Capitalism Doesn't Work... So What Would?

It is relevant and germane to the conversation. It is showing that not all dictionary entries are necessarily correct in there application to the real world.

Actually joe it is very important as to when the taxes are collected, and it is very germane to my point. If I receive all of the money I have earned through my work, and then pay a tax. Do you think I will give as much money as the government says I should?

joe saying that it doesn't matter when the money is collect is very ignorant.

It is extremely relevant. If it is not thievery than why does the government mandate that it is taken before you get your hands on it? Technically, you are right the government does not do the withholding (and this shows that you are playing games as you are using semantics). The employer does, but why does the employer do it. If the government is so innocent here and this is all on the employer, then explain why I cannot tell my employer to simply pay me all the money I have earned and I will give the government their share? Can I do that? No, and it is relevant and extremely germane to my point.

Point one is semantics. The money is taken before it gets to your hands. You never touch that money, because it is already gone. You cannot pay your taxes yourself. If most had this option, it would be bye-bye government hand outs (which is really why you defend this, and claim its benign effects).

Point two is a lie and another distortionary tactic.

I am not sure how your admitting that you lie and distorts hurts me, but whatever. At least, you are now acknowledging that in fact you use lying and distortion as part of your debating tactics. Good for you, we now know from where you are coming from when we debate you.

Really joe, you hadn't noticed the question? I mean really or does this go back to your admitted debating tactics?

So says someone who has admitted that lying and distorting are their customary debating tactics.

I do and in fact, I am using my words more in the appropriate context than you are. Especially given that you have admitted to using lying and distorting as your primary weapons of debating tactics.

I doubt this statement since you refuse to answer questions in the context they are presented, and of course your debating tactics.

I have proven that I am not using gibberish see responses prior and my response to billy. Additionally, your debating tactics make it difficult to discern when you are being truthful and when you are not.

I not only backed it up, but did so under your terms. Given your debating tactics it was hard to do.

Actually you are wrong again, I have been truer to dictionary defintions than either you or billy. But again lying isn't going to bail you out.

Actually, I have been using my words appropriately. Maybe if you could change your tactic once in awhile, you would be able to answer them honestly. But then again, how could you distort things if you are trying to be honest?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought we had a deal with each other. The social contract. I'm a citizen and we need some government to do some things. We fight about which ones but we agree on the rules of the fight and the method of conflict resolution. When the fight is over and the decision is made, we live with it. And we agree to pay our share. Its unfortunate if we are in the minority and don't want to pay for the stuff the majority voted in, but we can leave. Or we can make our argument and organize and become the majority. But I don't think taxation is thievery, it just feels like it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, and if it is legalized, then it isn't thievery. Like murder vs capital punishment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup, strictly speaking it's not illegal since the laws dictate you must pay taxes.

I guess by saying "Taxation is thievery" the assertion is that taxes SHOULD be illegal (i.e. not compulsory), which is an interesting idea.

However, the problem lies in how one would pay for working government services. Perhaps have every service include a charge when used (like toll roads)? This would be a form of Regressive Taxation vs the current Progressive System. Which one is better?

 

So are you saying that legal makes it right? I am not just referring to direct taxation. I mean in general if something is legal it is okay?

I am not even going into the majority made the rule and the minority has to deal with it.

Capital punishment is legal, but does that make it okay?

Prostitution is legal in some places, but is it okay? BTW- I am not making a judgment on it simply using it as an example.

I am just trying to understand your position.

 

I suppose one could argue that all taxation is theivery, but my argument is strictly from a payroll perspective. Although, I understand that there are some who would argue that any tax is direct.

If I buy goods and services, I am acting complicitedly with paying the taxes on them.

I think the reason why this (taxation is thievery) is so offensive to some is two fold. First, it appeals to their own sense of class envy. Secondly, it appeals to their belief in big government.

Perhaps, if there weren't so many government hands out, then even direct taxes wouldn't be much of an issue. However, I see can where they go hand in hand. In other words, would a payroll tax even be necessary without government handouts?

On the other hand, would some be upset, if instead of paying 75 dollars a check on earnings of say 300 a week, they instead paid say 10 or 15 on the same amount? I am arguing that the lower the pay the less government and the less people complain.

Seriously, I have huge reservation about those who would defend high taxation of any form.

 

Your nonsense started here:

i.e. With a lasses faire government there would be no thievery because all people were honest!

Posting obvious NONSENSE is “worse than useless” – my normal criteria for deleting a post, but I did not see this until now when going back three pages to see where the slug fest between you and Joe started. The essence of it being that you insist taxation is thievery, at least when the funds are taken before they even come to your hands,* and Joe insist that you are inventing your own definition and ignoring the well established dictionary definitions.

Yet you complain Joe is in error by not strictly observing the dictionary definition of a lasses faire government. Then I pointed out you are not consistently using the dictionary but treating it like a restaurant menu where you pick and chose the entries you like (lasses faire) and redefine the ones you dislike (taxation).

Joe must conform to your choices of definitions or he is in error but you are not in error when ignoring dictionary definition of taxation, and replacing it with one of your creation, equating taxation to thievery if government takes money before it is paid to you. (Taxation is NOT a synonym for thievery. The one is legal and the other illegal. Your position that it is not "ethical" is not universally held as like "good" "right" etc. what is ethical varies from one person or one society to another. No one has made you the ruler of the universe AFAIK to decide for everyone what is ethical, but certainly you can have an opinion to apply to yourself. Interestingly for you it is ethical to break the taxation laws -see footnote. Again, like with the dictionary's definitions, you believe you have the right to pick and chose which laws to obey.)

You have also generated circular definitions with synonyms (Thievery = Stealing) and not shown any example, as asked, of a case of stealing which is not also theft to have any claim that they are not synonyms.

------------
*You did later explain why it was important that government not take the money before you got is as that denied you to opportunity to decide how much you wanted to pay in taxes. IMHO, that too is NONSENSE. - A totally unworkable way to finance the government. Few want to pay taxes, and almost everyone, if given that choice, would pay less than their legal obligation.

WARNING: If you continue to post, obvious nonsense, inconsistency, newly created definitions, and ignore request for examples, I will be forced to put my Mod Hat on, and delete a lot of your posts with these characteristic.

BTW I hold the view taxation is very ethical. I want there to be police and fire departments, the custom officers at the borders, the FCC to prevent multiple broadcaster operating on the same TV channel, the FDA to prevent “snake-oil salesmen” from selling their product to someone who needs a scientifically tested cancer drug, etc. for a thousand other government services taxation supports but you are free to hold the POV that payroll withholding taxation is not ethical as it denies you the opportunity to cheat on your taxes.

 

Huh, now you are saying the dictionary is not correct? Dictionaries have long been the standard of how we define and use words mr. galt. Are you suggestsing that we now turn the power of defining our words to you and the Republican/Tea Party? Now that is a bridge too far.

It is still not releveant to your continued misuse of the words taxation and thievery. Either it is a tax or it isn't. In your last couple of posts you have attempted to narrow your definition of tax. It doesn't work mr. galt.

LOL, yeah...more ad hominem. When you get cornered, throw out a personal attack. The bottom line here mr. galt is that it doesn't matter when a tax is collected. It is still a tax. And it doesn't matter if the payer of the tax is happy or unhappy with the tax. None of this changes the fact that tax and theivery are not synonymous.

Yeah I am correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again this has nothing to do with your misuse of the words tax and thievery. Governments have the right to tax. Just because you are not happy with the tax, it does not follow that the tax is theft.

Point three, all of this is bunk. It simply does not make any sense. Government "handouts" are not in any way causal to the abiltiy of government to tax or thievery. Beyond making the claim, you have done nothing to support it. But then that has never been a hindrance for you and your Republican/Tea Party buds.

Are you on drugs mr. galt? You must be on one hell of a trip!

It's gotta be the drugs. God I hope it is not the water.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only one doing any lying around here mr. galt is you. The only one trying to obfuscate is you mr. galt. This is a pretty straight forward discussion. It centers around two words, thievery and taxation, and your persistent misuse of those words and your inability to fashion a reasoned arguement.

Given the extreme absurdity of your position; equating taxation with thievery; combined with your well know inability to craft a reasoned arguement, I am not suprised.

ONLY IN YOUR FANTASIES mr galt...if you are using words appropriately then why are you at odds with the dictionary? And why are you lying now? You must be delusional. That is the only way you can make the accusation that I admitted to lying. Why would I admit to something I have not done. Oh that is right, I wouldn't. So it must be drugs or that active fantasy life you maintain.

The real question here is why do you find it necessary to persistently make personal attacks? Why do you feel it is necessary to tell lies repeatedly?

This is discussion is really not that difficult. Anyone, including you, can pick up a dictionary and clearly see that you have misused the words thievery and taxation. You have weaseled. You have tried to say well it was only this kind of tax that you were refering to versus that kind of tax - as if that made a difference.

You have been all over the place on this very simple issue mr. galt. The bottom line is you have lied. And you continue to lie about just about every thing mr. galt. Your deliberate misuse of the words thievery and taxation amounts to a lie as well.

LOL, yeah truth nor rational thought suit you does it mr. galt?

I am sorry you find rational honest discourse so distressing mr. galt. I suggest that you do some introspection. Rational, honest discourse may not be good for Republican/Tea Partiers but it is good for the soul.

You cannot be that dense mr. galt. Then again? If you have been following this thread and I assume you have since you have dumped in it many times, then you would know that the issue of legality was brought up to show you that the words "thievery" and "taxation" are not the same. Thievery is illegal and the other is not. And there are other differences between the words as well. You are doing that weasel thing again, which is dishonest at best mr. galt.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And if you have been truer to the dictionary that Billy T and myself, then now is the time to show it. But of course we both know that you won't because it is just another in your long series of lies. And by the way your statement here seems to contradict the first few sentences in this post were you claim that the dictionary is something that can be fudged, "not all dictionary entries are necessarily correct in there application to the real world.".

All of this went right over your head yet again mr. galt. The bottom line, you cannot have reasoned discourse if you are going to keep changing the meaning of words to suit your political point of view - something you and your fellow Republicans do all the time. That is probably why you are so reluctant to be honest. Because without this ability to misrepresent, no one would follow the Republican/Tea Party agenda. You would be exposed. And God knows you cannot have that, now can you?

 

Am I suppose to respond to this billy, or do I just accept that you are the final arbiter of what is and isn't nonsensical? No, 99% of adults who can read know your post 166 is pure nonsense. I always try to remove pure nonsense from B&E thread, but failed to read your post 166 in time.…
I have not made up new meanings for words, nor have I made nonsensical statements. I have made a play on words, which apparently has never happened here at scify. …I am making a play on terms You will need to finds some other “play ground” for that as we do demand words have some standard meanings, not be made up by the poster and then modified later (“only payroll withholding I meant, not all taxation is thievery”) for the sake of clear communications. …

Do I have the option to simply receive my entire earnings and then pay my taxes? When you answer that question where does it leave you billy?The answer to that question probably depends on the contract you signed for employment. (Fine print probably authorized the width holding.) As far as where it leaves me, I am still waiting, as aksed in post 213, for one example of “stealing” which is not also “thievery” so your definition of thievery (“thievery is stealing”) is not just circular logic nonsense equating two synonyms.

Two of your inconsistencies were pointed out to you, also in post 213. You were warned a second time in post 226 not to make up definitions, to be consistent, not post obvious nonsense, and to respond to reasonable request for proofs of your claims or examples, etc. Thus, I will just delete the rest of this post instead of going thru it like this listing your infractions, with posts cited, making corrections etc. – My time is too valuable to me to waste more of it on this effort with you.

 

I see you are playing the old victim card again. The same card you have played many times before in many other threads with several other mods.

When mods chastise you in the many forums which you have visited (as they always do), you always accuse them of playing favorites. Of course, nothing is ever your fault in your world mr. galt. And of course you never have any evidence to back up your many accusations. Because evidence is not important to you, nor is it something you need to make an opinion or accusation. What is important is intimidation. Fortunately there are people in this world and in these forums who are not intimidated by your name calling.

Instead of blaming others for your issues, I suggest you listen to what they have to say. You just might learn something.

You have done nothing but misuse words, lie and make nonsensical statments.

 

Not at all, I used a pertinent example to show that sometimes the definitions provided are not always in line with reality. However, don't distort this as you have been trying to do with the fact that you think I am changing the definition of thievery adn taxation.

Point one, it is relevant claiming that it is not is like saying that the timing of when person a was at the crime scene isn't relevent to whether or not that person committed the crime. And I am not claiming it isn't a tax, where have I said it wasn't. I made play on words saying that taxation (especially payroll deductions) is thievery. It is you 2 that are making a claim that I haven't made. I haven't narrowed down the definition of tax. I merely have clarified what I was referring to.

Again, distorting things.

Of what was i cornered on? And when have I said that the terms were synonymous? In fact, I have spent a great deal of time stating that i understood them not to be. How much distortion are you going to?

Ad hominem attacks, another stock answer for yourself. The truth is you have been cornered and instead of actually debating the point back. You turn to falsehoods.

However, if I am making the play on words that taxation is thievery and I am pointing to a specific example of what I am talking about, then the timing is very relevant.

Again, if I pay a sales tax is that the same thing as someone taking my money? No, it isn't. But if my money is taken from me without my having a choice in the matter, than that is tantamount to stealing. Legal or not, it is the same principle.

Do I have the option of keeping all the money I earned and then paying the tax myself?

In legalese, you are correct. But in principle taking money from someone without their having a choice is in principle stealing.

Really joe, wow, I almost missed this. You twisted my words around again. I never said that handouts were the causation of a governments ability to tax. I said that they are germane to how much we get taxed. Huge, megahuge difference there joe.

The following is what you are accusing me of being on drugs for:

Me: Note, I am not even going to reply to all your insults and distortionary tactics.

You: LOL, yeah...the truth hurts you mr. galt.

You admit that you use lying and distortion as a debating tactic, but I am the one on drugs! I wonder how that works?

Where have I made a personal attack? You admitted you use lying and distortion as debating tactic. Also please tell me where I have lied?

BS, and you know it. I have been consistent in my argument and have clarified where I felt it was needed. I have used logic to defend my position and have stated my understanding that I was making a play on words. I ahve not lied, if that is so obvious then please show me. If you are going to accuse, then back it up. So I have a chance to clarify my position or defend it.

It isn't distressing. It is frustrating to argue with people who consistently change the goal lines. But it is oklay, I can stay with it.

I have explained it ad nauseum. It really isn't my problem that you are incapable of comprehending it.

I have already done so, and several times (hence where the frustration comes in). I have already stated that I knew I was makign a play on words based on their definitions and on prior knowledge of political theories and philosophies. I have already done it.

I also defended my stance on laissez faire. It was intimated that there was more to the meaning than there is. I stated this isn't so. Then billy tried to make some assertions that weren't accurate, and of course you simply used your normal debating tactics of which you so happily admitted a few posts back.

See joe to show how much it hasn't gone over my head. I was actually giving you props on a statement you made and then added my commentary on it. But somehow you missed and it was over MY head.

I have had reasoned discourse with you. You cannot maintain it without reverting to your debating tactics.

Again, please show me where I changed the meaning of words to fit my PPOV? You can't because I already told you that I was making a play on words. I also asked billy to tell me what it is when person a takes something from person b without person b having a choice?

What is that? Legal or not, it is the principle that matters. So what do you call this?

If you have exposed me, then you have penis envy. Because heaven knows it isn't through reasoned discourse.

 

Just out of curiousity, where did I ever make such a claim?

I would be curious to know what I wrote that gave you this impression?

Or is this another debating tactic of yours, inflame and then reap the pleasure of reporting the accuser.

 

J.T. Galt's post 228 has been edited by moderator, more may be.

 

Okay so now you can just arbitarily make things up and its okay because your the moderator.

Billy by its very definition thievery is stealing, What the hell else is it? The websters defintion of thievery is the art or practice of stealing. How am I making anything up? How is this an inconsistency? How is this changing the definiton of words? How is this an infraction?

Billy nowhere is there an option for one to opt out of payroll deduction of taxes. Nowhere. The answer is one cannot opt out of payroll deductions for taxes. So where does that leave us, billy? I know where. you just deleting my posts.

You can wait all you want, I gave you an opportunity to define exactly what it means when person a takes from person b without b having a choice. So what is that? If it isn't stealing in principle, then what is it???

Or are you just going delete the post? So you can show me that you are the moderator.

What is it? I am asking you. I am open to the fact that this is something other than what I have said earlier.


What infractions am I committing? Again, I am asking you? I have done everything the two of you have asked; and yet both of you have just ignored it and made the same tedious old arguments.

I really don't care if you are the moderator or not. You are not even trying to be honest here. Wielding your moderator hat is not being honest.

I have not committed any infractions unless of course you simply include the arbitary subjective ones because the mod disagrees with poater. I have clarified my point, of which joe understood the very first time I posted it, he just acts dumb about it. I have told you that I was making a play on words. If that is not allowed, then you better damn sure put your mod hat everytime it is done from here on out. Because if it is not okay for one, then it is not okay for all.

I have one right off the bat. How about joes play on saying on teaparty/ republicans. Everyone knows what he means, but by strict definition this is not accurate. Not all tea partiers are republicans and not all republicans are tea partiers!!

Why isn't joe told to find another playground?? He is making a play on words, and that is not allowed on billy t's watch by God!! He just doesn't have time to go through all the infractions, and corrections etc. unless of course he disagrees with you. Then he has the time.

It is funny how you value your time!!!

Your debating tactics are now exposed, when you are getting it back to you. Simply put on the mod hat!! It is that bad that to you to clarify communications is an infraction. What the hell is that? Oh you tried to clarify your point for communications sakes thats one point, do it again and I'll delete your post. If you persist in attempting to communicate your point clearly, I will ban you.

I read your debate with adoucette and I watch you get your ass kicked there. In that ass kicking you didn't do anything differently than I am doing here. But see here you will wield your mod hat, because your buddy joe is pissing his pants in anger that someone is holding their own. So you' ll just straighten that up.

Irrespective of what is going on here, I actually like reading your posts and admire your attempts at being intellectually honest. But I am disappointed by the obvious closemindedness on display here.

You could have said, I disagree with that analogy. You could have said, I really don't see your point other than it is clear you don't agree with taxes. But no you have reduced your argument to actually saying that there is no connection between stealing and thievery, and stealing is in the very damn definition. And of course resorting to your mod hat.

I have clarified, given examples, asked for another POV, and have been met consistently with the same fucking argument. So instead of actually proving me wrong, no we will just ridicule to death and then if all else fails put on the mod hat and edit posts in red. If that deosn't work, simply delete them.

Wow!! Go ahead, I'm done.

 

No nothing made is up. Unlike you, I use the dictionary's definitions. I also exposed your inconsistencies. I complained that you do not provide even one simple example I have several times asked for. I objected to pure nonsense post 166 which claims there would be no thieves with Lasses Fair government (no rules, no interference of any kind as you told Joe that was what it meant) when in fact the thieves would probably increase more than100 fold without taxation supporting police, FBI, etc. but I made up nothing. Stating that I did is a lie, one of many you have made.

In this post you offer two definitions of "thievery", which I have numbered (1) & (2).

The first is an example of what you think (but few others and certainly not any dictionary) is an example of thievery. You cannot call one example a definition of thievery when it does not even include any of the things the dictionary defines as thievery (For example does not include some thief stealing jewels or a car, etc.) If it a definition, it is only your creation and not even vaguely related to the standard dictionary definitions. As I stated before, at Sciforums for the sake of clear communications we do insist that posters not make up their own definitions of words, especially when they do not bear even the slightest resemblance to the dictionary definition of the word.

Your post 233 states “Billy by its very definition thievery is stealing, What the hell else is it?”

Which is essentially your circular “definition” (2) above but you can never define a word as it synonym. Your definition (2) is like “X is x”, the equating of any two synonyms. Most large dictionaries will list thievery and stealing as a synonyms of the other, but all define each separately not by circularly reference to the other.


To answer your question, with dictionary definitions, both thievery and stealing are the illegal acts of taking something that does not belong to you. There is no reference to the government or to having or not having money in your hand. All that is nonsense you are insisting upon.

Yes stealing is thievery because the separately given dictionary definitions are essentially the same. But your (2) is not a definition of either – just a statement of equality between two synonyms.

Please try again (3) to give separate definitions of “thievery” and “stealing,” as a dictionary does (not of synonym form X = x) which at least includes the most common cases.

 

I'm glad to learn that. It will save me the trouble of leaning how to give a three day ban.

 

Well, I'll try again. What's "right"? What you want? Or what you agreed to abide by when you struck the deal to be a citizen? Nobody gets everything they want and for everything to go their way when they are in a group trying to make decisions together. It's all about compromise and living with the bullshit.

Taxation isn't a crime no matter how much it sucks. Thievery is a crime because you can go to jail for it. It's in the criminal code.

You don't get to live in a society and personally rewrite the rules in your own mind just for yourself. I guess you can, but if you run afoul of the actual law, you might suffer for that "special" status you have given yourself. If you really hate the taxes and whatever else, you have a choice. Work to change the system and put up with it in the meantime, or hit the road and try to find your Nirvana or the closest thing to it that exists.

 

Yeah, telling the truth and calling you out is inflaming.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That will not insulate you from your lies and distortions.

Accusing moderators of biases against you, as you have repeatedly and consistently done during your time at Sciforums, is playing the victim card mr. galt.

Holding you accountable for your missdeeds, misrepresentations (lies), etc. is not a bias mr. galt.

 

And of course you realize when I say "struck the deal" I'm really talking about the "social contract" AND as a practical matter it is the kind of deal you make through performance and a course of dealing. If I just pick up something and you say $3, and I give it to you, we have a contract simply by the action we take. We (other than first generation immigrants) have all been "grandfathered in" to the deal. We don't have to stick with it. The peaceful alternative is to go find a group that suits us better, and which makes decisions we prefer. Of course there are riskier alternatives and those often don't end well.

 

The American social contract has been up in the air since the early Reagan era. On the one side we have the mass of society, who wants to continue the New Deal welfare state social contract they signed up for. On the other side we have rich people and corporations that don't want to pay for that. Instead of reaching a compromise, we've been papering over the difference with deficit spending and borrowing for 30 years. The masses continue to get their welfare state benefits, while the rich stop paying, and the national debt explodes. Until the whole thing crashes - with the rich, and their political party, doing their damnedest to game the collapse so that they suffer as little as possible, and are left in a great position to exploit the newly-ruined peasant class.

That's what the Reagan Revolution was: rich folks deciding that they weren't going to pay their fair share any more, and damn the consequences for the country. They have this silly idea that once the resultant debt gets outrageous enough, they can force the masses to accept their revision of the social contract (since the alternative is national ruin). That sort of treachery is unacceptable - leads to pitchfork wielding mobs and guillotines, most places.