I see nothing remotely sinister about it. What definition of sinister are you using? "Sinister" usually means to threaten something evil. Nothing evil was being threatened by the destruction of the CDs, perhaps just "we won't buy your music anymore," which is hardly evil.
It's also a right to go around insulting black people, but if it were to be carried out widely it would be a very bad thing.
I don't see insulting black people as a bad thing, I see having the kind of beliefs that would cause you to want to insult black people as a bad thing. And if you have those beliefs, probably better that you express them so we know, no?
it's also a provocative symptom of the destruction of political discourse in this country.
No moreso than the comments that precipitated the destruction of the CDs.
So this behavior is fine, because it's simply responding to (and thereby perpetuating) disastrous behavior which preceded it.
Well, who am I supposed to feel sorry for? If someone calls you an asshole for no reason, and you respond in kind, you are the victim here, not the original jerk. So yeah, it's better if you don't respond in kind, but it's not like you caused any harm to anyone who didn't fully deserve it.
Perhaps, but the left -- in my experience -- is far more guilty of this lack of respect than the right is.
I'm sure the "left" have the same sentiments as yourself. It's often a matter of perspective.
Perhaps. I do live in a blue state, and a Republican is currently President, and we are at a time of "war." But the sheer hatred against Bush never existed against Clinton. It's not even close.
And while I've always disliked Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann makes him look like a dictionary example of sobriety.
Regardless, the point isn't who is worse: the point is really that the people who say it's the "right" trying to shut up the "left" are full of crap.
Nonsense yourself. every person with power can, and does, have a responsibility to choose when to use that power. That applies to secrets, handguns, and and war crimes. To ignore that power and tell people 'just follow your orders' is to ignore centuries of law, especially war crimes law of the last century.
Read it again. You said, "In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy." But that implies one of three things: either there IS no secrecy to hide behind, or everyone in power to abuse that secrecy is a person who never would do so, or we could devise a system that watches the secrets to perfectly make sure they are not being abused.
None of those can happen in any functioning human society. Secrecy is essential, people are imperfect, and the systems they design are imperfect.
So again: nonsense.
I am not saying people should not be held responsible for crimes. I am saying abuse of government secrecy is inevitable in any functioning society, and while we should prosecute it, we should not pretend we can come up with a system where it won't happen.
After pissing your feeble mark over every branch in this thread, you admit that it is plausible but not likely.
"Admit" it is plausible? It's undeniable. Of course it can happen, in any system where individuals have the ability to deny an application. At every moment in U.S. history where we have had Green Cards, it's been plausible.
However, no reason was given to think it is MORE likely now than ever before. I mean, apart from your paranoia.
I would say you've lost this argument
Yes, you would. However, as with everything else you've claimed, you can't back it up. All you can do is fearmonger with suggestion and innuendo.
How do the high income levels pay higher tax rates?
By filling out their tax forms and sending in their money. Here's a chart. The top quintile pays a MUCH higher tax rate than the rest.
I'll agree the total dollar figure is higher but the percentage is much much smaller
No, it's really not.
The fact is a flat tax is quite unfair to the middle class as it is harder for someone making 80k a year to pay 30% in taxes than it is for someone making several million a year.
You misunderstand. All serious flat tax proposals drop the marginal rates to under 20 percent for everyone, but with fewer deductions, so there is a much smaller difference between the marginal and effective rates.
the rich don't pay as much percentage wise in taxes even though dollar wise they do.
They pay significantly more in both measurements.
You also don't state why police and fire are bad examples of socialism.
Yes, I did. In detail.
They are imperfect applications of socialism as they are publically funded using the threat of force through tax dollars.
It is not possible for everyone to enforce the defense of their rights on their own. It requires the government's authority, else we have chaos and anarachy, which are even MORE destructive to our rights. So in order to protect individual rights, we give up a small amount of liberty, and cede a significant portion of our power to protect our rights to the government.
Because the focus is on government protecting our rights it is distinct from socialist acts that have no such aim, such as Social Security.
They are most certainly socialism to the truest definitions.
Of course there's a difference, but it doesn't mean it's right.
I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is a Right, and that it is good that it is a Right, and further, that expression of this Right implies nothing more sinister, anymore than expression of criticism of Bush implies anything more sinister.
Healthy political discourse requires respect for your opponents.
Perhaps, but the left -- in my experience -- is far more guilty of this lack of respect than the right is. (Not to exonerate anyone on the right, of course.)
That said, I still don't have a problem with burning Dixie Chicks CDs, as long as the owners of those CDs gave their consent, of course. It seems a nice outlet to express your displeasure. I don't see anything especially problematic about it, in light of what the Dixie Chicks did.
The whole country is being divided into "us" and "them", with "them" considered to be idiots, shysters, or traitors.
Yes, which is why I don't have a big problem with the response of the CD-burners: they were responding to just that sort of divisive and hateful statements by the Dixie Chicks. Most of these fans of the Dixie Chicks knew that the Chicks were liberal already. They didn't care, they liked the music. Until they decided to be hateful toward Bush (and in the way they said it, by extension, supporters of Bush).
Granted, it would be nice if they could have turned the other cheek. But human nature being as it is...
it's also a provocative symptom of the destruction of political discourse in this country.
No moreso than the comments that precipitated the destruction of the CDs.
I thought that up above you said there are legal protections for whistleblowers.
Yes. Those statements are consistent. Depending on how the protections are written and applied for the circumstances, usually such protections are not written so as to dimiss the criminal complaints entirely, but to mitigate punishment or exclude conviction once it does go to trial, upon discretion of the judge or jury.
There's a whole bunch of laws and they are complicated. If he had said this to Congress, he'd be fully protected. Saying it to the media, not so much.
So yes, it is essentially correct to say that he committed a felony. Whether he would be prosecuted or convicted for it depends on many factors, including potential whistleblower protections.
And besides, this warrantless wiretapping system itself has never been found to be illegal.
The part of me that doesn't feel like it's been beaten and flogged to a bloody pulp and actually thinks this country can still stand up pretty straight says that's only because it hasn't seen a fair trial.
You're wrong. This is very simple: for centuries now, this country has a precedent that international communications are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Further, there's (admittedly much weaker) precedent that the President cannot be limited by Congress in such matters (as expressed by Clinton's J.D., and by the head of the FISA Court of Review).
Now, I agree that it is most likely illegal. But I also recognize that there's a significant history of precedent here, so to assume it would be overturned by a "fair trial" is just silly.
I also believe Social Security is quite obviously unconstitutional, but I have no illusions that any court would find it so.
Of course, that's all assuming what we think we know about the program, which may not even be accurate.
Let me connect the dots so your perl-addled brain might understand why people are modding you down
Why am I not shocked that you think up is down?
The mood of post-9/11 America was paranoid
Yes, as exemplified by the crazy statements of the Dixie Chicks and yourself.
The government reflected that mood, and even acted to fan the flames for its own purposes.
Howso?
Historical precedence and human nature are more than adequate reasons to be fearful of it in this state.
Yes, we have already established you are paranoid.
In that political climate, it is very plausible that an immigrations official might abuse his authority to deny citizenship based on the applicant's perceived loyalty.
That is ALWAYS plausible, and NEVER likely, no matter the "political climate." And even less likely is that they would bother to even look at what the guy's written. And what is most likely is that if an official did do this, he'd be in huge trouble for it.
Had it been his employer that he had blown the whistle on
It was.
But since his employer is the government, his friends and family are being asked about his political affiliations.
Wow, they are investigating a felony. How dare they!!!!
I'm sure you know what chilling effects represent: the possibility of suppressing free speech without actually outlawing it.
And yet, no one has provided an example of this actually happening.
If you can go to jail for blowing the whistle on the government's lawbreaking
Of course you can. How could it possibly be any other way? The only other option is that there are no government secrets of any kind, which is completely unpracticable.
That much should be obvious to anyone.
In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy
Nonsense. In ANY functioning society, it is NECESSARILY the case that injustice can hide behind secrecy. No one has ever proposed a workable alternative. If you have secrecy, then it can be used to hide injustice. If you have no secrecy, you do not have a functioning society.
and those who expose it should not have to risk their life or freedom to do so
Of course they should. Otherwise, you're saying that every individual person in government has the right to determine what should and should not be a secret. And that's nonsense.
I think those that benefit from society should pay back in order to maintain society.
I think taking from one person by force, against his will -- just because you can -- in order to give it to others, is a criminal act.
I don't view my tax money as wasted.
Your opinion is not at issue here. Your view that others should be forced to comply with your opinion, taking away their rights, is at issue.
You start out by saying that its wrong to take individual liberty for the greater good, followed up by saying that its OK if its for protecting individual rights, and end with saying that, its ok if its for the common good (its a danger to everyone).
False.
Life, liberty, property. These are all closely related. Your life implies your liberty (the right to do what you wish with your life). Your property is the product of your life and your liberty (what you create for yourself). An assault on property IS an assault on life and liberty.
So no, I did not invoke "the common good" when I talked about fire protection. I am still talking about individual rights. Yes, everyone could have their own fire department contract etc., but this threatens my rights too, even if I have the best protection possible, because my neighbor might not have protection, which threatens me.
Anyone can get cancer, so its a danger to everyone.
Which is why I favor laws preventing others from forcing carcinogens on you, and why I favor the existence of the CDC in order to protect us from potential epidemics of communicable diseases. But I do not favor government paying to cure YOUR cancer (unless, of course, government caused it in the first place).
Can you see the difference? In the former, someone is causing harm to you to take away your rights; in the second, something is causing a mass direct threat to our individual rights.
But in the latter, no such thing is happening. No one is taking away your rights. There was no mass threat to your rights. If someone harmed you, you can sue them to pay for your medical care. Otherwise, it's on you.
I guess universal health care and government funded cancer research would be OK, by your own logic.
Only if you don't understand the logic.:-)
I notice you didn't address the interstate highway system.
I'm busy today, I can't address everything, so I will leave that one alone for now. It's a complicated issue: there's a reason why "post roads" were explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
The only difference between you and I is that we disagree on the degree that is appropriate.
Nope. What I am talking about is not a matter of degree at all.
Hey, you want to argue a flat tax? I'm all for that. I think that's the fairest way, assuming that we make sure not to dick over people under the poverty line. I've also seen the "fair tax," which is based on sales. My only problem with that is that it could be regressive if done improperly.
I'd prefer no income tax. All income tax is bad as a means of raising revenue, unless your actual goal is to control people. But a flat tax would be better than what we've got.
When Obama talks about "fairness" he doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount, or percentage, of their income. He means that the rich should pay a greater percentage.
Maybe so, but to a great deal of people, a progressive tax system is fair.
Unfortunately.
its hard to argue that its easier for a rich man to pay 30 percent of his income in taxes than it is for a middle class man to pay 20 percent of his income in taxes.
Sure, but why bother trying? How "easy" it is doesn't matter. It's easy to do lots of things that take away
To who? The executive branch believed the wiretaps were legal. Who (besides the press) watches the Watchmen?
So you missed the part where a U.S. Attorney convicted the Vice President's chief of staff? And where the Congress has oversight authority over the President's activities?
There's something fundamentally wrong with you if someone opines the threat of death is chilling and your reply is "Howso?"
Bollocks.
The topic here is a chilling effect toward our freedom. Yes, you can get the death penalty for doing bad things. How is this chilling toward our freedom?
Maybe you're just against the death penalty, which would explain your self-righteous attitude. But that's beside the point here. The point is that the person I was responding to was engaging repeatedly in the question-begging fallacy, assuming Tamm did nothing wrong and that anything done to him in return was therefore "chilling." But it has not been established that Tamm did nothing wrong, and in fact, it is quite apparent that he committed a serious crime.
Tamm may have justification that mitigates punishment for that crime, and that will play a role -- perhaps completely exonerating him in the end -- but pursuing the investigation and possibly filing charges for such a clear felony case is not "chilling."
The next time some idiot says "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," (re: privacy), we have a clear counter-example to point to.
Where? What example?
I agree such examples exist, but there is no example presented here.
Anyone who isn't choking on his own whargarbl understands that violence enacted vicariously through symbolism is associated with the persecution of real people.
Where "is associated" means nothing significant to this discussion. In a similar way, public statements against the legal governing authority are associated with violent overthrows of that government. So everyone who speaks out against Bush should be seen, according to YOUR logic, as favoring an illegal and violent coup against Bush.
Well, the point is that people were being organized to stomp on Dixie Chicks albums because they disagreed with Bush.
Good for them. Free expression is a wonderful thing.
The point of democracy and free speech is that, if you disagree with someone, you should be free to do so openly -- with an intention of opening discussion on the matter.
Not at all. The right of Free Speech has nothing to do with intent, unless that intent is criminal.
The point of the Dixie-Chicks effigy burning was to suppress the dissension
Even if it was, as long as it didn't take the form of illegal initimidation or some other form of force, it is a protected right.
(and to discourage anybody else from disagreeing with bush)
Maybe. So what? How is that a bad thing? Isn't that what Keith Olbermann does every night, but from the left, by abusing anyone who says something he disagrees with?
and not to engage in a sane discussion of why Bush was right or the Dixie Chicks were wrong.
Again, the First Amendment has nothing to do with that. See, what you don't get is that in order for this to make sense, the government itself would need to be the arbiter of what is a "sane discussion." And that itself would have a serious chilling effect on speech. So no, intentions are beside the point entirely.
Last year, a friend of mine spent some time down in the US (I'm in Canada) on a course, and she found herself nervous about suggesting to someone that not everybody liked Bush. The scary thing was, that after she made that comment, a number of other people in the course came to her in private and noted that they too were afraid to simply suggest that Bush was unpopular.
Where I live in the U.S., it's completely opposite: you can become a social outcast for suggesting you LIKE Bush. So I guess this is proof that the left is trying to suppress free speech?
That was, I suggest, both the intent and the effect of vilifying the Dixie Chicks over what was simply a side remark about personal beliefs. That intent, and effect are both detrimental to a democratic society... anathema, even.
Not remotely. Worse, YOUR attempt to demonize and villify people for expressing themselves is doing precisely what you are attacking.
Yes, the idea of taking away individual liberty by force for the "public good" (as defined by the people using the force). Sounds pretty damned scary to me.
Our interstate highway system, fire departments, and police departments are examples of socialism properly applied.
Police department absolutely is not. You're not understanding the concept. It is acceptable for government to take a small piece of your liberty in order to protect your individual rights, because that is the only way society can work.
We cannot have everyone enforcing their own laws, so we have a social compact that we let the government enforce the laws. This is the best way to ensure that our rights are protected, without the rights of others being abused in the process. So no, it is not socialism to have legislators, a court system, or law enforcement. Neither the military.
Similarly, as any fire the Fire Department is needed for is a danger to everyone, a Fire Department is not socialism.
Some republican fanboys try to portray it as the other way around: that Joe asked a question and the Obama campaign went crazy over it. Not true.
As far as you know. Again, while I agree there's no evidence of this, if it were the other way around people on the left would say "of course McCain's campaign was behind it."
I honestly don't remember any of that from the Obama campaign, and I'm not sure how I missed that.
Obama invoked Joe's name quite a bit in that one debate, and in speeches around the same time.
As a percentage of income, the tax burden is heaviest on the middle class. I'd like to see a little more fairness in the system, and I don't feel that asking for that is socialism.
The way to do that is not jacking up marginal tax rates, but going to a flat tax. The problem is, you're only looking at the aggregate data: many people in the top income levels DO pay higher effective tax rates. Think of all the rich people who pay virtually no tax: that means many other "rich" people make up for it, because by far more tax revenue comes from the top quintile.
When Obama talks about "fairness" he doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount, or percentage, of their income. He means that the rich should pay a greater percentage.
What evils the government can get away with is in every way dependent on the public's acquiescence. A public that enjoys the spectacle of stomping on the disloyal is one that has no problem with the government abusing its authority.
Most people -- obviously not including you here -- see a significant difference between individuals expressing themselves by destroying their own property -- causing harm to the liberty of no one -- and the government abusing its authority to take away the rights of its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
But I think it is sinister.
I see nothing remotely sinister about it. What definition of sinister are you using? "Sinister" usually means to threaten something evil. Nothing evil was being threatened by the destruction of the CDs, perhaps just "we won't buy your music anymore," which is hardly evil.
It's also a right to go around insulting black people, but if it were to be carried out widely it would be a very bad thing.
I don't see insulting black people as a bad thing, I see having the kind of beliefs that would cause you to want to insult black people as a bad thing. And if you have those beliefs, probably better that you express them so we know, no?
it's also a provocative symptom of the destruction of political discourse in this country.
