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.
With a lower case 'l', it is referring to people who claim to abide libertarian values.
With an upper case 'L', it is referring to members of a specific political party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Though I'm not sure your two types are mutually exclusive.
They are... and confusion over that is the root of most political conflict.
Most people will hold with the views and positions of several parties...
even if they don't really recognize the situation to be true.
Those who will hold with every tenet of one party tend to also be lock step and rigid about it.
They like to see that as something to be proud of but are really a problem.
Martyrs and zealots make poor politicians.
Red states give more to churches, not charities. Churches, conveniently, do not need to disclose how much of the money they collect goes toward charitable work that actually relieves the misery of poverty or infirmity, versus toward maintaining buildings for worship and indoctrination, paying salaries for staff doing work related to worship and indoctrination, etc. When considering donations to actual charities, only, red states and blue states are both found at the top of the list.
Regardless, the metric itself is a reflection of the corrupt nature of right-wing perspective, implying (despite invariable denials) that the poor should be viewed as beggars, people to whom the elitist right wingers would perhaps deign to bestow alms if the beggars please the sensibilities of the elitist right wingers that day. The fundamental difference between liberal perspective and conservative perspective is that liberal perspective is that compassion should be expressed through honoring our responsibilities to each other, as citizens of society. The poor should be viewed as reflections of our collective failure as a society and as a result relieving poverty is a moral imperative placed on society and thereby on us as part of our civic obligation. Measuring "generosity" by a metric grounded in the right wing's indefensibly offensive perspective on the role of citizens in society had better show them as preeminent in practicing the immoral approach they prefer. It would be incredible if they got to define the way something is measured and then couldn't prevail with regard to that means of measurement.
They are... and confusion over that is the root of most political conflict.
Most people will hold with the views and positions of several parties...
even if they don't really recognize the situation to be true.
Those who will hold with every tenet of one party tend to also be lock step and rigid about it.
They like to see that as something to be proud of but are really a problem.
Martyrs and zealots make poor politicians.
I think this is spot on. My point about "mutually exclusive" really was that exactly. Few can really walk the walk. Though they do not seem to be aware of it.
The Left's view of Conservatives is based on two basic and false presumptions.
1. That all Conservatives are rich.....False.
Case in point: My wife and I together make a decidedly middle class income and live in a nice albeit modest home in a culturally diverse neighborhood. Both of us worked our way to the middle class from very modest beginnings. We did this through decades of hard work, smart family planning and living within our means.
2. That all Conservatives are part of the Religious Right.......False.
Case in point:
I was born and raised in a Presbyterian family but my parents did not shove religion down my throat. I was free to make my own decisions on spirituality and attend chuch with them or not as I saw fit.
Left to my own devices, I grew up as an Agnostic, believing in the likelihood of a spiritual force in the universe but not subscribing to any one particular religion over another. I do not attend church and prefer to spend my Sundays working on my house or motorcycle riding.
When I give to charitable orgiorganizations it is usually ones like Goodwill, UNICEF, Shirners Hospitals for Children or The Wounded Warrior Project....hardly faith based charities.
What, you want me to provide a post full links, graphs and pie charts to prove that you're stereotyping? Lol
They do this of their own free will.
On the other hand, Liberals think it's the governments job to force the rich (all evil conservatives in your world view) to give to the poor through forced wealth re-distribution.
Your view on Conservatives is based on stereotypes of the rich being inherently evil simply by virtue of being rich and the poor being inherently good simply by virtue of being poor.
But I am evidently wasting my breath.....how does one prove that the sky is blue to a blind man?
You're so upset about me stereotyping conservatives and then you unleash that load of BS cliches??
First of all, you don't have to be rich to support policies that favor the rich.
Second of all, some of the world's wealthiest people are left-wingers.
Third of all, I have never claimed that all poor people are good and all rich people are bad. You've jumped to all of these conclusions without actually reading anything that I've posted.
Fourth of all, charitable donations don't always mean that poor people are being helped-- the tax deductions more than make up for the cost of the donation, which becomes more like an investment that has paid off.
And on top of that, the charity level disparity is a myth:
I'd say try again, but it would probably mean hearing more strawmen before you conclude that it's all hopeless and pretend I'm the one being irrational.
I don't think anyone is in favor of crony capitalism which is most prevalent when government is most powerful.
I am sure there are but the liberals aren't in the discussion. What was was the belief of libertarians (whether little-l or big-L) becoming Republican. David Koch is a perfect case study to believe that to be the case. The only reason I brought up the money he spent was because he was the Libertarian Vice-President candidate in 1980.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
When you take the product of someone else's labor against their wishes that is theft.
When it's the mafia doing it, it's called extortion. When the government does it, it's called taxation. But the action itself is identical.
So you are telling me all taxes are theft. I think most people pay taxes willingly, it just something that need to be done. Like when the gang asks store owners for "protection money." Anyway, if you want to talk taxes being theft, there's a thread for that. If Taxes Are Theft, How Will the World run?
Quote:
It is people on the left wing who say things like tax cuts cause higher deficits and lower taxes cost the government revenue who are the extremists. They indicate a lack of understanding of the concept of private property.
You blame the left or saying tax cut cause higher deficits is a bit wrong, it's about the spending. The Bush era tax cuts were introduced to jump start the economy especially after the Dot.com bubble. Sadly though we didn't trim back spending so we ran a fairly high deficit that was the rate of growth slowed under Obama. Tax cuts in it of themselves don't cause higher deficits, what does is spending. If we cut taxes, we would have to have a spending freeze for several years to actually have it work to fix the deficit.
Quote:
Saying that taxation is theft does not imply that taxation isn't necessary for society to operate. It just indicates that the emphasis should be placed where it belongs: when a citizen works to earn a dollar, that citizen should keep as much of that dollar as possible, not the government. By keeping in mind the reality that taxation involves government confiscating the fruits of someone else's labor, it helps to keep ideas about what are and aren't proper levels of taxation in perspective. Just because the government could use another dollar of your pay, doesn't make the government morally entitled to take it.
If you want to say taxes should be equal, how do we do it? Do we tax everyone at the same rate or do we tax people on purchases or do we just eradicate taxes completely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Well said.
Once more, any thoughtful, pragmatic libertarian of any standard flavor will grudgingly acknowledge taxation as the revenue source for even the most limited of governments. Clearly governments produce nothing besides laws, rules and barriers, so they need a revenue. So yes, taxation must exist if a government exists. But simply because taxation must exist does not require taxation to be arbitrary, unfair, tyrannical, wasteful, oppressive or punitive.
Taxes that are taken arbitrarily and involuntarily are theft. That's axiomatic. If I initiate force against you by taking your property without your consent, I am stealing from you. My identity and purpose for the theft do not change the nature of the act itself. But to the folks who want to argue with false dilemmas, NOT ALL TAXES ARE ARBITRARY AND/OR INVOLUNTARY, thus not all taxes are theft.
The gasoline tax and toll fees that fund roads are a perfect example of agreeable, proper taxation. The government paid some contractors to build a road, and that road required labor, materials, upkeep, etc. That costs money. So if you use that road, we'll make you pay a toll because that road is nice and we need cash to keep it that way, and we'll tax the gas you buy to make the car go for the same reason. But you choose how much "road tax" you pay based on your own individual behavior. Live close to work and either walk or ride a bicycle everywhere, and your road taxes are probably near $0. Registration, licensing fees, etc. USE TAX...not very complicated.
The other thing with taxes like gasoline, tolls, registration fees, etc is that they are specific to the purpose they are collected for, they are equally levied to any all citizens, and they benefit each citizen the same. We all pay the same percentage of gas tax. We all pay the same tolls, and all registration fees are either equal or based on the vehicle's value. And all those fees go to a common purpose all people can use equally. Roads prove that taxes can be minimal, specific, fair and dictated by individual behavior. It's why "what about roads??" is one of my favorite false dilemmas, because it actually proves the libertarian argument that taxes can easily be fair and more voluntary.
However many of the taxes you mentioned are inherently regressive taxes. Under a system like this someone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck would pay more while the rich who does not would pay less of a percentage of income. I much rather have a flat system than this scheme to help the rich. To me that's theft because it is Sheriff of Nottingham giving to it to Prince John who honestly don't need more money.
You're so upset about me stereotyping conservatives and then you unleash that load of BS cliches??
First of all, you don't have to be rich to support policies that favor the rich.
Granted, but I don't buy the notion that all Conservative policies favor the rich or that all Liberal policies favor the poor, despite what some would have you believe. I think that by and large, and with a few exceptions that government policies have evolved over the last century into tending to favor government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Second of all, some of the world's wealthiest people are left-wingers.
Again, granted....I never said otherwise. Although the Left's narrative would have you believe that all rich people are Conservative and all Conservatives are rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Third of all, I have never claimed that all poor people are good and all rich people are bad. You've jumped to all of these conclusions without actually reading anything that I've posted.
See below
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I think it's more like they just don't give a **** about anyone who isn't successful, latch onto any superficial narrative that makes them feel better about the existing socioeconomic hierarchy, and then stubbornly cling to it for the rest of their lives.
They don't really care about bettering society as a whole and are mostly interested in making sure the 'best' people are rewarded and the 'worst' people are punished.
You may not have said it literally, but your statement above and the Left's narrative in general certainly implies it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Fourth of all, charitable donations don't always mean that poor people are being helped-- the tax deductions more than make up for the cost of the donation, which becomes more like an investment that has paid off.
And on top of that, the charity level disparity is a myth:
First off, I don't believe as the Left does that re-distributive taxation eg "paying my fair share" means that poor people are being helped either.
Secondly, The Washington post is not exactly biased free and I don't consider giving to organizations that the Left favors, like Planned Parenthood, Oxfam or the ACLU to be charity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I'd say try again, but it would probably mean hearing more strawmen before you conclude that it's all hopeless and pretend I'm the one being irrational.
Fine.....tell me then, what do you base you opinion of Conservatives on if not your own version of BS cliches?
Last edited by FatBob96; 03-19-2015 at 02:23 PM..
Reason: edited for sp and clarity
Red states give more to churches, not charities. Churches, conveniently, do not need to disclose how much of the money they collect goes toward charitable work that actually relieves the misery of poverty or infirmity, versus toward maintaining buildings for worship and indoctrination, paying salaries for staff doing work related to worship and indoctrination, etc. When considering donations to actual charities, only, red states and blue states are both found at the top of the list.
Regardless, the metric itself is a reflection of the corrupt nature of right-wing perspective, implying (despite invariable denials) that the poor should be viewed as beggars, people to whom the elitist right wingers would perhaps deign to bestow alms if the beggars please the sensibilities of the elitist right wingers that day. The fundamental difference between liberal perspective and conservative perspective is that liberal perspective
is that compassion should be expressed through honoring our responsibilities to each other, as citizens of society. The poor should be viewed as reflections of our collective failure as a society and as a result relieving poverty is a moral imperative placed on society and thereby on us as part of our civic obligation. Measuring "generosity" by a metric grounded in the right wing's indefensibly offensive perspective on the role of citizens in society had better show them as preeminent in practicing the immoral approach they prefer. It would be incredible if they got to define the way something is measured and then couldn't prevail with regard to that means of measurement.
Lets end that myth right here. Red states give more to charities too
Actually a lot of conservatives don't really care about gays marrying, I've even known gay conservatives. But nearly all conservatives would vote for an anti-gay politician if they agreed with their economic policy more than the opposition.
Which means they value money more than human rights, sadly.
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.
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.
