Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:23 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore View Post
Most progressives want people to have the greatest opportunity to achieve whatever it is they want, not for people to all have the exact same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore View Post
That's not ironic, that's the bind of existing within a society of laws and social structures which attempt to orient laws towards enhancing the greater good. Having to pay taxes so that people can be ensured is a restriction, the crippling cost of healthcare is another restriction, and figuring out how to produce a system that produces equality of opportunity is the end goal. I don't support Obamacare, but you again follow a line of argument whereby any taxation whatsoever is tantamount to bondage, and it's inane.

Alternatively, this is the early 20th c. factory owner complaining against the restrictions against the use of indentured servants as a restriction of his freedoms. Is his right to not have his business practices regulated equal to the right of the servants not be basically used as slave labor? If we're going to follow a path of ridiculousness, please tell me the what kind of regulation is justifiable at all, and what business should NOT be allowed to do.
So then, you believe the way for "people to have the greatest opportunity to achieve whatever it is they want" is through regulation?

I am not arguing against all taxation. I am not arguing against equal opportunity. I come at this from the angle of a minimalist--a simple living advocate. I'm the kind of person who wants to exist via my own income, yet do it as a minimalist. So, I don't want your "good life" of a McMansion and a BMW. No rainbows. I want a 250 sq ft home and a $16,000 per year salary. I could easily do that with reasonable taxation and reasonable local and state governmental fees. However, I cannot with these grand progressive plans for the collective (I know you said you don't support obamacare, but those sorts of things). I'm required to increase my income to support... you. (not you personally; let's reword that as, "the collective")
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,908,614 times
Reputation: 3497
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Communism is their answer then. Let government run everything and make all the decisions.
Babbling this kind on nonsense is why the political right will continue to lose national elections. You need to come up with an intelligent response instead of nonsensical garbage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:28 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,953,537 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
For the crooks, yes it is.

But, it ain't no running the show.

That is about as stupid as claiming someone has a choice when you select the choices they can make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:28 PM
 
2,125 posts, read 1,940,191 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
So then, you believe the way for "people to have the greatest opportunity to achieve whatever it is they want" is through regulation?

I am not arguing against all taxation. I am not arguing against equal opportunity. I come at this from the angle of a minimalist--a simple living advocate. I'm the kind of person who wants to exist via my own income, yet do it as a minimalist. So, I don't want your "good life" of a McMansion and a BMW. No rainbows. I want a 250 sq ft home and a $16,000 per year salary. I could easily do that with reasonable taxation and reasonable local and state governmental fees. However, I cannot with these grand progressive plans for the collective (I know you said you don't support obamacare, but those sorts of things). I'm required to increase my income to support... you. (not you personally; let's reword that as, "the collective")
I don't want a McMansion or a BMW, and I think it's hilarious that you assume that. I have lived in poverty and worked my way through community college, into an Ivy League university. I couldn't have done it without the help of the government when my mother was a poor working single mother, or Pell Grants when I went to school. How much of that is expendable in your minimalist system so that a factory owner doesn't have to worry about regulation? How much attention should we pay to the increased pooling of wealth in the bank accounts of the few, who exploit their economic power and co-opt politicians into rigging the system in their favor? What kind of regulations of lobbying or campaign finance or anything else are justifiable in your minimalist system?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:29 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,953,537 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore View Post
By this logic, completely abolish all laws, all government, return to a state of nature. Walk back the logic of your argument here in a consideration of what it means to live in a society. Also recognize that given the highly unequal nature of our society, removing government would not resolve the extent to which the powerful limit the freedom of the weak, it would exacerbate it.
No, we protect individual liberty and the only level of regulations that should exist are those that regulate on aspects that are known to directly infringe on the liberties of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:31 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,953,537 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
Without regulations and laws it would be anarchy. Are you an anarchist?

No.

Regulations that protect individual liberty are all that is required.

The conditions of your OP goes beyond such.

Answer my question. I answered yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:33 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEternalSanctuaryMan View Post
If 'progressives' were really what they like to believe they are, they would seek to abolish marriage of any kind as an archaic ritual denoting past enslavement of one gender and the now-unnecessary protection of children's paternity under old community standards.
This is exactly right. I am not a progressive, but I actually support exactly what you say here. I do not think the state should have any construct called "marriage." If two people want to have a legal contract drawn up between them, sharing their assets and such, fine. But "marriage" is a religious ceremony that has no relevance outside an archaic set of traditions.

But you'll never hear a progressive suggest this now. Of course, back in the day, they fought against the very idea of marriage in any form. That was back in the days of "free love." But, that's out of style now. I would have been more apt to agree with them back then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
Babbling this kind on nonsense is why the political right will continue to lose national elections. You need to come up with an intelligent response instead of nonsensical garbage.
Fine, give me your answer to how progressives can get their changes into society and business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:36 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore View Post
I don't want a McMansion or a BMW, and I think it's hilarious that you assume that. I have lived in poverty and worked my way through community college, into an Ivy League university. I couldn't have done it without the help of the government when my mother was a poor working single mother, or Pell Grants when I went to school. How much of that is expendable in your minimalist system so that a factory owner doesn't have to worry about regulation? How much attention should we pay to the increased pooling of wealth in the bank accounts of the few, who exploit their economic power and co-opt politicians into rigging the system in their favor? What kind of regulations of lobbying or campaign finance or anything else are justifiable in your minimalist system?
I'm not talking about a minimalist system. I'm talking about a minimalist who can exist within the bigger system. If that is not possible, then the bigger system is flawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunks_galore View Post
I don't want a McMansion or a BMW, and I think it's hilarious that you assume that. I have lived in poverty and worked my way through community college, into an Ivy League university. I couldn't have done it without the help of the government when my mother was a poor working single mother, or Pell Grants when I went to school. How much of that is expendable in your minimalist system so that a factory owner doesn't have to worry about regulation? How much attention should we pay to the increased pooling of wealth in the bank accounts of the few, who exploit their economic power and co-opt politicians into rigging the system in their favor? What kind of regulations of lobbying or campaign finance or anything else are justifiable in your minimalist system?
You voted the politicans into office that allowed it to happen.
And you keep sending them back every 2/4 years.

You can't send corrupt politicians to DC expecting them to end the corruption that keeps them in power
but you do.

The politicians allow the lobbyists to write the bills. You send the politicians to DC. Who is to blame again ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:09 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top