Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: Phred]
    #633958 - 05/17/02 05:16 AM (21 years, 11 months ago)

ROFLOL

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: Phred]
    #636166 - 05/19/02 07:03 AM (21 years, 11 months ago)

And what the majority says is right, IS right.
Things today are far too complex for the average joe to be able to figure out how to survive, so the government has to step in.
But the majority of people support the war on drugs, so the culprit here is not the government, but the drug taker. Society never gave those people the right to take drugs, so they can't complain when they get locked away and are stripped of their right to vote.
People don't have the right to live that way if the majority says they don't.
They're not just MY standards, they are the standards of society this week. Those standards were legislated by politicians elected by a majority, politicians who understand that the Constitution mustn't stand in the way of the will of the majority.
And statistics show that the War on Drugs is working. As a matter of fact, it's working so well that we must increase taxes to make it work even better.


Pinky:
The above are statements that you attribute to me which I didn't make. You intersperse them with direct quotations from my previous posts, never bothering to distinguish one from the other. This is utter intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple, and shows you up to be simply pathetic, a middle-aged autodidact who fancies himself the intellectual but should stick to making bowls.

Never once, for example, did I support the War on Drugs, I just made a point about crack dealers selling their wares in front of elementary schools. But to your crude and reductionist way of thinking, anybody who recognizes the necessity of taxation and government regulation of industry MUST support the drug war. Obviously you've never heard of the Netherlands, where a very lax drug policy coexists alongiside a welfare state.

And what did this thread have to do with you, anyway? Every time evolving gets in trouble you come riding in your horse, guns blazing. How ironic that you rugged individualists can't seem to go it alone.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemrfreedom
journeyman
Male
Registered: 11/21/01
Posts: 80
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: Phred]
    #636270 - 05/19/02 08:36 AM (21 years, 11 months ago)

Pinksharkmark, I see you are from the Dominican Republic; thats good, for a minute I couldn't grasp how you could be so completely wrong in your support of societal structure in the US. I understand now, you don't live here and haven't studied the TRUE nature of the bill of rights or the constitution.

I have post relating to the MAJORITY in this forum under "thoughts on philosohpy of government"; I would include the link but I don't have it right now.

Perhaps you could post your thoughts there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: EchoVortex]
    #636374 - 05/19/02 10:13 AM (21 years, 11 months ago)

Every time evolving gets in trouble you come riding in your horse, guns blazing.
Huh?

How ironic that you rugged individualists can't seem to go it alone.
You don't get it. It's about individual freedom as opposed to being subject to force or the threat of force by any individual or group of individuals.

We are supporters of individual liberty, granted we lack the herd instinct of the average domesticated primate or the desire to live parasitically off of others. Neither do we advocate the control of our fellow human beings via the mechanism of the state (so as to give coercion and violence an air of legitimacy). We ask nothing more than to be left to free run our own lives and we wish the same for all others. That really seems to bother some people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: mrfreedom]
    #636456 - 05/19/02 11:38 AM (21 years, 11 months ago)

mrfreedom writes:

...you don't live here and haven't studied the TRUE nature of the bill of rights or the constitution.

I have studied both and understand the true nature of both, probably better than the majority of native-born Americans posting in this forum. It's a shame so many legislators (and those who elect them) lack even the most passing acquaintance with either. See "The Great Debate" for my REAL views on the subject. In that last post I was pretending to be "Echovortex". Please pardon my levity.

I have post relating to the MAJORITY in this forum under "thoughts on philosohpy of government"

Yes, I read your post, and agree wholeheartedly with it. Excellent post.

Perhaps you could post your thoughts there.

I post frequently in this forum. I am accustomed to being called a reductionist parrot of Randian dogmatism, a heartless brute with no compassion, a close-minded fascist, etc. If you continue to post along the lines you have been, you will likely be a recipient of the same epithets.

Welcome aboard.

pinky



--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (05/19/02 11:41 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: ]
    #636462 - 05/19/02 11:47 AM (21 years, 11 months ago)

I couldn't care less what you do in the privacy of your home, and you're certainly free (and should be) to place that home wherever you wish. My point of contention in previous threads was that taxation per se is not a violation of human rights, as Libertarians insist. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I recognize the necessity of some sort of government to protect individuals from harm from other individuals, and just as importantly, from private organizations that have a tendency, once they reach a certain critical mass, to exercise power that even a government would envy. I also don't buy the proposition that government can reliably raise those revenues in other ways. As far as your tax dollars going to support parasites goes, I suggest you direct your ire at corporations such as Enron, which hasn't paid federal taxes in over five years. This type of corporate welfare eats into the government coffers at a much faster clip than the anemic US welfare system for low-income families. Although I'm sure you imagine all welfare recipients to be able-bodied young crack addicts, the fact is that most of it goes to feed children who would otherwise starve because their fucked up parents can't get their acts together. I can understand your condemnation of their parents, but I would rather see those kids get fed and educated with my tax money than see it going into the Swiss account of some crook at Enron. Now, I can imagine you'll say that if that's the case I could just give the money to them directly. I can do that as well, and I do, but I also know that private donations alone are not enough, just as they weren't enough at the turn of the century, when vulture capitalism was rampant.

As far as rights go, they are only an issue in the context of a society. A person living by him or herself in the middle of nowhere doesn't need rights because his or her actions have no consequences for others. Rights are meaningless in this context. When an individual is a part of society, however, his rights need to be protected from others. I think we agree up to this point. Regardless of the metaphysical justifications for those rights, they will de facto not be protected unless enough people with enough power agree that they should be. How those decisions are made varies from society to society, everything on the scale from a one-man dictatorship to a purely democratic commune. The crux is that these are socially determined decisions, and if a given society decides that certain responsibilities attend to those rights then one can either play the game by those rules, work within the system to change the rules, or leave the society altogether. It's a give and take. If you just want to take-take-take, don't be surprised that most people write your political stance off. The ability to produce wealth depends on infrastructure, education to create knowledge, a consumer base, and social stability. Tax money goes to create and maintain that infrastructure and stability without raising the issue of profits, and taxes are the price one is expected to pay to have access to that infrastructure and its wealth-generating possibilities. Perhaps if you have a pre-industrial vocation like pinky does you can still generate income in a poor country without infrastructure. But the industrial and information revolutions have changed the face of society in terribly profound ways (I'm not saying necessarily for the better) and if one cannot understand that public infrastructure and education are necessary to maintain such a society, then one is genuinely living in a world of delusion.

Do I approve of everything the government of the United States does? No, not at all. I'm certainly not a supporter of the drug war as I enjoy soft drugs as much as the next guy. But simply because I approve of an adult's right to choose what to place in his own body doesn't mean I support a crack dealer's right to set up shop in front of an elementary school, as a Libertarian would. The problem with the Libertarian position is that it poses the problem as an absolute either/or proposition. This admittedly has a certain philosophical elegance but in the final analysis it is an oversimplified absurdity. There is harm and there is potential harm, and I don't see the point in giving every loon and every corporation out there the right to do potential harm. Blind people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, violent offenders shouldn't have the right to own firearms, and maniacs shouldn't have the right to sell drugs to kids telling them it's candy. In a Libertarian world they would have those rights and this is only the beginning of the list of absurdities that would ensue. A person for whom political philosophy isn't just a from of onanism would realize that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: EchoVortex]
    #636580 - 05/19/02 02:02 PM (21 years, 11 months ago)

Echovortex writes:

The above are statements that you attribute to me which I didn't make. You intersperse them with direct quotations from my previous posts, never bothering to distinguish one from the other.

They are not direct quotes, true. But all are consistent with and follow logically from statements you have made here.

This is utter intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple...

The fact that you see no connection between my tongue-in-cheek statements and your own viewpoint demonstrates utter intellectual obtuseness.

Never once, for example, did I support the War on Drugs, I just made a point about crack dealers selling their wares in front of elementary schools.

Which illustrates neatly said obtuseness. In a society where drugs are not illegal, there would be no crack dealers.

But to your crude and reductionist way of thinking, anybody who recognizes the necessity of taxation and government regulation of industry...

Necessity? Neither has been proven necessary. It is YOUR opinion that both are necessary. I (and others) say neither is.

... and shows you up to be simply pathetic, a middle-aged...

I can no more change my age than you can change yours.

... autodidact...

The financial situation of my parents was such that a university education was out of the question, so yes, I am an autodidact.

... who fancies himself the intellectual...

I hardly consider myself an intellectual. None of the ideas I espouse here require much mental agility to grasp. They are common sense.

... but should stick to making bowls.

I have both made bowls and managed proficiently the largest, most profitable division of the top computer reseller in Canada. Can you do either?

As for "pathetic" -- I limit my comments to the validity of the IDEAS you espouse rather than taking shots at who you ARE. I leave it to the readers to decide which of us is the more pathetic.

And what did this thread have to do with you, anyway?

It was my understanding that any member who had opinions on a topic under discussion was free to air them. I must have missed the rule that states "By Invitation Only".

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: Phred]
    #636673 - 05/19/02 03:17 PM (21 years, 11 months ago)

"They are not direct quotes, true. But all are consistent with and follow logically from statements you have made here."

How does it follow that I believe the majority is always right? If anything the majority is usually wrong. My point was that rights are protected by society and therefore, in a real sense, issue from society. This has nothing to do with whether society knows what it is doing. It's an unfortunate state of affairs, but it is reality. I also never said that life is too complex for average Joes to figure out how to survive. My point was to something more sinister: there are many people who will rip off and exploit and endanger the lives of their fellows just to make a buck, and only a body (the state) sovereign to those people can stop them and/or punish them for doing so.

"Which illustrates neatly said obtuseness. In a society where drugs are not illegal, there would be no crack dealers."

And why would that be? Because selling drugs would be the monopoly of the state? What kind of Libertarian are you? Or because high-grade cocaine would be more affordable so people wouldn't bother with crack? Once again you exhibit the typical Libertarian "wave-the-wand" syndrome: once a Libertarian society is in place, all problems automatically take care of themselves. Oh, and don't forget about the tooth fairy.

"Necessity? Neither has been proven necessary. It is YOUR opinion that both are necessary. I (and others) say neither is"

Once again, the burden of proof is on you, a burden you have not carried, so I for one see no reason to change my opinion.

"I have both made bowls and managed proficiently the largest, most profitable division of the top computer reseller in Canada. Can you do either?"

This is a pointless exercise. Does it matter? Anybody can say they can do anything on these anonymous forums. "Do you know who I am? I'm Spider-Man!"

"I limit my comments to the validity of the IDEAS you espouse rather than taking shots at who you ARE. I leave it to the readers to decide which of us is the more pathetic."

Who do you think you're kidding? Your little gag post ("I couldn't think for myself at all!") was very much a shot at who I AM, and one which had nothing to do with my post in this thread. It was clearly an upsurge of residual resentment. My response to evolving was aimed at his desire to have his Libertarian cake and eat his Patriotic cake ("you don't see Americans going south . . ." ) too. I was hoping you two could start a constructive dialogue about how the Dominican Republic has learned from the US's mistakes, is closer to a Libertarian society, and is therefore superior/preferable.

In any event, this too is a pointless exercise. What do I care whether readers of this forum think you or I or Mr. Magoo are pathetic or not? This is cyberspace, buddy. None of this is real.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemrfreedom
journeyman
Male
Registered: 11/21/01
Posts: 80
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: Phred]
    #636808 - 05/19/02 05:18 PM (21 years, 10 months ago)

Wheewww, that was close, thanks Pink for being so nice to me. As usual, I jumped in without knowing the nature of the posters. I just got hammered on another board, because I didn't know that one of the members was engaging in "levity".

I only read the first page of the link, I will go back and read the rest, but, to be blunt, I find economic, political arguments, with ignorant (NOT STUPID; I am not calling anyone stupid, look up the definition of "ignorant" before you hurt your fingers flaming me) persons. No matter how well intentioned, they always revert to dogma, instead of relating their logic to historical, political, philosophical, sociological or rational arguments.

On the matter at hand, without trying to be disagreable (to late); I must confess some consternation that this post has proceeded far from it's original. The post started out as a memeber's attempt to broaden our knowledge on the plight of our sister state Hawaii. This member's "factual" evidence was greatly lacking, and so the degeneration of the post inssued.

I am also guilty of this, considering my reply, before this one. I apologize for this, I moderate other boards and I would have been the first in line to say don't stray to far off-topic, we already have an off-topic forum.

I propose, considering the nature of where we have begun to go, that, one or the other of you: Pink or Echo, PLEASE, take the time to write a position and post it in as a new post.

For our own sake, since the moderators, are very loose on the subject, I would suggest that we continue the debate in the new vein, and RESPECT the ORIGINAL nature of the post (this one) as intended by the person who posted.

What do you say?
Pretty please.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenugsarenice
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/04/00
Posts: 3,442
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: mrfreedom]
    #636817 - 05/19/02 05:26 PM (21 years, 10 months ago)

Hey thanks, I appreciate it, you guys just started talking for pages,without really saying anything, I kept on coming back hopefully expecting someone had replied to my post, but then it was just a bunch of bullcrap about nothing, I don't even think you could categorize alll your guys debate to be put under a name in a new post!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Economic Policy made to support poverty in Haw [Re: mrfreedom]
    #636889 - 05/19/02 06:36 PM (21 years, 10 months ago)

Good point. Done. You can follow it here if you wish.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* GOP economic policy, a ticking timebomb?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Ellis Dee 4,971 65 11/07/05 10:04 AM
by Silversoul
* Will we finally get to see if "conservative" policy helps poverty? Catalysis 362 1 09/15/05 09:38 PM
by LeftyBurnz
* Declining Support for Bush
( 1 2 3 all )
Innvertigo 4,989 50 04/17/02 09:40 AM
by Innvertigo
* Socio-Economic Systems in Different Countries Silversoul 527 5 02/17/05 11:21 AM
by Silversoul
* Bush losing re-election support? adrug 1,820 14 09/28/03 11:34 PM
by SquattingMarmot
* Liberal economics=Herbert Hoover economics... Ellis Dee 801 1 01/16/02 06:30 PM
by carbonhoots
* Kerry's economic isolationism Phred 504 0 10/19/04 01:36 PM
by Phred
* welfare/poverty
( 1 2 all )
JonnyOnTheSpot 2,731 21 06/13/03 02:21 AM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,073 topic views. 3 members, 6 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.