No Taxation Without Representation

[Firegirl]

No, I was arguing with ideas, specifically that a population nearest is the heart of the Federal process is disenfrancished from a vote is a travesty. Also I found that specifically Sparrowhawk or Guest MAY have certain underlying themes to do with his motivations. Racism was merely a possibility, not a blanket accusation towards anyone else.

16.7 % of households is a high number. That is very high percentage of the population. The only other states that have similar rates are Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The statistics come from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/AD104529.html, originally from the census report.

The only reason why I said that they (the government workers) do not count in the taxation without representation is that they still vote in other states. Those who do not, still do not have a voice.

[Guest]

I find this whole thing rather irrelevant anyways, but I appreciate anonshadow's post and the facts presented. Either way however, the only issue at hand is whether or not D.C. should have a voting representative in the House. Some people seem to jump on this issue as if it has a real and pressing importance - while taxation without representation is a travesty at any level, I fail to see why so many people are vehement in their argument for it. Do you honestly think adding yet another politician to the ranks of the House will improve the lives of the residents of D.C.? Is this person going to be any more 'representative' of his constituents than any other mindless House zombie? Especially related to the tax-issue - doesn't D.C. have a fairly average tax rate anyways? Do you honestly think that if they had a vote in the House, it would change anything? Especially considering that they're just going to add another seat for a different state of a different party anyways; there is no shift of power, and only lip-service paid to D.C. This isn't even figuring in the fact that, as several people have noted thus far, D.C. is a highly Democratic demographic, and would most likely elect the same kind of tax-and-spend Democrat that we see running for the Democratic Prez nominee. I don't see that working in the favor of the tax-paying citizens of D.C.

[hive_king]

It is irrelevant what their tax rate is. The british colonies actually had a much much lower tax rate than that of England, yet they still deserved representation in Parliment. It is irrelevant who they will elect or how that person might vote, that is the choice and privilage of the residents of DC. Hell, if they want to vote for someone who will raise taxes they can knock themselves out! It's called democracy. It is irrelevant that another seat going to another party will be added: even if it won't change the balance of power in congress, it will provide a representative responsible to the people of the city. The point is that they have a natural right to be represented by an elected official in the body that governs them.

This is a much more important breach of natural rights inherent to all people than some smoking ban.

Oh, related to your last comment, the republican party is actually more supportive of big government than democrats. According to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/story/895), of the 5 presidents of the last century who presided over the biggest increase in government spending, 4 of them were republicans.

Also, not all of the democratic presidential hopefuls are "tax-and-spend democrats" to regurgitate your soundbite. The democrat I am supporting for president, New Mexico Bill Richardson, actually cut taxes 35% in his state, and got a B on his fiscal report card from the CATO institute. He is also one of the few, if there are any others, candidates to approve marijuana for medical uses. He may not be your first choice for president (you seem pretty adamantly behind Paul), but if you don't reject him for the plain fact that I support him, I think he's a democrat that you could at least live with.

[Sparrowhawk]

It's called democracy.

Actually it's called a Republic, but let's not get bogged down in semantics.

it will provide a representative responsible to the people of the city.

That's a pretty optimistic view.

The point is that they have a natural right...

So you're a libertarian now?

Oh, related to your last comment, the republican party is actually more supportive of big government than democrats. According to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/story/895), of the 5 presidents of the last century who presided over the biggest increase in government spending, 4 of them were republicans.

BOTH parties support big government. There is not "lesser" of the two evils. And now you're perusing the Mises institute I see - you really are becoming a libertarian.

Also, not all of the democratic presidential hopefuls are "tax-and-spend democrats" to regurgitate your soundbite. The democrat I am supporting for president, New Mexico Bill Richardson, actually cut taxes 35% in his state, and got a B on his fiscal report card from the CATO institute. He is also one of the few, if there are any others, candidates to approve marijuana for medical uses. He may not be your first choice for president (you seem pretty adamantly behind Paul), but if you don't reject him for the plain fact that I support him, I think he's a democrat that you could at least live with.

