Honesty of an orphan street girl will make you think

[T-123456]

Pakistani women even in Rural areas participate enthusiastically in democracy.

Ok,if you say so,i believe you 100%,for sure.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Ok,if you say so,i believe you 100%,for sure.

This idiot thinks that the act of actually placing a X on the voting card equates to 'enthusiastic democracy'.

 

[El Sidd]

Ok,if you say so,i believe you 100%,for sure.

well It is.

You Must however also understand that democracy is only favored by 55 percent of the populace as a system viable for growth or Stability.

Pakistanis are Muslim People. they dont have the concept of democracy to begin with since sovereignty belongs to Allah in their World.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, they want government and government needs to be supported by tax. But after years of peaceful living, most people have forgotten the very essence of government and why it exists in the first place. It is an apparatus of violence! Its function should be limited to the places where violence is justified. Unfortunately, nowadays, people think violence shall be applied when someone earns more than they do.

In addition, the argument from you about the government of the people, elected by the people is very weak. It justifies 51% of people abusing the rest. Only when such an election is achieved by complete consensus, should your argument stands.

Heh.

First, that people forget the essence of government after years of peaceful living only points to the success of government. It is hardly a reasonable basis to pin the fault on the government! Nor is there anything that might lead to the conclusion that the years of peaceful living would lead to government becoming an apparatus of violence. Where is the logical link? Is it in your thought that people think violence should be (or shall be) applied when someone earns more than they do? This is a difficult chain of thought to follow. (i) Years of peaceful living, (ii) a government that has turned into a monster that inflicts violence on the people who brought it into existence in the first place, (iii) a people who think violence should be applied when someone earns more than they do, (iv) their simple majority empowering them to tell the government what to do, in this case, to use its power of exercising violence, its monopoly of violence in society, to expropriate those earning more than they are (how much is that? which is the reference group? we don't know, but it sounds good, so let's go with this).

The second part, the rather sad part, let us leave alone until later. It truly saddens me, and not least because I see it as the essence of the thinking of a citizen of a people's democracy, that I believe you not to be, and, not coincidentally, that which encourages the Sanghi in Indian society.

So back to our finding that long and peaceful democratic or popular rule leads to the government becoming an instrument of violence in the hands of a simple majority against 'those' who earn more than 'them'.

There are various approaches to taxation policy. There is the American capitalist, plutocratic approach: pay no taxes; there is the social democratic approach, that is, push everything onto direct taxes, taxes on people's earnings, rather than on indirect taxes, duties on goods imposed such that all consumers pay the same penalty (considering taxation to be a penalty, to align to your implicit views). There are all sorts of approaches in between. The essence is the approach to social disparity; the eternal struggle between two of the fundamental concepts in the French credo, liberte, egalite, fraternite. Liberty, the freedom to earn, the freedom to keep one's earnings, the freedom to acquire assets with these retained earnings, always clashes with Equality, the duty to restrict the kind of gross disparity in society, initially generated by differences in earning power, that brought on the French Revolution in the first place, the duty to avoid suffering among the genuinely disempowered due to their poverty, the duty, to quote another credo, that goes,"To each according to his needs, from each according to his means".

This all assumes that human beings, those responsible for structuring tax policy, are two-dimensional cut-outs, figures from an Indonesian shadow puppet ensemble. In real life, it doesn't happen that way.

Of course, the first step taken towards re-distribution of wealth, during the French Revolution, was the judicial murder of the French aristocracy, and the expropriation of their wealth by confiscation. That is the most extreme pole, and exceeded only by the even greater extremism of the Soviet and the CPC poles.

Unless a government pledged to revolutionary morality comes into being, normally the taxation process does not expropriate an entire section of the population. It takes sometimes more than it should, but 'it should' and phrases like that are used as ammunition in this war that continues. So the proposition that a government will do whatever is desired by the simple majority opinion of the house is unreal, impractical. There is no reason to believe that the high-earning individual is in imminent danger of extinction.

 

[T-123456]

Pakistanis are Muslim People. they dont have the concept of democracy to begin with since sovereignty belongs to Allah in their World.

Didnt know that,thought you were Christians and Hindus.
And we Turks are athiest,but you knew that already,didnt you?

