Running the government "like a corporation"

I once read an article in which Walter Williams DEFENDED the souths role in the civil war, and then went on to talk about "states rights" and how giving out welfare was a violation of our rights.

What a fucking lunatic. He gets out the noose for his own people. He needs to be shot in the head.
 
Watermark said:
Dixie, the declaration didn't make a rational argument for natural rights. It just made a pretty flowery statement that said "Everyone has natural rights". I'm sorry, I disagree with that.
Click to expand...

No, it says very precisely and clearly where those rights come from, did you not read the bold italicized and underlined text I posted? All I can do is post it, you have to actually read it and comprehend it, I can't do anything about your inability to do that. And the argument is not whether you "agree" with our founding fathers.


Everyone used to believe in it as a justification of rights, but that was whenever everyone believed in God. Just because it's in the declaration doesn't make it true. I believe in the utilitarian justification for natural rights, not the natural justification. And there are a lot of people who ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND the concept of natural rights that agree with me on that. The fact that the declaration declared we should have rights is whats most important about it.
Click to expand...


No, all kinds of things can state you should have rights, the Declaration states that our rights are guaranteed because they are "endowed by our Creator." Your understanding of "natural utilitarian rights" or whatever, is not relevant to what the founding document of our nation states unequivocally. THAT was the argument, not your personal beliefs. Oh, and last check, 96% of the world's population believes in something greater than self (i.e.; A God)

Dumbass. A basic prerequisite for democracy is that no one has more power than another person.
Click to expand...

That's foolish, plenty of people have far more and far less power than you and I. There is no equality of power in this world or in reality that I know of. Perhaps in Pink Care Bear World they have this, but not here.


"Republic" has a vague meaning. You could technically say this was republican. But you are justifying it as democratic. We are a democratic representative republic. You would take away the "democratic" part.
Click to expand...

Nope, but I still don't see how allowing those who put the money in to make the decisions on how it is spent, proportional to their contributions, is in any way, not democratic, unpatriotic, neo-fascist, or anything other than fair. Most importantly, no one has explained this argument. We just keep getting the same mindless rants about the founding fathers and democracy, but nothing has been articulated to refute my point.
 
"That's foolish, plenty of people have far more and far less power than you and I. There is no equality of power in this world or in reality that I know of. Perhaps in Pink Care Bear World they have this, but not here. "

Try to BE HONEST. That's not what he's talking about; he's talking about votes, and the foundation of a representative democracy.

BE HONEST. You know that, but you continue to try to distract. STOP LYING.
 
Onceler said:
"As I have stated (repeatedly now), every man would still have a vote, not a half or a third or a fourth, as you seem to think. "

You really are bad with math. If everyone gets 1 vote, but people who make more get 2, 3, 4 or even more votes, the "one vote" that is allocated to those on the bottom is that much less representation. It is not truly a full vote anymore.

You're a TOTAL buffoon. I can't believe you're even trying to argue this is democratic or equal.
Click to expand...

No, it's still a full vote because 1=1 and always will.

Those who would get more votes, would get them based on the amount of money they contributed to the tax revenues. It has nothing to do with wealth, it would be based on taxes from income earnings over the year. As I said, you could easily restructure the tax liabilities if you feel one 'class' group may have too much power. The bottom line is, the power would be equally and democratically distributed among those who were paying the money into the system. This way, we have guaranteed fiscal responsibility, because people always spend their own money more wisely than someone else.
 
Onceler said:
"That's foolish, plenty of people have far more and far less power than you and I. There is no equality of power in this world or in reality that I know of. Perhaps in Pink Care Bear World they have this, but not here. "

Try to BE HONEST. That's not what he's talking about; he's talking about votes, and the foundation of a representative democracy.

BE HONEST. You know that, but you continue to try to distract. STOP LYING.
Click to expand...

I have been honest, I responded to exactly what he said! Votes are bought and sold every day, you know this is true. It is precisely how we ended up in the mess we are in now. We've allowed people who contribute absolutely nothing, to take control of our checkbook and make our financial decisions. The equivalent of you taking your checkbook down to the street corner, and giving it to a crackhead, in the fucking spirit of "fairness" to him! It's ridiculous! All I am proposing is to give the checkbook back to those who are making the damn deposits! What is so "nuts" about that???
 
One man one vote. You can't play with either of the parts of the equation. You can't give someone less than one vote or more than one vote. Every man must have EXACTLY one vote. It's 1=1. Not 1=>1.
 
Dixie said:
I have been honest, I responded to exactly what he said! Votes are bought and sold every day, you know this is true. It is precisely how we ended up in the mess we are in now. We've allowed people who contribute absolutely nothing, to take control of our checkbook and make our financial decisions. The equivalent of you taking your checkbook down to the street corner, and giving it to a crackhead, in the fucking spirit of "fairness" to him! It's ridiculous! All I am proposing is to give the checkbook back to those who are making the damn deposits! What is so "nuts" about that???
Click to expand...

