|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
peterson wrote:
Realistically, it would probably be a foolish decision for a society to decide everybody should receive a car. wsnell01 wrote: So let's not tax people to pay for that! peterson wrote: I didn't suggest we should. You did. You said: "I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide." Then when asked where the govt would get the money to provide new cars for all each year you said: "Where any government gets its revenue: taxes." |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
peterson had written:wrote:
"I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide." wsnell01 wrote: So should the govt provide new cars to everyone every year if that's what "the people" (or it is "voters" now) decide? peterson wrote: Yes. I would not choose to live in a totalitarian regime that limited what sort of society people could choose. And if the "sort of society" people chose was a totalitarian regime, then what would you choose to do? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Mon, 5 May 2014 11:47:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
You didn't answer the questions... maybe you answered some other question, that wasn't asked. Asked and answered. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Monday, May 5, 2014 2:52:14 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 11:42:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: And where will the govt get the money to pay for all of these new cars? Where any government gets its revenue: taxes. Then would it not make more sense to let each individual taxpayer decide for himself whether or not to buy a new car every year? Almost certainly. Then if it makes sense for the individual taxpayer to decide whether or not to buy himself a new car each year, why would it not make sense for the individual taxpayer to decide how much and what kind of health insurance to buy from a private insurer, free of government interference and taxation? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Monday, May 5, 2014 3:13:53 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 11:47:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: You didn't answer the questions... maybe you answered some other question, that wasn't asked. Asked and answered. You never answered this: What meaning of "consensus" are you using here? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Monday, May 5, 2014 3:13:25 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:10:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: peterson wrote: Realistically, it would probably be a foolish decision for a society to decide everybody should receive a car. wsnell01 wrote: So let's not tax people to pay for that! peterson wrote: I didn't suggest we should. You did. You said: "I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide." Then when asked where the govt would get the money to provide new cars for all each year you said: "Where any government gets its revenue: taxes." Holy cow, you are stupid! peterson, you painted yourself into a corner, and you're calling someone else stupid???!!! You should be ashamed. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:17:45 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 05:16:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote: You are calling for mob rule, pure and simple. No, I'm calling for a government that reflects the consensus view of its citizens. That is quite different from mob rule. Any government that allows the rabble to vote to tax the rich and give the money to the poor is clearly mob rule! How can you possibly not see that? John Savard |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:00:07 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
But voters can and do make foolish decisions, and I wouldn't care much for any system that prevented them from doing so. It depends on what kind of decision you're talking about. A system that prevented voters from bringing in laws that discriminated against minority groups seems sensible. One would just have to write equality into the Constitution, and then have something called a "Supreme Court" that can invalidate legislation which is in violation of the authority granted to the branch of government involved by the Constitution. Having a Constitution that bans taxing the rich for social welfare purposes, allowing taxes only for national defense, and things that benefit everyone but no-one in particular, like lighthouses... is not an impossibility. FDR had some trouble getting his legislative program through the Supreme Court for just that reason. But most people don't think the United States descended into mob rule in 1934, notwithstanding. John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Climate Change BS artists are at it again ... | Hägar | Misc | 6 | December 3rd 13 08:52 PM |
Your Climate Change Petition | [email protected] | Misc | 1 | April 16th 13 10:02 PM |
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | August 8th 12 10:43 PM |
Climate change | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 126 | July 23rd 09 10:38 PM |
Climate change | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | July 10th 09 05:05 PM |