If Tax cuts create jobs

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Groups of people don't make decisions normally, individuals do. The example you use is the same as the government business model which implies "group think", the freedom model doesn't. The freedom model allows people to make their own choices in what they will do with their property, their body, their labor etc.

As far as people deciding not to sell their home to a particular individual, that's their right to enter into consensual agreements or not to enter into consensual agreements isn't it ? It seems rather stupid to me not to sell your home to a ready willing and able buyer based on race, but it also seems stupid to force people to associate that don't want to. Who would advocate forcing people to associate if one party or both don't want to? Should the price of a home also be set by a third party such as the government ?

You are the one bowing to dark tendencies, you are advocating "making" people behave a certain way as a standard, I'm not. I'm advocating freedom of association and consensual interactions.

As far as charges of "racism" , of course it is stupid, so please don't waste your time on that argument, I think we share that personal belief. The difference is you think it is acceptable to FORCE people to interact, I DON'T. If a person doesn't want to serve a person because they are Chinese for example, wouldn't it be better for the discriminating business person to suffer the consequences of their actions by having a competitor open a service across the street from them that WILL NOT discriminate? How long will the discriminator stay in business ?

Of course I don't want anybody to tell me what to do, nor do I wish to tell others what they MUST do.
Click to expand...
Rob, Nonthiest just said that because the majority believe that abortion should be illegal, and because the majority of people hold to the idea that voter ID is good (though the proper question has not been posed in a poll to my knowlege) that these things must come about. Voter ID is happening and given a Romney presidency, perhaps abortion will be illegal as well. These are groups of individuals making their wants known.

We cannot do with our property and labor what we opt when either will obstruct another. In this modern age every action by an individual has consequences to the society.

Yes I am in favor of "making" folks do things or refrain from doing things that have a negative effect upon society. You do not mention banks, shall banks refuse to lend to minorities even if they have identical credit and assets?

I have not charged you with racism nor will I, I was making a point about institutionalized racisim that was at one time, before people were told what to do regarding such things, rampant in this country.

The discriminators back then stayed in business quite a while.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
canndo said:
Come on Beenthere, you have to admit that you are incapbable of witnessing such a thing. You will continue to beieve that trickledown economics work until you see some direct and personal evidence that it does not.
Click to expand...
You are correct with that statement canndo!
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
You are correct with that statement canndo!
Click to expand...


Yes, Conservatives are incapbable of altering their world view on the basis of fact, they will occasionaly do so when they themselves are directly affected. I have a friend who was a very firm believer that global warming was a farce. He aquired a company that installs gasseous fuels and now, lo and behold, he is a convert.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Rob, Nonthiest just said that because the majority believe that abortion should be illegal, and because the majority of people hold to the idea that voter ID is good (though the proper question has not been posed in a poll to my knowlege) that these things must come about. Voter ID is happening and given a Romney presidency, perhaps abortion will be illegal as well. These are groups of individuals making their wants known.

We cannot do with our property and labor what we opt when either will obstruct another. In this modern age every action by an individual has consequences to the society.

Yes I am in favor of "making" folks do things or refrain from doing things that have a negative effect upon society. You do not mention banks, shall banks refuse to lend to minorities even if they have identical credit and assets?

I have not charged you with racism nor will I, I was making a point about institutionalized racisim that was at one time, before people were told what to do regarding such things, rampant in this country.

The discriminators back then stayed in business quite a while.
Click to expand...
I'm personally not in favor of government telling people what they can do with THEIR OWN bodies. Nor am I in favor of people doing something to other people's bodies absent their consent. My personal dilemma regarding abortion is at which point in the pregnancy the person having an abortion is not merely acting on their own body, but instead acting on the body of another, the "person" being aborted.

Okay, you are not in favor of obstructing people, neither am I. Isn't forcing people to associate that do not wish to, "obstructing" somebody?

We are also prevented from owning our bodies, our property and our labor by the same institution, government, that you think will somehow arbitrate everything fairly. Why would you believe an institution that can keep you from ingesting something or kill people with your tax $$ ? Why do you think they will somehow protect you too?

Lending institutions and currency should be unregulated and loans should be between the lender and the applicant. Again, if a person wants to stupidly refuse business to somebody based on something like race, given the right kind of competition the free market will soon put them out of business.

Government remains a proponent of racism. How did the war on weed start again ? Wasn't it one of Harry Anslingers scare tactics to make white men think that blacks would steal their women if weed were legal? How about the concentration camps for Japanese Americans IN THE UNITED STATES during WW II ? One could also make a good argument that the middle east wars recently are ethnically motivated and used by government to get Americans to do their bidding using not so subliminal messaging.

So you think government can MAKE people change their views when their business model is force? Hmmm.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm personally not in favor of government telling people what they can do with THEIR OWN bodies. Nor am I in favor of people doing something to other people's bodies absent their consent. My personal dilemma regarding abortion is at which point in the pregnancy the person having an abortion is not merely acting on their own body, but instead acting on the body of another, the "person" being aborted.

Okay, you are not in favor of obstructing people, neither am I. Isn't forcing people to associate that do not wish to, "obstructing" somebody?

We are also prevented from owning our bodies, our property and our labor by the same institution, government, that you think will somehow arbitrate everything fairly. Why would you believe an institution that can keep you from ingesting something or kill people with your tax $$ ? Why do you think they will somehow protect you too?

Lending institutions and currency should be unregulated and loans should be between the lender and the applicant. Again, if a person wants to stupidly refuse business to somebody based on something like race, given the right kind of competition the free market will soon put them out of business.

Government remains a proponent of racism. How did the war on weed start again ? Wasn't it one of Harry Anslingers scare tactics to make white men think that blacks would steal their women if weed were legal? How about the concentration camps for Japanese Americans IN THE UNITED STATES during WW II ? One could also make a good argument that the middle east wars recently are ethnically motivated and used by government to get Americans to do their bidding using not so subliminal messaging.

So you think government can MAKE people change their views when their business model is force? Hmmm.
Click to expand...
If I want to buy a house and the bank will not loan me the money because I am a certain race, who is doing what to whom?

As I said, there were decades where banks did perfectly well not loaning money to minorities and no reasonable competition arose.

We have indeed kept people from ingesting substances that would kill them through legislation. Current laws forbidding poisonous effluent into our waterways is one example.

Now Rob, how would you protect the commons in your free world?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
If I want to buy a house and the bank will not loan me the money because I am a certain race, who is doing what to whom?

As I said, there were decades where banks did perfectly well not loaning money to minorities and no reasonable competition arose.

We have indeed kept people from ingesting substances that would kill them through legislation. Current laws forbidding poisonous effluent into our waterways is one example.

Now Rob, how would you protect the commons in your free world?
Click to expand...
A person or entity like a lender that chooses not to interact with somebody ISN'T "doing something" to somebody. At best it is a NEUTRAL ACT. They have simply chosen for whatever the reason not to interact or enter into a contract. The fact that WE agree they "should" behave in a certain way, because you and I would, does not grant us the right to MAKE them behave a certain way.

Only when a person ACTIVELY does something to another person or their property is a defensive action justifiable. To penalize somebody or threaten them with aggressive action to make them do something that we wish they would do makes us the aggressor.

I would protect the so called "commons" by abiding by the non initiation of aggression principle. I would not ask government to initiate aggression TO FORCE PEOPLE to behave a certain way... if they are not actively harming others or their property. A person is not harming another if they are not interacting with them, they may not be actively helping them or providing a service, but they aren't harming them, in the sense that any action they are doing is an infliction. Indifference and Inflicting are two different acts. I would not use force against a person that is being indifferent, you would.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A person or entity like a lender that chooses not to interact with somebody ISN'T "doing something" to somebody. At best it is a NEUTRAL ACT. They have simply chosen for whatever the reason not to interact or enter into a contract. The fact that WE agree they "should" behave in a certain way, because you and I would, does not grant us the right to MAKE them behave a certain way.

Only when a person ACTIVELY does something to another person or their property is a defensive action justifiable. To penalize somebody or threaten them with aggressive action to make them do something that we wish they would do makes us the aggressor.

I would protect the so called "commons" by abiding by the non initiation of aggression principle. I would not ask government to initiate aggression TO FORCE PEOPLE to behave a certain way... if they are not actively harming others or their property. A person is not harming another if they are not interacting with them, they may not be actively helping them or providing a service, but they aren't harming them, in the sense that any action they are doing is an infliction. Indifference and Inflicting are two different acts. I would not use force against a person that is being indifferent, you would.
Click to expand...
.


You may abide by it, but others are under no such requirement. If a loggin operation is defiling a waterway, how would you prevent them from continuing?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
.


You may abide by it, but others are under no such requirement. If a loggin operation is defiling a waterway, how would you prevent them from continuing?
Click to expand...
A person has no right to defile the property of another. The "defiler" should restitute the person or persons that his actions caused harm to. This could happen thru any number of actions, either a legal system action (assuming that the system is based on making the victim whole) or absent a legal system a mediation action.

You may already know, but thru government, much pollution has occurred. If a polluter is made to be responsible via restitution, their acts of pollution should be minimized.

As an aside you might enjoy a very good book by Dr. Mary Ruart, HEALING OUR WORLD IN AN AGE OF AGGRESSION. She gives good logical answers to many of the things we have discussed here on this forum.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Lending institutions and currency should be unregulated and loans should be between the lender and the applicant. Again, if a person wants to stupidly refuse business to somebody based on something like race, given the right kind of competition the free market will soon put them out of business.

.
Click to expand...
Absolutly
Banks should be free to redline entire neighborhoods, then when the property values are low enough they can swoop in and buy the whole place and profit
The Free market rocks!!!!!
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A person has no right to defile the property of another. The "defiler" should restitute the person or persons that his actions caused harm to. This could happen thru any number of actions, either a legal system action (assuming that the system is based on making the victim whole) or absent a legal system a mediation action.

You may already know, but thru government, much pollution has occurred. If a polluter is made to be responsible via restitution, their acts of pollution should be minimized.

As an aside you might enjoy a very good book by Dr. Mary Ruart, HEALING OUR WORLD IN AN AGE OF AGGRESSION. She gives good logical answers to many of the things we have discussed here on this forum.
Click to expand...
And there is the big "should" Rob. If a person or group does defile the commons (the property of the whole), and they refuse to restitute the person or persons that his action caused harm to, what will you do? How, without force and without government will you correct the incursion of this defiling party?
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Tid bit of info:

1950's Pebble Beach CA. By-Law (no longer enforced but still on the books) "No properties shall be sold to Arab's or Chinese."
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Absolutly
Banks should be free to redline entire neighborhoods, then when the property values are low enough they can swoop in and buy the whole place and profit
The Free market rocks!!!!!
Click to expand...
Did it ever occur to you that buying a house doesn't always have to involve a bank? Also in a truly free market, commerce would not be stifled, it would expand. Besides what you refer to as "the Free market" is an error. The market is heavily regulated.

So are you saying loans should NOT be between two parties ? That it is acceptable to have an uninvited third party involved ?

Which other things should people get "permission" to do ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Grandpapy said:
Tid bit of info:

1950's Pebble Beach CA. By-Law (no longer enforced but still on the books) "No properties shall be sold to Arab's or Chinese."
Click to expand...
...you present another example of government error. The government should stay out of private business and let the people involved in the transaction set the terms. I'm thinking had I wanted to sell my house then to a "foreigner" I'd have told the officials of pebble Beach to pound pebbles up their ass. Of course those who advocate government as the necessary nanny would have sputtered....and done NOTHING.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
...you present another example of government error. The government should stay out of private business and let the people involved in the transaction set the terms. I'm thinking had I wanted to sell my house then to a "foreigner" I'd have told the officials of pebble Beach to pound pebbles up their ass. Of course those who advocate government as the necessary nanny would have sputtered....and done NOTHING.
Click to expand...
Should'a, could'a, would'a. The fact is it's a learned condition, that requires self control.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Happy Day! better then I expected.

Let me give this a try.

If a bank wont lend me money because I'm black, Ok. The bank is just a dick.
But when that bank says to another bank, I don't lend money to blacks, it just makes me feel good. So the other banks follow suite.
Now you have an "Industry" that discriminates against a whole race, who are unable to become "Capitalistic Players" and participate in our way of life.
and now they become a burden on society.

Now the PB By-laws that states "No Chinese or Arab's", was formed by people voting for a very small area in the US, where all people are suppose to be free. The fact that they are "foreigners", has everything to do with racism. Racism is the learned condition that is leached into all levels of our govt.

My embarrassment over this post is overshadowed by the quality of my new stash...
I understand if you feel I should not come back...:weed:




Auto save my ass This took WAY too long..
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Grandpapy said:
Happy Day! better then I expected.

Let me give this a try.

If a bank wont lend me money because I'm black, Ok. The bank is just a dick.
But when that bank says to another bank, I don't lend money to blacks, it just makes me feel good. So the other banks follow suite.
Now you have an "Industry" that discriminates against a whole race, who are unable to become "Capitalistic Players" and participate in our way of life.
and now they become a burden on society.

Now the PB By-laws that states "No Chinese or Arab's", was formed by people voting for a very small area in the US, where all people are suppose to be free. The fact that they are "foreigners", has everything to do with racism. Racism is the learned condition that is leached into all levels of our govt.

My embarrassment over this post is overshadowed by the quality of my new stash...
I understand if you feel I should not come back...:weed:




Auto save my ass This took WAY too long..
Click to expand...
What About when a bank wont lend to you because they redlined an entire geographic area in order to drive down the prices so they can buy it?\
What about when minorities end up paying more in interest as a same qualified white person simply becuase they are black?

Free market?
My ass
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
What About when a bank wont lend to you because they redlined an entire geographic area in order to drive down the prices so they can buy it?\
What about when minorities end up paying more in interest as a same qualified white person simply becuase they are black?

Free market?
My ass
Click to expand...
The Ca. energy crises all started by the energy "Industry" to get Grey Davis out of office. Same-thing.
A few people died because of heat stroke, just the cost of politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top