Argumentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> I am for lowering taxes.  Bush did that.

See Wil's comments.

Bush increased the parts of the budget that help his cronies and
financiers and decreased the parts of the budget that that help the
general public... all to find that his "tax cuts" aren't going to actually
take place because of the enormous shortfall.

> I think the policy on terrorism is right on.  If you are a terrorist
> or you fund or harbor terrorists, we will hunt you down.

Do you agree with the methods used?  Particularly, the support for
undemocratic regimes in the Middle East that are willing to help fight the
enemy d'jour?

Do you agree with the definition of "terrorist" as used in the U.S.A.
Patriot Act?  Are you even aware that the description of illegal
activities therein covers ALL dissent against the current regime, foreign
and domestic?

Hey, nobody likes terror... but terror begets terror and hunting people
down just makes other people feel more victimized and helpless and more
like terrorism is their only hope.

An unyielding, authoritarian power does nothing better than compel people
to strike against it.

> I beleive for the most part the government should get out of the way
> of business and let the economy go.  Yes, as you point out, the rich
> get richer, but the poor stay employed.

There's really no proof for that whatsoever.

And, of course, there's the simple fact that "getting out of the way"
means letting more than just the economy "go".  It means letting go of the
environment, labor rights, and individual liberty... to name three things.

> Everytime the government tries to do something to punish the rich, the
> poor get hurt by it.  If you tax companies the companies raise prices
> and the consumers pays the tax indirectly.

I would argue that the federal government hasn't done anything "to punish
the rich" in its entire history.

> >I think we disagree on the intent as well.
> >
> >I don't really know that much of the fund that is on the books as aid
> >really ends up in the pockets of dictators.  I think the dictators do use
> >the money for infrastructure, but I don't think that infrastructure
> >translates to a healthier, more self-sufficient local economy.  Rather, I
> >think the purpose of U.S. aid is to develop slave economies and
> >dependencies.
> 
> Certainly the money becomes a bargaining chip.
[snip]
> We should not give money to dictators.

That's really a side point.  The real point is that the U.S. enacts its
foreign policy through the manipulation and machinations of undemocratic
powers.

If you really oppose this, then you should oppose U.S. troops in Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, Colombia, and East Timor, to name a few places.

Do you think the U.S. should stop supporting those governments?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org