djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 12:22:11 GMT -5
i can tell you why: because their government really doesn't represent their interests. that is the simplest way of putting it. and this is why (according to not only me, but MANY who have studied this) voter participation rates are highest among "the political class" (predominantly high earning, college educated folk), and lowest among the "poor" (predominantly low income, low education folk). they are simply less invested in the system, and less likely to see it working for their benefit, and representing their views. and they are absolutely right. viewed from this standpoint, not participating in the political system is a rational choice. Actually, the system does a hell of lot more for the poor than it does the middle class...an entire political party panders to the poor on a daily basis. So, in that respect, the middle class should be the ones disenfranchised (and many are, I'm sure) rather than the poor. i don't think you are understanding me. i was talking about "government as a mirror for citizenry". when you look at government representatives- what do you see? what i see is a bunch of predominantly white, predominantly college educated, predominantly wealthy people. these people have certain values that come along with their experiences. they also get lobbied constantly by who? people just like them. now what sort of a system would you expect that is run by the elite, lobbied by the elite, and instilled with elite values? one that represents the poor? sorry, that doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 12:23:46 GMT -5
i am not following you. are you arguing that this planet is not part of our common heritage? I'm saying this planet was bought and paid for years ago...complaining about that is futility i disagree completely. i don't think the planet belongs to individuals, at all. i think it is part of our collective heritage.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 12:28:19 GMT -5
i can tell you why: because their government really doesn't represent their interests. that is the simplest way of putting it. and this is why (according to not only me, but MANY who have studied this) voter participation rates are highest among "the political class" (predominantly high earning, college educated folk), and lowest among the "poor" (predominantly low income, low education folk). they are simply less invested in the system, and less likely to see it working for their benefit, and representing their views. and they are absolutely right. viewed from this standpoint, not participating in the political system is a rational choice. Wouldn't failure to vote not only denote a lack of tacit approval but be an indication of disaproval? i can't answer that unless you tell me what perspective you wish me to use to answer it: the objective social perspective, or the subjective individual perspective? from the objective social framework, self-disenfranchisement is tacit approval. it actually fits in well with the Republican model, as well: leaving voting to those that care about it is a form of collective deferral to experts. edit: note: the poor are not a majority.....yet. . disapproval of a minority is not proof of illegitimacy.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 13:34:40 GMT -5
It's possible for a party (an ancestor, for example) to enter into a contract on our behalf. Parenting can easily be construed as a contract between parents and offspring. Adopting a pet is also a form of contract, although the animal cannot legally consent, has no concept of ownership, and in any case has no say on where or how it lives. One could reasonably argue that our forebears entered into the contract on our behalf, pledging to teach us to honour it so long as the counterparty (the state) was not found in breach of their own responsibilities. Argue, therefore, that the government is in breach of contract, but don't call the contract null and void simply because its establishment predates us. again, well put. the definition of "social contract" allows for tacit consent. what that means is that if you live here, and you don't protest by filing grievances, or by renouncing your citizenship, it is ASSUMED that you agree with how things are done here, and have decided to participate in this experiment we call citizenship. until you start working, the sacrifices are absolutely minimal. you basically have a free ride. and you can use that time to formulate and opinion of whether you want to stay or go. use it wisely. but if you decide to stay, you are on the boat with the rest of us. It's fair for jkapp and Paul to point out that the "leave it" in a "love it or leave it" ultimatum is a fiction. Firstly, there's no place to go to. They built a city on the bottom of the ocean in BioShock (whose storyline follows this discussion and the "slavery vs. scut work" thread so perfectly it's uncanny), but we live in the real world. Short of living on a floating tub in the middle of the Atlantic (which would undoubtedly be put under some kind of international jurisdiction if it grew to sufficient size), there's no terrestrial quarter where a man can escape the contract imposed by one or more governments. You might then suggest, "so carve out your own land and form your own state subject to your own laws and ideals." And any group from the size of a few individuals to an entire state could certainly do so... right up until the point where the presiding national government came at them like a proverbial freight train. Secessionist movements in the US and abroad aren't so much a question of whether the insurrectionists succeed as they are a question of how many bullet holes the insurrectionists have through them 48 hours after they announce their intentions. I happen to agree with you that complaining, by itself, is useless and counterproductive. But don't think anti-establishment types are stupid enough to believe they could "go" anywhere, march off to put their ideals into practice, without a considerable down payment of mayhem and blood. Unless you think "Love it or die." is a fair ultimatum, you might want to drop the "You can always opt out." rhetoric, because they're effectively the same thing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 13:40:51 GMT -5
again, well put. the definition of "social contract" allows for tacit consent. what that means is that if you live here, and you don't protest by filing grievances, or by renouncing your citizenship, it is ASSUMED that you agree with how things are done here, and have decided to participate in this experiment we call citizenship. until you start working, the sacrifices are absolutely minimal. you basically have a free ride. and you can use that time to formulate and opinion of whether you want to stay or go. use it wisely. but if you decide to stay, you are on the boat with the rest of us. It's fair for jkapp and Paul to point out that the "leave it" in a "love it or leave it" ultimatum is a fiction. first of all, i never suggested anyone LOVE this system. i certainly don't. secondly, it is NOT an ultimatum. i am merely pointing out that, unlike slavery, nobody will hunt them down and kill them if they leave: THEY ARE FREE TO GO. and finally, it is not a fiction. Severin left. i am going to leave. hell, even PAUL IS GOING TO LEAVE. that is about as real as it gets.
Firstly, there's no place to go to. sure there is. there are almost 200 nations on this planet. this is ONE.They built a city on the bottom of the ocean in BioShock oh please. seriously- if you are saying that all countries have social contracts- yes they do. that does NOT imply, however, that you can't find a BETTER one. Virgil, seriously- i am beginning to get upset with you. my point was VERY NARROW. Paul is basically saying that he never agreed to having the government extort money out of him. i have argued that he DID, by staying here. he argues back that he has gotten less out of the system than he paid in. i guess i could argue back that all he has to do is retire here, and hope to live to 90, and that would reverse: he could be on the soaking side. but is that really the objective here? to come out ahead? is there ANYTHING fictional about what i just said? REALLY? gmafb.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 19, 2013 13:42:21 GMT -5
The "go somewhere else" argument is a particularly offensive argument to me. The natural question is: If I am free and sovereign as an individual, why should I not be free and sovereign where I stand? And you can shove your "services" argument where the sun doesn't shine. If you're stupid enough to come over to my house and mow my lawn, and stand watch on the front porch by night- good for you. But do not think you are entitled to payment for such services. We have no contract. There is no agreement. You did not offer, I did not accept, and neither of us agreed to be legally bound- least of all you, who if you're the government will just raise the price, do a shitty job, and threaten to kill me if I don't pay. Government, fundamentally, is a protection racket. It's a gang that comes up to otherwise free people, puts a gun to their head and states that they are citizens, or legal residents, or illegal- and that they must pay, and pay, and pay or be put into prison. Pretty harsh, but many of the points are valid People like to use the term social contract to eschew forcibly confiscating the fruits of people's labors. They like to make it sound like taxes are a voluntary transaction between two parties. The problem arises as to what happens if someone refuses to pay. First, they are sent a notice to pay. If they don't, they are sent a summons to court. If they don't show up, they are summarily rules against and a forced garnishment/lien is issued. If the payments still aren't made, and the person refuses to show up to the courthouse, the government stormtroopers are sent to "collect" the individual and put them in a locked cage. If the person still refuses to "cooperate" they are put away into a fortified detention center with armed guards. This does not sound to me like any sort of cooperative/voluntary contract between two parties. It sounds a lot more like a mafia "giving an offer you can't refuse" type of situation. In that respect, a forceful offer and bullied acceptance is not a valid contract. Exactly. And there's no moral argument for the situation, either. Whereas you can make a significant moral argument against it. Because while government is an abstraction- a construct, rather than a contract- natural rights are real, and tangible. It is as natural as rain to find violence abhorrent. To be offended by theft. To say a man cannot rape a woman- the moral code is self-evident. But government's claim is a fabrication.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 19, 2013 13:43:59 GMT -5
i am not following you. are you arguing that this planet is not part of our common heritage? I'm saying this planet was bought and paid for years ago...complaining about that is futility We have zero - absolutely zero - say on land in this country. It was conquered and put in the coffers to be chopped up and taxed by bureaucrats long ago. Once that happened, any semblance of "ownership" or "heritage" died with it. You can't go anywhere in this world and sit without some bureaucrat kicking you out or expecting to be given something for it. Even if you found such a place, it would only be a matter of time before it was confiscated from you...As the inhabitants of Minerva soon discovered.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 13:44:43 GMT -5
Unless you think "Love it or die." is a fair ultimatum, you might want to drop the "You can always opt out." rhetoric, because they're effectively the same thing. no, Virgil- those are NOT the only options. there are a lot of nice places to live out there. i am going to choose one with no standing army. ironically, so is Paul.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 13:45:19 GMT -5
I'm saying this planet was bought and paid for years ago...complaining about that is futility We have zero - absolutely zero - say on land in this country. It was conquered and put in the coffers to be chopped up and taxed by bureaucrats long ago. Once that happened, any semblance of "ownership" or "heritage" died with it. You can't go anywhere in this world and sit without some bureaucrat kicking you out or expecting to be given something for it. Even if you found such a place, it would only be a matter of time before it was confiscated from you...As the inhabitants of Minerva soon discovered. what or where is Minerva?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 13:50:18 GMT -5
Pretty harsh, but many of the points are valid People like to use the term social contract to eschew forcibly confiscating the fruits of people's labors. They like to make it sound like taxes are a voluntary transaction between two parties. The problem arises as to what happens if someone refuses to pay. First, they are sent a notice to pay. If they don't, they are sent a summons to court. If they don't show up, they are summarily rules against and a forced garnishment/lien is issued. If the payments still aren't made, and the person refuses to show up to the courthouse, the government stormtroopers are sent to "collect" the individual and put them in a locked cage. If the person still refuses to "cooperate" they are put away into a fortified detention center with armed guards. This does not sound to me like any sort of cooperative/voluntary contract between two parties. It sounds a lot more like a mafia "giving an offer you can't refuse" type of situation. In that respect, a forceful offer and bullied acceptance is not a valid contract. Exactly. And there's no moral argument for the situation, either. Whereas you can make a significant moral argument against it. Because while government is an abstraction- a construct, rather than a contract- natural rights are real, and tangible. It is as natural as rain to find violence abhorrent. To be offended by theft. To say a man cannot rape a woman- the moral code is self-evident. But government's claim is a fabrication. no. natural rights are not tangible. you might claim that they are SOVEREIGN, as Locke did- but that is not the same thing. people think that housing is a natural right. they think that fair pay is a natural right. they think that decency and respect is a natural right. the DIVISION between what are natural rights, and what rights are NOT have been argued since Mesopotamia. but natural rights are also governed by belief, which is ALSO a human endeavor. i know that many people think that they are governed by God, but that is pretty much saying the same thing, imo. we should get past the "fictional" aspect of all this. it is not crucial to the argument. there is no tangible commodity called justice, freedom, or belief. they are all abstractions. that doesn't stop them from gaining power through consensus.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 19, 2013 13:56:17 GMT -5
a government that does not have the tacit OR explicit consent of it's citizens is illegitimate. such governments can only be held in place by force. do you believe, as Paul does, that there is a "gun to your head"? Says who? If they run the show they are the government until they step down or are overthrown. I'm going to repeat that Paul and I are coming to very different conclusions. My concerns are focussed on why low income individuals would not b thrilled with this arrangement. I have no sympathy for Paul attempting to avoid taxes. I have sympathy for anyone trying to avoid the bag man. Hell, if someone shot the bag man, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 13:58:35 GMT -5
Says who? If they run the show they are the government until they step down or are overthrown. I'm going to repeat that Paul and I are coming to very different conclusions. My concerns are focussed on why low income individuals would not b thrilled with this arrangement. I have no sympathy for Paul attempting to avoid taxes. I have sympathy for anyone trying to avoid the bag man. Hell, if someone shot the bag man, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. rebel without a cause.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 14:18:02 GMT -5
It's fair for jkapp and Paul to point out that the "leave it" in a "love it or leave it" ultimatum is a fiction. first of all, i never suggested anyone LOVE this system. i certainly don't. secondly, it is NOT an ultimatum. i am merely pointing out that, unlike slavery, nobody will hunt them down and kill them if they leave: THEY ARE FREE TO GO. and finally, it is not a fiction. Severin left. i am going to leave. hell, even PAUL IS GOING TO LEAVE. that is about as real as it gets.
