[speechlesstx]

Obviously then we can violate other's rights at will since no one's trumps another's.

[talaniman]

Or you could be outraged at violence targeted to gay people for being gay. I can't see a preacher preaching the gospel being held responsible for an idiot.

[Tuttyd]

yes that is the intimidating power of government to impose it's will on individuals .This is also the core problem with the IRS scandal . The founders never envisioned the system they constructed would grow to be such a Leviathan.

Tom. why can't you answer your own questions? The answer is obvious. The Founders created a system that was a compromise when it comes to statism and federalism. This was always going to be a problem given enough time.

[tomder55]

Not really ,they wrote in safeguards that have been eroded . Now some of them were self inflicted... like the 16th amendment (followed closely by the May 1913 17th which began to carve away at Federalism) .
The 16th amendment states :

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That amendment was a big brain fart . It opened the door to the statism and all it's unconstitutional excess that until that point had been relatively contained . It was the progressives wet dream. Direct taxation without apportionment is the very redistributive tool that Karl Marx advocated . (2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto)

[Tuttyd]

not really ,they wrote in safeguards that have been eroded . Now some of them were self inflicted...like the 16th amendment (followed closely by the May 1913 17th which began to carve away at Federalism) .
The 16th amendment states :

That amendment was a big brain fart . It opened the door to the statism and all it's unconstitutional excess that until that point had been relatively contained . It was the progressives wet dream. Direct taxation without apportionment is the very redistributive tool that Karl Marx advocated . (2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto)

Tom, there are no planks to the "Communist Manifesto". Other than those found on on right wing think tanks. But I guess that depends on what you mean by,"planks".

[tomder55]

Really ? Did you read chapter 2 ?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

[Tuttyd]

really ? Did you read chapter 2 ?

Yes I have. I thought you were talking about the "Communist Manifesto"

[tomder55]

I am.. I can't link to the pdf exact text . But here is Wiki...

. Proletarians and Communists

The second section, "Proletarians and Communists", starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class, declaring that they will not form a separate party that opposes other working-class parties, will express the interests and general will of the proletariat as a whole, and will distinguish themselves from other working-class parties by always expressing the common interest of the entire proletariat independently of all nationalities and representing the interests of the movement as a whole.[14]

The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love", and the claim that people will not perform labour in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.[14] The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands: (aka planks )
1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.[15]
The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The implementation of these policies would, as believed by Marx and Engels, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.[14] In a controversial passage they suggested that the "proletariat" might in competition with the bourgeoisie be compelled to organise as a class, form a revolution, make itself a ruling class, sweep away the old conditions of production, and in that step have abolished its own supremacy as a class.[14] This account of the transition from socialism to communism was criticised particularly during and after the Soviet era.

[talaniman]

So you see gay marriage as a communist plot? What are you saying Tom?

[tomder55]

Follow the conversation Tal

It started on this tangent when I replied to comment #72

[Tuttyd]

Tom can I take you back to your original statement-to which I was responding:

"Direct taxation without appointment is the very redistributive tool that Marx advocated" . I would have thought that the reference to taxation outlined in the "Manifesto" was a prediction on the part of Marx.

Over to you.

[talaniman]

So as I suspected, you are conflating gay marriage to government expansion, or intrusion in to the accepted traditional social fabrics that you are more comfortable with. I can understand your fear of the governing proclivities that use to be so fearful to us before, and the conflicts now that fuel that fear, but to be honest, you are lumping many things together that just don't fit.

And that's a rather rigid standard you hold to that's not only exclusionary in principle, but borders on domination. Worse than the communism you decry so much.

Philosophical opinion is great but you cannot ignore the effects on actual people of policy and practice.

[speechlesstx]

Tal, are you under some ridiculous impression that I tolerate violence against gays or something?

[talaniman]

Nope, not at all. Just throwing your own attitude right back at you! I mean if you can be bewildered by my lack of outrage at your issues, I wanted to show you why I am outraged on my own issues.

We seem to have outrage on different issues, and that's cool, ain't it?

[tomder55]

Tom can I take you back to your original statement-to which I was responding:

"Direct taxation without appointment is the very redistributive tool that Marx advocated" . I would have thought that the reference to taxation outlined in the "Manifesto" was a prediction on the part of Marx.

Over to you.

A 'prediction' rather than a 'means to an end platform ' ? I refer you back to the Wiki link : The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands:
Is Wiki wrong in making that statement ? No ;that is always how I've read the manifesto..

[tomder55]

Tal I was commenting to this specific observation by Judy .

Having your business sued, getting that publicity (lots of people have gay friends/relatives), having to pay an Attorney and traipse back and forth to Court, possibly having your business "frozen" while it plays out - any/all of these factors would scare me straight!

Where is that "conflating " gay marriage to government expansion ? You forget ;unlike you statists ,I want the government out of the marriage business. I don't want the government to have the power to shut a small business florist down ;or drag through the courts because the owner has religions objections to gay marriage .Yes ,I compared the legal position that the florist is in to the punitive trampling on the 1st amendment rights of the TeaParty and conservative groups by the IRS and the political wing of the White House .
So yes ,the comparisons are valid... they do fit.

[talaniman]

Its not government getting involved in peoples business its people who are involving the government in their business. I mean if the people hadn't made a stink about gay marriage you wouldn't need a judge to settle the conflicts now would we?

I mean when you make every dog gone thing under the sun a moral crisis and a scandal with selective high soaring rhetoric you force a reaction from the ones you holler about. What do you expect a gay guy to do who wants to come out into the real world and get some sun and you are keeping the closet door shut. Yes its like the IRS controversy that all of a sudden is about YOUR rights to form a group that doesn't pay taxes but can change elections.

Now you want to change the whole policy and process to fit your needs and get what YOU want, but the unintended consequence of skating and manipulating the law by both sides may be changing and reforming those laws, policies, and procedures and practices for fairness.

I note when your side did have power you did none of those things. We didn't either, but we were fighting you guys for the last 5 years to get your mess cleaned up. Not an excuse but the mess was much bigger than anyone though, and we needed more than a mop and bucket.

So while we can appreciate the mundane philosophy of thinking long gone by thinkers long gone in a different situation entirely, fact remains we have gone well beyond the hollering arguing stage and need to proceed into the actual make it work better phase.

Can't you guys work while you are hollering? At least get out of the door way and let the gay folks be happy.

[tomder55]

Tal ,if you don't want the constitution and the government founded on that constitution to protect the rights guaranteed in it , you can say it in less than a 5 paragraph rant.

[talaniman]

Less time protect rights against the boogey man and more time cleaning up our messes. How's that?

[cdad]

Less time protect rights against the boogey man and more time cleaning up our messes. How's that?

I agree. So how about you stop making all the messes you have been and we will go back to small government. Instead of the cradle to grave mentality that you want to force upon everyone. Talk about looking for boogyman everywhere.