Republicans tax plan

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:01 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:
Men are, by nature, more likely than women to get promotions and higher pay.
But the question the lawsuit is asking is why?
Because they're men. A man's hormone levels and brain structure, on top of social pressure, makes it far more likely for him to be competitive and to demand raises and promotions than the average woman would be.

It has nothing to do with managers at Wal-Mart actively preferring men over women. Except possibly in the case of women managers, who by nature would be less likely to promote other women.

In most competitive business where you see equal numbers of men and women, it is because of female affirmative action.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by AbyssalMage » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:05 pm

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:
Men are, by nature, more likely than women to get promotions and higher pay.
But the question the lawsuit is asking is why?
Because they're men. A man's hormone levels and brain structure, on top of social pressure, makes it far more likely for him to be competitive and to demand raises and promotions than the average woman would be.

It has nothing to do with managers at Wal-Mart actively preferring men over women. Except possibly in the case of women managers, who by nature would be less likely to promote other women.

In most competitive business where you see equal numbers of men and women, it is because of female affirmative action.
Possible :geek:

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Fyyr » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:18 pm

You are the one with the lone man in the desert scenario.

I am not going to make your arguments for you.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:31 pm

Fyyr wrote:You are the one with the lone man in the desert scenario.
I thought that's your model, your ideal society.

That you want no government, and people to fend for themselves.

Or are you telling me now that libertarians are for governmental intrusions into the private business affairs of individuals?

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Fyyr » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:01 am

That is your model.
Not mine.
You brought it up, I have never mentioned it(never heard of it except from you, either).

Government has an important role to prevent theft to one person from another.
Fraud is theft.

What other libertarians are for or not is with them, and you can take your arguments to them if you wish.
There are many different brands of Libertarians, I suppose you had coffee with one one time, and you confused his or her words with mine.

For example.
If I offer to sell a 6 cylinder Jeep. You buy it based on my dishonest statement that it is 6, and find out it is a 4 cylinder Jeep. Fraud. The difference in value between one and the other, is pure theft.
Government has a role to make the punishment, the negative consequences, for that theft great enough so that it happens so rarely, that when it happens it should be in the news if it occurs.
That goes for corporate and government, fraud as well.

If you make a print of Half Dome with a Moon, and offer it for sale stating that it is an Ansel Adam's print.
And it sells. You are guilty of theft, in many forms. And you should be punished(by the State, and NOT the buyer) for your dishonesty and theft.
The buyer should get his or her money back. Punishment entailing force should be reserved for by the State. I suppose that the buy could "punish" the seller or his reputation by buying a full page ad in the Chronicle, posting blogs, Twittering, or whatever that, "The Art Dealer Tudamorf Van Gogh is a FRAUD, he sold me a fake Ansel Adam's print." Logically and ethically, as long as it is truthful there should be no problem with doing that, it is Constitutional, and does no undue harm to the seller. Negative consequences to reputation is a perfectly allowable and useful non-force motivator.

While I am not a member of the Libertarian party, the anti-force clause prevents me from joining, I believe that their preamble addresses fraud explicitly. So I don't really know what kind of Libertarian you had coffee with. Sounds kind of like an Objectivist Randian variety.

As long as people lie, cheat, rape, steal, harm, or kill we will always need government.
Government often ignores those core roles, exceeds those roles with impunity, and goes about the business of other things at our expense.
Like those amber signs along all of our freeways now. Burning fossil fuels to electrically power, "Texting Ticket, $195+, It's not worth it". Who paid for all those signs? Why were they put up in the first place? Those things are like a million dollars a piece. And they are like every 2 miles along the freeways here in California. California is bankrupt, who's paying the electricity bill on those fucking useless pieces of crap? Turn them off, and fix the fucking potholes. I just drove over the Altamont twice both ways in the last two days, it's like driving on the fucking railroad tracks.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Fyyr » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:43 am

Guess what else California is doing?

They are putting up speed traps with cameras on all the freeways now.
With no media coverage. I wont say secretly, because they are just right there out in the open for all to see. But surreptitiously, ya.

They are spending hard earned money, your money, now.
One day in the future they will just turn them on.
And start ticketing you, you are a franchise and revenue source.
For doing something that causes no harm.

We are incrementally moving to an Orwellian nightmare, and the rest of you love it.
I will be dead by the time you start strapping the ratcages to your collective faces. Good riddance.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Tudamorf » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:20 am

Fyyr wrote:Government has an important role to prevent theft to one person from another.
Fraud is theft.
What do licenses have to do with fraud? (Fraud is not the same as theft, by the way.)

Let's say you're great at renovating houses. How is it fraud if someone hires you and you don't have a license? What if I want to hire a contractor that I like, who doesn't have a license?

A license is effectively a government takeover of the consumer's decision of whether a service provider is good. And often many of the requirements for the license just amount to taxes, not criteria that are useful to the consumer.

To me that seems like a very un-libertarian idea.

If libertarians like government meddling in their private business decisions, it's news to me.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Tudamorf » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:23 am

Fyyr wrote:Guess what else California is doing?

They are putting up speed traps with cameras on all the freeways now.
With no media coverage. I wont say secretly, because they are just right there out in the open for all to see. But surreptitiously, ya.

They are spending hard earned money, your money, now.
One day in the future they will just turn them on.
And start ticketing you, you are a franchise and revenue source.
For doing something that causes no harm.
Well, speeding tickets are just another tax. And this tax is easy to avoid, just go the speed limit.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Fyyr » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:28 pm

But it's not a real crime.

No one is harmed if you drive faster than the speed limit.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Republicans tax plan

Post by Fyyr » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:51 pm

Tudamorf wrote:What do licenses have to do with fraud? (Fraud is not the same as theft, by the way.)
Fraud is theft by way of a lie. A licensed person has a vested interest in not lying, because of the negative consequences for committing fraud. It is a non force motivator, simply.
Let's say you're great at renovating houses. How is it fraud if someone hires you and you don't have a license? What if I want to hire a contractor that I like, who doesn't have a license?
You may hire a person, they are not a 'contractor' unless they have a license, to do anything you like. There is no force involved. But the contract between you both, is not legally binding.
You as a consumer have little recourse if the person is unlicensed, and does shoddy work.
And the so-called contractor has no protection if you decide to not pay him. I suppose he could file some breach of contract suit, but the judge will throw his case out as soon as the person can not produce a license.
A license is effectively a government takeover of the consumer's decision of whether a service provider is good. And often many of the requirements for the license just amount to taxes, not criteria that are useful to the consumer.
I certainly would not want you to be my doctor or accountant. You are not qualified.
If you pass the boards, then you have the minimum requirements for that profession.
You're not qualified to cut my hair, even.

I suppose you are trying to make some point, you can get to it any time you like. Just try doing it without analogies, please; most analogies are not analogous, yours less so. If you see licenses as some flaw in my Libertarianism, then explain your argument.
To me that seems like a very un-libertarian idea.
If you say so.
If libertarians like government meddling in their private business decisions, it's news to me.
Ok, if you say so.

Post Reply