A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
"This goes back to what I was saying to backdoor politics."

First let me address organized crime. Quite simply, if you want to get rid of organized crime, stop criminalizing behavior. The Mafia isn't in the iPhone business because iPhones aren't against the law. They're in the prostitution business because prostitution is against the law. If you don't like prostitution, don't be a prostitute and don't hire one but, if you insist upon trying to control people's behavior, then you must accept organized crime as a component. And to clarity, that's the figurative you, not necessarily the actual you.

Moreover, organized crime doesn't deal with high profile politicians like senators and congressmen nearly as much as do large corporations and the church (writ large). Mobsters tend to do local business like buying off cops and mayors. But even so, that's largely irrelevant to the fact that backroom political deals are just as much a part of democracy as organized crime is a part of criminalizing behavior. Asking to have one without the other is to ask if you can take a shower and not get wet.

"I can agree with you about the health care issue. However, artist who
take the time to make whatever form of art they create are just trying
to make a living. Don't they deserve the money they worked for?"

Why does a musician deserve to be paid for his work but a capitalist who funds millions of dollars worth of research and development into a new drug doesn't? I don't get that logic at all. It's either good to let people have a monopoly on ideas or it isn't. When you get off into sectioning people out and selecting certain people for taxation and others for exemption, giving certain people monopoly rights and denying others monopoly rights .... that's the stuff of bigotry.

"I theorize that if limitations to the amount of money an estate or
individual that qualified for a tax exempt status, we would see a
decrease in mega-churches which take in a significant amount of money
each year."


I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. Can you rephrase it?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2013, 08:03 PM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
(19-03-2013 06:50 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "This goes back to what I was saying to backdoor politics."

First let me address organized crime. Quite simply, if you want to get rid of organized crime, stop criminalizing behavior. The Mafia isn't in the iPhone business because iPhones aren't against the law. They're in the prostitution business because prostitution is against the law. If you don't like prostitution, don't be a prostitute and don't hire one but, if you insist upon trying to control people's behavior, then you must accept organized crime as a component. And to clarity, that's the figurative you, not necessarily the actual you.

Moreover, organized crime doesn't deal with high profile politicians like senators and congressmen nearly as much as do large corporations and the church (writ large). Mobsters tend to do local business like buying off cops and mayors. But even so, that's largely irrelevant to the fact that backroom political deals are just as much a part of democracy as organized crime is a part of criminalizing behavior. Asking to have one without the other is to ask if you can take a shower and not get wet.

"I can agree with you about the health care issue. However, artist who
take the time to make whatever form of art they create are just trying
to make a living. Don't they deserve the money they worked for?"

Why does a musician deserve to be paid for his work but a capitalist who funds millions of dollars worth of research and development into a new drug doesn't? I don't get that logic at all. It's either good to let people have a monopoly on ideas or it isn't. When you get off into sectioning people out and selecting certain people for taxation and others for exemption, giving certain people monopoly rights and denying others monopoly rights .... that's the stuff of bigotry.

"I theorize that if limitations to the amount of money an estate or
individual that qualified for a tax exempt status, we would see a
decrease in mega-churches which take in a significant amount of money
each year."


I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. Can you rephrase it?
The Mafia is involved in many legitimate businesses, although I will admit, most of them are used to fund other criminal operations. Some of the businesses they run include restaurants, and laundry services, along with legal but more publicly disdained businesses such as adult entertainment like pornography and exotic dancing. If selling iPhones was a consistently lucrative and inexpensive business, you'd see commercials for mPhones...

I do agree with you that it is not only illogical, but ironic that the government will criminalize things like extortion. Telling people to pay you or else... hmmm, kind of sounds like the current tax system to me. The fact that marijuana is still illegal despite the lack of testing and evidence of it producing any residual harm or threat to society, while at the same time alcohol is sold in drive-thru liquor stores (there's actually one of these places near my father's house), shows that the government is only concerned about controlling the supply and making money. When in fact, if you were to legalize and regulate marijuana under the same laws as alcohol, not only would you increase the amount of taxes coming in and decrease the amount of small time offenders occupying prison space and wasting tax payers money, but you would also reduce the amount of money that drug lords collected. I mean why would I buy from someone questionable, when I can go to a shop and know that the product has been carefully handled and transported.


Having copyright laws isn't about creating monopolies, but protecting someone's intellectual property. Just like an architect deserves to be paid for his design of a building, creators of great art should have their property protected from someone using it to make a quick buck off of their ideas and creations like some kind of leech. Let's say hypothetically you were to create a brand of something that became wildly popular and was earning you a good income. It wouldn't be fare to you if someone slapped your logo on their cheap buttons, pins, and t-shirts and making money off of your idea of which they had no part in the development or marketing. It just happens that people have misused the loopholes in the law to create such monopolies.

My theory basically says that if you limit the amount of money that religion can collect then people will tend to spend the money they would normally give to the church in businesses and investments. Since it seems to me that half the appeal of running a major religious establishment is the money (the Church of Scientology is a perfect example of this), then limiting the amount of money a church can take in will either force the church to take in less money or force them to divide a congregation into several small entities. Once divided, the house will not be able to stand on itself. In the end it would limit the amount of tax exempt capitol that a church could collect from it's members.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
You said:

"I do agree with you that it is not only illogical, but ironic that the
government will criminalize things like extortion. Telling people to pay
you or else... hmmm, kind of sounds like the current tax system to me.
The fact that marijuana is still illegal despite the lack of testing and
evidence of it producing any residual harm or threat to society, while
at the same time alcohol is sold in drive-thru liquor stores (there's
actually one of these places near my father's house), shows that the
government is only concerned about controlling the supply and making
money."

Then you said:

"My theory basically says that if you limit the amount of money that
religion can collect then people will tend to spend the money they would
normally give to the church in businesses and investments."

Do you recognize the contradiction?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 07:44 AM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
(19-03-2013 08:11 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  You said:

"I do agree with you that it is not only illogical, but ironic that the
government will criminalize things like extortion. Telling people to pay
you or else... hmmm, kind of sounds like the current tax system to me.
The fact that marijuana is still illegal despite the lack of testing and
evidence of it producing any residual harm or threat to society, while
at the same time alcohol is sold in drive-thru liquor stores (there's
actually one of these places near my father's house), shows that the
government is only concerned about controlling the supply and making
money."

Then you said:

"My theory basically says that if you limit the amount of money that
religion can collect then people will tend to spend the money they would
normally give to the church in businesses and investments."

Do you recognize the contradiction?
It's not a contradiction to increase units while at the same time decreasing the maximum amount for each one. That's how you effectively break up monopolies. It's the same reason you wouldn't put a million dollars into one bank account since the FDIC only covers up to $100,000. This would bring in more sources of tax money without allowing the non taxed organizations to hoard more money for themselves. I'm not even suggesting taxing religion, just setting limits so that all the money they would have collected would be used elsewhere. Simple cause and effect.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 10:17 AM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
(20-03-2013 07:44 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  It's not a contradiction to increase units while at the same time decreasing the maximum amount for each one.
Agreed. But that's not what I was asking. In the first quoted statement, you offered agreement with my declaration that the state should not criminalize behavior. Then you went on to explain how criminalizing the behavior of churches would benefit society.

This is a good example of the fundamental point of contention between philosophical anarchism and statism. The notion of controlling behavior is one of an ethical nature and ethical rules must be universal. If they're not universal, they're just opinions. Thus, if I am not allowed to take your money and give it to another man, then a man in a suit, who calls himself congressman, cannot tell a man in a blue costume to take your money and give it to another man. Rather, if I'm not allowed to redistribute your wealth, no one is. It doesn't matter one bit that the man I and the congressman intend to give the money to is in actual need of it, because it is not our property, it is yours. Likewise, if I cannot deny a person the right to consume cannabis, then it follows that I cannot limit the amount of wealth a man can acquire.

On another note....


Telling people to pay you or else... hmmm, kind of sounds like the current tax system to me.

Good observation. However, the mobster is still less of a threat than the congressman, because once you've given your money to the mobster, he cares not what you do. The congressman, on the other hand, goes on to tell you how to do what you do, what you can't do, where you can and can't do it and, he will even tell you who you must do it with.

"Having copyright laws isn't about creating monopolies, but protecting
someone's intellectual property. Just like an architect deserves to be
paid for his design of a building, creators of great art should have
their property protected from someone using it to make a quick buck off
of their ideas and creations like some kind of leech."


The earliest copyrights were writs of monopoly on the production of books and, patents evolved from state granted privilege of monopoly production of non intellectual properties. Modern day euphemism has fogged the meaning of those legal instruments but they are indeed still monopolies. The Department of War is now called the Department of Defense but its purpose has not changed. Never the less, I cannot steal a song you've written and sung. I can sing it and people might pay to hear me sing it but ultimately, you are selling your voice, your inflection and your presence as a part of the original piece of art and that's something I cannot replicate. I could "pirate" your song and share it with friends. I can even sell it to friends.... but what have I taken from you? Can you not still sell it? If, by sharing your song with a friend, I cause him to buy a ticket to one of your performances of that song, am I owed a portion of your profit? After all, had I not turned him on to your music, he might have never attended your show. What if you patent a drug for erectile dysfunction and I figure out that changing just one amount of one ingredient in that compound would cure cancer? Should people die in order that your monopoly right to profit be protected? Using statist logic, if it benefits society, then the rights of its creator should be violated. But... statist logic can also be used to argue for the monopoly.

Such is the dilemma we face when we establish arbitrary rules and attempt to control human action.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 04:38 PM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
Quote: Agreed. But that's not what I was asking. In the first quoted statement, you offered agreement with my declaration that the state should not criminalize behavior. Then you went on to explain how criminalizing the behavior of churches would benefit society.
My mistake, I simply understood what you were getting at. However, I'm not sure how I have suggested criminalizing the behavior of the church. I was simply talking about reforming tax exempt laws in order to keep a tax exempt entity from gaining too much money and power. Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion, or not paying taxes on income earned. In the same way, Pat Robertson does not pay income tax on income earned. The difference between Al Capone and Pat Robertson in this case is that Pat gets away with it because of the separation between church and state. Now since we cannot subvert that right, instead what I am suggesting is to limit the amount of capitol one individual non tax paying entity may collect within a year (let's say $100,00 for example). In this case the church would have 1 of 2 choices to make for themselves. Either purchase land and open more churches or take in less money. Smaller, less money driven establishments would have nothing to worry about.

Quote:Never the less, I cannot steal a song you've written and sung. I can sing it and people might pay to hear me sing it but ultimately, you are selling your voice, your inflection and your presence as a part of the original piece of art and that's something I cannot replicate. I could "pirate" your song and share it with friends. I can even sell it to friends.... but what have I taken from you? Can you not still sell it? If, by sharing your song with a friend, I cause him to buy a ticket to one of your performances of that song, am I owed a portion of your profit? After all, had I not turned him on to your music, he might have never attended your show.
Yes, but without copyright laws, it would be easy for me to grab whatever popular songs may happen to be on the radio, burn them onto a disc, print out my own CD cover and album cover, and sell them for a profit. People are free to play other people's songs in live performances (these are commonly referred to as cover songs) as well as remix popular songs to create something of their own. Looking at it from an artist point of view, I personally don't care if someone wants to use my music for an exhibition production like a compilation video or some other non-profit organization, but why should say a film production studio get away with using my material to help boost their multi-billion dollar productions and I should get nothing? I'm not defending the record companies, but rather the artist, who have either struggled and marketed themselves effectively, or got noticed and happen to give the company owner a "raging clue" (South Park reference lol).
Also someone could argue that it was not your urging that convinced your friend to buy a ticket, but the material that you made them aware of, but now we're just arguing semantics. If you want to make money off of someone buying a ticket you have to be involved in the production process. No show means no money and no money for the initial investment of setting up the venue and hiring both the artist and stage hands means no show.
Interestingly there is a fee you can collect if you were to bring an artist to a record company's attention. This is commonly known as a "finder's fee".
Quote:What if you patent a drug for erectile dysfunction and I figure out that changing just one amount of one ingredient in that compound would cure cancer? Should people die in order that your monopoly right to profit be protected?
Once you change an ingredient, then it is no longer protected by copyright because it becomes a different formula. This is why Pepsi is allowed to exist. It and Coke are almost identical, except a change in the syrup's formula.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2013, 05:55 PM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
"However, I'm not sure how I have suggested criminalizing the behavior of
the church. I was simply talking about reforming tax exempt laws~"



Laws criminalize behavior. Earning money is behavior. If you restrict what I can earn, you are controlling my behavior and, if you threaten me with fines, violence and ultimately, guns, you're criminalizing that behavior. What you're proposing would criminalize the behavior of those who run religious organizations. Also, the seperation clause in the constitution says nothing of whether or not churches can be taxed. The reason they aren't taxed is those backroom political deals you can't get rid of.

"Yes, but without copyright laws, it would be easy for me to grab
whatever popular songs may happen to be on the radio, burn them onto a
disc, print out my own CD cover and album cover, and sell them for a
profit."

That's correct. Essentially what you're saying is that you could add your labor (CDs, marketing, shipping) to the songs you heard on the radio and then sell the product as something you produced. How is that different than a DJ adding his labor (mixing, recording, CDs, marketing, shipping) to the songs he hears on the radio and making a profit from them? The rest of my comment was metaphorical. I don't want to make a commission for sending people to a concert and I'm not concerned with the minutia of how it all works. ;-)

"Once you change an ingredient, then it is no longer protected by copyright because it becomes a different formula."

Patent lawsuits are routinely won on the basis of similar ingredients. That some are not won is only indicative of the corrupt and inconsistent nature of patent law and those charged with adjudicating it. Moreover, patent law has also facilitated what can only be called "legal" organized crime in the form of patent trolling. Patent trolls cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year and their activities discourage true innovation, invention and competition.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 06:39 AM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
Quote: What you're proposing would criminalize the behavior of those who run religious organizations.
No, I'm proposing moving the goal post to make parameters of what an individual non taxed organization can take in significantly less. It's not like these guys would go to jail, they would just be audited for anything more than say $100,000 per year. If a church can't run on $100,000 per year, then it's really gotten off track about it's purpose.

Quote:How is that different than a DJ adding his labor (mixing, recording, CDs, marketing, shipping) to the songs he hears on the radio and making a profit from them?

Because the DJ is adding an intellectual property to the original song changing it to fit whatever remix style he is doing. Whereas just copying the song and burning it on a CD is simply copy and pasting and not adding anything unique. It would be like committing plagiarism by copying and pasting chapters from a multitude of books into one tome, then trying to get it published.

Quote: Patent lawsuits are routinely won on the basis of similar ingredients. That some are not won is only indicative of the corrupt and inconsistent nature of patent law and those charged with adjudicating it. Moreover, patent law has also facilitated what can only be called "legal" organized crime in the form of patent trolling. Patent trolls cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year and their activities discourage true innovation, invention and competition.
Well lets just be perfectly honest about this, the number one reason anyone invents anything these is to make money. Billy Mays spent his entire career selling a multitude of junk for the low low price of 3 easy payments of 19.95...
If you knew you weren't gonna get a dime, would you bother to waste time inventing things for the everyday citizen?

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 07:36 AM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
"It's not like these guys would go to jail, they would just be audited for anything more than say $100,000 per year."

It is exactly like these guys would go to jail. You proposed a law. Laws are backed up by fines, jail time and guns. To have a law that isn't backed up with those things is to make a suggestion.


"Because the DJ is adding an intellectual property to the original song changing it to fit whatever remix style he is doing."

This is an arbitrary definition of labor.


"It would be like committing plagiarism by copying and pasting chapters
from a multitude of books into one tome, then trying to get it
published."


You mean, Reader's Digest.


"If you knew you weren't gonna get a dime, would you bother to waste time inventing things for the everyday citizen?"

Obviously not, but that's a loaded question. Every inventor and investor (like Billy Mays) knows there is a risk that all of the money and time they invest in bringing a new product to market could be lost. And, those losses occur somewhere every day. However, that has nothing to do with the state granting monopoly privileges on ideas.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: A debate/discussion with bbeljefe
Well here is a progressive response to some of the things stated so far. As far as the "economy" thats a nebulos semi interconnected group of statistics and factors but what we actualy do have a problem with is average worker pay being (adjusted for inflation) at one of its lowest points in history, and jobless/underemployment at record highs.
Over the last 30 years or so we have engaged in a conservative experiment where taxes and socail services are bad (see food banks and welfare) and maximum profits are good. The net result is the worst economic crash since the great depression. Taxes are at an all time low even with the recent increase on the top 1%. As a breif example of this in the recent election Mitt Romney released some tax returns where his rate was at 15% where as the average US worker pays closer to 40-50% once payroll state and sales tax are included. Lowering taxes has been tried and has failed horribly so lets try the one and only thing that has ever worked in countering widespread unemployment Government spending on infrasturcture. The benifits here are 2-fold. 1st off it infuses a lot of money into Local economies that stay in said comunities rather than tax cuts which tend to be just saved. 2ndly and more importantly 40-50% of the bridges in the USA are currently failing or close to failing without action in the next 5 years the top news story will be bridge collapses.
Next worker pay, when the minimum wage was started it was meant to be a "living wage" and it was $.19/hr it was supposed to be increased allong with inflation to keep it a living wage. This was never done due to scare tactics and false information by corporate intrests which always claim (falsely as every study has proven) that raising the minimum wage will cause layoffs or loss of profits. Adjusted for inflation and worker productivity that $.19 should right now be $33.50/hr. When we first set up this program the average CEO made roughly 10-20 times what the average worker did today the gulf is now closer to 300 times. http://ed.msnbc.com/_news/2012/01/12/101...chart?lite I apologise for the animation on said chart but it was the most apt for the point I was making.
Now even Beohner has been caught on camera admiting that there is no immediate deficit problem, borrowing is basicaly at 1 to 1 and we do have huge unemployment numbers so the answer is to do a much larger stimulus bill to get the economy moving again. Next we need to completly redo the tax code, that is a system that has not worked in a long long time. Eliminate the majority of deductions and stop trying to promote one lifestyle over another (such as owning homes and having kids) I take a blow it up and start over approach to the tax code but I realise this will most likly never happen.
Lastly we need to end the war on drugs legalise and tax use the proceeds to set up rehab centers and education. That alone will save the US taxpayer billions. Between prison over crowding for minor drug offenses (mainly minorities even though minorities are actualy less likely to use drugs that white kids) to police enforment and the entire black market that has grown up around the sale of illegal drugs.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: