BF2S Forums [D&ST Political Slider 2010]

Jaekus wrote:

I know this is an aside to this discussion, but just on the cigarettes re: taxes and rates of quitting, studies here in Aus have shown that when prices increase so do quit rates. I'll have a look around some other time for some studies that show this as it's 2am and I start work 6:30am.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I know this is an aside to this discussion, but just on the cigarettes re: taxes and rates of quitting, studies here in Aus have shown that when prices increase so do quit rates. I'll have a look around some other time for some studies that show this as it's 2am and I start work 6:30am.

The point is, government shouldn't be in the business of making those decisions for you via coercive taxes. There's enough information out there that smoking kills you and people still smoke. If life is a series of forks in the road and the government essentially closes one of those forks you now have one less choice in your life and less freedom. I can't believe you people would be ok with this.

The irony within the views held by those who believe in pure democracy is that they themselves would be marginalized within such a system and all of their current fights would be undone. Majority rule means majority rule. Say goodbye to your drugs, your porn, your gay rights, your abortion and every other pet topic. If the Southern US were to reinstate the Jim Crow Laws democratically I'm sure Berster would be one of the people decrying their decision and trying to find ways to undermine and destroy the system. That's irony.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess I can because, like you, I can pull from several different sources. and I have shown from a few different sources now that a fascist govt. includes, among other aspects, govt. control over private industry. That action is fascist


an argument can also be made that one form of oppression could include taxing the ever loving fuck out of the earning population..it is no less than servitude.

What you have shown is that one possible aspect of fascism is government control over industry. You haven't examined the detail of that, or explored the fact that numerous systems of government that are not fascism also allow for government control of industry - such as socialism, which fits far better than fascism in this instance. You can't call it a fascist action, because lots of other scenarios exist where these things can be done and would not be considered fascist. Only when you have mos tof the aspects of fascism together in conjunction can you call it fascist.

There are lots of aspects of fascism. Without demonstrating that Obama's administration fits the majority of these, then you can't call it fascist. You have failed to do this and will continue to fail to do this, because it isn't remotely fascist.

Another thing you have failed to do is to look at the reasons behind why the government would taking control of private industry. Fascist regimes would do it to increase their own power, socialist regimes would do it to protect the workforce. In the case of GM, every indicator points to the fact it was done to protect the workforce - which makes it difficult to call it fascist.

Already explained the difference between fascist and socialist regarding industry. There is no private industry in a socialist society it is govt. owned and govt. controlled, this is GM. Fascist is govt controlled and privately owned, IE Obamacare. I have maintained Obamas actions in the examples I gave were fascist, and they are.

lowing wrote:

I never said he was a dictator, or gassed Jews, or whatever other kind of comparison you care to make to Hitler. Bottom line is, I can call the examples I gave fascist. It is up to you to accept that while blocking visions of swastikas and the gestapo.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What you have shown is that one possible aspect of fascism is government control over industry. You haven't examined the detail of that, or explored the fact that numerous systems of government that are not fascism also allow for government control of industry - such as socialism, which fits far better than fascism in this instance. You can't call it a fascist action, because lots of other scenarios exist where these things can be done and would not be considered fascist. Only when you have mos tof the aspects of fascism together in conjunction can you call it fascist.

There are lots of aspects of fascism. Without demonstrating that Obama's administration fits the majority of these, then you can't call it fascist. You have failed to do this and will continue to fail to do this, because it isn't remotely fascist.

Another thing you have failed to do is to look at the reasons behind why the government would taking control of private industry. Fascist regimes would do it to increase their own power, socialist regimes would do it to protect the workforce. In the case of GM, every indicator points to the fact it was done to protect the workforce - which makes it difficult to call it fascist.

Already explained the difference between fascist and socialist regarding industry. There is no private industry in a socialist society it is govt. owned and govt. controlled, this is GM. Fascist is govt controlled and privately owned, IE Obamacare. I have maintained Obamas actions in the examples I gave were fascist, and they are.

No - that's communism, not socialism. Socialism and communism are different.

lowing wrote:

I never said he was a dictator, or gassed Jews, or whatever other kind of comparison you care to make to Hitler. Bottom line is, I can call the examples I gave fascist. It is up to you to accept that while blocking visions of swastikas and the gestapo.

You can call them fascist. It just doesn't make any sense to do so as it doesn't fit the definition that anyone else would be using. You could call anything anything else, it just wouldn't be correct.

Kmarion wrote:

So why did it become evil?

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-10 15:41:13)

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Either it was misunderstood and the consequence have made us realize the "evil". Or it never was "evil", and it was mislabed, used to identify a bunch of murderous clowns.

When people walk around decrying Fascist they know full well that they are implying what the majority of the population knows, or think they know about fascism. .. and that is what we learned circa 1945.

Oh but the beginning of this thread everyone was seeking the original meanings of terms like liberal. As it is when we speak of liberalism, we know what is implied as well. Didn't stop you guys from seeking the orginal meaning. So if we are doing that, then I see no reason not to do it with fascist. It was when it was applied to the beloved Obama did this forum went nuts. Even after I showed it to be true. If I had applied it to Bush, there would be no resistance.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Taxes on cigarettes and other things are not meant to stop the person from smoking (although they will say something to this effect every time they raise said tax), they're a revenue generator with a captive audience. If everyone in New York City stopped smoking the city would go bankrupt from billions in lost revenue. Ignoring the fact that the tax is ineffective, it's being used as a tool to coerce the population into taking an action that others want them to. They're trying to make the decision to quit for me every time they raise that tax.

How can you say the tax is ineffective? If the city would go bankrupt without it, then I'd say it is pretty damn effective.

These taxes also cover the added cost of healthcare for smokers, most of which is paid for through taxation.


A perfectly fair and well reasoned tax. Which is, I imagine, supported by the majority of people in the state. That's how democracy works. It is something that is frowned upon by the majority of people and is something that costs the government money, taxing it is the fairest solution.

If people aren't smart enough to take an obvious decision then by all means tax them.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

How can you say the tax is ineffective? If the city would go bankrupt without it, then I'd say it is pretty damn effective.

These taxes also cover the added cost of healthcare for smokers, most of which is paid for through taxation.


A perfectly fair and well reasoned tax. Which is, I imagine, supported by the majority of people in the state. That's how democracy works. It is something that is frowned upon by the majority of people and is something that costs the government money, taxing it is the fairest solution.

The tax is ineffective because it fails in it's stated mission. People don't quit cigarettes if they raise the tax by a dollar every few years. If you hit them with a $10 increase in one year, then yes, they might quit but that's not the way they do it because it would kill their tax revenue.

"A perfectly fair and well reasoned tax. Which is, I imagine, supported by the majority of people in the state. That's how democracy works."
Good, you stated it for me. Mob rule. Tyranny of the Majority. This is nothing more than a money grab against a defenseless minority.

Congrats Berster. Without irony, you just pointed out every single flaw in a democratic system. Instead of one Stalin forcing you to conform to his ideal, you get 300 million Stalin's all forcing you to conform.

A tyranny of the majority is still preferable to a tyranny of minorities, which is the state of our current system.