I'm sorry, I meant "Democrats who actually have a chance of winning their party's primary". No offense to you or Gov. Richardson, but the Democratic party is more likely to send David Geffen to the polls than Bill Richardson.

I fully support those big-party members who break from the ranks of their leaders - like Richardson, Paul, Schwarzanegger, Lieberman to name a few, especially if they're breaking form to support centrist ideals. However, that kind of free-thinking is pretty much hunted down and beaten to death by the parties, which is why our guys - Richardson for you and Ron Paul for me - will never get elected, let alone with the primaries.

As far as whether I could live with Richardson as President, sure - but I'd still have other preferences first. From Richardson's own campaign site:

"[we need] a firm commitment to building diplomatic alliances, we need to defeat terrorism"

Alliances-shmiances, we need non-interventionism. And to bandy about 'terrorism' as if it's some kind of haunting spectre hanging over our heads is disingenuous at best - despite Bush's best efforts to the contrary, we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11. Terrorism is merely a buzzword for for Middle-Eastern sectarian religious bullshit; they'll vehemently attack any one or any thing they think is keeping them from warlord-like control of their region. In my opinion, they can have the Middle East. I don't want anything to do with it, certainly not a 'war' with their guerilla-style ideaology of terrorism. They can live in third-world squalor and reign over their self-destructed kingdom to their hearts content. One thing we've learned as a species is that self-destructive philosophies tend to... well, destroy themselves.

"I think Washington is broken and it's going to take a return to bipartisanship"

And "bipartisanship" is just a buzzword for the status quo - that is, two-party dictatorship. He goes on to talk about compromise, which in my opinion is kind of a self-defeating ideal: to compromise when you know you're right and the other guy's wrong is a betrayal of your own ideals.

These are just general impressions, and Richardson would do a helluva lot better job than any other Democrat out there, but I think we're way off topic now.

[hive_king]

You don't have to be a libertarian to believe in the concept of Natural Rights, AB, you just have to believe that Locke was on to something. There's no monopoly on the concept by any one side. I am not a libertarian, I prefer to think of myself as at least trying to be a pragmatic. I occasionally scan Von Mises, Cato, American Enterprise Institute, PNAC, and Economic Policy Institute. I figure, whats the worst that can happen, I might learn something?

[Sparrowhawk]

Well, the vote didn't go through anyways. As expected, some pork and other issues were injected into the bill and it was enough to prevent its passing.

[hive_king]

Well damn. Oh well, there's always next time.

[Sparrowhawk]

From what I heard on the intertubes, the bill didn't necessarily get rejected, just not passed because of other issues in the proposal. They may still be considering it and revising as needed. From what I saw, Republicans had blocked a vote on it as it was, and added measures into a new proposal that would rescind D.C.'s blanket ban on handguns along with the House vote issue. Democrats balked at this new proposal, choosing instead to block the vote on that one. At this time, I don't think either side is budging. To be perfectly honest, the Republicans are right about this one. If you're going to enforce the Founders ideals of no taxation without representation, then why is the Founders ideal of free men not being barred from owning arms allowed to remain suppressed?

[hive_king]

I can understand them wanting to rescind the handgun ban law, there are troubling issues with that. Though if that's done, there should be at least an attempt to do something about lowering the crime rate of DC, especially the violent death part. Any ideas on that subject, AB?


One common answer given, encourage people to have guns, is a tad ricidulous for street crimes. I mean, when you're being mugged, you don't exactly have time to reach into your backpack, take out your glock, make sure its loaded, make sure the safety's off, and shoot. By then, you're probably beat within an inch of life.

[Sparrowhawk]

I can understand them wanting to rescind the handgun ban law, there are troubling issues with that. Though if that's done, there should be at least an attempt to do something about lowering the crime rate of DC, especially the violent death part.

Violent crime isn't caused by handguns. Violent crime isn't caused by any kind of guns. It's caused by individuals, with so many variables and factors contributing to their decision to commit a violent act that to try and pin down reasons would be a futile gesture. What D.C. really needs, if it is to truly do something to battle violent crime, is job creation. Most people's solution to crime is to "crack down" on it and "get tough", which usually translates into stricter drug laws - especially those that unequally punish blacks, which as you mentioned earlier, are a majority in D.C. You have to possess something like 50x the amount of cocaine to get the same punishment as possessing crack. A combination of rescinding gun bans (which doesn't affect the amount of criminals with guns, as felons regardless of whether the city has a ban or not can't get licensed), putting the money usually used for the Drug War towards education and school-choice, employment growth and reforming both drug laws and sentencing guidelines is what D.C. needs to combat violent crime.

[hive_king]

what does the punishment concerning crack and cocaine have to do with anything? It seems pretty irrelevant to th discussion at hand. I agree that more emphasis needs to be put on job creation and education. If DC had a voting representative, they might be able to get more money to help fun such endevours.

[Guest]

what does the punishment concerning crack and cocaine have to do with anything?

I'm sorry I have to connect the dots for you. The relevance is twofold; on the fundemental level, poor legislation like that is a negative factor for a city's prosperity. On the primary level, the majority of D.C. is non-white, and crack (a drug of choice for non-whites) is punished up to 50x times harsher than cocaine (a drug of choice for whites.)

[hive_king]

You have to remember not all of us spent years frying our brains, so we might be a bit hazy on the finer details.

[Sparrowhawk]

You have to remember not all of us spent years frying our brains, so we might be a bit hazy on the finer details.

That... really doesn't make much sense. You HAVEN'T fried your brain, yet you are a bit hazy on details? Seems a bit backwards if you ask me. If it's some kind of vague and poorly executed attempt to allege that I'm somehow a brain-fried drug abuser than I'm not really sure what your point is.

[jotabe]

His point is that someone who has dealt with drugs is more likely to know which population segment uses preferently which kind of drug, than someone who hasn't been involved with drugs. He is explaining why he doesn't know that (alledgedly) crack is used by blacks and cocaine by whites, and that crack is more heavily punished than cocaine.

[Sparrowhawk]

The numbers on drug-use and drug preference (not to mention sentencing guidelines) are well documented. To say that he's claiming righteous ignorance because he hasn't "dealt with drugs" is a total cop-out and intellectually dishonest. A little research is easier than ever in our day and age.

[zeroguy]

The numbers on drug-use and drug preference (not to mention sentencing guidelines) are well documented. To say that he's claiming righteous ignorance because he hasn't "dealt with drugs" is a total cop-out and intellectually dishonest. A little research is easier than ever in our day and age.

So, for every single statement we don't find relevant, we are to research possible ties to the current argument, instead of just asking what the relevance is.

[Sparrowhawk]

What? The relevance of the information wasn't in dispute, buddy. You might be in the wrong thread.

[zeroguy]

what does the punishment concerning crack and cocaine have to do with anything? It seems pretty irrelevant to th discussion at hand.

[Sparrowhawk]

And I already answered that post. Keep reading.

[zeroguy]

Yes, you did answer it. And then claimed he cannot claim righteous ignorance because your answer is a well documented one which would turn up in research.

Hence... my response that expecting us to research all seeming non-sequiturs is impractical.

[Sparrowhawk]

White House issued drug facts

National Institute on Drug Abuse

U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime

Drug War Facts

f****** happy now? I'm glad I could save you all the 10 keystrokes it would have taken you to get the same f****** s***.

[zeroguy]

Why are you posting links? The question was already answered. I was just saying it's unreasonable to expect research on arbitrary confusing comments. Just asking the person is usually easier, so I'm just saying that h_k's response here is reasonable, and it's not a copout.

[Sparrowhawk]

Why are you posting links? The question was already answered. I was just saying it's unreasonable to expect research on arbitrary confusing comments. Just asking the person is usually easier, so I'm just saying that h_k's response here is reasonable, and it's not a copout.

...

According to new datafrom the U.S. Department of Justice, one in 136 Americans is behind bars today, including an astounding 12 percent of all black men between the ages of 25 and 29. The United States represents 4.6 percent of the world's population, but houses nearly 23 percent of humanity's prison population. Certainly, part of this is likely due to politicians' unfortunate habit of addressing every social problem with a new law, but much of it is due to our ever-more-draconian drug laws. A few more statistics to chew on from the latest edition of Drug War Facts,published by Common Sense for Drug Policy:


- As of 2005, drug offenders accounted for 55 percent of the federal prison population. About 45 percent of them were in prison for possession, not trafficking.
- The number of people incarcerated in federal prisons for drug crimes rose from 14,976 in 1986 to 68,360 in 1999.
It costs U.S. taxpayers $3 billion per year to keep drug offenders behind bars in federal prisons.
- Drug offenders have accounted for nearly half the meteoric growth in prison populations since 1995.
- About half the population of U.S. jails and prisons are nonviolent offenders, more than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.
- Forty percent of the more than 1,000 state prisons in the U.S. opened in just the last 25 years. The state of Texas alone has opened an average of 5.7 new prisons each year for the last 21 years. Despite this, about half of federal and state prisons operate over capacity.
- Total U.S. inmates numbered 488,000 in 1985, 1.3 million in 2001, and number 2.2 million today.
- According to survey data by human rights groups, one in five U.S. prison inmates has been sexually assaulted.
- According to federal sentencing guidelines, a man would need to possess 50 times more powder cocaine (preferred by white users) than crack cocaine (preferred by black users) to earn the same prison sentence.
- Blacks represent about 12 percent of the U.S. population, but 48 percent of the prison population. They represent just 13 percent of drug users, but 38 percent of those arrested for drug crimes, and 59 percent of those convicted.
- When convicted of the same drug felony, blacks are about 50 percent more likely to be sentenced to prison than whites.
- A black woman's chances of spending some time in prison over the course of her life (5.6 percent) is about equal that of a white man (5.9 percent). For black men, the odds are nearly one in three (32.2%).
- Before Congress passed mandatory minimums for offenses related to crack (but which didn't apply to powder cocaine) in 1986, the average drug-related sentence for blacks was 11 percent higher than for whites. After that law, the disparity jumped to 49 percent.

Despite all of this, overall drug use in this country hasn't substantially abated. According to government survey data, the percentage of people reporting illicit drug use in their lifetimes rose from 31.3 percent in 1979 to 35.8 percent in 1998. Between 1999 and 2001, the figure went from 39.7 to 41.1 (data prior to 1998 isn't comparable to data after 1998 due to changes in methodology). The percentage of college students reporting having used marijuana in the last year went from 27.9 percent in 1993 to 33.7 percent in 2003; the number using in the past month went from 14.2 percent to 19.3 percent; and the number reporting daily use went from 1.9 percent to 4.7 percent.

Interestingly, all of these increases have come from people over 18 years of age. Drug use among minors is significantly down. Which means that even as adult Americans are more likely to take recreational drugs than they once were (and given these figures, with little corresponding social harm), they're doing a good job of steering their kids away from them. Nevertheless, the government continues to arrest and incarcerate drug offenders, and in fact is now expanding its reach to include not just recreational users and traffickers, but doctors and patients who use controlled drugs to treat illnesses in ways the drug warriors have determined are "outside the scope of legitimate medical practice." One wonders what percentage of Americans will need to be in prison before our politicians find the courage to say "enough."

[zeroguy]

I'm not sure if you're missing my point or I am just completely missing yours. I'm not asking for any more information. I was making a comment on your expectations of research by h_k. But the data has already been given; that part is done. I'm not asking for any kind of verification of what was said earlier, or something.

It might be helpful if you just flat out said what you are trying to accomplish here, instead of just posting quotes and links.