nah, in Canada we say that Climate change is not true, and we make a damn load of money creating more pollution, surplus + surplus = surplus. Later generation will deal with pollution problems, while we're getting richer, stupid ideologic bullshit.
I laughed so hard seeing that publicity from Shell (was it Shell?) talking about how CLEAN the sand digging in Alberta was, how they were "cleaning" the dirt from the sand then putting this "clean" sand back in place for future generations, it was only in english though, i hope nobody bought that.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
grandma - we as a country are too divided ... we no longer function as a country united ... the model cannot work unless we as a people decide to act as a country and not in our own self interests ...
Sure, why don't u start doing research on the positive parts of climate change?
The article's premise is that all change is bad. Change is what you make it. If you don't adapt it is bad. If you adapt change can be great.
Some positives of climate change;
Increased growing seasons in many parts of the world.
Less summer and fall rain in the Pacific NorthWest.
Better tans equals more sexy girls in the Pacific NorthWest.
Awesome surfing in Tofino.
Possibility of rise in ocean water level means dikes may be built higher. Tremendous opportunity for construction companies.
People are looking for greener energy sources. Great opportunity for raising research capital, providing technology innovation opportunities.
Based on this past year, fewer and milder hurricanes in the Carribean and southern States. Next to no flooding in the southern States.
You can stand still, shouting from the roof top that the sky is falling. Or you can adapt to a changing environment. The successful ones won't be the ones screaming the loudest but the ones adapting to change the most effective and efficiently. Change always brings opportunity.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Green house emissions are acounted to the country who produce the emission.
Based on who's moral say so. This has always been a horrible weakness of Kyoto. It put no responsibility on the people with the power, the consumer.
It's a farce that many countries think they are doing great combatting greenhouse gas emissions but meanwhile haven't changed their consumption habits. All they've changed is the country the goods are manufactured in. Then they walk tall saying "look how green we are". That's a joke.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It's a farce that many countries think they are doing great combatting greenhouse gas emissions but meanwhile haven't changed their consumption habits. All they've changed is the country the goods are manufactured in. Then they walk tall saying "look how green we are". That's a joke.
I agree with this, majority of citizens have not even changed their consumptions habits or just their lifestyle, but on the other hands, most will criticize their govt. for not taking actions towards green policies or environmental strategies.
I mean i have this man working here, always talking against the Harper govt. environmental lack of policies, but he's driving that Ford F150 through the trafic everyday, talking about how Wal Mart prices are great, and praising Chile biological apples. I mean it's all about educations of the citizens, and i think it should start from the govt., all our consumptions habits must change, starting with reducing our gaz dependence, watching what we buy and consume (product travel time, workers respect etc. etc.).
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I find it fascinating that people seem to hide from that which supports the systems of taxation in this world: be it income tax, property tax, sales tax, "green tax" or any such tribute charged by the state.
I think everyone here is very much aware that I see taxation as morally wrong. I don't expect anyone to agree with me and I understand why few do -- without such systems our lives would be fundamentally different and that scares many people.
But what I do not understand is why a simple request to identify the mechanisms behind such systems of taxation are met with denial. When I claim that taxation is violence and I ask someone who takes issue with that to tell me what would happen to a man or woman who refuses to pay tribute to a nation, I am often met with absolute silence or an even more bizarre claim that such a refusal is impossible. Silence cannot erase your force. To say that the very possible is impossible cannot make it so. Why do you think they can? What are you hiding? Who are you hiding it from? Why are you pretending that the armed force behind your laws does not exist by refusing to name it? If it is so morally just, why deny it, why pretend it does not exist, why refuse to acknowledge it?
If you wish to justify theft or define it as something else, that is certainly your right. But to suggest, by refusing to give name to the armed force behind your actions, that a population has free choice when you have constructed a system wherein they are met with that force when making certain choices is very strange to me. Why do you think you can have both? Why do you think you can threaten to arrest, harm, confine or kill another human being and then claim that he's "free"? How do you think you can reject the violence others commit to you while, at the same time, embracing the violence you will commit to them? How does that work?
Try as one might, one cannot deny the difference between a beggar and a robber. A beggar is a man who pits your money against your sympathy. He is the lowest form of a salesman, but he is still a salesman. He offers you a product and allows you to accept or reject his proposition on your terms. The robber, however, is a criminal. He pits your money against your safety and he does so on his terms, not your own. The beggar will let you walk away if you do not like his proposition. The robber will not. A robber without violence is a beggar. A beggar with violence is a robber. The difference is clear and the difference is defined precisely by the force or lack thereof.
Do we live in such a world where the difference between a robber and a beggar is a moral zero? Have we made them the same by denying the existence of the will of the victim and the possibility of violence to override it? Is ours a moral code where the hypocrisy of embracing violence to reject violence does not matter? How is such a thing possible since hypocrisy requires the violation of principle while morality requires the opposite?
It is everyone's right to meet these questions with silence. I do not expect anyone to answer them, nor do I feel anyone is obligated to answer them. But I think this will be my last posting here because I can no longer hope to answer these questions myself. I cannot understand those among you who seem to reject the violence that hurts you but demand the violence that helps you, all the while speaking of "cooperation" and "unity" and "altruism" and, most horrifically, "peace". I do not understand your morality. I cannot find your principles without finding another that contradicts them.
Please be good to one another. But above all else, please be good to yourself.
But what I do not understand is why a simple request to identify the mechanisms behind such systems of taxation are met with denial. When I claim that taxation is violence and I ask someone who takes issue with that to tell me what would happen to a man or woman who refuses to pay tribute to a nation, I am often met with absolute silence or an even more bizarre claim that such a refusal is impossible. Silence cannot erase your force. To say that the very possible is impossible cannot make it so. Why do you think they can? What are you hiding? Who are you hiding it from? Why are you pretending that the armed force behind your laws does not exist by refusing to name it? If it is so morally just, why deny it, why pretend it does not exist, why refuse to acknowledge it?
Okay, I'll step up, but I don't have much time today, so I may have to keep it short.
I admit that our tax laws -- I'll say all our laws -- are violence. They force us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do. I might like to drive on the left side of the road every so often, but I'm "forced" by the state to drive on the right. I'm "forced" to feed parking meters or be faced with the parking ticket -- a form of coercion. If I am driving carelessly, and I hit someone with my car, the state "forces" me to compensate my victim. Our criminal laws are clearly coercive. And if you want to characterize force and coercion as violence, I'm certainly not going to stop you -- although I know a lot of people who will complain bitterly.
I think what distinguishes you from my friends who'd complain is that you are, I think, fiercely protective of your individual freedom to a much greater extent than they are. I don't think I've ever seen you acknowledge a willing participation in any collectivity, and to the extent that you do participate in collectivities, you insist that you do so of your own free will -- like entering into contracts.
My friends (and I for the most part) think of ourselves as belonging to groups, to society. And to make things run smoothly -- to get out of Hobbes' "state of nature" (which totally sucks) -- we're willing to trade away some of our individual freedom by entering into a social contract. And entering that social contract means that we all give up some of our freedom and we have to chip in for public goods -- like traffic rules and paved roads and garbage collection (and public education and clean air and war and a lot more controversial things). Now, people who object to giving up this freedom are going to call this violence, force, coercion. I prefer to think about it as the price I pay for living in society. And frankly, I don't know how much individual freedom I have in the first place -- I have so many demands placed on me by family, friends, colleagues that "doing what I want" seems like an utter abstraction.
Anyway . . .
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Again, this is the logic of the mafia. If I hold you up at the ATM, you still have lots of "choices". However, you cannot erase the fact that I'm threatening you with force if you make the "wrong" choice.
The logic of the mafia is that if you don't support them by paying for protection against the mafia itself you will get hurt, which makes me think of what Dick said again.
There IS no wrong choice, just a more expensive one. You can drink your beer, presumably with a lower tax rate than your liquor, yet you can still buy your Scotsch altho at higher costs. Same goes for the tax I'm talking about.
The article's premise is that all change is bad. Change is what you make it. If you don't adapt it is bad. If you adapt change can be great.
Some positives of climate change;
Increased growing seasons in many parts of the world.
Less summer and fall rain in the Pacific NorthWest.
Better tans equals more sexy girls in the Pacific NorthWest.
Awesome surfing in Tofino.
Possibility of rise in ocean water level means dikes may be built higher. Tremendous opportunity for construction companies.
People are looking for greener energy sources. Great opportunity for raising research capital, providing technology innovation opportunities.
Which are countered by ecological systems collapsing due to changes in temperature, foreighn species taking over, brids and insects not being able to adapt.
Being from the Netherlands I'll never see the rising sea level as a chance to invest in hihger dikes, we already have to cope with the sea and it will get only worse with rising sea levels.
Better tans with higher chance of skin cancer?
Less rain fall also means less succesfull crowth in crops.
Based on this past year, fewer and milder hurricanes in the Carribean and southern States. Next to no flooding in the southern States.
But the huricanes that reached e.g. US shores were heavier than those in many years.
You can stand still, shouting from the roof top that the sky is falling. Or you can adapt to a changing environment. The successful ones won't be the ones screaming the loudest but the ones adapting to change the most effective and efficiently. Change always brings opportunity.
We might be able to adapt but the rest of the eco system will not.
Ah...and why don't I get the car HH??? Why would they not sell it to me???
Because you did NOT pay all the costs associated with buying the car :rolleyes:
*sigh* thankfully I have been asked by several people to cease this argument so I feel I am 'morally' ( ) obliged to respect the mental health of those reading this thread by desisting. Coincidentally, it will also help MY mental health as I have probably made the same point about ten times and the response was to ask the exact same question
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Because you did NOT pay all the costs associated with buying the car :rolleyes:
*sigh* thankfully I have been asked by several people to cease this argument so I feel I am 'morally' ( ) obliged to respect the mental health of those reading this thread by desisting. Coincidentally, it will also help MY mental health as I have probably made the same point about ten times and the response was to ask the exact same question
But nobody is holding a gun to anybodys head, but since we use the gun rhetoric :rolleyes: if you buy a gun and use it to kill somebody, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you steal something from somebody, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you break somebody's window, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you harm the planet in which we all live, should you not also be responsible for your actions???
This makes total sense to me. Have you read Al Gore's book yet - it's very good. Just think he could and should have been our President. People think there are no differences between the Democrats and Republicans but this topic is actually one of the differences.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
The logic of the mafia is that if you don't support them by paying for protection against the mafia itself you will get hurt, which makes me think of what Dick said again.
There IS no wrong choice, just a more expensive one. You can drink your beer, presumably with a lower tax rate than your liquor, yet you can still buy your Scotsch altho at higher costs. Same goes for the tax I'm talking about.
I will try this one more time in the hope that my question is not coming across clearly enough.
You say there is "no wrong choice", just a "more expensive one". You tell me that a mafia charges me protection money with the threat of harm, not considering my will in the matter. You tell me that the government is different. Now, considering your example above along with the concept of "green tax", can you please tell me then what would happen if I make this choice:
I open a liquor store, or a car dealership. And I do not charge your tax to my customers. Therefore, my prices are less expensive. And because of this, thousands of my fellow citizens come to my store and buy my products. And none of the money they exchange with me is given to the government.
What happens then? What does your government do in the face of my choice which, as you indicate, cannot be wrong since there is no wrong choice?
I
I open a liquor store, or a car dealership. And I do not charge your tax to my customers. Therefore, my prices are less expensive. And because of this, thousands of my fellow citizens come to my store and buy my products. And none of the money they exchange with me is given to the government.
You open a store of any kind, you need to purchase stock - you purchase stock, you pay taxes on stock and therefore have a total price of a product. You then choose to mark-up the product (ie make a profit so your business survives). How you choose to mark-up (or not if you don't mind your business going down the drain in no time) is your choice - purchase price + mark-up + tax = total selling price of product. Take away taxes, no worries but then total selling price will be less (but then you may choose to go volume instead of price). Basically, money has already gone to the government when you purchased stock, money will go to the government following sales (whether you like it or not - it's part of the selling price), money will go to the government on your earnings.... Taxes all over the place. Should you choose not to declare/pay your taxes - what could happen? You could go to jail...... It is a choice.... If you don't want to pay taxes on something, don't buy the goods.
I will try this one more time in the hope that my question is not coming across clearly enough.
You say there is "no wrong choice", just a "more expensive one". You tell me that a mafia charges me protection money with the threat of harm, not considering my will in the matter. You tell me that the government is different. Now, considering your example above along with the concept of "green tax", can you please tell me then what would happen if I make this choice:
I open a liquor store, or a car dealership. And I do not charge your tax to my customers. Therefore, my prices are less expensive. And because of this, thousands of my fellow citizens come to my store and buy my products. And none of the money they exchange with me is given to the government.
What happens then? What does your government do in the face of my choice which, as you indicate, cannot be wrong since there is no wrong choice?
New York State has imposed the highest tax on cigarettes in the country. This was done for 2 reasons: 1 to stop people from buying them because they wouldn't be able to afford them; 2 to help pay for the medical costs of the ailments that come from smoking and second hand smoke. So why would we have such a tax like this - to protect the environment and save lives from the effects of smoking. Now smoking is banned from all public buildings including restaurants and bars in NYS.
Have you ever heard about investing money into something that may have a greater benefit and could even save lives? Everyday businesses make risky investments. There is no cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS yet we still invest a lot of money and time to find a cure with the belief that someday the investment will payoff and save lives. That's all that is being asked with protecting and saving our environment. Just think of all the jobs that could be created if we make a full effort in protecting the environment.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
It is a choice.... If you don't want to pay taxes on something, don't buy the goods.
Yep...same "choice" as the mafia. If you don't want to pay protection money, don't open a business in our neighborhood.
BTW: thank you for at least acknowleding what so many here refuse to -- that the state will force me based on my choice if they judge that choice as wrong.
This makes total sense to me. Have you read Al Gore's book yet - it's very good. Just think he could and should have been our President. People think there are no differences between the Democrats and Republicans but this topic is actually one of the differences.
It's not about giving up - sometimes there's just no point... it's like the old abortion threads all over again :rolleyes: and we all know how THOSE end up :eek:
I haven't read his book yet and I want to see an inconvenient truth too... might wait til it's on DVD
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Yep...same "choice" as the mafia. If you don't want to pay protection money, don't open a business in our neighborhood.
Not the same choice. Not quite on the tax thing, but I CHOOSE not to buy goods from certain countries for 'political' reasons - same as you may want to choose not to pay tax for 'political' reasons - a question of principle, personal choice. You choose not to buy a car because of taxes, it's not going to affect your life that much, you have alternatives. It's just a material thing. No one is putting a gun to my head, no one is threatening breaking my legs or hands....
Also the taxes on those goods are used in a manner to 'better' the environment, our lives, etc.
The mafia & protection money.. threat, fear, maiming, death (?). Someone IS putting a gun to your head. Not 'complying' will greatly affect your life, your family, your future. The protection money (ie what you compare to a tax) is used for drugs, illegal business, etc....
There is a difference. I don't think the comparison was a good one.
If it was being asked, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. But you cannot threaten violence against someone and then say "it's being asked".
A beggar asks you for your money. A robber threatens you for it. Do you see the difference?
In some states don't you vote on taxes? Isn't that asking? Besides, lol, yes, let's ASK everyone what taxes they want to pay then see what kinda roads, schools, hospitals we get then :eek: . Rich people have this 'choice' and they usually do their business in a foreign country to avoid paying taxes and contributing to society. Just and ignorant and selfish point of view if you ask me.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
BTW: thank you for at least acknowleding what so many here refuse to -- that the state will force me based on my choice if they judge that choice as wrong.
It's part of being part of a collective. We are all subjected to rules and regulations or else we would not be able to cohabit. Green light, you cross the street, red light, you stop. Taxes are the same - it will go to the collective. We all have to contribute one way or the other. Though unfair they may seem, they have a purpose. I'm all for taxes that are used for education, hospitals, cleaner environment, etc. I loath to think my taxes are also being used to fund the war and kill people. But, as part of a collective, you need to learn to live with it. There are little things you can do as an individual to make you feel better about it - a lot of us doing the same thing can actually have an impact. When you vote for a president/prime minister/whatever, you authorise this person to speak/act for you. If the person you wanted to win didn't.. well... that is the collective speaking... majority wins. You need to understand the rules of the game.
In some states don't you vote on taxes? Isn't that asking?
That would be asking, up until the point where an individual who said no would be forced to pay that tax anyway.
Besides, lol, yes, let's ASK everyone what taxes they want to pay then see what kinda roads, schools, hospitals we get then :eek: .
We'd get exactly what we wanted to pay for. If we want to pay for nothing, we'd get nothing. If we want to pay for all of it, we'd get all of it.
Why don't you apply this to everything? I mean, you have the choice not to buy food for your family or diapers or housing or most products you buy in a day. Does the fact that you actually have a choice mean you won't buy them? Of course not. You buy the things that have value to you. Are you suggesting that "roads" and "schools" and "hospitals" have no value and therefore would never be paid for?
Rich people have this 'choice' and they usually do their business in a foreign country to avoid paying taxes and contributing to society. Just and ignorant and selfish point of view if you ask me.
Really? That's odd since the "roads", "schools", and "hospitals" you speak of were largely paid for by the rich. The top one percent of earners in the United States country pay over a third of the taxes. The top five percent pay over half. The top 25 percent pay over 80 percent. Meanwhile, 44 million Americans with jobs now pay no income tax at all.
It's part of being part of a collective. We are all subjected to rules and regulations or else we would not be able to cohabit. Green light, you cross the street, red light, you stop.
So would you suggest that if both traffic laws and tax laws were repealed, the percentage of violators would be the same? Do you think, for instance, that most people would stop paying their taxes and start driving against oncoming traffic?
We all have to contribute one way or the other.
Sure. But what's so wrong with allowing people to choose their contribution? I mean, if the government assigned you your job and forced you to work it, regardless of how you felt about it, would you accept "we all have to contribute" as an answer???
You choose not to buy a car because of taxes, it's not going to affect your life that much, you have alternatives. No one is putting a gun to my head, no one is threatening breaking my legs or hands....
Then you buy that car and don't pay the taxes. Stop paying your income taxes. Actually make the choices I'm talking about and see if no one puts a gun to your head.
Also the taxes on those goods are used in a manner to 'better' the environment, our lives, etc.
If that were actually true, I don't think you'd have to worry about making taxation optional. People will gladly pay for the things that make their lives better.
That would be asking, up until the point where an individual who said no would be forced to pay that tax anyway.
:rolleyes: but I bet if that 'individual' gets sick, he/she will still want to visit the hospital. I bet he/she would still want his kids to go to school... maybe on the same roads paid for by everybody else?
Why don't you apply this to everything? I mean, you have the choice not to buy food for your family or diapers or housing or most products you buy in a day. Does the fact that you actually have a choice mean you won't buy them? Of course not. You buy the things that have value to you. Are you suggesting that "roads" and "schools" and "hospitals" have no value and therefore would never be paid for?
Well they wouldn't be paid for if nobody PAID for them, would they?
Really? That's odd since the "roads", "schools", and "hospitals" you speak of were largely paid for by the rich. The top one percent of earners in the United States country pay over a third of the taxes. The top five percent pay over half. The top 25 percent pay over 80 percent. Meanwhile, 44 million Americans with jobs now pay no income tax at all.
So you just want the rich to pay for everything? Anyway, that may be applicable in YOUR country but you're forgetting I'm from a country where its a bit more evenly spread. Take U2 for example, they're taking their money to Holland, while still living and basing themselves here, to save some money in taxes. There are several loopholes in this country for the rich to manage to avoid paying.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Look, this is turning into a full-on tax thread and I don't want it to. It's a climate change thread.
So many of you want to wield the tax code like it's a gun. Point it at someone you don't like and threaten them. The whole point of climate change discussions is the rejection of the threats from others on your health and your safety, right??? Why then are you just proposing doing the same to them with your tax code?
If you want people to make better choices vis a vis the environment, give them a positive reason to. The people who will solve climate change are not the taxers. The people who will solve climate change are these people:
There are hundreds more. People whose efforts led to better ways of doing things. These are people who, rather than telling you what not to do, gave you new choices. These are the people you're going to be aiming your guns at. Why????
:rolleyes: but I bet if that 'individual' gets sick, he/she will still want to visit the hospital. I bet he/she would still want his kids to go to school... maybe on the same roads paid for by everybody else?
Just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean they deserve something, foreign as that concept may be around here.
Well they wouldn't be paid for if nobody PAID for them, would they?
Of course not.
So you just want the rich to pay for everything? Anyway, that may be applicable in YOUR country but you're forgetting I'm from a country where its a bit more evenly spread. Take U2 for example, they're taking their money to Holland, while still living and basing themselves here, to save some money in taxes. There are several loopholes in this country for the rich to manage to avoid paying.
I want the rich to pay for whatever they want to pay for. I could care less if it's roads or schools or Fabrege Eggs. And I want the poor to do the same. I don't want anyone being forced to work for or pay for something they don't want. I do not believe in slavery.
I will try this one more time in the hope that my question is not coming across clearly enough.
You say there is "no wrong choice", just a "more expensive one". You tell me that a mafia charges me protection money with the threat of harm, not considering my will in the matter. You tell me that the government is different. Now, considering your example above along with the concept of "green tax", can you please tell me then what would happen if I make this choice:
I open a liquor store, or a car dealership. And I do not charge your tax to my customers. Therefore, my prices are less expensive. And because of this, thousands of my fellow citizens come to my store and buy my products. And none of the money they exchange with me is given to the government.
What happens then? What does your government do in the face of my choice which, as you indicate, cannot be wrong since there is no wrong choice?
Than you should open the liquor and car shop on a ship or in an airport, but I doubt the combination will go down well.
The 2 people in your post who will solve climate change are dead.
Alright I'll go allong, people who use cleaner cars and fuels get subsides. So the car or the fuel is cheaper, paid for by the extra tax from poluting companies. Happy?
So would you suggest that if both traffic laws and tax laws were repealed, the percentage of violators would be the same? Do you think, for instance, that most people would stop paying their taxes and start driving against oncoming traffic?
People would just do what they felt like doing. Total chaos. Any gathering of people needs conventions and rules. Even a couple living together.
Sure. But what's so wrong with allowing people to choose their contribution? I mean, if the government assigned you your job and forced you to work it, regardless of how you felt about it, would you accept "we all have to contribute" as an answer???
That would be ideal, wouldn't it? Bute would have to rely on the generosity of individuals to 'contribute'. People are very selfish by nature. A single person might say 'I don't have kids, I lead a healthy lifestyle and I've never been sick. I'm not going to contribute to building schools or hospitals. I'd rather spend all my money on other material goods.'. What is going to happen when this person does need a hospital or had kids? Are the people who contributed to those going to say 'show us you have helped build and run this hospital.. You haven't? Sorry... can't use it.'
Now.. forcing you into a job... Though there are places where this does exist, let's be reasonable in our arguements. Having a collective responsibility does not mean living under a dictatorship (or worse than that!).
Then you buy that car and don't pay the taxes. Stop paying your income taxes. Actually make the choices I'm talking about and see if no one puts a gun to your head.
You wouldn't have a gun to your head. You would have your car taken away, you may be fined. Stop paying your income tax... again, you will be fined, maybe go to jail. You will have broken the rules.... rules that you knew. You accepted the rule when you bought your car - you would pay tax on it. You also accepted the rule when you started working that you would pay income tax.
If that were actually true, I don't think you'd have to worry about making taxation optional. People will gladly pay for the things that make their lives better.
Similar answer as above. If taxation were optional, I doubt very much that any government could get much out of their people. I think they may gladly pay for themselves for something that would benefit them directly, but would get really pissed off to see others not contributing and still benefitting. Again, people are inherently selfish.
I do understand the rules of the game. That's why I don't like it.
Yep... your choice to play or not.... you can always 'disappear' and therefore not have to abide by some of the rules. You would still need to live, ie purchase goods, use transport (?), etc., but at least you would pay taxes (unless you buy a car!)
There are a lot of the rules I don't like, but if you want to be a halfway decent member of society, you need to learn how to live with them. I'm not saying you need to accept them. You can protest, etc., do your bit to change them.
There are hundreds more. People whose efforts led to better ways of doing things. These are people who, rather than telling you what not to do, gave you new choices. These are the people you're going to be aiming your guns at. Why????
Taxes will pay for these people to do their research. The tax on your car or cigarettes or alcohol will pay for the resources needed in combatting global warming, climate change, environmental issued. A necessary evil.
Yes.. find new ways to do things, to clean up the air, etc. But one needs money for that.
Comments
I laughed so hard seeing that publicity from Shell (was it Shell?) talking about how CLEAN the sand digging in Alberta was, how they were "cleaning" the dirt from the sand then putting this "clean" sand back in place for future generations, it was only in english though, i hope nobody bought that.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
ha! ... i think i did the same thing!
grandma - we as a country are too divided ... we no longer function as a country united ... the model cannot work unless we as a people decide to act as a country and not in our own self interests ...
Some positives of climate change;
Increased growing seasons in many parts of the world.
Less summer and fall rain in the Pacific NorthWest.
Better tans equals more sexy girls in the Pacific NorthWest.
Awesome surfing in Tofino.
Possibility of rise in ocean water level means dikes may be built higher. Tremendous opportunity for construction companies.
People are looking for greener energy sources. Great opportunity for raising research capital, providing technology innovation opportunities.
Based on this past year, fewer and milder hurricanes in the Carribean and southern States. Next to no flooding in the southern States.
You can stand still, shouting from the roof top that the sky is falling. Or you can adapt to a changing environment. The successful ones won't be the ones screaming the loudest but the ones adapting to change the most effective and efficiently. Change always brings opportunity.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It's a farce that many countries think they are doing great combatting greenhouse gas emissions but meanwhile haven't changed their consumption habits. All they've changed is the country the goods are manufactured in. Then they walk tall saying "look how green we are". That's a joke.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I agree with this, majority of citizens have not even changed their consumptions habits or just their lifestyle, but on the other hands, most will criticize their govt. for not taking actions towards green policies or environmental strategies.
I mean i have this man working here, always talking against the Harper govt. environmental lack of policies, but he's driving that Ford F150 through the trafic everyday, talking about how Wal Mart prices are great, and praising Chile biological apples. I mean it's all about educations of the citizens, and i think it should start from the govt., all our consumptions habits must change, starting with reducing our gaz dependence, watching what we buy and consume (product travel time, workers respect etc. etc.).
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I think everyone here is very much aware that I see taxation as morally wrong. I don't expect anyone to agree with me and I understand why few do -- without such systems our lives would be fundamentally different and that scares many people.
But what I do not understand is why a simple request to identify the mechanisms behind such systems of taxation are met with denial. When I claim that taxation is violence and I ask someone who takes issue with that to tell me what would happen to a man or woman who refuses to pay tribute to a nation, I am often met with absolute silence or an even more bizarre claim that such a refusal is impossible. Silence cannot erase your force. To say that the very possible is impossible cannot make it so. Why do you think they can? What are you hiding? Who are you hiding it from? Why are you pretending that the armed force behind your laws does not exist by refusing to name it? If it is so morally just, why deny it, why pretend it does not exist, why refuse to acknowledge it?
If you wish to justify theft or define it as something else, that is certainly your right. But to suggest, by refusing to give name to the armed force behind your actions, that a population has free choice when you have constructed a system wherein they are met with that force when making certain choices is very strange to me. Why do you think you can have both? Why do you think you can threaten to arrest, harm, confine or kill another human being and then claim that he's "free"? How do you think you can reject the violence others commit to you while, at the same time, embracing the violence you will commit to them? How does that work?
Try as one might, one cannot deny the difference between a beggar and a robber. A beggar is a man who pits your money against your sympathy. He is the lowest form of a salesman, but he is still a salesman. He offers you a product and allows you to accept or reject his proposition on your terms. The robber, however, is a criminal. He pits your money against your safety and he does so on his terms, not your own. The beggar will let you walk away if you do not like his proposition. The robber will not. A robber without violence is a beggar. A beggar with violence is a robber. The difference is clear and the difference is defined precisely by the force or lack thereof.
Do we live in such a world where the difference between a robber and a beggar is a moral zero? Have we made them the same by denying the existence of the will of the victim and the possibility of violence to override it? Is ours a moral code where the hypocrisy of embracing violence to reject violence does not matter? How is such a thing possible since hypocrisy requires the violation of principle while morality requires the opposite?
It is everyone's right to meet these questions with silence. I do not expect anyone to answer them, nor do I feel anyone is obligated to answer them. But I think this will be my last posting here because I can no longer hope to answer these questions myself. I cannot understand those among you who seem to reject the violence that hurts you but demand the violence that helps you, all the while speaking of "cooperation" and "unity" and "altruism" and, most horrifically, "peace". I do not understand your morality. I cannot find your principles without finding another that contradicts them.
Please be good to one another. But above all else, please be good to yourself.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I admit that our tax laws -- I'll say all our laws -- are violence. They force us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do. I might like to drive on the left side of the road every so often, but I'm "forced" by the state to drive on the right. I'm "forced" to feed parking meters or be faced with the parking ticket -- a form of coercion. If I am driving carelessly, and I hit someone with my car, the state "forces" me to compensate my victim. Our criminal laws are clearly coercive. And if you want to characterize force and coercion as violence, I'm certainly not going to stop you -- although I know a lot of people who will complain bitterly.
I think what distinguishes you from my friends who'd complain is that you are, I think, fiercely protective of your individual freedom to a much greater extent than they are. I don't think I've ever seen you acknowledge a willing participation in any collectivity, and to the extent that you do participate in collectivities, you insist that you do so of your own free will -- like entering into contracts.
My friends (and I for the most part) think of ourselves as belonging to groups, to society. And to make things run smoothly -- to get out of Hobbes' "state of nature" (which totally sucks) -- we're willing to trade away some of our individual freedom by entering into a social contract. And entering that social contract means that we all give up some of our freedom and we have to chip in for public goods -- like traffic rules and paved roads and garbage collection (and public education and clean air and war and a lot more controversial things). Now, people who object to giving up this freedom are going to call this violence, force, coercion. I prefer to think about it as the price I pay for living in society. And frankly, I don't know how much individual freedom I have in the first place -- I have so many demands placed on me by family, friends, colleagues that "doing what I want" seems like an utter abstraction.
Anyway . . .
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
There IS no wrong choice, just a more expensive one. You can drink your beer, presumably with a lower tax rate than your liquor, yet you can still buy your Scotsch altho at higher costs. Same goes for the tax I'm talking about.
Being from the Netherlands I'll never see the rising sea level as a chance to invest in hihger dikes, we already have to cope with the sea and it will get only worse with rising sea levels.
Better tans with higher chance of skin cancer?
Less rain fall also means less succesfull crowth in crops. But the huricanes that reached e.g. US shores were heavier than those in many years. We might be able to adapt but the rest of the eco system will not.
*sigh* thankfully I have been asked by several people to cease this argument so I feel I am 'morally' (
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Ah don't give up.
This makes total sense to me. Have you read Al Gore's book yet - it's very good. Just think he could and should have been our President. People think there are no differences between the Democrats and Republicans but this topic is actually one of the differences.
I will try this one more time in the hope that my question is not coming across clearly enough.
You say there is "no wrong choice", just a "more expensive one". You tell me that a mafia charges me protection money with the threat of harm, not considering my will in the matter. You tell me that the government is different. Now, considering your example above along with the concept of "green tax", can you please tell me then what would happen if I make this choice:
I open a liquor store, or a car dealership. And I do not charge your tax to my customers. Therefore, my prices are less expensive. And because of this, thousands of my fellow citizens come to my store and buy my products. And none of the money they exchange with me is given to the government.
What happens then? What does your government do in the face of my choice which, as you indicate, cannot be wrong since there is no wrong choice?
You open a store of any kind, you need to purchase stock - you purchase stock, you pay taxes on stock and therefore have a total price of a product. You then choose to mark-up the product (ie make a profit so your business survives). How you choose to mark-up (or not if you don't mind your business going down the drain in no time) is your choice - purchase price + mark-up + tax = total selling price of product. Take away taxes, no worries but then total selling price will be less (but then you may choose to go volume instead of price). Basically, money has already gone to the government when you purchased stock, money will go to the government following sales (whether you like it or not - it's part of the selling price), money will go to the government on your earnings.... Taxes all over the place. Should you choose not to declare/pay your taxes - what could happen? You could go to jail...... It is a choice.... If you don't want to pay taxes on something, don't buy the goods.
New York State has imposed the highest tax on cigarettes in the country. This was done for 2 reasons: 1 to stop people from buying them because they wouldn't be able to afford them; 2 to help pay for the medical costs of the ailments that come from smoking and second hand smoke. So why would we have such a tax like this - to protect the environment and save lives from the effects of smoking. Now smoking is banned from all public buildings including restaurants and bars in NYS.
Have you ever heard about investing money into something that may have a greater benefit and could even save lives? Everyday businesses make risky investments. There is no cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS yet we still invest a lot of money and time to find a cure with the belief that someday the investment will payoff and save lives. That's all that is being asked with protecting and saving our environment. Just think of all the jobs that could be created if we make a full effort in protecting the environment.
Yep...same "choice" as the mafia. If you don't want to pay protection money, don't open a business in our neighborhood.
BTW: thank you for at least acknowleding what so many here refuse to -- that the state will force me based on my choice if they judge that choice as wrong.
If it was being asked, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. But you cannot threaten violence against someone and then say "it's being asked".
A beggar asks you for your money. A robber threatens you for it. Do you see the difference?
I haven't read his book yet and I want to see an inconvenient truth too... might wait til it's on DVD
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Not the same choice. Not quite on the tax thing, but I CHOOSE not to buy goods from certain countries for 'political' reasons - same as you may want to choose not to pay tax for 'political' reasons - a question of principle, personal choice. You choose not to buy a car because of taxes, it's not going to affect your life that much, you have alternatives. It's just a material thing. No one is putting a gun to my head, no one is threatening breaking my legs or hands....
Also the taxes on those goods are used in a manner to 'better' the environment, our lives, etc.
The mafia & protection money.. threat, fear, maiming, death (?). Someone IS putting a gun to your head. Not 'complying' will greatly affect your life, your family, your future. The protection money (ie what you compare to a tax) is used for drugs, illegal business, etc....
There is a difference. I don't think the comparison was a good one.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
It's part of being part of a collective. We are all subjected to rules and regulations or else we would not be able to cohabit. Green light, you cross the street, red light, you stop. Taxes are the same - it will go to the collective. We all have to contribute one way or the other. Though unfair they may seem, they have a purpose. I'm all for taxes that are used for education, hospitals, cleaner environment, etc. I loath to think my taxes are also being used to fund the war and kill people. But, as part of a collective, you need to learn to live with it. There are little things you can do as an individual to make you feel better about it - a lot of us doing the same thing can actually have an impact. When you vote for a president/prime minister/whatever, you authorise this person to speak/act for you. If the person you wanted to win didn't.. well... that is the collective speaking... majority wins. You need to understand the rules of the game.
That would be asking, up until the point where an individual who said no would be forced to pay that tax anyway.
We'd get exactly what we wanted to pay for. If we want to pay for nothing, we'd get nothing. If we want to pay for all of it, we'd get all of it.
Why don't you apply this to everything? I mean, you have the choice not to buy food for your family or diapers or housing or most products you buy in a day. Does the fact that you actually have a choice mean you won't buy them? Of course not. You buy the things that have value to you. Are you suggesting that "roads" and "schools" and "hospitals" have no value and therefore would never be paid for?
Really? That's odd since the "roads", "schools", and "hospitals" you speak of were largely paid for by the rich. The top one percent of earners in the United States country pay over a third of the taxes. The top five percent pay over half. The top 25 percent pay over 80 percent. Meanwhile, 44 million Americans with jobs now pay no income tax at all.
So would you suggest that if both traffic laws and tax laws were repealed, the percentage of violators would be the same? Do you think, for instance, that most people would stop paying their taxes and start driving against oncoming traffic?
Sure. But what's so wrong with allowing people to choose their contribution? I mean, if the government assigned you your job and forced you to work it, regardless of how you felt about it, would you accept "we all have to contribute" as an answer???
Then you buy that car and don't pay the taxes. Stop paying your income taxes. Actually make the choices I'm talking about and see if no one puts a gun to your head.
If that were actually true, I don't think you'd have to worry about making taxation optional. People will gladly pay for the things that make their lives better.
I do understand the rules of the game. That's why I don't like it.
:rolleyes: but I bet if that 'individual' gets sick, he/she will still want to visit the hospital. I bet he/she would still want his kids to go to school... maybe on the same roads paid for by everybody else?
Well they wouldn't be paid for if nobody PAID for them, would they?
So you just want the rich to pay for everything? Anyway, that may be applicable in YOUR country but you're forgetting I'm from a country where its a bit more evenly spread. Take U2 for example, they're taking their money to Holland, while still living and basing themselves here, to save some money in taxes. There are several loopholes in this country for the rich to manage to avoid paying.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
So many of you want to wield the tax code like it's a gun. Point it at someone you don't like and threaten them. The whole point of climate change discussions is the rejection of the threats from others on your health and your safety, right??? Why then are you just proposing doing the same to them with your tax code?
If you want people to make better choices vis a vis the environment, give them a positive reason to. The people who will solve climate change are not the taxers. The people who will solve climate change are these people:
Inventor of the fuel cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Friedrich_Sch%C3%B6nbein
Makers of a fuel cell vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX
Inventor of Nuclear power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn
There are hundreds more. People whose efforts led to better ways of doing things. These are people who, rather than telling you what not to do, gave you new choices. These are the people you're going to be aiming your guns at. Why????
Just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean they deserve something, foreign as that concept may be around here.
Of course not.
I want the rich to pay for whatever they want to pay for. I could care less if it's roads or schools or Fabrege Eggs. And I want the poor to do the same. I don't want anyone being forced to work for or pay for something they don't want. I do not believe in slavery.
The 2 people in your post who will solve climate change are dead.
Alright I'll go allong, people who use cleaner cars and fuels get subsides. So the car or the fuel is cheaper, paid for by the extra tax from poluting companies. Happy?
People would just do what they felt like doing. Total chaos. Any gathering of people needs conventions and rules. Even a couple living together.
That would be ideal, wouldn't it? Bute would have to rely on the generosity of individuals to 'contribute'. People are very selfish by nature. A single person might say 'I don't have kids, I lead a healthy lifestyle and I've never been sick. I'm not going to contribute to building schools or hospitals. I'd rather spend all my money on other material goods.'. What is going to happen when this person does need a hospital or had kids? Are the people who contributed to those going to say 'show us you have helped build and run this hospital.. You haven't? Sorry... can't use it.'
Now.. forcing you into a job... Though there are places where this does exist, let's be reasonable in our arguements. Having a collective responsibility does not mean living under a dictatorship (or worse than that!).
You wouldn't have a gun to your head. You would have your car taken away, you may be fined. Stop paying your income tax... again, you will be fined, maybe go to jail. You will have broken the rules.... rules that you knew. You accepted the rule when you bought your car - you would pay tax on it. You also accepted the rule when you started working that you would pay income tax.
Similar answer as above. If taxation were optional, I doubt very much that any government could get much out of their people. I think they may gladly pay for themselves for something that would benefit them directly, but would get really pissed off to see others not contributing and still benefitting. Again, people are inherently selfish.
Yep... your choice to play or not.... you can always 'disappear' and therefore not have to abide by some of the rules. You would still need to live, ie purchase goods, use transport (?), etc., but at least you would pay taxes (unless you buy a car!)
There are a lot of the rules I don't like, but if you want to be a halfway decent member of society, you need to learn how to live with them. I'm not saying you need to accept them. You can protest, etc., do your bit to change them.
Taxes will pay for these people to do their research. The tax on your car or cigarettes or alcohol will pay for the resources needed in combatting global warming, climate change, environmental issued. A necessary evil.
Yes.. find new ways to do things, to clean up the air, etc. But one needs money for that.