Federal Tax Reform is SEXY

[slothrop]

Oh joy, page top

 

Someone (too lazy to reference) complained about the unlimited growth of government spending, spending which requires taxation to fund.

 

The government speaks and acts, in theory, with the will of the people, and thus acts like a person. Corporations and individuals, ideally, are also treated like people with regard to certain rights, including the right to spend their money as they so choose. Why should not the government have the same right, since it speaks on behalf of people, with their consent? Why is the government different from any corporation (heh...) or individual in respect to what rights it has to its money?

 

The reason probably has to do with the fact that the government is powerful, can control many resources if it chooses to exercise its power, and need not, since it is composed of people, who are by nature greedy and selfish, act in the best interest of anyone it represents. People recognize that giving huge amounts of power to anyone is dangerous, and so we try to coerce those people (say, by asking nicely and writing a Constitution) into sharing and using their power responsibly.

 

Why should we not ask the same things of corporations and individuals?

 

Confidential to MtnGoat: Please run the following script before replying:

 

% wget -r http://cascadeclimbers.com/ | sed s/sharing/coercion/ | sed s/using power responsibly/unthinkably selfish use of power based on invalid ideas external to my system/

 

[ 11-15-2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: slothrop ]

[chucK]

 

quote:

---

Either suck it up and *prove* your intense commitment

---

MtnGoat,

I have no power to prove anything to you. Your consistent anti-community stance and ability to create facts to bolster your bullshit arguments belies solipsism in the extreme. I cannot prove anything to you because in your world, you create all that exists.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Solipsism. Now there's one of those great but woefully underused words.

 

If there's one good thing about this bbs, it's the relatively high quantity of high quality vocab.

 

Everyone reach around and pat yourself on the back, then stand up and give yourself a round of applause. There, good job, folks.

 

[RobBob]

Why is Dr. Flash talking about Priapism on this board?!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

If we haplologize your screen name, RobBob, we get "Rob". Likewise, if we haplologize the word "haplologize," we get "haplogize." Funny that the word describing the action is a prime candidate for said action. Delightful!

[MtnGoat]

"I have no power to prove anything to you."

 

You most certainly do! Your renunciation of travel for pleasure and actually doing the same would prove your commitment to non selfish use of resources.

 

We can argue over who provide what stats for other issues, because that can be difficult to prove... but if you simply do not travel for pleasure because you are not so selfish as to use the earths resources, you can certainly and amply prove it with your actions.

 

If you really, actually, never go to the mountains again, it will certainly be impossible for me to catch you doing so, won't it? Thus completing your proof.

 

"Your consistent anti-community stance"

 

I must have missed where a refusal to accept your reasons it's OK for force ones neighbors into compliance with ones own selfish goals became "anti-community".

 

I'm all for community. I just don't define it by my ability to march around justifying my use of others lives because I "care" so much more than them. Tell us again how respecting other people and their right to live their lives and cooperate with each other by choice is "anti-community".

 

"and ability to create facts to bolster your bullshit arguments""'

 

you are completely in control of the ability to create the fact that you do not use resources for selfish wants. as I've said, if you *actually* do so, it's impossible for anyone to prove differently.

[slothrop]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

If you really, actually, never go to the mountains again, it will certainly be impossible for me to catch you doing so, won't it? Thus completing your proof.

---

You'll never be a scientist, bucko.

[MtnGoat]

If you can't see that I cannot prove something occurs, when it doesn't occur, you have serious and irresolvable issues with what consitutes proof and how it is arrived at.

 

The person in question is entirely in control of being able to prove their commitment to the environment over selfishness with respect to be entirely able to renounce selfish trips to the mountains.

 

[ 11-15-2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[slothrop]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

If you can't see that I cannot prove something occurs, when it doesn't occur, you have serious and irresolvable issues with what consitutes proof and how it is arrived at.

---

 

If you can't prove it, it doesn't mean he doesn't do it. You can't know whether It occurs or not unless you have information. Perhaps you have no information (Greg lies to you and you don't check up on him, or you look and look but never see him the mountains). You could prove that he never goes out if you could prove that he is always not out, but then again, you'd still have to have information (and a lot of it, i.e., spending every moment of your life making sure he doesn't go hiking).

 

I guess I'm just not sure how you know "really, actually" about anything without seeing it yourself. And even then...

 

Didn't we already have this discussion?

 

[ 11-15-2002, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: slothrop ]

[Bronco]

just vote libertarian. they know what to do with taxes.

 

That's my two cents without having read the rest of this extreemly boring thread.

 

you guys have me wishing for the "good old days" of Muir on Saturday.

 

[ 11-15-2002, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Bronco ]

[Winter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"I have no power to prove anything to you."

 

You most certainly do! Your renunciation of travel for pleasure and actually doing the same would prove your commitment to non selfish use of resources.

 

We can argue over who provide what stats for other issues, because that can be difficult to prove... but if you simply do not travel for pleasure because you are not so selfish as to use the earths resources, you can certainly and amply prove it with your actions.

 

If you really, actually, never go to the mountains again, it will certainly be impossible for me to catch you doing so, won't it? Thus completing your proof.

 

"Your consistent anti-community stance"

 

I must have missed where a refusal to accept your reasons it's OK for force ones neighbors into compliance with ones own selfish goals became "anti-community".

 

I'm all for community. I just don't define it by my ability to march around justifying my use of others lives because I "care" so much more than them. Tell us again how respecting other people and their right to live their lives and cooperate with each other by choice is "anti-community".

 

"and ability to create facts to bolster your bullshit arguments""'

 

you are completely in control of the ability to create the fact that you do not use resources for selfish wants. as I've said, if you *actually* do so, it's impossible for anyone to prove differently.

---

 

I've been lurking throught most of these political threads and posting once in a long awhile. I have to say, though, that MtnGoat has some serious self-esteem issues he's working out on this BB. He takes the opportunity and hours of time to use a rather anonymous (and certainly not face-to-face) forum to pick apart everyone's written political comments in an effort to convince everyone of his conservative viewpoints.

 

MtnGoat, my friend, if you care so much about the issues you write about, then why the hell are you wasting your time posting this crap on the internet, trying to convince a bunch of apolitical climbers that GW Bush is the best thing since sliced bread?! Whoa, you must really be dedicated to your causes if you've chosen this forum as the best way of advancing your ideals and philosophies, which I assume are the best for either each individual or the community as a whole.

 

If you really cared about someone other than yourself, then wouldn't you take to the streets with your amazingly unique and inciteful convictions? Or perhaps its only the climbing community you care about, and you are simply trying to help us all live a more responsible and enjoyable life. Or ... maybe you just want to convince yourself and everyone else on this BB that you are actually worth something ... which you undoubtedly are.

 

Run for office. Sign up with the Christian Coalition. Get active in the Libertarian Party. If you're limiting your political activity to voting and ripping apart everyone else's comments, then perhaps you just feel the need to be better than eveyone else on this BB.

 

Do you believe all this stuff? Then get out there and preach it in person and stop wasting so much damn time in front of your computer, man. There are better ways to make a difference no matter what your political affiliations are.

 

Maybe this is just a case of a little envy?

 

- Chris

[MtnGoat]

"A person's cares about environmental issues doesn't preclude air travel!"

 

IMO it certainly does if they are going to use "selfishness" as a standard and *especially* when applying to SUV's, because you burn a heck of a lot of kerosene straight into the upper atmosphere on any plane ride.

 

"A rather extreme position."

 

I don't think so. Only one that takes *all* choices into account not just the ones some think should count while ignoring others. Even the much touted UN environmental wing is reporting that air travel is a severe problem with respect to air pollution and CO2 contributions, and if you're going to use the UN's eco wing as a standard for warming as many do, you ought to be prepared to not pick and choose between their concerns, after all they know best, right?

 

"If these are the standards you live by, no wonder you're so wound up!"

 

I don't live by them because I expect each person is the best judge of what they "need" in concert with what they choose to value. But if others are going to continue on about wasteful and selfish habits, it's only fair we examine wasteful and selfish for *all*.

 

"Personally, I find it perfectly reasonable to work towards federally mandated fuel efficiency standards (thereby lowering our reliance on a non-renewable energy source) and still travel."

 

so do i.

 

"I also find it perfectly reasonable to use toilet paper and write letters, while protecting old-growth forests."

 

so do i.

 

"I also find it perfectly reasonable to call you a silly irrevelant non-sequitir, while still adhering to Buddhist values!"

 

as is your right.

 

"I think libertarians sometimes forget, in their zeal for individual rights, the fact that when individual rights are taken too far, our collective rights are abridged."

 

I think some forget that "collective rights" are hardly agreed upon and highly questionable. I for one do not believe in collective rights as is often conceived. Perhaps in the fashion that each citizen has individual rights and any number of people can be viewed as a group, so yes the "group" has rights but they are only those each individual has.

[gregm]

mtngoat your basic argument appears to be that environmentalism equals hypocrisy. you support this claim by saying that anyone who rides a motor vehicle cannot honestly be an environmentalist.

 

i would say that environmentalism is just another way of saying "don't shit on the carpet". to which you would reply, "do you not shit? you are a hypocrite". to which i would reply, "shitting should be done on a toilet". there are simply different uses for different areas, the john is used for shitting, the living room carpet for lolling about, and we want to keep it clean.

 

most of our land is designated to be used by motor vehicles. small patches of land, national parks, are set aside to be preserved in a more natural state. i think it's that simple. am i wrong?

[sk]

this thred is painful, but gregm you are correct.

[sexual_chocolate]

Hey Mtngoat, you bring up a point I had never thought of-namely, pollution associated with air travel.

 

Do jets have any type of emission controls?

 

Perhaps it's time to start considering this.

 

But, in the meanwhile, any distance traveled involves some compromises, and since jet-travel is the only way to realistically go on any lengthy journey, I'd consider it a necessary evil, whereas an SUV is hardly necessary, usually existing only as a vanity piece. But, you do bring up a point worth considering.

 

You seemed to agree with my point about fuel efficiency standards (I think we can all agree that pollution and its accompanying health effects-along with our reliance on a non-renewable energy source-would be reduced, collectively a good thing (unless one works in the oil biz or health biz.)).

Would you suggest a federally mandated standard?

[sk]

If the majority of people were not stupid assholes we would not need federaly mandated restrictions.

 

too bad you can't sue people for being LAME

 

It would be far better if we could start some kind of campain to convince people that driving an SUV is NOT COOL so that only people that realy NEED the 4 wheel drive AND space would drive the SUV.

 

IMHO more laws are never the answer

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Perhaps the best solution is to simply kill anyone who drives an SUV, no questions asked?

[sk]

DFA< DOOD YOU GOT A PAGE TOP!!!!!!!

[allthumbs]

Why is it not cool to drive a SUV? If a person can afford the fucker, who are you to say that person is not cool? While you bitch about it, the SUV person is probably heading to a nice upscale bar after work for some intelligent, lively banter with his/her peers and some hanky panky side action before going home to mama and the brats.

 

More power to em' sista!

[sk]

I firmly believe (yet do not think a law should be passed) that you should drive a car that fits your needs. If you need a big ass vehical and drive over snow and terrain than maybe an suv is not a bad idea. But if you are an over made up she hooker with children that drives to school and work and back again... perhaps a family sadan would more fit your needs. Just my oppinion. You KNOW how I feel about soccer moms

[allthumbs]

I'm glad you qualified your last post with "but not a law", because that sounded awfully authoritarian and Nazi-ish.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Trask =

 

 

+

 

[allthumbs]

Dr. Flush, is that a slam on my intelligence? And here I thought we were becoming best friends.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

[sk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

I'm glad you qualified your last post with "but not a law", because that sounded awfully authoritarian and Nazi-ish.

---

there should only be 3 laws..... starting with the commen sense law