ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Socialism

Report this
Created by: DUKAT!!!!

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 30 2013, 9:09 pm

Ah, but they have the RIGHT to use it if they choose to do so. They are not being barred from it's use. Taxes are collected to provide a resource and make it available to all. If you opt not to use those resources, that is your choice and your right. There is no violence in that.


The argument above ignores the fact that taxation is a form of first-strike force. First, taxation is theft. Secondly,   government can only guarantee taxation with the threat of force... seizure of personal property, incarceration, etc. The public library, which is funded by taxation, is ultimately funded by violence of the threat thereof. Your argument states that it is a choice of the individual to use or not use the library. Why can't paying or not paying taxes be a choice as well? The ability to opt out of taxation, without fear of reprisal (a violent act), would be genuine freedom.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Jan. 30 2013, 9:51 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 30 2013, 9:09 pm

>

>Ah, but they have the RIGHT to use it if they choose to do so. They are not being barred from it's use. Taxes are collected to provide a resource and make it available to all. If you opt not to use those resources, that is your choice and your right. There is no violence in that.

>The argument above ignores the fact that taxation is a form of first-strike force. First, taxation is theft. Secondly,   government can only guarantee taxation with the threat of force... seizure of personal property, incarceration, etc. The public library, which is funded by taxation, is ultimately funded by violence of the threat thereof. Your argument states that it is a choice of the individual to use or not use the library. Why can't paying or not paying taxes be a choice as well? The ability to opt out of taxation, without fear of reprisal (a violent act), would be genuine freedom.

>


But your counter argument negates the fact that no one lives completely free from some form of government. In fact, most people depend on it at such a level they hardly notice. It's taken for granted. Public services such as police and fire departments. I wish I could remember exactly where, but recently there were headlines here in the US of firemen letting a house burn down. The truth of the matter, as reported is that the residence was outside of city limits. Residence living outside these limits can opt out of paying taxes that cover such services , and this particular home owner had chosen to do so. He was angry that his home was allowed to burn, but he was the one that chose not to pay the tax that covers those services.


You expect the police and fire dept to show up when you need them. You expect decent roads in your community. You expect the public health and safty to be provided for. Government re3gulation is not there to annoy people, it's intended to protect people. Inspections of food processing plants to insure that regulations put in place to safegaurd the health of the public. Safty standards for air flight and the inspections required to enforce them. Air traffic control. Those things that we ALL benefit from need to be payed for. That is done through taxes. The founding fathers did not rebel against the British crown because they did not wish to pay taxes. They rebeled against taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 30 2013, 10:39 pm

But your counter argument negates the fact that no one lives completely free from some form of government. 


No one lives completely free of government, because when they try to secede, first-strike force is used to keep them under subjugation. The Civil War is a great example. The Southern States no longer wanted to be part of the Union, and Lincoln used force to keep the Southern States from seceding. By doing so, Lincoln destroyed - what had been up to that point - a voluntary union. 


Residence living outside these limits can opt out of paying taxes that cover such services , and this particular home owner had chosen to do so. He was angry that his home was allowed to burn, but he was the one that chose not to pay the tax that covers those services.


While unfortunate for the home owner, that is a risk he took upon himself and he bears responsibility for the consequences. But the alternative to the government sector is the private sector. Without the collection of taxes, which rob individuals of their savings, individuals would have more funds to invest and create businesses, such as a privatized fire station. Maybe the home owner would find a privatized fire station more to his liking.


I personally live in a community that has to pay taxes for the city's fire station service, yet the city dropped us from coverage. That is taxation without representation. My uncle created a privatized fire station to cover us, and this is while we're still paying service for what is effectively a dysfunctional government service.


You expect the police and fire dept to show up when you need them. You expect decent roads in your community. You expect the public health and safty to be provided for. 


Nope. I don't expect any of those things, certainly not from the government, at least not with any competence or efficiency. I own guns to protect myself and my family. The police arrive after the fact and tend to be inept. After my house was broken into, the detective was reluctant to come across town and investigate. He didn't want to be bothered. I already explained the situation with the fire station. Likewise, I don't expect anything with public health... hospitals are where people go to die, not get better... the FDA is owned and operated by BIg Pharma...


As for roads... market entrepreneurs and privatized business are strongly motivated to create and manage roads in order to bring their services to market and to expand their markets. England had a strong history of privatized canals. Texas has a strong history of privatized roads. I specifically suggest researching James J. Hill and his accomplishment of a privatized transcontinental railroad despite his competitors, who were financially backed by the government. 


Government re3gulation is not there to annoy people


Actually, many government regulations are created to back special interests and drive their competitors out of business.  While other regulations might not intend to annoy, legislation is abstract by nature and tends to only offer unintended consequences in the market. 


it's intended to protect people. Inspections of food processing plants to insure that regulations put in place to safegaurd the health of the public. Safty standards for air flight and the inspections required to enforce them. Air traffic control. 


...Which may also be taken care of under the free market. It's a simple fact that employers compete for employees, and if the employers want to keep employees, which are a considerable investment, than the employer has to provide a safe and hospital working environment. This is harder to do when the government creates endless regulations, which require funding and deprive business owners of the funds to grow their business in the best manner possible.


Those things that we ALL benefit from need to be payed for. That is done through taxes.


How am I benefiting from military drones dropping bombs on foreign civilians? How am I benefiting from my government spying on British citizens, only to exchange that intel for the intel the British have gathered on American citizens? How am I benefiting from an unconstitutional invasion of privacy? How am I benefiting from an unconstitutional government, which has grown through manners of illegal taxation? How am benefiting from the government using my tax dollars to fund drug wars, both domestic and abroad? 


The founding fathers did not rebel against the British crown because they did not wish to pay taxes. They rebeled against taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.


The Founding Fathers rebelled against far more than taxation without representation. I suggest looking at the Bill of Rights, as the first 8 directly speak to acts the British committed against the colonies.


The true failure of the U.S. Constitution is that the Founding Fathers granted the government the ability to tax. It is a power that should be repealed. The government should rely on voluntary donations. 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 12:00 am

The true failure of the U.S. Constitution is that the Founding Fathers granted the government the ability to tax.

Here we go again. The main reason the Founding Fathers got together and drafted the Constitution was to deal with the problem of government having, in the words of George Washington, "no money."

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 6:58 am

Here we go again. The main reason the Founding Fathers got together and drafted the Constitution was to deal with the problem of government having, in the words of George Washington, "no money."


I'm quite aware of the reasons why some of the founding fathers drafted the Constitution. The nationalists, those posing as federalists, wrongly asserted that a stronger government with coercive power was needed to do as intended. The nationalists, to justify their claim, made a critical omission, which was the total amount of state contributions supposedly owed to the confederacy exceeded the amount of gold and silver in the country. The States actually donated far more to the confederacy than nationalists wanted to believe. I recommedn reading "Collective Action UNder the Articles of Confederation" by Keith L. Dougherty. 


It should also be noted that the coercive taxation powers of the central government, granted by the Constitution, were a major factor in the Whiskey Rebellion. Hamilton, true to form, didn't look at the Rebellion as an error in legislative policy, but rather viewed the Rebellion as an opportunity to assert the central government's dominance. 


The nationalists' reasons for strengthening the government does not make the enumerated power of taxation any less of a mistake. Taxes grow government.  

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 8:39 am

Quote: Beershark @ Jan. 30 2013, 8:37 pm

>

>"Not every individual that pays taxes uses the library. Such individuals are thus forced to pay for a service that gives them no benefit. This is a violent act."

>Ah, but they have the RIGHT to use it if they choose to do so. They are not being barred from it's use. Taxes are collected to provide a resource and make it available to all. If you opt not to use those resources, that is your choice and your right. There is no violence in that.

>
I think the point was the violence of taxation for something like this.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 8:51 am

Quote: Beershark @ Jan. 30 2013, 9:51 pm

>But your counter argument negates the fact that no one lives completely free from some form of government. In fact, most people depend on it at such a level they hardly notice. It's taken for granted. Public services such as police and fire departments. I wish I could
And that is the path of the ProRegressives.... over the decades, they have instituted a virus among the people for the people to depend on government for most everything.  Citizens have been brainwashed to think that only government can provide them with their very lives.


But in a free society, government is limited and people are free to succeed / fail on their own merits providing the very goods and services that government quite often provides nowadays.


I would much rather have privately ran fire departments, roads, etc. than government controlled ones.  In fact, it's been shown time and time again that privatizing most of these actually means better services for less cost.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 8:53 am

Quote: Beershark @ Jan. 30 2013, 9:51 pm

>Those things that we ALL benefit from need to be payed for.
Actually, the majority of government spending nowadays is redistribution of wealth and does not benefit all of us.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 8:56 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 30 2013, 10:39 pm

>The true failure of the U.S. Constitution is that the Founding Fathers granted the government the ability to tax. It is a power that should be repealed. The government should rely on voluntary donations.
And this is where you and I disagree... at least partially.  I think that since we are the United States....  the states, as part of being in our Union, should pay the taxes for the federal government to do it's Constitutional duties.  If a state didn't pay those taxes, then they would no longer be part of our Union.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 8:57 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 30 2013, 10:39 pm

>The Founding Fathers rebelled against far more than taxation without representation. I suggest looking at the Bill of Rights, as the first 8 directly speak to acts the British committed against the colonies.
Or just read the Declaration of Independence... it's laid out there quite well.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46327

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 9:02 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 31 2013, 6:58 am

>

>Here we go again. The main reason the Founding Fathers got together and drafted the Constitution was to deal with the problem of government having, in the words of George Washington, "no money."

>I'm quite aware of the reasons why some of the founding fathers drafted the Constitution. The nationalists, those posing as federalists, wrongly asserted that a stronger government with coercive power was needed to do as intended. The nationalists, to justify their claim, made a critical omission, which was the total amount of state contributions supposedly owed to the confederacy exceeded the amount of gold and silver in the country. The States actually donated far more to the confederacy than nationalists wanted to believe. I recommedn reading "Collective Action UNder the Articles of Confederation" by Keith L. Dougherty. 

>It should also be noted that the coercive taxation powers of the central government, granted by the Constitution, were a major factor in the Whiskey Rebellion. Hamilton, true to form, didn't look at the Rebellion as an error in legislative policy, but rather viewed the Rebellion as an opportunity to assert the central government's dominance. 

>The nationalists' reasons for strengthening the government does not make the enumerated power of taxation any less of a mistake. Taxes grow government.  

>
One thing to add... during the Revolution... states didn't want to pay for the expenses... they would always "justify" their non-payment saying that someone else should pay.  If people can get a benefit from something without paying, it really comes down to only a few responsible people paying for everyone else's benefit.  (Almost like our forced progressive taxation laws now.)

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 5:31 pm

The true failure of the U.S. Constitution is that the Founding Fathers granted the government the ability to tax. It is a power that should be repealed. The government should rely on voluntary donations.


Sorry, that is crazy. As annoying as taxes are, no one would voluntarily donate to the government. The government needs to run certain things, like the militayr, and to do that, they need money. A low tax is the most logical thing to do. Why don't we repeal the 16th ammendment and make a flat tax ammendment?


Oh, and before darmokattanagra attacks me for "wanting the poor to die," let me show you what a flat tax does.


Say it was 10%. A rich person who makes 1000 dollars a week would pay 10%, that's 100 dollars to the government. Seems fair enough. But a poor people who makes 10 cents a week would pay a total of 1 cent. So a rich person would pay a lot, and a poor person would pay a tiny bit. Doesn't that seem fair?








"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 8:44 pm

Say it was 10%. A rich person who makes 1000 dollars a week would pay 10%, that's 100 dollars to the government. Seems fair enough. But a poor people who makes 10 cents a week would pay a total of 1 cent. So a rich person would pay a lot, and a poor person would pay a tiny bit. Doesn't that seem fair?

The rich person in your example makes 10,000 times what the poor person makes. Sounds absurd but it's not far from the truth. In 2011, the highest paid CEO made about $378 million while the average worker made about $43,000.


Even if taxed at a flat rate of 99% the highest paid CEO would still clear about $3.8 million or 90 times what the average worker would clear if they were not taxed at all.


And even if the $3.8 million was taxed again at a flat rate of 97% the highest paid CEO would still clear twice as much as the average worker.


None of that seems fair to me.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jan. 31 2013, 11:07 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:31 pm

>

>The true failure of the U.S. Constitution is that the Founding Fathers granted the government the ability to tax. It is a power that should be repealed. The government should rely on voluntary donations.

> Sorry, that is crazy. As annoying as taxes are, no one would voluntarily donate to the government. The government needs to run certain things, like the militayr, and to do that, they need money.

>


Much as I am also irritated by having to pay taxes (who isn't?) I would have to agree with the above. Voluntary donations, while a fair sentiment, are not practical as a means of generating revenue for the government for two reasons:


a) As many not-for-profit organisations discover, they actually generate relatively little revenue in the long run.


b) The risk of government corruption (and by extension, the risk of governments leaving themselves open to accusations of corruption and / or undue influence) would be too high.


To the original question:


I find the oppositional interpretation of Socialism / Capitalism to be moderately outdated, and more a product of history than of true ideological incompatibility. I think you'll find that, in spite of labels, no ideology these days is purely one or the other. Socialism offers a security net for the working classes and encourages a co-operative mentality among people. The problem is that it (or at least, Communism...) gives very little regard for personal ambitions. Capitalism offers individual opportunity, but in its extremest form it encourages selfishness and emphasises short term profitability over long term consequences.


Remember too that Marx was primarily a social theorist, and not the kind of man to make practical implementations of his theories. His contemporaries (such as H.G. Wells) criticised him for just this point. So I think neither system is fully ideal. Better to put the labels aside for a moment and think more about how we can adapt both systems into some kind of middle ground, combining the strong points while doing what we can to avoid the weaknesses of both.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

miklamar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2161

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 6:36 am

Socialism, Marxism, Communism and quasi-socialism are all confusing.  And, whether socialism is "good" or "bad" depends upon your viewpoint.  Probably, a lot of places are partly socialist and partly something else.


I think European countries and Canada are more socialist than the US.


Personally, I favor a type of government that really cares for its less-fortunate, whatever label it carries.  That is the true mark of a government's greatness.


Var Miklama--Zakdorn, engineer. "A sound mind in a FULL body!" "Time, like latinum, is a limited quantity in the galaxy."

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 22123magic

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum