I can't speak for anyone else but for myself, I can stand behind someone breaking an unjust or opressive law (like taxation) in an act of lawful rebellion, I cannot stand behind someone breaking a law that is to protect the public safety (texting behind the wheel). I would expect there is a lot of the population that would not even offer up a break for lawful rebellion.
TTC workers under attack (again/still)
Fri, 2011-03-11 23:39
#52
Sat, 2011-03-12 22:38
#53
Yeah, oppressive laws like taxation only save others lives in the operating room, etc., never your own...until your ass is on the libertarian line. WTF is this fella coming from....? Oliver Wendell Holmes was just shit disturbing when he told his fellow justices that taxation brought civilization...
Sun, 2011-03-13 03:21
#54
Yeah, oppressive laws like taxation only save others lives in the operating room, etc., never your own...until your ass is on the libertarian line. WTF is this fella coming from....? Oliver Wendell Holmes was just shit disturbing when he told his fellow justices that taxation brought civilization...
I am not against taxation entirely. There has to be some kind of public fund for healthcare and roads and schools etc. Essential services I will gladly pay my share. Unfortunately government has decided we taxpayers are a big cash cow for whatever they want. Want a few F-35's..take more tax. Want to give the banks 75 billion bucks...take some more tax. In case you didn't know the average working family gives about 65% of every dollar earned back to the government in some tax or another. that is oppressive taxation. Now consider that those making in excess of $150k will pay far less of their income proportionally than those that make $45k and it is also unfair and unequitable. There has not been a significant reduction in tax for the working class in, well, forever.
I won't even bother with how most of the tax legislation is unlawful.
And I would be just as civilized if I didn't pay any tax at all.
Sun, 2011-03-13 08:06
#55
Thoreau went to jail for witholding a tax that in part allowed an expanding U.S. to take new territory by force. He had reason on his side.
You are on the side of Stevie Harper and his minions in their ongoing destruction of the basis for a hard-won welfare state that gives a modicum of protection to those very people you talk about in this society of inequities.
And, no, you would not be "just as civilized" paying no tax at all. You would rank among the dictators, the very, very uncivilized... using the term to describe people with no concern at all for what used to be - in Holmes's day - the civic virtures, beginning with responsibility for fellow citizens. Your mindless, purely ideational speculations are the stuff of an elementary schoolroom.
Sun, 2011-03-13 09:14
#56
Taxation levels aren't the problem. It's what they're doing with it.
Sun, 2011-03-13 13:04
#57
Le T
1) "civilization" is not really an objective measure of one's humanity or justness, it's a racist, colonial construction used for oppression.
2) The union is not "standing behind" members that break the law. They are defending members (like the one in the story that Doug posted) who are being quickly fired by management who are lurching around desperatly trying to conform to "public opinion"/The Toronto Sun headlines.
The TTC has been run into the ground by bad management and chronic underfunding. Now people are blaming the union. Just like when the management of GM ran the company into the ground and blamed unions. People seem to think that all those MBAs and business-types just wander around waiting for their next instructions from the union on how to run the company.
Sun, 2011-03-13 13:41
#58
LeT, I qualified the concept of civilized with this : "the civic virtures, beginning with responsibility for fellow citizens. " Ive read 1491 and What is America and know exactly how "civilized" has been used in the colonial period. Holmes used it to explain the kind of tax-paying society that he thought brought some modicum of equality (opportunity) and justice to the citizenry in the late 19th century. I can't do better than that while trying to deal with our newly resident libertarian.
Sun, 2011-03-13 13:42
#59
Taxation levels aren't the problem. It's what they're doing with it.
"They" being the politicos and bureaucrats responsible for collecting and assigning distribution of the taxes???
Sun, 2011-03-13 17:41
#60
George - so I am now a dictator and uncivilized (post#54) and a libertarian (#58) because I believe our current system of taxation is unfair and unequitable and would personally like to keep more of my hard-earned money for myself and my family. I certainly would not stop respecting my fellow humans or their rights just because I paid no tax and I certainly would not try to rule them. I do however believe that we (those that are able) all have to assume personal responsibilty for our lives. I am not a proponent or supporter of a 'welfare state' as you put it but of a society where we can govern most of our own lives while still providing support the portion of the population who are, for whatever legitimate reason, unable to provide for themselves adeaquately. There are many places to cut government spending whilst actually increasing the support to those who need it. I am not a sovereignist or libertarian, although they do have some good ideas within their mantra, I am simply against government waste of my money and government taking control of my life.
I take offense at your at your comparison of me to a dictator and your characterization of me as uncivilized. Nowhere on this site have I called you, or anyone else, any derogatory names and I have not told you how to live your life. I have simply expressed a viewpoint on issues and over-emotional assumptions by what I thought were open-minded people, have led you to the rest.
(added) Back to the actual topic here.
LeT - If drivers are, as you say, being fired without due process and against their agreed upon contract then it is absolutely right their union stick up for them. I would only say that repeated diregard for the laws of Ontario and the public safety should also be dealt with appropriately.
Sun, 2011-03-13 19:44
#61
"I won't even bother with how most of the tax legislation is unlawful.
And I would be just as civilized if I didn't pay any tax at all."
----------------------------------------
Thoreau went to jail for witholding a tax that in part allowed an expanding U.S. to take new territory by force. He had reason on his side.
You are on the side of Stevie Harper and his minions in their ongoing destruction of the basis for a hard-won welfare state that gives a modicum of protection to those very people you talk about in this society of inequities.
And, no, you would not be "just as civilized" paying no tax at all. You would rank among the dictators, the very, very uncivilized... using the term to describe people with no concern at all for what used to be - in Holmes's day - the civic virtures, beginning with responsibility for fellow citizens. Your mindless, purely ideational speculations are the stuff of an elementary schoolroom.
"I take offense at your at your comparison of me to a dictator and your characterization of me as uncivilized."
If you paid no tax, you not be just as civilized. Read it for chrissake, and come to!
Sun, 2011-03-13 20:07
#62
I guess it depends on your definition of 'civilized'.
Mine is that you treat all others with respect and dignity and do nothing to harm others in any way. Allowing people to have their personal rights and freedoms is civilized. Paying or not paying taxes has absolutely no bearing on this. A civilized society can exist in the absense of any taxation at all as long as all the people have mutual respect and reciprocal rights. There are many tribal societies around the world that have no idea of what taxation is and yet operate in a civilized manner. It is the rule of law, not tax policy, that makes a civilized society.
Under you apparent definition only someone who pays taxes can be civilized, so any taxpayer can infringe upon another's rights and yet still be considered a civilized person. For a dramatic example, KKK members pay their taxes, so they are they civilized.
I am quite willing to let you have your opinion on the subject, even though I disagree with it, and that my friend is what makes me civilized.
Sun, 2011-03-13 21:44
#63
Just as long as your thoughts do not become those of a governmening power, but remain those of a philosopher removed from history or political reality, you can't do too many people a helluva lot of harm.
Rob Ford would welcome you aboard.
Sun, 2011-03-13 21:54
#64
I see that once your arguments that paying tax = civilized are thouroughly disected you revert back to demeaning the person who proves you wrong with simple logic. This is an age old tactic used by many to deflect from the actual issue at hand.
That is enough drifting from the topic of this thread for me.
Sun, 2011-03-13 22:25
#65
And this would hold true only in your nevernever land or the mind of Rob Ford: "Allowing people to have their personal rights and freedoms is civilized. Paying or not paying taxes has absolutely no bearing on this. A civilized society can exist in the absense of any taxation at all as long as all the people have mutual respect and reciprocal rights."
Sun, 2011-03-13 22:35
#66
no reference of any kind to taxation here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilized
Or here-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilized
Mon, 2011-03-14 03:15
#67
"They" being the politicos and bureaucrats responsible for collecting and assigning distribution of the taxes???
No George, I'm referring to those little green men from Mars who somehow managed to escape their confinement at Area 51, and have gone on to make a mess of things. Don't tell me you're among last to know what everyone else means by the term 'they?'
Mon, 2011-03-14 04:17
#68
Ideally of course we'd have a structure of governance whereby the individuals hired into the positions would see it as their task to attend to the demands of the broad electorate. Instead, the one we have at present has only ever managed to prove its utility when bending over backwards for faceless corporations. And so on a certain level, it is understandable when people chafe at the notion of continuing to contribute their tax dollars into a corrupted apparatus staffed with swindlers and crooks, who spend the bulk of their time in office working on the agendas of fellow cronies in business. But when one demonstrates the capacity to maintain a little or no tax, minimal government and laws position, in the hypothetical context of a political system that does actually serve the citizenry, while at the same time betraying a willingness to chance the management and effectiveness of agreed upon communal priorities to the vagaries of individual charity work, then one may as well be a spokesperson for this age where neo-liberalism, libertarianism and plain old tea party stupidity have been stirred together into the same fetid crock.
Mon, 2011-03-14 09:25
#69
A civilized society can exist in the absense of any taxation at all as long as all the people have mutual respect and reciprocal rights.
Interesting thought. In this mythical society, how would one enforce their rights?
Mon, 2011-03-14 10:03
#70
It's generally the case that some forms of government intervention capacity will need to be retained in any such construct, in the form of the police, the judiciary, and the army.
Mon, 2011-03-14 14:34
#71
Which takes us almost back to John Locke, and the need for gov't to preserve the right to life, liberty...and property. All of it , in the minds of some, guaranteed by the necessarily nefarious actions of little green men.
Mon, 2011-03-14 16:42
#72
George - your continued nonsensical references to martians are boring at best. Mybe show a little respect for other people even if you disagree.
If you all want the big social state please feel free to encourage your leaders to up the ante and take 95% of your earnings in taxes in return for that loaf of bread and some government cheese each week. You can give them 100% if you want but your lifestyle will not get better. I personally have a little more inteligence and if left alone am quite capable of managing my own life. I don't need the Big Brother crutch you all seem to require.
Tue, 2011-03-15 08:14
#73
Speaking of the nonsensical, exaggerate much? The corporate order that we have now would certainly take the 100% that you're offering. This is their ultimate goal after all, to own everything and charge us for its upkeep and rent. In the meantime, we're still waiting thirty years on for the trickle to start kicking down. As an example of how stale this pie in the sky ideology of yours is, you fail to grasp anything of what people understood back in the 1980s. It is no longer a matter of exaggeration to state that regardless of how much is given over to capital in the way of sub-poverty line working existences, human slavery as its alternative, the avoidable environmental disasters, and widespread food insecurity and outright starvation, the nature of this thing which surrounds us everywhere should be enough by now to inform even the thickest of skulls that they will always come back searching for more, with ever more ingenious and destructive ways of finding it. It is no simply no longer a matter of political and socio-economic preference, because the disease has spread well beyond yesterday's wildest fantasies of even the most vivid Chicago school minds, to the point where they've had to conjure up new horrors on the fly. We're nearing the terminal stage in its progress as the Japanese are now discovering with the insult of industrial nuclear meltdowns added to the injury of natural disaster. Nothing can adequately account for a line of reasoning which suggests that our great failing in all of this has been that we haven't quite given ourselves over enough to the corporate order; and that our salvation lies in auctioning off everything to their lowest bidders while adopting the Wild West attitude of everyone for themselves. Against all evidence you continue on like some creationist staring at a dinosaur exhibit while complaining that it's mostly a replicated cast, a trick in other words. It's pretty clear that the more you speak the more ridiculous you become.
Tue, 2011-03-15 08:51
#74
I personally have a little more inteligence and if left alone am quite capable of managing my own life. I don't need the Big Brother crutch you all seem to require.
You may not need 'Big Brother's' crutch, but you seem oblivious to the fact that your existence (even online) is supported by the braces of the actions we have tasked him with. Generally, it takes a significant amount of intelligence to recognize the limitations we all face, everyday, as individual human beings. When your liberties and rights are infringed upon, I hope Ghostbusters comes through for you.
Tue, 2011-03-15 09:06
#75
double post
Tue, 2011-03-15 09:07
#76
George - your continued nonsensical references to martians are boring at best. Mybe show a little respect for other people even if you disagree.
If you all want the big social state please feel free to encourage your leaders to up the ante and take 95% of your earnings in taxes in return for that loaf of bread and some government cheese each week. You can give them 100% if you want but your lifestyle will not get better. I personally have a little more inteligence and if left alone am quite capable of managing my own life. I don't need the Big Brother crutch you all seem to require.
My dear Nick, I have never once mentioned Martians. Little green men, to echo another poster, but never Martians, and then only once. Never did believe in them, m'self. Gaia knows where you and your God are coming from, and the injection of little green men seemed fully in keeping with your offering. Now I must hustle back to Jack's tome and try to fathom his meaning and object of scorn.
Tue, 2011-03-15 09:17
#77
Yes, Nick,it seems you will have to brush up on the Chicago School of economics, its meaning for civilization. I agree Jack...I think.
Tue, 2011-03-15 09:26
#78
I've been reluctant to contribute to the drift of this thread, but what the heck. I think most people believe that we need at least a "night watchman" state (although some anarchists would disagree). The place where people differ is on how much bigger a state is needed. And yes, Oliver Wendell Holmes did say "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society": that doesn't nail down what the right amount is. Reasonable people can disagree about whether taxes as a percentage of GDP should be 25% or 50%, and what the mix of income tax and consumption tax ought to be.
Tue, 2011-03-15 09:30
#79
Yes, Nick,it seems you will have to brush up on the Chicago School of economics, its meaning for civilization. I agree Jack...I think.
The meaning appears to escape you too George. Even Dobbin gets it, although he hasn't quite arrived at the remedy yet. He says we must take control of this destiny, without offering suggestions as to how.
In trying to anticipate what an election campaign will look like -- and it seems increasingly likely that we will be unable to avoid one -- it is striking that the biggest issues facing humankind are not even on the radar, yet alone being framed as planks in any party's campaign platform.This amounts to whistling pass the graveyard on a massive, and potentially fatal scale. In our conventional political universe we are talking about jet fighters, corporate tax cuts, growing the economy and abolishing the Senate -- and if we are lucky some mention of climate change, poverty and the dire financial straits of seniors.
But the other universe is virtually invisible despite the fact that it is very real and well known. That parallel road that no one in authority wants to acknowledge is one which is taking us over a cliff. That universe tells us that we are rapidly reaching the planet's limits to growth, that we are well past the start of a global fresh water crisis, that we have already reached peak oil, that climate change will have ever-increasing planet-changing impacts and that rapidly rising food prices will lead to mass starvation in the developing world.
Tue, 2011-03-15 10:47
#80
I've been reluctant to contribute to the drift of this thread, but what the heck. I think most people believe that we need at least a "night watchman" state (although some anarchists would disagree). The place where people differ is on how much bigger a state is needed. And yes, Oliver Wendell Holmes did say "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society": that doesn't nail down what the right amount is. Reasonable people can disagree about whether taxes as a percentage of GDP should be 25% or 50%, and what the mix of income tax and consumption tax ought to be.
I don't believe that "reasonable people" will prevail, down the road, ygtbk. I believe we are going to have to mobilize all our resources, as though in a wartime setting, to overcome an economic system's (and its proponents and major benefactors) tencency to self-destruct, bringing all civilization down with it. Hell, the very financial institutions that we depend on for pension funds down the road can't wait to privatize the TTC's of this world...including those of the workers that now perform as a public service. Howwzzat for a contradiction?
Farley Mowat hoped to live long enough to see THE destructive species meet a fitting end in this way, after causing the disappearance of so many other species. But the old boy probably won't make it. (and how's that for thread drift?) :)
Tue, 2011-03-15 10:48
#81
Sorry 'bout that Jack.
Tue, 2011-03-15 23:26
#82
I have consistantly held a position that we do need some form of government but one totally different from what we have today. the major reforms required are:
1- remove all corporate influence, no donations, no lobbyists
2- accountable representitives, constitutional ammendment forcing them to vote for their constituency, not their party leaders
3- no party system, all candidates are independant, no parties = no whipped votes. relates directly to #2
4- fiscal responsibility, constitutional ammendment preventing deficit budgets (exception for war and natural disaster)
Those are the issues from where we can start to rebuild into a country that is good for all citizens.
Unfortunately George you have offered no solutions to our problems and seem to be OK with the status quo. You have really done nothing but attempt to impune my ideas and demean my intelligence. Your comments speak for your character.
Wed, 2011-03-16 08:39
#83
Those are the issues from where we can start to rebuild into a country that is good for all citizens.
Fair distribution of wealth is precisely what is good for citizens as opposed to the distribution system we have now, with the parceling out of left over scraps to the beggars once the insatiable ruling class has appropriated their ever increasing share. You can envision whichever alternate society you want, but ultimately it won't be sustainable for the majority of the population, and thus seen as a viable and representative structure of governance unless the distribution of wealth is codified into law and not left to the arbitrary whims. Without a baseline structure of law to work from, there is nothing to bind a ruling class and their dancing monkeys to the stake of legitimacy, and nothing to hinder them from re-engineering the entire apparatus whenever they felt like it in order to suit their own purposes. And you're not going to get there either by substituting a codified distribution system for national wealth with individual after the fact volunteerism. You'd need a fair tax and revenue structure, and an effective, representative bureaucracy to exercise citizen driven, priority based stewardship over it.
Wed, 2011-03-16 14:53
#84
Those are the issues from where we can start to rebuild into a country that is good for all citizens.Fair distribution of wealth is precisely what is good for citizens as opposed to the distribution system we have now, with the parceling out of left over scraps to the beggars once the insatiable ruling class has appropriated their ever increasing share. You can envision whichever alternate society you want, but ultimately it won't be sustainable for the majority of the population, and thus seen as a viable and representative structure of governance unless the distribution of wealth is codified into law and not left to the arbitrary whims. Without a baseline structure of law to work from, there is nothing to bind a ruling class and their dancing monkeys to the stake of legitimacy, and nothing to hinder them from re-engineering the entire apparatus whenever they felt like it in order to suit their own purposes. And you're not going to get there either by substituting a codified distribution system for national wealth with individual after the fact volunteerism. You'd need a fair tax and revenue structure, and an effective, representative bureaucracy to exercise citizen driven, priority based stewardship over it.
Please define what 'fair distribution of wealth' is to you.
I AM asking for laws to control those running the government.
The system I envision has the working people, the majority of Canadians, as the ruling class.
If you bothered to actually listen to what I have said all along you would realize your last sentence describes exactly what I seek for Canada.
Thu, 2011-03-17 08:55
#85
Please define what 'fair distribution of wealth' is to you.
One that provides guaranteed living standards, where one doesn't have to wake up every morning to face the wide ranging insecurities of an artificially produced and marginalized existence. One that bridges the gap between poverty's gut wrenching despair and universal carnage, and the winner take all euphoria of the exclusive commodity club, populated with beaming faces that surround themselves in large measure with ill gotten opulence.
If you bothered to actually listen to what I have said all along you would realize your last sentence describes exactly what I seek for Canada.
First let me tell you that my political stance is 'fiscally conservative liberal' so getting anyone to represent me entirely is almost impossible given the views I hold. I am usually left with choosing either a 'right wing radical' or a 'bleeding heart liberal'. There has been much more movement toward 'centerist' candidates in the last decade but to find one who embodies the things I hold dear is tough.
I've have in fact, been at least mildly bothered by much of what you've offered here since arriving.
Thu, 2011-03-17 12:28
#86
Thank you for paying attention.
I think we mostly agree on what a better Canada would look like.
Thu, 2011-03-31 13:22
#87
Only the NDP MPPs voted against this travesty:
[url=http://bit.ly/fo1B2F]TTC essential service legislation passes[/url]
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the legislation sets a bad precedent for future labour negotiations in the province."The best way to get an agreement is at the bargaining table," said Horwath. "It's a simple matter of fair process and one that gets the best results."
Thu, 2011-03-31 13:23
#88
[thread drift] Ok, that worked this time! I had to fill out the CAPTCHA box, but it went through! [/ thread drift]
Thu, 2011-03-31 13:25
#89
Catchfire
We unclicked the "Unionist spam" box due to user complaints.
Thu, 2011-03-31 21:17
#90
Le T
The essential service thing is such a con. The TTC workers have only been on strike for a total of 75 days in the last 87 years. Stikes usually last a day before they are ordered back to work.
Did a single media outlet mention this fact? It would have been interesting if one fucking reporter had used google to compare the amount of service "lost" to strikes versus the amount of service lost to the fact that the TTC is an underfunded wreck that runs on 1960s steampunk technology and breaks down every day.
Fuck politicians and fuck media. Don't vote, organize and strike.