Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jesse
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight
    All it takes is for the governments then to state the obvious: "we believe that anyone transferring any money to outside of our monitored network of countries is doing so for tax evasion purposes, and we will tax any money leaving the network accordingly as it is leaving". Except for the tiny tax-haven nation-states, there's no reason for all the other governments of the world not to join up to that network and become a part of it, so that no money can be hidden.
    You are only hitting on one point. You can't stop a business from moving out of a country for greener tax pastures if it chooses too. I mean, you can try, but you wouldn't want to deal with what happens if you did.

    Originally posted by Starlight
    Absolutely 1000000% totally wrong. As I've mentioned before, I and my family would lose money from these policies.

    Greed and sociopathy is exactly what the right-wing is all about: "It's my hard-earned money! How dare you take it off me! Those poor are undeserving. Why do they deserve healthcare or food to eat? That would just make them dependent on the government!" It's nothing but greed.

    Lots of research shows that more equal societies are happier and more productive. Greater equality leads to less crime. Better lives for the poor and needy is its own reward: If lots of other people were better off, then that would make me happier. If that costs me and my friends and family financially, so be it - we can easily afford it.
    Well if you can afford it, there is no reason to need anyone else's money. If you are trying to take someone else's money to give to strangers but you personally have no need for it, then you are an authoritarian. Which makes it sociopathy and not greed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    I think maybe you should read this to get a full understanding of Jubilee. What you have been saying throughout is false. It didn't take me long to fine this.
    Just skimmed it, but THAT's how I learned "Jubilee". The land is a gift to that family, and their extended family, and was NOT to be "redistributed" outside that family. It was a gift from God.

    I'm thinking Sam may have "learned" Jubilee in the concept of "social justice", as described in that article, so that's how he sees it, no matter WHAT the truth is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jesse
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Jubilee redistributed lands back to their ancestral holders, cancelled debt and freed slaves. That is indisputably the purpose of Jubliee and indisputably redistributionist. Those who possessed had to give back or give up that which they possessed to others. It's an incredibly simple matter of definition that can't be avoided with any seriousness. It would be the height of tedium to try to (again) argue about how Jubilee law relates to contemporary debate about "forced redistribution" with people who deny the simple meaning of words.
    I think maybe you should read this to get a full understanding of Jubilee. What you have been saying throughout is false. It didn't take me long to fine this.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Because there's NO WAY you can use Jubilee to justify taking something from an "original owner", and giving it to somebody ELSE who was NEVER an owner.
    If you want to argue against a block of concrete, here is your new opponent:

    20030313-concrete-block.jpg

    You're welcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    The problem is, he can't. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Jubilee knows it was the ANE version of debt forgiveness. Most religions of the area had their own version. Had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.
    Sam doesn't need to know anything about sociology. It plainly says that and if you actually think the Bible should be read in context, you can't think scripture is without error. Context doesn't exist, just as Sam the creator of that strawman to tell you that.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
7 responses
65 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
42 responses
249 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
108 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
194 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
73 responses
337 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X