S
SuperLuigi
Guest
They lead to nowhere.
But that won’t stop the excuse-making and virtue-signaling.
But that won’t stop the excuse-making and virtue-signaling.
- Status
L
Lemuel
Guest
But the whole point is that we do things because it’s right, not because we are forced to. Forcing your neighbor to help the needy is also not a value espoused by Jesus.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That’s not the issue. The issue was whether he was coerced to do it.
This type of behavior just breeds resentment no matter how badly the left wants it to be otherwise and no matter how badly Catholics want to be as liberal as possible in order to be seen by the mortal world in a good light.
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
It’s also an analogy for anyone who suffers harm from those “minding their own business.” All a lot of this ends up being is justifying control by whoever gets to have their own money, and thus gets to dictate the rules via economics rather than government. Better to have an elected official than an unelected and unaccountable oligarch.
I asked this upthread and no one answered - is there a real difference between “do this and we will imprison you” and “do this and we will starve you”?
I asked this upthread and no one answered - is there a real difference between “do this and we will imprison you” and “do this and we will starve you”?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
We saw this during the gay “marriage” campaigns. Where was the American left then? Basically, they were telling us to mind our own business.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Keep in mind we’re discussing things like roads and public schools at the moment.
It’s not a perfect principle for everything, but the point I’m trying to make is government support of enough infrastructure that those not independently wealthy are still able to have a reasonable expectation of being able to work to support themselves without unattainable entry requirements, isn’t a bad thing.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Meaning that it applies only to things liberals want? Got it, thanks.
There it is! The attack on the wealthy.
With all of the tax money CA brings in, I would think they’d have more than enough to fix their roads with plenty to spare…
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That’s basically what you have in California: perpetual one-party rule. Notice that in the free market, people have a choice.
Last edited:
S
sallybutler
Guest
If you don’t like the gas tax, you don’t have to pay it. Stop buying gas and don’t purchase anything that might have it built into it*s cost.
No one is forcing you to pay it. It is your choice to have a car and to purchase items that are transported.
No one is forcing you to pay it. It is your choice to have a car and to purchase items that are transported.
D
DarkLight
Guest
People have a choice if there are enough resources to make that choice. As I’ve mentioned a few times, the free market can very well result in “do this or starve,” which is no more choice than “do this or go to jail.”
That’s the point about roads. If I have to pay to use the roads, what happens if I can’t afford the fee to go to work? I have to work near enough that I can walk or bicycle, which severely limits my access to jobs. I have to buy food from whoever is nearby, even if there’s cheaper food the next down over. Especially since jobs near cheaper housing also generally pay less and goods cost more, and moving requires either enough savings that you can find housing without a job, or enough skills that someone will hire you out of state. If I can’t get hired into a job that lets me save up money, I don’t really have a choice except to live paycheck to paycheck and hope nothing comes up.
It gets tiring that anyone who thinks the whole “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” mentality is not actually possible for the majority of the poor is apparently automatically just hating on the rich. What I want is an equal society that doesn’t create a de facto caste system where what you are able to achieve is determined largely by the amount of money your parents have.
At the extreme you get the company town, where the worker is entirely dependent on the company to provide food and housing and clothing, and is effectively unable to leave because leaving means being deprived of the basic necessities of life. Which is why there are laws about things like company scrip now.
That’s the point about roads. If I have to pay to use the roads, what happens if I can’t afford the fee to go to work? I have to work near enough that I can walk or bicycle, which severely limits my access to jobs. I have to buy food from whoever is nearby, even if there’s cheaper food the next down over. Especially since jobs near cheaper housing also generally pay less and goods cost more, and moving requires either enough savings that you can find housing without a job, or enough skills that someone will hire you out of state. If I can’t get hired into a job that lets me save up money, I don’t really have a choice except to live paycheck to paycheck and hope nothing comes up.
It gets tiring that anyone who thinks the whole “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” mentality is not actually possible for the majority of the poor is apparently automatically just hating on the rich. What I want is an equal society that doesn’t create a de facto caste system where what you are able to achieve is determined largely by the amount of money your parents have.
At the extreme you get the company town, where the worker is entirely dependent on the company to provide food and housing and clothing, and is effectively unable to leave because leaving means being deprived of the basic necessities of life. Which is why there are laws about things like company scrip now.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Interesting idea. I don’t suppose we could get the same treatment for Christian bakers?
BTW, California can do this under the 10th Amendment—or should be able to. Not sure if that’s relevant now though with all of the GLBTQ nonsense that’s been crammed down on us----thanks in no small part to those who make excuses to vote for these politicians…
BTW, California can do this under the 10th Amendment—or should be able to. Not sure if that’s relevant now though with all of the GLBTQ nonsense that’s been crammed down on us----thanks in no small part to those who make excuses to vote for these politicians…
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
False choices.
You can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. Fact is every single time there is a big government issue that Catholics, whether it’s the Vatican or a someone on here, defends, they always end-up checking their values and having to make cheap excuses that no one really buys into.
Well I have news for you, Darklight: that’s not how our society works, although your personal politics are driving us in that direction since the Democrats are the party of the rich.
As far as society being equal the government cannot force this. It cannot control everyone at everytime. And inequality in a lot of cases is a GOOD thing.
Last edited:
S
sallybutler
Guest
It’s called going off the grid. Very popular among anti government types and conspiracy theorists.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Government to the rescue!
Just remember: they “care”.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Ok, here’s the deal at the end of the day:
We obviously can’t have a government with no taxes, or no regulation whatsoever on business. At the very minimum the government needs to prevent violence and intimidation and provide a mechanism for the arbitration of disputes. Most likely, in a modern country, the provision of large-scale infrastructure that can’t reasonably be provided for privately is going to fall on the government as well, especially in cases (like the fire department discussion upthread) where tragedy of the commons is at stake.
We equally obviously don’t want the government in control of everything whatsoever. Politicians suffer from the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us, resulting in the possibility of corruption being always present. Overcommitment to a false or even incomplete ideology, especially one overfocused on the future, can also cause issues.
Most of us are going to fall somewhere between those two poles. Church teaching indicates that taxation for the support of the state is not intrisically immoral, but that government ought also not to seek power for the sake of power or to stifle free enterprise.
As a side note - it’s an artifact of the American political system that things that have nothing to do with each other get associated. It can be rather annoying in the voting booth, but it doesn’t affect the in principle support or opposition to a policy.
I’m admittedly pretty good at going on internet attacks, and I’m sure I’m not the only one here. It’s a bad habit to act like people who are farther to one side or the other are wanting to go all the way to one extreme or the other. There almost certainly isn’t one true ideal solution, but I doubt anyone on here really hates rich/poor/liberal/conservative/whatever people.
As far as the original topic, I don’t think this is the best idea if they’re going to keep the gas tax as well. I’m also not sure how it would be enforced. Checking odometers would be obvious, but those are fairly easy to tamper with. And putting a GPS on everyone’s car is just creepy and a terrible idea.
We obviously can’t have a government with no taxes, or no regulation whatsoever on business. At the very minimum the government needs to prevent violence and intimidation and provide a mechanism for the arbitration of disputes. Most likely, in a modern country, the provision of large-scale infrastructure that can’t reasonably be provided for privately is going to fall on the government as well, especially in cases (like the fire department discussion upthread) where tragedy of the commons is at stake.
We equally obviously don’t want the government in control of everything whatsoever. Politicians suffer from the same weaknesses and temptations as the rest of us, resulting in the possibility of corruption being always present. Overcommitment to a false or even incomplete ideology, especially one overfocused on the future, can also cause issues.
Most of us are going to fall somewhere between those two poles. Church teaching indicates that taxation for the support of the state is not intrisically immoral, but that government ought also not to seek power for the sake of power or to stifle free enterprise.
As a side note - it’s an artifact of the American political system that things that have nothing to do with each other get associated. It can be rather annoying in the voting booth, but it doesn’t affect the in principle support or opposition to a policy.
I’m admittedly pretty good at going on internet attacks, and I’m sure I’m not the only one here. It’s a bad habit to act like people who are farther to one side or the other are wanting to go all the way to one extreme or the other. There almost certainly isn’t one true ideal solution, but I doubt anyone on here really hates rich/poor/liberal/conservative/whatever people.
As far as the original topic, I don’t think this is the best idea if they’re going to keep the gas tax as well. I’m also not sure how it would be enforced. Checking odometers would be obvious, but those are fairly easy to tamper with. And putting a GPS on everyone’s car is just creepy and a terrible idea.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Oh, good, Luigi is here to make a philosophical discussion about partisan politics. Shocked that it took him five minutes to start hammer posting about “the libs.” 
Last edited:
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
I’m not arguing for unlimited government. That’s like saying, “if you like it to be a comfortable 75 degrees, clearly you would like it to be 400 degrees. More of a good thing, right?”
No one is arguing that there isn’t such a thing as too much government. Most of us just understand that the line is well short of “the local library is a tool of oppression!”
Are you an actual anarchist? (Or even worse, one of those waterheads who tries to tell cops that they’re “sovereign citizens” when they’re pulled over) As I said before, if you really want to be gubmint-free, you could always put your money where your mouth is and renounce your US citizenship.
No one is arguing that there isn’t such a thing as too much government. Most of us just understand that the line is well short of “the local library is a tool of oppression!”
Are you an actual anarchist? (Or even worse, one of those waterheads who tries to tell cops that they’re “sovereign citizens” when they’re pulled over) As I said before, if you really want to be gubmint-free, you could always put your money where your mouth is and renounce your US citizenship.
Last edited:
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Actually, Lemuel, indulge me in a scenario:
I’m your neighbor, and live a ways down the road from you. I open some kind of business on my land which produces pollutants, which end up contaminating your land. All the fish in your pond are dying. We live in your ideal system, whatever that is. What do you do? (Assume you’ve already asked me politely to knock it off and I told you to go pound sand.)
I’m your neighbor, and live a ways down the road from you. I open some kind of business on my land which produces pollutants, which end up contaminating your land. All the fish in your pond are dying. We live in your ideal system, whatever that is. What do you do? (Assume you’ve already asked me politely to knock it off and I told you to go pound sand.)
L
Lemuel
Guest
If you harm me, you are obligated to fix it. Is that a difficult concept to understand?
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Obligated by who? Who is going to enforce that obligation if I decide to be a jerk and tell you to get lost?
Last edited:
- Status