Quote:
|
I dont really understand how "the tea party" is a rallying call of any American political movement.
|
Which explains why you are a Subject and we are Citizens.
Quote:
|
Is there really a part of the American government who wants to celebrate and glorify tax evasion??
|
Yes, a large part. And considering what those taxes they wish to evade frequently end up paying for, I'd think you would too. Less money in taxes means less money to bomb brown people, after all.
Quote:
|
I think its interesting that mainstream Republicans would use this action as a symbol for their movement.
|
The Republicans associating themselves with the TEA Party are hardly "Mainstream" within the republican party. The Drs. Paul, for instance, are staunchly anti-war, anti-Gitmo, and anti-bailout: all three of which began as "mainstream" Republican programmes and all three of which they've opposed from the start.
Quote:
|
So we'd be left to just hope that BP changes it's ways because otherwise people will be mean to them? What happens when large organizations that control resources vital to the operation of the economy figure out that they are impervious to social pressure and shunning?
|
Nobody is impervious to shunning; in commercial terms it's called a boycott. Ask Fuji, Smith & Wesson, Exxon, and the Montgomery Transport Authority how those work. There are no more monopolies anymore (aside from the State monopoly on Force), so no one company is -that- important to any one market, and with todays rapid flow of information none ever will be again, not until Shipstones are invented and probably not even then.
Quote:
|
Judges are just people who think silly outfits are a crucial part of sharing their opinions. Their opinions don't mean shit if no one is going to make sure their opinions are followed. This is where the coercive power of the state comes in. Even if the state just concerns itself with upholding court rulings, courts are filled with judges who are either elected by the people or appointed by the politicians? Wouldn't these judges, in a sense, be dictated by the ideologies in power? So isn't coercive state power, the kind that is at least partly defined by the ideology du jour unavoidable?
|
You miss the point. Civil disputes are best handled by the Courts because in such a case the Government has no stake, they stand to gain nothing. When the Gov't itself is the recipient of the penalty (fine, as opposed to judgment), there is a distinct incentive for accusation to become guilt, for hearsay to become evidence, and for justice to become "just us." My primary concern is removing the incentive for the State to enrich and aggrandize itself in the name of "justice."