Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Why mass produced electric cars ain't gonna happen any time soon. - Page 8

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Robert Copcutt on September 25, 2009, 2:00 am
 


YouDontOwnMe wrote:

My observation is that people who have not travelled much tend to be
narrow minded. You said things that hinted to me that you have never
left the USA. Am I wrong?

Primarily the poem although it is more accurately described as a
receiving. Copied is not a good word either. I have the author's
permission to put it on my site.


I pointed you to it because the whole thing is relevant to the sort of
things you seem to be interested in. It has profound meaning and until
you take the time to study it you are denying yourself an education.


I believe that if we live in a society we have a responsibility to spend
some of our effort doing things that benefit the whole society. In
principle tax is one reasonable way to collect a contribution. We both
agree that the way tax is, and has been, collected is frequently unjust.

If you want taxation to stop it would help if you proposed an
alternative way to get societies to function. That would take a whole
website and that is why I have created one. By being anonymous you have
painted yourself into a corner as far as this thread is concerned.


It can be but I say again; propose a workable alternative.


No need. I already agree that the way it is done presently is frequently
extortionate. I am taking the trouble to respond because I am interested
in a viable alternative. Propose one and I might listen.


The following is a rather shallow explanation but its a start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_ (psychology)
Thought forms are also mirrored. You see problems in others that you
yourself have.


No, I believe.
1) Money is needed to organise society. Tax is the best way found so far
to collect it.

2) The collection process is now often extortionate. A better collection
system is therefore needed. That is why I wrote my carbon tax page about
making the only tax a "limited resources tax". Therefore we only pay for
what we take from society or the planet.

You know that force will be used. There are always people who will try
to be parasites on society and people need to see that such behaviour is
not tolerated. Likewise I personally have a right to use force if it is
the only to stop someone robbing me. Not paying your tax is the same as
robbing society.

My point was that guns are not required.

I do not have the time to write perfect replies to you. Levelling does
not mean make perfectly level. That would be silly. Again, the receiving
speaks about this. Those of us who can earn good money have a duty to
give a proportion of our time or money to help those who are less fortunate.


And you seem to have misunderstood my point. We all influence people to
make them do things they would not have done if alone. eg. if you go out
with friends for a meal you come to a compromise about which restaurant
to use. No agreement and the group breaks up and the evening is spoiled.
We have a duty to encourage each other to cooperate and help those who
have run into trouble.



Your money is simply a token of the services you have performed for another.


What about the people who do not give to charity when they could? Life
is complicated and stopping a country full of millions of people
becoming total chaos requires complicated systems. Charities have a
place just as governments do.


And you have the right to leave a country if you do not like its rules.
I have lived in 3 countries and visited many more to assess them and
believe me every country has its problems.


These things are not as black and white as you might like.  If you agree
with your partner that you will do something and then do not do it your
partner has a right to do something about it.


It is not about owning. If you elect someone into government you have
given them the right to make rules that affect you.


This is where your lack of life experience becomes obvious. The bigger
the organisation, group, or community the bigger the rule book it needs
to hold it together and make progress. And "Do unto others" only works
when the others are very similar and want the same thing. In real life
even that often fails. A better philosophy is to respect the free will
of others.



Such arrogance will prevent you learning important lessons.


That is how it may appear now but my challenge to you is to propose a
better holistic alternative. Simply complaining about tax is not good
enough.


Nor do most other people. Even if it was the best policy how would you
teach them?

A better way is to read books. People frequently answer questions by
telling you what they think you want to hear. Books are generally the
most rigorously checked sources of information followed by journals then
newspaper and then the web. Learn to detect good authors and follow
them. Neale Walsch is one of my favourites.

Correct.


Yes. If I own something and rent it to someone else I have the right to
reclaim my property if they stop paying. If it gets bad enough I can get
a court order that tells the police to take it back by force. Rent or
tax, it amounts to the same thing. The government is supposed to deliver
you a service and they have a right to expect you to pay. If you do not
like it you have a few choices like go and hide in the wilderness, or
move country, or get elected and change the law.


Your vote represents your choice.

That is why I propose a "limited resources tax". You only pay for what
you have chosen to claim for yourself, such as the land you build your
house on.

Last chance. You seem to want to learn and the page contains a holistic
proposition that addresses your questions. It proposes a way forward
that fixes some big problems. Simple abolishing tax, or refusing to pay
it, would cause chaos.

It is a start isn't it.

I am saying 3b.


The tax laws are supposed to care about both your property rights and
the rights of the community you live in. I propose a limited resources
tax to fix the fact it does not yet work as well as it might.



It takes time to address the level of pedantry you choose to use. I have
better things to do.


My disagreement starts with h. A law is supposed to put limits on
behaviour but not control it. i. is also wrong because when we share
something with another (like living in the same country) we have to have
cooperative behaviour otherwise we are regressing into savagery.
Because i. is wrong j,k. and l. are wrong.


We do have the right in the first place to demand a certain level of
cooperation from our fellow citizens.

If you chose not to use your vote you are giving away a significant
power to change things.


Small progress!

If they really did behave goonishly then maybe.

You missed my point. You cannot just use a word and expect everyone to
agree on the subtleties and nuances and implications. What is just to
one person is unfair to another. Trying to get too dogmatic about these
things just wastes time.

Why put a time limit on it? If your life is in danger and others do not
help you (where that help might involve taking property) then your life
of x many years ends rather quickly.

I call that my body. My self, to me, is a spiritual thing.

Posted by Bruce Richmond on September 26, 2009, 2:59 pm
 



If it is not your writing and you placed it on your site then you
copied it.  It is as simple as that.  The fact that you have
permission to post a copy does not make it any less a copy.  So copy
is a good word to describe it.  You just don't like the word copy.

[snip]

Posted by Robert Copcutt on October 2, 2009, 4:04 pm
 

Bruce Richmond wrote:


Words cannot have exact meanings and they all have subtle implications
and nuances. The word "copy" is sometimes associated with cheating.
"Publish" is a more accurate word in this case.

Posted by Bruce Richmond on October 3, 2009, 7:06 pm
 


The word copy is still correct.  You don't like it as well as others,
but that does not make it wrong.  I suspect you don't like it because
it admits that the writing was not your own original work.  Your
trying to downplay that fact may be why you are sensitive about the
association with cheating.

Posted by Robert Copcutt on October 4, 2009, 12:46 pm
 

Bruce Richmond wrote:

Yes it is correct in the broad sense of the meanings of the words
"correct" and "copy". However, one of the main themes of my website is
the importance of truth. Conveying the truth to people is difficult and
requires more than simply using words that are "correct". It requires
that we look at nuances and implications as well. The fact that
Pollard's receiving was written by him and not me is clearly stated but
I would still prefer to use words like "publish" or "reproduced" rather
than "copy" so that fewer people go away with the wrong impression.

Robert
www.copcutt.me.uk

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread