I'm getting real tired with the extreme individualism.

[The Stranger]

But there is still a difference between not being principled and being a coward IMO. Just like being too principled and immobile is as bad as being an opportunist.

is it principally bad to be too principled and immobile or does that depend on the situation?

ps whats up with the constant double posting, automatically i might add.

[Husar]

is it principally bad to be too principled and immobile or does that depend on the situation?

Depends on the principle.
Also exceptions prove the rule.

ps whats up with the constant double posting, automatically i might add.

A software issue. An element beyond our control was updated by the host and the forum software doesn't work properly with it.
Apparently they're on it so we'll see about a fix. If you can't wait, I think @TinCow takes donations, no promises of anything however.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are a liberal statist. We are born and determine what we do or don't do. A government who gets in the way of our determination is going to meet resistance.

Ciggarettes create chemical dependence, so they have a questionable "individual rights" value, but still. Government that believes that it can tell us what we can and can't do should expect an endless ideological war with it's governed. We live once, and nobody has any idea what for; what gives them the right to tell us anything at all?

If I don't want to do something, I don't care whether a single person, a group of people, or the majority of everyone is telling me that I must. I won't and they have no moral legitimacy in my compulsion. It's my responsibility to find a workable and responsible way of live. I'm not saying that I want to do stupid stuff - hey, I appreciate and seek moral guidance - but I have a right to do stupid things as long as it doesnt endanger others or destroy the rights of others.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are a liberal statist. We are born and determine what we do or don't do. A government who gets in the way of our determination is going to meet resistance.

Wild assertion appears.

Ciggarettes create chemical dependence, so they have a questionable "individual rights" value, but still. Government that believes that it can tell us what we can and can't do should expect an endless ideological war with it's governed. We live once, and nobody has any idea what for; what gives them the right to tell us anything at all?

You don't understand. Government does not believe it can tell us what we can and can't do, it knows it can because all governments have the power to tax and the ability to tax is the ability to meddle in lives. Do you deny this statement about the power to tax?

If I don't want to do something, I don't care whether a single person, a group of people, or the majority of everyone is telling me that I must. I won't and they have no moral legitimacy in my compulsion. It's my responsibility to find a workable and responsible way of live. I'm not saying that I want to do stupid stuff - hey, I appreciate and seek moral guidance - but I have a right to do stupid things as long as it doesnt endanger others or destroy the rights of others.

You call me a liberal statist, but I really don't think I am.

What I am trying to talk about is that people are eager nowadays to behave as they please, to demand what they want and to refuse any sort of restraint whether it be from the government or society because of weak logic.

What I want is a dialogue that is better than spouting grandiose statements of "my freedoms" when it comes to a disagreement about the roles of government in society. Everyone tries to be a freedom fighter and it is this mentality that creates this situation where if you accept limitations on freedoms (and there is no doubt that all freedoms have their limitations) you must be a statist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Looking back on what I wrote. I think I initially wanted to talk about much people my age are annoying me which is where the first list there comes from. The way that people my age act generally annoy me and I wanted to talk about it to hash it out and see if I had a legitimate point or if I was annoyed because I am a shy and introverted guy.

Then it kind of conflated with my annoyance at libertarians and republicans who seem to want government to be in a superposition of being influential on people's lives and not influential and I conflated the attitudes and it all kind of became nonsensical at the end.

What I should do is probably write my rants in microsoft word at night then revise in the morning if I want to post. But hey, I still got an approval from Husar, so maybe it wasn't so bad after all.

[Major Robert Dump]

Relax. Go have a smoke.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Government has no moral authority, no matter how much it tries to convey it. It has power authority, the old fashioned kind where we do what it says because it says. In the modern era, where we supposedly create the state, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must limit it to the lowest common denominator need. As those needs change, so should government.

First on the agenda is breaking down the government's arbitrary moral hold on what it has no business being involved in and has no actual moral authority over.
Second on the agenda is determining the core requirements that we as individuals are better served by keeping in the public realm. This should change and we should be cutting the governments role where it is no longer needed or becoming a burden (the postal service, certain drug enforcement, etc)
I want a basic and modular government. Should there be zoning to keep explosions from destroying a town? Should financial services be regulated to avoid massive scale abuses of investors? Should there be laws against killing, stealing finite objects? Yes, Yes, Yes.
Should the government make most drugs illegal, recognize the institution of marriage, outlaw firearms, recognize holidays, give tax breaks for desired behavior, etc? No, No, No.

[Husar]

Holy crap, dawg. I'm touched. I've never seen a post I more thoroughly disagreed with. I can only hope that by the end of this glorious day April 20th I will be able to articulate a response.

And I thought you agree with his post because you thanked him for it.

The problem I see with all the deregulation is that you hand the power to someone else. If the power is not in the hands of the government, then it's in the hands of the wealthy, the landowners or capital owners. Now you could say that the people can retain power by using the markets. Say if a company offers a really bad job for 1$ an hour, noone will take it and as such, all the jobs that are offered are pretty decent at least. On the other hand though, you just removed all kinds of social safety nets and think of people who reject a job as lazy moochers. So even if my example may be extreme, I think you turn people into "slaves" of the companies, with the exception of high achievers perhaps.

Just look at other countries where government control doesn't work properly and people who are indebted have to sell their children to work in factories. Yes, you may want to retain laws against that but you made government so impotent that only lazy moochers will want to become politicians since there is no real incentive to become one. As such you reduce the effectiveness of what little government is left.

As a result the wealthy will pay for their own security, which will control their territory and keep their workers in line because the government does not dare mess with them as noone in the government has the balls or funding to mess with them. You turn your country into a capitalist hellhole where your children work for their slave owners.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Government has no moral authority, no matter how much it tries to convey it.

Oh you make this too easy. This has been well and truly studied, basically, settled political science since about "The Social Contract". Government is a bargain between people, a quid pro quo. Moreover it is also a bargain between individuals (you, me) and the rest (the forum). This where government gets its moral authority over you: that is you have to live up to your end of the bargain, and in representing the rest of us government does not have to accept you not meeting your obligations under the deal. Which include that you shall pay whatever taxes the government damn well imposes on you. It's a little more complicated that this, but we're already at a considerably more accurate view of how the world works than whatever is in your post.

So from the fact that you have an obligation towards the rest of us, we as represented by the government have a moral authority to remind you and seek redress if you don't.

It has power authority, the old fashioned kind where we do what it says because it says. In the modern era, where we supposedly create the state, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must limit it to the lowest common denominator need. As those needs change, so should government.

This is quite clearly contrary to pretty much everything ever written about the history of mankind. Next thing you tell me we'll eventually end up being hunter gatherers again.

No: the story of humanity is the story of ever more complex organisation as a function of the scale of populations. Unless you propose we reduce population numbers drastically you will continue to be wrong. You mistake government for laws dictating what you can and cannot do, but government is far more than that. Its main job is actually maintaining low level organisation of its people, enabling them to get together and do useful things, the laws are merely a side effect.

First on the agenda is breaking down the government's arbitrary moral hold on what it has no business being involved in and has no actual moral authority over.
Second on the agenda is determining the core requirements that we as individuals are better served by keeping in the public realm. This should change and we should be cutting the governments role where it is no longer needed or becoming a burden (the postal service, certain drug enforcement, etc)
I want a basic and modular government. Should there be zoning to keep explosions from destroying a town? Should financial services be regulated to avoid massive scale abuses of investors? Should there be laws against killing, stealing finite objects? Yes, Yes, Yes.
Should the government make most drugs illegal, recognize the institution of marriage, outlaw firearms, recognize holidays, give tax breaks for desired behavior, etc? No, No, No.

And this, has nothing to do with the size and complexity of government. At all. It's just a bunch of antiquated rules, they can be enforced, struck or rewritten as society sees fit. Government is about all the basic services which you take for granted so much you hardly notice them. Like traffic lights, for instance.

[The Lurker Below]

[QUOTE=a completely inoffensive name;2053522748]Looking back on what I wrote. I think I initially wanted to talk about much people my age are annoying me QUOTE]

don't feel bad, people your age annoy me sometimes as well. throw in the people my age and the people my pops age that frequently act like the people your age and that makes a lot of annoying people.

I'm just sorry you hate your freedom loving libertarian friends. Lots of us here seem very quick to protect the unwanted pregnant girls who volunteer to have their bodies brutally intruded yet they also want to deny their smoker friends the right to inhale some gases. :(

[Greyblades]

I'm just sorry you hate your freedom loving libertarian friends. Lots of us here seem very quick to protect the unwanted pregnant girls who volunteer to have their bodies brutally intruded yet they also want to deny their smoker friends the right to inhale some gases. :(

We care not for the smoke they inhale but the huge medical bills they incur for those frequently around them, for us with socialised medicine it is particularly annoying as we have to pay thier own bills on top of it!

[Major Robert Dump]

You said too many dirty words.

Here is a funny one:

On the hearing for the budget recently, a Republican congressman was asking a treasury rep about the fact that people get Tax INCENTIVES on their retirement accounts, but after the 300 million mark they stop getting those incentives for any amount that surpasses the 300 million. He was referring to this as a PENALTY, and was doing so with a straight face, while trying to relate it to the common man. He even got offended when the treasury guy balked at him, and told him most people will never get to the 300 million mark, and the congressman gave him the whole "my daddy was a blue collar worker" filth.

So, apparently only giving some partial freebie is a now considered a penalty. Reminds me of how denial of an annual budget increase for an agency is now considered a "budget cut."

ACIN, everyone is on the take. There is inherently no difference between the below-poverty welfare class who expects to be coddled and the millionaire welfare class who expects to be coddled. Both are fine representatives of American Exceptional-ism. The tobacco tax which -- if I am not mistaken will include Ecigs -- is about far more than just stopping smoking and funding specific programs. That money will go to the general fund to make more money to spend. Smokers are just another group to poke and prod for more cash because we can. End of story. Nothing wholesome about defending smokers, nothing wholesome about taxing them more.

And hey, how about that smart phone tax we got coming?

[Strike For The South]

Yea, people disgust me too.

[Major Robert Dump]

There's a pretty big difference between your two extremes, MRD. The poor guy is on the take because he's got no other options, or his other options really suck. The Rich guy is on the take because, uh... why again? Greed? Yeah, greed.

No. you are thinking that I am lumping all or the other together. Not all poor are the same, and not all rich are the same. I am not talking about the poor people who are in legitimate need and using the social safety net for the reasons they were created. I am talking about the people who refuse to work because they can get the same amount of money through unemployment, food stamps and cash benefits, and then when the unemployment and benefits run out, they shift on over to SSDI with a fake back injury. If you do not think this happens, you are insane. There are plenty of other options, and they may in fact suck -- like a crappy job -- but keeping things like unemployment and benefits when there are other options available means you are lying and technically breaking the law. If you turn down or dont look for a job, your unemployment stops. Why would I go to work as a cook when I could get 75% of my salary through other means, and if you throw in food stamps I damn near break even. I could work a secret job on the side, happens all the time with workers comp. Screw a job. Once

I am not saying they are the majority of poor people by any means. But they are cut from the same cloth as the wealthy exploiters. They do it because they can, and if you try to take it away, they cry foul because they deserve it.

And hey, since we are talking about smoking, and now insurance cannot deny previously existing conditions, and now some states are labeling smoking as a medical condition..... we can all probably expect the day where employers can tell you what you can and cannot do of the clock, since they are paying your insurance and all. Already happens with drugs, and there have been cases where companies fire/refuse to hire smokers because they have a top notch health plan. I am pretty sure these comapnies survived the court challenge. And to be honest, of they are picking up the health care tab, then really they should be allowed some say.

[Kadagar_AV]

But what percentage of poor people is that, MRD? Less than 1%? Less than .01%? Its not even a rational concept. Its not even a good conversation to have. It doesn't belong in the same paragraph or even the same argument as rich parasites.

It's in the same argument as people being parasites if given the chance.

[Major Robert Dump]

But what percentage of poor people is that, MRD? Less than 1%? Less than .01%? Its not even a rational concept. Its not even a good conversation to have. It doesn't belong in the same paragraph or even the same argument as rich parasites.

There is an entire industry built on catching people committing workers compensation fraud and personal injury fraud. An insurance company is willing to pay someone like me 4000 + expenses dollars to watch a guy for 5 days. These types of fraud are 80% of private investigator cases. It is so common, that anyone whoever gets a settlement from a private company or goes on workers comp should expect to be spied on at least twice a year for the rest of their lives for the settlement or the length of the workers comp, even though half the spy cases turn up nothing, which of course does not mean there is no fraud, it just means your 5 days might not have been the right ones to watch if there was fraud. If these insurance companies were losing more money spying on people than they were getting back in recouped settlements and denial of benefits, then they would stop hiring PIs. But they don't.

Sorry, I don't have any percentages. But the above is just workers comp and injury settlements. The effort the government expends to stop welfare fraud and SSDI fraud is minimal after you initially get the award, they maybe cross reference W2s and send out a social worker from time to time.

What do you think I did in between my deployments? I had 3 months to burn. You don't actually think I worked, did you? I went on unemployment. I paid into it, afterall. 3 months. Never looked for a job, never had to prove a thing, never even talked to a human being to get it, just did it all online. Got drunk every day and played video games. There is no doubt in my mind I could have done all that for another 12 months. Hell, if I had tits and a vagina and a couple of babies with different fathers (who I had hide when the social worker came, of course) I would be getting all kinds of cheddar.

My entire extended family is like what I just described above. I know A LOT of people who I am unrelated to who sell weed for a living and are on welfare. And this is just my personal experience.

Gotta be more than 1%. You have an awful lot of faith in humanity. It may not cost even a fraction of what the rich parasites get a way with, but it is, at the core, the same type of person.

[Rhyfelwyr]

While it's true that some people on benefits/welfare choose not to work, I don't hold it against them. There are people that have been completely broken by their conditions, they just can't function like healthy citizens. They're brought up with completely different values, with a whole different outlook on society - responding to the environment that they live in means becoming the sort of person that will really struggle to adapt to normal working life, far less be given a shot at it.

[Major Robert Dump]

While it's true that some people on benefits/welfare choose not to work, I don't hold it against them. There are people that have been completely broken by their conditions, they just can't function like healthy citizens. They're brought up with completely different values, with a whole different outlook on society - responding to the environment that they live in means becoming the sort of person that will really struggle to adapt to normal working life, far less be given a shot at it.

And everything you just said pretty well also fits people born into filthy richedness, or the self-mades who, as they say, "forgot where they came from"

[Major Robert Dump]

Perhaps my point got buried in my rant.

American Exceptional-ism, which is frequently an identity carried by the wealthy, left and right, can be seen at all levels of society, all the way down to the welfare class.

Look, dude, I want people to eat and have a home. I don't want people to suffer. Furthermore, the more miserable people are the more likely they are to come rob and kill me.

I'm not even calling for an end to welfare. I am merely pointing out that people come to expect something as being naturally guaranteed when in fact it is not. This is not to be confused with ACINs less government=anarchy argument, because a lot of people who are all less government actually have alterior motives for being that way that has nothing to do with small government. They talk a big talk, but in reality, they want government where it benefits them and no where else, that what it boils down to.

Those people he refers to who are bitching about tobacco taxes are most likely pro-all sorts of things that cost a bunch of money, and they are cool with getting that money from somewhere other than themselves. That in essence makes them no different than the government-solves-everything people. It's actually not that different than your theory in another thread that the system simply exploits people to fight against each other, because thats what keeps The Man well fed.

While I understand that being taxed more is frustrating because government is highly inefficient and wasteful (not talking about programs, I am talking about the execution of programs), I think a lot of people express it poorly and connect things that are not necessarily connected, not unlike people complaining about the current immigration bill in relation to the boston bomb.

By not having to pay the cigarette tax government is not going to become more efficient.