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: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:55 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 9:52 am

>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.
Because all people in the USA have the same right which are supposed to be protected by our govenment.  The government won't say that X person gets the right protected because they pay taxes and person Y doesn't get the right because they don't pay taxes.


It's not like a company saying it'll provide services to person X because they paid the bill and won't provide it to person Y because they're just a freeloader.


You're absolutely right that the majority of today's taxation is a buffer.  I'm focusing more taxation for Constitutional things.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 10:58 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 9:52 am

>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.
I wish that were true.... but you and I both know that politicians pander to the freeloaders telling them that if the freeloaders would vote in the politician, they'd get "free" stuff at the expense of another (responsible) person.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 11:06 am

If the ideals of citizenship/responsibility were taught... I think I'd agree with you.  


Such ideals would most likely be taught in private schools, but I know you're the last person on these boards I'd have to convince of that. My mom quite frequently states how participation/responsibility was far better when public schools taught Civics, as opposed to having dropped it in favor of Social Studies. 


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


Or our lives. 


Gov't broke the contract decades ago.


Government's propensity to break contracts is the reason I argue for stripping its power to tax. Don't feed the mouth that bites you. 



Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 11:34 am

Because all people in the USA have the same right which are supposed to be protected by our govenment.  The government won't say that X person gets the right protected because they pay taxes and person Y doesn't get the right because they don't pay taxes.


I'm definitely not looking at it (or advocating) in terms of government protecting or not protecting an individual's rights because they do or do not pay taxes. That is practically advocating the antithetical that government has the ability to take away an individual's rights. I would argue that voluntary partcipation in the economy is all that is needed to maintain citizenship. Government is an outgrowth of the free market, despite governments' frequent attempts to curtail the free market. 


But let's start from the base and work up. Consider the hypothesis that we have a Constitutional Government, which is forbidden the power of taxation. The society has its producers and its freeloaders, who don't voluntarily give to their government. But freeloaders must inevitably take part in the economy, trading their services to gain capital that will sustain their immediate needs, such as nuitrition. It is therefore possible and likely that producers will attach or include a government contribution fee in the cost of their product/service. The freeloader is therefore contributing indirectly via purchase from a producer, who makes direct contributions to government from those funds obtained by his customers (other producers and freeloaders alike). To an extent, this already happens - despite the existence of taxes - with private businesses backing certain charities of their choosing. In the past, I've chosen products/services from producers because of a charity they've backed or are involved with. 


You're absolutely right that the majority of today's taxation is a buffer.  I'm focusing more taxation for Constitutional things.
I know. I might be okay with taxation if the government didn't exceed its Constitutional duties. Unfortunately, that is not the historical trend. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 11:36 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ 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. 

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

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;">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. 

>
Hmmm... let's paraphrase the arguments of the tyrannists (Socialists/Marxists/Communists/ProRegressives)....


-- How dare you be allowed the right to pursue happiness!!!


-- How dare you be allowed to enter into a contract of your own choosing!!!


-- How dare you be allowed to make money based on the value of your work!!!


-- How dare someone make more than someone else based on the value of their work!!!


-- How dare someone be allowed to save money and have more than another who just blew theirs!!!


-- How dare someone who works make more money than someone who refuses to work!!!


-- How dare the government can't enslave someone to force them to pay to meet the need of another!!!


-- How dare someone be allowed to purchase a Bugatti or Lincoln or Jaguar or Rolls Royce (or all of them) instead of being limited to no car or, if lucky, buying that always broken (but still wonderful) Trabant!!!


-- How dare someone be allowed to have a choice.  Afterall, it's the government's job to make all determinations!!!

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 11:37 am

I wish that were true.... but you and I both know that politicians pander to the freeloaders telling them that if the freeloaders would vote in the politician, they'd get "free" stuff at the expense of another (responsible) person.


But if the politician's paycheck is dependent on the voluntary donations of producers, as opposed to the government's ability to tax, the politician might not pander to the freeloaders so easily. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 12:06 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 11:34 am

>

>Because all people in the USA have the same right which are supposed to be protected by our govenment.  The government won't say that X person gets the right protected because they pay taxes and person Y doesn't get the right because they don't pay taxes.

>I'm definitely not looking at it (or advocating) in terms of government protecting or not protecting an individual's rights because they do or do not pay taxes. That is practically advocating the antithetical that government has the ability to take away an individual's rights. I would argue that voluntary partcipation in the economy is all that is needed to maintain citizenship. Government is an outgrowth of the free market, despite governments' frequent attempts to curtail the free market. 
But let's start from the base and work up. Consider the hypothesis that we have a Constitutional Government, which is forbidden the power of taxation. The society has its producers and its freeloaders, who don't voluntarily give to their government. But freeloaders must inevitably take part in the economy, trading their services to gain capital that will sustain their immediate needs, such as nuitrition. It is therefore possible and likely that producers will attach or include a government contribution fee in the cost of their product/service. The freeloader is therefore contributing indirectly via purchase from a producer, who makes direct contributions to government from those funds obtained by his customers (other producers and freeloaders alike). To an extent, this already happens - despite the existence of taxes - with private businesses backing certain charities of their choosing. In the past, I've chosen products/services from producers because of a charity they've backed or are involved with. 
Don't know if this will show up twice as the system barfed....


What you say makes sense to a point.... but we still need to achieve "critical mass" to pay for the minimum government necessary.


And using your own points, one could argue that the freeloaders of today who don't pay income tax are indirectly paying taxes by buying products/services from the people who pay taxes (some more than 50%.)


 


I prefer a system where people actually see the costs of the government directly.  And I think I'd still prefer that the states pay the cost of the Federal government - that way, each state could tax as they choose too... a Progressive income tax, a flat tax, a sales tax or a voluntary contribution.  Each state would be responsible to pay the federal government bills based on their Electoral College count (Wyoming would pay a lot less than California!)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 12:10 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 11:34 am

>You're absolutely right that the majority of today's taxation is a buffer.  I'm focusing more taxation for Constitutional things. I know. I might be okay with taxation if the government didn't exceed its Constitutional duties. Unfortunately, that is not the historical trend. 
Sad but true.  Our Founding Fathers warned us about this, but too many people have been blinded by the promises of the politicians of getting stuff for free.


But at least some have actually shrunk government.... like Coolidge.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 12:12 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 11:37 am

>

>I wish that were true.... but you and I both know that politicians pander to the freeloaders telling them that if the freeloaders would vote in the politician, they'd get "free" stuff at the expense of another (responsible) person.

>But if the politician's paycheck is dependent on the voluntary donations of producers, as opposed to the government's ability to tax, the politician might not pander to the freeloaders so easily. 

>
Maybe... but you know how the freeloaders think... something "free" if someone else is buying.  And if the buyers stop paying.... what happens?

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 392

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 12:19 pm

-- How dare you be allowed to make money based on the value of your work!!!


-- How dare someone make more than someone else based on the value of their work!!!


How is the value of someone's work determined?


Take the Applebee's server as an example. If she worked 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year she would make a total of $18,720 (before taxes) at a pay rate of $9/hr.


Constrast that with the $5.4 million "compensation" the CEO of DineEquity, Inc. (parent company of Applebee's) received in 2011.


Of course, we don't know what work the CEO actually does or how often or if it's more vital to the success of the company than the employees but there is no way in hell that you're ever going to convince me that one person's work is worth 285 times the work of someone else.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 12:45 pm

but we still need to achieve "critical mass" to pay for the minimum government necessary.


We certainly had the "critical mass" before the IRS, so that's a government agency that can be cut as well as an Amendment we can do without.


And using your own points, one could argue that the freeloaders of today who don't pay income tax are indirectly paying taxes by buying products/services from the people who pay taxes (some more than 50%.)


I certainly agree. The problem of course is that the freeloaders are receving more than what is being put into the system. The government is all too happy with its spending addiction and providing programs and bailouts that are not Constitutionally authorized. The critical mass to support Constitutional government is considerably lower, especially when a system uses legitimate currency (like gold and silver) that gain purchasing power over time, as opposed to fiat money that loses value over time.


I prefer a system where people actually see the costs of the government directly.  And I think I'd still prefer that the states pay the cost of the Federal government - that way, each state could tax as they choose too... a Progressive income tax, a flat tax, a sales tax or a voluntary contribution.  Each state would be responsible to pay the federal government bills based on their Electoral College count 


Absolutely, and I would never suggest anything to the contrary (fortunately, ending taxation is only taking the pursuit of liberty one step further). Maintain State Soveignty, the Electoral College, and Transparency. In fact, I'm of the opinion that if the government is going to have places like Area 51, they should either build a see through mountain (that's a joke, as it would create a literal mountain of debt) or provide for its maintainence by making it open to the public (that's not so much a joke - that would be my campaign slogan if I was ever to run for President). Not exactly a clandestine base, but then I'm not for allowing the government to operate in secret. 



Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 12:51 pm

Take the Applebee's server as an example. If she worked 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year she would make a total of $18,720 (before taxes) at a pay rate of $9/hr.


Constrast that with the $5.4 million "compensation" the CEO of DineEquity, Inc. (parent company of Applebee's) received in 2011.


 


Of course, we don't know what work the CEO actually does or how often or if it's more vital to the success of the company than the employees but there is no way in hell that you're ever going to convince me that one person's work is worth 285 times the work of someone else.


The employee agreed to that rate. What right does an individual or group (including the government) have to tell another individual what they can and can't do with their own property? What right do I have to tell you who may or may not enter into your home? 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 1:02 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 12:45 pm

>

>but we still need to achieve "critical mass" to pay for the minimum government necessary.

>We certainly had the "critical mass" before the IRS, so that's a government agency that can be cut as well as an Amendment we can do without.

>
Don't get me wrong - I hate the USA's gestapo (IRS) as much as you do, but taxation was still done by force before the 16th Amendment.  Whiskey Rebellion anyone?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 1:22 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 12:45 pm

>And using your own points, one could argue that the freeloaders of today who don't pay income tax are indirectly paying taxes by buying products/services from the people who pay taxes (some more than 50%.)

>I certainly agree. The problem of course is that the freeloaders are receving more than what is being put into the system. The government is all too happy with its spending addiction and providing programs and bailouts that are not Constitutionally authorized. The critical mass to support Constitutional government is considerably lower, especially when a system uses legitimate currency (like gold and silver) that gain purchasing power over time, as opposed to fiat money that loses value over time.

>
Yea... fiat absolutely sucks.  And then there's Federal Reserve....

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Feb. 01 2013, 1:27 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 01 2013, 12:45 pm

>Absolutely, and I would never suggest anything to the contrary (fortunately, ending taxation is only taking the pursuit of liberty one step further). Maintain State Soveignty, the Electoral College, and Transparency. In fact, I'm of the opinion that if the government is going to have places like Area 51, they should either build a see through mountain (that's a joke, as it would create a literal mountain of debt) or provide for its maintainence by making it open to the public (that's not so much a joke - that would be my campaign slogan if I was ever to run for President). Not exactly a clandestine base, but then I'm not for allowing the government to operate in secret. 

>

>
Actually, I've got no problem with a small number of secrets within the goverment if it really has to do with national security and keeping our enemies at bay.  But the government shouldn't hide the majority of stuff or put a lot of stuff that they don't want exposed into a classified project.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

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