Firstly, there's no place to go to. sure there is. there are almost 200 nations on this planet. this is ONE.They built a city on the bottom of the ocean in BioShock oh please. seriously- if you are saying that all countries have social contracts- yes they do. that does NOT imply, however, that you can't find a BETTER one. Virgil, seriously- i am beginning to get upset with you. my point was VERY NARROW. Paul is basically saying that he never agreed to having the government extort money out of him. i have argued that he DID, by staying here. he argues back that he has gotten less out of the system than he paid in. i guess i could argue back that all he has to do is retire here, and hope to live to 90, and that would reverse: he could be on the soaking side. but is that really the objective here? to come out ahead? is there ANYTHING fictional about what i just said? REALLY? gmafb. To where? Europe? Nigeria? The USA was supposed to be the place to go to get away from government. The nation's founders railed against big government in their writings and demanded that citizens arm themselves to overthrow the entrenched powers when they inevitably exceeded their authority. The USA was supposed to be the quintessential experiment in limited republican government and self-determination. Since then it's mutated into a monolithic monster with a tap on every phone, a hand in every pocket, a regulation for every business, a tax for every transaction. Screw what the SCOTUS and their masters think, bills like the ACA, FISA warrants, unilateral executive powers to invade and bomb foreign nations, Gitmo, common core education, $17 trillion public debts, etc. are all unconstitutional. Any American with a copy of the US Constitution and two brain cells to rub together could determine as much. So where is there left for Paul to go? His ancestors fought and died in a bloody revolutionary war so that the US wouldn't become just another nation with a complacent populace and a bloated, corrupt government. Should he pick up a shotgun, head to Washington, and do it all over again? Should he head to Mexico, start a coup, and start a fresh new implementation of the US Consitution there? You're fundamentally missing the point that the US was supposed to be the place where citizens didn't have to worry about their federal government passing universal healthcare bills and fighting endless wars and running up enormous debts and confiscating weapons and dictating which couples states could and couldn't marry and micromanaging every facet of American daily life. You're demanding Paul abandon the experiment. Stick a fork in it. It's done. Don't like what it's become? Move to any of the 200 other nations being suffocated by government--the ones that didn't even start with small government ideals. Don't consider that a sensible option (most likely because it isn't a sensible option)? Nuts on you. djpolldancer certainly doesn't care. Nonsensical options are still technically options, after all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 14:54:46 GMT -5
oh please. seriously- if you are saying that all countries have social contracts- yes they do. that does NOT imply, however, that you can't find a BETTER one. Virgil, seriously- i am beginning to get upset with you. my point was VERY NARROW. Paul is basically saying that he never agreed to having the government extort money out of him. i have argued that he DID, by staying here. he argues back that he has gotten less out of the system than he paid in. i guess i could argue back that all he has to do is retire here, and hope to live to 90, and that would reverse: he could be on the soaking side. but is that really the objective here? to come out ahead? is there ANYTHING fictional about what i just said? REALLY? gmafb. To where? Europe? Nigeria? The USA was supposed to be the place to go to get away from government. . i think i see your point. is it like this complainer: we can't do any better than the US, but the US is not anarchist enough for me, so i have nowhere to go. response: that is not entirely true, but i see your point. you are a tiny minority, and just like other tiny minorities, you will NEVER truly find a home. you have my sympathies. see, i took it differently. this is how i saw the argument: complainer: the US doesn't represent my priorities. therefore i refuse to pay my taxes and submit to their tyranny. response: there are about 200 other countries out there. find one that matches your priorities, and move.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 15:06:19 GMT -5
oh please. seriously- if you are saying that all countries have social contracts- yes they do. that does NOT imply, however, that you can't find a BETTER one. Virgil, seriously- i am beginning to get upset with you. my point was VERY NARROW. Paul is basically saying that he never agreed to having the government extort money out of him. i have argued that he DID, by staying here. he argues back that he has gotten less out of the system than he paid in. i guess i could argue back that all he has to do is retire here, and hope to live to 90, and that would reverse: he could be on the soaking side. but is that really the objective here? to come out ahead? is there ANYTHING fictional about what i just said? REALLY? gmafb. To where? Europe? Nigeria? The USA was supposed to be the place to go to get away from government. The nation's founders railed against big government in their writings and demanded that citizens arm themselves to overthrow the entrenched powers when they inevitably exceeded their authority. The USA was supposed to be the quintessential experiment in limited republican government and self-determination. Since then it's mutated into a monolithic monster with a tap on every phone, a hand in every pocket, a regulation for every business, a tax for every transaction. Screw what the SCOTUS and their masters think, bills like the ACA, FISA warrants, unilateral executive powers to invade and bomb foreign nations, Gitmo, common core education, $17 trillion public debts, etc. are all unconstitutional. Any American with a copy of the US Constitution and two brain cells to rub together could determine as much. So where is there left for Paul to go? His ancestors fought and died in a bloody revolutionary war so that the US wouldn't become just another nation with a complacent populace and a bloated, corrupt government. Should he pick up a shotgun, head to Washington, and do it all over again? Should he head to Mexico, start a coup, and start a fresh new implementation of the US Consitution there? You're fundamentally missing the point that the US was supposed to be the place where citizens didn't have to worry about their federal government passing universal healthcare bills and fighting endless wars and running up enormous debts and confiscating weapons and dictating which couples states could and couldn't marry and micromanaging every facet of American daily life. You're demanding Paul abandon the experiment. Stick a fork in it. It's done. Don't like what it's become? Move to any of the 200 other nations being suffocated by government--the ones that didn't even start with small government ideals. Don't consider that a sensible option (most likely because it isn't a sensible option)? Nuts on you. djpolldancer certainly doesn't care. Nonsensical options are still technically options, after all. if that was the point then, YOU ARE RIGHT, i DID miss it. however, i object to your premise. this was an experiment in constitutional representative government, and it is evolving. it started limited out of necessity. however, as it grew in power, it became less limited. i would also say that there are MANY nations that are less repressive than the US on a civil liberties basis, and a legal meddling one. there are three nations which i would regard as superior in terms of qualitative and quantitative liberties to the US (in most respects): Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. i would not really consider Switzerland. land locked. not for me. there are a lot of ways of measuring freedom: economic, political, social, press..... step one is to figure out what matters to you. what is your biggest priority? if it is economic freedom, use the Heritage list. if it is press freedom, use the French list. if it is political freedom, use the UK list. if it is civil rights, use the US list. if it is ALL OF THE ABOVE, use the list i just gave you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 15:09:01 GMT -5
for my purposes (retirement), i care the MOST about the following liberties: 1) civil 2) political 3) press 4) economic the reason economic freedom is last is because i really have it in the bag at this point. edit: i just found this VERY COOL meta-index that covers all of the above: www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtmlusing that, and inserting the above with a weight of 1.0, 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25, i get this: 1 Australia 85 100 67 55 88 92 2 New Zealand 82 100 45 30 95 100 3 Bahamas 80 100 85 35 73 71 4 Canada 80 100 42 50 87 97 5 Chile 80 100 82 45 72 69 6 Switzerland 80 94 66 35 88 78 surprised to see Canada in there. even more surprised to see Chile.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 19, 2013 18:56:31 GMT -5
... The USA was supposed to be the place to go to get away from government. The nation's founders railed against big government in their writings and demanded that citizens arm themselves to overthrow the entrenched powers when they inevitably exceeded their authority. .... Stick a fork in it. It's done. ... Whiskey Rebellion, (1794), in American history, uprising that afforded the new U.S. government its first opportunity to establish federal authority by military means within state boundaries, as officials moved into western Pennsylvania to quell an uprising of settlers rebelling against the liquor tax. Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the Treasury, had proposed the excise (enacted by Congress in 1791) to raise money for the national debt and to assert the power of the national government. Small farmers of the back country distilled (and consumed) whiskey, which was easier to transport and sell than the grain that was its source. It was an informal currency, a means of livelihood, and an enlivener of a harsh existence. The distillers resisted the tax by attacking federal revenue officers who attempted to collect it. Enforcement legislation touched off what appeared to be an organized rebellion, and in July of 1794 about 500 armed men attacked and burned the home of the regional tax inspector. The following month President George Washington issued a congressionally authorized proclamation ordering the rebels to return home and calling for militia from four neighbouring states. After fruitless negotiations, Washington ordered some 13,000 troops into the area, but opposition melted away and no battle ensued. Troops occupied the region and some of the rebels were tried, but the two convicted of treason were later pardoned by the president. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/641925/Whiskey-Rebellion
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 19:09:53 GMT -5
... The USA was supposed to be the place to go to get away from government. The nation's founders railed against big government in their writings and demanded that citizens arm themselves to overthrow the entrenched powers when they inevitably exceeded their authority. .... Stick a fork in it. It's done. ... Whiskey Rebellion, (1794), in American history, uprising that afforded the new U.S. government its first opportunity to establish federal authority by military means within state boundaries, as officials moved into western Pennsylvania to quell an uprising of settlers rebelling against the liquor tax. Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the Treasury, had proposed the excise (enacted by Congress in 1791) to raise money for the national debt and to assert the power of the national government. Small farmers of the back country distilled (and consumed) whiskey, which was easier to transport and sell than the grain that was its source. It was an informal currency, a means of livelihood, and an enlivener of a harsh existence. The distillers resisted the tax by attacking federal revenue officers who attempted to collect it. Enforcement legislation touched off what appeared to be an organized rebellion, and in July of 1794 about 500 armed men attacked and burned the home of the regional tax inspector. The following month President George Washington issued a congressionally authorized proclamation ordering the rebels to return home and calling for militia from four neighbouring states. After fruitless negotiations, Washington ordered some 13,000 troops into the area, but opposition melted away and no battle ensued. Troops occupied the region and some of the rebels were tried, but the two convicted of treason were later pardoned by the president. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/641925/Whiskey-Rebellion Obviously Pres. Washington felt that raising taxes to pay down the federal debt was within the government's mandate. And I doubt you'll find anyone here, including Paul, claiming the taxes were unconstitutional or that paying down the federal debt was putting them to poor use.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 19, 2013 19:22:23 GMT -5
Of course the President felt that health care reform (whoops) the tax was within the government's mandate. And I doubt you'd have found anyone in the Western US of that day who felt that the tax was reasonable (not particularly caring about that newfangled paper passed by the powers that were) or that it was okay for the federal government levy a tax that fell on them so heavily.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 19:33:16 GMT -5
Of course the President felt that health care reform (whoops) the tax was within the government's mandate. And I doubt you'd have found anyone in the Western US of that day who felt that the tax was reasonable (not particularly caring about that newfangled paper passed by the powers that were) or that it was okay for the federal government levy a tax that fell on them so heavily. That boils down to an issue of whether raising taxes to pay down a federal debt is constitutional versus whether raising taxes (or their equivalent) for a mandated healthcare plan is constitutional. Yes I know the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA mandatory buy-in "isn't a tax" in a 5-to-4 testament to the limitless fallibility of human judgment, but for those of us who aren't fooled into thinking a tax isn't a tax simply because it isn't called a "tax", I submit that constitutionality is precisely the difference between the liquor tax and the ACA.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 19, 2013 19:44:46 GMT -5
Yesterday's whiskey is today's wiretap.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 21:01:08 GMT -5
Virgil: interestingly enough, when i ran the survey of Freedom based on my criteria, the US did not come in the top 25. so, your impression of us slipping way down the ladder is absolutely correct. at least according to these surveys.
and it really is a shame.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 21:28:17 GMT -5
Of course the President felt that health care reform (whoops) the tax was within the government's mandate. And I doubt you'd have found anyone in the Western US of that day who felt that the tax was reasonable (not particularly caring about that newfangled paper passed by the powers that were) or that it was okay for the federal government levy a tax that fell on them so heavily. That boils down to an issue of whether raising taxes to pay down a federal debt is constitutional versus whether raising taxes (or their equivalent) for a mandated healthcare plan is constitutional. Yes I know the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA mandatory buy-in "isn't a tax" in a 5-to-4 testament to the limitless fallibility of human judgment, but for those of us who aren't fooled into thinking a tax isn't a tax simply because it isn't called a "tax", I submit that constitutionality is precisely the difference between the liquor tax and the ACA. no, they ruled it IS a tax, Virgil.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 19, 2013 21:54:26 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 23:39:06 GMT -5
That boils down to an issue of whether raising taxes to pay down a federal debt is constitutional versus whether raising taxes (or their equivalent) for a mandated healthcare plan is constitutional. Yes I know the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA mandatory buy-in "isn't a tax" in a 5-to-4 testament to the limitless fallibility of human judgment, but for those of us who aren't fooled into thinking a tax isn't a tax simply because it isn't called a "tax", I submit that constitutionality is precisely the difference between the liquor tax and the ACA. no, they ruled it IS a tax, Virgil. I didn't realize the deciding vote was in favour of recognizing it as a tax. I've updated my understanding of the controversy here. It turns out rather ironically that an "is a tax" ruling combined with some obscure tax law to justify passing the bill. As for the unconstitutionality argument, Mr. Vinson makes an excellent argument here on just how much of a stretch the courts made in passing the bill.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 23:48:07 GMT -5
no, they ruled it IS a tax, Virgil. I didn't realize the deciding vote was in favour of recognizing it as a tax. I've updated my understanding of the controversy here. It turns out rather ironically that an "is a tax" ruling combined with some obscure tax law to justify passing the bill. As for the unconstitutionality argument, Mr. Vinson makes an excellent argument here on just how much of a stretch the courts made in passing the bill. Virgil- i didn't like this ruling, ok (i thought it was very puzzling, esp from Roberts)- but the SCOTUS is there to decide constitutional matters. stretch or not, that is how it stands, now, until/if it is challenged again.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 20, 2013 6:39:29 GMT -5
it is actually a really dumb question- because, seriously, government's can't exist without the social contract. so what the question REALLY asks is "do governments exist", and the answer is, pretty obviously, yes. legitimacy is a matter for discussion. i would say that any government that has free and fair elections and open emigration is de-facto legitimate. Of course governments can and do exist without a social contract. People recognise this about dictatorships. It can be true no matter which model of government the powers that be impose. More to the point, if you are going to call the "social contract" the ability of government to rule over us, dictate how we live our lives, and confiscate our property without an open revolt- then hell- North Korea has a "social contract". I've already posed the question: does government really exist? The answer to the question is yes, but it's also no. It exists while we believe it exists. If people were to, en masse, change their minds, government could in fact be "ignored out of existence". If a small number- say 12 million people- simply ignore it, ignore its authority, pay no attention to its laws, and do whatever they want- government will be forced to pretend to grant them the right to do so- but in reality, government would be nullified. Just ask 12 million illegal immigrants.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 20, 2013 6:50:40 GMT -5
SCOTUS is a great example of the fact that government is untenable. It's bad enough that we pay attention to 535 some odd people who regard themselves as our rulers at worst, or at best our 'elected representatives', but when ONE (1) person makes a decision that binds 300 million people from one corner of the map to the other- that is utterly and completely ridiculous. Even if you regard government as legitimate, or even if you regard the premise as correct and you support our form of government under the Constitution, you cannot support what the SCOTUS has become. You cannot accept that five people- effectively ONE (1) many cases- a single justice's swing vote, is binding on hundreds of millions of people and is the final word on the Constitution.
I think we have to solve that issue- that there's one person wise enough to interpret the Constitution for all of us, and whatever they decide to do is the accurate, binding, and final word on all matters.
No.
I think what we do there is that We The People simply have to ignore bad decisions. We have to say, for example, if we are an employer- we don't appeal to the good graces of the ruling class to please delay, change, reform, or otherwise let us live rather than punish us under some thousands of pages decree- we say that my company will not comply with the law.
The best way, of course, to nullify an out-of-control, outright tyrannical government-- which is what we have now- is to simply de-fund it. This is why I might seem "obsessed" with taxation. Taxes are the money we pay the government to abuse us and take our money. If we were to be given back control- for example, if employers got up one day and said, we're not going to withhold taxes- we're going to leave that to our employees- then many, many issues would solve themselves. If manufacturers of firearms, and ammunition got up one day and said, government is no longer our customer. If millions of Americans got up one day and said that government is mind over matter- I don't mind, so it doesn't matter. We would see 'reforms' not over decades of arduous political organization at a cost of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, boots on the ground, advertising, and all the other nonsense- but if we just said, government is reformed.....NOW. And we reformed it not by argument, but by an act of our will-- what choice would government really have?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 20, 2013 6:52:23 GMT -5
Here's the real picture of the "social contract".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 8:28:59 GMT -5
Of course governments can and do exist without a social contract. People recognise this about dictatorships. It can be true no matter which model of government the powers that be impose. More to the point, if you are going to call the "social contract" the ability of government to rule over us, dictate how we live our lives, and confiscate our property without an open revolt- then hell- North Korea has a "social contract". I've already posed the question: does government really exist? The answer to the question is yes, but it's also no. It exists while we believe it exists. If people were to, en masse, change their minds, government could in fact be "ignored out of existence". If a small number- say 12 million people- simply ignore it, ignore its authority, pay no attention to its laws, and do whatever they want- government will be forced to pretend to grant them the right to do so- but in reality, government would be nullified. Just ask 12 million illegal immigrants. It is very odd to agree with you on stuff. Just so it isn't 100%, I think if you ever do really manage to opt out of your current social contract you are going to find your fortunes much decreased. I find it funny you don't like it when you benefit from it so much.
|
|