Again, you're falling back on "the pooch is screwed anyway, so let's make it even MORE unequal, because it just doesn't matter."

Yes, money plays too big a part in our process, but votes IN ELECTIONS are not "bought & sold." We still adhere to the principle of one-person, one vote. It's not a perfect democracy, but it IS a representative democracy, under which the very least everyone can expect is that they can express themselves every so often with a vote for someone to represent them in Washington or on the local level.

Now, what you're suggesting, is giving SOME people MORE representation; giving them more votes. There is NO RATIONAL WAY to argue that this is in keeping with the principles of equality & representative democracy. NO WAY.
 
Dixie said:
I have been honest, I responded to exactly what he said! Votes are bought and sold every day, you know this is true.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it right.
It is precisely how we ended up in the mess we are in now. We've allowed people who contribute absolutely nothing, to take control of our checkbook and make our financial decisions. The equivalent of you taking your checkbook down to the street corner, and giving it to a crackhead, in the fucking spirit of "fairness" to him! It's ridiculous! All I am proposing is to give the checkbook back to those who are making the damn deposits! What is so "nuts" about that???
Click to expand...


Rich people don't need more power. As you've pointed out repeatedly, as if it somehow supports your position, they already use their money to buy votes.
 
Dix, what's the mathematical difference between "some 1 vote and others 2" and "some half a vote other one"?

The statement is ONE MAN ONE VOTE, not ONE MAN ONE OR MORE VOTES. You are trying to point out trivial logical loopholes that don't exist.
 
Now, what you're suggesting, is giving SOME people MORE representation; giving them more votes. There is NO RATIONAL WAY to argue that this is in keeping with the principles of equality & representative democracy. NO WAY.
Click to expand...

What I am suggesting is, to give people votes proportional to what they are contributing to the system we are voting on. It is perfectly fair and democratic in every way, shape, and form. What is not fair, equal, or democratic, is allowing people who contribute nothing and have no investment in the system, to control and run the system.
 
It would be acceptable under one man one vote to give everyone two or three votes. That's because everyones vote would be equal after the fact.

"One man one vote" is just an easy slogan that means that everybones vote and voice in government should basically be equal.

Giving one man one vote, and another man two votes violates one man one vote. It violates the concept behind it. That should be clear and obvious and not need explanation.
 
Last edited:
And by the inverse, tax those who contribute more cost at a higher rate.

ie those that supported the war can pay more for it.
those that have children to educate pay more taxes, etc.
Those that are elderly and require more medical care pay more taxes, etc.
 
Dixie said:
What I am suggesting is, to give people votes proportional to what they are contributing to the system we are voting on. It is perfectly fair and democratic in every way, shape, and form. What is not fair, equal, or democratic, is allowing people who contribute nothing and have no investment in the system, to control and run the system.
Click to expand...

What does income have to do with equality when it comes to electing representatives?

It's as arbitrary as favoring those with more square footage in their house, or tall people.

You're a friggin' total moonbat; I waste way too much time on your lunacy. I think at this point, you know what I & the rest are saying, and it probably resonates somewhere in your twisted brain; on some level, you know that what you're arguing for is NOT equality.

Still, you'll respond until dawn with "one equals one! Those who pay more just get more! It's all perfectly equal! It's democratic!"
 
uscitizen said:
And by the inverse, tax those who contribute more cost at a higher rate.

ie those that supported the war can pay more for it.
those that have children to educate pay more taxes, etc.
Those that are elderly and require more medical care pay more taxes, etc.
Click to expand...

Those that get gigantic amounts of corporate welfare pay more taxes.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

That seems to be your favorite argument to present for everything. Lots of wisdom there, Skippy.

Rich people don't need more power. As you've pointed out repeatedly, as if it somehow supports your position, they already use their money to buy votes.
Click to expand...

Apparently you've missed the first 3 times I have made the text large and put it in bold type, so I will do so one more time. Try really hard to focus and concentrate on what I am about to post, because I am getting tired of having to keep repeating myself on this....

IT'S NOT ABOUT WEALTH
IT'S ABOUT TAXES PAID
IT'S NOT "GIVING" ANYONE, ANYTHING!
 
Dixie said:
That seems to be your favorite argument to present for everything. Lots of wisdom there, Skippy.



Apparently you've missed the first 3 times I have made the text large and put it in bold type, so I will do so one more time. Try really hard to focus and concentrate on what I am about to post, because I am getting tired of having to keep repeating myself on this....

IT'S NOT ABOUT WEALTH
IT'S ABOUT TAXES PAID
IT'S NOT "GIVING" ANYONE, ANYTHING!
Click to expand...

And who pays more taxes? You are pretending that the effect doesn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top