In defense of the slippery slope argument…

Loading

Liberals constantly decry conservatives’ slippery slope arguments against their progressive legislation as simply red herrings. Their refrain is usually “Don’t be absurd, no one’s trying to do _____ (insert the relevant slippery slope argument here).” They suggest that such an argument is mere hyperbole and conservatives are introducing ideas no one wants.

As usual, the liberals are wrong on both scores. History provides a rich trove of liberal camel noses leading to a tents full of camels.

The most famous of course is the income tax. In 1913 when the income tax was established, the top rates began at 1% on income over $20,000 ($450,000 in today’s dollars) and topped out at 6% for income over $500,000 ($11,430,000 today). Today, 100 years later, the income tax applies to virtually everyone earning more than $11,000 per year and tops out at 39.6% for incomes above $400,000. Think about that… the highest rate today applies to an income that would not even have qualified for the lowest tax bracket in 1913. And a tax code that started out four pages long is today four times as long as the Bible!

Then there is Roe v. Wade. In the run up to Roe v. Wade, liberals claimed women simply deserved the right to choose for themselves. How different would the arguments have been in the statehouses and courthouses if opponents could see that in 40 years the government would require abortifacients be available to underage girls without their parents’ consent or that government would be funding hundreds of thousands of abortions a year?

How about the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was intended to prohibit discrimination against the handicapped? What started out seeking sidewalk ramps, wider doors and job security for the handicapped has morphed into the government demanding companies allow alcoholics to drive trucks, forcing cities, towns and businesses to spend thousands of dollars or shut down swimming pools, or requiring companies to offer separate bathroom facilities to those too shy to pee in public bathrooms. Today the Americans with Disabilities Act has become a tort tool for lawyers and leaches to extort millions of dollars out of the pockets of small businesses.

Liberals may not like it, but the slippery slope is indeed a reality. What is outlandish hyperbole today is tomorrow’s reality. That is the fundamental nature of government. History clearly demonstrates the avaricious nature of government and its intent to expand its power in myriad ways once it gets a toehold in virtually any arena.

Unfortunately, the slippery slope is not just a parlor game. It has real consequences in the real world. Today there are two issues where the slippery slope argument is particularly relevant: gay marriage and guns.

Gay marriage: Liberals suggest the issue is simply one of equal rights for gays. All they want is for gay people to be able to marry like anyone else. Not surprisingly, conservatives see it as something quite different, and the slippery slope provides a compelling illustration. Conservatives say that if the definition of marriage is changed from one man to one woman, then on what grounds would the momentum for redefinition stop there, and would chaos not ensue? Two men and one woman? Three woman and four men? A village? A man and his son? (Jeremy Irons makes a valid point in asking why that shouldn’t be allowed as there is no chance of procreation.) And once gay marriage is legal, how long until gays demand to be married in the Catholic church or any other Christian church where the teachings are explicitly against homosexual marriage? (Ask the Boy Scouts about that.) Liberals of course say, that’s just and example of hyperbolic scare mongering or homophobia. Luckily we don’t have wait for history to see the chaos that lies around the corner. A Kansas town passed a resolution that would force churches to rent facilities for gay weddings. (This measure later lost at the ballot box.) A Florida judge has already allowed the listing of three people as parents of a child while a Kansas man is being sued for child support for acting as a sperm donor for a lesbian couple. Then of course there is the federal judge in Utah who is considering reversing the ban on polygamy. Liberals can call this slippery slope argument hollow, but the reality is that history is on the side of just such as slope.

Then there is gun regulation. In the wake of events like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine Americans are understandably concerned about gun violence. Unfortunately however the liberal solution is to seek to take the guns away from law abiding citizens, which seems particularly ludicrous as gun violence in the US has been declining dramatically for 20 years. While many Democrats are talking about “enhanced” background checks and bans on “assault style” rifles, make no mistake their goals are far more sinister and go much deeper.

Despite the 2nd Amendment’s explicit protection of the right to bear arms, liberals seek to ignore that right. Not sure? This too we don’t have to wait for history to demonstrate. The proof is already here. A Democratic proposal in Washington State would allow sheriffs the right to enter and inspect the homes of semi-automatic firearms owners annually. A new New York law allows police to track ammunition purchases and the state is already confiscating guns from people who were once on anti-anxiety medicine. Under a new Maryland law, gun buyers will have to be fingerprinted and licensed. The new Connecticut law now bans magazines over 10 rounds and outlaws the ownership of a variety of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. The argument is that government simply wants to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Of course that all hinges on who gets to decide who is “dangerous”… Remember, it wasn’t very long ago when Homeland Security suggested that “disgruntled war veterans” or “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” might be terrorist threats. No doubt 2nd Amendment advocates and small government Tea Party types are not far behind in being added to that list…

Of course this slippery slope history is exactly why conservatives advocate small, limited government. Government power is rapacious, arbitrary and virtually unstoppable once it gets started. Both conservatives and liberals recognize this. The difference is conservatives fear it while liberals count on it. Think about that the next time a liberal seeks brush aside your concerns by claiming “Your slippery slope argument is fallacious”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is the endgame now for our Constitutional Republic. The first dark ages were NOTHING compared to what we will face when this house of cards finally falls and the left really shows us how brutal the collective really is.
Our Founding Fathers were correct when they said that our Constitution would only work for a moral, Christian people. Our nation has long ago ceased being moral, and the leftists have been doing all in their power to rip out our Judeo-Christian roots.

Sometimes shame can slow this slippery slope.
Like a few weeks ago we were appalled when the Dept of Defense proposed a medal for contributions of unmanned aerial vehicle pilots and cyber troops that would hold higher honors than a Bronze Star with valor device or Purple Heart.

This idea has been thwarted at least for now.

Pentagon Cancels Controversial Unmanned and Cyber Medal

@Pete: #1
Our republic is dying, and those of us who love liberty and accept personal responsibility for the results of our decisions will, ultimately, lose.
Because those who lie will always be able to paint a more attractive picture of the future than those who speak the truth.
And the majority of voters of today will choose “pretty” over “substantive”.

this is an infringment on the PEOPLE, yes the OBAMA are taking away the CONSTITUTITION
line by line, he was in a hurry so to comply with the registration which
THE UN DEMAND FOR HIS GLOBAL DATA, that’s why I’m sure they rush like hell to comply
with who the OBAMA has been in bed with since before his first election,
no matter stepping on AMERICANS, as he did,
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE,

The Bookworm:

In 1973, Supreme Court justices used an emanation of a penumbra based upon an inference to find a “constitutional right to abortion” in the first trimester, with that individual woman’s right decreasing steadily until the third trimester, when the viable fetus became the state’s responsibility.

Since 1973, that trimester by trimester calculation has been abandoned so completely that a Planned Parenthood representative felt comfortable telling the Florida legislature that it was okay to “continue” an abortion if the baby manages to emerge alive. In some places, that’s called murder. Indeed, that’s why Kermit Gosnell is being tried for murder. In Planned Parenthood’s world, however, his work was constitutionally legitimate.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/04/08/the-fundamental-unconstitutionalism-of-obamas-presidency/
Slippery slope, anyone?
More like a cliff.

This is the destruction of our constitution and republic in increments. Incremental-ism, the very successful game plan of the left.

Look what they have done to smoking. Perfectly legal, first they stopped smoking on short flights of 1/2 hour or so, then longer flights, then inside the airport except in the bar, then everywhere in the airport, finally outside anywhere you might bump into someone, and now they want to ban smoking in the car with YOUR kids present. If they would have admitted the goal to start, the first ban would never have been acceptable, BUT THEY LIED. JUST LIKE THEY ARE LYING ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Don’t let them have a millimeter, it will be acknowledging YOU don’t have a RIGHT, GOVERNMENT IS THE ALL POWERFUL AND WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR “privilege”.

INCOME TAX
Eventually, everyone will be paying the highest income tax rate. The income tax was never set to adjust for inflation. When it was created, a person had to work their way up to paying an income tax. Then, they started at the lowest level, and worked their way up. This is why one person could earn enough to support their family, even if was a large family.

Since the income tax has never been adjusted for inflation, that I know of, the average first-time full-time employee starts out at a tax level that is above the lowest tax level. Every time there is inflation, and employee’s wages are adjusted for it, the federal government gets more tax money without raising taxes. If the income tax is never adjusted for inflation, eventually, the first-time full-time employee will start out at the highest tax level.

GAYS
Since I don’t belong to any religion or political party, I don’t have to defend any of their positions. I can think for myself. The word “marriage” should mean a union between a man and a woman. That should never change. What the gays need to do is come up with a generic name, or an existing name that might already exist somewhere in the world that means a union between same sex couples.

Anyone who says being gay is a choice has to admit that being straight is also a choice. For those who think this way, I ask at what age were you when you CHOSE to be straight? Why would anyone CHOSE a lifestyle they know will lead to them being hated, ridiculed, beaten, or even killed? I wondered about these things all of my life until a few years ago. I have listened to many gays tell their stories over the years. They all said the same thing: They didn’t CHOOSE to be gay, they just were. We all either CHOOSE to be gay, and CHOOSE to be straight, or we are BORN that way.

GUNS
Without the citizens having guns, a country is easier to take over.

IS IT ME, OR IS IT TREASON?
they use to hang the traitors,
now they give them a GOVERNMENT JOB AT THE TOP,
A UNIVERSITY TEACHER JOB BECAUSE OF THE ONE AT THE TOP POSITIONING HIS ALIKE FOLLOWERS,
we must revise the other jobs given to his alike, and money given to his alike thugs, or sneaks, or best contributers,
or foreigners contributers,
don’t kid yourself they all have guns,

Smorgasbord
hi, you know they never try to get help when they discover the anomaly,
with the research so advance today, the scientist have surely found a way to have the
problem fixed and returned to normal,
from the BRAIN? or the sexual connections, or the glands connection. or all together.

“Despite the 2nd Amendment’s explicit protection of the right to bear arms, liberals seek to ignore that right.”

My apologies, I am writing this after learning about the Boston Marathon Bombing. By ???

I couldn’t help thinking about this absurd argument…by the Liberal Left of course….regarding fire arms in the hands of RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE….and THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM…without the Liberal Narrative (think Nanny Bloomy and others.. ] of ‘who “needs” [operative word here is “needs”] such and such a fire arm…

My reaction is who the hell are these people to question a U.S. citizens right to the 2nd Amendment Right by throwing the “who needs” narrative???…. Who cares!!?

We all have ‘stuff’ we don’t ‘need’ !!! So, again who cares?? I love it when the liberals start to plot their straw man silly Narrative(s)… to justify…their hate and their ‘need’ for control over the population.

Perhaps the “who needs” narrative could ‘fit’ into a lot of the waste and spending that is prevalent in this Country and in this Government….The “Who needs ” Narrative can work both ways…

Vince
thank you for the good POST,
I think that, at the least the BRITISH where sent packing at the beginning,
but now the cause of PROBLEMS are tolerated until what they expect?
they think it will disapear if they don’t pay attention to it,
or if they think it’s not worth the effort like coward would do,
that is IGNORE IT.

THE BOSTON BOMBERS don’t have GUTS to come out and say who they are,
a bunch of cowards, show yourselves,
let us look at you, how small you are to have killed and disable the good people
for what? tell us if you have the guts,
or keep hiding like WORMS

petercat#3 says: “Because those who lie will always be able to paint a more attractive picture of the future than those who speak the truth.
And the majority of voters of today will choose “pretty” over “substantive”.”

Remember after 9/11 there was a consistent “terror alert” trailer on most news outlets Low-Medium-High [Orange I think it was]? I believe they actually did keep us vigilant. In ALL arenas and areas of our lives…

Then, I am not sure why, probably “Political Correctness” or fear of ‘hurting some sensibilities’ ….they disappeared…

All I know is the time they disappeared – I believe it was when the messiah, Ofraud, his ilk AND the utopia Liberal CROWD who were pretty much blathering the the top of any pillar for all “low information voters” to hear…. And Ofraud the Messiah [had lead people to believe ] that, he and he alone ‘conquered terrorism’ in a single bound…The “all is pretty crowd” bought it hook line and sinker….The future is ‘attractive again’ because Obama, Pelosi, Reid etal has said so… THEN America got Complacent…on Terror…once again….because of course – a bomb can’t happen at a Marathon??

The following excerpts pretty much say Bush kept those alerts alive because it boosted him [and the GOP] politically… Really? Is that why?? [think: Boston Marathon -Fort Hood – Times Square – Christmas Bomber…]

Homegrown or not, Boston just Got HIT and it WAS terrorism…

Toying With Terror Alerts?
By JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL Friday, July 07, 2006

No, I’m talking about a thought that even now seldom forces its way into respectable conversation: the quite reasonable suspicion that the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP’s poll numbers.
Now, I’m a respectable columnist. [???] I don’t want to draw rolled eyes. [ You did] But think about it.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html#ixzz2Qjv75OSs

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html#ixzz2Qju6CR53

9/11: FIVE YEARS LATER / Alerts aid terror goals, study finds / Intense media scrutiny and politicians’ rhetoric heighten sense of fear, researchers say
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, September 6, 2006

The official with the greatest ability to shift opinion on terrorism, the researchers found, is Bush, whose statements in the media about terrorism correlated highly with increases in the public’s perception of terrorism as a major national problem — and with increases in his approval ratings.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/9-11-FIVE-YEARS-LATER-Alerts-aid-terror-goals-2489666.php#ixzz2Qjt8uLlH

After the terror attack in Boston, it made me think – If someone is out to murder and maim they certainly don’t need a gun to do so…and, I believe this is just a prelude to what is to come… this has been a test…to see…the reaction… of people, police, FBI, CIA, President, our Federal Government, and all the Big Brother Cameras about…

What if the next hit is massive? [I am assuming those who caused Boston are the same people we have been dealing with since 9/11] What if THEY have guns?? When our 2nd Amendment rights are taken away…Then what are Americans to fight back with? Seven bullets in a chamber? A stick? A Bat? Scissors? Throw kool aide in their faces?

Our Politicians and our cities and towns have once again become complacent…thanks to Liberal bleeding heart policies…and their hatred against those who have common sense and a commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America…and laws in place to keep us safe…

@ilovebeeswarzone: #9
I believe a person’s genetic code decides their gender and sexual preference. There are thousands of babies born every year that have all of the female and male parts. The doctor FIXES it by asking the parents which they want, and makes it so. The child is still half woman and half man, and has all of the feelings and emotions of both. How do you fix that? Some things just can’t be fixed, and should be accepted.

I’ve been through this conversation different times, and ends in the way. I have my opinion, and others have theirs. I don’t try to push my opinions off on others. I just state mine and leave it at that.

Smorgasbord
yes I know your point,
I was also making a point under the advance of science,
of course one doesn’t fit all in SCIENCE also as NATURE also is not the same around the WORLD,
I was asking , if they can change the sex on a grown up person to his wish,
and leave it there, leave the rest intact. there where is my question coming some take something , before their intervention, we read that, so to their eyes, they feel legitimate , but their glands their brain
are the opposit gender, that was my point only,
I was not trying to discredit or accuse them, just trying to understand,
my friend had two son, I have seen them grow into man, one was different , he was gay,
it was noticeble his female tendency was visible, his father was trying to make him like his though guy brother, he start to hurt him insulting him from he being a young boy,
he develop many refine skills, it was amazing how gifted he became,
and also how tormented he was, his mother denied seeing it, he never told her,
but he had many partners, and all end up with violence,
so I learn some of his demons constantly holding him , he try to kill himself , still not a mature age
he could not live with either side,
a human tragedy,
it make you try to find if there is a solution, if it could be made back to normal, with the knowledge of science
not half way

@ilovebeeswarzone: #15
Who defines what “normal” is. I accept people the way they are. If “normal” means everybody being like everybody else, I want to be abnormal.

Smorgasbord
YES I do to accept PEOPLE as they are, but this POST is for opinions,
why not give it, nobody is force to read it or like it.
bye

@ilovebeeswarzone: #17
You and a lot of others think gays should seek mental health. This isn’t accepting them as they are. This is putting up with them until they are “normal.” As I have mentioned different times, I believe gays are born that way and can’t change any more than a straight person could be changed to live a gay life.

Smorgasbord
you got me wrong, I’m not against them, I don’t have hate for them,
I see them with no emotions negative or positive, I accept them living among us, I admire their accomplishments,
I was just seeking a solution if it exist to stop their torments, they don’t think there is any way for them to change, they have accepted their faith but the torment is always there for them, burryed underneat
their soul, so if a solution is found someday, many will be saved,

Smorgasbord homosexsuals
OBAMA is paying thousands for research of the snail sex,
why pay for a solution on the human sex mix multiple behaviors,
that would be worthwhile for a multiplying society
of HOMOSEXUAL activity.

@ilovebeeswarzone: #19
I don’t think they need to be fixed, and I will leave it at that.

@ilovebeeswarzone: #20
The congress decides spending issues. They can stop his spending any time.

Smorgasbord
yes, and I think he already got slowed down in his SPENDING,
that’s why he look so angry when he talk about the SEQUESTER, he said what he felt that is to wish
for the AMERICANS to be punish for not him having his demands met,
and he ask for unlimit card to spend on his own budget,
which was not taken
bye

@Smorgasbord: #7

Since I don’t belong to any religion or political party, I don’t have to defend any of their positions. I can think for myself. The word “marriage” should mean a union between a man and a woman. That should never change. What the gays need to do is come up with a generic name, or an existing name that might already exist somewhere in the world that means a union between same sex couples.

Anyone who says being gay is a choice has to admit that being straight is also a choice. For those who think this way, I ask at what age were you when you CHOSE to be straight? Why would anyone CHOSE a lifestyle they know will lead to them being hated, ridiculed, beaten, or even killed? I wondered about these things all of my life until a few years ago. I have listened to many gays tell their stories over the years. They all said the same thing: They didn’t CHOOSE to be gay, they just were. We all either CHOOSE to be gay, and CHOOSE to be straight, or we are BORN that way.

When I read these words above:

The word “marriage” should mean a union between a man and a woman. That should never change.

It made me think about how certain words become objectionable ‘because’ of who is ‘using’ the word. For example, the N word. It is only objectionable if white people are using it. Blacks like the word as long as it is them using it. “Queer” a word that those of that class use to describe themselves, but object if non-Q’s us it. Well, should the word ‘marriage’ become one of those words? Only a couple (a man and a woman) should be allowed to use that word: the ‘M’ word, members of that class should disapprove of anyone not in that class using that word. Now, of course, those outside the class may think the word applies correctly to others, but clearly only those in that ‘class’ of the “M” word should be able to refer to themselves as “married”. Let’s get on the bandwagon, if you ain’t “married” you can’t use the ‘M” word.

@ilovebeeswarzone: @Smorgasbord:
And Smorg, I also believe what you said is ‘fact’ not just an opinion. I’ve seen evidence that each person is born with a genetic makeup that can be anywhere from 100% male to 100% female and everywhere on the scale between the two. There are certainly many that are 50-50. While they might be able to make them one or the other ‘surgically’ I’m relatively sure that doesn’t change their brain/thoughts/actions.
However, since it appears that the great majority, probably 97% or more are born as one or the other, I don’t think the 97% should be made to change their whole sense of values and standards just so that the other 3% can ‘pretend’ to be part of the 97%. Some persons are born without ’emotions’ we don’t require society to ‘tolerate’ them.

Redteam
I like that idea, it was not thought about but it is very IMPORTANT,
that is the use of word by the eligible person deserving because belongning to the meaning of that WORD,
great find,
we don’t see much of the couple living together not married use the WORD MARRIAGE,
so why would another group not belonging to the WORD MARRIAGE decide they want it
for themselves,
thank you for that

@Redteam: #24
I agree that marriage should mean a union between a man and a woman. Gays need to come up with a different word. Gay used to mean a very happy person.

@Redteam: #25
The gays aren’t asking for anyone to “…change their whole sense of values and standards…” They just want to be accepted as they are, and I have finally done that.

Redteam
yes again,
you know, I think is their mixing some of the meaning of what is WHOLE and what is part of WHOLE.
like AMERICA is a whole COUNTRY unique by her CONSTITUTION,bill of right and commerce law,
which are each part of the whole UNITED STATES, EACH part of the WHOLE AMERICA,
the GOVERNMENT is divide in part of the WHOLE AMERICA, and THE PEOPLE are AMERICANS divided by politic party, religions each part of other religion, under a whole GOD unique,but all
separated within because of different nuances part of each, not counting other non believers also part of
the whole NATION, and so on the HOMOSEXUAL, they are also part of the whole AMERICA,
they are divided in part of themselves too because of nuances of group part of a number of groups
which are part of the whole AMERICA which is the NATION of all those parts unified by the AMERICA
her NAME is the name of all the HALF WHOLE which contain all the ladders of the parts,
it didn’t come out easy, bye

@Smorgasbord: Smorg:

The gays aren’t asking for anyone to “…change their whole sense of values and standards…” They just want to be accepted as they are, and I have finally done that.

I agree with you. I have no problems with persons wanting to live together and what they do in that arrangement. What I have a problem with is some things ‘such as’ wanting to use the word marriage to describe a homosexual relationship. I don’t think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children unless they meet the same standards as married persons are required to do. There are many married couples that can’t adopt, just apply the same standards.
You said:

The gays aren’t asking for anyone to…change their whole sense of values and standards…

I’m not sure if that is completely true. If my sense of value is that a marriage should be a man and a woman and a union should be the relationship between others, I’m not sure they would buy that and would insist I change my definition rather than they change theirs. I could use a few more examples, but you get the message. I personally hope everyone has a happy life and I would not do anything toward anyone to make their lives harder than it already is, both straight and gay.

@Redteam: #30
I agree that the word “marriage” should mean a union between a man and a woman.

I don’t think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children unless they meet the same standards as married persons are required to do.

I too am concerned about children being raised by a same sex couple. I’m guessing that children need both the motherly and the fatherly influence while growing up. Since I am not an expert on the subject, I will let the experts decide this issue.

As for changing values, we all need to admit that if something we were taught, or decided on our own, turned out to be wrong, we need to be ready to admit it and change accordingly. I have been wrong in many things in my lifetime, and had to change my values accordingly.

I grew up in small town USA during the time the blacks were trying to get equal rights, and didn’t know much about it except what was on TV. A lot of whites eventually willingly changed their minds that being black was OK. Some whites haven’t. All that the gays want is to be accepted as they are, just like we have learned to accept blacks just as they are.

The rivalry between blacks and whites is exactly like the rivalry between straights and gays. Nobody asks anybody when they are going to be born what race do they want to be, what country do you want to be born in, what amount of wealth or poverty do you want to be born in, do you want to be gay, straight or bisexual? They throw the dice and they get the numbers that come up.

As the topic of this colume is (or was) “the slippery slope,” a valid question might be “Is there ANY legitimate function of government?” I think that there is, and give the example of our government’s huge contribution (both of lives and money spent) toward winning World War II. I agree that there has been a huge and terribly wasteful “sloppery slope” in the context of governmental spending and the taxation used to pay for it. Yet I don’t think that a country as large, wealthy and ATTRACTIVE as ours can afford to not have in the form of military muscle an overwhelming deterrent to attack. No private enterprise is big or rich enough to take over this responsibility, so how shall the public pay for its defense if not through taxation?

Surely the prospect of excessive and wasteful spending isn’t so bad that we’d rather leave ourselves defenseless. Yet the “slippery slope” argument could have and can be used against all taxation, citing the example of the excessive spending we see today. How is this quandry to be resolved if not by finding a responsible compromise? I agree that both political parties have done a terrible job managing money, but I would suggest that even had we known the “slippery slope” risk from the onset, there was no way to avoid taxation. What we failed to do was control our collective appetite.

@George Wells: #32
One major problem with politicians is that they like to spend other people’s money. One problem with people is that they like to receive other people’s money. When there are enough people who want other people’s money, and enough politicians who want to give them other people’s money, there will always be other people’s money going to them. If there are ever over 50% of the voters who want other people’s money, then the politicians will never stop giving them other people’s money.

#33:

Hey, I couldn’t agree more! But we still have the problem that there are legitimate expenses that the nation must incur to remain viable, and somehow those expenses have to be paid for. Don’t they?

There are a whole lot of problems inherent in ANY system of government. Ours has the one you point out above, which is related both to a general greed and to to the fact that voters have a say (at least in a once- or twice-removed sense) and most of those voters are not REALLY qualified to make complicated decisions at a national level. That said, I can’t think of a better system than the one we have, flaws and all. So all I can try to do is find some common sense percpective that is simple enough for MOST people to understand, and then share it. No point in taking up arms every time there is a disagreement, as doing so really puts a crimp on everyone’s “pursuit of happiness.”

Your comment INFERS that a reasonable solution might be to take away the voting rights of the poorer half of the population, but as there are ever more and more poor people (in SPITE of all the money they are presumably voting for themselves), taking away what they ARE getting would certainly lead to violence on a scale that would be the end of us all.

I’m not happy about being held hostage in this manner, paying “tribute”, “bribe”, or “protection money” to the rabble who would otherwise take what they wanted anyway, but I can’t see what alternative we have. We tried building more prisons, and that really didn’t work too well. The cost of incarceration kept rising, and jails proved to be the best educational facilities available for turning out the next generation of criminals.

I suggested incorporating into the Law a “Sausage Clause.” This clause said that regardless of the crime (save for capital offenses) a convicted person got a brief stint behind bars and a warning about the “sausage clause”. If the felon did it again – or commited a second crime of equal or greater value (that’s smart marketing) then he’s made into sausage. Feed it to the dogs. The society has too much to pay for already, and it can’t afford to be nice to career criminals. If they can’t live without breaking the laws, then they can’t live. In my opinion, society has the right to control itself in this manner, but the idea hasn’t gotten much support. If it did, I bet there would be a WHOLE lot less crime, and paying for a war in Iraq while at the same time lowering taxes wouldn’t put us quite as far behind as it did.

You like sausage?

@ Smorgy:

Hey, I got another slippery slope for you to think about. While I DO think that having a strong military is necessary (to deter adventurism on the part of our “enemies,” That same strong military is ALSO a slippery slope, in that IT has an insatiable appetite for more money, more high-tech weapons, more “police actions,” more war. It’s the business they’re in. My father was a colonel in the army, and he used to say that the military wanted and NEEDED to have little wars almost continuously to keep our forces in top shape, to develop and field-test new weapons, and to dispose through use all the older ammunition. You know about all of that “depleted uranium” we put into armour-piercing shells? That’s waste disposal at work. We sent the stuff into the enemy so we don’t have to bury it in Utah. But I digress. The mentality that says that bigger/better/more expensive is the way to go will always bankrupt you if given the chance. And our military tends to move naturally in that direction. Politicians who want to appear strong on national defense (as opposed to “weak”) push in the same direction. And other politicians who like the idea of us being the World Police (what’s your prediction of when we land ground forces in Somolia?) don’t help either. Military adventurism (what Iraqi WMD’s) is a slippery slope that costs us what, TRILLIONS of DOLLARS? Takes another slippery slope (taxation) to pay for it. Kinda makes you feel silly, doesn’t it?

Perhaps you (author) missed the fact that the “slippery slope” argument is considered to be a classic among logical fallacies. The following was copied from a Logical Fallacies Handlist published by the Carson-Newman College”

“The “Slippery Slope” Fallacy (also called “The Camel’s Nose Fallacy”) is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called “the Camel’s Nose Fallacy” because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body. However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow–that the sheik can’t stop the progression once it has begun–and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. For instance, if one were to argue, “If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, FBI agents will be reading our mail. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in the United States.” Such thinking is fallacious; no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more than a person buying a single can of Coca-Cola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop herself. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies.”

While “slippery slopes” do exist, simply applying the term to a hypothetical series of events you don’t like does not prove a causal relationship between those events. Saying that the World will be become communist if South Vietnam falls to the communists (by action of the so-called “domino effect”) was a slippery slope argument that has disproved by ensuing events. The SovietUnion collapsed as a result of not being able to keep up with our own “slippery-slope” money-over-spending military, and while China is successfully challenging us, it is not because they are communist but because they have figured out how to hybridize capitalism with their system. The rest of the world is not rushing to communism as predicted, now that Vietnam is unified.

In the case of gay marriage slippery slope arguments, the suggestion that legalized bestiality will necessarily follow legalization of gay marriage is another logical fallacy. It cannot be proved that one must follow the other. For a society to decide to legalize both, it would have to conclude that both were of equal and sufficient merit to legalize, and while many opponents have made the claim that they ARE both equivalent, there is no evidence that the collective will of the public agrees with them.

@George Wells:

In the case of gay marriage slippery slope arguments, the suggestion that legalized bestiality will necessarily follow legalization of gay marriage is another logical fallacy

As always, you remain blatantly dishonest. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that legitimizing same-sex marriage will lead to the legalization of beastiality. You see, a “beast” cannot give verbal approval to be sexually abused.

But the “slippery slope” argument does include polygamy, and I even showed you where a left wing publication supported legalizing polygamy, another thing you chose to ignore since your stance seems to be that it will all end with same-sex marriage.

You are not allowed to marry another man in your state. You are not allowed to marry your sister. You have acheived the “right” to privacy which is not part of our Constitution. Will you not be happy until every school is teaching children that is is “kool” to be queer? Perhaps it is time we stop calling them schools and just start calling them “prime hunting areas” for sodomites.

@George Wells: #34

But we still have the problem that there are legitimate expenses that the nation must incur to remain viable, and somehow those expenses have to be paid for. Don’t they?

The only things the federal government should do are what the individuals and the states can’t do for themselves. For example, we can’t individually fight off a foreign country if they attack us. At least not until they get to Idaho and Montana.

The federal government shouldn’t be involved in welfare, medical care, education, and many other areas. Guess what usually happens when a person’s unemployment runs out. They get a job. I think it was John Stossel who showed charts showing each length of unemployment as the time was extended. When the time ran out, there was a very sharp rise in new hires every time.

Your comment INFERS that a reasonable solution might be to take away the voting rights of the poorer half of the population, but as there are ever more and more poor people (in SPITE of all the money they are presumably voting for themselves), taking away what they ARE getting would certainly lead to violence on a scale that would be the end of us all.

I am amazed at how some people can take something a person says, then use that statement to “infer” what that person would do or say in a pretend situation. The greed you mentioned comes in all income levels. There are corporations that not only don’t pay any federal income taxes, but they get a huge tax refund. Individuals earn billions every year and don’t pay any income taxes. How does that happen? Greedy rich people who don’t have enough yet, so they buy off the ones who make the laws to make laws in their own favor.

I don’t understand completely your “Sausage Clause” to reduce crime. One thing that has been proven to reduce crime is to have mandatory sentences for most crimes. When one judge can slap a rapist on the wrist and let them go, and another one can put them in jail for many years, there is something wrong.

A while back, I used an example of one city, that I don’t remember the name, that has a MANDATORY five years ADDED ON for using a gun in the commission of a crime. That city ended their guns used in crimes because the crooks didn’t want to do the MANDATORY five years.

Parole should be ended. If someone gets five years, then they serve five years with good behavior. Bad behavior adds on time.

You like sausage?

I don’t care for fatty meats, and sausage has lots of it. Too much cholesterol.

@George Wells: #35
A lot of the excessive spending by the military is brought on by congress. I remember one time congress ordered the Air Fore to buy six Lier jets. The Air Force said they didn’t want them, and wouldn’t be using them, and where would they keep them?

Another example is each time the military wants to close a base in the USA, that state’s politicians get together with other state politicians who have bases in their states and vote to keep the MANY unwanted and unneeded bases open.

Military contractors have been caught many times inflating prices, or buying off members of congress to get a contract, but nobody ever goes to jail.

The mentality that says that bigger/better/more expensive is the way to go will always bankrupt you if given the chance.

You reminded me of a military contractor that manufactured a huge artillery gun that could shoot so fast that they could aim high, fire, then drop the angle, fire, and do this six times, and all six shells would hit the target at the same time. After they built the gun, THEN they tried to sell it to the military. The military looked at the fun from a logistics point of view. There were very few planes that could carry it, and it had to be dismantled, then reassembled. The planes that could carry it could only land at a few airports around the world. It was so heavy it couldn’t cross any bridges. I think it is obvious that there weren’t any former infantry or artillery members in the designing team.

#39:

All true. Doesn’t speak to the question of how to manage the costs better. Doesn’t speak to the fact that, regardless of the party at fault, military spending grows like a cancer and THAT puts us on a slippery slope to bankruptcy. Doesn’t speak to the question of how to pay for the legitimate defense of the nation IF NOT THROUGH TAXATION.

@ Smorgasbord #38:

Last one first: The “Sausage Clause” bit was a tongue-in-cheek endorsement of exactly the same strictprinciples of law enforcement you are advocating. “Parole” perhaps shouldn’t be ended in EVERY case, but it is certainly over-used – it’s a method of cutting costs that doesn’t pay well in the long run.

You are correct that the safety nets you decry are widely abused, but the case can be made that some public assistance is needed in some cases. For example, a unemployed woman may be required by state law NOT to abort a pregnancy caused through rape by a man who was later killed in a car wreck. (So no chance of child support.) The child was born prematurely with barely viable birth defects and no prospects of ever being able to live independently. The state that was so adament about preventing abortion should in my opinion be the party responsible for the $millions needed to raise and maintain this marginal life, and the money must be raised somehow.

Your argument that it is the states’ responsibility, not the federal government’s is indeed a valid CONSIDERATION, and I pass no judgement on that question, as it is moot to the question of taxation. If there is to be a legitimate function of government, for defense or for education or for whatever purpose, taxation must pay for that expense. Someone will pay that tax. States that have no income tax have proportionately higher real estate taxes. Same with states that have no sales tax. Tax reform might help eliminate a few of the abuses you mention, but still the money must come from somewhere.

#37:

You said:
“As always, you remain blatantly dishonest. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that legitimizing same-sex marriage will lead to the legalization of beastiality.”

I am not sure if you are splitting hairs here and making a distinction between “legitimizing” and “legalization.” For the sake of expediency, I’m going to take it that you were using the terms interchangably, which is adequate for the purposes of this discussion.

Recently, Dr. Ben Carson made headlines for his public statements equating gay marriage with bestiality. By “EQUATING,” one is mathematically justified in suggesting that the “equation” implies that legalization of one would “equal” legalization of the other. The “slippery slope” argumant then suggests that one would FOLLOW the other.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R – Texas) also recently said “Gay marriage would be a “slippery slope” to polygamy and bestiality.” Again, the “slippery slope” reference suggests that one will follow the other, and the use of the two together in this context implies an equivalence that would lead to the rational conclusion that legalization of one would “equal” legalization of the other.

These are two recent examples where people “who think that legitimizing same-sex marriage will lead to the legalization of beastiality” (as you put it) have voiced their opinion. So how am I “blatantly dishonest?”

(I concede that the words “legitimizing” and “legalization” are technically not the same words nor do they have identical meanings, but it would be disingenuous to argue the point, as my original statement did not make the distinction nor did the “honesty” of my statement hang in the balance.)

@George Wells:

Recently, Dr. Ben Carson made headlines for his public statements equating gay marriage with bestiality.

Well, since Dr. Carson is a man of science, perhaps he realizes that there is no more normality to a man inserting his penis in a orifice of another man that was designed, by nature, for that man to be able to evacuate his bowels just as there is no normality to inserting your penis into the anus of a goat.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R – Texas) also recently said “Gay marriage would be a “slippery slope” to polygamy and bestiality.”

Based on his years as a jurist and watching that “slippery slope” applied to other issues that violate the Constitution.

“honesty” of my statement

Of all the liberals here, you are absolutely the most DIShonest. And a liar to boot.

You said that you knew of NO ONE who held that view. I gave you two that had been in the national news and that you SHOULD have been aware of. If you knew of them and made the statement anyway, then YOU lied. If you didn’t know, well, I don’t expect an acknowledgement, since your playbook instructs you in such event to change the subject or disgust your audience with irrelevent information.

@George Wells:

You said that you knew of NO ONE who held that view.

I still don’t since you did not provide the exact quotes of either Dr. Carson or Congressman Gomert, which would be required for anyone to be able to determine their exact meaning.

I gave you two that had been in the national news and that you SHOULD have been aware of.

No, you gave your rendition of what they said.

I don’t expect an acknowledgement, since your playbook instructs you in such event to change the subject or disgust your audience with irrelevent information.

Oh, that’s rich, especially coming from you who refuses to address many, MANY things I have presented to you. And if you find my literal description of the activities that you participate in as “disgusting”, perhaps you should alter your behavior.

:

“And if you find my literal description of the activities that you participate in as “disgusting”, perhaps you should alter your behavior.” Hate to disappoint you again, but since you want to talk such things, the details you described are not behaviors I have ever performed, “top” or “bottom.” But I DO know both gay and straight men who enjoy the practice you described. I think it’s icky, but to each his (or her) own. Maybe you should have asked first.

:

I don’t answer every point you make because:

#1: You ignore most of my points (like my list of the insulting name-calling you have sunk to), and you make excuses for continuing to deny things like Dr. Carson’s comments, for which HE has had the decency to publically apologized for on several occasions.

#2: Just as you hold many of my comments in hostile contempt, I place a similar value on some of your comments and choose not to dignify them with a response. How much respect do you think you deserve from me after you call me a “liar”?

@George Wells:

Hate to disappoint you again, but since you want to talk such things, the details you described are not behaviors I have ever performed, “top” or “bottom.”

Are you denying that you have ever participated in sodomy?

:

You said: “a man inserting his penis in a orifice of another man that was designed, by nature, for that man to be able to evacuate his bowels just as there is no normality to inserting your penis into the anus of a goat.”

That was YOUR characterization.

“A man inserting his penis in a orifice of another man that was designed, by nature, for that man to be able to evacuate his bowels” would seem to be referring to anal intercourse between men. Likewise the reference : “inserting your penis into the anus of a goat” seems to refer to anal intercourse with a goat. Did I miss something? Was that not how you intended to describe “sodomy?” It was that characterization that I was addressing in my response. It was anal intercourse that I have never performed… or HAD performed on me. I thought that I made that clear.

“Sodomy” is taken by the dictionary, the courts and most of the states that have or did outlaw it to mean any sexual penetration other than vaginal. That includes penetration by penis, finger, toe or any “suitable” inanimate object into any opening (natural or otherwise) of the body that is not a vagina. Most notably, “sodomy” includes fallatio (blow jobs). “Sodomy” is not gender specific – it refers equally to heterosexual and homosexual practices. ADDITIONALLY, an aggressively restrictive interpretation of the term “sodomy” includes vaginal penetration from the so-called “doggie position,” allowing as “normal” only vaginal penetration accomplished from the so-called “missionary position.” I would have thought you knew that.

While the definition of “sodomy” is both broad and non-gender-specific, the laws against it were used almost exclusively to persecute homosexuals, and this fact likely helped the SCOTUS decide Lawrence the way they did. I am sure that the SCOTUS did not want to weigh in against homosexual sodomy but allow heterosexual sodomy, nor did they want to address various positions taken during heterosexual intercourse.

Since you claim to agree with the Lawrence decision, I’m not sure what is buggering you about “sodomy.” Either it is wrong for everybody, or it’s not.

@George Wells: #40
If you’re try to eliminate taxes, it ain’t going to happen. We would have to go to a donation system like charitable organizations do.

Concerning the military, I want our military to be the biggest, baddest in the world, so that NOBODY will even think about starting something with us, because they would know that we would finish it. I remember when a country might mess with ONE American wrongly, and we would go after the country until that person was back home.

With politicians having to take donations to keep campaigning, and corporations donating billions to the different campaigns, the politicians now worry about getting their campaign money from the corporations, so they have to check with companies who do business in the offending country to see if us doing something to get the American out will effect that company’s contributions to their campaigns.

Almost everybody who has read The Fair Tax book agree that it is the best way to raise money for the country. Get rid of ALL federal taxes and enact a federal sales tax. Every time someone buys something, they pay their taxes. SIMPLE!