What? You think Democrats believe in the fairness doctrine so alternate viewpoints are presented? They want -their- viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the Green party (where they disagree), libertarian party, so on and so forth... that's the only reason they support the fairness doctrine.
My simple point is that there's a large group of people willing to let Obama say and do things they opposed Bush doing, simply because he's Obama. Nothing more.
What I see is someone saying that the best way to deal with conspiracy extremists is to provide them the facts in a manner in which they are willing to evaluate said facts without dismissing them out of hand because they assume the source is tainted.
I agree, but when people suggest that certain people shouldn't be allowed to say certain things because they're wrong, it's kind of frightening.
The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource
Bullshit. The Fairness Doctrine is a clear ploy meant to get Democrats more of a radio pulpit since that's the only place conservatives have a voice since they are stuck in the technological stone age. The fairness doctrine, of course, doesn't apply to libertarian views (of whom would oppose it anyway), socialist views, fascist views, communist views, so on and so forth. It is meant to forward the Democratic agenda alone.
Now, are you going to say that the radio waves should just echo the views of the country, and thus the minority viewpoints don't count? So why is the fairness doctrine necessary, again...?
So we need a final arbiter of the truth... and that truth is the government.
Yes, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that idea.
Face it: the very fact that there is no source of indisputable truths, no objective source of morality, and no guidebook on how to live life means that people are ultimately left to their own devices to determine who is right and wrong, what is good and evil, so on and so forth. You can't just point to someone and say "they get to tell us what the truth is." That's religion.
And yes, that means some people will be hopelessly wrong, and some will believe terrible things. Deal with it.
Perhaps it is necessary for convenience, but I do not see a case being made for moral justification, which is what I was asking.
Likewise, I do not see a justification for governments preventing people from breaking away. That is, why can't a commune of hippies simply choose to make their own law on their own land?
Having said that, you must bear in mind that your taxes are used to fund society; they are used to buy civilization. Your roads are paid off by taxes, your police force, your schools, your fire department, your legal system and even your public sanitation service is paid with your taxes. Being this slashdot, the internet was developed from a tax-funded government research institution.
These things are all well and good, but said taxes are also used to pay for meaningless war, government censorship and obscenity trials, prosecution of flag-burners, so on and so forth. While things like law enforcement and fire departments are necessary due to the function they serve, one is required to pay into the scheme of their "masters" and is not allowed to break away, likely with a group of other people, to run things their own way.
Your argument states the obvious and implies that things cannot work differently. But they can, perhaps with small groups of like-minded people, but governments forbid it. I do not for a second believe that there is any hope for broad social change, but my point is mostly that there is no justification for making someone buy into the system at birth--no matter how convenient it makes it.
If you are going to claim that people do not have the right to deny taxation from the government on moral grounds and that people have a duty to obey their government out of "the social contract" then you excuse every tyranny under the soon so long as you can prefix it with the word "democratic." Broke an obscenity law? Social contract!
Of course it's his money. The GP said that he was selling the company he made, so it's his money.
I was talking about the poster he was responding to, the one claiming taxes should be ridiculously high on the rich--it's not his money, so of course the rich should be taxed to high heaven! He reaps all the reward.
The start of this sentence sounds like he's OK for buying hamburger (instead of steak), and then you criticize him for not trying "to help poor African children." There is no moral obligation to help them and there's plenty reason to believe that most charity money that goes to Africa ends up supporting viscious dictatorships or worse.
You're absolutely correct and I agree with you. My point is that when people see people with vastly more property than others they feel entitled to some of it because they feel that they will benefit from it far more than the person that actually owns it.
There's a world of difference between justifiying getting paid well for years of intense effort and justifying theft.
I agree entirely. You misunderstood my entire post--I was talking about the person he was responding to the entire time and his "gimme" mentality. Him demanding 90% taxes on the wealthy is, and his reasoning, is not too far off from the excuse people use when stealing from a business ("they're rich as hell and I'll benefit from it more anyway!")
What's more is that you ask why the rich deserve all that money... well, here's a pretty good answer--people like you or I (and in cases that shouldn't happen, the government) give them that money, for services rendered. Your proposal, especially of a 90% tax, is basically enforcing a type of discount, a large one, on everything you purchase from the rich. You basically say, "Yes, I will purchase that product at that price from you" and then say "Oh, by the way, you have to give me a great portion of that back to an entity that makes war and sticks people in jail for inhaling the wrong type of chemicals, among other stuff, on my behalf" afterwards.
In an ideal case, the person "deserves" every dollar they have because [i]they earned it[/i]. It blows my mind that people think they don't deserve the property that they fairly earned.
If you don't want the rich living a luxurious lifestyle and taking cruises on yachts then you probably shouldn't be enabling them in the first place. Donate your money to charity instead of going to the theater. After all, people aren't really due the excess fruits of their labor, nothing beyond healthy survival and a few simple pleasures, right?
You still haven't answered: what justifies the government taking it all away? If you don't think someone "deserves" all the money they make, then don't fucking give it to them.
Well, it's not his money, is it? It's always easier to say someone richer than you has more than he needs. Of course, I'm sure he goes to the movies and buys hamburgers with excess cash like everyone else, instead of using it to help poor African children. But it's always easier to be morally righteous when you're the one that stands to benefit the most out of that sort of "transaction."
It's really no different than how some people try to justify shoplifting or such.
This stuff is absolutely something that needs regulation to control it.
Half the time people cry out for more regulation, there already is regulation in place. The problem is the very entity you want to enact regulations, is inept, certainly fallible, and usually only reacts after bad news like this gets out to the consumers--who by then (presumably) would already be scared of buying this stuff.
Since rules are already in place for this sort of thing, you can't cry out "regulate it!" because it already is regulated. The best, and really only short of a miracle, is informing consumers. And consumers, foolishly believing themselves protected by the government, do not inform themselves much and thus are put at risk. A large part of me thinks that these sorts of regulations are actually *bad* ideas because people assume that god (another word for "government") with his all-knowing wisdom will make sure everything is OK. But that's not the reality, and consumers always have to try to keep themselves informed. And skeptical. There's something wrong with a market, IMO, if people walk into a BestBuy and actually trusts one of the salespeople there.
Anyway, it's not really that government itself *needs* to oversee and regulate this stuff as *someone* has to. That's a very different claim, and private organizations could easily certify products as safe as an alternative. Not certified, don't buy. Wouldn't the world be so much better if consumers informed themselves about the products they buy (and at what costs to them, financially speaking) instead of just mindlessly consuming? We'd have actual competition in the medical sector (people do to the doctor and do not even agree to a price beforehand and just pay whatever is charged...!), BestBuy would go out of business overnight once people discovered the internet, and apple would sell less Ipods due to more people buying other personal media players, so on and so forth. People might even realize that there is an alternative to Windows!
In the end the onus is on you to keep yourself informed.
Because the local government has seen fit to grant a monopoly to a certain corporation and will back up threats against would-be competitors with force.
Yes, you are very correct, and this is where the problem lies.
I don't want ISPs to ever be allowed to block any content, cripple any protocols, or artificially slow down any kind of traffic beyond whatever is necessary to ensure reliable service for all customers alike
Yeah, that's the job for the government. As long as the censorship or restrictions has the label "democratic" attached to it, it's usually acceptable, right?
On that token, net neutrality would forbid speeding up or giving priority to certain packets, as well--and "beyond whatever is necessary" is convenient wording on your part because it is vague and completely sidesteps over the entire issue of what "whatever is necessary" even is, let alone how one begins defining that.
One of the worst things in this era is the belief that corporations are worse than governments. They're not exactly great, but Comcast can only cripple customers' connections if customers remain ignorant about the products or services they are purchasing. Government is among the few institutions in the world that can be relied upon to hold you hostage, perhaps for ransom, is you go out of your way to avoid doing business with them. You're gonna pay for whatever the government gives you, your own beliefs be damned--whether it's social security, healthcare, or international warfare shenanigans. Isn't a loss of autonomy beautiful?
If you don't want a business to offer a certain kind of service a certain way, perhaps you should just not purchase the product instead of demanding through threats that someone provide for you on your terms. I really have trouble seeing who is more selfish--the large corporations, or the customers that demand laws passed so they can take more from them. Of course, the corporations do the same thing, too, but legislation is effects everyone and usually lasts forever.
And before someone states that the ISPs are monopolies, you're right. They're monopolies either because consumers (who apparently are too stupid to make good purchasing decisions but smart enough to be able help make life-changing political decisions) let them become monopolies or because of sweetheart deals with the government (again, ultimately the fault of the voters anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
What? You think Democrats believe in the fairness doctrine so alternate viewpoints are presented? They want -their- viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the Green party (where they disagree), libertarian party, so on and so forth... that's the only reason they support the fairness doctrine.
My simple point is that there's a large group of people willing to let Obama say and do things they opposed Bush doing, simply because he's Obama. Nothing more.
Oh, I know, I'm just talking about cases when people do say that--and they do.
Yes, I do. Thanks for linking me to the wikipedia article on it, it's probably helpful for people that don't know what it's about.
I agree, but when people suggest that certain people shouldn't be allowed to say certain things because they're wrong, it's kind of frightening.
Browse digg and sometimes Huffpo and you'll find that that's not entirely true. Obama has a definite fan club...
The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource
Bullshit. The Fairness Doctrine is a clear ploy meant to get Democrats more of a radio pulpit since that's the only place conservatives have a voice since they are stuck in the technological stone age. The fairness doctrine, of course, doesn't apply to libertarian views (of whom would oppose it anyway), socialist views, fascist views, communist views, so on and so forth. It is meant to forward the Democratic agenda alone.
Now, are you going to say that the radio waves should just echo the views of the country, and thus the minority viewpoints don't count? So why is the fairness doctrine necessary, again...?
So we need a final arbiter of the truth... and that truth is the government.
Yes, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that idea.
Face it: the very fact that there is no source of indisputable truths, no objective source of morality, and no guidebook on how to live life means that people are ultimately left to their own devices to determine who is right and wrong, what is good and evil, so on and so forth. You can't just point to someone and say "they get to tell us what the truth is." That's religion.
And yes, that means some people will be hopelessly wrong, and some will believe terrible things. Deal with it.
I laughed out loud at this.
yeah, i get that problem all the
Yes, when I am confronted with an RCA TV, the first thing I think is, "a legitimate company produced this."
Perhaps it is necessary for convenience, but I do not see a case being made for moral justification, which is what I was asking.
Likewise, I do not see a justification for governments preventing people from breaking away. That is, why can't a commune of hippies simply choose to make their own law on their own land?
These things are all well and good, but said taxes are also used to pay for meaningless war, government censorship and obscenity trials, prosecution of flag-burners, so on and so forth. While things like law enforcement and fire departments are necessary due to the function they serve, one is required to pay into the scheme of their "masters" and is not allowed to break away, likely with a group of other people, to run things their own way.
Your argument states the obvious and implies that things cannot work differently. But they can, perhaps with small groups of like-minded people, but governments forbid it. I do not for a second believe that there is any hope for broad social change, but my point is mostly that there is no justification for making someone buy into the system at birth--no matter how convenient it makes it.
If you are going to claim that people do not have the right to deny taxation from the government on moral grounds and that people have a duty to obey their government out of "the social contract" then you excuse every tyranny under the soon so long as you can prefix it with the word "democratic." Broke an obscenity law? Social contract!
I was talking about the poster he was responding to, the one claiming taxes should be ridiculously high on the rich--it's not his money, so of course the rich should be taxed to high heaven! He reaps all the reward.
You're absolutely correct and I agree with you. My point is that when people see people with vastly more property than others they feel entitled to some of it because they feel that they will benefit from it far more than the person that actually owns it.
I agree entirely. You misunderstood my entire post--I was talking about the person he was responding to the entire time and his "gimme" mentality. Him demanding 90% taxes on the wealthy is, and his reasoning, is not too far off from the excuse people use when stealing from a business ("they're rich as hell and I'll benefit from it more anyway!")
What's more is that you ask why the rich deserve all that money... well, here's a pretty good answer--people like you or I (and in cases that shouldn't happen, the government) give them that money, for services rendered. Your proposal, especially of a 90% tax, is basically enforcing a type of discount, a large one, on everything you purchase from the rich. You basically say, "Yes, I will purchase that product at that price from you" and then say "Oh, by the way, you have to give me a great portion of that back to an entity that makes war and sticks people in jail for inhaling the wrong type of chemicals, among other stuff, on my behalf" afterwards.
In an ideal case, the person "deserves" every dollar they have because [i]they earned it[/i]. It blows my mind that people think they don't deserve the property that they fairly earned.
If you don't want the rich living a luxurious lifestyle and taking cruises on yachts then you probably shouldn't be enabling them in the first place. Donate your money to charity instead of going to the theater. After all, people aren't really due the excess fruits of their labor, nothing beyond healthy survival and a few simple pleasures, right?
You still haven't answered: what justifies the government taking it all away? If you don't think someone "deserves" all the money they make, then don't fucking give it to them.
Regulation tries to reduce risks to the customer and prevent corporations from making logical yet thoroughly morally abhorrent decisions.
Everyone always blames the corporation, but never the equally morally apathetic consumer that patronizes them.
Well, it's not his money, is it? It's always easier to say someone richer than you has more than he needs. Of course, I'm sure he goes to the movies and buys hamburgers with excess cash like everyone else, instead of using it to help poor African children. But it's always easier to be morally righteous when you're the one that stands to benefit the most out of that sort of "transaction."
It's really no different than how some people try to justify shoplifting or such.
Half the time people cry out for more regulation, there already is regulation in place. The problem is the very entity you want to enact regulations, is inept, certainly fallible, and usually only reacts after bad news like this gets out to the consumers--who by then (presumably) would already be scared of buying this stuff.
Since rules are already in place for this sort of thing, you can't cry out "regulate it!" because it already is regulated. The best, and really only short of a miracle, is informing consumers. And consumers, foolishly believing themselves protected by the government, do not inform themselves much and thus are put at risk. A large part of me thinks that these sorts of regulations are actually *bad* ideas because people assume that god (another word for "government") with his all-knowing wisdom will make sure everything is OK. But that's not the reality, and consumers always have to try to keep themselves informed. And skeptical. There's something wrong with a market, IMO, if people walk into a BestBuy and actually trusts one of the salespeople there.
Anyway, it's not really that government itself *needs* to oversee and regulate this stuff as *someone* has to. That's a very different claim, and private organizations could easily certify products as safe as an alternative. Not certified, don't buy. Wouldn't the world be so much better if consumers informed themselves about the products they buy (and at what costs to them, financially speaking) instead of just mindlessly consuming? We'd have actual competition in the medical sector (people do to the doctor and do not even agree to a price beforehand and just pay whatever is charged...!), BestBuy would go out of business overnight once people discovered the internet, and apple would sell less Ipods due to more people buying other personal media players, so on and so forth. People might even realize that there is an alternative to Windows!
In the end the onus is on you to keep yourself informed.
I can.
Yeah OK Ms. Dworkin.
Because the local government has seen fit to grant a monopoly to a certain corporation and will back up threats against would-be competitors with force.
Yes, you are very correct, and this is where the problem lies.
Yeah, that's the job for the government. As long as the censorship or restrictions has the label "democratic" attached to it, it's usually acceptable, right?
On that token, net neutrality would forbid speeding up or giving priority to certain packets, as well--and "beyond whatever is necessary" is convenient wording on your part because it is vague and completely sidesteps over the entire issue of what "whatever is necessary" even is, let alone how one begins defining that.
One of the worst things in this era is the belief that corporations are worse than governments. They're not exactly great, but Comcast can only cripple customers' connections if customers remain ignorant about the products or services they are purchasing. Government is among the few institutions in the world that can be relied upon to hold you hostage, perhaps for ransom, is you go out of your way to avoid doing business with them. You're gonna pay for whatever the government gives you, your own beliefs be damned--whether it's social security, healthcare, or international warfare shenanigans. Isn't a loss of autonomy beautiful?
If you don't want a business to offer a certain kind of service a certain way, perhaps you should just not purchase the product instead of demanding through threats that someone provide for you on your terms. I really have trouble seeing who is more selfish--the large corporations, or the customers that demand laws passed so they can take more from them. Of course, the corporations do the same thing, too, but legislation is effects everyone and usually lasts forever.
And before someone states that the ISPs are monopolies, you're right. They're monopolies either because consumers (who apparently are too stupid to make good purchasing decisions but smart enough to be able help make life-changing political decisions) let them become monopolies or because of sweetheart deals with the government (again, ultimately the fault of the voters anyway).
You have a duty to your fellow man to continue paying taxes.
You'd think a reverse vampire would put blood into people, though.
No, he's right, I said fun AND useful, not fun AND/OR useful. Big difference.