Isbskins1 vs Osborn on Rand

[lsbskins1]

Notice:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This would be an instance where a Super Majority is Constitutionally required. To ammend the Constitution.

And this:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

...is another example of a super majority requirement, overturning a Presidential veto.

And finally, this:


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

...a super majority is required for impeachment.



A simple majority is all it takes to change most tax code. 51% wins. That is the law, that is how the Constitution stuctured our legislative process.

I know the difference between simple majority and super majority. You seem to struggle with the concept.

[Kamehameha34]

Lets break it down. If you do not pay your taxes, you can be arrested. Then the government must go to court and get an indictment.

Your analysis is flawed from the word go. The crime precedes the criminal trial, which precedes the deprivation of property.

That order. Ordering a deprivation of property, which precedes a crime if not obeyed, which then precedes a criminal trial is a botching of the wording.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Your analysis is flawed from the word go. The crime precedes the criminal trial, which precedes the deprivation of property. That order. Ordering a deprivation of property, which precedes a crime if not obeyed, which then precedes a criminal trial is a botching of the wording.

It is not a crime to tax. It has never been illegal to tax under our Constitution. Please explain, from the stand point of our justice system and not from some ideological position, how it is a crime to levy and collect taxes and how it is illegal to enforce existing, legally sound tax code.

[Kamehameha34]

how it is a crime to levy and collect taxes..

It isn't, it's a crime to deprive individuals of property without due process. Due process comes before the obligation to be deprived of property, so being arrested and taken to court for not paying your taxes doesn't qualify, I'm afraid.

Tax, when the constitution was written, meant only a voluntary tax. The income tax was invented several decades later.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It isn't, it's a crime to deprive individuals of property without due process. Due process comes before the obligation to be deprived of property, so being arrested and taken to court for not paying your taxes doesn't qualify, I'm afraid. Tax, when the constitution was written, meant only a voluntary tax. The income tax was invented several decades later.

Our tax code was written by the duly elected representatives of the people. You had a say in the process and the laws have been passed. The government is not "depriving" you, they are collecting what you owe. This is a misuse of language. It is dishonest and misleading. It is like arguing that the government must obtain your permission to force you to obey red lights. The government was granted the power to tax. It has the legal authority to do so. The majority of citizens in our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC agree that this is a power the government needs, and they do not vote to take this power away. They could, you know. But they do not. If you want to live in this country, accept it. Of course, you could refuse to pay, but then you would be arrested. Those are the rules.

And I have demonstrated that the Constitutional limitation on income tax was addressed in the Constitutonally proscibed manner. A Super Majority of states ratified the change. The people asked for, and got, the change they had every right to demand. We do live, you know, in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. If the founders had wanted or expected the Constitution to survive unchanged, they would have never built in the engine for change. So, your point is not a point at all, it is ideology raging against reality.

[Kamehameha34]

You had a say in the process and the laws have been passed.

Silly socialist, what if a majority of the voters support a policy that executes all people of non-European origins?

Does a majority have the right to suppress the rights of a minority?

The government is not "depriving" you, they are collecting what you owe.

Flawless reasoning.

"Why do I have to pay taxes?"
"Because you owe them."

You see, there's a gap in that little dialogue.

And I have demonstrated that the Constitutional limitation on income tax was addressed in the Constitutonally proscibed manner.

Correct. Just so we're clear, you should review the definition of proscribe.

We do live, you know, in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

I can understand how this can be a difficult concept for you as a socialist, but I can assure you, there's no need to capitalize. It doesn't help your understanding at all, it seems, and I can read just fine.

What you fail to understand is that this is a constitutionally limited democratic republic. It isn't mob rule.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Silly socialist, what if a majority of the voters support a policy that executes all people of non-European origins?

Then, they would be legally thwarted by this provision of the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...and this:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

...and this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Does a majority have the right to suppress the rights of a minority?

In certain cases, yes. If a minority believes they have a right to wear toxic chemical underwear, the majority can suppress that right where the state can show a compelling interest in doing so. The compelling interest in this case would be that exercising that "right" endangers others. In some cases, the compelling interest would be relieving the majority of an undue burden. Where no compelling interest exists, the minority right remains intact and protected.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Flawless reasoning. "Why do I have to pay taxes?" "Because you owe them." You see, there's a gap in that little dialogue.

You left out part of the reasoning. You have to pay taxes because the majority has voted for them and the state can enforce the will of the people. That is our system. You owe them because the majority has agreed that they are necessary. So, it goes:

Why do I have to pay taxes?
Because they are legally mandated by mutual agreement of the voting public, you live in a free and democratic society and therefore, you owe them.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct. Just so we're clear, you should review the definition of proscribe.

I meant it in this sense:

Etymology: Latin proscribere to publish, proscribe, from pro- before + scribere to write

That is, it was written for us beforehand so that we would know.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I can understand how this can be a difficult concept for you as a socialist, but I can assure you, there's no need to capitalize. It doesn't help your understanding at all, it seems, and I can read just fine. What you fail to understand is that this is a constitutionally limited democratic republic. It isn't mob rule.

It helps for those who seem to believe that the terms "democratic" and "republic" are mutually exclusive terms.

And I have acknowledged, over and over, the ways in which the Constitution limits government power. It does not forbid, it limits. It does not exhaustively stipulate allowed power. You have failed to demonstrate in any post how what I advocate is limited by the Constituion, you only imply over and over again that you are right. Please do not just repeat the contention, support and prove it.

[Kamehameha34]

Then, they would be legally thwarted by this provision of the Constitution:

Depriving someone of life falls under the same protections as depriving someone of property. Notice their proximity in the fifth amendment.


Killing someone is not cruel if done correctly, nor is it unusual if it's genocide.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to you, it is due process.

You claim that a simple majority is enough to force a minority into taxation. Well, the constitution puts equal value on life and property. Notice the frequence of the phrase "life, liberty, or property".

If you think forced taxation follows due process just because of a majority's support, you either say the same for genocide or submit to hypocrisy.

If a minority believes they have a right to wear toxic chemical underwear, the majority can suppress that right where the state can show a compelling interest in doing so.

Does it even register with you that the constitution is the pretext for this debate?

Wearing "toxic underwear" is not a constitutional right, and can not be constitutionally protected. It does, however, infringe upon the rights of those exposed to it.

It's not an issue of majority vs. minority. It's an issue of rights vs. no rights.

You have to pay taxes because the majority has voted for them and the state can enforce the will of the people.

As demonstrated, this botched view of the constitution validates genocide if a simple majority agrees with it.

You have failed to demonstrate in any post how what I advocate is limited by the Constituion

I've instead made you demonstrate that yourself, with each and every little example you provided above as to why genocide can't be supported by our government under any circumstance.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Depriving someone of life falls under the same protections as depriving someone of property. Notice their proximity in the fifth amendment. Killing someone is not cruel if done correctly, nor is it unusual if it's genocide. According to you, it is due process. You claim that a simple majority is enough to force a minority into taxation. Well, the constitution puts equal value on life and property. Notice the frequence of the phrase "life, liberty, or property". If you think forced taxation follows due process just because of a majority's support, you either say the same for genocide or submit to hypocrisy. Does it even register with you that the constitution is the pretext for this debate? Wearing "toxic underwear" is not a constitutional right, and can not be constitutionally protected. It does, however, infringe upon the rights of those exposed to it. It's not an issue of majority vs. minority. It's an issue of rights vs. no rights. As demonstrated, this botched view of the constitution validates genocide if a simple majority agrees with it. I've instead made you demonstrate that yourself, with each and every little example you provided above as to why genocide can't be supported by our government under any circumstance.

1)You must twist logic beyond all reason to arrive at these conclusions. But even if (and that does not mean I do since murder[taking life] is very often considered a capital offence and theft of your VCR[taking property] is not) I accepted your assertion that the Constituion puts property on an equal footing with life, you still have not shown how my position rids the Constitution of the equal protection clause. I can not deny a person life, liberty or property based on race, color, creed, religion or nationality. They are all equally citizens and equally protected. Your position is bullshit of the highest order. Genocidal behavior towards any catagory is not a legal option under our constitution nor is it acceptable in my world view. And if you will notice, I have already stated that denying a group, en mass, protected rights is the condition I laid upon the right to armed resistance to government. So take your assertion and shove it up your backparts. You yet again have to completely misrepresent my actual position in order to make yours seem reasonable. It is not a "right" to be free of taxation. It is not taking your property without due process to tax you. Demonstrate how that is the case or you have done nothing but repeat ideological clap trap yet again.

[Kamehameha34]

But even if (and that does not mean I do since murder[taking life] is very often considered a capital offence and theft of your VCR[taking property] is not) I accepted your assertion that the Constituion puts property on an equal footing with life, you still have not shown how my position rids the Constitution of the equal protection clause.

Just go through and read everything you quoted. Every time you see "life", you see it quickly followed by property. If you think the government has the right to infringe on property rights via taxation, then you must support the government having the right to induce a genocide, via the same channels, or you are a hypocrite.

That's how simple it is. There is nothing in the constitution that differentiates between life and property. If you think a simple majority can erase property rights, then that same majority could legally and constitutionally murder by your logic.

I'm not misrepresenting your position. I asked why a majority of people wouldn't simply be able to vote into enactment a policy which executed all Americans of non-European origin, and you gave me two passages from the constitution that protected property just as well as life.

You deconstructed your own argument. You're relying on a double standard. I really can't make it any simpler.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Just go through and read everything you quoted. Every time you see "life", you see it quickly followed by property. If you think the government has the right to infringe on property rights via taxation, then you must support the government having the right to induce a genocide, via the same channels, or you are a hypocrite. That's how simple it is. There is nothing in the constitution that differentiates between life and property. If you think a simple majority can erase property rights, then that same majority could legally and constitutionally murder by your logic. I'm not misrepresenting your position. I asked why a majority of people wouldn't simply be able to vote into enactment a policy which executed all Americans of non-European origin, and you gave me two passages from the constitution that protected property just as well as life. You deconstructed your own argument. You're relying on a double standard. I really can't make it any simpler.

Proximity does not determine equality. I donconstructed nothing. You are fabricating an argument based on an assumption that is further based on an assumption. You assume because the concept exists in your mind that property and life are equal that others share that view and that leads you to the assumption that the founders were obviously equating the concepts by mentioning them in the same sentence. Neither of these assumptions are correct. Again, I will bring to your attention that when the very same people who crafted our constitution were crafting the laws that govern our nation, they did not make it a capital offence to take someone's stool or blanket, both of which are obviously someone's property. And let us not forget, they provided for taxation themselves. If they felt property was sacrosanct in the manner you attribute, they would have made taxation illegal. They did not. They knew and understood that taxation was a necessary part of governance. Taxation is not now, and has never been voluntary. It is part of civic responsibility. Now, they did require that individuals have a voice in how taxes were levied and collected. That much is certain. But when it came down to brass tacks, the founders insisted that, not only did the government have the right to tax, it had the right to enforce that taxation through arms. Don't believe me? Read about Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. What you claim to be true, simply is not. History, when you are familiar with it, bears that out.

[Kamehameha34]

Proximity does not determine equality.

It does in this case..

The constitution essentially says that protection X applies to A, B, and C.

Every protecting that applies to A applies to B, and every protection that applies to C applies to A, etc.

You said that C, property, shouldn't get Y amount of protection. You're essentially saying that Y =/= X.

You could have run with this, if it was any way consistent with your other view.

You also said that A, life, should get Y amount of protection. ("Y amount of protection" means that it is a right that a simple majority can't vote away)

So you see, all words that apply to A apply to C. They are constitutional equals. You may not like the implication, but that's immaterial.

When you say that Y = A, and Y =/= C, then you are contradicting the fact that A = C.

It's simple. I'm not "fabricating" any argument, I've shown you conventionally and logically how your argument is completely absurd.

If they felt property was sacrosanct in the manner you attribute, they would have made taxation illegal. They did not.

The income tax didn't even exist until the mid-1800's! That's like asking our present lawmakers to illegalize "splooshing".

They did, however, leave behind constitutional guidelines which were designed to keep such things from happening, as you've unwittingly demonstrated.

Taxation is not now, and has never been voluntary. It is part of civic responsibility

That's a fabrication. There's nothing in our constitution about "civic responsibility", other than the implied requirement to respect the rights of others. You're making this up as you go along, and you're offering no support for your argument.

You've shown no support about why property and life should be treated differently, or about how the wording of the constitution supports your position's amount of respect for personal property.

You keep vomitting up phrases like "civic responsibility" - without any support of what it is or why I should follow it, or why it's a responsibility. "Civic responsibility" is just the kind of phrase that authoritatians use to feel justified in stripping rights from the citizens of a country. I have no responsibility to pay for your medical bills, I have no responsibility to pay for your child's school, I have no responsibility to pay for your parents' social security.

But when it came down to brass tacks, the founders insisted that, not only did the government have the right to tax, it had the right to enforce that taxation through arms. Don't believe me? Read about Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. What you claim to be true, simply is not. History, when you are familiar with it, bears that out.

Selective memory?

Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion were both about voluntary taxation. A simple glance at the context shows that. Even look at the name of the Whiskey rebellion, people rebelled because they thought the tax on whiskey was unfair!

I've been proposing a voluntary tax system, the only tax system the forefathers defended with force, in place of this constitutional abortion of an income tax all along.

Again, I will bring to your attention that when the very same people who crafted our constitution were crafting the laws that govern our nation, they did not make it a capital offence to take someone's stool or blanket, both of which are obviously someone's property.

So? It's still a crime. The fact that it's a smaller crime according to our legal system (not our constitution) doesn't mean that it's OK for the government to participate.

You assume because the concept exists in your mind that property and life are equal that others share that view and that leads you to the assumption that the founders were obviously equating the concepts by mentioning them in the same sentence.

No.. What led me to that conclusion was the fact that the constitution applies the same words to life as it does to property. They both belong 100% to the person that owns them, and that person has the sole right to it.

I'm not making this up, my argument is displayed for verification. "You made it up" is a pathetic attempt at copping out.

[Osborn F Enready]

Great arguments Kam, but more importantly, great patience.....

I can only take Isbskins and the convoluted logic for a few hours at a time, so my hat is off to you Kam.

[Kamehameha34]

I wasn't planning on staying if he repeated the same special pleading asininity for much longer, but thanks.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I wasn't planning on staying if he repeated the same special pleading asininity for much longer, but thanks.

*Cough* she *cough*

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It does in this case.. The constitution essentially says that protection X applies to A, B, and C. Every protecting that applies to A applies to B, and every protection that applies to C applies to A, etc. You said that C, property, shouldn't get Y amount of protection. You're essentially saying that Y =/= X. You could have run with this, if it was any way consistent with your other view. You also said that A, life, should get Y amount of protection. ("Y amount of protection" means that it is a right that a simple majority can't vote away) So you see, all words that apply to A apply to C. They are constitutional equals. You may not like the implication, but that's immaterial. When you say that Y = A, and Y =/= C, then you are contradicting the fact that A = C. It's simple. I'm not "fabricating" any argument, I've shown you conventionally and logically how your argument is completely absurd. The income tax didn't even exist until the mid-1800's! That's like asking our present lawmakers to illegalize "splooshing". They did, however, leave behind constitutional guidelines which were designed to keep such things from happening, as you've unwittingly demonstrated. That's a fabrication. There's nothing in our constitution about "civic responsibility", other than the implied requirement to respect the rights of others. You're making this up as you go along, and you're offering no support for your argument. You've shown no support about why property and life should be treated differently, or about how the wording of the constitution supports your position's amount of respect for personal property. You keep vomitting up phrases like "civic responsibility" - without any support of what it is or why I should follow it, or why it's a responsibility. "Civic responsibility" is just the kind of phrase that authoritatians use to feel justified in stripping rights from the citizens of a country. I have no responsibility to pay for your medical bills, I have no responsibility to pay for your child's school, I have no responsibility to pay for your parents' social security. Selective memory? Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion were both about voluntary taxation. A simple glance at the context shows that. Even look at the name of the Whiskey rebellion, people rebelled because they thought the tax on whiskey was unfair! I've been proposing a voluntary tax system, the only tax system the forefathers defended with force, in place of this constitutional abortion of an income tax all along. So? It's still a crime. The fact that it's a smaller crime according to our legal system (not our constitution) doesn't mean that it's OK for the government to participate. No.. What led me to that conclusion was the fact that the constitution applies the same words to life as it does to property. They both belong 100% to the person that owns them, and that person has the sole right to it. I'm not making this up, my argument is displayed for verification. "You made it up" is a pathetic attempt at copping out.

The Constitution is not a logic problem. The Constitution says what it says, and nowhere does it say "We hold that life is as property and property is as life." It gives a blanket of protection to your life, a blanket of protection to your liberty and a blanket of protection to your property. But it does not say at any time, in any place that A=B=C. It says A is protected. B is protected. C is protected. The equations of value are all in your own mind. In naming them, it grants protected status, it does not specifically grant equal status. That is not the purpose. Your skeleton could be equated to the Constitution. The skull encases the most vital part. The ribs encase another vital area, but the protection, though granted and important to preserving life, is not equal to the protection granted what is encased in the skull. It is all part of the same system, but the parts are not equal. You can not quote to me anywhere in the Constitution where the authors claim that life, liberty and property are to be considered of co-equal importance. It is not there. Therefore, your contention is not anything but your own construct. How you arrive at the conclusion that you have logically proven my contention to be false is really a mystery. Again, the Constitution is not, has never been and will never be a logic problem. It is a political document. Remember - Life=brain, Liberty=chest cavity, Property=Extremities. The skelton protects and supports it all. You could die if you break the femur or the humerous, but not as surely as you might die if the lungs or heart are damaged, but you really, really, really won't survive if your brain stem is damaged. The Constitution is a skelton. Life is what receives the greatest level of protection, liberty next amd property last. All matter, but life matters most. There is nothing illogical or inconsistant about it.

And the taxes under contention in either rebellion were hardly voluntary. How can you claim the need for consistency and claim that a group of people would attempt to rebel against a voluntary tax? That is absurd on it's face and basically proves that your "voluntary" designation is nothing more than a semantic game you play to give an illusion of consistancy.

And designation of "ownership" does not determine equality either. I may equally own a stick of butter and my car, but I do not value them equally. Another absurd contention.

Is it your contention that you have rights but no responsibilities? Really? Because the founders would disagree with you on that one, too. That is Rand, Objectivist clap trap and can be found nowhere in the thinking of the founders. I prefer to hold to a philosophy that not only remains consistant, but that is also consistant with preserving the rights of individuals AND therights of the community as a whole. Yours may consistantly support the "rights" of the individual, but it does so at the expense of the community. Any viable social philosophical system must protect both. "Reasoned self interest" is as protective of the group as "enlightened despotism" is protective of the individual. It only works in-so-far as every individual responds to reason. They all do not, any more than every despot will be enlightened. It is going to fail more often than it succeeds, therefore, it is not viable. And now, I am done with this thread. You Objectivists can now commence with telling each other how reasoned and patient you all are and how much of a sheeple, nanny-statist I am. In the end, we will not move each other. But, I feel my points can be taken and judged as presented, and I also feel confident that anyone who truely values common sense and reason will know who supports the more workable and productive position. Have fun telling each other how smart you are!

[Kamehameha34]

You don't deserve a response if you want to spew rhetoric at me instead of addressing my points.

The constitution essentially says that protection X applies to A, B, and C. Every protecting that applies to A applies to B, and every protection that applies to C applies to A, etc. You said that C, property, shouldn't get Y amount of protection. You're essentially saying that Y =/= X. You could have run with this, if it was any way consistent with your other view. You also said that A, life, should get Y amount of protection. ("Y amount of protection" means that it is a right that a simple majority can't vote away) So you see, all words that apply to A apply to C. They are constitutional equals. You may not like the implication, but that's immaterial. When you say that Y = A, and Y =/= C, then you are contradicting the fact that A = C.

I explain this thoroughly and succinctly and you can't muster more than a "well the constitution isn't supposed to be logical!"

I also feel confident that anyone who truely values common sense and reason will know who supports the more workable and productive position.

I'd sure hope so.

And designation of "ownership" does not determine equality either. I may equally own a stick of butter and my car, but I do not value them equally. Another absurd contention.

Good to know you only support the government when its crimes are only of "minor" degree.

Life is afforded every protection that property is under the constitution, and no more. Your position is unconstitutional if you assert that the government is justified in taking one but not the other.

You lose. You can stop digging now.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 need: a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation

Are those your own words? If not, please provide the source.

Within the contect of my statement, the word should be taken to mean "something a person will not survive without."

Forgive me if I take "survive" in the absolute physical sense. A person can thus survive on very little indeed, and gas is not necessary for survival.

So, if I have finacial obligations (rent, electricity bills, a family to feed)

Those are not things a person will not survive without, given the sense with which I use "survive".

I need to buy gas so that I can drive to work and earn the money to meet my obligations.

No, you don't. You could walk. You could ride a bicycle. You could take public transportation (e.g. a bus) or private transportation (e.g. a taxi). Of course, the latter two options may be more difficult to obtain.

I do not need to buy a DVD. I need to buy food. I do not need to buy a new TV.

Quite right! You do not need to buy gas either. :)

I can drive all day long and gas is 2.62 or 2.63 in every station within a range that would not mean I would burn more gas than I would make up for in a lesser price.

Please do not extend your personal situation to the rest of the country. Thanks!

I can go to Kroger or Wal-Mart, and might pay .05 cents less for the bread at one, but .05 cents more for the milk.

See above.

In this world, there ain't not [sic] real difference, one place to the next.

Forgive me if I take this claim as unsubstantiated. Therefore I will not regard it as valid until you (attempt to) provide substantiation.

(Now, before you say "Just because you don't take it as valid doesn't mean it's not valid", let me point out that, IMHO, the point of a debate is to persuade one's opponent to accept his arguments and point of view as true/valid. If you are not interested in that, and are using this either to pander to a perceived "audience" or to simply reassure yourself, then we might as well drop things where they are right now.)

If I have a certain education level, I make a certain entry level wage. If I am unskilled, I make what I make at Wal-Mart or K-Mart. If I am a coal miner, I don't make more at Pinnacle #17 than I do at Sago. My "power" is effectively nonexistant to effect any of those equations.

Really, so wages never vary from place to place? Also, see above about substantiation.

Moving to my specific expierence, in working for Borders Books and Music, wages offered were wages offered and were based on "industry standard". They paid what their survyes [sic] told them others were paying. Now, I'm not saying they were doing anything unusual. I am saying, individual workers can not "alter" their pay scale by shopping their labor. That is just fact. They need to work, they take the pay scale their training and skill level gets. Call it oligarchical collusion (as I would) or call it free market economics (as perhaps you would) the effect is the same.

Yet again, you claim something to be a fact, yet you provide no support for this wide-reaching claim. The personal anecdote you present does not support your claim. Viz., the wage situation and Borders does not prove that "individual workers [i.e. any worker anywhere] can not 'alter' their pay scale by shopping their labor". Unless you mean something less than universal qualification in your claim, I can see no way around this problem.

I have addressed this point in other threads. I am not saying their "can" be no such thing as private policing.

You seemed to be saying that public police is the only institution capable of imposing sanctions. Is that or is that not what you meant?

I am saying private policing is inherently more corruptable than public policing. I take that as a given in any discussion. That is my position. It is my position because logic tells me that if a private police force gets called by Joe Sixpack, who can afford to pay 100.00 dollars a month to police his house alone, to complain about a loud party that Remmy Grocerystoreowner is having, private police are going to make a bottom line calculation, and ignore Joe's complaint because if they bust Remmy, h