Senator Mike Lee: It's about the Right

[babe]

How about taxation without representation?

Corporations are taxed up the ying yang and they ain't supposed to have any influence toward those tax policies?

I see your point. How about going back to the only Constitutional tax in the original Constitution. Tariffs collected at ports of entry, or maybe even exports of scarce resources. Income tax and property tax are problematical and unhealthy taxes.

A better argument for not taxing corporations on income or profits is just that it's a double tax on the individuals who own shares in the Corporation.

The better argument about where people who own shares in corporations do get their representation on taxation is simply that every individual (including shareholders) does get to vote, it they are citizens.

 

[babe]

@Babe,

I obviously misjudged your position somewhat. But I am still confused by your insistence on describing categories like "government", "people", "right", and so on, as if they're unchanging entities with set meaning. That's not the case. To say that we need to find a way to keep the government in check while empowering the people shows the bias in your argument. Governments are made up by people. And they are created for a certain purpose.

Take your pollution example. You say it is up to the people to solve such a problem. But as long as those people aren't government. Well, a local government is acceptable, but as long as it's not a large government...

It's just arbitrary. The government regulating pollution is precisely the same as "people taking care of a problem". There is no difference. It is about the best, most efficient way, of dealing with a problem. Additionally, nobody has any inherent rights. Regardless of what any document says. Rights are self-assigned by men, and like governments, they serve a purpose. If free speech proves beneficial (if we decide that we care about benefiting ourselves), then it must be protected as a right. If guns prove to be an effective deterrent for crime, or if it can be argued that their social utility outweighs the harm they cause, then the possession of guns can be a right.

In other words, nobody has the right to pollute in virtue of their existence. Rights are given, not just taken away. Since the modern world is complex, and its problems are sizable, I doubt the ability of small government to deal with them. What are we to do if an asteroid is on a collision course with the planet? We would clearly need a large organizing body to deal with it in the best possible way. The same applies to global problems like the green house effect.

Don't get me wrong. Maybe big governments can't work efficiently. Perhaps a better solution would be small local governments, with a mechanism for cooperation in face of larger problems. I have no problem with that. I simply want the best possible life for everyone. I think others should want the same if this is to be accomplished. And I'm willing to accept whatever system that helps us reach that goal.

I define "government" by the elected representatives or otherwise empowered lawmakers, including employees who make decisions that affect the lives of others. Broadly speaking, it is the agents of governance, the courts and law enforcement, and the bureaucrats. If you are paid for what you do by a federal check, you are working for the government, not the people.

your definition assumes something I consider presently not the fact of life, that ordinary citizens actually have possession of the mechanisms of influence and control that are expressed by the whole institution of the Federal government. State and local governments are also falling under the sway of programs originated by people who are exercising more potent influence that the ordinary citizens.

when I make the leap to a circumstance where in theory the people are actually the most influential and respected folks whose will their representatives do serve, it is then that I say that the people through their representative government should act in respect to recognized problems in a national way where appropriate. Sending a nuclear warhead out into space to intercept and deflect an asteroid of considerable size ought to be something the whole world could pool resources to do.

A city can and does enact zoning regulations and waste disposal regulations, and they are the representing the people most directly affected. Counties and States could legitimately be concerned where pollution is moving across city or county lines, and they should. By this logic, I think it could be appropriate for the federal regulations to apply only to stuff crossing state lines. Giving federal regulators the power to take control of every property owners actions in regard to puddles of water isn't very good in my opinion.

your idea of rights being only what other people will grant, or what government will grant, coincides with the UN idea of rights being only what the UN decides people may have. I disagree with this, and recognize it as a breach of our constitutional principles.

 

[One Brow]

All actual evidence suggests that concealed carry laws have been the only policies to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings. Limits on magazine capacity, background checks, and assault weapon bans accomplish nothing.

What actual evidence?

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes, and the gun grabbers are going to take the prohibitionists arguments and run with them. And they will work like a charm.

I doubt it seeing as "the right to bare arms" is a delineated right while the "right" to get stoned off my *** ain't.

 

[One Brow]

I doubt it seeing as "the right to bare arms" is a delineated right while the "right" to get stoned off my *** ain't.

No one will force me to wear long sleeves!

 

[PearlWatson]

What actual evidence?

Your favorite type. Peer-reviewed studies.

 

[PearlWatson]

No one will force me to wear long sleeves!

I bet you wear long sleeved turtlenecks exclusively.

 

[One Brow]

Your favorite type. Peer-reviewed studies.

That is my favorite type, as long as the peers are selected without consideration for political affiliations. Which peer-reviewed studies, conducted by whom, suggested that concealed carry laws have been the only policies to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings?

 

[One Brow]

I bet you wear long sleeved turtlenecks exclusively.

Never. I always exercise my right to bare arms.

 

[babe]

No one will force me to wear long sleeves!

Yaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!

cultivate that love of freedom, and remember it when somebody is howling about the rising incidence of skin cancer, and demanding that laws should be enacted to require everyone to wear long sleeves and sunscreen too. Not to mention those long flowing robes the Arabs have learned to wear. . . . .

kudos for the sense of humor. . . . .

 

[PearlWatson]

I see your point. How about going back to the only Constitutional tax in the original Constitution. Tariffs collected at ports of entry, or maybe even exports of scarce resources. Income tax and property tax are problematical and unhealthy taxes.

A better argument for not taxing corporations on income or profits is just that it's a double tax on the individuals who own shares in the Corporation.

The better argument about where people who own shares in corporations do get their representation on taxation is simply that every individual (including shareholders) does get to vote, it they are citizens.

I can only guess at the implications of those things, but at the very least a vote should be correlated with taxation amount. In our current system The Takers (pay no income tax) should have no vote, since they only vote to take more.

 

[PearlWatson]

That is my favorite type, as long as the peers are selected without consideration for political affiliations. Which peer-reviewed studies, conducted by whom, suggested that concealed carry laws have been the only policies to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings?

lol. The only fair way to play that discounting game is if I can throw out the peer reviews, and studies for that matter, done by liberals.

 

[One Brow]

lol. The only fair way to play that discounting game is if I can throw out the peer reviews, and studies for that matter, done by liberals.

Any mainstream science publication, or any government agency publication, will do just fine. Those are the sources I have used. If you can't produce a study unless it has funding from Smith & Wesson or the NRA, you should ask yourself why.

 

[PearlWatson]

Any mainstream science publication, or any government agency publication, will do just fine. Those are the sources I have used. If you can't produce a study unless it has funding from Smith & Wesson or the NRA, you should ask yourself why.

How about criminologists? or economists? Are those considered "mainstream scientists?" even if they happened to be Republican or Conservative?

 

[One Brow]

How about criminologists? or economists? Are those considered "mainstream scientists?" even if they happened to be Republican or Conservative?

A mainstream science publication cannot be a criminologist nor an economist nor a biologist nor any other type of person, nor can a government agency publication be one. Criminologists and economists can write such publications, of course. I would not rule out a mainstream science or government agency article simply because it was written by a criminologist or an economist.