Could you please cite where he has said he does not want to pay any taxes?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
What could they pay him with, currency backed by the full faith and credit of the government? That sort of trust doesn’t happen by accident. That sort of economic stability rests on the stability of the government to continue operating. I think some sort of barter system would be the way to go.
Which would be very useful, of course, since his access to food would be so limited. The government sets standards for pesticide use, inspects meat and fish processors, etc. He’d be pretty much limited to what he could grow himself, or trade and hope that whatever he gets isn’t swimming in e. coli.
By encouraging more people to use family planning.
We don’t need to force anything. Conservatives just need to stop discouraging it.
Americans are a seprate species now?
It’s increasingly a shithole for people who don’t have insurance.
Because if he was for any taxes at all that would make him a socialist.
“Taxation is violence.” Admittedly he did not specify that he wanted NO violence committed against him, but it seemed a reasonable conclusion, in view of his stridency in maintaining this position, that he would want no violence done against him. YMMV, of course.
Given that he has posted stuff like this
it seems pretty clear that you are misrepresenting his position.
Shodan’s Rule of Thumb - if your opponent has to misrepresent your position, it means it is unassailable.
Regards,
Shodan
Most of the fiscal conservatives I know and on this board don’t do any such thing as discourage family planning (unless you are strictly speaking about abortions).
If you are strictly speaking about abortions, how is that going to make any real difference because last I checked (psst, over here) abortions were legal.
Look, Rand Rover, here’s what the “fiscal conservatives hate the poor” thing comes down to, and all of it should be plain and obvious even to Libertarians:
-
Different social classes do exist, in a vertical-hierarchical order, even in America where formal hereditary prescription (among white people, at least) has never existed. In some respects the different classes have identical interests, and in other respects conflicting interests. That’s plain common sense and you don’t need to be any kind of Marxist to see it. That does not automatically mean the lower classes are any better or any more deserving than the upper. It does automatically mean that siding with the lower classes’ interests in any case of conflict should be the default position (only the default position, always adjustable according to circumstance) of any person of truly good will – just because the lower classes are the only ones who really need extra support to get even a chance at a chance of a fair shake. “The poorest he that is in England has a life to live as much as the greatest he.” – Slogan of the Levellers.
-
In many ways – not in nearly as many ways as some populist or socialist zealots would assume, but still in very many very real ways – the upper classes really are exploiters who accumulate their wealth by taking unfair advantage of the less fortunate. Only fair they should be forced to give some of it back to society. (Of course it’s true that, nowadays, upper-class people are also “workers” in the sense that they work, even if they are independently wealthy and don’t have to – it’s a cultural thing; and it’s also true that they are also, in some respects, creators of wealth and providers of employment. Things are seldom simple, and this is clearly not one that is.)
-
Above a certain level, wealth means not only purchasing power but political power; and it runs clean against the very idea of democracy to allow the rich to wield political influence out of proportion to their numbers – which they do, especially nowadays. Being raised in the profit-centered ways of thinking of the business world (which cannot comprehend or acknowledge even the concept of “enough”), most of them (not all, but most) will only use that power to take ever unfairer advantage of everybody else and to build up their political power ever more and more in an endless and socially destructive cycle – which they do, especially nowadays.
-
Even if a democratic and egalitarian society, which this is supposed to be, does not strictly require equality of outcome, it does at the very least require equality of opportunity. Everybody should be born with roughly equal chances to make it in life. At present, we’re not, to put it mildly, and only a fool or a liar would say otherwise. Measure our present social order against anything you might come up with to meet the test of the veil of ignorance.
So, Rand Rover, has your question been answered yet?
Declaring taxation is violence is a pretty good clue. Do you think he is saying some violence is good? Yes be violent to me ,but not too violent.
Unfortunately, it is only plain and obvious to a Marxist, or someone who believes they can debate by making assertions and then saying “anyone who disagrees is a fool and a liar”.
That kind of “debate” is unfortunate, but it does demonstrate much of the answer to the question of the OP - saying that fiscal conservatives hate the poor is a mere insult aimed at folks who refuse to reflexively toe the liberal line, and has no basis other than the half-conscious awareness that vehemence is no substitute for logic.
You’ve made this assertion in the past, in almost the same words. I don’t recall that you were ever able to back it up, and, since simply announcing an opinion and proactively insulting anyone who fails to knuckle his forelock is not real debate. I will repost a question I have asked before.
A gentleman of my very close acquaintance is a millionaire. He got that way by founding and running a successful small business. He is now retired, but he sold the business, which continues to operate. It employs twenty or so people, at a wide range of skill sets ranging from doctoral level to high school graduates only.
Could you please describe the “very many, very real ways” in which he has gained his wealth by exploiting others, and the unfair advantage he employed against them?
I should mention up front that he did not inherit a penny from his parents, received no government grants for his education, employed no one for minimum wage, paid all of his taxes in full and on time and never missed a payroll.
So, please describe the cruel way in which he ground down the poor workers by creating a business that supported a dozen or more families.
I know you will be able to do so, since someone who simply asserts without proof is either a fool or a liar. 
Regards,
Shodan
PS - gonzo, you might want somebody to actually read you the thread.
Why does the “minimum wage” exist if it isn’t enough money to live on? If it isn’t high enough, raise it.
Conservatives are dead set against this solution, which they claim will cause higher unemployment and gasp lower profits.
Because hardly anyone has to live on minimum wage - something like 3% of the workforce earns minimum wage, and most of those are students working for beer money or the like.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see why, other than the fact that you are imposing a strict monetary value to some form of labor. If the market doesn’t deem that labor worth doing for that amount then they are right. Those types of laborers will be unemployed, or under the table.
Ha, I always just stole the beer. Cut out the middle man.
Um…not exactly. FISCAL conservatives are against it because it causes distortions in the market. These distortions will probably have the (unintended) consequence of causing higher unemployment, but I think fiscal conservatives main concern is the distortion itself.
As for lowering profits, first off I doubt it does…after all, the business is simply going to pass on the happiness to the customers, not suck it up themselves (providing two distortions for the price of one good deed…costs of products are distorted and the labor market is distorted, all for good intentions). In addition to raising prices, companies will also cut staff and/or find ways to automate…which is pretty much what they have done.
If you keep a minimum wage low enough then the distortion effects are minimal (as our is…it’s enough to distort things, but not high enough to be a major issue). It’s once people start talking about setting up a minimum LIVING wage that things start to really get ugly…IMHO, as someone who has been told repeatedly in this thread that I ‘hate poor people’. The irony of that is pretty much off the charts.
-XT
I’m not speaking strictly about abortions, but including it under “family planning”. The trouble is, so do social conservatives, so the other side of family planning gets short shrift.
Either way, there’s more than the legality, there’s the cultural and political influence. Fiscal conservatives are on their bully pulpit, responding to poverty by saying, “work harder in school” and to the health care crisis by saying, “exercise and eat right”. But they’re not saying, “if you have sex, use birth control; if you get pregnant, get an abortion”. This despite the fact that untoward childbearing is obviously a major underlying factor in our fiscal dilemma.
Social conservatives are able to maintain a degree of stigma toward both kinds of FP. So are fiscal conservatives going to stop giving them a free pass, or are all their daggers reserved for “liberals”?
Yeah, work harder in school despite the school being chronicly underfunded, and having to compete against kids who come from hyperacheiver Stepford suburbs. Yeah, eat right when healthy food is more expensive then junk food. Yeah, exercise when there’s really no where safe to exercise.