Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
prole

Ten Days That Shook Olympia

Recommended Posts

How about Gahndi?

 

I am ashamed of my generation. They stood up so they would not have to go to war but they continue to elect war mongers, liars, and then sit on their hands while thousands of people die needlessly.

 

The folks who bother to vote

 

turnout.JPG

 

voter turnout stats

 

well, gee, W was reelected with the highest voter turnout since Tricky Dick was first elected. :wave:

My point exactly. I am ashamed for my country. We are war mongers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate property tax. it just seems anti-American that you can't own your land and be done with it. no no no, you HAVE to have an income to have the American dream.

 

I cant agree more.......

 

Why should you have the right to own land at all?

 

 

Umm, since private property rights and the legal system that ensures that is the basis for our economic system and by extension is the basis for liberty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, since private property rights and the legal system that ensures that is the basis for our economic system and by extension is the basis for liberty...

 

don't try to talk sense to a died in the wool, ACLU-card-carrying closet, commie-sympathizer. the land belongs to the state, as do you.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate property tax. it just seems anti-American that you can't own your land and be done with it. no no no, you HAVE to have an income to have the American dream.

 

I cant agree more.......

 

Why should you have the right to own land at all?

 

oh, oh, i know that one!

 

so you're a chinese farmer and your family has been farming the same plot of land for hundreds of years.

 

then the town council decides they need to increase the job base, so they're going to build a big factory.

 

since the farmland you farm is communally owned, you end up farmless and homeless cause the factory gets built right where you used to farm. tough shit farmer wei!

 

you can always get a job making date-rape-coated children's toys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want our kids to the best in Math and Science in the whole world!

 

I want roads (free of traffic jams) to allow access from my property to my job and the community!

 

I want police to protect our safety, security, which will allow commerce to thrive, which will give me a job and make it possible for me to buy cheap bananas.

 

I want running water and sewer service on my property, and trash pickup would be cool too.

 

I want freedom from property taxes forever.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate property tax. it just seems anti-American that you can't own your land and be done with it. no no no, you HAVE to have an income to have the American dream.

 

I cant agree more.......

 

Why should you have the right to own land at all?

 

 

Umm, since private property rights and the legal system that ensures that is the basis for our economic system and by extension is the basis for liberty...

 

There is no 'umm', here. Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Going further back, our legal system is based on the Magna Carta, drafted at a time when only a few of the population owned land at all. No, our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist. It is also not a basis for our economic system; capitalism could hum along just fine without land ownership; merely one of many components of ownership. Finally, it is also not a basis for liberty. Native Americans did not have individual land ownership, and I daresay they had a HELL of a lot more liberty than we do today.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point exactly. I am ashamed for my country. We are war mongers.

 

no, we are not.

Only those of you who bought into Bush's lies beleive that.

The vast majority of the world population dissagrees with you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no 'umm', here. Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist. It is also not a basis for our economic system; capitalism could hum along just fine without land ownership; merely one of many components of ownership. Finally, it is also not a basis for liberty. Native Americans did not have individual land ownership, and I daresay they had a HELL of a lot more liberty than we do today.

 

Umm... First of all I didn't say legal system, I said liberty. I also said private property rights and not just land ownership. Capitalism would not survive without a transparent legal framework that addresses, and protects, property rights ( and thus the ability to reap profits from the conversion of raw materials into usable goods).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Umm, since private property rights and the legal system that ensures that is the basis for our economic system and by extension is the basis for liberty...

 

It can be read two ways.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bank owns my land.

Ha. This seems a fundamental oversight in the discourse surrounding home ownership and the freedom it supposedly provides. Most home "owners" are just rent payers with interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist.

 

 

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. :lmao:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist.

 

 

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. :lmao:

 

Can you rebutt it with more than a smiley?

 

No, I didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're the one who attempted to compare war protesters to abortion protesters. I don't see my comparison as being any more of a stretch.

 

Rosa Parks took the law into her own hands. She used direct aggressive tactics and forced poor white people to have to sit near and behind a black person. Her protest was a non-violent action, as are I would bet the vast majority of the protesters in Olympia. I'll bet those kids in your picture were not throwing any rocks.

 

Were Bull Connor and George Wallace practicing private non-violent protest?

 

If there's a difference between non-violent abortion protesters and the non-violent Olympia protesters, it's that the abortion protesters are restricting the legal rights of private citizens while the Olympia protesters are attempting to restrict a governmental action. I think the state can protect itself, whereas your typical woman going to an abortion clinic is going to be more vulnerable to being irreparably harmed.

 

Substitute the white mobs who attempted to obstruct integration for Wallace and Bull Connor to remove the state/private dichotomy - and the comparison stands.

 

The overarching principle is the status of the law in a society where all citizens have the right to vote, address their grievances in court, etc. Whether a mob assembles and attempts to impose their particular conception of morality on private citizens, or agents of the state who are acting in accordance with the laws enacted by their legislature makes no difference. Your attempt to deny this is predicated on the fact that you share their private conception of morality, and nothing more.

 

If your neighbor decides that the state is destroying the environment by granting you the right to drive your car on public roads, and he uses non-violent methods to prevent you from exiting your driveway, I presume that you'll gladly accept the proposition that his notions of morality trump the rights that you've been granted by the legislature, and heartily congratulate him on his keen civic engagement. Ditto for those who oppose vaccination blocking shipments of state-funded vaccine to their final destination, etc, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you proposing a Constitutional Ammendment to abolish the right to assemble?

We do have laws in place to prosecute people who break them.

Civil disobedience is the only recourse to a law that prevents participation in the legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, is idiotic extrapolation all you do?

 

No, I wouldn't congratulate such a neighbor. Why should I? And why would anything I've written indicate this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you proposing a Constitutional Ammendment to abolish the right to assemble?

We do have laws in place to prosecute people who break them.

Civil disobedience is the only recourse to a law that prevents participation in the legal system.

 

The law provides for pretty much all forms of assembly that don't compromise the rights of fellow citizens or attempt to supercede the laws established by their legislature.

 

Assemble and protest on the side of the road, railroad, airport runway, shipping lane, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist.

 

 

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. :lmao:

 

Can you rebutt it with more than a smiley?

 

 

 

No, I didn't think so.

 

How about you back up your contention that the US legal system would not change in the absence of private property so there is something to rebut. I can't imagine someone who has even a minimal working knowledge of constitutional and common law history making a statement like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheesh, is idiotic extrapolation all you do?

 

No, I wouldn't congratulate such a neighbor. Why should I? And why would anything I've written indicate this?

 

He's using non-violent actions to enforce a private morality that's at odds with the laws established by the legislature. Same as the protestors - except that in this case he's obstructing your driveway, rather than a the road used to transport goods from the port.

 

The key element here is who gets to make these decisions. If you grant the mob in Olympia the right to determine which uses of the road are acceptable according to their lights, then you have zero basis upon which to condemn the actions of your activist-neighbor in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want our kids to the best in Math and Science in the whole world!

 

I want roads (free of traffic jams) to allow access from my property to my job and the community!

 

I want police to protect our safety, security, which will allow commerce to thrive, which will give me a job and make it possible for me to buy cheap bananas.

 

I want running water and sewer service on my property, and trash pickup would be cool too.

 

I want freedom from property taxes forever.

 

 

 

 

I want to deceive people into thinking these things must be paid only through "property taxes".

 

I want to nickel-and-dime tax people to death, so each tax seems reasonable and relatively small - even though in the aggregate, they are not.

 

I am a tax-and-spend liberal!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bank owns my land.

Ha. This seems a fundamental oversight in the discourse surrounding home ownership and the freedom it supposedly provides. Most home "owners" are just rent payers with interest.

 

and what about once you pay off your loan? then you are a "renter" from the all-mighty state alone - which suits you and your ilk just fine, "prole"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist.

 

 

That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. :lmao:

 

you are just too stupid to understand TTK's legal arguments based on his perfect expertise in this subject matter. self-professed jack of so many trades... :laf:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a better way to pay for infrastructure, city government and public schools, I'd love to hear it. Being a property owner you benefit from each of these things. Seems reasonable to tax those who most benefit. But like I said, if you've got a better idea...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×