NH: Politely bossy guard at state house income tax discussio

[nhteaparty]

Interesting. These folks had two permits to stand anywhere they wanted!

[libertyfizz]

I can understand why this idea has appeal. People who are on fixed incomes can not keep up with increasing property taxes. They stand to lose their homes when government can't or won't control their spending. If you have property but low income an income tax is appealing. Notice the sponsor of the bill is elderly. However, if you have high income and little property the reverse is true. Very few seem to address the real issue and that is government bloat.

[freespeech]

3:20 On-The-Job-On-The-Record lol

[watcher8o]

Just gotta learn that pooman is a relativist and a fascist and you've got his whole ideology pegged. If he had been a German in the 1930's, the Nazi Party would have welcomed him with open arms.

[p00lman]

I can't wait for the income tax to be passed.

Income tax -> activists have less money -> have to work harder -> have less time for retarded protests -> have to grow up and use their time wisely.

It's the perfect sequence of events.

[Dewdaahman]

you apparently are not a property owner and have no idea about NH values.. I doubt from your comment that you're even from NH..

[p00lman]

Nope, not a NH resident, just a big fan of justice.

[mrethrift]

You get to make inane comments. There's your justice.

[mrethrift]

Your retard protesting is online.

[CMLovejoy]

What part of "Right to assemble peacefully" do they not understand?

Your ads are funny Mr. Ridley.

[Anothercoilgun]

A slap in the face. You cannot trust them once they get into office. Why is it always when majority of the people say no to something it still passes.

[NHLegalNotes]

NH already has an income tax, RSA 77-B, The Commuters Income Tax. Perhaps the State should tell commuters about that one before they try to add a broad based income tax. If you live in NH but work elsewhere, you don't have to pay income taxes to that other state if you comply with RSA 77-B. NH should offer a property tax rebate for those who pay the Commuters Income Tax.

[COUNTRYSKUNK1969]

I wish all Americans knew what you know it is all our duty to fight oppression and unjust laws

[harryogre]

Well said C_S'69!

[p00lman]

There's no such thing as an "unjust law."

Only within your personal sense of justice. Don't pretend that "unjust" is a universal description.

[comradepinko]

Is that an argument for moral relativism?

Good luck trying to make that claim every time you hear a moral statement. You're in for a long and boring life.

[p00lman]

"Unjust" is as subjective a description as "good" or "bad" if used in a personal context. If used generally, it refers to one's native country's justice system.

Tell me, is abortion just or unjust?

[comradepinko]

Applying something to a nation or group doesn't make it any less subjective. If two people in a room agree on something that doesn't make it objective, neither does 2 out of 3 people in a room, or a large number of people in a geographic region identified as a nation state.

[p00lman]

Which is why we default to the definition that what is just or unjust is defined by the current legal system.

So to come on a message board and say "that law is unjust!" is just stupid and futile.

[comradepinko]

So because applying something to a larger group doesn't make it objective you default to whatever is currently being enforced by authority figures as "just"?

That makes no sense.

Justice: An appropriate outcome for individuals based upon their actions.

I'm going to guess that my definition is more acceptable than "Justice: Whatever is declared by the government."

[p00lman]

"Justice" and "law" are often interchangible, regardless of whether or not you want them to be. That's how the dictionary works.

If you want to talk about right and wrong, use the words "right" and "wrong," or "moral" and "immoral." Pretending your personal idea of justice extends past your tiny personal realm of influence is just absurd.

[TehBANN3D]

"Pretending your personal idea of justice extends past your tiny personal realm of influence is just absurd."

No. Pretending you've shown justice to be aesthetic is absurd. Pretending jurisprudence is expressly fiat is absurd. Try again.

[WorBlux]

Right, law to be anything other than mere opinion must incorportate substantial elements. Roman Law in theory pays tribute to this, but in practice falls short.

[comradepinko]

"Justice system" is interchangeable with "law", but in most cases when somebody says "justice" without including "system" they are making moral a statement.

Find instances of common usage of the word and you see that I am correct. So even if you want them to be interchangeable, they usually are not.

[p00lman]

The problem is that when a lot of idiots use the word "justice," they really mean "vengeance." When you want to seek justice, that means you're going to invoke the law on your enemies. When you're going to seek "justice" for yourself, you're just avenging yourself.

[comradepinko]

Since justice is the appropriate outcome for freely chosen actions that doesn't surprise me. People are most often interested in justice when they are the one that has been wronged.

Vengeance, depending on what you think is an appropriate outcome, can be justifiable or not. All that makes something vengeance is that the person seeking a punishment is the one who has been wronged or harmed.

[p00lman]

Not even close. You can avenge a friend - seek vengeance on the friend's behalf - and you can seek justice for yourself by bringing a lawsuit against someone who has wronged you.

Do you even believe half the shit that's coming out of your mouth?

[comradepinko]

It's vengeance because it's your friend. You have been wronged by having somebody meaningful to you removed from your life.

A judge handing down a sentence harshly because he is a personal friend of the victim would be vengeance. He feels personally wronged by the harm done to those he has relationships with, but a judge handing down a harsh sentence because he feels the crime always deserves a harsh penalty would not be driven by vengeance. It's the personal aspect that counts.

[p00lman]

You can avenge people who are still alive, Freddy. What do you think the entire first 30 minutes of the Godfather was about?

It's the personal aspect that counts, but unfortunately for you, you can't read minds to judge what they're thinking and why they're doing what they're doing.

Ultimately, judges are hired professionals. They're supposed to be impartial. Whether or not they are isn't for you to decide.

[WorBlux]

Justice is a very specific type of right and wrong.

"It (The science of justice)is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person." - Lysander Spooner

It may be wrong or immoral to have a one night stand, but not unjust..

[p00lman]

Justice is a very specific type of right and wrong - that which is defined by the law. The law says that stealing is wrong, therefore someone who steals is acting unjustly.

Robin Hood was a criminal. He acted unjustly, although he was acting morally in the context of the story.

It's too bad activists can't go live in a fantasy world where they will be rewarded for their unique and unpopular beliefs.

[WorBlux]

The notion of an act being unjust by natural law but moral is absurd.

The law, as statutes and code are nothing but hot air and no guarantee of justice unless they in substantive agreement with natural law. Statutory Law without a substantiation basis in and congruence with reason and natural law is in fact nothing but hot air and the opinions of those with power. Power is not indication or justification for the rightness of an action.

[WorBlux]

Therefore the notion of justice as a right or wrong is incompatible and the notion justice is merely what a particular set of statutes or code defines as right or wrong.

Those with power to define statutes can say whenever they want is wrong, but the declaration alone no more makes it so, than my declaration that I can fly gives me wings.

[WorBlux]

*with the notion (and the notion)

*whatever they want (whenever they want)

[mrethrift]

Legal systems have always been changed through people who thought they were unjust. There have been one revolution after another.

[WorBlux]

Natural Law is the science of justice.

[p00lman]

What the fuck is "natural law"? You mean like evolution and predation and sex?

[WorBlux]

Look it up, Lysander Spooner has a work by that title, and the first five chapters of Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty" is a fairly good introduction to the topic.

[p00lman]

So in other words, "natural law" is something someone who in his own book and doesn't exist as an accepted concept. Bye now.

[WorBlux]

Fourteen minutes isn't enough time to go from being completely ignorant of natural law to being able to refute it.

The actual concept goes back at least 800 years.

[TehBANN3D]

Are you objectively defining "justice" as a subjective practice? omg u so logical.

Seeing that this view is incorrect by its own merit, I suggest you try again. Also, seeing that this view is untestable and unfalsifiable outside its internal inconsistency, it is simply an unscientific assertion. You haven't demonstrated anything here but your ability to reiterate an elementary level ethical dogma.

[p00lman]

I'm not objectively defining anything. I'm referring to the dictionary, which is as good an authority on meaning as we have available.

What do you have?

[TehBANN3D]

Which dictionary? I haven't run across a single one that gives a relativist description for 'justice', that is, that it is a state of affairs that derives from some fiat authority. In fact, every definition I have run across has been, for the most part, tautological. This is mainly because the word is contextual. You wont find a single serious piece of ethical scholarship that doesn't apply the word or concept of 'justice' in some way, however the extent to which the concept is derived/applied..

[p00lman]

Can you stop finger your own anus long enough to converse with another human being?

Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good, righteous (2) : being what is merited, deserved. b: legally correct, lawful.

[TehBANN3D]

Yes, and again, that definition is tautologically given and therefore contextual. Morally upright, good, righteous, lawful, legally correct, etc. all must be contextualized before 'just' can be used to make an ethical claim. First you have to define lawful as synonymous to fiat, then good, righteous, morally upright as merely aesthetic judgments before a relativistic use of the word is at all sensible.

[p00lman]

Actually, I don't.

And what did I tell you about fingering your anus? Please stop.

[TehBANN3D]

Actually, you do. l2philosophy, read a book.

[p00lman]

I don't even know what your point is anymore.

All I know is you love fingering your anus, and that's pretty gross.

[TehBANN3D]

Feels good man.

Also, finish pre-k and maybe you can understand basic ethics.

[p00lman]

Ah, so that's where you pulled your argument out of.

[TehBANN3D]

You really _are_ slow. I said that if you had the credentials of a preschooler, you may be able to assemble the mental faculty to understand basic previsions within the ethical sciences, instead of harping about 'definitional positivism' as if you've merited it in some way by using a tautological definition. Maybe, given enough time, you'll actually make some semblance of a rational thought, instead of making dogmatic and circular statements while thinking about how other males masturbate.

[p00lman]

Can you lend me your mental faculty assmbling set, or are you too busy using it to massage your rectum?

[mrethrift]

"All I know is you love fingering your anus, and that's pretty gross"

Criminal!

[mrethrift]

Do you realize that entry was illegal?

[TehBANN3D]

.. differs greatly among ethical philosophies.

