|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/21/2006 3:25:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
tsk, tsk. Now you are "straw manning" me, LaM. That's your complementary technique.
You never said you were for a use tax, exclusive of all other taxes, and the abolishment of the IRS.
Your exact words in post 121:
Like a carbon tax. That's not "anti-capitalistic" because it would REPLACE other taxes. It would merely bring the market forces, which are currently out of whack because of insane subsidies, back into line to reflect the true costs of carbon emission.
Or how about a fuel-inefficiency tax on automobiles? Same deal--it would merely REPLACE existing taxes, but, again, would make the price of inefficient automobiles reflect their true cost to the country as a whole.
The sense of your words don't include replacing all other taxes.
What do you think the word "replace" means?
You take ALL the taxes that we currently pay (including property tax, which is the largest tax that most ordinary people pay, whether directly or through rent), chuck them all, and REPLACE them with emissions taxes. And I'd like a special tax on the use of non-renewable resources. Obviously it's not going to be simple, because the multi-tiered tax system we have in place is a dinosaur, and overhauling it is going to take several years. But I haven't heard any better ideas. I've heard many worse ones.
This is an example of your debating style, LaM:
LaM: ... because it would REPLACE other taxes. and Same deal--it would merely REPLACE existing taxes
FH: The sense of your words don't include replacing all other taxes.
LaM: What do you think the word "replace" means? You take ALL the taxes that we currently pay ...
Now see, here is a perfect time for you to say "Hey, FH, sorry I wasn't clear, but that's what I meant." Instead, you attack me, insinuate that I'm unwilling and unable to address a point you made and that I don't know what the word "replace" means.
Heck, you make the clarification (by using the word "all" - in caps no less) in the very sentence after you try to tell me that I'm stupid because I don't know that "replace" means "replace all" instead of "replace some"!
A little humility every once in a while would make your post more interesting and more likely to convince.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
While we're at it, get rid of the sugar tariffs and corn subsidies. (I thought you people were free-marketeers.) Why do we want to get rid of the sugar tariffs and corn subsidies? Ask if you're really interested, because I've noticed that when I start getting into real-world issues, that's exactly when people start parroting their high-school Adam Smith lesson and accusing everyone else of being an ideologue.
Hey, thanks for attributing to me things that I don't believe. And the use of "you people" is always a red flag to me about a person's possible stereotyping.
I don't believe in subsidies at all. What makes you think I do?
And, btw, I'm not sure you are an ideologue. I think the jury is still out.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
And your response would have made sense ONLY if you assumed that I was calling for new taxes on top of the taxes we already have, which, as I emphasized twice, was not what I was saying. You never responded after that. You started talking about my emotions instead (as though you can gauge the emotional state of a stranger writing anonymously six states away).
The pot-calling-the-kettle-black on this thread is pretty tiresome.
Interesting observations, but again, more indicative of your "seeing" things that aren't there, and your seeming difficulty in reading without stereotyping my (and others) beliefs.
I've reread my comments about your tax theory several times, and can find nothing where I even slightly intimated that I "assumed that [you were] calling for new taxes on top of the taxes we already have". I just talked about all taxes in general.
Actually, I'm pretty much against taxes as a social engineering technique at all. Sure, it's necessary at times, but I'm philosophically at odds with it even at those times.
My main point to you was that both of your "solutions" were coercive in nature.
What I said about taxes - exactly - in post 126 was:
The two options you give are both ones that must be forced onto people against their will, by a government - "harsh, anti-free, anti-capitalistic, statist polices".
As an indication of your underlying beliefs, this is exactly what I am talking about what is wrong with many of the "early adopter", "true believers" of global warming.
Taxes are negative reinforcment (and btw, I find it interesting that you define capitalism as the ability to tax something or someone). I'm a believer, generally, in positive reinforcement. Instead of punishing someone for behavior you wish to change, why not reward behavior you wish to encourage?
Instead of taxing big vehicles out of existence, why not have positive enhancements for small vehicles? You know, maybe tax-breaks for them.
Just the same thing, backwards, you may say, and you may be right. But the philosopy and attitude behind it makes a world of difference. Your way wants to force and coerce people "for their own good". A free-market, non-statist way encourages, and gives the freedom of choice to the individual.
I can remember, back after Carter's reign of ineptitude, when tax credits and breaks were given to people who installed home insulation and energy improvements. The result? A new industry, massive insulation work, and a lot of reduced energy costs.
Let me tell you what you'll likely get when you attempt to force people to do something. You may get occasional compliance, and depending on the severity and likelihood of punishment, you may even get a lot of people to knuckle under to you.
As for your emotions becoming an issue:
LaM: You started talking about my emotions instead (as though you can gauge the emotional state of a stranger writing anonymously six states away).
The tone and structure of you posts give me a clue to your emotions. And they have become an issue because you seem to have a problem 1) acknowledging other's humanity 2) acknowledging that you aren't perfect 3) letting a subject go, even after we have agreed to disagree.
Either take more care in your communications, or quit attempting to insult and belittle after we have "agreed to disagree". I can't control what you do, nor change what and how you post. I can point out what I see, however.
You may disagree with my assessment (and vigorously so I'd bet), but if you will think back to when you and I had our first "agree to disagree" in the "Bash Christianity" thread that was in the General BDSM forum, you were confused about other's comments about how I maintained a calm demeanor in my postings in the face of constant angry tirades, belittlement and sarcastic comments from many other posters - including you.
You wrote that you "don't get it" or understand what that was all about, because you thought everyone was being all nice - except me, of course.
I submit you didn't "get it" because you have a blind spot to your own angry method of discussion.
If you don't want your emotional state to be an issue in a discussion then control your emotional attacks in your posts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
quote:
And, another example of your making up stuff: I don't remember anyone calling you a "crypto-fascist".
Marc said my thinking is one step removed from the Holocaust. Call that whatever you'd like. It's revealing though, isn't it, that you can't deny all the other names people have called me... And please let's stop this bullshit about how my techniques of argumentation displease you. Yours leave a lot to be desired as well. Really, if it pains you so much to continue this, go talk to someone else. I'm getting tired of this too.
I hate the word "nuance" ever since Kerry took it on as part of his mantra, but .... you constantly miss the nuance of what I and others say, and this is an example.
marc did not say that your thinking is "one step removed from the Holocaust". What is actually said in post 183 was:
It is so much fun putting the other in their place isn’t it? The difference between what you are doing and the Holocaust is a matter of degree.
Now don’t flip out, I’m not accusing you of being a nazi, but you are standing at the foot of the path that can lead there. I don’t mean believing the nazi ideology but rather the gross mis-use of power to fill the need for self satisfaction gained at the expense of the other.
What he is talking about is your inability to calmly discuss and entertain the possibility that you aren't the total authority and complete all knowing god when it comes to "what must be done". People with your type of attitude of smug self-righteousness, and the inability to consider alternate opinions, when in positions of power, are able to justify the most heinous acts "for the greater good".
That is the path he is talking about. And saying you are "at the foot of that path" is a long way from saying that you are "one step removed for the Holocaust".
Nuance, LaM, and an important one.
marc's first major paragraph in that post also sums up nicely - my opinion - the emotional content of your postings (pertinent sections in bold):
You seem to be taking no notice of most of the things I’ve said, many of which we are in fact in agreement on, and focusing on one or two details you disagree with – and then extrapolating the fact that I disagree into broad conclusions as to my intelligence and character. You (and others on this thread) come across as unable to accept the fact that other people have a different perceptive on things and of having a need to denigrate them for it. It is this which concerns me. This seeming anger over other people daring to question your "facts," daring not to see things the way you do.
As for you always "missing the point", I can give you several other examples of your constant attempts to either re-interpret what other's have said, or what you have posted that are - on the face - indications of your seeming inability or lack of desire to have an open debate. But generally, it's just too much effort, with little chance that you will do anything other than throw more insults, denigration and incorrect interpretations back.
Just two examples: 1) your comments about what "capitalism" is, and 2) your comments about the stupidity of using the terms First World, et al.
I generally just ignore stuff like that, as not being worth the effort, just as I think this post is likely a waste of time and effort.
But you seem to be unable to let things go, and while I'm willing to forego a lot of stuff in the interest of keeping a thread on topic, and in keeping a somewhat civil discussion, I'm no one's whipping boy.
So ... block me if you wish. Quite posting if you so desire. Or continue as you always have, and expect me have my say as well. It's really your choice.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
