TAXES - & Utopias

> Government shouldn't be involved in such matters [unions] period.

When companies hire goons to kill the union organizers, that's
grounds for government involvment. When union people start
destroying others' property, that's grounds for government
involvement. When a union and an employer make a contract, and have
a dispute about what it entails or whether one side or the other has
fulfilled them, it's government courts that they turn to when other
means fail.

Government is involved, like it or not.

> WHen society has to pay for the consequences of behavior it has
> the right to step in.

The consequences of the behavior itself, yes: if you rob people or
block a road or something, that's grounds for government
involvement.

What someone decides is a consequence of the behavior, because the
behavior is against their religion, no. If you use recreational
drugs, it's none of anyone else's business. If you steal to support
your habit, let them prosecute you for stealing. If we let
government prosecute people for what it decides they might do, that
licenses every excess of totalitarianism.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> Overall, not very impressed.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers, "ANTIcarrot." wrote:
> >
> > >> From: levi1_ca
> > >> Perhaps in a new system you can start by having a declaration
> that
> > >> limits government power - I know that government gets bigger
by
> > >> sticking their noses in more and more areas
> >
> > > You mean limitations like, "The government should not abolish
> > > slavery"
> >
> > That's an unfunded mandate!
> >
> Government shouldn't be involved in such matters period. When my
> maternal Grandfather tried to get along with the unions
representing
> his workforce they basicly demanded wages beyond what the profits
of
> the business could pay out. They didn't care. They wanted to send
> a 'message' to other businesses. His business went bust and the
> workers lost their jobs.
>
> > > or "The government should not give support to upstart trade
> unions"
> >
> > A resolution that would still be a popular notion among many.
> >
> > > or maybe "The government has no right to tell hunters they
> > > shouldn't hunt endangered species"?
> >
> > A resolution that would still be a popular notion among many.
> >
> > > These are past examples of such suggestions. For all intents
and
> > > purposes, the first was incorporated into the US Constitution.
> > > Speaking of which - the US Constitution is famous for being
> > > amended. It is after all a piece of paper, and it can and has
been
> > > rewritten.
> >
> > Oklahoma wanted a constitution that would be so comprehensive
that
> it
> > would never need to be amended. Didn't work.
> >
> > > And rightfully so, for as stupid, racist, and bigoted as the
> > > founding fathers were, they were smart enough to understand
that a
> > > government must be flexible enough to deal with change. And
hence
> a
> > > healthy government can have no unbreakable rules.
> >
> > A healthy government can have no *unchangable* rules.
> >
> > > Most modern democracies are built this way; with the only
proviso
> > > being that some rules are much harder to rewrite than others.
> >
> Our current courts seem to think otherwise with their 'evolving'
> standards, de facto legislating from the bench what the American
> people appose.
>
> Right. The basis of law should not be changed with every passing
> > fashion.
> >
> > >> no polluting the colony
> >
> > > Does noise pollution count? (A BIG problem in concrete
> structures!)
> > > Light pollution? Fumes from paint cans or glue? Is the
government
> > > to stop me from doing DIY? Or burning incense sticks? Or play
> music
> > > at my customary 90db? Or grow certain kinds of plants?
> >
> > Obviously, a simple "THOU SHALT NOT" for such things is
> unworkable.
> > Which puts us back to courts and such deciding what it all
really
> > means.
> >
> > >> no discrimination
> >
> > > Define discrimination. Under such a law a 17yo could sue a
video
> > > shop that won't let him hire an 18-rated film for
discrimination
> > > against his age.
> >
> Actually, some Liberals like Ruth Bader Ginzburg want to lower it
to
> Twelve. (Sick)
>
> > Good. Teenagers get the shaft. Ever notice that the age of
> consent
> > is never older than the voting age?
> >
> Cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals.
>
> > > Someone who's fired when her employer finds out she has sex
with
> > > her dog could sue because of discrimination against her
sexuality.
> >
> > I would certainly fire somebody for having sex with my dog.
Oh.
> For
> > having sex with HER OWN DOG! None of the employer's business.
> >
> > > A woman who wants to marry two other women and a man would
claim
> > > that its discriminatory to stop her just because *your*
religion
> > > frowns upon it.
> >
> > Fine with me. This is between the woman, the two other women,
the
> > man, and their god (should they happen to have one).
> >
> > >> allow people freedom to do as they wish as long as they do not
> > >> harm others
> >
> > > You will get people who want to collect CGI images of small
> > > children doing things I really shouldn't mention in polite
> company.
> > > Neither the creation, distribution nor enjoyment of such images
> > > causes direct harm to anyone.
> >
> Anything that encourages bad behavior hurts people. Whether
directly
> or by encouraging said Misbehavior. As I said WHen society has to
pay
> for the consequences of behavior it has the right to step in.
>
> > Well, now, wait a minute! If I'm a big Scooter Libby fan and
want
> to
> > recreate the infamous "nine-year-old girl raped by a bear"
scene,
> > then that means getting a nine-year-old girl and a bear to do
the
> > deed, which, it could argue, is harmful to the bear. And the
> little
> > girl. So yes, it does harm to create this.
> >
> > Oh. CGI images of it. Well, it's still disgusting, but if no
> child
> > is harmed, then perhaps the guvernment has no business banning
it
> > after all. A video of real children playing doctor might be
more
> > problematic. But imaginary images? Hand-drawn or CGI images?
> > Images in which no actual child has taken part? Say, teen sex
> images
> > or nekid cartoon characters? Shouldn't be banned by the force
of
> > government. In fact, I think that this would be legal in the US
> > right now.
> >
> > > "News at ten! space colony safe haven for child abusers!"
> >
> > No. Of course, the press probably would shreik it out that way,
> for
> > the sensationalism of it all. The way you describe it is more
> > like "News at ten! space colony safe haven for people with bad
> taste
> > in cartoons!"
> >
> > > Now personally I'm a great believer in the 'and it hurt none,
do
> as
> > > thou will' theory of government law, but at present 9 out of 10
> > > western democracies would never allow such a thing,
> >
> I think Canada is another. Its supreme court I am told made
certain