|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:09 am
He all who is with me on getting america to impose a Fat Tax?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:59 pm
I would prefer a Child Tax, since having more children harms the environment more than overweight people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:51 am
O.O We could have both. And we could start up the baby meat market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:50 am
I has a better proposal! OwO We make all programs which would in any manner have statuses like weight, number of children if any, (being stupid and irresponsible,) influencing the cost be opt-in. You may join the program with all the chances of having to pay for the expensive people and be able to use it for yourself too, or else you can not pay in on it and not use it for yourself either and seek out whatever other method you wish to take care of whatever that program would have covered. This way, people can make whatever decisions for their personal lives they want and nobody else has to be affected by against their will.
Baby meat is just too modest a proposal to begin to solve our problems. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:42 am
Hmmm... that sounds like something that could work too Blue-chan. But I was thinking of using peoples stupidity to help our government a bit ^^;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:02 am
My plan included the stupid people weeding themselves out in a Darwin Awards fashion and thus freeing us from them entirely. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:27 am
Hmm well weeding themselves out via darwin awards methods will take too long..... so umm.. in the mean time lets take their money?
I love the answers I get in the forums... stuff like "This is a violation of our civil liberties" and such. I love how people fail to realize it is the government's job to protect us, even if it is only from ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:17 am
Actually, I agree with the first part of that last statement, but not the second. To put why that is in a simple way you'll probably understand quickly: Most people sincerely believe being a parent is one of the best things ever (whatever their particular belief in the reason or reasons why is) and therefore that by choosing not to have children, we CF people are hurting ourselves. Imagine now the government in the name of "protecting us from ourselves" decides to start forcing all people to have children by say, 30 years old at the latest, maybe with extra tax incentives for having them a few years earlier.
This next part is more general and detailed if that first was not enough:
Now on a more general argument with a specific example out of the way, how can anybody ever take any credit for their successes when failure is not an option? I believe the government is there to protect people from having other people violate their rights through force or fraud (or by punishing and and/or removing from circulation in society the people who do so after the fact if they fail to prevent it) because when people do those kinds of things to others, it takes away our ability to live our lives based on our own best judgment and take the successes or failures of them. Thus, we should be allowed to decide what to do with our own lives, but we should not be allowed to decide for other people what they will do with their lives by exerting physical force or fraud upon them as long as they are to the best of our knowledge capable of making their own informed decisions (unless they try to do so to other people first, then they have forfeited any reason for us to respect their rights since they don't respect others and we may do as much as is needed to seeing to the person being stopped and having to face the consequences of their actions. This also being why crazy people, children, and people with enough of a mental handicap are exceptions to the general rule -- they don't understand exactly what they are doing, so other people are allowed to run their lives because otherwise these people might break the rules about other people's rights without even realizing it because they couldn't understand the reasons for and existence of such rules in the first place.) So anyway, this being the case, the government forcing its own decisions about what you should and shouldn't do upon you is just contrary to the reason for having them in the first place and makes them guilty of the same things they're supposed to be preventing. Also part of why it is best for us to let people be able to accept failures, if people aren't allowed to accept negative consequences of their actions, it is unlikely they will learn to stop doing and wanting to do stupid stuff and they will probably be more reckless so you'll have to keep chasing after them and watching out for them all the time too so long as you want to try to keep that "protecting them from themselves" policy up. People who have something they value they can lose are careful, people who feel they have nothing of value they can lose are a powder keg. If they HAVE to take care of themselves, they either will or they'll end up removing themselves from the populace, if they DON'T have to take care of themselves, we piss off a lot of competent people who could take care of themselves and make them suffer and be kept in check for the sake of keeping stupid people either staying stupid because they can't learn with how we've set things up or else keeping them alive at all forever a burden on us if they wouldn't have learned anyway just because they so happen to have come into existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:31 am
True, but at what point can we decide people are not seeing the consequences? I think eventually there comes a time when the government should step in. It is one thing, when there are only a small minority of people doing or not doing something. But what has to happen before people have to have someone else start thinking for them? Free will and the right to make mistakes is just fine with me. But when a person just chooses to make the same mistake over and over again, it becomes a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:46 pm
Yeah, which is why like I said, those who seriously aren't learning will be the death of themselves. Think and act reasonably or you will be the cause of your own demise. If you are that foolish that you REFUSE to learn from your mistakes, what reason do you give us to want to go out of our way keep you around anyway? You would only exist as pain in the neck and a drain on resources to everybody else who ISN'T too absurd to act reasonably and learn from their mistakes. So, you've got right up until you die to realize the error of your ways. If you can figure it out before then, great, if not, I'd say I'm glad I'm not you, but then there's not even a "you" for me to be glad I'm not anymore, now is there? (If you think I sound harsh, know I wouldn't make myself an exception to this rule. If I ever caused my own death because of my own stupid mistakes and not learning from them, I got what I deserved and blame nobody else nor do I think anybody else should be blamed.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:47 am
True, I would rather most of them just die as well. But why not exploit the idiots for some free money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:09 pm
Generally, because I think we'd lose more money than we would gain in the process. Also, it would be a can of worms kind of policy I think. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:22 am
Well at first it would require an initial investment. But I am sure that in a little time we could be making money of off people non-want to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:37 am
When I say "we'd lose more money than we would gain" I don't just mean at first, especially with the next part you said about it appearing that we make money off those people eventually. There is more benefit to be gained from a person who can and does take care of their own life than somebody who doesn't, agree? Somebody who does such in doing so provides desired goods and services to other people to get their desired goods and services from the rest of us to keep them alive and well. They're also going to have to not be sloppy about it and do things like, say, putting out massive radiation in the process of creating their goods or service because if they do so they put their butt seriously on the line for getting the pants sued off them at the very least and being pretty much assured destitute poverty for the rest of their lives if not thrown into jail for a loooooong time, maybe even both. Stupid enough to get themselves killed over it people however won't realize this kind of thing either through inability or just plain refusal to actually think things through and can cause all kinds of other harm on their way down to other people that will have to deal with it maybe even after the person is gone, seriously detracting from whatever potential bit of value the person did maybe make or at least seem to to keep them alive as long as they were. Worse yet, while it looks like the less idiotic people are actually gaining money from these stupid people existing, this may mask the actual detriment they create and I fear you'll find people actually TRYING to prevent people from learning and becoming such stupid people no more under the belief that if the person left this category of stupid people, it would be detrimental to the economy and therefore themselves. I find it ill advised to create an even seeming incentive to keep stupid people stupid. Plus what I said about the can of worms thing, like I tried to convey with my first example in my older post, how do you think people will decide what to count as qualifying to be stupid enough to be worthy of taxing? There will be a lot of disagreement over what is stupid and how and why and I think you'll end up with far too strong an influence of individual opinion in there and, well, shortly if the majority were to decide, you would likely find us getting taxed for not breeding for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:31 am
@_@ Too much text hurt brain after barely 2 hours of sleep... so tiny...be back to read that post later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