Also, the idea that you aren't applying some objective standard by referring to a dictionary is wholly illogical, as a dictionary is an 'objective' measurement of definition. That isn't to say that I support semantic externalism, It seems fairly clear that true, conceptual definitions are based on intersubjective focal points. But these concepts are perceived or imagined to be separate from the ego, which I am contextualizing as 'objective'.

[mrethrift]

Dictionary entries are often a bit terse to really get into true definition

[mrethrift]

I might argue aborting you would have been rather just.

: )

[COUNTRYSKUNK1969]

I don't pretend anything I deal in fact's the fact is you wouldn't even be alive today if it wasn't for America the fact is we have problems here but we never let someone take over our country I don't give a shit what your definition of unjust is you people are weak and should be on your knees thanking us for every breath you take

[p00lman]

I wouldn't even be alive today if it wasn't for America? What, is America some person who told my ancestors to come over and make babies? What an idiotic statement.

[mrethrift]

"What an idiotic statement."

You know idiotic statements rather well, hmmm?

[libertyfizz]

So when slavery was legal it was a just law to own slaves? Because the Nazis won elections in Germany and made it the law to relocate Jews and take their property that was justice?

Just because a group of thugs manages to win elections doesn't make the laws they pass just. No one is pretending that the term unjust is a universal description. It is a description of opinion just like you misguided opinion that if a group of people wins political power the laws they pass are automatically just.

[p00lman]

The words you want to use are "moral" and "immoral," not just and unjust.

Yes, slavery was at one point a just institution. Thankfully, people learned to value human rights, and it was eventually considered unjust.

[pandyne]

First you say morals are a relative concept and now you make claims there are such things as human rights. Who defines what human rights are without an objective moral principle.

[p00lman]

There are such things as human rights, as have been definied by a plurality of societies.

[pandyne]

According to that logic then if a majority of society decides that blacks or women don't have human rights than they don't. So human rights only exist as a legal concept just like justice as you say.

[p00lman]

Of course. Blacks and women didn't use to have rights in the US, the law forbid it.

Thankfully, in modern society, human rights issues supercede the law, which is why some countries protest the lack of human rights issues in other countries.

[pandyne]

You are contradicting yourself. Human rights exist in the domain of objective morality. If all morality is subjective than human rights are just something someone wrote down on a piece of paper and can't exist other than in a legal concept. If it is wrong for one country to prohibit something but it is legal, how can you claim that what the people here are doing that is illegal aren't being oppressed by their country.

[p00lman]

"Human rights exist in the domain of objective morality."

Nope, never said that, and I don't know why you believe that.

[pandyne]

You said human rights supersede law. Where does the concept of human rights exist if not in law or morality, popular opinion?

[p00lman]

Human rights are internationally agreed upon, for the most part.

[pandyne]

Just because something is agreed upon doesn't mean it exists. If the U.N. wrote a resolution saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the one true God it doesnt make it so. There are mental concepts and there is tangible reality, popular opinion does not turn concepts into reality.

[p00lman]

What the hell are you rambling about?

Why are you arguing against abstract concepts being "tangible reality" when no one is saying anything contrary?

[pandyne]

There are such things as human rights, as have been definied by a plurality of societies. You said the abstract concept of human rights exists and I just said just because a bunch of people agree something exists doesnt make it true.

[p00lman]

What the fuck are you arguing is "truth"? Are laws "true" or are they also just things a bunch of people agree on?

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to argue here. It sounds like a lot of bullshit for the sake of bullshit. Make a point so I can respond to it.

[pandyne]

First, I never said that laws dont exist. There are those that have presumed authority that write laws and expect other people to follow. I can see the laws written on paper and have the ability to choose whether to follow or not to follow. You posit that human rights supercede laws thus human rights exist external to law. Maybe they are written on magic paper.

[pandyne]

If you can show me evidence that human rights exist biologically, meaning the code of ethics that provides for appropriate human behavior that is genetic and generally universal (proof of objective morality), then you can claim human rights exist. But plurality of societies is Argumentum ad populum and is fallacious. If you cant show the evidence, then you must believe it in faith and should admit that you do so.

[p00lman]

Wow, talk about an illogical argument.

Guess you've never heard of the Geneva Conventions.

[pandyne]

More self contradiction "The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international LAW."

"Thankfully, in modern society, human rights issues supercede the law" - p00lman

[p00lman]

Thanks for supporting my argument.

So what's your point?

[pandyne]

If human rights supersede law then law cannot define human rights this includes international law

If H > L then L != (H + n)

If human rights are only a legal concept then there is no problem logically

L = (H + n)

But if human rights only exist as legal concept then they can be legislated away or slavery can be enacted

L = (H + n), L - H == n, now define L = (S + n)

See no more H. H might as well == 0

[pandyne]

If human rights do exist outside of the definition of law where do they come from? That is all I want you to tell me, with out the retarded ad populum. Im beginning to think you are functionally illiterate, because you never answer the question.

[p00lman]

You see, there's this bird called a stork . . .

What point are you trying to make? I could answer you if you provided some context as to the end point you wanted to reach.

[mrethrift]

Looks like they already got to you here!