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 Feb. 01 2013, 6:48 am

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.


Much to your last sentence, a State would be freely seceding if it didn't voluntarily contribute to the government. I of course have no problem with secession. But again, no government should be granted a power that individuals can't enjoy. If I can't steal, then the government (or the special interests that do so in the government's name) shouldn't be able to either. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46305

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:12 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 6:48 am

>

>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.

>Much to your last sentence, a State would be freely seceding if it didn't voluntarily contribute to the government. I of course have no problem with secession. But again, no government should be granted a power that individuals can't enjoy. If I can't steal, then the government (or the special interests that do so in the government's name) shouldn't be able to either. 

>
Correct... but this is where citizenship meets freeloading.  If a person chooses to be a citizen of the USA, shouldn't they also be choosing to pay taxes?  If they're just a freeloader, they can choose to go somewhere else.


I too agree that a state has the power to secede as they joined the USA voluntarily and the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.


We all know that the power to tax is the power to destroy, but money is needed to run a government - even Constitutional ones.


 


Think of it this way .... I choose to pay for products and the person/company provides them charges me for them.  The government, via taxes, does the same thing.  It really is voluntary if we had a system where people chose citizenship instead of just being granted it and told that they had to pay taxes (well... half of us....)

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:16 am

(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.


This is where I think individuals (and this very much includes conservatives) fall into hyprocrisy. Conservatives accuse liberals that they're wrong for gun control... Liberal: Criminals use guns, we don't want them to have guns, so let's create a blanket lawn that forces everybody to give up their guns. Conservative: Individuals won't pay taxes if taxes are not mandated, so we'll mandate taxes through a blanket law that forces everybody to pay taxes.


It really is the same fallaciuos argument. Americans are very generous. Consider the amount of non-profit charities that are sustained by voluntary donations (some of these charties can even afford to pay their execs in the millions). And who is stay money is the best or only form of contribution individuals can make to their various levels of government. The lack of money may encourage individuals to get involved by direct participation whereby the individual contributes their time on location, a soup kitchen for example. Private contracts and jobs shouldn't be discounted either. Many businesses, as part of the hiring process, make it clear that a certain level of charity work per year is expected in addition to the individual's job.  




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?


Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power, "To raise and support armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; to provide and maintain a Navy."


The U.S. is not suppose to have a standing army in so far as the government currently supports. The people, having the right to bear arms, are suppose to be their own militia. The Constitution is clear, after two years, wars are not suppose to be funded. Sell off the tanks to private citizens to pay off the war time debt.


The fact is a wealthy society will be able to voluntarily provide for Constitutional Government. The problem with the Revoluntionary War was that it bankrupted the States and there was no wealth. The average person couldn't afford to pay taxes or voluntarily contribute, as their immediate needs come first, and the Nationalists wanted to rob from people who had little to nothing. The nationalists wanted the country out of debt first, which is backwards. Individuals must become debt free first, and then voluntary contributions will follow. The average person recognies the need for military defense like a Navy and will contribute. 


Abolishing the 16th Amendment and adopting a consumption/flat tax would be progress, but a government without the ability to tax would be revolutionary.


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46305

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:24 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 7:16 am

>It really is the same fallaciuos argument. Americans are very generous. Consider the amount of non-profit charities that are sustained by voluntary donations (some of these charties can even afford to pay their execs in the millions). And who is stay money is the best or only form of contribution individuals can make to their various levels of government. The lack of money may encourage individuals to get involved by direct participation whereby the individual contributes their time on location, a soup kitchen for example. Private contracts and jobs shouldn't be discounted either. Many businesses, as part of the hiring process, make it clear that a certain level of charity work per year is expected in addition to the individual's job.
Good point - the USA, as a whole, is the most charitable country in the world.... and Conservatives give a whole lot more, per capita, than ProRegressives.  Whenever another country has problems, citizens of the USA donate a lot more than anyone else.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:30 am

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.


 


On point a... The problem with many non-profit organizations and their revenue generation relates to the laws written around them. For example, the laws state that these organizations can't make profit, but say nothing about the salaries paid to execs. So many business owners create non-profit organizations and pay themselves incredible salaries. But it's okay, because as the law goes, the business itself is not making a profit.  That is why I research non-profit organizations before I contribute to them. In a true capitalist society, where non-profit organizations compete against one another, the false non-profit organizations would die out in favor of the genuine non-profit organizations. 


One point b... The risk of corruption cannot possibly be any higher than it is today. Think about it. Politicians can legally steal from citizens as it stands today. Add to that their cooperation with central banks to artificially inflate the money supply and shift purchasing power away from individuals to themselves. In a voluntary society where individuals give freely, a politician would be dependent on the income of the people he served. If the politician did a bad job, then the citizens could nullify his paycheck, as well as any unconstitutional government or service thereof. Individuals would have the freedom to opt out of unconstitutional government services that could potentially develope over time.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46305

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:37 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 7:16 am

>The Constitution is clear, after two years, wars are not suppose to be funded.
We disagree on this too.  It says that appropriations are no longer than two years.  It doesn't mean that the appropriations can't be renewed each year.


Think about the Revolutionary War - it was 8 years long.  They just didn't give up after two years.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:37 am

Capitalism offers individual opportunity, but in its extremest form it encourages selfishness and emphasises short term profitability over long term consequences.


This isn't quite right, because it's clouded by government intervention in the market. Capitalism offers individual opportunity, like you said, but the argument leaves out the component of fear. Capitalism relies equally on fear (of loss) to counter shelfishness (of gain). Market entrepreneurs take these compenents into consideration when engaging in competition. That's capitalsim. Political entrepreneurs petition government for monopolies so they may bypass their competition and get a free ride. Government intervention negatest the fear componenet for the political entrepreneurs and permits selfish short-term profitability over long-term consequences. That's Corporatism, modern day mercantilism with a domestic twist.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46305

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:53 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Jan. 31 2013, 11:07 pm

>Socialism offers a security net for the working classes and encourages a co-operative mentality among people.
No, it doesn't encourage anything except some people living off the labors of others.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 7:59 am

Correct... but this is where citizenship meets freeloading.  If a person chooses to be a citizen of the USA, shouldn't they also be choosing to pay taxes?  If they're just a freeloader, they can choose to go somewhere else.


If a person chose to be a citizen, I would agree. But citizenship, as it stands, is inherited for the average American. But how is it fair to inherit theft? I'd suggest the question of freeloading can be settled with contracts and private enterprise. Contracts could include provisions that necessitate volunteer work. In a society that keeps to private property, business owners have the right to reject potential customers and withhold unpurchased products. If a freeloader was well known, business owners might choose to withhold their services from said freeloader and apply peer pressure to the freeloader to foster more contributive behavior.


 


 


I too agree that a state has the power to secede as they joined the USA voluntarily and the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.


 


We all know that the power to tax is the power to destroy, but money is needed to run a government - even Constitutional ones.


I agree. But I go so far as to say that people are more generous when given the chance to be on their own terms. For example... I, and many others I know, leave larger tips at restaurants when a gratuity fee is not mandated or automatically included. I'd be willing to bet that in a voluntary and wealthy society where a government receives voluntary donations, government officials would actually be in a position where they're receiving too much money for Constitutional Government and would ask the people to volunteer their services instead. 


 


Think of it this way .... I choose to pay for products and the person/company provides them charges me for them.  The government, via taxes, does the same thing. 


The problem lies with choice. In terms of choice, the free market offers competition with numerous businesses that drive down each other's costs. Government has no competition, and has a monopoly on certain services. Monopolies always drive up costs and thereby grant undue favoritism to market entrepreneurs, which convert these market entrepreneurs into political entrepreneurs. Voluntary donations would restrict the government monopoly political entrepreneurs enjoy and force them to provide cheaper and Constitutional services. 


 


It really is voluntary if we had a system where people chose citizenship instead of just being granted it and told that they had to pay taxes (well... half of us....)


I can agree here as such a contract would be voluntary, and if the governmet broke the contract, people could opt out, saying that the government broke its side of the agreement. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46305

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 8:00 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Jan. 31 2013, 11:07 pm

>Capitalism offers individual opportunity, but in its extremest form it encourages selfishness and emphasises short term profitability over long term consequences.
If I could go all Ayn Randian on you... if someone goes after short term at the expense of long term, they aren't being selfish at all - they're being stupid.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 8:03 am

We disagree on this too.  It says that appropriations are no longer than two years.  It doesn't mean that the appropriations can't be renewed each year.


 


 


Think about the Revolutionary War - it was 8 years long.  They just didn't give up after two years.


I yield to the point above that appropriations can be renewed. It would've been more appropriate of me to say that the Founding Fathers knew war was damaging to wealth, as war creates debt, and so they wanted the country to go in and come out fast, as opposed to funding endless unconstitutional wars like we're doing now.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 8:04 am

If I could go all Ayn Randian on you... if someone goes after short term at the expense of long term, they aren't being selfish at all - they're being stupid.


LOL. What a succinct way of putting it.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 8:28 am

"An oligarchy of private capital cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society because under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information." - Albert Einstein

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46305

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 9:19 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 7:59 am

>

>Correct... but this is where citizenship meets freeloading.  If a person chooses to be a citizen of the USA, shouldn't they also be choosing to pay taxes?  If they're just a freeloader, they can choose to go somewhere else.

style="color: #6a6a6a; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">If a person chose to be a citizen, I would agree. But citizenship, as it stands, is inherited for the average American. But how is it fair to inherit theft? I'd suggest the question of freeloading can be settled with contracts and private enterprise. Contracts could include provisions that necessitate volunteer work. In a society that keeps to private property, business owners have the right to reject potential customers and withhold unpurchased products. If a freeloader was well known, business owners might choose to withhold their services from said freeloader and apply peer pressure to the freeloader to foster more contributive behavior.
I agree that we shouldn't be inheriting theft, but  but since citizenship is usually inherited (paid for by previous generations,) we can't force someone to enter into a voluntary contract?  People, regardless of the fact of whether they're freeloading (not paying taxes) or those paying the majority of their income in taxes get the same benefits.  And those people that refuse to contribute complain the loudest when they don't get what they demand.


But one could argue that if a person doesn't give up their inherited citizenship, they're voluntarily keeping it and agreeing to pay the taxes (even though the government uses force to take it from us.)

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 9:34 am

Capitalism:


"We make $3.50 an hour. Most of my paychecks are less than pocket change because I have to pay taxes on the tips I make. After sharing my tips with hosts, bussers, and bartenders, I make less than $9/hr on average, before taxes. I am expected to portray a canned personality that has been found to be least offensive to the greatest amount of people. I come home exhausted, sore, burnt, dirty, and blistered on a good day. And after all that, I can be fired for ‘embarrassing’ someone who directly insults their server on religious grounds."

http://consumerist.com/2013/01/31/waitress-who-posted-no-tip-receipt-from-pastor-customer-fired-from-job/

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