(11-12-2012 03:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I think the visceral hate begins because they are democrats and its one reason I am completely fed up with the tribal-ness of our political setup.

I don't think it's there just because they are democrats, any more than the left's visceral hate for GWB is there just because he's a republican. There are democrats and republicans that I believe can work with each other. Unfortunately, none of them seem to have made it to leadership positions (president, VP, speaker, senate majority/minority leaders, house majority/minority leaders).

I think there is undoubtable hate for any person who achieves any level of power from the other team's foot soldiers. I agree there are good people on both sides and they very rarely get to high levels, but if they did, each sides PR departments will ravage them.

(11-12-2012 03:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.

Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

(11-12-2012 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.

Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

No, and it's pretty dishonest and disingenuous of you to twist what I wrote to say that.

(11-12-2012 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

No, and it's pretty dishonest and disingenuous of you to twist what I wrote to say that.

Obama's removed plenty of our civil liberties too. Does killing American citizens abroad without due process fall under partial or total removal of the civil liberty? It's absurd to measure liberties in such terms. Liberties are always taken in gradual steps and deniers can always point to something we're allowed to do in order to try to lessen the deprivation of liberty.

(11-12-2012 03:41 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

No, and it's pretty dishonest and disingenuous of you to twist what I wrote to say that.

Obama's removed plenty of our civil liberties too. Does killing American citizens abroad without due process fall under partial or total removal of the civil liberty? It's absurd to measure liberties in such terms. Liberties are always taken in gradual steps and deniers can always point to something we're allowed to do in order to try to lessen the deprivation of liberty.

Removing civil liberties goes hand in hand with removing economic liberties. Your ability to take away either increases dramatically in proportion to the extent that you can take away the other. I would say that TOTALLY removing either is worse than partially removing either, and that partial removals are worse the larger the part taken away. But any attempted distinction between personal freedoms and economic freedoms is a bogus one. And as you note, either personal or economic liberties are usually taken in gradual steps. Step one is one too many.

(11-12-2012 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

No, and it's pretty dishonest and disingenuous of you to twist what I wrote to say that.

Realistically, it is exactly what you just argued. Your concern over a slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizens civil liberties.

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.

Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

I did not realize the right to force employers to keep you around if your a pot head was the sum total of our civil liberties.

I'm discussing the anti-drug legislation, try to read the thread before you comment Bull, it would help with your posting significantly.

(11-12-2012 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:41 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

No, and it's pretty dishonest and disingenuous of you to twist what I wrote to say that.

Obama's removed plenty of our civil liberties too. Does killing American citizens abroad without due process fall under partial or total removal of the civil liberty? It's absurd to measure liberties in such terms. Liberties are always taken in gradual steps and deniers can always point to something we're allowed to do in order to try to lessen the deprivation of liberty.

Removing civil liberties goes hand in hand with removing economic liberties. Your ability to take away either increases dramatically in proportion to the extent that you can take away the other. I would say that TOTALLY removing either is worse than partially removing either, and that partial removals are worse the larger the part taken away. But any attempted distinction between personal freedoms and economic freedoms is a bogus one. And as you note, either personal or economic liberties are usually taken in gradual steps. Step one is one too many.

I agree. I'd give the example of a 3% tax might be the equivalent of removing your ability to say offensive speech. You still have the ability to express yourself, but you're not completely free.

(11-12-2012 03:52 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:41 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

No, and it's pretty dishonest and disingenuous of you to twist what I wrote to say that.

Obama's removed plenty of our civil liberties too. Does killing American citizens abroad without due process fall under partial or total removal of the civil liberty? It's absurd to measure liberties in such terms. Liberties are always taken in gradual steps and deniers can always point to something we're allowed to do in order to try to lessen the deprivation of liberty.

Removing civil liberties goes hand in hand with removing economic liberties. Your ability to take away either increases dramatically in proportion to the extent that you can take away the other. I would say that TOTALLY removing either is worse than partially removing either, and that partial removals are worse the larger the part taken away. But any attempted distinction between personal freedoms and economic freedoms is a bogus one. And as you note, either personal or economic liberties are usually taken in gradual steps. Step one is one too many.

I agree. I'd give the example of a 3% tax might be the equivalent of removing your ability to say offensive speech. You still have the ability to express yourself, but you're not completely free.

Complete freedom isn't something that has ever been ascribed nor could ever realistically be implemented in any society. It's all a give and take, and no amount of theoretic discussions in which we wax poetic over impossible situations changes that.

(11-12-2012 03:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm discussing the anti-drug legislation, try to read the thread before you comment Bull, it would help with your posting significantly.

Ok I did not realize the right to toke up or get high is the sum total of your civil liberties...

You accuse someone else of to narrow a focus on liberty when you're doing the exact same thing!

(11-12-2012 03:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm discussing the anti-drug legislation, try to read the thread before you comment Bull, it would help with your posting significantly.

Ok I did not realize the right to toke up or get high is the sum total of your civil liberties...

You accuse someone else of to narrow a focus on liberty when you're doing the exact same thing!

No, the right to not have the entirety of ones civil liberties comes from the fact one can get arrested and become a prisoner for it. Again, READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT.

(11-12-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Realistically, it is exactly what you just argued. Your concern over a slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizens civil liberties.

No, that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I explained it further elsewhere in the thread, no need to repeat it here.

(11-12-2012 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Realistically, it is exactly what you just argued. Your concern over a slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizens civil liberties.

No, that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I explained it further elsewhere in the thread, no need to repeat it here.

It really isn't, and if it is, you clearly didn't. You conflated the danger of incrementalism as equivalent, or at least important enough, to be worried about it in the face of absolutism.

Bill Kristol has admitted defeat to the liberty movement:

(11-12-2012 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Realistically, it is exactly what you just argued. Your concern over a slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizens civil liberties.

No, that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I explained it further elsewhere in the thread, no need to repeat it here.

It really isn't, and if it is, you clearly didn't. You conflated the danger of incrementalism as equivalent, or at least important enough, to be worried about it in the face of absolutism.

No, you are the one who conflated. I never said that a "slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizen's civil liberties." What part of "I think someone going to jail is a larger civil liberties concern than taking someone's money" says that? And yes, I added, "but not hugely so," because, I'm sorry, that's the way it is. It is important enough to be worried about, whether "in the face of absolutism" or not.

It's like the frog in the pot of water. Turn up the heat all at once, and the frog realizes the water is too hot and hops out. Turn it up slowly, and the frog stays in the pot and boils. We can never know whether an incremental change will lead ultimately to totalitarian change. That being the case, be very wary about taking the chance in the first place.

For the record, I am strongly opposed to anyone going to jail for marijuana, and have made that point repeatedly. But incremental change in the direction of reduced economic OR social freedom is bad.

(11-12-2012 04:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Realistically, it is exactly what you just argued. Your concern over a slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizens civil liberties.

No, that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I explained it further elsewhere in the thread, no need to repeat it here.

It really isn't, and if it is, you clearly didn't. You conflated the danger of incrementalism as equivalent, or at least important enough, to be worried about it in the face of absolutism.

No, you are the one who conflated. I never said that a "slight increase in taxation is of the same importance as another citizen's civil liberties." What part of "I think someone going to jail is a larger civil liberties concern than taking someone's money" says that? And yes, I added, "but not hugely so," because, I'm sorry, that's the way it is. It is important enough to be worried about, whether "in the face of absolutism" or not.

It's like the frog in the pot of water. Turn up the heat all at once, and the frog realizes the water is too hot and hops out. Turn it up slowly, and the frog stays in the pot and boils. We can never know whether an incremental change will lead ultimately to totalitarian change. That being the case, be very wary about taking the chance in the first place.

For the record, I am strongly opposed to anyone going to jail for marijuana, and have made that point repeatedly. But incremental change in the direction of reduced economic OR social freedom is bad.

But, this is reality. There is no movement towards absolutism in the socialist sense within the american left, at least none that is taken seriously. There is an absolutism in place in the american right. Given the choice, how do you choose the later rather than the former?

(11-12-2012 04:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, this is reality. There is no movement towards absolutism in the socialist sense within the american left, at least none that is taken seriously. There is an absolutism in place in the american right. Given the choice, how do you choose the later rather than the former?

I don't choose the latter. I just said that I don't. I've said repeatedly that I don't. I've got at least three posts on this thread saying that I don't. You're putting words in my mouth.

Do you not possess sufficient honesty and integrity to be able to discuss an issue without falsely attributing to the other party things that he/she did not say?

(11-12-2012 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, this is reality. There is no movement towards absolutism in the socialist sense within the american left, at least none that is taken seriously. There is an absolutism in place in the american right. Given the choice, how do you choose the later rather than the former?

I don't choose the latter. I just said that I don't. I've said repeatedly that I don't. I've got at least three posts on this thread saying that I don't. You're putting words in my mouth.

Then I apologize, from your posts you seem to support republican policy more than democratic policy. Regardless, much of the self-described libertarians do as I've stated above, and it's a line of reasoning I don't understand.