John Green, Father of the Little Girl Killed in Tuscon, is my New Hero

[Renee750il]

Go back and look at the circumstances under which this system was begun, Lil . . . Tell me, honestly, that there was nothing that smacked of extortion there, that there wasn't opportunistic manipulation of the public psyche, and tell me that it isn't an even more crude -- and effective -- political tool for extortion today.

One side: If you vote for my opponent he/she is going to destroy YOUR social security and put the elderly out on the curb to die.

Other side: If you vote for my opponent he/she is going to loot social security and scuttle Medicare.

Every. Freaking. Election.

And the voting populace -- by and large -- buys into the threat and succumbs to the fear Every. Freaking. Election.

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by the intent to acquire the victim's property is sufficient to establish the crime; others require that the property must actually be acquired as a result of the threat. Extortion by officials is treated similarly. Some statutes hold that the crime occurs when there is a meeting of the minds between the officer and the party from whom the money is exacted.

Perhaps the terminology, "exaction by oppression" might be more to the point, but less understood

 

[Renee750il]

Or, in the immortal words of Reagan, "Facts are stupid things."

Why turn to logical analysis when emotional rhetoric will pass....geesh

No, but statistics are easily manipulated to render whatever verdict the user requires.

Just look at the ones used to justify BSL.

 

[Buckshot]

This is way too complicated. Lets take all of the people on here who support social programs and have them donate 100 bucks a week or so to those on here who barely squeek by. It could be our own little experiment in conviction. As a supporter of what I consider anarchy I will back out of any donations or benefits. Who all wants to try it?

 

[motherofmany]

No, but statistics are easily manipulated to render whatever verdict the user requires.

Just look at the ones used to justify BSL.

Actually, they are not. Which is why the AVMA, which relies upon statistical data, opposes BSL and people who push BSL rely upon incomplete and incorrect information and emotional manipulation instead of scientific analysis.

If you have a study that disputes the analysis I linked to, by all means, post it here.

 

[motherofmany]

Perhaps the terminology, "exaction by oppression" might be more to the point, but less understood

except that no one here is advocating that others be taxed beyond what the law allows... looks like you were right about the term being misunderstood

 

[Jules]

This is way too complicated.

It's not complicated... answer my question

 

[Lilavati]

Go back and look at the circumstances under which this system was begun, Lil . . . Tell me, honestly, that there was nothing that smacked of extortion there, that there wasn't opportunistic manipulation of the public psyche, and tell me that it isn't an even more crude -- and effective -- political tool for extortion today.

One side: If you vote for my opponent he/she is going to destroy YOUR social security and put the elderly out on the curb to die.

Other side: If you vote for my opponent he/she is going to loot social security and scuttle Medicare.

Point taken. But you have failed to demonstrate that it is a bad idea to provide a minimal income to the elderly, or to provide health care . . . in fact, what you've demonstrated is that these programs are so valued that they can be used to manipulate the public by the mere suggestion of a threat to them.

As for when they were implemented, I know that the world was coming apart when social security was implemented, and that people were hungry for any kind of security. I'll confess to knowing very little about the origin of Medicare.

That is not to say that I appriciate the use of these programs as political footballs and sacred cows, but I don't think you've proven that there is something wrong with the idea . . . more that there is something broken in our public discourse that we simultaneously want these programs AND don't want to pay for them AND will punish anyone who points out this contradiction.

I just don't think "we shouldn't have social safety net programs because politicians will manipulate them for politicial gain" is a convincing argument for abolishing them. Just like "we should not have regulations prohibiting mines from dumping pollutants because regulatory capture will make sure that those laws are not optimal" is not a convincing argument for abolishing all environmental regulation.

 

[Buckshot]

It's not complicated... answer my question

I have answered your question. I do not see it as another mans duty to pay for someone elses misfortune. How much did you pitch in?

 

[Jules]

I have answered your question. I do not see it as another mans duty to pay for someone elses misfortune. How much did you pitch in?

I thought it would be harder for you to deny help to someone in need you know.

I have pitched in with taxes and I do not mind.

 

[Renee750il]

The point, Lil . . . well, to paraphrase Shakespeare via Marc Antony, "the fault, dear Lil, lies not in our intent, but in our institutions."

It is not the place of government to enforce charity. We have seen what that begets: a religion of entitlement and self-victimization; it bastardizes responsibility and true charity and creates of us souls misshapen in self-righteous superiority of place and power, reveling in the false pride in the giving of what is not ours to give, of spending others' labor to salve our own conscience.

 

[Renee750il]

except that no one here is advocating that others be taxed beyond what the law allows... looks like you were right about the term being misunderstood

And there's the rub: the LAWS. That's at the heart of it all -- some of us believe, strongly, that the laws on taxation in this country are completely out of hand and have been instituted against the very fiber of the Constitution.

And we will never convince you otherwise of your beliefs and you will never convince us otherwise.

Although, once upon a time, back when I was about 11 or so, I made the same kinds of arguments you are making now.

 

[RD]

^ This. Many of us try to suggest that "this works for my country, so there". The United States has its OWN involved history that is far, far, far different than Canada's or Europe. What works for Canada, Germany, UK, whatever may not work for the U.S., and that's okay.

As a Canadian I get really tired of the egocentrism a lot of Canadians feel they are entitled to. We aren't better. We aren't worse. We're just different.

Good post, as well as the one quoting it.

I think every country has a fair amount of egocentric loyalists, not just Canada. I know people in the US are like that too.

Since I've moved to Mexico, I have been completely dumbfounded by the amount of Americans, Canadians and Europeans who come here and try to force their country's language, holidays, opinions, religions and traditions on the people who live here. It's so deeply insulting to the Mexican people, who live the way they want to.

If they love the United States, Canada or Europe so much, why did they ever leave?

It's so easy to sit behind a computer and spout on about how the world would be so much better if everything, everywhere was exactly the same.

I for one like that the US still has the option to choose, whether the citizens want to bear arms or not. At least they have the choice. As someone who grew up in the USA (not Canada, not Europe..) I would rather that right to a choice not be taken away so that people who are scared of guns can hug their pillow and sleep better at night. That's what Renee's sig is talking about - people taking other people's freedoms for their own security.

I completely agree with this man and his views, and how brave of him to stand up in this time of grieving and still hold fast to his beliefs.

 

[Buckshot]

I thought it would be harder for you to deny help to someone in need you know.

I have pitched in with taxes and I do not mind.

You gave what a millionth of a cent? So did I if it was federal. I paid much more to feed people I will never know on different continents. I paid more to send missiles into the cities of the same people then I am still paying to rebuild those cities. The government and you may see this as a grand investement but I see it as stupid. If I had my own say so of the earnings, those near me would benefit much better from me than what they do with my taxes. The only real argument is do you think the government is more responsible with your money than you are?

If you had any clue of the stuff I had to go through in the last couple of years I doubt you would be trying to make me out as such a *******, but I dont complain about my misfortunes on here and I never ask for hand outs. I need the money I earn, now badly. If I had it, my house would have been paid off instead of teetering on forclosure. Thanks to people like you, when something bad and unexpected happens I either have to go broke and lose what I have worked for in my life or appeal to the government for your handouts. I would rather starve to death than ask people like you for a dime.
BTW I may not have much money to offer but my door is open to any chazzer who is on hard times but willing to apply effort.

 

[Buckshot]

And there's the rub: the LAWS. That's at the heart of it all -- some of us believe, strongly, that the laws on taxation in this country are completely out of hand and have been instituted against the very fiber of the Constitution.

And we will never convince you otherwise of your beliefs and you will never convince us otherwise.

Although, once upon a time, back when I was about 11 or so, I made the same kinds of arguments you are making now.

I have always found it intersting how families who have lots of kids have less tax burden than single people who make much less burden on the community. Majority rules to rule the minority.

 

[Xandra]

Well this thread has evolved substantially since I last posted but thank you Buckshot for taking the time to answer my question!

(and apologies to Lil for contributing to the Off Topicness of your well-intentioned thread)

 

[Dekka]

I have always found it intersting how families who have lots of kids have less tax burden than single people who make much less burden on the community. Majority rules to rule the minority.

From a cultural/community point of view.. those with the most members are the strongest. So historically communities/cultures/populations have wanted growth. Particularly when in connection to a religion that teaches birth control is bad and that its important to be fruitful (ie bare many childrens)

Now a days people who have one or two children should be taxed the least. You want to encourage a new generation, but not so many that its a burden. A significantly shrinking population is bad for a culture, and for the affected economy. But growth is bad for so much more.

 

[Lilavati]

The point, Lil . . . well, to paraphrase Shakespeare via Marc Antony, "the fault, dear Lil, lies not in our intent, but in our institutions."

It is not the place of government to enforce charity. We have seen what that begets: a religion of entitlement and self-victimization; it bastardizes responsibility and true charity and creates of us souls misshapen in self-righteous superiority of place and power, reveling in the false pride in the giving of what is not ours to give, of spending others' labor to salve our own conscience.

<shrug> You see it as charity, I see it as insurance. As you noted, we're not going to convince each other. You see extortion, I see investment. That's not to say that all the crap our government does is either insurance or investment . . . just that I think both are possible, and both are important, and that we should not abandon the ideas because the can't be perfectly executed and can result in unforseen consequences. You disagree. <shrug> Since we agree on numerous other issues, I vote to just disagree on this one.

And Buckshot, about your $100 deal . . . sure, I'll do it, if everyone else on Chaz does it, in accordance with their income Otherwise, why are you expecting ME to make a sacrifice that everyone else is not expected to make?

 

[Lilavati]

Well this thread has evolved substantially since I last posted but thank you Buckshot for taking the time to answer my question!

(and apologies to Lil for contributing to the Off Topicness of your well-intentioned thread)

Oh well. I suppose this discussion is like WWI . . . no one is really sure how it started from that little thing.

 

[Nechochwen]

Lil, something about insurance is that you can opt out; you can choose not to pay and not to get the support. Extortion you have to pay or else bad things happen. You ought to know what happens when you get caught not paying taxes. Ergo, it's more extortion than insurance.

 

[Renee750il]

Necho, I am deeply ashamed I missed that point myself :hail: