How Policy Subsidizes Immodesty And Haram Dressing

[fibonacci]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

Being on SC for some time, I noticed a lot of people (majority in west) complaining about the amount of immodesty they witness on a daily basis.

They wonder why people dress the way they do, or behave the way they do.

 

I like to share my thoughts on this very complex subject, as I’m writing a book on this matter.  So please bear with me— make sure to read it carefully.

 

Insh'Allah I pray this thread can help us reach the absolute truth about what causes immodest dressing and behavior.

 

***

 

I begin with the proposition that monetary and fiscal policy is the driving force behind the painful immodesty we're witnessing today.  That is policy is subsidizing immodesty.

 

Monetary Policy:

 

First let's talk about monetary policy.  Today monetary policy all over the world is based on the issuance of fiat currency. This policy was inspired from Keynesian economic theory which I address my concerns with it in the economic sub-forum.

 

How it works can seem complicated on the surface because it’s deceptive in nature--since it is the work of shaytan.  It may take a long time to fully understand how it works, but I’ll try to give the jest of it here.

 

The way it works is that there is a central bank that is connected to a handful of commercial banks (gov created oligopoly).  The central bank has the authority (gov issued monopoly) to create money out of nothing and give it to these commercial banks at a certain interest rate.  Then these commercial banks turn to the general public and lend out this money at a much higher rate. Thereby these banks profiting from the marginal differences in the interest rate.

 

What they are essentially doing is devaluing the currency that everyone in the nation uses, but they use the interest rate (usury) to overvalue the currency... so it balances out and has the illusion that it is a stable currency system.

 

The problem is that this never works in practice and the currency always has tendency to deflate.... that is for the supply of money to inflate.

 

So to sum it up as simply as possible... monetary policy is essentially shortchanging the currency that everyone uses day by day—and it is done stealthily.  This is why iyou see as the years go by, prices keep going up and up.

 

Basically bankers are stealing money by printing money, while everyone else has to work even harder trying to survive by selling goods/services.  It puts pressure for people to go into debt, cut costs, or cut corners to survive financially.

 

Now if you like to learn more on this subject, there are many books and youtube video on this subject that I recommend:

Books-

1.  http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X

2. http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

3. http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

4. http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

 

Videos

1.  Fiat Empire

2.  Money as debt

 

You can find million more resources on this subject.

 

 

***

Now so how does this relate to immodesty and provocative clothing?

 

First understand when the value of money itself is being shortchanged on a daily bases (which yields the concept that time is money)... people are then pressured to shortchange or cutting corners in business.  They are also pressured to make money fast, however they can, wherever they can get it.  They are pressured to cut costs and optimize as much as possible, and focus more on deceptive and provocative marketing and advertising tactics.

 

This type of economy resembles in many ways the economy of a nation during war – where resources are diminishing fast and people have to make money fast to survive.  Except in this case there is not war, it is all artificial, instigated by the central bank.

 

So how do businesses behave in this type of “war-like” economy:

 

For example, farmers instead of harvesting natural organic fruits and vegetables... they buy fast growing GMO seeds which grow fast but they are of lower quality and use pesticide to grow them.  These seeds were created by killing all the nutrient and vitamins in the seed, or there is inserted pig genes to fatten up the fruit (another reason why pork is haram)... thereby growing them faster, which means faster to the market.  This is essentially modern day shortchanging—that was produced scientifically.  Kind of like the Prophet’s (as) time where the merchants would put a few good quality vegetables at the top, while beneath it a lot of poor quality vegetables.  Or other merchants would sell yogurt, when in fact 90% of it is water.

 

How about tech companies, how do they shortchange their customers? 

They do it by employing the concept of planned obsolescence into the design of their products.  That is, they purposely build products that fail after some time, so people keep coming back to them and buy more.  They would substitute strong material with cheaper material.  Like in cars for example, where in the past everything was metallic, but today you see cheap plastic parts under the hood of the car.  This is planned obsolescence.  Please watch this documentary for more details.

 

So what about clothing manufacturing firms?  They focus on cutting costs.  And obviously one way they do is simply by making the clothes smaller, more revealing and tighter giving us the tight blue jeans and small skirts we have today.  (side note: blue jeans are also another product that suffers from planned obsolescence-- ever wonder why they rip so easily?).  Another tactic is to make clothes out of cheaper synthetic material which is easier to shape and stitch, giving us the extremely tight yoga pants we see today.  Finally these provocative clothing are marketed and advertise to naive people, tricking them that less clothing is fashionable and more progressive.

 

Also in an economy that is “war-like”, nonreligious women have a primal instinct to dress in these provocative clothes because they have a better chance to  attract the richest and/or the most aggressive/psychopathic (not religious nor kind) men.  And these men have better chance of supporting family. 

 

Why? 

 

Because in a war economy (in the west where people are not religious) where resources are diminishing, dressing modestly (and not marrying) or being kind, poor or charitable can get you hurt and even worse get you starved .  Also having an aggressive/psychopathic mate, there is a higher probability that the children will be raised into aggressive/psychopathic adults, which means a better chance for the nation to win the war.  (Note I’m not in any way suggesting people should behave like this during war, or in this economy... it is just an analysis on how the primal nature of humans drives them to this kind of phenomena).

 

Also remember provocative clothing on female, desensitizes men and/or makes them more aggressive.

 

So as a result, for many decades of this artificially generated “war-like” economy we have generations of immodest/psychopathic adults mating with one another,reproducing more immodest/psychopathic adults, where (for financial/mating reasons) the women find it important to dress provocatively and the men find it important to behave aggressively/violently in public to validate their masculinity.

 

All this is the result of inflationary monetary policy.

 

In’shallah in another post I will address how fiscal policy further encourages immodesty.

Edited September 8, 2013 by fibonacci

[PenOfTruth]

im confused.

[:Sami II]

In my trading days as an investment banker  , I came across a chart that was called the hemline indicator ,

every time the stock market prices went up , so did the hemline of dresses , and when the markets went down so did the hemline .

 

 

[rkazmi33]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

Because in a war economy (in the west where people are not religious) where resources are diminishing, dressing modestly (and not marrying) or being kind, poor or charitable can get you hurt and even worse get you starved .  

 

 

It's true, I have noticed people don't like it when I try to behave modestly or be nice. Being modest is against their culture, but I didn't understand what's wrong with being nice? 

[fibonacci]

It's true, I have noticed people don't like it when I try to behave modestly or be nice. Being modest is against their culture, but I didn't understand what's wrong with being nice? 

 

Yes so this is a point I was hoping to get across in my first post.  But I'll try to explain it more thoroughly here:

 

So the question, why is it that being nice and modest is against their culture?  Why is it that the women (in nonreligious regions) tend to fall for bad or narcissistic men?

 

Well from my first post, I'm assuming you got the point about how inflationary monetary policy resembles in many ways the economy of nation under war.

 

So how do people behave in a war economy?

 

In a war economy there is chaos and instability.  And in a nation where the majority are not-religious, the richest or the most brutal individuals have a better chance of surviving in such an economy.

 

Because in a war economy the supply for food and medicine declines, and people are going to fight for them.  If you are a kind or nice, or have a shred of compassion in your heart, there is a high probability you will not participate in such a fight (or in worst cases, you won't go steal it when you have no options), and therefore you stand on the sidelines starving while the most brutal and violent individuals get food, medicine, clothing, ...etc.  The rich of course have the plenty resources to take care of themselves.

 

Now what I described above is the worst case scenario of a war economy...but it occurs in the latter stages of an inflationary economy when the currency collapses. 

 

In the initial phases however, this phenomena exists but it is more subtle.  You see initially, it is the bad/unkind/immodest individuals who cut corners, who deceive, who take advantage of others, who have no morals/conscious in business (like to use sex/violence to sell goods/services or lending money with interest), ...etc. that have a better chance to make more money and "survive" in such an economy.  If you try to be honest in business, and not cut corners, you'll have a harder time earning money or surviving the competition.  I hope this make sense.  Basically, inflationary monetary policy (which secretly steals money from your savings) puts pressure on everyone to worker harder...and this gives and incentive for people to behave unkindly and cheat in business.

 

So as a result, women who want to find a mate in such a predatory economy (and vast majority are NOT RELIGIOUS), will want to attract the richest and/or the most brutal/aggressive individuals (the bad boys).  In the 1970s that is when inflation surged in the west, and that is exactly around the same time when a large number of women started to dress with less clothing and be more provocative.  Because with provocative clothing, you have a better probability of attracting the most aggressive potential mates (aggressive/brutal men won't wait and will just go after what they want, so if they see a woman that is barely is wearing clothes... they will go after it with lust, with no thinking about adultery, fornication, marriage, family, ...etc.).  They came to this conclusion as a result of their animalistic impulses, they never took in consideration morality and modesty.

 

I hope this clarifies the confusing parts of my first post.  Feel free to ask again if it still doesn't make sense.

 

 

As always, Allah knows best, may he forgive me if any part of my analysis is wrong.

Edited September 8, 2013 by fibonacci

[fibonacci]

Fiscal Policy

 

Okay now I want to explain how fiscal policy encourages immodest behavior and provocative dressing.

 

With monetary policy we know that it is based on centralized banking and inflation, which pushes people do work even harder.  It’s like controlling and increasing the speed of a treadmill that an individual is running on.  And as the speed turns up, some people just can’t take and decide to cheat or bad things to get ahead.  And when the majority succeed by applying this behavior, it gives an incentive for others to do the same to survive (and women would seek a partner with these qualities).  Inflation is known as a “hidden tax”.

With fiscal policy, you have tax on wages.  Which affects a family’s finances in the same way as inflation.  Tax on wages came about during world war 2 for most west countries, in order to finance the cost of war.  After the war ended, many govs didn’t eliminate this tax and instead left it as it was.

 

(Side note—during the war, while there was tremendous propaganda and peer pressure for men to go fight the war, it gave an opportunity for women to join the workforce, like manufacturing, farming, assembly, ...etc. – basically the war gave them a little push to enter the workforce, while the men were busy killing each other).

 

Now this tax, compounded with inflation put tremendous pressure on families during the mid-1900s.  Instead of a man supporting a wife and 8 kids, the financial pressure kept increasing leading families to have less children. 

 

Then by the 1970s it hit a turning point, where the mothers were complaining and demanded change in the condition their family is in.  Rather than pinpointing the blame on policy, women opted to work and this eventually led to the feminist movement.

 

Gov promoted and encourage women to join the workforce.  They even passed on discrimination laws to give them an edge in the workforce.

 

One reason why Gov promoted this movement is the fact that if women join the workforce, politicians can now tax twice the population as before.

 

So this led to a number of changes.  One being that it put pressure on other mothers to go out and work rather than stay behind at home raising the kids.  Because if she doesn’t, they will financially not survive comfortably in this new predatory economy.

 

Remember families didn’t protest and blame the situation on the gov policy, instead the majority compromised.  And when the majority compromised, it put pressure on other families to do the same because stakes were raised higher. 

 

Eventually, almost everyone made the sacrifice of having the mother go to work and leave the kids to be raised by TV (Hollywood) and public schools.

 

Obv when you leave your kids to be raised by TV and the peer pressure in public schools, they’re going to be spoiled.  They will not obtain proper education on morals and ethics.

 

So this is basically an example of fiscal policy encouraging immodesty.  In my next post I’ll talk about other policies yielding the same results.

[monad]

correct.

 

The other problem is, many know it, but lack the confidence and team work to do anything about it. Always hoping someone else to start the campaign or take the stance.

 

The process of forming an opinion rationally is powerfully affected by the contagion of crowds. Except in rare instances, an individual does not feel sufficient confidence in his own opinion to pit it against that of a multitude. If he reasons at all it is to the effect the many are more apt to be right then the few. Generally, however, he simply hates to be left behind the crowd. He wants to be on the right side, but even more, on the winning side. He wants above all to be a "good fellow."

Edited September 10, 2013 by D3v1L

[rkazmi33]

I have noticed this change since last 2 years and I think it's because of the economy. American culture is becoming similar to my culture and I have been thinking about it for years, why does my culture encourage people to become immodest and cruel? You solved a big mystery. 

[fibonacci]

In my last post I should’ve added another fact (which I’m sure it’s obvious to most), that when the mothers joins the workforce and not stay home to raise their kids full-time, they are essentially neglecting their kids.  Neglectis one of the worst things you can do to a young child, this is another way of pushing them into the other direction where they grow up angry with a chip on their shoulder.

---

 

Family Laws

 

So in this section I’ll discuss some of the ways family laws encourages the immodest world today.

 

Before delving into this subject, I start with a fact, that often times these family laws are more beneficial to women than men.  So my focus is mostly on how women behave as a result of these laws.  

 

Child Support and Welfare-

 

Prior to the emergence of child support and welfare laws, parents had a direct financial incentive in controlling the sexual behaviors of their kids when they are teenagers—to make sure they don’t have children out of wedlock.

 

Why?  Because if they do have children at such a young age, it will fall on the grandparents to raise them and pay all the expenses that comes with it.

So for financial reasons, parents were very strict when it came to these matters.

 

But after child support and welfare laws were introduced in the west, it didn’t really matter anymore for the (nonreligious) parents, because the expenses to raise the illegitimate child can always be passed on to the taxpayers.  Unfortunately again this hurts the newborn more than anyone in the matter.

 

And this is where a shift happened in the culture from modesty to immodesty.  Young women no longer cared about guarding themselves, and look for a competent (average-looking) partner... they could be selfish, and go for the type of partners that the media and peers encourage (the bad boy or the celebrity ‘justin beber’ type).  That is they can indulge in lust and not care about the consequences, because they can always have the taxpayers pay for the illegitimate child.  Dressing provocatively just gives them a higher probability to attract the kind of men they lust after.

 

Then when men notice that majority of women are going after men they lust (bad boys, celebrity types, goofy types, ...etc) , they try to emulate that personality.  They forget about studying hard, or entering a professional career, working in a conservative field with steady income, and instead go to the gym work out all day, behave more violently/unkindly, worship entertainment, neglect studies, neglect their human drive, neglect compassion in their behavoir ...etc.  All these are examples of immodesty that resulted from such laws.

 

Today with the emergence of gov-financed abortion clinics, and gov-financed birth control, the matter is a  lot worse.  They can indulge all they want, and if anything goes wrong they can abort (ie. sacrifice) the child in the womb.

 

Next post I’ll talk more about these welfare laws.

Edited September 10, 2013 by fibonacci

[Baji]

good interesting thread brother.

[polymath07]

Serious errors of thinking visible in this thread. I'll try address a few when I get the chance. But, please, continue.

[fibonacci]

^^^ Please show me the errors I've made... more than happy to address them.

 

Family Laws

 

Old Age Welfare/Pension

 

Another policy to consider is retirement welfare that the gov will give to it's citizens once they reach a certain age.  That money obviously come from the younger generation via taxation.

 

So this type of welfare support has many problems:

 

1.  It reduces the incentive for an individual to settle down, get married and have children.

Why go through all the hardship of having children and raising them, when at the end of your years the gov will tax other people's children (mostly naive immigrants from 3rd world countries) and just have them subsidize all your needs, especially medical needs.

As a result, it encourages nonreligious adults to just go out and do whatever is pleasurable and just indulge in lust as much as possible.

 

Often times, because it is so expensive to raise just one child (thanks to the monetary corruption explained above) an individual who refuses getting married saves a lot of money.

According to this article it can be somewhere around $600K - http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/pfmanagingmoney/lifeevents/8123132/the-real-cost-of-having-a-baby .

 

So such an individual who doesn't want to get married, and who works and gets decent income, he'll save something like $600K of money.

Imagine all the material wealth he can acquire over the years with that kind of wealth.  Fancy cars, big house, ...etc.

In monetary terms, he'll appear relatively wealthier than his average peers.

 

A lot of women naturally want someone who can take care of them financially and get them material wealth--- because they naively think that it will be a cure for their low self-esteem which was shattered by abuse and neglect in their home life because parents had financial reasons to do such a thing (will be explained why later in this post).  Dressing provocatively gives them a higher chance of acquiring the interest of these types of men - majority of which are not religious and don't care about modest behavior.

 

Also the youths will see this kind of behavior, and its lucrative result (of not marrying and not have children)

so absent of religion/faith/morality, they naturally engage in selfish/provocative behavior to satisfy their lust and materialistic desires.

 

2. Old age welfare reduces the incentive for a parents to be extra supportive with their children.  They can abuse them, neglect them by focusing more on career, divorce and satisfy selfish desires, not care too much about them because at the end of the day, the gov will tax them and their peers anyway for their retirement.

So this lack of compassion, empathy and love from parents, obviously drives a lot of youths, especially women into immodest behavior later in life.

This is because when they dress immodestly, a lot of men starts noticing them... and this kind of attention was not present with their immediate family.

 

Next post I will talk about how laws that require child support from husband and even spousal support from the husband encourages immodesty.

Edited November 6, 2013 by fibonacci

[polymath07]

Due to the heavy stream of extremely generalised, conjectural nonsense being promulgated, and my tight schedule, I'll have to handle this one post at a time.

1.  It reduces the incentive for an individual to settle down, get married and have children.

Why go through all the hardship of having children and raising them, when at the end of your years the gov will tax other people's children (mostly naive immigrants from 3rd world countries) and just have them subsidize all your needs, especially medical needs.

As a result, it encourages nonreligious adults to just go out and do whatever is pleasurable and just indulge in lust as much as possible.

Pretty much all your points are bloated generalisations and exaggerations. Just keep that in mind.

First of all, you're blaming the government pension scheme for an alleged "problem" that is not even in their control. They intend to help the elderly citizen who is past the legal age to be able to work effectively, that is all.

Second, you're correlating the choice of not being married and reproducing to being a hedonist. This is an unfounded, prejudiced assumption.

Third, the potential of other people being levied to subsidise your life later on in your old age does not logically preclude the want of marriage and children. It just doesn't follow.

And fourth, you're mindlessly tarring every "non-Muslim" with the same hackneyed negative brush.

So such an individual who doesn't want to get married, and who works and gets decent income, he'll save something like $600K of money.

Imagine all the material wealth he can acquire over the years with that kind of wealth.  Fancy cars, big house, ...etc.

In monetary terms, he'll appear relatively wealthier than his average peers.

Assuming he'd be earning a six figure sum, this postulated amount "saved" would probably make sense. Are you demonising wealthy folk?

For the average earner, you realise that the pay check is received on a monthly basis? $600 grand isn't saved throughout the period of 18 years. Therefore, the luxury doesn't actualise fully but in a limited sense, within the capacity of the budget.

A lot of women naturally want someone who can take care of them financially and get them material wealth--- because they naively think that it will be a cure for their low self-esteem which was shattered by abuse and neglect in their home life because parents had financial reasons to do such a thing (will be explained why later in this post).  Dressing provocatively gives them a higher chance of acquiring the interest of these types of men - majority of which are not religious and don't care about modest behaviour.

What has been bolded are rank generalisations sourced from your confused, prejudicial mind. Ignored.

Also the youths will see this kind of behavior, and its lucrative result (of not marrying and not have children)

so absent of religion/faith/morality, they naturally engage in selfish/provocative behavior to satisfy their lust and materialistic desires.

This is predicated on the assumption that most youth are influenced by future pensioners who, for the most part, exhibit bad qualities. The primary reason for why they exhibit bad qualities is because the prospect of being financially supported by the state gets them into a frenzy of hedonistic excitement.

This is ridiculous. The fact that you concocted this notion to support your conspiracy theory makes you an idiot.

2. Old age welfare reduces the incentive for a parents to be extra supportive with their children.  They can abuse them, neglect them by focusing more on career, divorce and satisfy selfish desires, not care too much about them because at the end of the day, the gov will tax them and their peers anyway for their retirement.

So this lack of compassion, empathy and love from parents, obviously drives a lot of youths, especially women into immodest behavior later in life.

None of this remotely follows a logical pattern. You're saying that welfare for the senile motivates parents to treat their kids with contempt and abuse? What is your basis for saying this? And, again, why are you generalising?

And entertaining the truth of the premise, how does "abuse" and "neglect" directly result in the female youth being "immodest."

Constructing arbitrary arguments and arbitrarily lumping different causes and effects together, especially in a general sense, makes you a pathological liar. Or you're easily brainwashed due to your lack of intellectual rigour.

[fibonacci]

Due to the heavy stream of extremely generalised, conjectural nonsense being promulgated, and my tight schedule, I'll have to handle this one post at a time.

Pretty much all your points are bloated generalisations and exaggerations. Just keep that in mind.

First of all, you're blaming the government pension scheme for an alleged "problem" that is not even in their control. They intend to help the elderly citizen who is past the legal age to be able to work effectively, that is all.

Second, you're correlating the choice of not being married and reproducing to being a hedonist. This is an unfounded, prejudiced assumption.

Third, the potential of other people being levied to subsidise your life later on in your old age does not logically preclude the want of marriage and children. It just doesn't follow.

And fourth, you're mindlessly tarring every "non-Muslim" with the same hackneyed negative brush.

Assuming he'd be earning a six figure sum, this postulated amount "saved" would probably make sense. Are you demonising wealthy folk?

For the average earner, you realise that the pay check is received on a monthly basis? $600 grand isn't saved throughout the period of 18 years. Therefore, the luxury doesn't actualise fully but in a limited sense, within the capacity of the budget.

What has been bolded are rank generalisations sourced from your confused, prejudicial mind. Ignored.

This is predicated on the assumption that most youth are influenced by future pensioners who, for the most part, exhibit bad qualities. The primary reason for why they exhibit bad qualities is because the prospect of being financially supported by the state gets them into a frenzy of hedonistic excitement.

This is ridiculous. The fact that you concocted this notion to support your conspiracy theory makes you an idiot.

None of this remotely follows a logical pattern. You're saying that welfare for the senile motivates parents to treat their kids with contempt and abuse? What is your basis for saying this? And, again, why are you generalising?

And entertaining the truth of the premise, how does "abuse" and "neglect" directly result in the female youth being "immodest."

Constructing arbitrary arguments and arbitrarily lumping different causes and effects together, especially in a general sense, makes you a pathological liar. Or you're easily brainwashed due to your lack of intellectual rigour.

 

all you are doing is just giving out ad hominem attacks

 

.... and I'm not surprised, rather than giving counter arguments, you're resorting to name calling and adjectives, saying my argument is exaggerated, or that I'm brainwashed, it's a lie, conspiracy, ..etc.

(as a side... I would like to remind you, assuming that you are a muslim, there is a very big conspiracy that is constantly trying to make women dress more provocatively... and it's orchestrated by you know who.  I'm trying my best to describe the phenomena as result of human reaction to monetary and gov policy.)

 

If you want to critique my argument, please counter it with a logical argument without the adjectives.

 

Also please let me know if you work for in the public sector, I want to be perfectly sure there is no bias on your part.  Also please say it under a gassam/vow.

 

 

While I wait for your response... I'll address your last few questions

 

 

You're saying that welfare for the senile motivates parents to treat their kids with contempt and abuse? What is your basis for saying this? And, again, why are you generalising?

And entertaining the truth of the premise, how does "abuse" and "neglect" directly result in the female youth being "immodest."

 

Please reference specifically where I talked about welfare for the senile.

 

Now if you meant welfare for seniors... remember the welfare they receive in old age is obtained by taxing the younger future generations.

 

Now with this guarantee income later in life, one has to examine the incentives one gets in dealing with their kids before and after this policy -- assuming everything else being equal.

 

Prior to this policy, one had no certainty about their future, there was no guarantee.  Therefore there was a direct financial incentive to raising your kids with extra attention, vigilance and kindness, in the hopes that if anything happens later in life, your kids can always support you.  You don't want to neglect them or abuse them which could result in backlash later in life.

 

But when you get a policy that guarantees 'free' money and healthcare support in the future, it gives you a relatively less incentive to be extra supportive or be vigilant when it comes to raising your child.

 

Do you understand this point?  Can you tell me where I'm logically incorrect in this argument.

 

For your second question, regarding abuse and neglect of female youths... an how it results into immodesty later in life....

 

In my earlier posts, I was trying to convey the message that the economic system that we live under today, is structured in a way that the vast amount of the wealth goes to nonreligious people.  I can elaborate more on this point if you like, but just know that these nonreligious people make the majority of their income/profits through sin or by capitalizing on vices of society (the easiest ways to earning an income).  Because of the sinful nature of their profession, it would be very uncomfortable for them to have a relationship with an individual who is religious who keeps judging them, and constantly reminds them about the immoral nature of their livelihood.  They would rather be in a relationship with someone who doesn't pay attention to morals and religion.

 

Now for a women who has been abused and neglected in their youth, they obviously grow up with an extremely low self-esteem.

Obtaining materialistic good is the most trivial way to treat the symptoms of low self-esteem (obv it is not a cure, but just a temporary treatment... ie. a temporary 'high').

Therefore these naive women would naturally seek a partner that can get them the most amount of materialistic good which could treat their low self-esteem (like an addictive drug).

The men who are the most capable in satisfying these needs, are those explained above.  Men who's livelihood depends on profiting from sinning or indulging in various vices.

 

Obviously there are much less of these wealthy men compared to the many low self-esteemed women.  The women have to therefore compete with one another to get the attention of these men.  Since these men don't care about morals/ethics/religion, (and assuming the woman forgoes on religion/ethics/morals) dressing provocatively gives them the highest probability of getting their attention.  I'm sure you know why this is the case, unless you want me to give you a scientific explanation of lust and the release of dopamine in the brain.

Edited November 7, 2013 by fibonacci

[fibonacci]

One other thing polymath7

 

you've stated a few times that I'm generalizing

please cite exactly in my previous posts where I stated that my arguments applys to the whole non-relgious population

 

I'm merely pointing out how certain policies drives some women towards immodest behavior.  Do you understand this point?

I'm in NO way suggesting that my argument applys to every nonreligous female out there.

 

It's obvious that the vast majority of nonreligous women are dressing provocatively because of peer pressure and media influences.

 

For example, when these women were young they would look up to child/teenage actors (like miley cyrus) who plays a character role that go through difficult situations that is very similar to their own lives.  They build an emotional association with that celebrity.  Then when these teenage actors become adults, hollywood would obv want to profit from their appeal.  Dressing and behaving provocatively is always a requirement for these celebrities (as we seen in the case of milye cyrus).  Then when the female fans grow up as well and see how this celebrity behaves, a celebrity that they were emotionally attached to for many years, (absent of religion/morality/self-discipline) they're going to follow in the same footsteps.

 

Now the question is, what pushed these young women to constantly watch these celebrities and start to associate themselves with them emotionally?

 

Often times this is because there is a lack of strong family connection/support.  And the reason there is a lack of family support, is because mom and dad are too damn busy working to make a living in a predatory war-like/inflationary economy where there is a policy that threatens and coerces them with arrest if they don't cough up a large chunk of their income.  While the parents are busy tiring themselves at work, just to cover the cost of living, their young daughters are left alone at home being raised up by the Television and pop/hollywood culture.

Edited November 7, 2013 by fibonacci

[polymath07]

For some reason unknown, I'm unable to post my lengthy reply. I've been trying throughout the day, to no avail.

[polymath07]

If you want to critique my argument, please counter it with a logical argument without the adjectives.

At no point in my post did I use an ad hominem to counter your poor arguments. I indicated the flaws in your argument first, then I questioned your understanding and motive at the end because I was justified. My first response needs no fixing. It's there for you to either counter or concede defeat.

Also please let me know if you work for in the public sector, I want to be perfectly sure there is no bias on your part. Also please say it under a gassam/vow.

I am reading English, law, politics and sociology at college. Critical, objective thinking is needed to pass the course.

Now with this guarantee income later in life, one has to examine the incentives one gets in dealing with their kids before and after this policy -- assuming everything else being equal.

Prior to this policy, one had no certainty about their future, there was no guarantee. Therefore there was a direct financial incentive to raising your kids with extra attention, vigilance and kindness, in the hopes that if anything happens later in life, your kids can always support you. You don't want to neglect them or abuse them which could result in backlash later in life.

But when you get a policy that guarantees 'free' money and healthcare support in the future, it gives you a relatively less incentive to be extra supportive or be vigilant when it comes to raising your child.

Do you understand this point? Can you tell me where I'm logically incorrect in this argument.

The reason for parental abuse of children involves a variety of different factors. It does not invariably stem from the prospect of being subsidised by the government in your senior age. Again, it's a generalisation and a bizarre one at that. You haven't an iota of proof for this claim. You have made up a "cause" for child abuse out of thin air to conveniently carry your narrative of the government performing malicious economic activities with the sinister purpose of promoting "immorality."

You seem to think that most parents treat their kids well only because they want to have their financial support after they retire. It's garbage. You've generalised human psychology itself. Have you forgotten that the government offers food stamps or welfare to parents who have a child? Bad parents could produce children for the sake of receiving welfare and neglect them. There is evidence of this happening unfortunately.

Are you going to be consistent by accusing government welfare of inspiring immodesty into children? In this case, who do you think is actually responsible? The system or the people who abuse it?

In my earlier posts, I was trying to convey the message that the economic system that we live under today, is structured in a way that the vast amount of the wealth goes to nonreligious people. I can elaborate more on this point if you like, but just know that these nonreligious people make the majority of their income/profits through sin or by capitalizing on vices of society (the easiest ways to earning an income). Because of the sinful nature of their profession, it would be very uncomfortable for them to have a relationship with an individual who is religious who keeps judging them, and constantly reminds them about the immoral nature of their livelihood. They would rather be in a relationship with someone who doesn't pay attention to morals and religion.

Name and shame. Which specifically sinister industries are you talking about? Just clothing brands? Do all "non religious" people invest their capital in immorality? Are those working in these retail chains all immoral by virtue of the fact that they provide a service to an "immoral" business in order to earn a living? Do you understand that there are different cultural perceptions of what constitutes folkways, mores and taboos, particularly in terms of dress sense? Do you realise the world doesn't revolve around your ideological persuasion? Can you explain how you can have a free and open society if the state dictates what goods and services are allowed and not allowed?

Now for a women who has been abused and neglected in their youth, they obviously grow up with an extremely low self-esteem.

Obtaining materialistic good is the most trivial way to treat the symptoms of low self-esteem (obv it is not a cure, but just a temporary treatment... ie. a temporary 'high').

Therefore these naive women would naturally seek a partner that can get them the most amount of materialistic good which could treat their low self-esteem (like an addictive drug).

The men who are the most capable in satisfying these needs, are those explained above. Men who's livelihood depends on profiting from sinning or indulging in various vices.

This is a prejudiced cliché. Who are you to say that all abused children grow up with low self esteem? Some children grow up gaining wisdom from the mistakes of others or have supportive friends inspiring them to reverse the cesspool of their circumstance, etc. And who are you to say that all those females with low self-esteem resort to mindless materialism and seek an immoral partner? Low self-esteem manifests itself in different ways, and! once again, you're only narrowing down the effects to what fits in your convoluted narrative.

Obviously there are much less of these wealthy men compared to the many low self-esteemed women. The women have to therefore compete with one another to get the attention of these men.

These caricatured female types you're illustrating capture the attention of all sorts of men, not just the wealthy, and aren't all looking for wealthy men for the sake of wealth. Wealthy men aren't all selecting their partner based on how it makes their nether regions feel. This is shallow. In case you don't know, it's not always just the dress that appeals. There are many variables.

Here is the fundamental problem. You see women dress to your disliking, "less means more," and your prejudice kicks in that they probably don't respect themselves. Their reality is projected to the contrary, however. They feel empowered, elegant, respected and confident within themselves.

It's obvious that the vast majority of nonreligous women are dressing provocatively because of peer pressure and media influences.

Yes, the media influences people in different ways. You're not really saying anything novel. However, immodesty is subjective and has a whole variety of causes.

Often times this is because there is a lack of strong family connection/support.  And the reason there is a lack of family support, is because mom and dad are too damn busy working to make a living in a predatory war-like/inflationary economy where there is a policy that threatens and coerces them with arrest if they don't cough up a large chunk of their income.  While the parents are busy tiring themselves at work, just to cover the cost of living, their young daughters are left alone at home being raised up by the Television and pop/hollywood culture.

Give me corroborating evidence that girls on a wide scale are engaging in the glamour of celebrity and entertainment because they're neglected by their parents. Or you're simply talking out of your derrière.

If parents are unable to live within their means while saving up, that's their fault. Not the fault of the way the economy is set up.

Edited November 8, 2013 by polymath07

[fibonacci]

At no point in my post did I use an ad hominem to counter your poor arguments. I indicated the flaws in your argument first, then I questioned your understanding and motive at the end because I was justified. My first response needs no fixing. It's there for you to either counter or concede defeat.

 

Can you please acknowledge for me that the following statement is or is not an ad hominem attack:

 

... to support your conspiracy theory makes you an idiot.

 

 

 

I am reading English, law, politics and sociology at college. Critical, objective thinking is needed to pass the course.

 

So are you attending a public or private college.  Are you getting student loans from the gov? 

I want to make sure 100% that your current state of livelihood does or does not depend on fiscal policy.

 

 

The reason for parental abuse of children involves a variety of different factors. It does not invariably stem from the prospect of being subsidised by the government in your senior age. Again, it's a generalisation and a bizarre one at that. You haven't an iota of proof for this claim. You have made up a "cause" for child abuse out of thin air to conveniently carry your narrative of the government performing malicious economic activities with the sinister purpose of promoting "immorality."

 

Before I address the rest of your post, I want to know if you agree or disagree with my point that the gov (via policy) is performing malicious economic activities.

 

This is an important proposition for my argument, and I request that I get a yes or no answer regarding your position on it.

 

Let's deal with this point first.  Also my argument is that the increase in social immorality is merely a symptom of these various malicious economic activities.

 

 

You seem to think that most parents treat their kids well only because they want to have their financial support after they retire. It's garbage. You've generalised human psychology itself. Have you forgotten that the government offers food stamps or welfare to parents who have a child? Bad parents could produce children for the sake of receiving welfare and neglect them. There is evidence of this happening unfortunately.

Are you going to be consistent by accusing government welfare of inspiring immodesty into children? In this case, who do you think is actually responsible? The system or the people who abuse it?

Name and shame. Which specifically sinister industries are you talking about? Just clothing brands? Do all "non religious" people invest their capital in immorality? Are those working in these retail chains all immoral by virtue of the fact that they provide a service to an "immoral" business in order to earn a living? Do you understand that there are different cultural perceptions of what constitutes folkways, mores and taboos, particularly in terms of dress sense? Do you realise the world doesn't revolve around your ideological persuasion? Can you explain how you can have a free and open society if the state dictates what goods and services are allowed and not allowed?

This is a prejudiced cliché. Who are you to say that all abused children grow up with low self esteem? Some children grow up gaining wisdom from the mistakes of others or have supportive friends inspiring them to reverse the cesspool of their circumstance, etc. And who are you to say that all those females with low self-esteem resort to mindless materialism and seek an immoral partner? Low self-esteem manifests itself in different ways, and! once again, you're only narrowing down the effects to what fits in your convoluted narrative.

These caricatured female types you're illustrating capture the attention of all sorts of men, not just the wealthy, and aren't all looking for wealthy men for the sake of wealth. Wealthy men aren't all selecting their partner based on how it makes their nether regions feel. This is shallow. In case you don't know, it's not always just the dress that appeals. There are many variables.

Here is the fundamental problem. You see women dress to your disliking, "less means more," and your prejudice kicks in that they probably don't respect themselves. Their reality is projected to the contrary, however. They feel empowered, elegant, respected and confident within themselves.

Yes, the media influences people in different ways. You're not really saying anything novel. However, immodesty is subjective and has a whole variety of causes.

Give me corroborating evidence that girls on a wide scale are engaging in the glamour of celebrity and entertainment because they're neglected by their parents. Or you're simply talking out of your derrière.

If parents are unable to live within their means while saving up, that's their fault. Not the fault of the way the economy is set up.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2013 by fibonacci

[polymath07]

Can you please acknowledge for me that the following statement is or is not an ad hominem attack:

Do you suffer from selective hearing?

At no point in my post did I use an ad hominem to counter your poor arguments. I indicated the flaws in your argument first, then I questioned your understanding and motive at the end because I was justified. My first response needs no fixing. It's there for you to either counter or concede defeat.

An ad hominem is a fallacy used in argumentation to dismiss the opponents' argument by attacking the personality rather than the position they're maintaining. I didn't do that.

So are you attending a public or private college. Are you getting student loans from the gov?

I want to make sure 100% that your current state of livelihood does or does not depend on fiscal policy.

What does it matter to you? You're on the verge of committing an ad hominem. Regard the argument for what it is worth. I'm not in collusion with your arch nemesis, but even if I was it shouldn't matter. If you're incapable of having a debate with someone who defends the current economic system, it means your arguments are weak. My entire argument against your position is predicated purely on logic and reasoning, not bias.

Out of interest, what is your beef with student loans?

Before I address the rest of your post, I want to know if you agree or disagree with my point that the gov (via policy) is performing malicious economic activities.

This is a proposition you're yet to prove to me. Our entire debate is focused on this question. I don't understand why you're so eager to coerce a preconceived conclusion. How can we determine anything unless you're willing to engage with the points I have already made against your position? I am waiting for you to respond to them. In the meantime I'll try to address a few of your other key arguments at the start of this thread.

[fibonacci]

Do you suffer from selective hearing?

 

 

Again, I ask you kindly again, please lay off the ad hominem attacks.  If you want to have a proper debate, please show some respect, otherwise you're wasting both of our time.

 

What does my hearing have to do with reading your post?

 

 

 

An ad hominem is a fallacy used in argumentation to dismiss the opponents' argument by attacking the personality rather than the position they're maintaining. I didn't do that.

 

I didn't ask you to give me the definition of ad hominem.  I merely wanted to point out to other readers your position on those quotes.  Many would argue that your use of the words "idiot" and "conspiracy" in belittling my argument, was an abusive ad hominem attack.

 

 

What does it matter to you? You're on the verge of committing an ad hominem. Regard the argument for what it is worth. I'm not in collusion with your arch nemesis, but even if I was it shouldn't matter. If you're incapable of having a debate with someone who defends the current economic system, it means your arguments are weak. My entire argument against your position is predicated purely on logic and reasoning, not bias.

 

It's not my intention to invalidate ones argument simply because they are a direct financial beneficiary/dependent of the very policies I'm debating against. 

It's merely helps me to know where you're coming from.

 

 

Out of interest, what is your beef with student loans?

This is a proposition you're yet to prove to me. Our entire debate is focused on this question. I don't understand why you're so eager to coerce a preconceived conclusion. How can we determine anything unless you're willing to engage with the points I have already made against your position? I am waiting for you to respond to them. In the meantime I'll try to address a few of your other key arguments at the start of this thread.

 

Okay so I'll try to address both.  Student Loans like most gov subsidies exists because they're financed by three primary sources (presuming you live in the west):

 

1.  Through taxation.

2.  Through a loan from a foreign creditor nation.

3.  Through the issuance of bond a that is monetized mainly by a central bank (ie. printing money)

 

I argue that the methods used in all three sources in order to financed those subsidies (and economic activity) is immoral/wrong/malicious/harmful/.etc.  Here's why,

 

Method 1 for example is only possible because people are threatened and coerced with violence/arrest if they do not comply.

Method 2 and 3 is possible mainly because the unborn future generations who have no say in the matter is used as collateral.  This means they too will be eventually threatened/coerced with violence if they do not comply.

 

In both cases, I argue that this behavior is immoral/wrong/malicious/harmful/etc.

 

Now tell me, do you agree or disagree with me on this point?

If you disagree, please justify for me how the use of threats/violence/coercion to finance those subsidies is not immoral.  Feel free to site Quranic verses to justify your position.

Edited November 8, 2013 by fibonacci

[polymath07]

Method 1 for example is only possible because people are threatened and coerced with violence/arrest if they do not comply.

Well, I'm genuinely interested to know what your alternative is to taxation. Because if you have no alternative to the current method of redistribution of wealth then you have no meaningful argument here.

Method 2 and 3 is possible mainly because the unborn future generations who have no say in the matter is used as collateral.  This means they too will be eventually threatened/coerced with violence if they do not comply.

Can you please expand on what you mean by "collateral?" Does the government burden people with heavy fiscal policy? If so, give a lucid example and tell me about the effects.

[EthidiumIodide]

Kudos to polymath for eloquently dismissing this argument. Other than using the word "idiot", nothing he said could be construed as an attack "to the man".

 

Again, I ask you kindly again, please lay off the ad hominem attacks.  If you want to have a proper debate, please show some respect, otherwise you're wasting both of our time.

 

 

What is so appalling to me is that fibonacci is implying that all non-muslims are hedonistic half-naked sin-lovers who can't wait to have babies out of wedlock on the public dime, yet he considers someone calling him out on "selective hearing" as offensive and ad hominem. 

[fibonacci]

Well, I'm genuinely interested to know what your alternative is to taxation. Because if you have no alternative to the current method of redistribution of wealth then you have no meaningful argument here.

Can you please expand on what you mean by "collateral?" Does the government burden people with heavy fiscal policy? If so, give a lucid example and tell me about the effects.

 

Do you realize what you're saying here?

 

It's like you and I are debating in the 1800s, and I tell you, hey slaves shouldn't be used to pick cotton.  Then you respond by saying, then how would the cotton be picked?  And if I don't give you an alternative then I have no meaningful argument.

 

I mean how about we start by first dropping the leash/weapon?

 

The fact that you're responding in this fashion, clearly shows that you can't connect with the abstract violence at a visceral level.

 

So I'll say this...

 

I respect your position of disagreeing with me on the use of violence to take money from a group of people, and instead give it to another group like students who wish to get a degree in arts and social sciences (and at the same time also learn how to  mix drinks, getting wasted, worshiping football, ...etc.).  So I respect your disagreement with me and I won't use violence against you just because you're disagreeing with me.

 

Now the question is, would you give me the same level of respect?

 

That is, will you respect my position and that you won't use violence against me just because I disagree with you?

Edited November 9, 2013 by fibonacci

[Haji 2003]

So to sum it up as simply as possible... monetary policy is essentially shortchanging the currency that everyone uses day by day—and it is done stealthily.  This is why iyou see as the years go by, prices keep going up and up.

 

In any economic system there will be inflationary pressures. Take the simplest barter economy where people exchange grains with each other. A good wheat harvest will be inflationary to the extent that people who grow wheat will effectively have more of their own produce chasing after the same quantity of other grains. The price of wheat will effectively fall against that of other grains.

 

A more sophisticated economy, using say gold as a currency, will face similar pressures. If someone finds a new supply of gold the price of everything will go up in terms of gold (this is actually what happened when the Europeans discovered the gold of the Incas/Aztecs).

 

So to blame inflation on modern monetary policy is not entirely fair.

 

Indeed, say there is a simple economy that has very bad harvests of all agricultural products: it will face massive inflationary pressure even with a constant money supply i.e. the same amount of money will be chasing after fewer and fewer goods, thereby bidding up their prices.

[polymath07]

It's like you and I are debating in the 1800s, and I tell you, hey slaves shouldn't be used to pick cotton.  Then you respond by saying, then how would the cotton be picked?  And if I don't give you an alternative then I have no meaningful argument.

Of course you wouldn't. Why would you? How exactly do you battle ignorance with ignorance?

That is, will you respect my position and that you won't use violence against me just because I disagree with you?

I don't quite follow, but no, I won't use violence against you. However, if your disagreement conflicts with my interests then some sort of show down will have to take place inevitably.

[fibonacci]

Of course you wouldn't. Why would you? How exactly do you battle ignorance with ignorance?

 

I'm not sure you understood my analogy.  Basically it's like you're saying that if I don't give you an answer on how cotton should be picked without slaves, then I have no meaningful argument.

 

 

I don't quite follow, but no, I won't use violence against you. However, if your disagreement conflicts with my interests then some sort of show down will have to take place inevitably.

 

Okay good, so I don't agree with you in regards to taxes.  There are clearly many others who have the same position.  So you admit that you won't use violence against any of them.

 

So basically you accept my original argument that it is wrong to use violence to collect taxes.

 

Do you follow me so far?

[polymath07]

I'm not sure you understood my analogy.  Basically it's like you're saying that if I don't give you an answer on how cotton should be picked without slaves, then I have no meaningful argument.

You're wilfully ignoring my question. How do you have a meaningful argument?

That slaves are the only means to pick cotton would be the extent of my knowledge. Beyond that I am ignorant. To correct me you would have to offer better, viable alternatives for how cotton can be picked, not just tell me how wrong it is.

Okay good, so I don't agree with you in regards to taxes.  There are clearly many others who have the same position.  So you admit that you won't use violence against any of them.

 

So basically you accept my original argument that it is wrong to use violence to collect taxes.

Your analogy is flawed. Agreements or disagreements in formal debates are optional, not binding. Legislation concerning tax is legally binding. If you want to be a law abiding citizen, pay tax. If you don't pay tax, face the penalties.

If legal coercion did not exist then no one would pay tax. And if no one paid tax, what do you think would happen to society? What is the rationale for why the government levies a tax in the first place?

[fibonacci]

You're wilfully ignoring my question. How do you have a meaningful argument?

That slaves are the only means to pick cotton would be the extent of my knowledge. Beyond that I am ignorant. To correct me you would have to offer better, viable alternatives for how cotton can be picked, not just tell me how wrong it is.

 

I don't understand how you consider an ethical argument, like hey don't coerce the slaves into picking cotton is an ignorant comment.  The how that you are demanding is a completely different issue (it just leads to red herring).  I'm merely debating on the ethics/virtue of the situation.  In the last sentence you say 'how wrong it is', so does this mean you acknowledge that the violence is indeed wrong?

 

 

 

Your analogy is flawed. Agreements or disagreements in formal debates are optional, not binding. Legislation concerning tax is legally binding. If you want to be a law abiding citizen, pay tax. If you don't pay tax, face the penalties.

 

Let's try this again...

 

What I'm trying to say is this...that I'm okay with you disagreeing with me, and I won't use force against you if you choose to act upon our disagreement.  That is, I won't use violent force to stop you if you wish to pay taxes to people like Rumsfield so they can go invade Iraq where our fellow shia brothers can get unpleasant surprises.

 

Now all I want to know is if you'll give me the same level of respect.

 

Will you allow me to disagree with you, and you will not support the use of violent force against me if I chose to act upon that disagreement?

Edited November 10, 2013 by fibonacci

[polymath07]

I don't understand how you consider an ethical argument, like hey don't coerce the slaves into picking cotton is an ignorant comment. The how that you are demanding is a completely different issue (it just leads to red herring). I'm merely debating on the ethics/virtue of the situation. In the last sentence you say 'how wrong it is', so does this mean you acknowledge that the violence is indeed wrong?

Well, no, I don't deem it wrong in this context because enforcement (not violence; let's not get carried away) isn't wrong if it is necessary and serves a purpose. I can't see how tax is unethical if you can't enlighten me with an alternative, or explain why it isn't necessary.

What I'm trying to say is this...that I'm okay with you disagreeing with me, and I won't use force against you if you choose to act upon our disagreement. That is, I won't use violent force to stop you if you wish to pay taxes to people like Rumsfield so they can go invade Iraq where our fellow shia brothers can get unpleasant surprises.

I will use force against you if you don't pay your taxes. Because I am the law. You must obey the law. If you want to create a pressure group to get rid of me, you need to have not only valid reasons but also a workable alternative to meet the same ends. Until then I, as the piece of law, will see to it that you obey me. Or face the legal consequence.

[fibonacci]

Well, no, I don't deem it wrong in this context because enforcement (not violence; let's not get carried away) isn't wrong if it is necessary and serves a purpose. I can't see how tax is unethical if you can't enlighten me with an alternative, or explain why it isn't necessary.

I will use force against you if you don't pay your taxes. Because I am the law. You must obey the law. If you want to create a pressure group to get rid of me, you need to have not only valid reasons but also a workable alternative to meet the same ends. Until then I, as the piece of law, will see to it that you obey me. Or face the legal consequence.

 

Ok so you admit that if someone disagrees with you on taxes, and chooses to act upon the disagreement (not paying taxes), then you would not only support violent force but if it was required of you, you're more than happy to be the one pulling the trigger.

 

Am I correct?

 

Personally I doubt you would do such a thing, and that you're just saying this because of your ego.

 

But in order to remove the doubt, can you tell me if you're willing to make a religious vow/qassam on your position in regards to this issue?

Edited November 11, 2013 by fibonacci

[EthidiumIodide]

 

But in order to remove the doubt, can you tell me if you're willing to make a religious vow/qassam on your position in regards to this issue?

 

What if you are arguing with a secularist?

[monad]

 

I will use force against you if you don't pay your taxes. Because I am the law. You must obey the law. If you want to create a pressure group to get rid of me, you need to have not only valid reasons but also a workable alternative to meet the same ends. Until then I, as the piece of law, will see to it that you obey me. Or face the legal consequence.

Who defines the law, how did the one in power become to uphold and create the law, is your law based on justice or authority, is your law the ideal of control over the masses or a requirement for growth?

 

No man is required to pay taxes, unless that man has signed up to the system and has revoked his rights for sovereignty. ( freedom ). Does the Pope pay taxes? or any of the Monarchs?. No?, why not?, are they not the same as any other human on earth?. So why does the slave class pay taxes?, who gives the authority to the ruling class to demand taxes on the bottom feeders?. Rights or authority?. Who gives one the right over the other of ownership?. Strength? intelligence? power? divinity? social class? bloodlines?

 

Obligation is properly introduced into the mind of a man by a superior, that is, a person who has not only the power to bring some harm at once upon those who resist, but also just grounds for his claim that the freedom of our will should be limited at his discretion. For when these conditions are found in anyone, he has only to intimate his wish, and there must arise in men's minds a fear that is tempered with respect, the former in view of his power, the latter in consideration of the reasons, which, were there no fear, must still induce one to embrace his will.

 

For whoever is unable to assign any other reason why he wishes to impose an obligation upon me against my will, except mere power, can indeed frighten me into thinking it better for a time to obey him, to avoid a greater evil; but, once that fear is removed, nothing further remains to prevent my acting according to my will rather than his. Conversely, if he has indeed the reasons which make it my duty to obey him, but lacks the power of inflicting any harm upon me, I may with impunity neglect his commands, unless a more powerful person comes to assert the authority upon which I have trampled. Now the reasons why one may rightly demand that another obey him are: in case some conspicuous benefits have come to the latter from the former; or if it be proved that he wishes the other well, and is also better able than the man himself to provide for him, and at the same time actually claims control over the other; and finally if a man has willingly subjected himself to another and agreed to his control.

 

But that the law may exert its power in the minds of those for whom it is made, knowledge both of the lawgiver and of the law itself is required. For no man will be able to yield obedience, if he knows neither whom he ought to obey, nor to what he is obligated.

 

Whatever is enjoined upon a man by the laws ought not only to be within his powers, for whom they are made, but should also bring some advantage either to the man himself or to others. For as it would be absurd and cruel to attempt-under threat of a penalty to exact from a man what is and has always been beyond his powers, so it is idle to constrain the natural freedom of the will, if no advantage for anybody be derived therefrom.

 

Justice, however, is sometimes an attribute of actions, sometimes of persons. When justice is attributed to a person, it is commonly denned as the "constant and perpetual will to render to every man his due."^[3] For he who delights in doing just deeds, who is devoted to justice, who in everything endeavors to do what is just, is called a just man. On the other hand the unjust is he who neglects to give every man his due, or thinks the measure must be not that of his duty, but of present advantage. Consequently not a few of the just man's acts may be unjust, and conversely. For the just man acts justly on account of the precept of the law, but unjustly only through weakness, while the unjust acts justly on account of the penalty annexed to the law, and unjustly from an evil character.

 

Having learned what justice is, it is easy to conclude what injustice is. But here one must observe that an unjust act, undertaken after premeditation, and violating what is by perfect right due another, or what he possessed by the same right, — no matter whence obtained, — that act is properly called an injury. And this happens in three ways: if one is refused a thing which he could by his own right demand (not if something was due him out of mere humanity, or some such virtue); or if that is taken away from him which he rightly held, by a title valid against the aggressor; or if we inflict upon another some harm which we had not the right to inflict. For an injury, moreover, premeditation is required, and malice on the part of the doer. Failing this, harming another is called an accident or a fault, more or less serious, according to the seriousness of the thoughtlessness and neglect, in consequence of which the encounter occurred.

Edited November 11, 2013 by D3v1L

[baradar_jackson]

Who defines the law, how did the one in power become to uphold and create the law, is your law based on justice or authority, is your law the ideal of control over the masses or a requirement for growth?

 

No man is required to pay taxes, unless that man has signed up to the system and has revoked his rights for sovereignty. ( freedom ). Does the Pope pay taxes? or any of the Monarchs?. No?, why not?, are they not the same as any other human on earth?. So why does the slave class pay taxes?, who gives the authority to the ruling class to demand taxes on the bottom feeders?. Rights or authority?. Who gives one the right over the other of ownership?. Strength? intelligence? power? divinity? social class? bloodlines?

 

Obligation is properly introduced into the mind of a man by a superior, that is, a person who has not only the power to bring some harm at once upon those who resist, but also just grounds for his claim that the freedom of our will should be limited at his discretion. For when these conditions are found in anyone, he has only to intimate his wish, and there must arise in men's minds a fear that is tempered with respect, the former in view of his power, the latter in consideration of the reasons, which, were there no fear, must still induce one to embrace his will.

 

For whoever is unable to assign any other reason why he wishes to impose an obligation upon me against my will, except mere power, can indeed frighten me into thinking it better for a time to obey him, to avoid a greater evil; but, once that fear is removed, nothing further remains to prevent my acting according to my will rather than his. Conversely, if he has indeed the reasons which make it my duty to obey him, but lacks the power of inflicting any harm upon me, I may with impunity neglect his commands, unless a more powerful person comes to assert the authority upon which I have trampled. Now the reasons why one may rightly demand that another obey him are: in case some conspicuous benefits have come to the latter from the former; or if it be proved that he wishes the other well, and is also better able than the man himself to provide for him, and at the same time actually claims control over the other; and finally if a man has willingly subjected himself to another and agreed to his control.

 

But that the law may exert its power in the minds of those for whom it is made, knowledge both of the lawgiver and of the law itself is required. For no man will be able to yield obedience, if he knows neither whom he ought to obey, nor to what he is obligated.

 

Whatever is enjoined upon a man by the laws ought not only to be within his powers, for whom they are made, but should also bring some advantage either to the man himself or to others. For as it would be absurd and cruel to attempt-under threat of a penalty to exact from a man what is and has always been beyond his powers, so it is idle to constrain the natural freedom of the will, if no advantage for anybody be derived therefrom.

 

Justice, however, is sometimes an attribute of actions, sometimes of persons. When justice is attributed to a person, it is commonly denned as the "constant and perpetual will to render to every man his due."^[3] For he who delights in doing just deeds, who is devoted to justice, who in everything endeavors to do what is just, is called a just man. On the other hand the unjust is he who neglects to give every man his due, or thinks the measure must be not that of his duty, but of present advantage. Consequently not a few of the just man's acts may be unjust, and conversely. For the just man acts justly on account of the precept of the law, but unjustly only through weakness, while the unjust acts justly on account of the penalty annexed to the law, and unjustly from an evil character.

 

Having learned what justice is, it is easy to conclude what injustice is. But here one must observe that an unjust act, undertaken after premeditation, and violating what is by perfect right due another, or what he possessed by the same right, — no matter whence obtained, — that act is properly called an injury. And this happens in three ways: if one is refused a thing which he could by his own right demand (not if something was due him out of mere humanity, or some such virtue); or if that is taken away from him which he rightly held, by a title valid against the aggressor; or if we inflict upon another some harm which we had not the right to inflict. For an injury, moreover, premeditation is required, and malice on the part of the doer. Failing this, harming another is called an accident or a fault, more or less serious, according to the seriousness of the thoughtlessness and neglect, in consequence of which the encounter occurred.

 

 

Taxes used to be imposed on the monarch upon his subjects to fund his extravagant lifestyle.

 

Nowadays, taxes are not the friend of the modern monarchs (the super-rich tycoons and capitalists), but rather their enemy. So I don't understand your example.

[monad]

Just because we are told, that taxes are the enemy, especially to those with larges sums of money, does not make it real. Those in authority create the rules, within these rules are loop holes. These loop holes allow tax evasion or allocation of funds which enable tax evasion. And if you are super rich, there are hidden laws to evade it legally. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/12/323450/americas-richest-families-tax/

 

I know of a method, but have not read it properly. Not smart enough to understand it yet. And also, if small timers try this method, a lot of times get in trouble by the law. Strange huh. :)

 

The quotes are associated with the words that I used in my statement. I.e Justice, law,  right, authority.

[monad]

Thought  I might add this part regarding the use of force for tax.