Cliven Bundy v. Feds

[moda0306]

Really? nothing but jibberish?

You are an unquallified expert on the subject of jibberish clearly but I would ask for some examples.

Well if my jibberish got you to finally use logic, I give it some credit.

Let's just agree to disagree that it was jibberish and not just rehash old arguments while we are doing a much better job now of making progress.

That's easy to say when you're the one accussing the other of "nothing but jibberish", but unwilling to support your accusation.

Let's agree to not label each other's arguments jibberish, although a 3rd party is welcome to proclaim them such. I will nominate PS.

Sorry for using that kind of language, K.  Perhaps calling your assertions "silly" "nonsense" would have been more palatable for you? 

Come on man... You and I both know the areas where we believe the other one speaks "nonsense."  I was a little blunt with Stewardship because I knew he was trying to defend your candor in this topic, and the morality thread is FAAAAR more productive than others have been. Even with the God and Ought debates. I mean that in the sense that we are actually building a structure rather than running around in logical circles.

If there were only one other thread, I'd link him to it, but our debates are scattered around all over, where you have found yourself making other libertarians here facepalm in confusion as to what "logic" you're really using. Xan. Pointed stick. Mediumtex.

But forget about all that. We know we disagree on some "nonsense" pretty widely.  You've got a chance to make me look like an utter ass by proving morality. Don't let me distract you from it.

I will try not to use pejoratives like that anymore.

[Kshartle]

Well if my jibberish got you to finally use logic, I give it some credit.

Let's just agree to disagree that it was jibberish and not just rehash old arguments while we are doing a much better job now of making progress.

That's easy to say when you're the one accussing the other of "nothing but jibberish", but unwilling to support your accusation.

Let's agree to not label each other's arguments jibberish, although a 3rd party is welcome to proclaim them such. I will nominate PS.

Sorry for using that kind of language, K.  Perhaps calling your assertions "silly" "nonsense" would have been more palatable for you? 

Yes.

You can even call me an A-hole. Just don't say I'm wrong because I'm an A-hole. 

[moda0306]

with the boulder analogy its important to mention, the bolder is growing and reaching to block every bypass and head off every turn you take, as it absorbs more and more of the road...  it is more like "the blob" than a boulder.

Even if I accept your addition to the analogy, our ability to move freely unencumbered by limitations of nature is also vastly larger. It's more like we are driving a Transformer than a car.

But imagine one of these boulders in 1970.... It forced some young drivers to go break other boulders over seas, and added cost the nicest cars far more in time of their trip than they do today.  Today, if any drivers go to break other boulders, it is their choice.

I'd take a 2013 boulder over a 1970 boulder.

[moda0306]

with the boulder analogy its important to mention, the bolder is growing and reaching to block every bypass and head off every turn you take, as it absorbs more and more of the road...  it is more like "the blob" than a boulder.

Even if I accept your addition to the analogy, our ability to move freely unencumbered by limitations of nature is also vastly larger. It's more like we are driving a Transformer than a car.

But imagine one of these boulders in 1970.... It forced some young drivers to go break other boulders over seas, and added cost the nicest cars far more in time of their trip than they do today.  Today, if any drivers go to break other boulders, it is their choice.

I'd take a 2013 boulder over a 1970 boulder.

i will take the present over the past as well....  but it is two steps forward one and a half steps back, and every one and a half steps back puts us teetering on the ragged edge of taking three/four/five steps back, "more government encourages more government" this is something every pro government expansion advocate, should have tattooed on the inside of there eyelids as a constant reminder of what they are risking...

If that's what you think, all the more reason to 1) find the most creative, efficient, well-thought-out way around them, or 2) find the best way to plant the dynamite without losing your whole life to the cause.

Anger is even more dangerous in such a sure scenario, unless it breeds supremely more strategic decisions from the standpoint of either personal gain or mitigating the effect of the boulder on all citizens.

its definitely all about strategy and leverage (as somebody just mentioned regarding Gandhi and MLK) or using judo and avoiding and redirecting the force they bring against you, and there are lots of different fronts where you can, manipulate, avoid, change, and help break down the blob/bolder... personal, political, economic, education and so on. you have to work on as many fronts as you can, all at once, and manage to have a good life at the same time... or have a good life because of it..

[Stewardship]

Should anyone engage in political activism?

Yes.

If they do, should they focus on what will work to maximize their cause, or what will be the most philosophically correct?

They should focus on maintaining their integrity.  If I'm for legalization of all drugs because I feel adults have the right to put whatever they want into in their own bodies whether its harmful or not, then I should not go around touting legalization of only marijuana because it's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol.

If I believe gun ownership is a God-given right, then I should not go around begging the government to grant me the privilege of owning only certain types of guns upon completion of licenses, registration, background checks, and fee payments.

If I believe taxation is theft, then I should not go around advocating lower taxes (still theft), as opposed to no taxes (no theft.)

If I believe the state is evil, and the cause (not the solution) of problems in society, then I should not seek a remedy through the state.

To do otherwise is counter-productive, dishonest, and discrediting.

[moda0306]

Should anyone engage in political activism?

Yes.

If they do, should they focus on what will work to maximize their cause, or what will be the most philosophically correct?

They should focus on maintaining their integrity.  If I'm for legalization of all drugs because I feel adults have the right to put whatever they want into in their own bodies whether its harmful or not, then I should not go around touting legalization of only marijuana because it's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol.

If I believe gun ownership is a God-given right, then I should not go around begging the government to grant me the privilege of owning only certain types of guns upon completion of licenses, registration, background checks, and fee payments.

If I believe taxation is theft, then I should not go around advocating lower taxes (still theft), as opposed to no taxes (no theft.)

If I believe the state is evil, and the cause (not the solution) of problems in society, then I should not seek a remedy through the state.

To do otherwise is counter-productive, dishonest, and discrediting.

No, to do otherwise is far MORE productive (the whole point of compromise), and there's nothing dishonest about saying "this isn't perfect but it's a great step in the right direction."

To me, the guy slamming his car into the boulder while his family gets whiplash is the one who loses his dignity.  Not the guy planting the dynamite or the one who finds another way.  There's more to life than being a martyr when you have people who count on you to lead then through life.

[Kshartle]

Should anyone engage in political activism?

Yes.

If they do, should they focus on what will work to maximize their cause, or what will be the most philosophically correct?

They should focus on maintaining their integrity.  If I'm for legalization of all drugs because I feel adults have the right to put whatever they want into in their own bodies whether its harmful or not, then I should not go around touting legalization of only marijuana because it's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol.

If I believe gun ownership is a God-given right, then I should not go around begging the government to grant me the privilege of owning only certain types of guns upon completion of licenses, registration, background checks, and fee payments.

If I believe taxation is theft, then I should not go around advocating lower taxes (still theft), as opposed to no taxes (no theft.)

If I believe the state is evil, and the cause (not the solution) of problems in society, then I should not seek a remedy through the state.

To do otherwise is counter-productive, dishonest, and discrediting.

No, to do otherwise is far MORE productive (the whole point of compromise), and there's nothing dishonest about saying "this isn't perfect but it's a great step in the right direction."

To me, the guy slamming his car into the boulder while his family gets whiplash is the one who loses his dignity.  Not the guy planting the dynamite or the one who finds another way.  There's more to life than being a martyr when you have people who count on you to lead then through life.

People who oppose taxes are being martyrs when they refuse to accept a 10% increase in their taxes as a compromise to the 20% increase being proposed by others?

[Xan]

By "refuse to accept", do you mean taking a principled stand of some kind, or do you mean complaining a lot?

[Kshartle]

By "refuse to accept", do you mean taking a principled stand of some kind, or do you mean complaining a lot?

What do you mean by principled stand?

By refuse to accept I don't mean they physically oppose although that's certainly covered. I am talking about the state of mind and the expression of belief and acceptance.

A 20% tax increase is pushed for......neither you nor moda nor PS nor I want higher taxes. The three of you support a compromise to 10%. I support neither and maintain taxation is theft. By supporting the 10% increase I now see you as a hypocrite for complaining about taxes whereas I am still acting and speaking in accordance with my beliefs.

In addition to hypocriscy I also see you as the problem and the reason for the higher taxes. You make the assumption that if you don't give in you will be worse off. This makes no sense to me. Letting the rapist put his hands up your skirt doesn't dissuade him, it encourages him. The compromise will just lead to another one. They will get their 20%. When they do they will push for 30%.

[Xan]

I also see you as the problem and the reason for the higher taxes.

I think that is (one of) your general issues: you see everybody except you as the problem.  Is that really how you see the world?  Doesn't that just make you miserable?

[moda0306]

Yes.
They should focus on maintaining their integrity.  If I'm for legalization of all drugs because I feel adults have the right to put whatever they want into in their own bodies whether its harmful or not, then I should not go around touting legalization of only marijuana because it's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol.

If I believe gun ownership is a God-given right, then I should not go around begging the government to grant me the privilege of owning only certain types of guns upon completion of licenses, registration, background checks, and fee payments.

If I believe taxation is theft, then I should not go around advocating lower taxes (still theft), as opposed to no taxes (no theft.)

If I believe the state is evil, and the cause (not the solution) of problems in society, then I should not seek a remedy through the state.

To do otherwise is counter-productive, dishonest, and discrediting.

No, to do otherwise is far MORE productive (the whole point of compromise), and there's nothing dishonest about saying "this isn't perfect but it's a great step in the right direction."

To me, the guy slamming his car into the boulder while his family gets whiplash is the one who loses his dignity.  Not the guy planting the dynamite or the one who finds another way.  There's more to life than being a martyr when you have people who count on you to lead then through life.

People who oppose taxes are being martyrs when they refuse to accept a 10% increase in their taxes as a compromise to the 20% increase being proposed by others?

What do you really mean by "refuse to accept?"  Here seem to be a few options:

1) State that they are immoral and go about your day, trying to enjoy life, either increasing, keeping-level, or decreasing your work-load depending on what life/work balance is the best to strike for you when the new taxes are included in the equation (I like this option).

2) Simply refuse to pay your taxes, refuse to go quietly, and end up in an armed stand-off against the government.

For me, this is NOT an ideal option.  This is practically the definition of a martyr.  It is downright immoral, IMO, if you have a family you profess to love and are trying to raise kids to have successful families.

3) Seek to understand the political/public activity surrounding the issue, whether you consider it morally correct or not, and work to make some meaningful change in a way that has the highest chance of success as possible.  (within this, I would find nothing wrong with the general statement that, "while I generally find taxes immoral, I will work with the world the way it is to at-least lower the burden even if I know I can never rid ourselves of it completely," and still maintain honesty and dignity).

4) Leave the jurisdiction that is imposing these rules on you.


So I'd never ask you to "accept" taxes on a moral/conceptual level if that's inconsistent with your beliefs, but on a functional level, if you want to choose the rebellion option, you're basically turning yourself into a martyr.

[Kshartle]

I also see you as the problem and the reason for the higher taxes.

I think that is (one of) your general issues: you see everybody except you as the problem.  Is that really how you see the world?  Doesn't that just make you miserable?

I'm talking in the context of the scenario.

I don't know Xan, when you look around and assume 75% of the world is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire because their heavenly father loves them so much he puts them there......what do you feel, unbridled joy?

I'm a very happy and successful person with friends and interests etc. This is a forum for discussing ideas. Just because I dissagree with you about where the problems of the world stem from doesn't mean I'm miserable. It's frustrating to listen to people complain about problems that they are a part of (supporting violent "solutions" to problems). At least I am optomistic that humans will turn their back on it eventually and convinced they will.

You on the other have said repeatedly that humanity is doomed to be sinful or whatever and always live in this violent existance until they make it to heaven or hell. I would think you'd be the depressed one. Maybe you're projecting?

[Kshartle]

So I'd never ask you to "accept" taxes on a moral/conceptual level if that's inconsistent with your beliefs, but on a functional level, if you want to choose the rebellion option, you're basically turning yourself into a martyr.

If it comes down to compromise or be a real martyr you may call me Neville Chamberlin.

[Pointedstick]

A 20% tax increase is pushed for......neither you nor moda nor PS nor I want higher taxes. The three of you support a compromise to 10%.

WRONG!

Kshartle, you really need to get it through your mind that in politics, "compromise" is not a synonym for "agreeing to be hurt less than proposed, but more than not at all." None of us would support +10% in lieu of +20%. If after all this time, you think we would, then I don't know what to tell you.

I can't speak for others, but to give you an idea of that kind of thing I might be able to get behind, I could see myself supporting +20% in income taxes in exchange for the abolition of all sales, capital gains, corporate, property, gasoline, alcohol, and inheritance taxes, though. That would be, you know, a real compromise: one where each side gets something they want but has to give up something.

[Kshartle]

A 20% tax increase is pushed for......neither you nor moda nor PS nor I want higher taxes. The three of you support a compromise to 10%.

WRONG!

Kshartle, you really need to get it through your mind that in politics, "compromise" is not a synonym for "agreeing to be hurt less than proposed, but more than not at all." None of us would support +10% in lieu of +20%. If after all this time, you think we would, then I don't know what to tell you.

I can't speak for others, but to give you an idea of that kind of thing I might be able to get behind, I could see myself supporting +20% in income taxes in exchange for the abolition of all sales, capital gains, corporate, property, gasoline, alcohol, and inheritance taxes, though. That would be, you know, a real compromise: one where each side gets something they want but has to give up something.

Where do you see this happening PS?

If you make a deal with the rapist that can no longer rape you once a week but instead fondle you every day, how long do you expect that to last? Are you really better off now than if you completely resisted him touching you?

Saying he's going to touch you anyway is a false argument. He's only going to touch you if you let him. The government can't tax the people unless the people let it. Saying it's going to tax you anyway because you can't change it yourself destroys your argument about making a difference by supporting some taxes in favor of others.

[Xan]

Well then you're just as guilty, aren't you?  You pay your taxes like a good little sheep instead of going in for armed rebellion.  So you're just as encouraging to the "rapist" as anybody else.

[Xan]

I'm a very happy and successful person with friends and interests etc. This is a forum for discussing ideas. Just because I dissagree with you about where the problems of the world stem from doesn't mean I'm miserable. It's frustrating to listen to people complain about problems that they are a part of (supporting violent "solutions" to problems).

I'm glad to hear that you might be something like a normal human being most of the time.  I'd just like to point out that it's possible to discuss ideas while still being friendly and acting like a human being.  For example, you tend to eviscerate even the people who sagree with you.  (I figure "sagree" is the opposite of "dissagree".)

[moda0306]

A 20% tax increase is pushed for......neither you nor moda nor PS nor I want higher taxes. The three of you support a compromise to 10%.

WRONG!

Kshartle, you really need to get it through your mind that in politics, "compromise" is not a synonym for "agreeing to be hurt less than proposed, but more than not at all." None of us would support +10% in lieu of +20%. If after all this time, you think we would, then I don't know what to tell you.

I can't speak for others, but to give you an idea of that kind of thing I might be able to get behind, I could see myself supporting +20% in income taxes in exchange for the abolition of all sales, capital gains, corporate, property, gasoline, alcohol, and inheritance taxes, though. That would be, you know, a real compromise: one where each side gets something they want but has to give up something.

Where do you see this happening PS?

If you make a deal with the rapist that can no longer rape you once a week but instead fondle you every day, how long do you expect that to last? Are you really better off now than if you completely resisted him touching you?

Saying he's going to touch you anyway is a false argument. He's only going to touch you if you let him. The government can't tax the people unless the people let it. Saying it's going to tax you anyway because you can't change it yourself destroys your argument about making a difference by supporting some taxes in favor of others.

K,

You really think that would be our suggested course of action? 

