• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazon will pay $0 in taxes on $11,200,000,000 in profit for 2018

JustHanging said:
Worked out great for Canada. We have better healthcare, better public education, less hatred, less violence, more freedom, less incarceration, more freedom of the press, less racism, less murder. The list just goes on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Sure, they had healthcare right after the war. :roll: The stupid **** you liberals say is mind boggling.
 
Vidi said:
Why don’t you leave?

The Founding Fathers REBELLED because the King gave corporate tax breaks to the biggest corporation in the world at the time.

They formed a Union, they pledged their lives, their FORTUNES, and their sacred honor to one another.

They formed a COLLECTIVE, We, the People, not I, the individual.

Real Americans understand that we have a duty to our country, not to corporations.

So, I’m staying. You’re the one who is supporting Anti-American views.

You leave.
Click to expand...

Haha, you post is probably the most laughable in all of DP. They formed a collective. :lamo
 
American said:
Haha, you post is probably the most laughable in all of DP. They formed a collective. :lamo
Click to expand...

You should try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime. All the way through.


Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
 
Vidi said:
You should try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime. All the way through.


Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Click to expand...

I have, but you have taken it out of context. Thomas Jefferson is crying at your stupid post.
 
Vidi said:
You should try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime. All the way through. Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence reads like it was taken straight out of Locke's Second Treatise on Government and it is an obviously individualistic doctrine. The less poetic version of Locke's argument is that we all gain something if we give up on violence. I agree not to use lethal force against you if you agree not to use lethal force against me. I agree not to steal from you if you also agree not to steal from me. If you keep riding that train of thought, you get to a point where you can justify governmental powers on the basis that everyone can at least in principle agree and benefit from such an arrangement. The "consent of the governed" is the metaphorical consent or agreement of every single person in that kind of doctrine.

The rights mentioned below are individual rights. There is no sane way you can read "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in a sentence concerning the equality of all men as applying to groups in any other way than through individuals.

American said:
I have, but you have taken it out of context. Thomas Jefferson is crying at your stupid post.
Click to expand...

I read more than my fair share of books so far, but my favorite paragraph definitely comes from the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I don't know how you can read this statement in context and come out with the idea it's somehow collectivist. Social contract theories such as Locke and Hobbes were rooted in the language of individualism. They were obviously replying to theories that were based on the divine rights of kings. It is also hard not to see the underlying view of human nature taken by the Founding Father. You have a case to rebel when the principles justifying existing institutions are being violated by these very institutions. However, you have to be careful not to cause more harm than good, not to cause an enormous loss in the pursuit of negligible improvements. They're saying they'll organize and do something about it, but only reluctantly and only because things are just going way too wrong.

The United States was founded by people who were mad at governmental abuses. Crony capitalism in the 18th century wasn't one of them. He definitely is reinventing history.
 
TheEconomist said:
The Declaration of Independence reads like it was taken straight out of Locke's Second Treatise on Government and it is an obviously individualistic doctrine. The less poetic version of Locke's argument is that we all gain something if we give up on violence. I agree not to use lethal force against you if you agree not to use lethal force against me. I agree not to steal from you if you also agree not to steal from me. If you keep riding that train of thought, you get to a point where you can justify governmental powers on the basis that everyone can at least in principle agree and benefit from such an arrangement. The "consent of the governed" is the metaphorical consent or agreement of every single person in that kind of doctrine.

The rights mentioned below are individual rights. There is no sane way you can read "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in a sentence concerning the equality of all men as applying to groups in any other way than through individuals.



I read more than my fair share of books so far, but my favorite paragraph definitely comes from the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I don't know how you can read this statement in context and come out with the idea it's somehow collectivist. Social contract theories such as Locke and Hobbes were rooted in the language of individualism. They were obviously replying to theories that were based on the divine rights of kings. It is also hard not to see the underlying view of human nature taken by the Founding Father. You have a case to rebel when the principles justifying existing institutions are being violated by these very institutions. However, you have to be careful not to cause more harm than good, not to cause an enormous loss in the pursuit of negligible improvements. They're saying they'll organize and do something about it, but only reluctantly and only because things are just going way too wrong.

The United States was founded by people who were mad at governmental abuses. Crony capitalism in the 18th century wasn't one of them. He definitely is reinventing history.
Click to expand...

The word 'among' is key, because it implies the sovereignty of Man.
 
American said:
The word 'among' is key, because it implies the sovereignty of Man.
Click to expand...

I will admit that I am having trouble following your point.

As far as I can tell, the spirit of the statements in this paragraph is the primacy of the individual. Legal and political institutions are there to protect individual rights and liberties, in this light. I still don't see what is exactly can be thought to be collectivist about it, especially not to anyone who read Kant, Hobbes or Locke and finds this kind of parlance in an 18th-century declaration.
 
Rogue Valley said:
A gift from Donnie and the GOP.
Click to expand...

Yes a gift to the poor who can now raise their standard of living by ordering
more from Amazon which can now keep its prices lower!!
 
Unsurprising and completely immoral. Trickle down economics and other policies that have caused the massive amount of inequality we have in this country and until that's fixed - and that's not likely to happen given that all of the "higher powers" are in on the gag. That's the media, the government, other large corporations, etc...everyone but the average citizen.
 
nekrodev said:
Trickle down economics and other policies that have caused the massive amount of inequality
Click to expand...

American inequality is a myth of course . Imagine how inequal the poor would be if they did not get free housing, education, state of the art health care, infrastructure, and military defense. Do you understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom