Census Report Thread

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Does that give you the right to look down on the people whose backs we built the country's wealth on? Fuck off.

 

[damnromulans]

What makes you entitled to anything? I thought America was a meritocracy. Ho ho ho! See now you're resting on the laurels of your colonial ancestors

 

[razoredge]

Actually I personally am resting on the past 34 years of my work history.

bounce

 

[damnromulans]

Good job being a good employee. May good things happen to you.

 

[razoredge]

So you believe we earned no "status" for creating what this country is, has done, has been through ? That is was a walk in the park ?

So no answer to this question, which had no reference to "resting on the laurels of ancesters", entitlement or any other distractive twist... only status earned ?

 

[Einherjar86]

I figured it was mostly racists who think Mexicans are taking all of the good jobs from 'normal' people. People like razoredge who "know what thats all about." Anyway, in what way do you mean that the census isn't legal, in terms of libertarian philosophy, or in terms of US governmental law? Frankly, I don't honestly give a shit whether or not the government is 'authorized' by divine right to know that I'm of caucasian heritage if it somehow benefits society as a whole through other evil means that the government illegally does. Nor do I care that the government can't legally force people to buy something that they should already have like health insurance. Legality is not nearly as interesting or important to me as is helping people through reasonable means. But we've discussed this before and I don't feel like getting angry and you're on the crazy pills right now so we probably shouldn't get into this any further, eh?

But if the government knowing/doing something is beneficial to society as a whole but detrimental to a few, why would you expect those few to bend over and take it? The "privileged" have the same rights as the "underpriveleged." You and others here bitch and moan about people not having the same coverage or rights as the echelon of society, but is it acceptable to allow a government system to deprive even just a few people of those rights in order to give them to a vast majority?

1.) This is an interesting dilemma. We now know that race is a social constructed thing with no real meaning. However due to a historical circumstances there is (often extreme) racial inequality in America. The government could ignore and hope it goes away (unlikely) or it could try to help. Libertarians will bitch about the government intervening but they can fuck off.

Or here's an idea: we can decide not to grant those racial minorities special privileges at the cost of providing the same privileges to others just because their ancestors were bigots.

In all honesty, several of you here sound like you just want the wealthy of this country to burn in slow, agonizing torture.

 

[Cythraul]

Anyway, in what way do you mean that the census isn't legal, in terms of libertarian philosophy, or in terms of US governmental law?

In terms of the US constitution, but I guess I have libertarianish objections to it as well. Anyway, I wasn't objecting to the census as such, just the modern version of it.

Frankly, I don't honestly give a shit whether or not the government is 'authorized' by divine right to know that I'm of caucasian heritage if it somehow benefits society as a whole through other evil means that the government illegally does. Nor do I care that the government can't legally force people to buy something that they should already have like health insurance. Legality is not nearly as interesting or important to me as is helping people through reasonable means. But we've discussed this before and I don't feel like getting angry and you're on the crazy pills right now so we probably shouldn't get into this any further, eh?

Crucial assumption that I find questionable: People are being helped and the extent to which such and such is helping them outweighs every single cost associated with it. But I'm sure you're in possession of the requisite facts of reality to know what optimally promotes human welfare (this last thing is what we call 'sarcasm'.)

 

[damnromulans]

So no answer to this question, which had no reference to "resting on the laurels of ancesters", entitlement or any other distractive twist... only status earned ?

I don't think all White People have any special status, only exceptional individuals. Most white people are lazy and want to squeak by with minimal effort to get what they want ASAP. It's called human nature.

 

[razoredge]

Most white people are lazy ? I'll grant you recent epidemics across all races within the country (as well as throughout the world that are not necessarily recent) but if "white people are lazy" via means of "human nature" how did all this possibly come to be ?

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

1. 29
2. two cats
3. 5'11

 

[razoredge]

I don't think all White People have any special status, only exceptional individuals.

I didnt address this, the first part I guess in the last post but, the beaches of Normandy, battle fields of the Civil war, Pacific theater, concrete bridge piers... are stained with the blood of regular "non exceptional individuals" who recieved no special status yet were instrumental in offering up what we have today. Do you pose the idea that we "white" people should have no pride and further inclination to protect what we have... when all other countries and races across the world do exactly that ?

 

[skeptik]

But if the government knowing/doing something is beneficial to society as a whole but detrimental to a few, why would you expect those few to bend over and take it? The "privileged" have the same rights as the "underpriveleged." You and others here bitch and moan about people not having the same coverage or rights as the echelon of society, but is it acceptable to allow a government system to deprive even just a few people of those rights in order to give them to a vast majority?

I don't know what you're talking about. What does the government do that is "beneficial to society as a whole but detrimental to a few?" I don't recall any virgin sacrifices recently. What rights are the government depriving, and from whom? I guess you're referring to progressive taxation, i.e. the more affluent of society paying a higher percentage of their earning in taxes? If you're not you'll have to explain yourself, but I'll respond with the assumption that that is your meaning. Progressive taxation is fair simply because it doesn't hurt the rich as much to pay the money they do in taxes as it does the poor. The more affluent have greater access to superior care in all facets of life, and they also pay a greater share for that access. And unlike race or gender or sexual preference, the poor can become rich and thus pay more.

Or here's an idea: we can decide not to grant those racial minorities special privileges at the cost of providing the same privileges to others just because their ancestors were bigots.

In all honesty, several of you here sound like you just want the wealthy of this country to burn in slow, agonizing torture.

I think you're being rather obtuse with respect to racial issues. I know for a fact that you are not oblivious to the continued perpetuation of racial injustices carried out across the country. There are real discrepancies between races that have nothing to do with anything other than race. It is simply a fact that many of the issues facing minorities is a residual byproduct of past transgressions, so it's only fair to act toward remedying it. It is not "just because their ancestors were bigots" at all, and you know that, I'm confident. It's also a bit hyperbolic to call things like scholarships for minorities and affirmative action (of which I think many people misunderstand the actual tenets) "special privileges". Let's put it this way. It is not preferable to be born a minority in the United States.

In terms of the US constitution, but I guess I have libertarianish objections to it as well. Anyway, I wasn't objecting to the census as such, just the modern version of it.

To what do you object, and what are the Constitutional grounds for your objection?

Crucial assumption that I find questionable: People are being helped and the extent to which such and such is helping them outweighs every single cost associated with it. But I'm sure you're in possession of the requisite facts of reality to know what optimally promotes human welfare (this last thing is what we call 'sarcasm'.)

Right, health care, police, hospitals, fire departments, paved roads, running water, and electricity are not helpful things (condescending sarcasm is pretty cool, but it still doesn't belong in a friendly debate). We also have to work under this assumption: that we live in the world in which we live and with the government and policies to which we're held. Within that framework is where this debate should take place, not in a libertarian ideal. Whether the 'help' that we receive in return for the money we give to the government outweighs costs is not something that we can argue, so I'm not even going to bother. You wouldn't want a government official to piss on you if you were on fire if you had to pay taxes for said service, so I understand the boundaries in which it's worth it to debate with you and as a result respectfully decline to comment on the matter of whether or not services rendered by the government is equal to or greater than the costs the taxpayer puts in.

 

[Cythraul]

Right, health care, police, hospitals, fire departments, paved roads, running water, and electricity are not helpful things (condescending sarcasm is pretty cool, but it still doesn't belong in a friendly debate). We also have to work under this assumption: that we live in the world in which we live and with the government and policies to which we're held. Within that framework is where this debate should take place, not in a libertarian ideal. Whether the 'help' that we receive in return for the money we give to the government outweighs costs is not something that we can argue, so I'm not even going to bother. You wouldn't want a government official to piss on you if you were on fire if you had to pay taxes for said service, so I understand the boundaries in which it's worth it to debate with you and as a result respectfully decline to comment on the matter of whether or not services rendered by the government is equal to or greater than the costs the taxpayer puts in.

Dude, I've been through this argument so many times with so many people and I'm tired of it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Go study some political economy and public choice if you ever feel like no longer being as cocksure as you seem to be. But I should point out that my objection to government in many if not most cases re. the promotion of human well-being is not the claim that it absolutely does not supply what we consider good things but rather that (1) it doesn't supply good things more effectively than all other possible alternatives or (2) when it does supply some good the most effectively, the costs associated with it do not outweigh its benefit. That is all.

Lastly, suck my fucking cock, asshole.

 

[Einherjar86]

Progressive taxation is fair simply because it doesn't hurt the rich as much to pay the money they do in taxes as it does the poor. The more affluent have greater access to superior care in all facets of life, and they also pay a greater share for that access.

Good point; however, not only do they make more, they also spend more. Much, much more. It seems to me that many people on this forum seem to think that the majority of the nation's wealth it horded by a select few. This isn't true. They continually are receiving stable income that makes it appear as though the amount of money they have is quite substantial; but they're also spending money constantly. If you start taxing them more because "they have more money" it's going to seriously impact their spending capabilities, which will in turn impact their business, affecting profits in a negative way. This will eventually have a negative impact on employment.

I think you're being rather obtuse with respect to racial issues. I know for a fact that you are not oblivious to the continued perpetuation of racial injustices carried out across the country. There are real discrepancies between races that have nothing to do with anything other than race. It is simply a fact that many of the issues facing minorities is a residual byproduct of past transgressions, so it's only fair to act toward remedying it. It is not "just because their ancestors were bigots" at all, and you know that, I'm confident. It's also a bit hyperbolic to call things like scholarships for minorities and affirmative action (of which I think many people misunderstand the actual tenets) "special privileges". Let's put it this way. It is not preferable to be born a minority in the United States.

It seems as though you're only giving me the choice of either labeling myself as stupid or agreeing with you; but I don't agree that the "race" problem in America today is a race problem any longer. I believe that it's an economic outcome of negative racial attitudes in the past.

 

[skeptik]

"Hey look I'm an asshole on the internet." Good job. Print this page out and have your mother hang it on the fridge. I was trying to discuss this in a civil manner, but I see you've resorted to your "I'd rather be an asshole than pretend to give a fuck" methods, so whatever, fuck you too. Jump off a building.

 

[Cythraul]

"Hey look I'm an asshole on the internet." Good job. Print this page out and have your mother hang it on the fridge. I was trying to discuss this in a civil manner, but I see you've resorted to your "I'd rather be an asshole than pretend to give a fuck" methods, so whatever, fuck you too. Jump off a building.

Wow, dude. I was basically joking with my last comment. In the past you've seemed to take my assholiness in stride. After all, you are Dodens. Basically I just don't have the patience to get really deep about this stuff right now. I am sorry.

 

[skeptik]

I don't have the patience for internet-instigated childish bullshit any more, no. If somebody isn't going to speak civilly to me, then I'm not going to waste my time any further. Insert obligatory "internet serious business" following this post, and I'm out. Enjoy your life.

 

[Cythraul]

In my opinion you need to settle down.

 

[Matt]

Good point; however, not only do they make more, they also spend more. Much, much more. It seems to me that many people on this forum seem to think that the majority of the nation's wealth it horded by a select few. This isn't true. They continually are receiving stable income that makes it appear as though the amount of money they have is quite substantial; but they're also spending money constantly. If you start taxing them more because "they have more money" it's going to seriously impact their spending capabilities, which will in turn impact their business, affecting profits in a negative way. This will eventually have a negative impact on employment.

You make it seem like the government is going to raise taxes on the rich astronomically. To people with millions of dollars in revenue coming in every year, current taxes are considered pocket change, and greed is the only reason why they object to having to pay more than 99% of the population. Raising them on the incredibly rich won't hurt the economy at all.

seems as though you're only giving me the choice of either labeling myself as stupid or agreeing with you; but I don't agree that the "race" problem in America today is a race problem any longer. I believe that it's an economic outcome of negative racial attitudes in the past.

You apparently haven't been to many places besides Buffalo. That, or you walk around with your eyes closed.

 

[Einherjar86]

I lived in Tampa for four years.

You make it seem like the government is going to raise taxes on the rich astronomically. To people with millions of dollars in revenue coming in every year, current taxes are considered pocket change, and greed is the only reason why they object to having to pay more than 99% of the population. Raising them on the incredibly rich won't hurt the economy at all.

I think you underestimate how much businesses spend, and I also think you're underestimating how much a progressively charged government will tax big businesses.