Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid

[birdog1960]

therefore, it follows that any form of taxation is violent? a mandate for automotive liability insurance is violent? you can use any terminology you desire to describe this philosophy. my term would be "absurd".

 

Are you familiar with the distinction between negative & positive law? One protects rights, the other imposes obligations through use of force. You've provided the basis for the former (poorly I might add), but can you justify the latter? Or should I just expect another bi-polar false choice from you?

the basis, in a democracy, would be the will of the majority and that of the elected representatives of the majority.

Edited July 1, 2013 by birdog1960

[Rob's House]

therefore, it follows that any form of taxation is violent? a mandate for automotive liability insurance is violent? you can use any terminology you desire to describe this philosophy. my term would be "absurd".

Are you being intentionally obtuse here?

 

It's not the taxation, but rather the enforcement that is violent. I would have spelled that out but I thought it was almost obvious as why your beloved auto insurance mandate analogy doesn't hold water. You're comparing two things that are not similar - and the difference is so stark (and has been explained sufficiently) that I have trouble believing you don't already see the flaw..

 

As to your second question, it depends on the nature and purpose of the tax. Sorry, I also thought that was obvious.

 

the basis, in a democracy, would be the will of the majority and that of the elected representatives of the majority.

Which is why democracy never has been and never will be a viable form of government & why a government that operates according to democratic principles must be limited by a constitution to avoid human & civil rights abuses - unless you don't care about those things.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Rob's House

[TakeYouToTasker]

Today I learned that slavery, rape, murder, theft, forced labor, and the establishment of a state religion are all moral and just; just so long as 51% of the country's population desires them.

 

Thanks for the lesson, birdog.

Edited July 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

Today I learned that slavery, rape, murder, theft, forced labor, and the establishment of a state religion are all moral and just; just so long as 51% of the country's population desires them.

 

Thanks for the lesson, birdog.

 

Kind of casts that whole "civil war" thing in a different light if you think about it.

[birdog1960]

Today I learned that slavery, rape, murder, theft, forced labor, and the establishment of a state religion are all moral and just; just so long as 51% of the country's population desires them.

 

Thanks for the lesson, birdog.

and if a candidate ran on any one of those issues, he'd lose in a landslide. talk about a strawman.

 

Are you being intentionally obtuse here?

 

It's not the taxation, but rather the enforcement that is violent. I would have spelled that out but I thought it was almost obvious as why your beloved auto insurance mandate analogy doesn't hold water. You're comparing two things that are not similar - and the difference is so stark (and has been explained sufficiently) that I have trouble believing you don't already see the flaw..

 

As to your second question, it depends on the nature and purpose of the tax. Sorry, I also thought that was obvious.

 

Which is why democracy never has been and never will be a viable form of government & why a government that operates according to democratic principles must be limited by a constitution to avoid human & civil rights abuses - unless you don't care about those things.

so how are citizens compelled to pay taxes if not by threat of punishment?

 

the nature and the purpose? like a purpose that you see as worthwhile or that a majority of the electorate does?

 

didn't we get obamacare through the same process and framework ( a majority of the electorate supported a candidate that openly embraced and promoted it)? wasn't it deemed constitutional?

Edited July 1, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

and if a candidate ran on any one of those issues, he'd lose in a landslide. talk about a strawman.

You've shifted the goal posts because you don't like the moral implications of your own philosophy. Stop being evasive and answer the question: are those things just and moral if 51% of the population desires them?

 

so how are citizens compelled to pay taxes if not by threat of punishment?

Ahh, there it is. You do believe in visiting force of violence upon those with different moral philosopies than you. That's an interesting (read faux) Jesus you've got there. I've gotta tell ya', force and violence is really more the province of the other guy. I think you'd honestly be more comfortable with horns than halos.

[birdog1960]

You've shifted the goal posts because you don't like the moral implications of your own philosophy. Stop being evasive and answer the question: are those things just and moral if 51% of the population desires them?

 

 

Ahh, there it is. You do believe in visiting force of violence upon those with different moral philosopies than you. That's an interesting (read faux) Jesus you've got there. I've gotta tell ya', force and violence is really more the province of the other guy. I think you'd honestly be more comfortable with horns than halos.

the answer is that i believe a majority of my fellow citizens will never choose such things. they are not in their best interest.yes, laws are necessary and enforcement is necessary. violence is not - you guys are so dramatic! so i guess we've come back around to your contention that we shouldn't have any laws because enforcement would require "violence".

[Rob's House]

 

so how are citizens compelled to pay taxes if not by threat of punishment?

 

You said "have no idea where you get the idea that i support the use of violence and force to accomplish anything."

 

Yet you advocate a system of forcible confiscation enforced by threat of violence. You can't have it both ways.

 

As to the whether taxes and such enforcement are appropriate depends on the nature & purpose of the tax.

the nature and the purpose? like a purpose that you see as worthwhile or that a majority of the electorate does?

You're asking the wrong question

[birdog1960]

where have a mentioned a threat of violence. you and i obviously have different definitions of that word. i'm guessing yours comes from some liberterian dictionary or treatise.

[Rob's House]

 

didn't we get obamacare through the same process and framework ( a majority of the electorate supported a candidate that openly embraced and promoted it)? wasn't it deemed constitutional?

No on both counts. The methods & bribes made to get that albatross passed would land executives in a private company in prison. It's a perfect case study of how the flaws in our system can be manipulated & power abused.

 

Obamacare was held unconstitutional - parts anyway. The Medicaid impositions on the states were found to exceed the scope of the tax & spend power, & the penalty was found unconstitutional as written, but Roberts reasoned that if it were interpreted as a tax it would be permissible & thus construed (in effect rewrote) the state accordingly.

 

where have a mentioned a threat of violence. you and i obviously have different definitions of that word. i'm guessing yours comes from some liberterian dictionary or treatise.

Confining someone to prison doesn't fit your definition of violence? I wonder if you're as narrow in your definition of torture.

 

And again, your assertion that failure to impose positive law by force = abolition of law & law enforcement is a fairly sorry straw man. Despite your intent, you're not conveying anything other than your inability to understand fairly obvious distinctions.

[TakeYouToTasker]

the answer is that i believe a majority of my fellow citizens will never choose such things.

Stop tap dancing. You've adopted a moral philosophy which dictates majority creates morality. Moral codes that are not internally consistent aren't moral codes at all, but rather are indicative of a "might makes right" mindset which is perfectly fine with you right up until you're no longer the one with the sword. This is where you sit.

 

they are not in their best interest.

/facepalm

 

Are you really claiming that individuals don't do things that aren't in their best interests? You're claiming this? You, whom has based his entire argument on a philospohy which requires, for it to be valid, that individuals always do things that aren't in their best interests, and therefor must be forced to do different?

 

C'mon, man... you don't even understand the underpinnings of your own argument.

 

This is getting pathetic.

 

yes, laws are necessary and enforcement is necessary. violence is not - you guys are so dramatic! so i guess we've come back around to your contention that we shouldn't have any laws because enforcement would require "violence".

Stop clinging to this strawman.

 

It all begins with whomever initiates the threats of violence. Violence is used to defend an individual's rights in response to a prior act of violence is very different than initiating violence for non-compliance. The first is characterized by a white knight defending the powerless, the second is characterized by a slave master cracking his whip.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you prefer the second.

 

where have a mentioned a threat of violence. you and i obviously have different definitions of that word. i'm guessing yours comes from some liberterian dictionary or treatise.

Yeah, I'm the guy that uses the term correctly. You must be the other guy.

 

You haven't mentioned it because it's the elephant in the room which you can't discuss without your entire faux-morality crumbing to pieces. Nothing you believe in can possibly be achieved without coersion.

Edited July 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

 

No on both counts. The methods & bribes made to get that albatross passed would land executives in a private company in prison. It's a perfect case study of how the flaws in our system can be manipulated & power abused.

 

on both counts? obama was elected twice and by a sizable majority of the electorate both times while running on a promise of dramatic healthcare reform. his opponents were against this. do you dispute this? the will of the majority was carried out.

[TakeYouToTasker]

on both counts? obama was elected twice and by a sizable majority of the electorate both times while running on a promise of dramatic healthcare reform. his opponents were against this. do you dispute this? the will of the majority was carried out.

The key word in the phrase "false choice" is "false".

[Rob's House]

on both counts? obama was elected twice and by a sizable majority of the electorate both times while running on a promise of dramatic healthcare reform. his opponents were against this. do you dispute this? the will of the majority was carried out.

So now you're advocating an absolute monarchy where the monarch is elected by a bare majority?

[TakeYouToTasker]

So now you're advocating an absolute monarchy where the monarch is elected by a bare majority?

Yup, that's exactly what he's doing.

 

As I stated up-thread:

 

"You've adopted a moral philosophy which dictates majority creates morality. Moral codes that are not internally consistent aren't moral codes at all, but rather are indicative of a "might makes right" mindset which is perfectly fine with you right up until you're no longer the one with the sword. This is where you sit."

[birdog1960]

So now you're advocating an absolute monarchy where the monarch is elected by a bare majority?

no, i'm arguing that the electorate knew that they were electing a champion of healthcare reform to the highest office in the country. they knew he would expend every effort to get it done and thus by extension were voting for healthcare reform. and what they voted for was accomplished. if they had not voted for obama, it would not have been. thus the majority electorate had a major influence on passage of the law, as it should be. but you're arguing that it's somehow violent to inflict this law on the citizens despite these facts. i say it's not. it was a choice made by the electorate. elections have consequences.

Edited July 1, 2013 by birdog1960

[Rob's House]

no, i'm arguing that the electorate knew that they were electing a champion of healthcare reform to the highest office in the country. they knew he would expend every effort to get it done and thus by extension were voting for healthcare reform. and what they voted for was accomplished. if they had not voted for obama, it would not have been. thus the majority electorate had a major influence on passage of the law, as it should be. but you're arguing that it's somehow violent to inflict this law on the citizens despite these facts. i say it's not. it was a choice made by the electorate. elections have consequences.

 

Good God, so many flaws in so few sentences. First, you're absolutely advocating, if not the practice of, the rightousness of an absolute monarchy based on the vote of the bare majority. If you're unhappy about that you may want to take some time and rething your ethos.

 

Secondly, when people vote for a President for four years they are voting on a whole host of issues - essentially EVERY issue. To extrapolate from the fact that Americans elected a giant douche over a turd sandwich, that every program that Giant Douche ran on (however vague his language may have been) has popular support of the people regardless of how it eventually manifests itself, is, to use your term, "absurd".

 

And even to get there we have to accept your flawed premise that coercion and subjugation are morally acceptable as long as a bare majority supports such action, which brings us back to your stated belief that all actions perpetrated under absolute monarchy elected by mare majority, that are not wholly inconsistent with campaign rhetoric, are just and moral and that such is a desirable way to select and run a central government.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

Good God, so many flaws in so few sentences.

 

It's a birddog post.

[birdog1960]

Stop tap dancing. You've adopted a moral philosophy which dictates majority creates morality. Moral codes that are not internally consistent aren't moral codes at all, but rather are indicative of a "might makes right" mindset which is perfectly fine with you right up until you're no longer the one with the sword. This is where you sit.

 

 

/facepalm

 

Are you really claiming that individuals don't do things that aren't in their best interests? You're claiming this? You, whom has based his entire argument on a philospohy which requires, for it to be valid, that individuals always do things that aren't in their best interests, and therefor must be forced to do different?

 

It all begins with whomever initiates the threats of violence. Violence is used to defend an individual's rights in response to a prior act of violence is very different than initiating violence for non-compliance. The first is characterized by a white knight defending the powerless, the second is characterized by a slave master cracking his whip.

 

>

got a few minutes to read this and respond. no, i'm not claiming individuals always act in their own best interests....but large groups almost always do. or at least what they believe to be their own best interests. and large groups decide national elections.now the white knight versus slave master comes down to perspective. the same law that is perceived as white knight by one group might be viewed as slave master to another. higher unemployment benefits, food stamps and subsidized health care would be seen as white knight actions by the poor, unemployed and disenfranchised. but as slave master actions by some of those those paying for those benefits through taxes. no surprise that you only see it from one perspective.

Edited July 1, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

got a few minutes to read this and respond. no, i'm not claiming individuals always act in their own best interests....but large groups almost always do. or at least what they believe to be their own best interests. and large groups decide national elections.

I see you haven't really paid attention to the entire history of the world. Good work, there.

 

now the white knight versus slave master comes down to perspective. the same law that is perceived as white knight by one group might be viewed as slave master to another. higher unemployment benefits, food stamps and subsidized health care would be seen as white knight actions by the poor, unemployed and disenfranchised. but as slave master actions by some of those those paying for those benefits through taxes. no surprise that you only see it from one perspective.

The mental gymnastics you have to go through to take this approach are staggering.

 

Only a blind ideologue could possibly view the coersion by the force of violence wielded by the slave master as white knight behavior.