AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Thomas,

Thomas:

I'm posting this on the Prop. 8 thread. I'm also posting it here because I think you might be interested in the civil rights (marriage) litigation in Iowa:

An Iowa district court ruled that state anti-gay marriage legislation was unconstitutional. Here's a link to the court opinion:

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/ruling.pdf

It is 63 pages long, but very well written and worth the time to read. The State appealed the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court. The oral argument is today (Tuesday, December 9) at 10:00 AM CST.

You may listen to the oral argument by clicking on the link to "Oral Argument Live Stream" here:

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Case_Briefs_and_Trial_Court_Ruling/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Marriage has always had a simple basic purpose: to unify property holdings and to establish a traceable lineage within families. [...]Classical liberals did not change things just for the sake of change. They would have considered that reckless and foolish.

I don't see why. Marriage, by your account, is basically about unifying property holdings and establishing traceable lineages within families. Nothing is keeping same sex couples from unifying property holdings and establishing traceable lineages. So why would it be reckless and foolish to permit same sex couples to marry?

Foxfyre wrote:

But if those liberals of which you seem to be so fond thought that same sex couples should be included in the marriage contract, why do you suppose they didn’t deal with that in any way when they were correcting some other things that needed to be corrected?

Several reasons come to mind:

1) It was politically impractical. They first had to lobby for de-criminalizing gay sex, which was a capital crime when Bentham first argued for legalization in 1785. They first had to establish that marriage was possible between equal partners, as opposed to one partner becoming the other's chattel.

2) Political philosophy doesn't happen in a vacuum. Until the 20th century, there never was a public debate about gay rights on which liberal political philosophers could take the pro-gay-marriage side.

3) For the same reason Jesus never came out against slavery: Their consciousness hadn't been raised to the fact that gay marriage is even possible. They just looked around, saw that all marriages were between men and women, and internalized that it was always that way without ever thinking about it consciously.

PS: If you can come up with no worse criticism against me than that I'm getting too much like Parados and Cycloptichorn, I know I'm doing okay.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Well if you don't see why, then you don't see why. Those of us who do understand the basic concept of marriage as a social/legal contract do see why. I've done my best to explain my understanding of it. I accept that you don't like it and want the definition changed. I will continue to hope that you and those of like mind will never be successful in that, however, as, for reasons mentioned, I believe it will open a Pandora's box that will destroy the institution of marriage.
'
I notice that you didn't respond to your error in evaluating Sowell's argument. I would hope that you now see your error and would comment on the strength of his argument that you dismissed due to your error.

I have not mentioned Cycloptihorn in this discussion, but lordy don't let me down and become as evasive and non-responsive in your arguments as Parados usually is, Thomas. You have been one of the very few beacons of hope for intelligent liberal thought and discourse existing for me on A2K.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Has this replaced the "Bush supporters" thread? Who are probably too ashamed to admit it now.

Has any administration ever done more harm to the country than his?

What a joke of a post. Bush was, is, and will remain, a decent man, so far superior to the Clintonistas, or the amateur socialist, Obama, it isn't even funny. I am not ashamed, but that doesn't mean I agreed with Bush on everything, in fact I opposed Bush on many issues, still do. Legacy spin goes on, but the Clintonistas are hopeless, and Hillary as Secretary of State, give me a break! Honest people know the lefties spent 8 years trying to tear down Bush, and you guys still are trying it here, much to your frustration you cannot, nor will you ever destroy the decency of decent people.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

ican, I brought this up on the economy thread, but this matter of waiving taxes to a company to build a plant in a city, county, or state, while the competition already there continues to pay taxes, this strikes me as going right to the heart of what you are talking about in regard to "uniform" taxation. For example, auto manufacturers are wooed to an area by waiving their taxes for a time. This practice I have long been amazed has not been outlawed, as I see it as downright crooked, a form of bribery. It is unethical at best, and should be unconstitutional most definitely. Lawyers, how come this simple principle has not been enforced in the courts?

I am honestly torn on this one. I agree that government granting favors to some and not all is a corrupting influence, but lets take some little podunk town in West Texas (or anywhere) that is in a state of decline. The people know and care about each other, their homes are there, and they do not want their school or hospital to close because of a dwindling tax base. If they vote to give away a chunk of publicly held land and waive taxes for X number of years to entice a large rendering plant to locate in their community and bring jobs and people to the community, I would hate to deny them the ability to 'bid' for new industry in that way. They may have little or nothing else to offer industry to locate there.

