winner and still undefeated: increasing the minimum wage

OregonTrails · Nov 15, 2014

spandy said:
And many people eat poorly, so lets regulate the entire country's diet.
Exercise? Send a government official to everyone's home on a weekly basis, make sure they be taking care of themselves.
Constant drug testing? Sure! Then we know exactly what you are putting in your body when no one is looking.

We gots to take care of these people because they obviously can't do it alone. So who pays for it all? Pfsssh, just take it from those who figured it all out on their own and let them carry all the weight because the government said its best for everyone that way.

Now you're being ridiculous. Is that your way of opposing arguments that you disagree with?

Gotta think about these things. If poor planners are left on their own regarding healthcare and retirement, the rest of us will end up paying for them when they go to the emergency room or end up penniless in retirement. That is not true of poor diets, exercise, and plenty of other things that you and I may consider important in our own lives.

We live in society. Society exists because human beings decided long ago that together we can create a more rewarding, easier, safer life for all. And the vast majority of us are willing to pay the required costs of society. Those who want to be left alone still have the option of hiking 50 miles deep into the Bitterroot Range of Idaho or other wilderness as people do in Alaska, and live there. We will alll be happier that way.

Rob Roy · Nov 15, 2014

OregonTrails said:
"Violence"? Do you think you should be allowed to pay no income taxes if you so choose?

Many people are too poor at planning responsibly so health insurance should be mandatory. Same with S.S.

"Mafia"? That statement is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Free, peaceful and responsible people pay for what they willingly contract for. Slaves pay for things others impose on them under threat of force for not submitting.

You're right I owe the mafia an apology. their methods of extortion are hardly on the same scale as a coercive government which imprisons millions for victimless crimes and bombs babies in an orgy of Imperial murder, er "collateral damage".

If some people are too poor to plan does that give some others the right to plan for everybody? No, it doesn't.

Rob Roy · Nov 15, 2014

OregonTrails said:
Now you're being ridiculous. Is that your way of opposing arguments that you disagree with?

Gotta think about these things. If poor planners are left on their own regarding healthcare and retirement, the rest of us will end up paying for them when they go to the emergency room or end up penniless in retirement. That is not true of poor diets, exercise, and plenty of other things that you and I may consider important in our own lives.

We live in society. Society exists because human beings decided long ago that together we can create a more rewarding, easier, safer life for all. And the vast majority of us are willing to pay the required costs of society. Those who want to be left alone still have the option of hiking 50 miles deep into the Bitterroot Range of Idaho or other wilderness as people do in Alaska, and live there. We will alll be happier that way.

You are putting lipstick on a pig. Euphemismistic rationalizations that declare "the good of society" etc. can never be good if the first thing they do is trample on the rights of peaceful individuals to self determine.

Those who want to be left alone, should be left alone, PERIOD, otherwise you are no better than a drug war prohibItionist in the way you view and "allow" personal freedom.

OregonTrails · Nov 15, 2014

Rob Roy said:
If some people are too poor to plan does that give some others the right to plan for everybody? No, it doesn't.

As a blanket, all-encompassing statement as you presented it, you're essentially right. But there are exceptions to everything.

OregonTrails · Nov 15, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Those who want to be left alone, should be left alone, PERIOD, otherwise you are no better than a drug war prohibItionist in the way you view and "allow" personal freedom.

The rest of us, -the majority, -are happy to leave you alone in your shack in Alaska. Now go and be happy too.

Rob Roy · Nov 15, 2014

OregonTrails said:
As a blanket, all-encompassing statement as you presented it, you're essentially right. But there are exceptions to everything.

Thank you for showing some humanity, it is appreciated.

Rob Roy · Nov 15, 2014

OregonTrails said:
The rest of us, -the majority, -are happy to leave you alone in your shack in Alaska. Now go and be happy too.

You can't speak for "the rest of us", you can only speak for you as an individual. Also, since no individual has any right to aggress against another, let's say zero right for the math and logic part, no sum of individuals in the great collective has any right to do it either, since a bunch of zeroes still equal zero.

All people should be left alone, wherever they are. The concept of freedom is not geographically limited, it is universal.

Please consider checking out the non-initiation of aggression principle. Peace.

UncleBuck · Nov 15, 2014

OregonTrails said:
"Violence"? Do you think you should be allowed to pay no income taxes if you so choose?

Many people are too poor at planning responsibly so health insurance should be mandatory. Same with S.S.

"Mafia"? That statement is a bit extreme, don't you think?

he has called civil rights "rape" and "enslavement" of whites, refers to the president as a "mulatto" repeatedly, and denies that blacks were caused harm by the old practices of the south before civil rights.

just to give you an idea of who yo are talking to.

UncleBuck · Nov 15, 2014

Rob Roy said:
You can't speak for "the rest of us", you can only speak for you as an individual.

he speaks for me just fine.

if you are so bothered by havng to pay for the literate, educated populace you say you enjoy, then leave ya fucking mooch.

Rob Roy said:
Also, since no individual has any right to aggress against another, let's say zero right for the math and logic part, no sum of individuals in the great collective has any right to do it either, since a bunch of zeroes still equal zero.

stop forcing your health care cists onto me you fucking freeloader. RAPE!

Rob Roy · Nov 16, 2014

UncleBuck said:
he speaks for me just fine.

if you are so bothered by havng to pay for the literate, educated populace you say you enjoy, then leave ya fucking mooch.

stop forcing your health care cists onto me you fucking freeloader. RAPE!

Your statements don't even rise to asininity anymore. You're slipping. More cloud art please.

OregonTrails · Nov 16, 2014

Rob Roy said:
You can't speak for "the rest of us", you can only speak for you as an individual.

I DON'T speak for the "rest of us". The original popular support for the minimum wage and the continuing majority support it enjoys speaks loudly enough. Same for S.S. and Medicare.

UncleBuck · Nov 16, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Your statements don't even rise to asininity anymore. You're slipping. More cloud art please.

tell me more about how pedophilia is a "voluntary act" again.

OregonTrails · Nov 16, 2014

NoDrama said:
That's true, but SS is pretty much setup just like a ponzi, it absolutely must have people paying in for it to pay out. There is no actual money set aside, just IOU's.

Here's an interesting conflict upon which the right depends heavily and that they don't want us to notice: on one hand they object that the Treasury bonds in the S.S. Trust Fund are "worthless paper" and represent "no actual value", but on the other hand they scream and object to the national debt which is represented by the same kind of "worthless paper" with "no actual value".

If the Trust Fund is "empty" and meaningless, then so is the national debt.

Rob Roy · Nov 16, 2014

OregonTrails said:
I DON'T speak for the "rest of us". The original popular support for the minimum wage and the continuing majority support it enjoys speaks loudly enough. Same for S.S. and Medicare.

So if a bunch of people decide that a given peaceful individual must or must not do something, that makes it acceptable ?

Prohibitionists like to tell others how to run their lives don't they?

You aren't advocating some people running others lives for them are you?

jahbrudda · Nov 16, 2014

Rob Roy said:
You can't speak for "the rest of us", you can only speak for you as an individual. Also, since no individual has any right to aggress against another, let's say zero right for the math and logic part, no sum of individuals in the great collective has any right to do it either, since a bunch of zeroes still equal zero.

All people should be left alone, wherever they are. The concept of freedom is not geographically limited, it is universal.

Please consider checking out the non-initiation of aggression principle. Peace.

He sure as hell isn't speaking for me.

UncleBuck · Nov 16, 2014

jahbrudda said:
He sure as hell isn't speaking for me.

apparently jared taylor and victor thorn are though.

jahbrudda · Nov 16, 2014

Now I understand why you spend half your real life on this forum, how can anybody have the time to make 70,000 posts on a pot forum?

UncleBuck · Nov 16, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Now I understand why you spend half your real life on this forum, how can anybody have the time to make 70,000 posts on a pot forum?

between your 50,000 twitter posts, multiple accounts here, your facebook, and photo sharing sites, you have way more internet posts than i do.

OregonTrails · Nov 16, 2014

Rob Roy said:
So if a bunch of people decide that a given peaceful individual must or must not do something, that makes it acceptable ?

If you want to pose ridiculous generalities rather than have an intelligent conversation, count me out. Why don't you try ASKING me what I think instead of pushing your fears on me?

Rob Roy · Nov 16, 2014

OregonTrails said:
If you want to pose ridiculous generalities rather than have an intelligent conversation, count me out. Why don't you try ASKING me what I think instead of pushing your fears on me?

I believe I've asked you several questions you haven't answered.

An intelligent conversation would be great. Which part of my statements do you disagree with and why?

winner and still undefeated: increasing the minimum wage

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member