No moreso than the comments that precipitated the destruction of the CDs.
So this behavior is fine, because it's simply responding to (and thereby perpetuating) disastrous behavior which preceded it.
Well, who am I supposed to feel sorry for? If someone calls you an asshole for no reason, and you respond in kind, you are the victim here, not the original jerk. So yeah, it's better if you don't respond in kind, but it's not like you caused any harm to anyone who didn't fully deserve it.
Perhaps, but the left -- in my experience -- is far more guilty of this lack of respect than the right is.
I'm sure the "left" have the same sentiments as yourself. It's often a matter of perspective.
Perhaps. I do live in a blue state, and a Republican is currently President, and we are at a time of "war." But the sheer hatred against Bush never existed against Clinton. It's not even close.
And while I've always disliked Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann makes him look like a dictionary example of sobriety.
Regardless, the point isn't who is worse: the point is really that the people who say it's the "right" trying to shut up the "left" are full of crap.
Nonsense yourself. every person with power can, and does, have a responsibility to choose when to use that power. That applies to secrets, handguns, and and war crimes. To ignore that power and tell people 'just follow your orders' is to ignore centuries of law, especially war crimes law of the last century.
Read it again. You said, "In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy." But that implies one of three things: either there IS no secrecy to hide behind, or everyone in power to abuse that secrecy is a person who never would do so, or we could devise a system that watches the secrets to perfectly make sure they are not being abused.
None of those can happen in any functioning human society. Secrecy is essential, people are imperfect, and the systems they design are imperfect.
So again: nonsense.
I am not saying people should not be held responsible for crimes. I am saying abuse of government secrecy is inevitable in any functioning society, and while we should prosecute it, we should not pretend we can come up with a system where it won't happen.
After pissing your feeble mark over every branch in this thread, you admit that it is plausible but not likely.
"Admit" it is plausible? It's undeniable. Of course it can happen, in any system where individuals have the ability to deny an application. At every moment in U.S. history where we have had Green Cards, it's been plausible.
However, no reason was given to think it is MORE likely now than ever before. I mean, apart from your paranoia.
I would say you've lost this argument
Yes, you would. However, as with everything else you've claimed, you can't back it up. All you can do is fearmonger with suggestion and innuendo.
Except that's not true: they were not immune from prosecution in EITHER country.
Oh, I should have more hubris and more ignorance? Otherwise your claim makes no sense.
The fact that it's an old definition doesn't make it a proper definition.
Correct. The fact that it is a widely used definition, however, DOES make it proper.
When most Republicans and other people on the right use the word "socialism," this is usually what they mean.
How do the high income levels pay higher tax rates?
By filling out their tax forms and sending in their money. Here's a chart. The top quintile pays a MUCH higher tax rate than the rest.
I'll agree the total dollar figure is higher but the percentage is much much smaller
No, it's really not.
The fact is a flat tax is quite unfair to the middle class as it is harder for someone making 80k a year to pay 30% in taxes than it is for someone making several million a year.
You misunderstand. All serious flat tax proposals drop the marginal rates to under 20 percent for everyone, but with fewer deductions, so there is a much smaller difference between the marginal and effective rates.
the rich don't pay as much percentage wise in taxes even though dollar wise they do.
They pay significantly more in both measurements.
You also don't state why police and fire are bad examples of socialism.
Yes, I did. In detail.
They are imperfect applications of socialism as they are publically funded using the threat of force through tax dollars.
It is not possible for everyone to enforce the defense of their rights on their own. It requires the government's authority, else we have chaos and anarachy, which are even MORE destructive to our rights. So in order to protect individual rights, we give up a small amount of liberty, and cede a significant portion of our power to protect our rights to the government.
Because the focus is on government protecting our rights it is distinct from socialist acts that have no such aim, such as Social Security.
They are most certainly socialism to the truest definitions.
Nope.
Of course there's a difference, but it doesn't mean it's right.
I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is a Right, and that it is good that it is a Right, and further, that expression of this Right implies nothing more sinister, anymore than expression of criticism of Bush implies anything more sinister.
Healthy political discourse requires respect for your opponents.
Perhaps, but the left -- in my experience -- is far more guilty of this lack of respect than the right is. (Not to exonerate anyone on the right, of course.)
That said, I still don't have a problem with burning Dixie Chicks CDs, as long as the owners of those CDs gave their consent, of course. It seems a nice outlet to express your displeasure. I don't see anything especially problematic about it, in light of what the Dixie Chicks did.
The whole country is being divided into "us" and "them", with "them" considered to be idiots, shysters, or traitors.
Yes, which is why I don't have a big problem with the response of the CD-burners: they were responding to just that sort of divisive and hateful statements by the Dixie Chicks. Most of these fans of the Dixie Chicks knew that the Chicks were liberal already. They didn't care, they liked the music. Until they decided to be hateful toward Bush (and in the way they said it, by extension, supporters of Bush).
Granted, it would be nice if they could have turned the other cheek. But human nature being as it is ...
it's also a provocative symptom of the destruction of political discourse in this country.
No moreso than the comments that precipitated the destruction of the CDs.
But the point is that he committed a felony
I thought that up above you said there are legal protections for whistleblowers.
Yes. Those statements are consistent. Depending on how the protections are written and applied for the circumstances, usually such protections are not written so as to dimiss the criminal complaints entirely, but to mitigate punishment or exclude conviction once it does go to trial, upon discretion of the judge or jury.
There's a whole bunch of laws and they are complicated. If he had said this to Congress, he'd be fully protected. Saying it to the media, not so much.
So yes, it is essentially correct to say that he committed a felony. Whether he would be prosecuted or convicted for it depends on many factors, including potential whistleblower protections.
And besides, this warrantless wiretapping system itself has never been found to be illegal.
The part of me that doesn't feel like it's been beaten and flogged to a bloody pulp and actually thinks this country can still stand up pretty straight says that's only because it hasn't seen a fair trial.
You're wrong. This is very simple: for centuries now, this country has a precedent that international communications are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Further, there's (admittedly much weaker) precedent that the President cannot be limited by Congress in such matters (as expressed by Clinton's J.D., and by the head of the FISA Court of Review).
Now, I agree that it is most likely illegal. But I also recognize that there's a significant history of precedent here, so to assume it would be overturned by a "fair trial" is just silly.
I also believe Social Security is quite obviously unconstitutional, but I have no illusions that any court would find it so.
Of course, that's all assuming what we think we know about the program, which may not even be accurate.
Yes. Your point? :-)
Bastiat would not disagree that there's degrees, and better/worse. McCain > Bush > Obama on the Socialist Scale.
None of what you said had anything to do with what I said. Try again!
The flat tax rate idea is only equitable if there is a flat salary rate as well.
Forced equality is unfair.
If someone is making an exponentially larger income, why shouldn't they pay an exponentially higher tax?
Because it's unfair.
Let me connect the dots so your perl-addled brain might understand why people are modding you down
Why am I not shocked that you think up is down?
The mood of post-9/11 America was paranoid
Yes, as exemplified by the crazy statements of the Dixie Chicks and yourself.
The government reflected that mood, and even acted to fan the flames for its own purposes.
Howso?
Historical precedence and human nature are more than adequate reasons to be fearful of it in this state.
Yes, we have already established you are paranoid.
In that political climate, it is very plausible that an immigrations official might abuse his authority to deny citizenship based on the applicant's perceived loyalty.
That is ALWAYS plausible, and NEVER likely, no matter the "political climate." And even less likely is that they would bother to even look at what the guy's written. And what is most likely is that if an official did do this, he'd be in huge trouble for it.
Had it been his employer that he had blown the whistle on
It was.
But since his employer is the government, his friends and family are being asked about his political affiliations.
Wow, they are investigating a felony. How dare they!!!!
I'm sure you know what chilling effects represent: the possibility of suppressing free speech without actually outlawing it.
And yet, no one has provided an example of this actually happening.
If you can go to jail for blowing the whistle on the government's lawbreaking
Of course you can. How could it possibly be any other way? The only other option is that there are no government secrets of any kind, which is completely unpracticable.
That much should be obvious to anyone.
In an enlightened society, injustice should not be able to hide behind secrecy
Nonsense. In ANY functioning society, it is NECESSARILY the case that injustice can hide behind secrecy. No one has ever proposed a workable alternative. If you have secrecy, then it can be used to hide injustice. If you have no secrecy, you do not have a functioning society.
and those who expose it should not have to risk their life or freedom to do so
Of course they should. Otherwise, you're saying that every individual person in government has the right to determine what should and should not be a secret. And that's nonsense.
I think those that benefit from society should pay back in order to maintain society.
I think taking from one person by force, against his will -- just because you can -- in order to give it to others, is a criminal act.
I don't view my tax money as wasted.
Your opinion is not at issue here. Your view that others should be forced to comply with your opinion, taking away their rights, is at issue.
You start out by saying that its wrong to take individual liberty for the greater good, followed up by saying that its OK if its for protecting individual rights, and end with saying that, its ok if its for the common good (its a danger to everyone).
False.
Life, liberty, property. These are all closely related. Your life implies your liberty (the right to do what you wish with your life). Your property is the product of your life and your liberty (what you create for yourself). An assault on property IS an assault on life and liberty.
So no, I did not invoke "the common good" when I talked about fire protection. I am still talking about individual rights. Yes, everyone could have their own fire department contract etc., but this threatens my rights too, even if I have the best protection possible, because my neighbor might not have protection, which threatens me.
Anyone can get cancer, so its a danger to everyone.
Which is why I favor laws preventing others from forcing carcinogens on you, and why I favor the existence of the CDC in order to protect us from potential epidemics of communicable diseases. But I do not favor government paying to cure YOUR cancer (unless, of course, government caused it in the first place).
Can you see the difference? In the former, someone is causing harm to you to take away your rights; in the second, something is causing a mass direct threat to our individual rights.
But in the latter, no such thing is happening. No one is taking away your rights. There was no mass threat to your rights. If someone harmed you, you can sue them to pay for your medical care. Otherwise, it's on you.
I guess universal health care and government funded cancer research would be OK, by your own logic.
Only if you don't understand the logic. :-)
I notice you didn't address the interstate highway system.
I'm busy today, I can't address everything, so I will leave that one alone for now. It's a complicated issue: there's a reason why "post roads" were explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
The only difference between you and I is that we disagree on the degree that is appropriate.
Nope. What I am talking about is not a matter of degree at all.
Hey, you want to argue a flat tax? I'm all for that. I think that's the fairest way, assuming that we make sure not to dick over people under the poverty line. I've also seen the "fair tax," which is based on sales. My only problem with that is that it could be regressive if done improperly.
I'd prefer no income tax. All income tax is bad as a means of raising revenue, unless your actual goal is to control people. But a flat tax would be better than what we've got.
When Obama talks about "fairness" he doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount, or percentage, of their income. He means that the rich should pay a greater percentage.
Maybe so, but to a great deal of people, a progressive tax system is fair.
Unfortunately.
its hard to argue that its easier for a rich man to pay 30 percent of his income in taxes than it is for a middle class man to pay 20 percent of his income in taxes.
Sure, but why bother trying? How "easy" it is doesn't matter. It's easy to do lots of things that take away
To who? The executive branch believed the wiretaps were legal. Who (besides the press) watches the Watchmen?
So you missed the part where a U.S. Attorney convicted the Vice President's chief of staff? And where the Congress has oversight authority over the President's activities?
There's something fundamentally wrong with you if someone opines the threat of death is chilling and your reply is "Howso?"
Bollocks.
The topic here is a chilling effect toward our freedom. Yes, you can get the death penalty for doing bad things. How is this chilling toward our freedom?
Maybe you're just against the death penalty, which would explain your self-righteous attitude. But that's beside the point here. The point is that the person I was responding to was engaging repeatedly in the question-begging fallacy, assuming Tamm did nothing wrong and that anything done to him in return was therefore "chilling." But it has not been established that Tamm did nothing wrong, and in fact, it is quite apparent that he committed a serious crime.
Tamm may have justification that mitigates punishment for that crime, and that will play a role -- perhaps completely exonerating him in the end -- but pursuing the investigation and possibly filing charges for such a clear felony case is not "chilling."
The next time some idiot says "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," (re: privacy), we have a clear counter-example to point to.
Where? What example?
I agree such examples exist, but there is no example presented here.
Anyone who isn't choking on his own whargarbl understands that violence enacted vicariously through symbolism is associated with the persecution of real people.
Where "is associated" means nothing significant to this discussion. In a similar way, public statements against the legal governing authority are associated with violent overthrows of that government. So everyone who speaks out against Bush should be seen, according to YOUR logic, as favoring an illegal and violent coup against Bush.
Please think a little harder.
Well, the point is that people were being organized to stomp on Dixie Chicks albums because they disagreed with Bush.
Good for them. Free expression is a wonderful thing.
The point of democracy and free speech is that, if you disagree with someone, you should be free to do so openly -- with an intention of opening discussion on the matter.
Not at all. The right of Free Speech has nothing to do with intent, unless that intent is criminal.
The point of the Dixie-Chicks effigy burning was to suppress the dissension
Even if it was, as long as it didn't take the form of illegal initimidation or some other form of force, it is a protected right.
(and to discourage anybody else from disagreeing with bush)
Maybe. So what? How is that a bad thing? Isn't that what Keith Olbermann does every night, but from the left, by abusing anyone who says something he disagrees with?
and not to engage in a sane discussion of why Bush was right or the Dixie Chicks were wrong.
Again, the First Amendment has nothing to do with that. See, what you don't get is that in order for this to make sense, the government itself would need to be the arbiter of what is a "sane discussion." And that itself would have a serious chilling effect on speech. So no, intentions are beside the point entirely.
Last year, a friend of mine spent some time down in the US (I'm in Canada) on a course, and she found herself nervous about suggesting to someone that not everybody liked Bush. The scary thing was, that after she made that comment, a number of other people in the course came to her in private and noted that they too were afraid to simply suggest that Bush was unpopular.
Where I live in the U.S., it's completely opposite: you can become a social outcast for suggesting you LIKE Bush. So I guess this is proof that the left is trying to suppress free speech?
That was, I suggest, both the intent and the effect of vilifying the Dixie Chicks over what was simply a side remark about personal beliefs. That intent, and effect are both detrimental to a democratic society ... anathema, even.
Not remotely. Worse, YOUR attempt to demonize and villify people for expressing themselves is doing precisely what you are attacking.
totalitarian, authoritarian
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Socialism is just an idea.
Yes, the idea of taking away individual liberty by force for the "public good" (as defined by the people using the force). Sounds pretty damned scary to me.
Our interstate highway system, fire departments, and police departments are examples of socialism properly applied.
Police department absolutely is not. You're not understanding the concept. It is acceptable for government to take a small piece of your liberty in order to protect your individual rights, because that is the only way society can work.
We cannot have everyone enforcing their own laws, so we have a social compact that we let the government enforce the laws. This is the best way to ensure that our rights are protected, without the rights of others being abused in the process. So no, it is not socialism to have legislators, a court system, or law enforcement. Neither the military.
Similarly, as any fire the Fire Department is needed for is a danger to everyone, a Fire Department is not socialism.
Some republican fanboys try to portray it as the other way around: that Joe asked a question and the Obama campaign went crazy over it. Not true.
As far as you know. Again, while I agree there's no evidence of this, if it were the other way around people on the left would say "of course McCain's campaign was behind it."
I honestly don't remember any of that from the Obama campaign, and I'm not sure how I missed that.
Obama invoked Joe's name quite a bit in that one debate, and in speeches around the same time.
As a percentage of income, the tax burden is heaviest on the middle class. I'd like to see a little more fairness in the system, and I don't feel that asking for that is socialism.
The way to do that is not jacking up marginal tax rates, but going to a flat tax. The problem is, you're only looking at the aggregate data: many people in the top income levels DO pay higher effective tax rates. Think of all the rich people who pay virtually no tax: that means many other "rich" people make up for it, because by far more tax revenue comes from the top quintile.
When Obama talks about "fairness" he doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount, or percentage, of their income. He means that the rich should pay a greater percentage.
What evils the government can get away with is in every way dependent on the public's acquiescence. A public that enjoys the spectacle of stomping on the disloyal is one that has no problem with the government abusing its authority.
Most people -- obviously not including you here -- see a significant difference between individuals expressing themselves by destroying their own property -- causing harm to the liberty of no one -- and the government abusing its authority to take away the rights of its citizens.