Principles should trump bribing a particular company, Foxfyre, regardless of need. Now if a city or county wants to change its tax rates for all companies or businesses operating within their jurisdiction, then that perhaps would be ethical, but I have been amazed at this practice of granting favors to specific businesses now for a very long time. If a community does not have the favorable circumstances to justify a business other than a special tax policy for a particular company, then perhaps that community needs to look at all of the circumstances that it can enhance for all of its businesses, I think that would be a much more logical approach, and it would place all of the communities on a more equal footing. Fairness of a free market, that is basic. After all, after the special favor runs out, then will the business be competitive at its location, that would be the better litmus test, and why not place the litmus test at the beginning instead of after the favors run out?

I think it is outright bribery and highly unethical to give special favors to a particular company, and should not be within the power of an official to do it. I think this should come under the "uniformity" argument for sure, the argument that ican applies to other facets of taxing, but this should be a slam dunk it would seem to me, that this practice should be totally illegal and unconstitutional, if applied to the federal constitution, and I would think local governments should mirror that.

0 Replies

I do understand the point that you are making, Okie. Of course all towns can offer the same deal to entice a profitable business to locate in a community so it isn't the deal itself that is the problem, but rather that one business could be offered the deal and others would not be offered the deal which could give an unacceptable government-engineered advantage of one over the other. Then again the businesses themselves could lobby for or compete to be the one to get the deal.

I do hate to see small town America die.

A quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." The truth of that becomes evident as we increasingly see the power shift to a few large metropolitan areas of the country.

From Edmund Burke's "A Philosophical Inquiry" - "In defending the vigor of colonial culture against the disparaging assessments of European critics, Thomas Jefferson asserted, in 1782, that America had already begun to show "hopeful proofs of genius," both in the "nobler" and in the "subordinate" arts. The nobler arts, Jefferson believed, were directly or indirectly didactic. They tended to effect change or to promote virtue, to "arouse the best feelings of man," to "call him into action" in defense of freedom or to "conduct him to happiness."

If we include business, commerce, interprise, initiative in those 'nobler arts', it is that spark of 'genius' (by whatever definition) that I think has made the United States the great nation that it has become. And it is that genius that inspires people to lure businesses to their community and thereby keep the community alive.

Maybe it is okay when it is a grass roots effort initated and accomplished by all the people in a democratic process and not okay when initiated by government officials who have the ability to make under the table deals or accept largesse for their support?

I will continue to mull this over as there is strength in both arguments.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Why can't gay/lesbian also enjoy "the basic concept of marriage as a social/legal contract?" Who does it harm?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I've spent a good deal of time accommodating others' requests to give my reasons about that CI. I suggest that you read those. So far you have responded to each with sophomoric ad hominem and personal insults, so you'll please understand that I have little interest in explaining them yet again to you.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Like everything in life, I calls em the way I sees em. You're a bigot.

1 Reply

Thomas, I failed to rspond to your reasoned response here:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

But if those liberals of which you seem to be so fond thought that same sex couples should be included in the marriage contract, why do you suppose they didn’t deal with that in any way when they were correcting some other things that needed to be corrected?

You responded

Quote:

Several reasons come to mind:

1) It was politically impractical. They first had to lobby for de-criminalizing gay sex, which was a capital crime when Bentham first argued for legalization in 1785. They first had to establish that marriage was possible between equal partners, as opposed to one partner becoming the other's chattel.

And it is politically impractical now as testified by vote after vote in state after state. From what I've read, a majority of both liberals and conservatives want the existing definition of marriage preserved. The black community is the largest single demographic supporting marriage as it currently exists.

But seriously, no social change has come without some serious opposition and resistance. If the issue was important you would have thought that it would have at least been mentioned back then wouldn't you? So why is it an issue now? .

Quote:

2) Political philosophy doesn't happen in a vacuum. Until the 20th century, there never was a public debate about gay rights on which liberal political philosophers could take the pro-gay-marriage side.

And we are having that debate. But nobody has a right for the debate to go the way they want it to go. If you can dictate the outcome, then it isn't really a debate at all is it?

