DamianaRaven wrote:This is a very good article, in my opinion. Apparently, taxation without representation doesn't mean what I thought it meant. Paying taxes to support an entity that not only doesn't serve your interests, but actively thwarts and oppresses said interests is pretty fucked up and shouldn't be tolerated by any civilization, much less one that prides itself on freedom and equality.
How long is that going to hold up? It's taxation without representation of the highest order. If you pay a cop's salary, then that cop should keep you safe.
Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
#3: "Taxation without representation" doesn't mean "I don't like where some of my tax money goes and what's done with it". That's pretty much everyone; I hate that some of my money goes to our fucked up prison system, many conservatives hate that some of their money pays for abortion or birth control coverage, and so on. It sucks, but it's far from what you're describing. Taxation without representation means what it says on the tin: taxing people without allowing them a vote in the political process. It could be argued that many US states are creating such a situation in practice for some people, but that has more to do with Voter ID, reducing voting hours, and so on.
scary-mike wrote:I think #1 was the most poignant. I avoid getting involved in politics because between continental drift and the treaty of Tordesillas I'm barely sure where or who everybody is. Kenny the politics camel however has explained to me that when one group arranges a power dynamic wherein another group can only achieve their goals through violence the only possible outcomes are 1 perpetual violent conflict, 2 a change in the dynamic, or 3 the destruction of one group.
Askias wrote:Then again, it's easy for me to talk. I've never had a bad run-in with the cops, and my resumé involves zero solved national problems concerning police brutality. I can say 'Violence is a bad idea', but then who's stating the obvious? I don't really have a solution. Damn you complex socioeconomic issues, ingrained attitude problems and long-standing historical tensions! Damn you!
DamianaRaven wrote:Askias wrote:Then again, it's easy for me to talk. I've never had a bad run-in with the cops, and my resumé involves zero solved national problems concerning police brutality. I can say 'Violence is a bad idea', but then who's stating the obvious? I don't really have a solution. Damn you complex socioeconomic issues, ingrained attitude problems and long-standing historical tensions! Damn you!
I was already to rebut your post and then this paragraph shut me right the hell up. Well played! You're very articulate and thoughtful about the things you believe.
MLK wrote:It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.
Andropov4 wrote:I think the reason rioters don't go after cops or city hall is because they'd prefer to not get dead.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests