own money, but if the whole system seems at risk, I think regulatory legislation is appropriate.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:48:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
plus, though people/markets ought to be able to 'self regulate' by only supporting good companies, I think they can also be fooled by bad systemic practices, like having managers get immediate Mega-bonuses for short term gains, and volatile systems of accountability to shareholders.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 9:59:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:44:04 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 9:27:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Pretty much. Within the country, free commerce (with enforcement of property rights). In international trade, either free trade or a total embargo if the country to be traded is unfree and it is deemed that the situation is such that trading with it will make it more capable of being a threat. Never any option in between with any given country.

I'm definitely sympathetic to the position (especially regarding any and all small scale regulation), but I don't feel comfortable not having any source of regulatory power of systemic stability issues, like mandates on minimal capital requirements for financial corporations and the like.


Yes, it does eventually boil down to people doing what they want with their own money, but if the whole system seems at risk
There is no one system. There are corporations that do choose to tangle their finances with other corporations to varying degrees and those that don't, and those that don't tell you which of these is true. If you believe one of these models best, engage in "regulation" by means of selective investment :).

Now, the statement "there is no one system" may not be true in a world in which all taxpayers contribute to a Federal Reserve and other state institutions which decide which banks receive loans and which do not. But that isn't a world in which there is a free market :)

plus, though people/markets ought to be able to 'self regulate' by only supporting good companies, I think they can also be fooled by bad systemic practices, like having managers get immediate Mega-bonuses for short term gains
The existence of fools who can be fooled is in no way unique to a system without regulation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 10:06:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 9:59:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

There is no one system. There are corporations that do choose to tangle their finances with other corporations to varying degrees and those that don't, and those that don't tell you which of these is true. If you believe one of these models best, engage in "regulation" by means of selective investment :).

Eventually everyone gets somehow connected to everyone else, such that even if you're not the one making 'bad' decisions, you're affected, at least from changes in supply and demand.

Thus my talk of 'the system'.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:37:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 10:06:25 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 9:59:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

There is no one system. There are corporations that do choose to tangle their finances with other corporations to varying degrees and those that don't, and those that don't tell you which of these is true. If you believe one of these models best, engage in "regulation" by means of selective investment :).

Eventually everyone gets somehow connected to everyone else
No. My neighbor starves. I eat dinner. His stomach is not connected to mine. And neither are his finances unless I choose to connect them.

such that even if you're not the one making 'bad' decisions, you're affected, at least from changes in supply and demand.
You can't "affect" people by taking away something they didn't have. I have a right to my current property. I do not have a right to have people desire to buy it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:50:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:37:53 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Eventually everyone gets somehow connected to everyone else
No. My neighbor starves. I eat dinner. His stomach is not connected to mine. And neither are his finances unless I choose to connect them.

Or if you choose to connect yourself to someone who's connected to a guy, who's connected to a guy, who's connected to your neighbor.

such that even if you're not the one making 'bad' decisions, you're affected, at least from changes in supply and demand.
You can't "affect" people by taking away something they didn't have. I have a right to my current property. I do not have a right to have people desire to buy it.

sure, and you might not have a right to buy it either, but you'll be affected if that property is food, you've run out, and no one's selling any.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."