i can see this getting confusing quickly . . . .
@F_alk:
@cystic:
I believe that other nations should have little influence on each other outside of treaties, pacts, etc. aside from protecting smaller nations from the aggressions of larger ones. …
You took societies as nations it seems. That is IMHO an out-dated view on the world. It is not so much nations that have an influence on other nations. It is more that coorporations have a large influence on nations. That holds true for rich or poor nations. I could cite the “you now are under supervision of the international financemarket” line again.
But that is going extremely OT.
whatever - nations, societies. You can apply what i said to either. As for corporations - their influences are either accepted or not by a society. If a society refuses to eat at macdonald’s - it perishes there. If they refuse to listen to Britany Spears - likewise. Canadians protect their “culture” to a minor extent by regulating licenses, and promoting home-grown talent.
Well. Your approach is nice and rather naive. Let me ask you: Did “gently encouraging people” ever change their behavior (and this not only related to helping the poor)?
Here many of the USie conservatives seem to forced to agree with me to some degree: Gently encouraging Iraq to let the weapons inspectors do their job was not enough (and that is just one example).
doesn’t matter. You’re altering the discussion through tangental statements.
I don’t have a problem with certain gov’t social programs.
(and yes, “gently encouraging people” changes behaviour repeatedly - a few examples - Jesus, parents, doctors, teachers, United Way campaigns etc.). Certainly its handy for the state to have organized social programs for the truly needy. Your example is unrelated, however - for too many reasons, and not germaine to the point i was making with reference to personal autonomy.
As for “their victims” - i am missing how not receiving money from other people makes one a “victim”.
Oh dear. Bill Gates is not sharing his fortune with me. I am being victimized by him.
Say, you are a victim as soon as the money is stolen from you. We agree on that i guess. But (and now it’s “semantics” again) what if someone not out of your cultural group steals something that belongs to your cultural group? What if other people sell something that doesn’t belong to them but to you? There are prime examples for each of that behavior.
We (white, west-european-rooted cultures) have stolen a lot, and never cared to give it back. No, instead we claim “that now belongs rightfully to us” and claim that it would undermine our “autonomy”.
still unrelated as to how i am being victimized by not being given money i did nothing to earn. And if this is a british stealing money away from the native thread - start a different post.
Where i come from, people are victims of their own actions and misdeeds, of their gov’ts deeds, and of their life’s circumstances.
And of the jobs that are offered. You still do not seem to see the economy plays a vital and extremely powerful role in human society.
it is a system. If we do not like the rules, we work to have them changed, we work to have them work to our benefit, or we sit back down on our ass and beg for money.
If someone offers an odious job to me, and i have ANY better alternative, i will turn it down. If my countries economy is in shambles and i have no alternative, i say “thank you for the paycheck sir” and take the job.
Oh … isn’t that this “old world citizen talk” of you now? What the US does is none of your business, as you would say. It is a different country, and the people their voted on their government, so they are responsible. None of my business, i have my own gov’t that i have am responsible for…
(Right, i don’t agree with my own above lines, i was just trying to follow (what appears to me as) your line of thinking.
The world has grown too small for this “none of my business”. It’s “none of my business” that we pollute happily, that maybe some pacific islands business… no, i don’t eat that.
whatever.
this was a discussion of why someone should have a say over my personal autonomy when you started with this “citizen of the world” b.s. I could take that to impose my will on anyone for any trumped up reason i wanted to. Yes, it is important to care about other people, but not at the risk of other people’s autonomy.
ahhh semantics . . . the last resort in a losing argument.
actually only half it was semantics. I really would have liked to get your or the dictionaries definition of it.
And i also found another nice way to “counter” that:
ahhh people who don’t want to specify and stick to wishy-washy terms …. the last resort in trying not admit a breach in the own argument ;)
i was referring to fraud in a general sense - anything involving stealing from the gov’t (tax fraud etc.) or other people/organizations/businesses through means not limited to outright theft to frank deception and duplicitiousness.
the sweatshop is another non-sequitor - related to another argument. And i really have a problem seeing how Nike et al. destroyed the “basis for life” before these people already had.
Ture, it belongs to another argument, but both arguments are around the line of “is the right of personal property more important than other rights”.
And again, you don’t take the next step of thinking. Above, you had lines that “excluded” (missing a better word here, sorry) corporations from nations, now you “exclude” nations from coorporations.
again - you keep reducing this to “property”. To fashion the “slippery slope” that you enjoy using - what comes next? Once i lose autonomy over my property, then what other freedoms are expendable? The Nazi’s demonstrated this principle all too easily vs. the Jews way back when.
Would you mind … just for the fun of it… to take them both as players on both the global and the local scale. And … in former times, it was the nations that were stronger, but now they have lost ground and are not the dominating actors anymore.
i’m a shareholder in Nike. I’ve given up 5 years of work in exchange for a piece of that company. I authorize them (as far as they can) to help me capitalize on my investment within the limits of laws and what one would consider ethical behaiviour. Obviously this becomes problematic when other people (and money) are involved. “painting a wall red goes against my ethics therefore YOU must paint that wall a different color.” (obviously a little simplistic - but here’s another) “paying workers slightly above what they might otherwise be making goes against my ethics therefore you must pay 5 times the standard wage in that country”. Did you sacrifice to invest in this company? No, of course not. But wait - you’re a citizen of the world, so you have the right to impose your values on me and everyone else . . . ahhh yes. I guess that makes you American . . . .
Could you please explain why the money of a heritage should not be taxed, where as most other income has to be taxed?
( If you say “there is no need to tax it, as it has been taxed before”: Well, everything gets taxed all the. I work, i get paid, i pay taxes on that. I go and buy something, and pay taxes on these goods. …So, when i spend money (that has been taxed) i have to pay taxes again. Why is double taxing ok here, and the principle “income has to be taxed” is not ok? )
well, i think that introducing a new tax “just because we see the opportunity” is ridiculous. And why tax it just after i died - again? What sense does that make? Why not just tax everyone across the board arbitrarily, annually, based on the root of the number of miligrams of snot that came out of my nose multiplied by my total gross possession value as determined by some bean counter?
Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.
