Text 14207, 156 rader
Skriven 2010-11-19 13:45:02 av BOB KLAHN (1:135/382)
  Kommentar till text 14196 av BOB ACKLEY (1:300/3)
Ärende: california propositions,
================================
 ...

 BA>>> Horse sh*t.  I have more intelligence.  Not all pro-lifers
 BA>>> are Republicrooks and not all Democrooks are pro-choice.

 BK>>  Gee... you noticed. I've been pointing that out for a long time.

 BA>>> Besides, there are more choices in the political spectrum
 BA>>> than Republicrooks and Democrooks.

 BK>>  None that are significant.

 BA> only you and your Republicrook buddies have the system
 BA> locked up so that nobody else can participate.

 Lots of others participate. The Tea Party is doing massive
 damage to the republican party currently.

 Throughout history secondary parties have greatly influenced the
 political course of this country. They have done it mostly by
 being a source of ideas that are adopted by the large parties.
 There is nothing inherently inimical about that. Though the Tea
 Party may manage to bend that out of shape.

 Multi-party governments tend to go all over the map with little
 in the way of identifiable consistency. And in the end the
 popular programs tend to survive all the political fads. Even
 Margret Thatcher couldn't end National Health Care.

 The republicans, and the tea party, are so fanatical about
 repealing National Health Care because they know it's success
 will make it sacrosanct if it's given a chance.

 BK>>>>  Anti-gays don't have much belief in individual freedom at all.

 BA>>> ANd your point is, what?  Anti-smokers don't believe in
 BA>>> individual freedom, nor do the animal rights fanatics and
 BA>>> PETA.

 BK>>  As long at they don't try to impose their beliefs on your
 BK>>  private life, no problem.

 BA> Oh, but they do, as do the anti-smokers.

 Not the ones I know.

 ...

 BA>>> You believe in heavily punishing successful people with
 BA>>> taxes,

 BK>>  If you believe taxes are punishment, you must be an anarchist,
 BK>>  or a glutton for punishment.

 BA> I believe that *duiscriminatory* (aka "progressive:")
 BA> taxation is punishment.

 You are wrong, but I believe in your freedom to be wrong. OTOH,
 you did not make that explicit in your comment above.

 Oh, and we were discussing freedom, not tax evasion.

 BA>>> you believe in discriminatory ("progressive") tax

 BK>>  You believe in discriminator (regressive) taxs.

 BA> No I do not.  I believe in a FLAT tax if it must be on
 BA> incomes, same rate for everybody.  A "regressive:" tax rate
 BA> would decrease as income increases.

 The effect of the tax is regressive, therefor the tax is
 regressive.

 Again, we had a discussion in Fido years ago about a BLS study
 that discovered all income levels tended to pay about the same
 percentage of their income in taxes. They just paid more of some
 taxes, less of others. The end result was a generally close
 rate.

 Sales tax rates do, in effect, decrease as income increases. And
 progressive taxes only allow for those who benefit more pay
 more. I find nothing wrong with that.

 Parts you couldn't answer deleted.
 ...

 BK>>>>  I also believe in a responsibility as part of our social
 BK>>>>  structure, to contribute to maintaining our social structure.
 BK>>>>  That seems so obvious it should not require defending.

 BA>>> That does depend on how one defines those terms, doesn't it?

 BK>>  Yeah, but first you have to get past the idea that
 BK>>  responsibility is bad.

 BA> I have *always* held that rights come with
 BA> responsibilities.  You are, as usual, misrepresenting my
 BA> position.

 I have not seen a clear exposition on your position from you.

 OTOH, I do believe I will post some statements of what I believe
 the government should do.

 More you couldn't answer deleted.

 ...

 BK>>>>  Libertarianism doesn't seem to believe in much of anything.

 BA>>> The information is out there.  Reason magazine is one
 BA>>> source, although it is not sponsored by the party and is
 BA>>> not a party organ.

 BK>>  Is Reason Magazine the authority on the subject?

 BA> One of them.  The party does have a web site.

 Ah, the Liberatarian party? I was talking about the philosophy.

 How can there be an "authority" on libertarianism?

 BK>>>>  Libertarians seem to believe in whatever is convenient for them.

 BK>>>>  No thanks, I prefer a moral philosophy based on some actual
 BK>>>>  principles.

 BA>>> The Libertarian party is the only one in the country that
 BA>>> has principles - and lives by them.

 BK>>  See the tagline.

 BK>> BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 BK>> ... Libertarianism is the ultimate political philosophy for
 BK>> sociopaths.

 BA> Another of your dishonest misrepresentations.

 No, you just insist on focusing on the party, I focus on the
 philosophy.

 OTOH, for any party to claim to represent libertarianism seems a
 bit arrogant.

 For anyone to claim to be libertarian, and then follow the
 authority of any party or even spokesman, is a contradiction in
 terms. IMO.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Libertarian Economics - Unilateral economic disarmament.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)