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!!!!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 9:49 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 7:30 am

> That is why I research non-profit organizations before I contribute to them.
Could you imagine if we could identify which governmental agencies would get our tax dollars?!?!?

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 9:52 am

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.)


How can someone be forced into a voluntary contract and it remain voluntary? Why must citizenship be associated with taxation? Taxation is a buffer to participation and self-management, which I believe is necessary to a free society.


I do agree that freeloaders complain the loudest. I say let them complain. It won't get them far in a society that adheres to its own rules. 


As to the last argument, the government makes it extremely difficult to opt out. It's my understanding that individuals can opt out of taxation. The IRS has a seven year application process to opt out of taxes. If any mistake is made, however, one has to start again.


I would say that the problem with that argument is that it can extend to any unconstitutional operation of the government, like social security. I was born into it. How do I opt out? Since I haven't opted out, I've voluntarily given into it and "amended" the Constitution and the enumerated powers of government by doing so. That's dangerous. 


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:05 am

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

>For example... I, and many others I know, leave larger tips at restaurants when a gratuity fee is not mandated or automatically included.
I do the same thing - and let the person know that if the "TIP" wasn't mandated, they would have gotten something larger (if it was appropriate.)

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:10 am

Could you imagine if we could identify which governmental agencies would get our tax dollars?!?!? 


That would be a revolutionary step in governmental transparency. Maybe we should discuss it with Bill Clinton, who has some experience as to being caught with his pants down.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:12 am

and let the person know that if the "TIP" wasn't mandated, they would have gotten something large


Yes, because the person serving your food has the power to change the company's policy...


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:18 am

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

>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.
If the ideals of citizenship/responsibility were taught... I think I'd agree with you.  But I look back at the Revolutionary War where contributions were voluntary, they had problems paying for the costs.  If you read some of the excuses... like that state is bigger, so they should pay the costs... or we don't have enough men to call for volunteers to fight....  There were a lot of really sad excuses.  And individually, many of the men either didn't want to fight or walked away from their contract when things became tough.


Now.. there were some that did go out of their way to do things for the effort, like Washington to Franklin, etc.  (Washington almost lost everything because of it.)

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:23 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/


 


The server signed an agreement, which is a voluntary action, with the restaurant as to her labor expenses and their rules. She was free, prior to being fired, to quit the restaurant and work elsewhere based on her skill set and bargaining power. I sympathize in terms of her having to pay taxes, but wonder how much more she'd make if neither she nor her employer had to pay taxes or other government regulated expenditures. She also violated the privacy that existed between a particular customer and the restaurant.


Just because I pay for a service with a credit card, that does not mean that I am granting the business to right to advertise my information to the outside world or all its employees.  

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:25 am

I do agree that freeloaders complain the loudest.


I think we all agree on this point. We just don't agree on who the "freeloaders" really are.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:28 am

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

>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.
Except that the goverment has pretty much removed most of our choices.  I don't have a problem with the government having a monopoly on very specific and extremely limited items... it's just the government has crept so far beyond those limits because they didn't want the free market system to be the answer.


What's sad is it's illegal to give anything to the federal government (except money.)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:30 am

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

>

style="margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #6a6a6a; clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">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....)

style="margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #6a6a6a; clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">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. 

>
Gov't broke the contract decades ago.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:34 am

The server signed an agreement, which is a voluntary action, with the restaurant as to her labor expenses and their rules.


I'm getting really sick of this bullsh!t answer. When the choice is work or die, it's not voluntary, it's coercive.


As I said once before, having the freedom to choose your slavemaster does not make you any less of a slave.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:39 am

If the ideals of citizenship/responsibility were taught... I think I'd agree with you.  But I look back at the Revolutionary War where contributions were voluntary, they had problems paying for the costs.  If you read some of the excuses... like that state is bigger, so they should pay the costs... or we don't have enough men to call for volunteers to fight....  There were a lot of really sad excuses.  And individually, many of the men either didn't want to fight or walked away from their contract when things became tough.


 


 


Now.. there were some that did go out of their way to do things for the effort, like Washington to Franklin, etc.  (Washington almost lost everything because of it.)


 


I recommend reading "Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation" by Keith L. Dougherty. He shows the reverse case where the Confederate Government was asking for funds that exceeded the gold and silver supply in the country, and that the States donated more than could be rationally expected given the economic climate. 


This website offers a fair review of the book: http://eh.net/book_reviews/collective-action-under-articles-confederation

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:41 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ 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.

style="margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #6a6a6a; clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;"> 

style="margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #6a6a6a; clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">Think about the Revolutionary War - it was 8 years long.  They just didn't give up after two years.

style="margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #6a6a6a; clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">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.

>
yea... war for the sake of war should never be the intent of a nation based on liberty.  As for "unConstitutional" wars.... the only ones we're in now are the ones Obama sent troops.  As much as I don't like Bush (either one)... at least he had Congress declare war - which means that part was "Constitutional."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:46 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ 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.

>
Well, it's actually closer to the way Yaron Brook would say it (with a little Bam-Bam thrown in.)  I like Yaron Brook better than Ayn Rand, but since he is the President of the Ayn Rand Institute....

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:54 am

I'm getting really sick of this bullsh!t answer. When the choice is work or die, it's not voluntary, it's coercive.


That's like saying your sick of hearing "4" when you ask what is "2+2"? The situation is not coercive, because the restaurant did not create her preexisting circumstances so that she could work only for the restaurant. She had a choice to work for them or go find other work. She has a choice to underconsume and save until she can find better work or create a business for herself. 


As I said once before, having the freedom to choose your slavemaster does not make you any less of a slave.


Employers aren't slavemasters. Employers compete against other employers for employees just as potential employees compete for jobs. Slavery omits choice. Voluntary associations demand choice. 

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