Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does that issue get you so hot? There are plenty of reasons to feel the way you do--I'm just surprised this one is foremost. To me, it's only a few steps above getting pissed off at Bush 1 for cutting NEA funding because of its support of works such as PissChrist.

If you live or die based on the health of the NEA, you probably share that "he's evil" viewpoint.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
While I like the tone of the article, I think various answers to this question: "Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong?" would make for an interesting discussion.

If we're going back to base principles, it's not fair to start in the middle. Before one can get to your question, one first has to resolve the question: "How do we determine that any person has a right to any particular property, or for that matter any property at all?"

You assume there's a "right" to every dollar that an employer pays in your name, but is that true? Does the analysis change if instead of an "income" tax, there is a "employee" tax, i.e. instead of taxing your right to earn money, the government taxes your employer's right to hire people (which has same net effect, but different psychologically, and perhaps different philosophically). From which party does a sales tax take property? If the origin of all land grants is the government (whether top down a la feudalism or through the collective parcelling of the commons), why are property taxes not simply a form of rent?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
On the basis of the stem cell issue alone, I think Bush is evil epitomized...

To the Secret Service people monitoring this board: He's kidding.

eta: stp Sheesh, Wonk. Investigations have started based on less threatening assertions.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
While I like the tone of the article, I think various answers to this question: "Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong?" would make for an interesting discussion.

Hello

Okay, let's take a look at the question as the author poses it:

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

There are goods (roads, schools, military hardware, etc.) and services (police, military, health regulation, etc.) that are expensive enough, and provide little enough benefit to any individual or group of individuals, that no one person or group would find it economically efficient to pay for such goods and services. However, these goods and services supply us as a democratic society with a collective benefit greater than the benefit each of us enjoys individually.

These goods and services are generally characterized as externalities. We pay taxes to support those externalities. We buy police to keep us safe in our homes. We buy armies to keep us safe in the world. We buy education for our children, so that they will grow up to provide a useful labor force and so that they will have the knowledge to improve our lot and take care of us in our dotage. We provide a afety net for those who cannot provide for themselves because we find it prefereable to them killing us and taking what they need since they have no other means to live.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said: I enjoy paying taxes: with them I buy civilzation. Anyone who views this as socialism and as a moral wrong is either too simplistic in em's thinking, or being sollypsistic, or just plain old fucking stupid.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does that issue get you so hot? There are plenty of reasons to feel the way you do--I'm just surprised this one is foremost. To me, it's only a few steps above getting pissed off at Bush 1 for cutting NEA funding because of its support of works such as PissChrist.

I have two very personal reasons. First, let's talk diabetes. Some of the most promising stem cell research right now is being done on islet cells, which will one day eradicate insulin dependent diabetes. Second, regeneration of heart muscle. They have actrually successfully done this in mice. The lack of an adequatesupply of human stem cells will keep this from progressing to the human testing level. Given that over 60% of my left ventricle is akinetic (i.e., dead) I have a real interest in not blocking a research program that might one day allow me to replace that dead tissue with live functioning muscle.

Now, multiply me by the millions of Americans who will be helped by this research. Americans who far outnumber the conservative luddites who oppose stem cell research. When the religious beliefs of the few outweigh the rights of the majority, we stand in a moment of constitutional crisis, whether it is so acknowledged or not.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Note to the Secret Service: The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the management of lawtalkers.com.

Seriously, Wonk. That's out of line...

Is it? He's sentencing me to death. Along with millions of others like me. Am I wrong to feel my life is worth more than his, when he is willing to sacrifice mine to hold on to a small number of votes?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Oliver Wendell Holmes said: I enjoy paying taxes: with them I buy civilzation. Anyone who views this as socialism and as a moral wrong is either too simplistic in em's thinking, or being sollypsistic, or just plain old fucking stupid.

However, we can disagree on how much of our own resources we wish to pay for the common weal - we can disagree about building a new Lawrence Welk museum, or paying megabucks for rapid transit of limited use - without being stoopid. What you consider a valid use of my money may not make me nearly as happy as it does you. You might wish to see a $1000-per-person tax just to cover, say, medical research. I might want to see that same amount spent on research on kayak design. The consensus - or, more accurately, the average amount seen as appropriate by all voters - is where we end up, and that amount crawls back and forth across the continuum as political leanings sway.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
However, we can disagree on how much of our own resources we wish to pay for the common weal - we can disagree about building a new Lawrence Welk museum, or paying megabucks for rapid transit of limited use - without being stoopid. What you consider a valid use of my money may not make me nearly as happy as it does you. You might wish to see a $1000-per-person tax just to cover, say, medical research. I might want to see that same amount spent on research on kayak design. The consensus - or, more accurately, the average amount seen as appropriate by all voters - is where we end up, and that amount crawls back and forth across the continuum as political leanings sway.

I agree with you entirley, Bilmore. That is the beauty of a democratic system of government. However, to argue that all taxation is socialism and is morally wrong, as Williams did, is not the same thing as debating the proper amount of the tax burden or how it should be spent.

Can we agree on that?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Is it? He's sentencing me to death. Along with millions of others like me. Am I wrong to feel my life is worth more than his, when he is willing to sacrifice mine to hold on to a small number of votes?

I know little of this topic, but my impression is that what he's blocking involves fetal stem cells, that those cells are only available from dead feti, and that he believes that, if one opposes abortion, one must also oppose the use of those aborted feti, from where, I presume, most such cells come.

So, in the anti-abortion crowd's minds, and, obviously, in Bush's mind, you are choosing your life over the lives of others.

Obviously, if you are not among that anti-abortion crowd, this argument resonates not at all. But, to make the statements that you made without even acknowledging the basis for their anti-stem-cell position is sort of simplistic, I think, and pretty much guarantees that there will never be productive discussion.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
To the Secret Service people monitoring this board: He's kidding.

eta: stp Sheesh, Wonk. Investigations have started based on less threatening assertions.

Okay, Let's change it to say that any man who is willing to put my life and the lives of millions of people at risk in order to curry favor with a small but vocal voting bloc deserves to find himself the victim of the sort of poetic justice that would result from him being in the position one day of having his life dependent upon a cure that won't be found in his lifetime for a disease that could have been treated with the appropriate measure of stem cell research.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore


So, in the anti-abortion crowd's minds, and, obviously, in Bush's mind, you are choosing your life over the lives of others.

Since you apparently were out when we had this debate, it's a bit more complex than that.

You get stem cells only from unused embryos. There are plenty of those lying around in freezers because someone had the kids the first time around, and doesn't have a use for a fertilized embryo.

The apparent objection of the religious right is a) those embryos are people, and therefore should spend the rest of eternity (or until the power goes off) in a state of extreme cold, rather than being harvested for use in fixing wonk's heart and b) if you take those embryos, lots and lots of sluts will start fucking to create more embryos for stem cell research, which is also a bad thing.

It's a fairly tenuous position, but (club perhaps) did explain that at least it's morally consistent with a position that human life should be protected from conception. Protection in a freezer is better than nothing, apparently.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, let's take a look at the question as the author poses it:



There are goods (roads, schools, military hardware, etc.) and services (police, military, health regulation, etc.) that are expensive enough, and provide little enough benefit to any individual or group of individuals, that no one person or group would find it economically efficient to pay for such goods and services. However, these goods and services supply us as a democratic society with a collective benefit greater than the benefit each of us enjoys individually.

If you go back to the article, the Williams is not arguing for zero taxes. Many of the items you cite (military hardware, roads, etc.) I would bet he would say are proper uses for taxes. What he is arguing against redistribution (i.e., taking from one and giving to another) of wealth because he believes it is legalized stealing.

We provide a afety net for those who cannot provide for themselves because we find it prefereable to them killing us and taking what they need since they have no other means to live.

I've head this argument made many times before. Frankly, I'd rather have the money go to more police to protect me from these folks than give in to blackmail.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I agree with you entirley, Bilmore. That is the beauty of a democratic system of government. However, to argue that all taxation is socialism and is morally wrong, as Williams did, is not the same thing as debating the proper amount of the tax burden or how it should be spent.

Can we agree on that?

I dissent. Read my lips, no pun intended, no new taxes and my moral defense comes from the barrel of my 2nd Amendment rights.

Lock and loaded,

Vast RightWing Conspirator

eta: oops, meant to use a sock on that one. Move along, nothing to see here

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, to make the statements that you made without even acknowledging the basis for their anti-stem-cell position is sort of simplistic, I think, and pretty much guarantees that there will never be productive discussion.

Not to speak for Wonk, but "acknowledging the basis for their anti-stem-cell position" is not so easy to do, at least coherently. Earlier posters (from a few days ago, I think) have pointed to the locigal inconsistencies in the anti-abortion rationale, coupled with the limited use of some stem cells who are presumably doomed to their apocalyptic fate, coupled with the Administration's chest thumping that they're the "first to fund" research in this area.

Critics charge, not without reason, that this policy (such as it is) is really an electoral formula, grounded neither in science nor in theology. It's the kind of manuvering that used to bring GOPers to red-faced rage half a dozen years ago. Weird, dat.

ETA: STP. Dammit, Burger!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I know little of this topic, but my impression is that what he's blocking involves fetal stem cells, that those cells are only available from dead feti, and that he believes that, if one opposes abortion, one must also oppose the use of those aborted feti, from where, I presume, most such cells come.

So, in the anti-abortion crowd's minds, and, obviously, in Bush's mind, you are choosing your life over the lives of others.

Obviously, if you are not among that anti-abortion crowd, this argument resonates not at all. But, to make the statements that you made without even acknowledging the basis for their anti-stem-cell position is sort of simplistic, I think, and pretty much guarantees that there will never be productive discussion.

Actually, what he has banned is federal funding for any program which uses a method of implanting a cell nucleus with dna into ovum which are already existing in a frozen state in fertility clinics throughout the country. These ovum will, if not used for stem cell production, be disposed of. In other words, the eggs will die. Period.

I don't know that they use aborted feti for stem cell reproduction, but if in fact they do, then my respeonse is that abortion is currently legal, and these aborted eggs will be destroyed if not used for stem cell production.

In either case, someone, either Bush or me, is making a choice of one life over another. Except that we already know I'm a living breathing human being, and these eggs will never be a living breathing human.

It's not a matter of me selfishly choosing my life over another's any more than the decsion not to allow stem cell production is a choice to sacrifice my life to prevent the loss of a cystoblast which might under other circumstances become a person. Either way, people are choosing who will live and who will die. Nobody can claim the moral ground on that question.