The ONLY scenario I would ever suggest anything like this to a rape victim would be if they were stuck in someone's basement or something similar, and had NO other option.  But only if it would help them hold their sanity until someone came to help, if they have any left.

So I'd never ask you to "accept" taxes on a moral/conceptual level if that's inconsistent with your beliefs, but on a functional level, if you want to choose the rebellion option, you're basically turning yourself into a martyr.

If it comes down to compromise or be a real martyr you may call me Neville Chamberlin.

I would be curious to see the degree to which he compromised with the other politicians he had to work with.

Regardless, you aren't taking up arms against your government, nor rebelling in an organized group, nor moving out, nor protesting in a visible manner... you're making comments on a message board, while paying your taxes every year like a good little lemming (saying this for illustrative purposes... not trying to be insulting), driving on government roads, staying inside the lines, and going 5-over the speed limit?

Why?  Because you deem it to "not be worth the fight" to do otherwise.  You're not "accepting" government roads from a moral standpoint, but from a functional standpoint, of course you're going to use them.

If you DID want to challenge the inefficiencies of government roads, would it be THAT ridiculous to advocate for higher speed-limits within a group that also does so, or is anything less than advocating for the whole-sale disbanding of government just "giving in," when you use these damn roads and pay your taxes every. single. day.

[moda0306]

I'm a very happy and successful person with friends and interests etc. This is a forum for discussing ideas. Just because I dissagree with you about where the problems of the world stem from doesn't mean I'm miserable. It's frustrating to listen to people complain about problems that they are a part of (supporting violent "solutions" to problems).

I'm glad to hear that you might be something like a normal human being most of the time.  I'd just like to point out that it's possible to discuss ideas while still being friendly and acting like a human being.  For example, you tend to eviscerate even the people who sagree with you.  (I figure "sagree" is the opposite of "dissagree".)

Yes.

He's  managed to make friends out of statist-commie-hippie-environmentalists and cold-blooded individualist libertarians...

If we unleash Kshartle on the Middle East, I give us 5 years until we have peace.

Considering that he is such a huge NAP proponent, it's quite an appropriate-yet-slightly-ironic accidental result.

[Kshartle]

you aren't taking up arms against your government, nor rebelling in an organized group, nor moving out, nor protesting in a visible manner... you're making comments on a message board, while paying your taxes every year like a good little lemming (saying this for illustrative purposes... not trying to be insulting), driving on government roads, staying inside the lines, and going 5-over the speed limit?

Why?  Because you deem it to "not be worth the fight" to do otherwise.  You're not "accepting" government roads from a moral standpoint, but from a functional standpoint, of course you're going to use them.

If you DID want to challenge the inefficiencies of government roads, would it be THAT ridiculous to advocate for higher speed-limits within a group that also does so, or is anything less than advocating for the whole-sale disbanding of government just "giving in," when you use these damn roads and pay your taxes every. single. day.

Yes preceisely. That's why the constant worry from you guys about my life and mental state and advising me on how I should live my life or what I should change about my words and thereby put them in opposition to my beliefs is tiresome.

This is a discussion board where we discuss ideas. Instead of challenging the validty of the beliefs I get lots of advice about how it's unproductive and destructive to my life that I express my beleifs on a disscussion board. I appreciate the concern but I think it's always just an attempt to change the subject away from the issues and onto me like I'm so interesting. I guess if you can repeat that I must be unhappy for some reason it will be evidence that my points aren't valid. It's a weak version of ad hominem. I don't need any life coaching guys but I appreciate it

The answer to your last question is no it's not ridiculous but I think it works against you. The answer to the second question is yes. Asking Masa to beat you 6 days a week instead of 7 might feel better in the moment, but you're just dooming your kids and future to 6 beatings a week and avoiding the fight. In the case of political action you're also dooming everyone else. 

[Pointedstick]

The answer to your last question is no it's not ridiculous but I think it works against you. The answer to the second question is yes. Asking Masa to beat you 6 days a week instead of 7 might feel better in the moment, but you're just dooming your kids and future to 6 beatings a week and avoiding the fight. In the case of political action you're also dooming everyone else.

So what you're saying is that it's better to be beaten 7 days a week with the future hope of 0 rather than 6 days a week with future hope of 0? Do I have that right?

[Xan]

Yes preceisely. That's why the constant worry from you guys about my life and mental state and advising me on how I should live my life or what I should change about my words and thereby put them in opposition to my beliefs is tiresome. 

This is a discussion board where we discuss ideas. Instead of challenging the validty of the beliefs I get lots of advice about how it's unproductive and destructive to my life that I express my beleifs on a disscussion board. I appreciate the concern but I think it's always just an attempt to change the subject away from the issues and onto me like I'm so interesting. I guess if you can repeat that I must be unhappy for some reason it will be evidence that my points aren't valid. It's a weak version of ad hominem. I don't need any life coaching guys but I appreciate it

Your mental health or lack thereof has become a major issue for everybody who frequents this forum.  We're just trying to improve our own lives.  :-)

[moda0306]

K,

On this board we discuss ideas of two varieties:


- Philisophical


- Functional


You seem to try to blend the two, which isn't necessarily bad, but you do in some unhealthy ways.  It is TOTALLY ok to have an interesting discussion about anarchy as an ideal.  However, when you 1) present it as morally CERTAIN to be the best ideal, and 2) insult anyone who wants to do SOMETHING to stand up for their beliefs, but works within the system's constraints to reduce the negative rather than outside of it to likely accomplish NOTHING and end up MUCH more unhappy as a result.



You're not "dooming" anyone by negotiating with "masa," and that analogy doesn't really hold anyway.  Nobody's "begging the police" to not take them to jail, they're advocating via PAC's or something the people that NEED to get reelected to stay in power.  In that world, the politician doesn't just laugh in your face, he does some election math, and goes on from there.

So you can either complain about the system, and rebel in ways that are probably fruitless, or you can use the intricacies of the system against itself.  Representatives have to get elected and answer questions to do so. 


But if compromise in your political action is so disgusting, so should compromise in your personal action.  Reduce your withholding to zero. Quit obeying the speed limit, or maybe even using public roads!  Quit obeying land-use regs... cut off city water and city sewer.  Go piss in your front yard.

Get that middle finger as high up in the air as you can, K.  Because there are plenty of people who could see YOU as selling out... begging your masters for a break instead of taking it, saying "f'k you!" and daring them to try to come and get it.

We all make compromises.  It's a matter of degree.  What is unhealthy is when we have an un-balanced relationship with our own opinions/activism, and it starts to have a toxic affect on our lives.  Dignity is important, but are you sure that's what you really have?  If I have two options, and I choose the least logical one, ESPECIALLY if I have family that I've sworn to lead/protect, do I really retain my "dignity?"

Maybe that feeling you have is PRIDE, and not dignity!  And perhaps an unhealthy level of it.

[Pointedstick]

Quit obeying land-use regs... cut off city water and city sewer.  Go piss in your front yard.

One small thread-hijacking quibble: cutting off city sewer and going with a private septic system is actually likely to be an amazingly good investment considering city sewer prices in most places I've investigated. I have a private septic tank and thank my lucky stars. No pissing in the front yard required.

[moda0306]

Quit obeying land-use regs... cut off city water and city sewer.  Go piss in your front yard.

One small thread-hijacking quibble: cutting off city sewer and going with a private septic system is actually likely to be an amazingly good investment considering city sewer prices in most places I've investigated. I have a private septic tank and thank my lucky stars. No pissing in the front yard required.

Those two weren't connected.... some guy a guy just wants to piss outside because "F*K YOU!" 

jk

But yeah man... that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  Take the victories you can.  Enjoy them.  Not because a statist pig will steal a freedom while you're not looking, but because happiness is good!  It's what life is all about.  And in some ways, we are so incredibly lucky... the fact that we can b!tch about the horrors of statism during the work-day and still go home to air conditioning instead of polio is a testament to that.