This idiot thinks that the act of actually placing a X on the voting card equates to 'enthusiastic democracy'.

He knows im right but his ego.

 

[El Sidd]

Didnt know that,thought you were Christians and Hindus.
And we Turks are athiest,but you knew that already,didnt you?

turks are Turkish Nationals.

Turkey is a secular Muslim country.

Thats all we care

 

[Joe Shearer]

This idiot thinks that the act of actually placing a X on the voting card equates to 'enthusiastic democracy'.

There is an even greater hazard, an even greater fallacy. Look at the assumption that a democracy necessarily allows the majority pro term to behave like an oppressor. There goes the Bill of Rights. No more problems with the human rights embedded into the Indian Constitution. Instead, .....

 

[T-123456]

turks are Turkish Nationals.

Turkey is a secular Muslim country.

Thats all we care

You started promising but lost it in the end,at least im a bit rational.
Take care.

 

[El Sidd]

You started promising but lost it in the end,at least im a bit rational.
Take care.

I have No Interest in discussing your internal politics. be it the internal secular vs conservative, Kurdish vs Turkish, Arab vs non Arab

You have more than enough People meddling in your affairs. a Pakistani has No winner in this.

if You cannot respect that. do let me know for more People to People contact

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

@Taygibay @Hamartia Antidote @Signalian @Sher Shah Awan, forgot to tag you in the OP.

Well back around 1992 I went to Cancun Mexico with a few friends for a crazy week of sun and fun.

There's a resort area with dozens of hotels like this one (which is where I stayed. Looks almost the same). Notice how it is in an isolated area with water in the front and back.

However the second we ventured outside the hotel area we were greeted with a sea of little hands trying to tie a ragged piece of string around our wrists for money. 100 little kids under the age of 8 surrounding you. It made me feel terrible.

 

[nang2]

Heh.

First, that people forget the essence of government after years of peaceful living only points to the success of government. It is hardly a reasonable basis to pin the fault on the government! Nor is there anything that might lead to the conclusion that the years of peaceful living would lead to government becoming an apparatus of violence. Where is the logical link? Is it in your thought that people think violence should be (or shall be) applied when someone earns more than they do? This is a difficult chain of thought to follow. (i) Years of peaceful living, (ii) a government that has turned into a monster that inflicts violence on the people who brought it into existence in the first place, (iii) a people who think violence should be applied when someone earns more than they do, (iv) their simple majority empowering them to tell the government what to do, in this case, to use its power of exercising violence, its monopoly of violence in society, to expropriate those earning more than they are (how much is that? which is the reference group? we don't know, but it sounds good, so let's go with this).

The second part, the rather sad part, let us leave alone until later. It truly saddens me, and not least because I see it as the essence of the thinking of a citizen of a people's democracy, that I believe you not to be, and, not coincidentally, that which encourages the Sanghi in Indian society.

So back to our finding that long and peaceful democratic or popular rule leads to the government becoming an instrument of violence in the hands of a simple majority against 'those' who earn more than 'them'.

There are various approaches to taxation policy. There is the American capitalist, plutocratic approach: pay no taxes; there is the social democratic approach, that is, push everything onto direct taxes, taxes on people's earnings, rather than on indirect taxes, duties on goods imposed such that all consumers pay the same penalty (considering taxation to be a penalty, to align to your implicit views). There are all sorts of approaches in between. The essence is the approach to social disparity; the eternal struggle between two of the fundamental concepts in the French credo, liberte, egalite, fraternite. Liberty, the freedom to earn, the freedom to keep one's earnings, the freedom to acquire assets with these retained earnings, always clashes with Equality, the duty to restrict the kind of gross disparity in society, initially generated by differences in earning power, that brought on the French Revolution in the first place, the duty to avoid suffering among the genuinely disempowered due to their poverty, the duty, to quote another credo, that goes,"To each according to his needs, from each according to his means".

This all assumes that human beings, those responsible for structuring tax policy, are two-dimensional cut-outs, figures from an Indonesian shadow puppet ensemble. In real life, it doesn't happen that way.

Of course, the first step taken towards re-distribution of wealth, during the French Revolution, was the judicial murder of the French aristocracy, and the expropriation of their wealth by confiscation. That is the most extreme pole, and exceeded only by the even greater extremism of the Soviet and the CPC poles.

Unless a government pledged to revolutionary morality comes into being, normally the taxation process does not expropriate an entire section of the population. It takes sometimes more than it should, but 'it should' and phrases like that are used as ammunition in this war that continues. So the proposition that a government will do whatever is desired by the simple majority opinion of the house is unreal, impractical. There is no reason to believe that the high-earning individual is in imminent danger of extinction.

I am both surprised and flattered with your response. You certainly gave it some real thinking over this subject and I very much appreciate it.

As of the peaceful living and success of government, you are absolutely right. I did not blame the government for that. I just blamed the people who have forgotten to protect their hard-fought liberty. The ignorance and the complacency of people are the main reason why they vote their liberty away, whenever some politicians dangle some carrots in front of them and ask for more power.

The subject of tax is really about the subject of government. As I mentioned before, regardless how the government is formed, it is fundamentally an apparatus of coercion. This essence have been camouflaged by politicians with all sorts of fancy rhetoric, whose real purpose is nothing but asking for more power to control this apparatus, thus welding its coercive power for their little projects. So, to think whether a certain tax is justified, think of whether the coercive power it enables is justified. If it is difficult to see where coercive power may be justified, think of the scenario under which someone can do violence upon you personally and is still justified.

 

[Nilgiri]

Do read up on quotas on garment exports, and how India was disqualified (quite correctly, in my opinion) in favour of Bangladesh.

China exports far far more in RMG than Bangladesh and India does even today (and it never got some LDC status like Bangladesh did).

There is lot lot more to it than just quotas/tariff free in the major foreign client markets. Part of it explains why Indian RMG still exists (export wise) even with the quota/tariff advantages given to BD.

A lot of it is actually not having too much use of govt legislation and executive power over addressing social goals. Its the basic thing Deng did to undo Mao....and far far more people escaped poverty as a result (in fact Mao at his worst starved to death millions of people by legislation essentially). Govt legislation on such matters never work in the end, govts are made of corrupt people....always have been, always will be.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am both surprised and flattered with your response. You certainly gave it some real thinking over this subject and I very much appreciate it.

As of the peaceful living and success of government, you are absolutely right. I did not blame the government for that. I just blamed the people who have forgotten to protect their hard-fought liberty. The ignorance and the complacency of people are the main reason why they vote their liberty away, whenever some politicians dangle some carrots in front of them and ask for more power.

The subject of tax is really about the subject of government. As I mentioned before, regardless how the government is formed, it is fundamentally an apparatus of coercion. This essence have been camouflaged by politicians with all sorts of fancy rhetoric, whose real purpose is nothing but asking for more power to control this apparatus, thus welding its coercive power for their little projects. So, to think whether a certain tax is justified, think of whether the coercive power it enables is justified. If it is difficult to see where coercive power may be justified, think of the scenario under which someone can do violence upon you personally and is still justified.

Brief reply (it's nearly 4 in the morning, and I need at least two or three hours of sleep) - blame @Nilgiri for it. Recently we had a brief discussion about this same subject - the role of a government and the need for individual liberty - and I have been running over the whole thing in my mind, figuring out what I really thought, and also what the political scientists have written about it.

What you raised was bloody important, and I think it deserved serious thought. I'm not sure all that I said was what I exactly believe, though; I reserve the right to resile from these opinions if I re-think things in future.

More on your post a little later.
PS: on that last paragraph, especially about the coercive power = coercive nature of government, the nature of taxes and the role of politicians. I know what I want to say but feel I ought to sleep first.

 

[jamahir]

So now You are making Fun of the poor on the Internet?

Not me. You are.

Can you tell me how am I making fun of the poor ??

There's a resort area with dozens of hotels like this one (which is where I stayed. Looks almost the same)

Is drone overflight allowed over the hotels ??

However the second we ventured outside the hotel area we were greeted with a sea of little hands trying to tie a ragged piece of string around our wrists for money. 100 little kids under the age of 8 surrounding you.

Does the string have a sacred/religious meaning ??

It made me feel terrible.

Yeah, it would, to any sensible person.

 

[El Sidd]

Not me. You are.

Can you tell me how am I making fun of the poor ??

It takes a Twisted mind to Market such videos.

You will never get it Indian muslim