User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 205

  1. #161
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Really?? Can you sit here and tell me little details about Canadian income tax in the 19th century?
    I didn't try to correct you about the history of the Canadian income tax. As far as I know, the provinces in Canada had direct taxation rights, but the federal government did not until WWI. Canada held out longer than the U.S. did on federal income taxes.


    Because the condecension with which you responded to a Canadian citizen about an obscure fact in US History was completely childish and unnecessary. You acted as though simply EVERYONE should know about off-the-books income taxes implemented and outlawed in the 19th century. To insult someone for not knowing something that is not common knowledge is something that you should be called out on, because it makes you look petty and really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
    Then why did you (in a rather smarmy way) bring it up if you didn't know?


    You've taken a thread about the work force and turned it into your domineering, opinionated manifesto about your extra special form of libertarianism which has nothing to do with the Libertarian party. Essentially you're being nasty to people for not thinking exactly like you and specializing in what you specialize in.
    This just makes you sound like you're pissed because someone was better informed than you.


    The only FACT here is that the official income tax was instituted in 1913.
    So the income tax during the Civil War was an unofficial income tax? You're really being intransigent.


    And as for being gracious? Please. You've spent this entire thread calling people stupid and insane just because they don't agree with you, along with being condescending in general.
    I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were supposed to take the "merits" of communism and fascism seriously in 2009.


    I'm not gracious to people who are arrogant and self-righteous.
    Fine by me. You probably should be gracious when you are mistaken and then someone corrects you, though.


    You're declaring that the libertarian government *as you see it*
    (not even as the Libertarian party espouses it) should be the only form of government in the world, and anyone who doesn't see that according to you is stupid, childish, or wrong. It's not a very convincing argument, to say the least, and your attitude toward other people's ideas and opinions is so disrespectful that it's absolutely rich for you expect anyone to be gracious to you in return.
    Then don't be. At least acknowledge that I was right about the income tax issue. Admit that much.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #162
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    No, we aren't really. I support most of the LP platform, but I don't support the LP completely. I have voted for LP candidates in the past, like Harry Browne. It's only misleading to you because you don't know what the words mean. Please read the wiki for libertarianism (see? small-l).
    You can't exclusively claim the word "libertarian" for your specific personal belief system and dismiss all other meanings of the word.

    Obviously the word "libertarian" on its own has quite a number of different possible meanings depending on context. It can range from total opposition to any redistribution of wealth (as in the American LP) to a complete denial of the entire concept of private ownership (as in libertarian socialism.) It can mean dramatically different things in different contexts, and you didn't specify. The capitalization alone is not enough specification for anyone to be able to infer which of the many different ideologies labeled under "libertarian" it is that you follow.

    It's not my responsibility to know which of the myriad (and often contradictory) forms of philosophy you're discussing when you use the word "libertarian"; the burden of clarification is on you if you're going to describe yourself this way. Most people in America when discussing American politics will interpret "I am a libertarian" as throwing your support behind the American LP platform and you should be able to anticipate that and offer clarification.

    In any event, which parts of the LP platform do you not agree with? How do you solve problems like poverty when any and all redistribution is automatically disallowed?


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I expect them to know the difference between democrat and Democrat, and republican and Republican. You should know the difference if you are going to argue politics. Capitalizing words makes them proper nouns.
    It gets a little confusing when we also capitalize these words because they're at the beginnings of sentences. When you say things like, "Libertarians believe this...", it's hard to tell whether you capitalized the word because you're referring to members of the Libertarian party, or because it was the first word of your sentence, and it's pretty ridiculous to expect people to know exactly what you're thinking or why you capitalized it the way you did. For all we know, you just don't pay much attention to capitalization--this is the internet, after all.

    Anyway, all of this can be avoided by simply explaining with greater specificity which form of libertarianism it is that you follow, and how your beliefs compare to typical libertarian ones.




    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It really should be the only acceptable form of government. Obviously, nothing is going to be perfect in the world, but that should not mean accepting things that are really, really fucked up.
    That's an arbitrary value judgment based on your decision to value personal liberty above all other values in all situations.

    This is what I'm talking about when I say you have good principles but don't understand their practical limitations. Your heart is in the right place and I appreciate that. I agree with most of your ideals in principle; it's just that learning to be reasonable and realistic involves learning that nothing is absolute and that there are exceptions to every rule.

    Rights are conditional because they still have practical limits. You have a right to pursuit of happiness, but you can't claim that this right is being violated because you're not allowed to kill your neighbor just because killing your neighbor would make you happy.

    Every right has similar practical limitations, because your rights are always bound to conflict with the rights of others. Whenever one of these conflicts happens, it's the role of the law the decide which right gets more priority.

    In the case of poverty and social support nets, you as a libertarian believe that your right to private property/maintaining x% of your income is a more important value than the right of others to have sufficient resources for sustenance.

    I don't agree with you because, while I do value the concept of right to private property, I also value the concept of basic human rights to food, shelter, and basic education...and in this particular situation, I think that right overrides your right to maintain whatever arbitrary high percentage of your income you think is necessary out of some misguided, naive idealism.

    The fact is, there are a lot of hugely complex international issues that are completely unsolvable by private enterprise and which will never be dealt with efficiently without government intervention.

    Rights must necessarily be conditional because the rights of one person will often conflict with the rights of another and it's impossible to preserve both. Making absolutist claims like "all redistribution is always wrong no matter what" is short-sighted and unrealistic because it doesn't take into account conditions in which another right might be more important.

    It's much easier to just stick dogmatically to one principle that you really like than to really consider all the variables and differing conditions that go into something as complex as politics, but unfortunately it doesn't work very well.




    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Most people in Washington are so concerned with power and response to an uneducated electorate that they really aren't interested in holding up their constitutional duties.
    I can't argue with the fact that there are corrupt people in Washington, but many decisions that you interpret as "ignoring constitutional duty" might very well just be due to you interpreting the constitution differently from the way they interpret it.

    The problem of interpretation is another big reason your black and white "unconditional principles no matter what" political schema is flawed...there's not even any objective consensus on what is or isn't constitutional, because (like everything else in life) it all comes down to interpretation.

    Like I said, I'm glad you have strong principles, but one of the limitations of principles in general is that they're never perfect and can always be made to seem unreasonable given the right set of circumstances. It's vital that we be able to reevaluate and subtly change our approach to things like law-making based on changing conditions on a case-by-case basis--not just declare anything that doesn't agree 100% with our principles to be totally wrong and unfair and refuse to cooperate or compromise on this basis.

    You're looking for a yes/no, black/white, cookie-cutter answer to an extraordinarily complicated set of vastly differing and interconnected issues--and it's not going to come from idealist diatribes and dogmatic loyalty to an unchanging set of arbitrary principles regardless of changing conditions! Life isn't that simple.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #163
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post


    This just makes you sound like you're pissed because someone was better informed than you.
    Oh yes, that's it. Okay. You just keep telling yourself that. Everything just comes back to how well-informed you believe yourself to be.






    I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were supposed to take the "merits" of communism and fascism seriously in 2009.
    All governments which are not libertarian are not communist nor fascist. You think that democratic socialism is insane, and it's not communism or fascism. People have every right to take it seriously because it works. Not only that, but many people don't take the "merits" of libertarianism seriously in 2009 either because, frankly, it's never been proven to work.




    Fine by me. You probably should be gracious when you are mistaken and then someone corrects you, though.
    Are you out of your mind? Seriously? Could you possibly still be talking down to me and trying to correct my behavior? Who is smarmy?

    You can't even admit that your attitude toward other people in this thread is overbearing and snide, but I should be gracious? Suddenly you are Miss Manners?




    Then don't be. At least acknowledge that I was right about the income tax issue. Admit that much.
    You were right on a petty technicality about the UN-OFFICIAL income tax, if it's that important to you to be right.

    I am through talking to you.

  4. #164
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    You were right on a petty technicality about the UN-OFFICIAL income tax, if it's that important to you to be right.

    I am through talking to you.
    He pointed out that the income tax was unconstitutional before. I have a feeling you didn't read his post. And whether or not something is constitutional doesn't prove or disprove its existence. Example: Waterboarding.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  5. #165
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You can't exclusively claim the word "libertarian" for your specific personal belief system and dismiss all other meanings of the word.
    I am going by the definition of libertarianism as understood in North America, i.e., very limited government, free markets, constitutional republican form of government, and strong civil liberties.


    Obviously the word "libertarian" on its own has quite a number of different possible meanings depending on context. It can range from total opposition to any redistribution of wealth (as in the American LP) to a complete denial of the entire concept of private ownership (as in libertarian socialism.) It can mean dramatically different things in different contexts, and you didn't specify. The capitalization alone is not enough specification for anyone to be able to infer which of the many different ideologies labeled under "libertarian" it is that you follow.
    The capitalization issue does matter in the context of trying to argue the finer points of libertarianism with someone who only seems to know anything about it in regards to the Libertarian Party, though.


    It's not my responsibility to know which of the myriad (and often contradictory) forms of philosophy you're discussing when you use the word "libertarian"; the burden of clarification is on you if you're going to describe yourself this way. Most people in America when discussing American politics will interpret "I am a libertarian" as throwing your support behind the American LP platform and you should be able to anticipate that and offer clarification.
    I actually don't know if that is true. I am sure it is true for many people, but most people online who take the time to argue for or against libertarianism at least understand the libertarian/Libertarian split. It has definitely been so in my experience.


    In any event, which parts of the LP platform do you not agree with? How do you solve problems like poverty when any and all redistribution is automatically disallowed?
    Great questions. As to the LP, I find them to be a well-intentioned but often misguided or just downright silly. They often nominate people who are complete lunatics. Then they turn around and nominate someone who is "electable" but really not particularly libertarian (Bob Barr). It's not that I disagree fundamentally with the LP platform. It's just that I am not a member and they are not the arbiters of what is libertarian and what is not. The equivalent would be saying that the Democratic Party's platform is the end-all, be-all of center-left thinking.

    For the poverty question, I would argue that A) absolute poverty would DECREASE in a more libertarian society; and B) that relative poverty/income inequality are much less important than many of the left would have you believe. For instance, unemployment would certainly fall if you had a softer regulatory framework for starting/operating businesses, reduction/elimination of the minimum wage, and the federal government stopped debasing our currency.


    It gets a little confusing when we also capitalize these words because they're at the beginnings of sentences. When you say things like, "Libertarians believe this...", it's hard to tell whether you capitalized the word because you're referring to members of the Libertarian party, or because it was the first word of your sentence, and it's pretty ridiculous to expect people to know exactly what you're thinking or why you capitalized it the way you did. For all we know, you just don't pay much attention to capitalization--this is the internet, after all.
    Fair enough. I would think that my delineation of Libertarian and libertarian was understood through the context, but I could see it getting confusing if one were really unaware. I naturally type all posts (even IM's, seriously) the same way I would essays.


    Anyway, all of this can be avoided by simply explaining with greater specificity which form of libertarianism it is that you follow, and how your beliefs compare to typical libertarian ones.
    It's a bit of a hybrid. I am not a hardcore Austrian economist, nor am I an anarchocapitalist. I do believe in a limited federal government. I try not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. As out there as some of the things I profess may sound, I am actually pretty moderate on the libertarian spectrum. I hold a very strict line on civil liberties, however.


    I'll answer more later.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #166
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    He pointed out that the income tax was unconstitutional before. I have a feeling you didn't read his post. And whether or not something is constitutional doesn't prove or disprove its existence. Example: Waterboarding.
    I did read his post. However, I am disgusted with the notion that he believes that all of this should be such common knowledge that he completely disregards the opinion of someone from Canada who spoke vaguely about "not having an income tax 100 years ago" by pettily admonishing her to "read a history book" as if most people - including Americans - acknowledge the income tax before 1913. He completely dodged what she was getting at - that what worked a century ago doesn't work now. Instead of acknowledging her actual point and disputing it, he had to find something nit-picky to dwell upon. I liken it to not taking someone seriously because of a spelling or grammar error. Just because someone isn't specific doesn't make them stupid, or even ignorant in the point they're making.

    I'm not disputing the information. You're being as petty as he is - particularly if you actually read all of the posts preceeding this one.

  7. #167
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    My appologies on the 100 years ago no taxes comment, I should've specified *CIRCA 100 years ago no FEDERAL taxes*.

    Though admittedly I know little of the obscure aspects of american history anyway, and don't happen to have easy access to american textbooks, nor would I really be all that interested in the slanted material anyway.

    That being said, I do know that until ww1, paired with the great depression, there weren't taxes at a federal level in canada, and when they were added, it was supposed to be a temporary thing, which never really fully went away.

    As I understood it, the states was vaguely similar in that regard, as there were issues with taxation from before it was even a country, dealing with tariffs and such from england.

    Regardless, the point wasn't to give an exact date with an exact example, but rather, an implied concept that whot was true 100 years ago is no longer true to this day. In which case yeu kinda missed the point.

    After reading through the rest of the responses too, I'm not going to bother writing it out point for point again. It already wasted too much time the last time on someone who doesn't listen anyway.



    Short form:

    - black & white doesn't exist, they are arbitrary imaginary concepts which have no practical value in reality
    - everything has some value, even the worst diseases, the worst wars, the most horrific accidents and disasters, each have brought about beneficial effects as well
    - every form of government is inherently designed for a specific task, and each is best suited to that task under ideal conditions; we don't live in a perfect world however, so the flaws in the reasoning of some are kinda obvious. Communism's an awesome idea... in theory. It doesn't work in practice because it rests on faulty assumptions such as believing people to be hard working citizens and that they care about each other and won't abuse the system
    - every single time yeu've stated 'irrelevant' it's actually been of core importance, which's probably why yeu're having issues understanding the bigger picture here
    - the difference between "republican" and "Republican" means nothing in practicality; in theory they are different due to punctuation, in reality, yeu can't 'see' punctuation in speech, and online when it's written, punctuation is optional so has no value. Specifically, I stated that yeu need to define whot yeur views are better, as the broad reaching statement yeu've supplied in dubious context generally just means that yeu haven't really stated anything difinitively, which leaves it up to the reader, who is forced to make generalized assumptions. If yeu want people to know whot yeu're saying, say it clearly, and don't leave anything to question. The whole argument over LP and Libertarians wouldn't've even occured in the first place were it not for that.
    - putting words in someone's mouth for them, and then chastising them for such can, and has, been successfully charged as libel =3 I don't suggest making up statements FOR me and then complaining about them; base it off whot I actually say, not whot yeu make up for me to say in yeur head please
    - government *IS* designed to do whot's best for people as a whole, regardless of whot they think is good for them. Now... whether it's actually efficient or even remotely GOOD at that goal, is an entirely different matter. It's still designed with that concept in mind though, even if it kinda sucks at the whole performance part
    - Canada is defined as a socialist country by literal definition, based upon economic policies. Yes, there's many more social liberties in many ways, but this's unrelated to the economic section as to whether a country is communistic, capitalistic or socialistic.
    - Whot yeu say is untrue, is otherwise. Whot yeu say to be true, is untrue =3 Seriously, just saying 'u r rong' doesn't make it so. Especially since yeu're generally mistaken on such.
    - And yes, it can in fact lower living expences. Not neccesarily all the time, and in some cases shall in fact increase them significantly. Those with children, those who are young, and those who are old or sick have immense savings, especially on medication which they probably couldn't afford otherwise. Of course... if we're talking about the USA's version, that is admittedly another story on their health care which's been kinda... yeah. I think we all know the abomination that thing is, just assume if I mention health care, I mean one which vaguely works as there's been several very good examples in the past, though admittedly canada's has been dropping in quality as of late so I'm not sure I'd consider it a good example anymore
    - also I did admittedly just glance through the information on the names provided earlier, and went through excerpts of their published works, it was kinda silly to try to bluff knowing more than I did on that, but it was late at night and it seemed like a good idea at the time; a few pages of their stuff, plus a quick review doesn't really cover the totality of their views nearly well enough obviously, as kind of was apparant


    This all being said, I do also apologize for my rather terse... hrm I'm not sure if inflection really works in written sense, but we'll pretend it does for the sake of getting to use an underused word. I just really don't care for the 'i am right u r rong, also I'm holier than thou too' style of argumentation yeu've been going with. Especially since much of yeur 'statements of fact' are merely opinion, and most of them are pretty laughable.

    Sigh and there I go again. It's hard not to match yeur own tone... I would request that yeu lighten yeur method of argument in the future as it tends to just cause people to reflect such, which honestly doesn't really help anyone.


    For the coles notes version of the post though, as this seems to be yeur preferred form of argument style:

    "You're wrong"

  8. #168
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    For the poverty question, I would argue that A) absolute poverty would DECREASE in a more libertarian society; and B) that relative poverty/income inequality are much less important than many of the left would have you believe. For instance, unemployment would certainly fall if you had a softer regulatory framework for starting/operating businesses, reduction/elimination of the minimum wage, and the federal government stopped debasing our currency.
    A) What is defined as "absolute poverty", and how would less social support net result in less of it?

    B) Your answer here amounts to "It's not that big a deal"? The benefits you offer may or may not work in practice, but if they do then they'll certainly also create proportional negative effects. To you these negative effects are less significant than the positive ones that you see, but this is still relative according to one's political orientation.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #169
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's a hell of a thing to be an ESFJ arguing logic and economics to N's who don't seem to be able to think impersonally about them.
    You can't speak impersonally about articles of faith. Economic models are tied to political ideology, which these Ns have embraced with a True Believer's zeal... and you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

    Instead of exchanging ideas, they're now looking for any reason they can find that shows that you're wrong. Debate on the Internet is a mug's game.

  10. #170
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    I'm still waiting for this thread to get back on topic.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

Similar Threads

  1. Why are NT's so rare as the main characters?
    By great_bay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 01:51 AM
  2. [sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?
    By Octavarium in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 10:08 PM
  3. So, Why Are You Up So Early/Late?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO