I support the legalization of our behaviors

[ihopehefails]

After many years of hear liberals being upset that the rich are so rich and equating it to a social evil that has to be wiped out and hearing the same thing about drugs, assisted suicide, and other victomless crimes I came to the conclusion that these behaviors, although could be construed as immoral by some, are a part of your natural freedoms. And both sides object over said behavior for the same reason when said behavior is a 'crime against the moral fabric of society'. The only difference is what behaviors we are objecting to.

This does not mean that there is no moral constraint that would stop you from doing those things but whatever moral restraint you choose is the one you choose for yourself and your 'freedom' is restrained by that.

This means that you have the right to become a greedy rich person, drug user, kill yourself, and screw a prostitute if you want because it is a part of your pursuit of happiness.

 

[California Girl]

As long as they don't impact on my right to pursue my own happiness, I couldn't give a rats ass what anyone does.

And if 'happiness' to me is having more money than other people, no one has the right to stop me... or tax me on what I work for. I'm Taxed Enough Already!

 

[ihopehefails]

As long as they don't impact on my right to pursue my own happiness, I couldn't give a rats ass what anyone does.

And if 'happiness' to me is having more money than other people, no one has the right to stop me... or tax me on what I work for. I'm Taxed Enough Already!

My thoughts exactly. I believe that the nature of authoritarianism is not brutal but an attempt to create utopia (perfect people) and all utopias need a moral authority in order to establish what the people should be doing.

That is just my interpretation of all totalitarian systems. Most of the time they wanted to create utopia and were wiling to crush freedom in the process in order to achieve it.

 

[Claudette]

As long as they don't impact on my right to pursue my own happiness, I couldn't give a rats ass what anyone does.

And if 'happiness' to me is having more money than other people, no one has the right to stop me... or tax me on what I work for. I'm Taxed Enough Already!

My sentiments exactly. If I bust my ass to be successfull then I want to keep the fruits of MY Labor. I ain't interested in spreading my wealth to anyone. I also ain't interested in giving my hardearned wealth to some Clown in DC.

 

[California Girl]

As long as they don't impact on my right to pursue my own happiness, I couldn't give a rats ass what anyone does.

And if 'happiness' to me is having more money than other people, no one has the right to stop me... or tax me on what I work for. I'm Taxed Enough Already!

My sentiments exactly. If I bust my ass to be successfull then I want to keep the fruits of MY Labor. I ain't interested in spreading my wealth to anyone. I also ain't interested in giving my hardearned wealth to some Clown in DC.

I don't mind spreading some of my wealth, I was raised to be charitable. BUT.... I decide where MY money gets spread - not some assclown in DC who spreads my wealth but not their wealth.

 

[editec]

After many years of hear liberals being upset that the rich are so rich and equating it to a social evil that has to be wiped out and hearing the same thing about drugs, assisted suicide, and other victomless crimes I came to the conclusion that these behaviors, although could be construed as immoral by some, are a part of your natural freedoms. And both sides object over said behavior for the same reason when said behavior is a 'crime against the moral fabric of society'. The only difference is what behaviors we are objecting to.

This does not mean that there is no moral constraint that would stop you from doing those things but whatever moral restraint you choose is the one you choose for yourself and your 'freedom' is restrained by that.

This means that you have the right to become a greedy rich person, drug user, kill yourself, and screw a prostitute if you want because it is a part of your pursuit of happiness.

So called "victimless crimes" are in fact societal crimes against the individuals (usually motivated by the class war that few people seem to understand is in the nature of societies regardless of their economic or government systems)

I've got no problem with making things that clearly and directly affect others a crime, but crimes like drug abuse, prositution and gambling just don't rise to that status.

 

[code1211]

After many years of hear liberals being upset that the rich are so rich and equating it to a social evil that has to be wiped out and hearing the same thing about drugs, assisted suicide, and other victomless crimes I came to the conclusion that these behaviors, although could be construed as immoral by some, are a part of your natural freedoms. And both sides object over said behavior for the same reason when said behavior is a 'crime against the moral fabric of society'. The only difference is what behaviors we are objecting to.

This does not mean that there is no moral constraint that would stop you from doing those things but whatever moral restraint you choose is the one you choose for yourself and your 'freedom' is restrained by that.

This means that you have the right to become a greedy rich person, drug user, kill yourself, and screw a prostitute if you want because it is a part of your pursuit of happiness.

So called "victimless crimes" are in fact societal crimes against the individuals (usually motivated by the class war that few people seem to understand is in the nature of societies regardless of their economic or government systems)

I've got no problem with making things that clearly and directly affect others a crime, but crimes like drug abuse, prositution and gambling just don't rise to that status.

Agreed!

Also, if these things were legal, as casino gambling has shown, tax revenue will be generated.

 

[midcan5]

A little less talk a little more...

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

 

[ihopehefails]

After many years of hear liberals being upset that the rich are so rich and equating it to a social evil that has to be wiped out and hearing the same thing about drugs, assisted suicide, and other victomless crimes I came to the conclusion that these behaviors, although could be construed as immoral by some, are a part of your natural freedoms. And both sides object over said behavior for the same reason when said behavior is a 'crime against the moral fabric of society'. The only difference is what behaviors we are objecting to.

This does not mean that there is no moral constraint that would stop you from doing those things but whatever moral restraint you choose is the one you choose for yourself and your 'freedom' is restrained by that.

This means that you have the right to become a greedy rich person, drug user, kill yourself, and screw a prostitute if you want because it is a part of your pursuit of happiness.

So called "victimless crimes" are in fact societal crimes against the individuals (usually motivated by the class war that few people seem to understand is in the nature of societies regardless of their economic or government systems)

I've got no problem with making things that clearly and directly affect others a crime, but crimes like drug abuse, prositution and gambling just don't rise to that status.

OK. Let me get this straight. If two people engage in some behavior with each other does the distant affect on your life mean they have to stop? If that is the case then that is used to stop the freedom of every person because everything we do affects other people to a certain degree.

 

[ihopehefails]

A little less talk a little more...

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

A simple bit of logic proves this wrong because a business does not start a business to pay taxes. They do it to make money and if you skew that so that all the profit generated actually then it kills the incentive.

We are going to do away with that tax and end this argument forever. Goodbye income tax.