06-14-12, 06:04 PM #161
Stealing is immoral.
Michael does, obviously.
It should NOT be legal to pass immoral laws (like making rape or stealing legal).
Yeah, this whole "competing currencies" thing is equal parts inane (in that we already have such, if not exactly at the particular scale he wants to focus on exclusively) and silly (in that it's an obviously bad idea, to the extent that it differs from what already exists). This is characteristic of these kinds of exercises in Libertarian ideology. At least it's kind of amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.
Unlike income tax, which involves force. Competing currencies do not and are voluntary. One is immoral, the other moral. Why not choose the moral route?
06-14-12, 06:22 PM #162
Just ask the Japanese. They've been doing it for 20 years. I have to say, the infrastructure is great in Japan. Nice roads. Nice bridges. But no economic growth for two decades. What was helping their economy was trade with China.
06-14-12, 07:17 PM #163
The fact of the matter is that your rhetoric is a total hash. Talking about "formal study" is a laugh - you're self-inconsistent, blatantly!
06-14-12, 07:49 PM #164
06-15-12, 12:19 AM #165
Stealing is to to take the property of another wrongfully (example: by use of force or theft through secrecy).
While quadraphonics may disagree with the use of simple analogies they serve to illustrate the meaning of the word. Particularly when one is wedded to "history". One can ignore history in this instance as history doesn't define what is and is not moral. Ethics determines what is an is not moral.
Stealing is a priori immoral. Just as a triangle is a two dimensional polygon object having three corners. A triangle doesn't need to exist for us to agree what one is. Stealing needn't ever occur for us to agree as to what it is.
Now, it seems to me that you guys are the ones who want to redefine terms. You want to justify stealing by redefining income tax as not stealing. However, we all know you will be coerced (forced) to pay.
In our Island example, if 5 people were on an island. Suppose each person had enough water to last 10 days. But, they need to last for 12 days for help to arrive. They take a vote on who should die. One person refuses to participate. They vote to take his water. They use force and take his water. He dies. They live.
That is stealing. This simple story serves to illustrate that voting to make something legal does not change the fact that stealing occurred. Stealing is by it's nature, immoral. Nothing more. As we all know, ONE COUNTER example destroys a theory. I have provided an example of where voting does not change morality. Thus, voting can not mean something is therefor moral.
Voluntarily paying tax is perfectly moral. Forcing someone to part with some of their private property is OTOH stealing.
Everyone here thinks they "need to tax the rich". Well, OK, you can make it legal. But you can't make it moral. Now, I'm not rich. So, I stand to benefit by the rich being taxed. Why would I therefor argue not to tax them? Because taxing them would be theft. AND we can see where it's leading us. We have a society where the top 1% pay little to no tax anyway. We're the ones who pay. The middle class. My argument is that we can create a society where, through the use of competing currencies, we could avoid violating ethics and still have all the things we need to make a prosperous society.
We could tax the wealthiest Americans 100% of their wealth and we'd have spent it in a week. This system is not going to work. How many people I wonder, have written things off on their income tax? The very same income tax they purport to support? Isn't that interesting? AND people HATE paying it. Then why do it? Invent a better system.
As to Government Debt. The act of inflating the currency. A STATED GOAL. Is theft again. A 2% inflation with interest rates below 2% means retiree's, the most vulnerable in society, are having their private property, their money, their store of their productive labor, stolen from them.
Live by the sword.
Die by the sword.
06-15-12, 12:28 AM #166
We already do. You're perfectly free to go live in a different place with a different currency if you think it's managed better. You're perfectly free to rely on BitCoins, or just trade for most of what you need. The market likes the dollar, and the Fed's policies, just fine. It's you that has the problem.
It should be noted there are laws regarding the use of gold and silver as legal tender the result in the taxation of property when they are traded.
If you're going to stay hung up on the fact that all governance (not just income taxation) necessarily involves using force, then you should just sack it up and admit that you're an anarchist. Anarchism is the only political philosophy that rejects the use of hierarchical force outright. All the others - including libertarianism - demand the use of force by the state to enforce certain norms. In libertarianism this gets limited to property rights, but it's still force.
06-15-12, 03:16 AM #167
Again, we can't have too little.. or people die. I mean debt?! How does that even work? They have so much they give us some, because we don't have enough?
We didn't have any to begin with and they gave us some? They're stupid, were not paying them back. Call Japan next.
Debt would imply a negative. Did I literally work 6 hours today and not only did I not do enough... I made it so were all poorer?
Can we get rid of all the rich guys who make us go to war with the other people in debt who are controlled by their rich guys? Wait.
Last edited by kx000; 06-15-12 at 03:24 AM.
06-15-12, 03:27 AM #168
Ok. Its simple.
We work to be wealthy. Our work directly generates wealth of a specific brand.
8 hour work day from worker 1 produces X amount of product A.
Worker 1 needs compensation of assorted products to cover 8 hours of work fair to the quality, and quantity in which he assembled product A.
Worker 1 needs to be identified professionally, and professions need a grading scale for fair compensation. What is the value of worker 1's out put, in relation workers 2-100,000,000?
The gold standard is silly. Labor standard! We need milk, egg's, and potato's, not corporations to compete to sell us these things. We need farmers, stockers, and merchants, not CEO's, or VP's of sales.
Last edited by kx000; 06-15-12 at 12:57 PM.
06-15-12, 10:57 PM #169
06-18-12, 09:19 AM #170
You OTOH come back with some smart ass response time and time again. Why not actually make an argument, a logical argument, for why income tax is not immoral. Notice once again, I didn't say income tax is illegal. While it wasn't ever voted on directly, it did pass into Law. I simply stated it involves coercion and force to remove property from someone, thus, meets the definition of stealing and is therefor immoral.
Also, I didn't say "any" tax I specified a tax and said income tax (although SSI would qualify).
While income tax is forced on people. Gasoline tax OTOH is freely paid. You don't have to buy gasoline. BUT, if you want to use public roads, then they need paid for, and this works well if the payment to maintain the roads is in the gasoline. Tolls also work well for roads. Japan is literally littered in tolls and the roads are fantastic. Want to drive through the mountain, pay a toll and you're in the city in 5 minutes. Don't want to use the toll roads? That's OK, it's a 35 minute drive around the mountain. Both people pay tax in gasoline and one person chooses to pay a little more for the convenience of traveling through the mountain. Either person could live in the city OR take a subway. Subways also need maintenance, they costs a bit of money as well. To attract talent, most companies in Japan PAY for the subway for all employees.
See how all of this works? It's called volunteerism. There's nothing magical or inane about volunteerism. I'd suggest 99.99% of the interactions you have with people are via free interaction. You don't call in a government official to force someone to have coffee with you. Yet, you'd happily have the police send that very same person you were freely interacting with to jail - if they don't pay into that 81% tax.
Anyway, through volunteerism tax is being paid, society is functioning, AND we haven't spoken of income tax.
As you can see, the government makes most of it's money milking the Cattle.
Sadly, private insurance could provide MUCH better service at such a cheaper price. 80% of that tax money will be sucked into Fat White Middle Class American Bureaucrates (which is the REAL welfare class) who 'administer' the welfare system - which is why we will NEVER see an end to the permanent poor. There's too many fat white Americans dependent on their BEING a poor class.
Anyway, as SSI is spent as soon as it comes in, it's no different than Income Tax. Basically a full 81%+ of the Federal Budget is only paid through force and coercion. Which is why even if you try and take your money overseas, they'll need to know how much and where to. See, it's not YOUR money. You're just Cattle and that money is just a place marker of the amount of labor you've been milked of.
AND you know what, Governments only grow. They grow and grow and grow. See, governments think just like you. That the world revolves around government - it's the sun that shines Light out of its Ass to light up our lives. Without ALL those white middle class fat American bureaucrates *gasp* the world would actually stop turning.
Last edited by Michael; 06-18-12 at 09:47 AM.
06-18-12, 10:32 AM #171
The Fed’s goals are to maintain full employment and price stability which benefits those retirees you referenced. It doesn’t hurt them in any way.
06-18-12, 01:15 PM #172
This point can be brought into focus by universalizing the proposition that taxation is not theft:
Imagine that the U.S Government is Mcdonalds, and all of the money that is collected through taxation is used to help create the ideal society as envisioned by the Mcdonald's corporation. McCitizens have no choice but to pay the tax under penalty of incarceration in McPrison, but do not regard this as strange because they have spent their entire schooling years solemnly reciting a pledge of allegiance to the golden arches and singing the Mcdonalds theme song at assemblies and sporting events. They have been taught that disobedience to Mcdonalds is synonymous with being a bad person. That only criminals or the insane would dare question the virtue and necessity of Mcdonalds as the central authority in their lives. And even though they have no choice but to sacrifice upwards of half there income to their Mcrulers, they believe that they are free because couple of years they go to their local Mcdonald's franchises and vote whether or not the Hamburgler or Mayor McCheese will be the new Ceo of the corporation/overlord of their lives...
And of course it is plainly obvious that this doesn't make any sense. All takes is to not look at the government as different from any other corporation. There is nothing mystical about it. So when you say that taxation is not theft you are not only redefining language, you are redefining reality to fit the preconceived notion about the nature of the society we live in. We live in a murder based society where a single corporation has achieved mystical status and is allowed to use violence to organize human activity as if this were the panacea of how social problems get solved. The reason government can tax, and Mcdonalds can't is simply that Mcdonalds has no means (physically, or ideologically) of forcing anyone to pay it.
06-18-12, 01:32 PM #173Originally Posted by Psyche
Speaking of sacrifice: who is to pay the the salaries of the military, police and other public servants who sacrifice to protect McMiser?
06-18-12, 01:35 PM #174
06-18-12, 01:37 PM #175
06-18-12, 01:46 PM #176
Your post at #170 shows "Entitlements" in red. 84% of that money is allocated to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
These are entitlements the claimants paid for. The unemployment insurance (in the other 16% was paid by their employers, a perk for signing on at whatever rate of pay was offered.
The profile looks different when you set them aside as entitlements (unless you mean to cancel those kinds of agreements.) It leaves the military as the largest consumer of public funds.
When you talk about ideas like reducing the government to reduce the debt and/or ongoing costs, you are left with the dilemma of reducing the military. This is in the cards no doubt. But how do you reconcile these facts with the rest of what you are saying?
06-18-12, 02:07 PM #177
You said they will take up to half of his money. I would like to know how many people pay that much, and why you even brought it up.
creating an organization that can violate his person and property at will and in perpetuity with special immunity from the laws they are supposedly enforcing
You may not have signed a contract, but the day you agreed to do work, understanding that you would have taxes and social security deducted, you ratified your intent to abide by the law, and no doubt you had some sense of the consequences of tax evasion.
It's the law, just like speed limits or any other crime. Depending on how severely you break the law, there is proportionate punishment. I don't know the statistics, but I would imagine most people settle out of court or pay fines. Obviously more serious cases might involve property confiscation or imprisonment, but I have no idea who those people are, how many there are, or the circumstances that lead to their convictions.
A lot of Americans expatriate themselves for various reasons, and I would assume taxes is one of them. I would like to hear how they are doing under the rule of other governments who face the same problems raising revenues. Exceptions are some of the oil rich countries who may forego taxes and share the wealth a little.
But that's the alternative. It's either here or somewhere else. There's the possibility of change here, but I doubt seriously anyone would be willing to dismantle their entitlements and their military just because McMiser pays 50% (for some reason).
06-18-12, 02:13 PM #178
Repeating misinformation ad nauseum never makes something truthful. I suggest you look up the definitions of the words “theft” and “taxation” and come back to us and tell us what you found. And then explain why you think you are not redefining the words.
I am going to give you a handy list of illogical arguments and I am going to challenge you to make your case without using one of them.
06-18-12, 02:39 PM #179
If the law were written a little differently, the businesses could be taxed directly and you'd never see that number on your check stub which seems to be the irritant. Similarly, banks and investment houses could be assessed for the interest income they earn, instead of taxing each proceed as it cashes out.
So regardless of what happens to that money, it wasn't yours or mine, because we agreed--when we took our jobs, or bought our businesses or investments, or whatever the case may be--that we would would only enjoy the net proceeds as our private property.
So any discussion of morality would entail this agreement, before you even touch on the question that quid pro quo (services for payment) is not theft.
06-18-12, 02:47 PM #180
Nothing remains for you here, then, but a process of social ostracism and silencing, almost surely culminating with you leaving SciForums permanently. This is how it always goes with libertarian ideologues - you didn't come here for a conversation, or to learn anything, but simply to pound the table about your fixed agenda. I suggest you save everyone involved the time, and just go the hell away right now.
By madanthonywayne in forum PoliticsLast Post: 05-18-09, 02:22 PMReplies: 30
By madanthonywayne in forum PoliticsLast Post: 05-12-09, 04:10 PMReplies: 0
By madanthonywayne in forum PoliticsLast Post: 04-28-09, 11:16 PMReplies: 192
By Norsefire in forum PoliticsLast Post: 10-07-08, 04:34 AMReplies: 11
By joepistole in forum PoliticsLast Post: 09-07-08, 10:58 PMReplies: 129