If the gay demographic had supported those of us who wish to build a new institution that would be as fair and impartial and inclusive as marriage for those who do not wish to marry under the existing defintion, I think that probably would have been a done deal by now and gays would have all the protections and benefits that they say they want

Quote:

3) For the same reason Jesus never came out against slavery: Their consciousness hadn't been raised to the fact that gay marriage is even possible. They just looked around, saw that all marriages were between men and women, and internalized that it was always that way without ever thinking about it consciously.

Jesus didn't get into social structures or politics but offered his counsel within the existing one. He looked to the heart of the individual for positive change probably knowing or at least sensing that government and/or the law was not the proper vehicle through which that will happen. Gay and lesbian people will be far more likely to receive the benefits and protections that they now lack outside of marriage when they develop sufficient charity to understand how important the institution of marriage is to others and allow it to exist in peace. As I have said and as Sowell says now, marriage laws apply to all persons equally without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, sociopolitical leanings, or sexual orientation.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Like everything in life, I calls em the way I sees em. You're a bigot.

Are you bigoted against polygamists, ci?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Jesus didn't get into social structures or politics but offered his counsel within the existing one. He looked to the heart of the individual for positive change probably knowing or at least sensing that government and/or the law was not the proper vehicle through which that will happen.

Good observation. Alot of Democrats are now trying to use religion as a vehicle to justify social spending, which shows they do not understand at all what Jesus was about. The Reverend Wright makes religion totally political, and I believe Obama believes that as well. His religion is government, and he was using what he perceives in Christ teachings to further that political agenda, and that cannot be more haywire.

0 Replies

@okie,

Bush is, and will remain, a stupid man and those who supported him and elected him will remain tarnished by that fact.
But there's worse things than just being stupid, and his handlers fall into that category.
Those erstwhile supporters who are willing to reflect, may reflect on what might have been accomplished, and what ill deeds may have been avoided, during these last eight years.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox wrote:

Quote:

Jesus didn't get into social structures or politics but offered his counsel within the existing one. He looked to the heart of the individual for positive change probably knowing or at least sensing that government and/or the law was not the proper vehicle through which that will happen. Gay and lesbian people will be far more likely to receive the benefits and protections that they now lack outside of marriage when they develop sufficient charity to understand how important the institution of marriage is to others and allow it to exist in peace.Jesus didn't get into social structures or politics but offered his counsel within the existing one. He looked to the heart of the individual for positive change probably knowing or at least sensing that government and/or the law was not the proper vehicle through which that will happen. Gay and lesbian people will be far more likely to receive the benefits and protections that they now lack outside of marriage when they develop sufficient charity to understand how important the institution of marriage is to others and allow it to exist in peace. As I have said and as Sowell says now, marriage laws apply to all persons equally without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, sociopolitical leanings, or sexual orientation.

What a bunch of crap! Fox approves in one post, then says "marriage is between a man and a woman."

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, we disagree on only one point. It is the meaning of the word uniform. I think the meaning of uniform requires that no subset of those particular things that are taxed per thing can legally be exempt from that tax unless all of those particular things are exempt. After all, if some of those things are taxed at the rate of 0% while others are taxed at a positive rate of n%, then we have a progressive/graduated tax. I thought you think a progressive/graduated income tax is illegal.

Before the 16th Amendment, taxes were layed on each state in direct proportion to the number of citizens living there. No number of citizens in any state were exempt. Not the wealth of any citizen, not the age of any citizen, not the height or weight of any citizen, not the kind of employment of any citizen, et cetera, exempted any citizen from that count. Uniform meant that the tax per citizen included each and every citizen in each and every state.

I'm not aware of any kind of thing that was taxed before the 16th Amendment that exempted some number of that kind of thing from that tax. What in the Constitution justifies exempting some dollars of income from being taxed? I have not found anything in the Constitution that permits that.

So along comes the adoption of the 6th Amendment making it legal to tax income from any source: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration." All of a sudden its allegedly legal for Congress to exempt some dollars of income from the income tax, but not all! It doesn't compute.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

waiving taxes to a company to build a plant in a city, county, or state, while the competition already there continues to pay taxes, this strikes me as going right to the heart of what you are talking about in regard to "uniform" taxation. For example, auto manufacturers are wooed to an area by waiving their taxes for a time. This practice I have long been amazed has not been outlawed, as I see it as downright crooked, a form of bribery. It is unethical at best, and should be unconstitutional most definitely.

I agree it should be unconstitutional.

Trouble is, it is not unconstituional. The word uniform in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph is applied only to taxes that are duties, imposts and excises. Furthermore, the problem you describe usually exists under state not national jurisdiction. Nonetheless, legal steps should be taken to eliminate this problem.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

When I married my bride, we both signed a marriage contract. That contract was a special partnership contract between a man and a women. It was not the same kind of special partner ship contract that could apply to the marriage of a man and a man, or to a women and a women. If you want the same kind of special partnership contract between a man and a man, or a women and a women, then get y0ur legislature to create it, but call it a parriage contract or something else. Do not confuse it with the meaning of a marrige contract, because it is not the same thing.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Boy you guys are tougher than I am.

I've been thinking on this and provided that the deal is completely transparent and overseen by a citizen panel, I just can't see that the problems that you see are a given. I have been thinking on it, however, and think certain ground rules must apply.

It has been a long standing practice that a company looking to expand and needing a new location will put out 'bids' for a suitable location. Those communities who want that business to locate in their town or city advertise to that company what they can offer: good schools, hospitals, cultural opporunities, proximity to major higheays, airports, and other public transportation, affordable housing, low crime rate, recreation, aesthetic beauty and pleasant climate etc. Of course they frequently sweeten the deal with discounted or free land and/or low or waived taxes.

The benefit to the community is obvious even if they do give the company moving in a break. Lots of jobs meaning lots of new customers for existing businesses and a bigger tax base for the city. I am unaware of any existing businesses that object to this practice. Again the deal must be transparent and enjoy wide community support.

So long as all cities/towns are able to make a pitch for the industry to come to their town, I can't see a problem.

Likewise, I can see a small town voting to bring new industry to town for all the same reasons mentioned above. They put out bids for a good business to relocate or expand in their town in return for discounted or free land and/or reduced or waived taxes. The company that can offer the town the best prospects for the town gets the deal.

As long as it is widely supported and transparent, how does this violate the principle of free trade?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

And re those pesky 'uniform' taxes, to me 'uniform' means the tax structure is applied the same everywhere but does not necessarily mean that it cannot be graduated or some income can be exempt. I do not think a graduated income tax in therefore unconstitutional though I do have reasons to believe it is not the smartest, most efficient, or most effective way to structure taxation.

Certainly the intent was not to impose the same duty on every item imported. When the people need an essential product that must be imported it very well may be practical to impose no duty so as to encourage more imports and keep the product more affordable for the people. But whatever duty or not duty is imposed must be uniformly imposed throughout all the states.

Likewise, I am sure that exicse taxes were imposed rather arbitrarily depending on the usefulness and/or popularity of products manufactured. But whatever excise tax was deemed proper, it must apply uniformly to every like product throughout the various states.

But I do think I understand your rationale and I'm thinking on it. I just think whatever monies the government can get along without should not be collected as taxes in the first place.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am unaware of any existing businesses that object to this practice.

I certainly have. Retailers all over America have opposed deals given to companies like Walmart, Home Depot, etc., trouble is they are simply not heard, and they have to be careful to be too anti-Walmart, anti-Home Depot, or whatever, to alienate their existing customers, because people have often welcomed discount retailers and they might perceive the opposition of sweetheart deals to the competition as protectionism of an existing business. I am certainly aware of at least one case of a very proficient hardward store that cried foul to the city council when Home Depot tried to browbeat the city into concessions, and they did not submit, and guess what, Home Depot came anyway, but at least they are subject to the same taxes as their direct competition. It strikes me as blatantly unethical and corrupt if they had not been subject to the same taxes.

I am still amazed that people do not see this as an open-shut case, clearcut. To be clear, I am not anti-Walmart or anti-Home Depot, or whatever. I am in business however and I see the products we deal with eventually end up in big stores like Walmart, and I can tell you these companies will run over you if they can, customers reign supreme, almost too supreme. All I am arguing for is a level playing field, and the government owes the business world that much. Again, if a jurisdiction wants to compete with other jurisdictions, by setting their taxes lower, fine, but I think they must do it across the board for all like businesses within that jurisdiction.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know