MtnGoat

"Mtngoat--just out of curiousity, how do you feel about the draft. Hypothetically speaking." Not supportable IMO.

"engaging you in specifics is about as fun as striking up a conversation with Speak'n'Spell." and responding to your assumptions that resisting your desire to make your fellow citizens pay, means they don't care, is about as challenging. Taking apart your assumptions that my refusal to support using my neighbors labor means I don't care and don't see any problems, was really tough. [ 11-14-2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

curious you refuse to engage me on specifics, but I shall do so with you... "so right now we should just brush those less fortunate under the carpet." never said so. that I disagree with your use of others does not indicate I do not support aid, and the contention that the two are intrinsically bound together is part of the problem. it appears you simply cannot conceive of the idea that someone can oppose your use of others labor but still support donating their own. This blind spot is common. "It is remarkable (and incredibly tiresome) that you could somehow, someway rationalize targeting people who see suffering in their community (and would like to figure out how to help those in need) as selfish and lazy." if I target you as selfish because you demand others support what you believe, my targeting has been dead on. as for lazy, I am not sure where i have done that. "Am I lazy because I don’t volunteer at the soup kitchen all the time, that I am willing to consider paying someone else to deal with the problem?" nope, not at all, your cash represents your labor and that's as it should be. "You (or simply others here) are saying it’s not your problem." No, I say I am perfectly willing to accept it as a problem to be solved, but I don't see coercion as the answer. Your contention i see no problems is entirely baseless and again rooted in the assumption that if I resist your coercion, I don't care and I see no problems, which is completely false. All I am doing is resisting your rationalization that caring equals being willing to take my neighbors labor.

"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." fine "Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country." fine "(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." great "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." nope. there is no right to compell others to provide you with labor "(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment," fine "... to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." again justifies compulsion of free individuals to serve the ends of another "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work." false, this abrogates the personal right to control ownership and contract of ones wholly owned resources. "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." false, it expose free indidivuals to the religious dicatates and arbitrary views of others considering what is favorable and "dignity" as well. "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." fine "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." everyone has the right to whatever they can negotiate for, but not an innate right to vacation. "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." this is the biggest problem of all, it guarantees someone else will be forced to labor to provide an individual with all these things upon demand. "rights" do not need to be supplied by coercion of other free peaceful individuals, but rights to goods and services, innately do. "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." still more social coercion "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." again we see a "right" to goods and services others must be compelled to provide "It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." now we shall dictate the content and ideology of said education, in direct violation of an individuals right to their own beliefs free of state imposition. "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." Will they have a right to an education that does not agree with the secular religion espoused above? "it sounds like MtnGoat wants us to return to 19th century liberalism (the historical kind not the progressive type)." You are correct sir, the kind that recognizes individuals right to self determination and not as servants of others without their express consent.

"The guy who works at my local deli and my garbage man both make less, but contribute significantly more, than most of the middle management at a ton of companies." Wether they do or not, they have the same ability to make decisions what they intend to do with their lives and choices. It is not my place to judge who got where and who deserves how much related to someone else via numerous zillion assumptions, and then enforce social adjusments on others because of my views of what they are worth. They are worth whatever they have managed to convince someone else who will pay them they are worth. My external judgement of same may in fact exist, but is not a reason for me to tell either party what they may or may not value because they are *both* free individuals and I am neither's boss.

"The stability of a society is related to the income disparity between the wealthy and the poor." I contend it's related not to the gap, but the reasons the gap exists. The reason problems exist in Brazil is not the gap, but the reasons *for* the gap. It's very difficult to enforce contract law, it's nearly impossible for anyone to get clear title to land which makes poor folks unable to capitalize on earnings they do make. This problem with stabilizing usable capital exists in many third world nations around the world. "A larger taxable rate for wealthy individuals is justified by the increased earning advantage such social stability affords them." I disagree. I could point out again that that larger earning advantage has it's counterpart in all the wealth of goods and services being transferred to those who buy them, who also benefit in direct proportion to how much they spend. I won't participate in refusing to look at only *one* side of economic transactions. "Reliable margins and predictability is worth more than gold to any sensible business professional. That's why we have things like hog and corn "futures."" Which are all driven by private property, and support of title and contract enforcement.

"Nothing could be more simple than your intense selfishness and disregard for society in general." Sure there could be, the selfishness inherent in expecting other to work to serve your ends. Wanting nice things for other people, provided by still others you intend to force to pay for them, indicate *you* are so selfish others should work to pay for what you wish to support. The only thing more selfish than wanting what you want, is wanting to make others work for what you want. Likewise I get a kick out of your seeming assumption that your definition of society is the only one that matters. I don't remember when "society" became defined as anything more than a group of people who live in the same place or voluntarily associate. I have plenty of regard for society, because my definition of a just society is freedom of each individual and folks who allow others to believe and work towards peaceful ends they define for themselves, not towards specific social goals *you* value and define for them. "Am I willing to believe in a system where I contribute some of my income to the overall good of the community? You bet." And I agree, we are merely arguing over specifics and I am seemingly arguing with people who see no end to what they intend to use taxation and programs to "solve". When you can articulate some limits on where you intend to intrude and how much you intend to take from people, I'll be more inclined to take a look at more options. Until then, what appears to be entirely open ended and unbounded does not engender my trust that expansion of govt power will not continue indefinitely, because with each expansion comes a contraction of personal self determination. "But if you honestly believe that every individual out there who is not as fortunate as you to have a home, education, etc is somehow a leech on society and is out to get you, I pity you, as that is not a fun way to live life." I don't believe that at all. Only those who intend to leech are leeches. Plenty of people who do not have as much as I do not support taking resources from others. Being poor does not intrinsically indicate a political viewpoint which espouses using resources taken from others.

"If you say there is free childcare I expect an adress where I can drop my kids off not a theory or someones idea" I never said there was free childcare, only that some demand it, proof of which I showed by presenting the green party platform. I can only answer to what I have actually stated.

"You're missing the point. We are paying other people's bill - the weatlthy's." provide me with examples and I will give you my opinion on a thumbs up or thumbs down on wether we are paying their bills. "yes it's not the government's job to distribute wealth, but that is what is going on now, and it's all going uphill." If you can point to situations where it is explicitly transferred, such as subsidy, I will probably agree it's unwarranted. However, *not* taking more of the resources generated by an individuals own resources may be a transfer, but it is an acceptable one if it is not acheived by illegal cocercion. In other words, that I support not raising taxes on someone, which may infact increase a transfer, but it is a transfer under legitimate conditions. I transfer my wealth to those who provide me with my hiking gear, it's definitely being transferred to people with more than I, but I support it. "and very lenient tax policies of late that are placing more of a burden on the lower rungs of earners. There is no doubt about this." If the increased burden is one they should have because they are not paying what it costs for their services, such an increased burden is in fact justified. I am not concerned about increases or decreases but who is getting what and who is paying for it. If you use more than you pay for, your burden *should* increase. If you use less than you pay for, your burden *should* decrease.

"No but I think the huddled masses missed the whole "and we will tax you until you are forced to go on welfare" thing" which is why taxes should be flat at 10% or so with a cutoff for the very poorest.

"Where the FUCK do you get FREE CHILD CARE???? what memo did I miss?" Plenty of people demand "free" child care, meaning of course paid for by someone else. Here is an example from the green party platform, which represents a least a few million somebodies demanding free childcare. This idea has also been proposed by numerous Dem representatives. "Child Care: Available voluntarily and free for all who need it, modeled after Head Start, federally financed, and community controlled." http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html#1 [ 11-14-2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"give me your huddled masses". did I miss the part where the huddled masses came here to demand someone *else* pay their bills?

"Federal Tax policy over the past 10-20 has made a major redistribution of wealth to the extreme upper ends of our society." What people earn through resources they own control of, such as buisness and corporation, is hardly "redistribution", it's called earning. "Not since the 1920's has the inequities been so large." It is not the role of govt to address inequities, only to maintain individual rights. "With now 16% of the nation's wealth in the hands of about 0.1% of the populace" It's called capital, and without the existence of concentrated capital and those who know how to use it, everyone loses. Furthermore, looking at "wealth" only from the standpoint of cash is only seeing one side of the equation. Each and every person who spends cash on a product or service gets said products or services in exchange. They too receive "wealth" for their wealth. Ignoring that they don't just give up their money for nothing may be handy in attempting to describe how all "wealth" is on one side, but it doesn't represent what really happens. No one pays something for nothing in return. "A good example is the inheritance tax. Despite that 99.5% of people are unaffected by this tax the people who would benefit made a successful play in Congress about the loss of family farms, small business, etc." No matter who is affected by this tax, taxing resources which have already been taxed is not acceptable. If you wish to pay an inheritance tax, give it all away when you die or when you receive it. Your own inheritance tax rates are entirely controllable. "They're not voting for the benefit of the working stiff, just who shoves cash in thier pockets." It's not the "working stiffs" money.

"Please provide evidence that these people DEMAND these services and make sure you use ample citations to back up your sweeping generalization of who "these people" are. Show your work." I'm not going to waste my time citing chapter and verse to convince folks of something they already know, and probably support on grounds that are *not* empirical to begin with (which is the problem.) "These" people consist of those people who demand services, as I have said. Their existence is proven merely by the existence of a party such as the Dems who put forth proposals that some folks pay for others who exist at a deficit while taking resources from others who work at a surplus. I will however pop in an example that is very real even though I have not wasted my time finding an advocasy website, which any interested party can do in about 5 seconds. When you demand free child care because you cannot afford it, you innately are expecting someone else to pay for something you are not supporting by your own means. When you demand free child care for others, even if you *can* pay for it yourself, you are *still* demanding a third party pay for still another third party that does not generate sufficient resources to meet the choices it has made. Ditto for health care, etc. [ 11-14-2002, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Or how about this (I agree with chuck BTW) - we go with the flat and no deductions, and EVEN apply it to corporations?" Because since corporations contain individuals, that results in double taxation, once when the money comes in the door and again when it is disbursed to those who own the corporation. Now double taxation of the same resources may be OK by some, but it's not to me, so I'll oppose it, and do oppose it because it already happens. Corporations are treated as individuals because they are composed of individuals, and you do not lose your right to free speech, free enterprise, or self ownership when you go to work or own a piece of a corporation.

"Upping the percentage on people who make peanuts does not make you much money until you REALLY gouge." And yet these same people are the ones who demand the most services. What we have is people who do not generate enough resources for themselves, demanding someone *else* work to serve them.

hi matt, I'll have a go... "Well, I say America is. We are the richest nation in the world. We have everything. Money, power, everything. We are the only superpower left standing." A couple things. For one, no matter how rich we are, there is a bottom to the cornucopia and the spending levels given combining federal and state taxation give ample evidence of just how ambitious spending can be. It is entirely possible to drain any cornucopia! Secondly, that wealth exists is not an excuse to remove it from the control of those who earn it just because it's there. Now obviously even such a right winger as myself still agrees with some level of public taxation, but this does not indicate support for wholesale confiscation to support one sides views of expansive and nearly endless plans for everyone else. "Personally, I would like to see a state income tax in Washington so we could have the resources to solve our local problems ourselves." Wouldn't happen. No amount of money can solve spending problems caused by people who cannot constrain their own spending. the richest individuals have spending problems and budget concerns just as the richest states do. Unless spending constraint exists, all that happens with greater supplies of cash is bigger spending problems. "I think closing parks to save money is akin to cutting after school sports and art class in public schools-- an atrocity in our afluent society." A agree. What should be cut is building apartments for drunks! "He's just a greedy selfish pig who doesn't want to give any of his money to help anyone but himself." Then he shouldn't have to. Individuals are not someone elses toys to be ordered about to meet that third parties social goals. Just as you should not be constrained from giving any amount you have to issues you support.

"...in spite of the usual attempts to shoot the messenger." Is someone trying to shoot the messenger, or is disagreement with the message now the same as shooting the messenger? "I am confident that an objective reader would agree that the case for apartheid can be made. Not only is it recognizable in the field but law and policy clearly provide the official framework." A very good case for apartheid can be made, I'm glad to see I am now considered objective. The point remains that those minorities who are held to have some rights encoded in law in Israel, however unfair or unequal, are way ahead of minorities in most nations who oppose Israel, where they have fewer, or mostly, none. Such as Palestinian controlled ground, where your "right" to public disagreement or dissent is also your death warrant. Perhaps someone can show us some Syrian or Iranian websites where dissidents from their nations stances post their thoughts and views....and are not arrested or sentenced to death. As always, ad nauseum, the point is not that Israel is perfect, it's that it's agressors are much less so. "quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mtngoat: the UN declaration of Human rights [...] [is] a document I find severely flawed and I am not bound to consider it deterministic or applicable by my standards --------------------------------------------------------------------------------" I must have missed where socialist standards for human "rights" became the defacto standard by which all views of rights are judged. You may repeat this quote as often as you like, and each time I will agree I said it, agree that I stand against the UN's view of human rights, and repeat why... there is no "right" to make people hire you, no "right" to make other people labor to feed you, etc. And most certainly no right to use the lives of peaceful individuals to meet the secular religous goals held by other individuals. Their religious assumption that only their ideas constrain all other humans because they say so, is no different from the pope in the 13th century deciding all humans are under his power for his goals because he says so. One group worshipped an arbitrary god, the other group worships an arbitrary "good" of society, and both decide their "good" is more important than good as seen by individuals. Sorry, don't buy it. The UN's socialist view of rights is that they are granted by govt, not inherently owned by birth, and I will never agree that anyone but an individual owns their body, their labor, and their minds. [ 11-14-2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

If there losses of revenue have been due to the fact that tabs no longer support non transpo issues, this is entirely appropriate. The city and county's job is to make priorities and meet a budget, not just spend and spend and meet the budget by raising taxes. I don't get to go to my boss and demand a raise because I couldn't decide between a boat and fixing my house, and neither the city nor the county should be building apartements for drunks and closing parks and then claiming they don't have money. They do have money, they choose to spend it in the wrong places. They are paid to make hard choices, and it's time to make them. Govt is not a bottomless cornucopia.

"I place Jenin within the context of israeli policy toward arabs and palestininans." You mean the policy of attacking terrorist infrastructure in the form of a known center of training and bombmaking? Or could it be the policy whereby they risk their troops in the streets and issue warnings before demolishing buildings known to house bomb factories, instead of just leveling the whole area from the air?

"A U.N. committee dealt the United States a heavy defeat on Thursday in its bid to block or cripple a draft anti-torture treaty that has been a decade in the making, paving the way for the pact's final approval next month." Shall we discuss what is actually in the treaty, or just debate it based on it's nice name? Consensus doesn't mean crap, what is important is content and if the content is not acceptable, no name makes it so either. This is the same reason we correctly refused to sign the treaty establishing a world wide criminal tribunal, and the same reason we should not sign onto the UN declaration of human rights. "I am sure you'll be glad to have friends in such good company." So how do you feel about the nations on the human rights commission? I understand there are some real luminaries there too. But then, it seems names of treaties and commissions are more important than their content.

"because there is nothing black and white about letting israel pursue its long-standing predatorial policy toward arabs and their land." I never ever claimed there was, but you seem to think I have. What is black and white is one party is bad, and another is worse, supporting the one that acts in a worse fashion does not support those who do not. "and in the same sentence graphically demonize arabs as a whole at every turn." I'd be interested to see one instance where I demonize all arabs, and if I had made such a grave error I will apologize and retract it. I purposefully and repeatedly use language indicating the beef is with those who seek to slaughter israeli civilians by design and continue to do so, as well as those who provide aid and support for these actions, and Islamic fascism as well. That my words condemn these individuals or groups but seem to you to include *all* a rabs is not something I can do anything about. Wether or not individual arabs do or do not support such actions, the stated goal of many groups and the wars in the past is the elimination of Israel, and that is who I am addressing, just so we are clear. "You refuse to acknowledge that whether horror is committed with a gun, a jet, a bomb or by refusing pregnant arab women last minute access to a hospital, the results eventually and intent are the same." Again we see the assumptions made about what I do or do not acknowledge and what it means. While the results can indeed be the same in some cases, the intent is not necessarily the same nor come from the same level in organizations opposing each other. Israel to date makes many efforts to avoid causing casualties such as in Jenin with troops in the streets and warnings to evacuate buildings. While the Pals who commit attacks on Israel do no such thing, their tactics are consistently without mercy or warning of any kind, any avoidance of non combatant casualties, and in fact these casualties are the sum total of their tactics.

Don't consider profanity directed towards my opponents normal, sorry. Nor soundbite responses to complex issues. If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em.

"as far as what you'd do we have a pretty good idea by now " Do we? Why don't you spell it out for "us" so we can see what you *think* you know? "yeah, charges of apartheid would dent anybody's 'perfect' democratic armor" Of course they do, as I've maintained Israel is hardly perfect and this is why. I'm curious how a region in which not one jew is permitted to live, and which it's dissidents stupid enough to protest are slaughtered by Hamas and others, is considered more defensible than one that at least maintains open public debate *and* allows some, if not all, rights. "I suspect pre-1993 south africa was also 'a flawed nation, as all are'" Of course it was. What would you call it? "this is terror by definition, a method used by both sides." Is it? Does every Israeli military action use the same tactics? Nope. Even if it can be shown some Israeli actions target innocents by design and full intent to this day as primary targets, the fact remains that *all* palestinians actions do so and they continue to do so. This is why I draw distinctions between bad, and worse. Wether or not we call both sides tactics terror, the fact remains that one side repeatably, and consistently, and to this very day uses targeting of innocents as their single chief method and goal of attacks, and claiming "everybody does it" without attending to the specifics of the differences in tactics does not mean I intend to ignore same. "6 billion aid package a year is a sure way to express disagreement" So we should express disagreement by allowing Israel to be weakened, which is the goal of those slaughtering Jews? My disagreement with some of their actions will not extend to allowing those to hate them to gain in parity by weakening those they kill. "yes, using bulldozers to collapse buildings on top of their inhabitants," Ignoring the warnings to leave again, are we? Ignore what you wish about the specifics of these examples, do Pals give warnings to Kibbutzes before executing mothers and kids? "everything is black and white, isn't it goat?" Only some things. Bad is better than worse, some rights are better than none, free dissent is better than none, that's all black and white. How to deal with it is far less so. I note *you* find a lot of black and white in your opposition to Israel but when I make distinctions and defend them I'm the one being unreasonable somehow. Actually making a decision means one has decided something,yes, and this inherently means that will set you on one course rather than another.

"that israeli policy toward arabs has a large responsability in this bloody mess." It certainly does, a refusal to wiped out in the face of repeated wars, for this expressly stated purpose, tends to show a policy towards arabs they will not like, that of kicking their asses. Israel has no obligation to be wiped out by those hate them with religious intensity. [ 11-11-2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]