For the 'Raise Taxes on the Rich', OWS Crowd

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

wow, talk about inferential bias.

I know you are trying to make some point, but no. That fact that we are humans gives us rights. Most governments seek to suppress these rights in order to provide some sort of supposed protection. Kind of like the mafia, pay us and we won’t shut you down. I believe the terms are extortion and possibly racketeering.

But it does require force to preserve your life, to preserve your freedoms, and rights. Of which is the right to on private property.

The founders realized this and the constitution was written to preserve these rights while at the same time give us a system that allowed for voluntary interactions.

Taxes were soley for infrastructure.

They also thought government might try to overstep it bounds and believed rebellion and revolution was good. To preserve individual rights, not to allow the masses to steal from the individuals.

and on corporations, the only reason we have these entities is because of the corruption of the corporation and the government. A group, removing equality from the laws. That is a huge problem.

62

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
wow, talk about inferential bias.

I know you are trying to make some point, but no. That fact that we are humans gives us rights. Most governments seek to suppress these rights in order to provide some sort of supposed protection. Kind of like the mafia, pay us and we won’t shut you down. I believe the terms are extortion and possibly racketeering.

But it does require force to preserve your life, to preserve your freedoms, and rights. Of which is the right to on private property.

The founders realized this and the constitution was written to preserve these rights while at the same time give us a system that allowed for voluntary interactions.

Taxes were soley for infrastructure.

They also thought government might try to overstep it bounds and believed rebellion and revolution was good. To preserve individual rights, not to allow the masses to steal from the individuals.

and on corporations, the only reason we have these entities is because of the corruption of the corporation and the government. A group, removing equality from the laws. That is a huge problem.
[/quote]
There is no right to private property. That is where we differ. Property is taken and its held. This is the position of every government including ours. We aren’t as far apart as you seem to think on other issues.

What do you think is infrastructure? Soley the military and a criminal system?

63

We are a constitutional republic, sorry, I work in analytical science and anyone that uses wiki as a main source completely loses credentials in the argument.

http://teamlaw.net/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

?A Constitutional Republic? is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man?s sovereignty, the divine nature of man?s creation and man?s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.

64

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Its you that doesn’t understand. The constitution has been changed through amendment. That would be the current law of the land. Even if you completely throw judicial activism out the window as being incorrect rights given by the constitution have changed.

Its amusing that in this thread you argue the government’s ability to tax should be circumscribed by the constitution, yet in the other thread protesters right to freely assemble should be able to be limited by regulation. So which is it? People have god given rights like free assembly and free speech or they don’t? You seen no conflict in your two positions?

[/quote]

I see you refuse to even read the basics huh?

The amendments can change (though it is en credibly difficult) but even those are somewhat limited by the founding documents.

And please quote where I ever made any claim about taxes. The only thing I ever did is correct your ignorant statement about the us system of governance.

Taxes are necessary, but at a point it becomes extortion.[/quote]

What ignorant statement that its a representative democracy?

[/quote]
“The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property.”

“The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power”

No, only so long as it doesn’t violate the individual should they pass laws to do what they want.

No, I didn’t claim that. The founders did. They started a government based on it. You throw it out at the expense of the system. Rights do not come from the government in the American system. In fact that is kind of the point of the whole thing. You arguing the opposite is retarded.

Not if it is to the point of violating individual liberty (which 75% would do IMO). Because again, we are a Constitutional republic. which is an entirely different bases for governance than a regular republic.

But they would have been in violation of both the constitution and the system the whole time.

[quote]

Since my point of changing the law was solely about taxation that is where I assumed that was the topic…[/quote]

No, 75% taxation is robbery. Much like 100% taxation is slavery.

65

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

We are a constitutional republic, sorry, I work in analytical science and anyone that uses wiki as a main source completely loses credentials in the argument.

http://teamlaw.net/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

?A Constitutional Republic? is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man?s sovereignty, the divine nature of man?s creation and man?s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.

[/quote]

Good to see you are throwing out DD’s source of wiki. A representative democracy is what we have which would be a republic I am not certain what you are contradicting?

Private property is solely held in the US currently through the force of the government. If they decide to take your property they can. You can argue that this shouldn’t be so and likely I’d be on board but not because of some god given right to property.

66

[quote]groo wrote:

There is no right to private property. That is where we differ. Property is taken and its held. This is the position of every government including ours. We aren’t as far apart as you seem to think on other issues.

What do you think is infrastructure? Soley the military and a criminal system?[/quote]

Infrastructure con be debated, but definitely does not include taking money from one person to give directly to another (person, corporation, union, group) in the form of property, services or money. From the time government started subsidizing services we were no longer a free market, and it was at that time the steps towards these problems started.

I am not arguing in a strict governmental sense, I am from a sense of our government and it is supposed to operate as framed by our laws. By our laws ownership of private property is a right. One which local and state government’s trample on with regulations all the time.

Even some of the amendments I may not agree with.

I take issue with branches acting outside their roles. Our society has become so complacent, we let one thing go, then the next and the next.

The problem now is it has become volatile, and the next real spark is going to create a removal of order from the system.

with the current path we are headed to deadly battle, I don’t think this is going to be settled politely and through election.

Hopefully I am wrong, but the signals I see around the nation tell me differently

67

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Its you that doesn’t understand. The constitution has been changed through amendment. That would be the current law of the land. Even if you completely throw judicial activism out the window as being incorrect rights given by the constitution have changed.

Its amusing that in this thread you argue the government’s ability to tax should be circumscribed by the constitution, yet in the other thread protesters right to freely assemble should be able to be limited by regulation. So which is it? People have god given rights like free assembly and free speech or they don’t? You seen no conflict in your two positions?

[/quote]

I see you refuse to even read the basics huh?

The amendments can change (though it is en credibly difficult) but even those are somewhat limited by the founding documents.

And please quote where I ever made any claim about taxes. The only thing I ever did is correct your ignorant statement about the us system of governance.

Taxes are necessary, but at a point it becomes extortion.[/quote]

What ignorant statement that its a representative democracy?

[/quote]
“The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property.”

“The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power”

No, only so long as it doesn’t violate the individual should they pass laws to do what they want.

No, I didn’t claim that. The founders did. They started a government based on it. You throw it out at the expense of the system. Rights do not come from the government in the American system. In fact that is kind of the point of the whole thing. You arguing the opposite is retarded.

Not if it is to the point of violating individual liberty (which 75% would do IMO). Because again, we are a Constitutional republic. which is an entirely different bases for governance than a regular republic.

But they would have been in violation of both the constitution and the system the whole time.

[quote]

Since my point of changing the law was solely about taxation that is where I assumed that was the topic…[/quote]

No, 75% taxation is robbery. Much like 100% taxation is slavery.[/quote]

That is where we’d differ in the rates then not that the government can tax and that its not unconstitutional. And that you should elect your representatives in a republic to enact your will. Certainly your legislation will be checked by the judicial but in the end the people do ultimately have the power as a whole as they could say rebel in mass which is very unlikely or they could amend the constitution through the proper processes which might in fact be less likely than a rebellion.

68

[quote]groo wrote:
Then if the laws were found to be unconstitutional by the judicial branch they could be thrown out.
[/quote]

The judicial branch was never supposed to be the ultimate arbiters of the constitution. For a little more on the topic:

Edit: Added before seeing your last statement. Sorry.

69

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

We are a constitutional republic, sorry, I work in analytical science and anyone that uses wiki as a main source completely loses credentials in the argument.

http://teamlaw.net/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

?A Constitutional Republic? is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man?s sovereignty, the divine nature of man?s creation and man?s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.

[/quote]

Good to see you are throwing out DD’s source of wiki. A representative democracy is what we have which would be a republic I am not certain what you are contradicting?

Private property is solely held in the US currently through the force of the government. If they decide to take your property they can. You can argue that this shouldn’t be so and likely I’d be on board but not because of some god given right to property.
[/quote]

That is what I am getting at, the current structure of law does not allow them to do so, unless there is just compensation.

but there is a subtle difference between a constitutional republic and representative democracy. And the later is not truly or form of government, once elected our representatives are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the will of the mob.

70

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

There is no right to private property. That is where we differ. Property is taken and its held. This is the position of every government including ours. We aren’t as far apart as you seem to think on other issues.

What do you think is infrastructure? Soley the military and a criminal system?[/quote]

Infrastructure con be debated, but definitely does not include taking money from one person to give directly to another (person, corporation, union, group) in the form of property, services or money. From the time government started subsidizing services we were no longer a free market, and it was at that time the steps towards these problems started.

I am not arguing in a strict governmental sense, I am from a sense of our government and it is supposed to operate as framed by our laws. By our laws ownership of private property is a right. One which local and state government’s trample on with regulations all the time.

Even some of the amendments I may not agree with.

I take issue with branches acting outside their roles. Our society has become so complacent, we let one thing go, then the next and the next.

The problem now is it has become volatile, and the next real spark is going to create a removal of order from the system.

with the current path we are headed to deadly battle, I don’t think this is going to be settled politely and through election.

Hopefully I am wrong, but the signals I see around the nation tell me differently[/quote]

I in fact agree with much of what you are saying. I think the state local and federal government do go outside the constitution consistently. Largely I was throwing the 75 percent marginal rate out as how I’d have responded to him if I were in the crowd and he was demanding a quick sound bite answer.

Corporations won’t go away without a complete reform of the legal system and how it holds personal liability. I do think the big corporations are much more damaging though and largely through loopholes pay very little in taxes. Smaller ones set up to shield small business owners from personal liability are taxed much higher since they can’t take advantage of the deductions like large multinationals can.

Though if people have economically benefited from the collusion between business and government blurring the actions of the free market those gains shouldn’t be allowed to just be held either.

71

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Oh I know he was combining his taxes but perhaps the woman didn’t know is what I mean. For example if you ask me my tax rate I’ll give you my marginal rate I won’t tie in property tax or sales tax or any tax from gambling winnings say(and a particularly regressive tax that where you aren’t allowed to deduct expenses or most losses :P).
[/quote]

Well if you are protesting and complaining, should you have knowledge on what are protesting? [/quote]
Yah that would be nice, but maybe she had no idea who he was. I am not particularly in agreement with a lot of the wide ranging claims coming from the protesters but I’d say the knowledge gap is equal on both sides.

One of the premises of modern conservative economic thought would be that hard work is always rewarded and that everyone is a rational actor in the market with complete knowledge. This is likely not true and I’d say the average person that subscribes to the neoclassical econ view wouldn’t even completely agree with it.
[/quote]

It may not be tit-for-tat, but if you work hard you will not be poor, unless you want to be…Like a missionary.

72

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

There is no right to private property. That is where we differ. Property is taken and its held. This is the position of every government including ours. We aren’t as far apart as you seem to think on other issues.

What do you think is infrastructure? Soley the military and a criminal system?[/quote]

Infrastructure con be debated, but definitely does not include taking money from one person to give directly to another (person, corporation, union, group) in the form of property, services or money. From the time government started subsidizing services we were no longer a free market, and it was at that time the steps towards these problems started.

I am not arguing in a strict governmental sense, I am from a sense of our government and it is supposed to operate as framed by our laws. By our laws ownership of private property is a right. One which local and state government’s trample on with regulations all the time.

Even some of the amendments I may not agree with.

I take issue with branches acting outside their roles. Our society has become so complacent, we let one thing go, then the next and the next.

The problem now is it has become volatile, and the next real spark is going to create a removal of order from the system.

with the current path we are headed to deadly battle, I don’t think this is going to be settled politely and through election.

Hopefully I am wrong, but the signals I see around the nation tell me differently[/quote]

I in fact agree with much of what you are saying. I think the state local and federal government do go outside the constitution consistently. Largely I was throwing the 75 percent marginal rate out as how I’d have responded to him if I were in the crowd and he was demanding a quick sound bite answer.

Corporations won’t go away without a complete reform of the legal system and how it holds personal liability. I do think the big corporations are much more damaging though and largely through loopholes pay very little in taxes. Smaller ones set up to shield small business owners from personal liability are taxed much higher since they can’t take advantage of the deductions like large multinationals can.

Though if people have economically benefited from the collusion between business and government blurring the actions of the free market those gains shouldn’t be allowed to just be held either.
[/quote]

I agree with what you are arguing here but the corporations aren’t the problem in this case. It is the collusion with gov’t. Take the gov’t role out of the equation and the problem is gone.

73

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

We are a constitutional republic, sorry, I work in analytical science and anyone that uses wiki as a main source completely loses credentials in the argument.

http://teamlaw.net/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

?A Constitutional Republic? is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man?s sovereignty, the divine nature of man?s creation and man?s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.

[/quote]

Good to see you are throwing out DD’s source of wiki. A representative democracy is what we have which would be a republic I am not certain what you are contradicting?

Private property is solely held in the US currently through the force of the government. If they decide to take your property they can. You can argue that this shouldn’t be so and likely I’d be on board but not because of some god given right to property.
[/quote]

That is what I am getting at, the current structure of law does not allow them to do so, unless there is just compensation.

but there is a subtle difference between a constitutional republic and representative democracy. And the later is not truly or form of government, once elected our representatives are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the will of the mob. [/quote]
Sure but we have all kinds of legislation that isn’t relevant to the constitution which our representatives should try to align themselves with the people with.

The fact the government decides the recompense though is a bit unfair in the system as well. Also the seizure of personal property if drug crime is alleged only is certainly very borderline even though its certainly considered constitutional currently.

74

[quote]groo wrote:

That is where we’d differ in the rates then not that the government can tax and that its not unconstitutional. And that you should elect your representatives in a republic to enact your will. Certainly your legislation will be checked by the judicial but in the end the people do ultimately have the power as a whole as they could say rebel in mass which is very unlikely or they could amend the constitution through the proper processes which might in fact be less likely than a rebellion.
[/quote]

A revolt wouldn’t be unlikely with a 75% rate. Ironically, I think a flat 75% rate would be more constitutional that the current tax system.

75

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

There is no right to private property. That is where we differ. Property is taken and its held. This is the position of every government including ours. We aren’t as far apart as you seem to think on other issues.

What do you think is infrastructure? Soley the military and a criminal system?[/quote]

Infrastructure con be debated, but definitely does not include taking money from one person to give directly to another (person, corporation, union, group) in the form of property, services or money. From the time government started subsidizing services we were no longer a free market, and it was at that time the steps towards these problems started.

I am not arguing in a strict governmental sense, I am from a sense of our government and it is supposed to operate as framed by our laws. By our laws ownership of private property is a right. One which local and state government’s trample on with regulations all the time.

Even some of the amendments I may not agree with.

I take issue with branches acting outside their roles. Our society has become so complacent, we let one thing go, then the next and the next.

The problem now is it has become volatile, and the next real spark is going to create a removal of order from the system.

with the current path we are headed to deadly battle, I don’t think this is going to be settled politely and through election.

Hopefully I am wrong, but the signals I see around the nation tell me differently[/quote]

I in fact agree with much of what you are saying. I think the state local and federal government do go outside the constitution consistently. Largely I was throwing the 75 percent marginal rate out as how I’d have responded to him if I were in the crowd and he was demanding a quick sound bite answer.

Corporations won’t go away without a complete reform of the legal system and how it holds personal liability. I do think the big corporations are much more damaging though and largely through loopholes pay very little in taxes. Smaller ones set up to shield small business owners from personal liability are taxed much higher since they can’t take advantage of the deductions like large multinationals can.

Though if people have economically benefited from the collusion between business and government blurring the actions of the free market those gains shouldn’t be allowed to just be held either.
[/quote]

I agree, the politicians and corporations, individuals that are part of this should be prosecuted, their profits taken and put towards our debt and all these attrocities corrected.

76

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

There is no right to private property. That is where we differ. Property is taken and its held. This is the position of every government including ours. We aren’t as far apart as you seem to think on other issues.

What do you think is infrastructure? Soley the military and a criminal system?[/quote]

Infrastructure con be debated, but definitely does not include taking money from one person to give directly to another (person, corporation, union, group) in the form of property, services or money. From the time government started subsidizing services we were no longer a free market, and it was at that time the steps towards these problems started.

I am not arguing in a strict governmental sense, I am from a sense of our government and it is supposed to operate as framed by our laws. By our laws ownership of private property is a right. One which local and state government’s trample on with regulations all the time.

Even some of the amendments I may not agree with.

I take issue with branches acting outside their roles. Our society has become so complacent, we let one thing go, then the next and the next.

The problem now is it has become volatile, and the next real spark is going to create a removal of order from the system.

with the current path we are headed to deadly battle, I don’t think this is going to be settled politely and through election.

Hopefully I am wrong, but the signals I see around the nation tell me differently[/quote]

I in fact agree with much of what you are saying. I think the state local and federal government do go outside the constitution consistently. Largely I was throwing the 75 percent marginal rate out as how I’d have responded to him if I were in the crowd and he was demanding a quick sound bite answer.

Corporations won’t go away without a complete reform of the legal system and how it holds personal liability. I do think the big corporations are much more damaging though and largely through loopholes pay very little in taxes. Smaller ones set up to shield small business owners from personal liability are taxed much higher since they can’t take advantage of the deductions like large multinationals can.

Though if people have economically benefited from the collusion between business and government blurring the actions of the free market those gains shouldn’t be allowed to just be held either.
[/quote]

I agree with what you are arguing here but the corporations aren’t the problem in this case. It is the collusion with gov’t. Take the gov’t role out of the equation and the problem is gone.
[/quote]

but at this point it isn’t that simple, what they have done to this point, on both sides is criminal. It needs to be prosecuted.

77

I like how the guy in the video starts off with “Don’t you want to be in the 1%?”

It doesn’t matter who wants to be in the 1%. It doesn’t matter that any one person would like to benefit from a dysfunctional system - it’s still dysfunctional.

78

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I know property is held by force, so is your life,

Hence the role of the government to preserve those rights. [/quote]
So help us out here educated guy…life is the same as property?[/quote]

Life IS a property right.

79

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I know property is held by force, so is your life,

Hence the role of the government to preserve those rights. [/quote]
So help us out here educated guy…life is the same as property?[/quote]

Life IS a property right. [/quote]
This is a premise of some classical liberal thought. I don’t agree with your premise. There is no proof that life is property its just an assertion that you are making to base some arguments on.

And to be more specific the founding fathers didn’t even have full agreement on property rights. Adams took views much like Harrington. Jefferson was more like Locke.

80

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I know property is held by force, so is your life,

Hence the role of the government to preserve those rights. [/quote]
So help us out here educated guy…life is the same as property?[/quote]

Life IS a property right. [/quote]
This is a premise of some classical liberal thought. I don’t agree with your premise. There is no proof that life is property its just an assertion that you are making to base some arguments on.

And to be more specific the founding fathers didn’t even have full agreement on property rights. Adams took views much like Harrington. Jefferson was more like Locke.[/quote]

This is not just a premise for an argument, this is a rather fundamental question.

If there is such a thing as property you belong to yourself or someone else.

Which means that you are either free, or the slave of some ominous (democratic ?) collective.

You do not like the question because the obvious answer that would be given by roughly 95 % of the people blows a lot of your ideas out of the water.

That some things follow if you belong to yourself is true, but the irreconcilable problems of denying self ownership are just a tad worse than having to refrain from exploiting someone by putting a gun to his head.

Even if that gun is held by the IRS.

But hey, you could start by elaborating why people who do not even own themselves, i.e., do not even have the right to make decisions for themselves somehow have the right to tell other people what to do, via the mysteries of “voting”.

Unless of course they all come together in a mystical moment and form “the people”, which is a magical creature that transcends the will of the actual people it is made of and rule from up high.

You should read Rosseau, you might like him. Or maybe you wouldnt, maybe your ideas do not look that appealing if they are laid out clearly, anyway, should be instructive.