Just get it over with and make it illegal.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Some middle men, then. Plus, the burden would fall on all taxpayers and not just the company.

"All taxpayers" is now just 56% of this country. And the vast majority of that burden would fall on just a few percent. Yet I'm sure the benefits would be equal for 100%.

It's likely overall costs for everyone would go down.

And the benefits too.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly it's not always "feasible". And no, I don't support laws against monopolies, particularly when they're enforced by an actual monopoly known as government.

One thing I don't quite have a handle on from reading your posts ... who do you think "the government" is in a representative system? You make it sound as though they're some outside entity that has no more to do with you or I than the board of directors at General Motors (assuming you don't have voting rights at General Motors, of course).

Rapunzel64

inmytree wrote:

good question...

I wonder, should a person be fired if they drink alcohol, which has health risks, or if they get a speeding ticket, again, bad juju...

what about a worker who is diagnosed with a life-threating illness...? why not cut that employee loose...? they're costing the company money...right..?

I bet hilter would have loved the "weed out the weak and unhealthly" mentality...

And now, with genetic testing, it is easy to determine if you are more likely to get breast cancer, heart disease, etc. Should those who are more likely to get sick be excluded from employment?

JOEJOEJOE

I hate to say it, but the root of every debate over $$ always comes down to the same thing:

"Should those with needs get extra help from the wallets of others, or should everyone just fend for themesleves?"

jeffbr

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I hate to say it, but the root of every debate over $$ always comes down to the same thing:

"Should those with needs get extra help from the wallets of others, or should everyone just fend for themesleves?"

Those with the wallets should be free to help those with the needs - not compelled to at gunpoint.

jlew24asu

goddamn cigarettes should be illegal. its worse then crack!!!!

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

One thing I don't quite have a handle on from reading your posts ... who do you think "the government" is in a representative system?

A collection of armed representatives who have no inherent obligation to actually represent anyone but themselves.

You make it sound as though they're some outside entity that has no more to do with you or I than the board of directors at General Motors (assuming you don't have voting rights at General Motors, of course).

They are an outside entity with no connection to you or I. As a matter of fact, the board of directors at General Motors has more accountability to me than a political respresentative. I may, in part, withhold the salary or reject the methods of said director legally. I cannot do that with a political representative. Furthermore, my dealings with said director are two-way arrangements based on contracts whereas my dealings with said representative are one-way arrangements based on force.

The director of GM has nothing to offer me, since I have no interest in his products. Therefore, I choose to have no dealings with him. The president of the United States also has nothing to offer me, since I have no interest in his schemes. However, I have no legal right to not have dealings with him.

EDIT: One more thing in the context of my statement that you quoted: If I do not agree with the way the director of GM does things, I am free to become a competitor to GM by forming my own institution. However, the same again does not hold true with the "representatives" you speak of -- my only competitive route is to participate in the same institution.

JOEJOEJOE

jeffbr wrote:

Those with the wallets should be free to help those with the needs - not compelled to at gunpoint.

Here is a question:

Would you pay more in taxes so that schools would improve, and as a result, less kids would turn to crime, and thus, you are safer in your city?

I wonder if people ever consider that when forming their opinions?

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Here is a question:

Would you pay more in taxes so that schools would improve, and as a result, less kids would turn to crime, and thus, you are safer in your city?

I wonder if people ever consider that when forming their opinions?

Consider what? Allowing the government to steal half my income in order to "protect" me from theft? Yeah, I've considered that. I'd rather be mugged once a month. It would be cheaper.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

However, the same again does not hold true with the "representatives" you speak of -- my only competitive route is to participate in the same institution.

With the completely legal option of changing said institution to suit your needs once you're in - provided you can convince enough people to join you - and your constituents will allow it.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Consider what? Allowing the government to steal half my income in order to "protect" me from theft? Yeah, I've considered that. I'd rather be mugged once a month. It would be cheaper.

Would you rather get invaded by a foreign country or pay for our military?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

With the completely legal option of changing said institution to suit your needs once you're in - provided you can convince enough people to join you - and your constituents will allow it.

No. I cannot change said institution to suit my needs because, as you say, the institution reqiures me to convince others, which is the opposite of my needs.

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Would you rather get invaded by a foreign country or pay for our military?

Last time I checked I got both.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

No. I cannot change said institution to suit my needs because, as you say, the institution reqiures me to convince others, which is the opposite of my needs.

So you have a problem with democracy? I see. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money I have. It's close enough to that already.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Last time I checked I got both.

touche', but we pay a lot to protect our "freeedom" at a rate many times more then what we pay to improve social conditions.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

So you have a problem with democracy?

Not at all. I have a problem with that which pretends to be democracy.

I see. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money I have. It's close enough to that already.

Well, which is it? Are we a democracy or are we a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money we have?

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

touche', but we pay a lot to protect our "freeedom" at a rate many times more then what we pay to improve social conditions.

Not really, no. We spend around $400B per year on a military. We spend trillions as a nation on schools, social security, etc. But I'm not really pleased with either.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Not at all. I have a problem with that which pretends to be democracy.

A democracy isn't a situation where farfromglorified gets to solely decide the rights, duties, and place in society for everyone. You pretend that's not what you're saying, but if you don't believe in convincing people to go along with your plans, that is what you're saying. And you may think that someone else is solely deciding your rights - but that's not what's happening either. We've all got a say on some level - even those who disagree with the President (like myself) and even those who think the greatest problem in the world right now is the amount of money they are "allowed" to keep.

farfromglorified wrote:

Well, which is it? Are we a democracy or are we a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money we have?

I implied that we're a little of both - but that money thing is becoming more and more of a problem.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really, no. We spend around $400B per year on a military. We spend trillions as a nation on schools, social security, etc. But I'm not really pleased with either.

would you rather cut military or schools?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

A democracy isn't a situation where farfromglorified gets to solely decide the rights, duties, and place in society for everyone.

You're entirely right. Democracy is a situation where farfromglorified gets to soley decide the duties and place in society for himself, not everyone. Democracy is also a situation wherein my rights extend from my existence, not from an edict.

You pretend that's not what you're saying, but if you don't believe in convincing people to go along with your plans, that is what you're saying.

My plans don't necessarily involve other people -- that's what you're missing.

And you may think that someone else is solely deciding your rights - but that's not what's happening either. We've all got a say on some level - even those who disagree with the President (like myself) and even those who think the greatest problem in the world right now is the amount of money they are "allowed" to keep.

I don't think that someone else is solely deciding my rights. I think your democracy has rendered the term "rights" meaningless.

I implied that we're a little of both - but that money thing is becoming more and more of a problem.

Yes it is, in large part because we've put a for sale sign on our rights. We've decided to barter our own rights for immediate benefit. And that means we've gotten much less than we bargained for.