[quote]garcia1970wrote:
I see no need to leave and do whatever.[/quote]
Please leave and do whatever.
Good luck.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sure, I’ll comment.
Both extremes, capitalism and socialism are bound to fail in my opinion.
Your defense [of socialism] is not sound because from the very start it’s full of holes
[/quote]
You seem to have missed my point. I was not, as you say, defending socialism (though given the title of the thread, I can see why you would think so). I was simply, at the request of another poster, providing a justification for the act of taxation itself. I actually deliberately made sure that each of the points listed could apply to the United States’ “capitalist” economy (read: mixed, just like every other).
Beyond that: I don’t disagree with many of the points you made. But, unfortunately for you, almost none of them actually attacked the premises of my argument.
For example: “Infrastructure is good, but it has to be kept in check since it’s extremely prone to corruption and criminal behavior.” This is an argument for better government, sure, and a nod in the direction of the eternally applicable truth that nothing in this world runs perfectly (and some of it quite poorly). But this is not in any way a fundamental condemnation of the act of paying money for the upkeep of infrastructure. Indeed, unless you are or yearn desperately to be a self-sufficient hermit, no such fundamental condemnation can be made.
Another: “from a systemic pov that real idea of “hygene” and health has to go a lot further.
Have you realized most people are fat or malnourished, often sick and that most food is far from ideal quality?” People are fat and malnourished, therefore the act of paying taxes to government regulators who ensure the cleanliness of food is unjustified. Quite obviously not a sound argument. Here, once again, we have an argument for better regulation, smarter government. If only the FDA could hire some t-nationers to beat the “6 bagels a day” crowd out of Washington. But, and this is extremely important: this is not an argument for the cessation of government food regulation. Walk into an industrial slaughterhouse today. Look around. It won’t be pretty. Then, try to imagine what it would look like without any government health/cleanliness regulations. I’ll give you a hint: not fucking good.
Another example: your haphazard attack on my justification for education. You misrepresented my original premise (“language a state property”), which in fact was: it is only through some or another form of coercion that all children of a particular society receive at least a basic degree of education. In the absence of government, an inestimable (yet inarguably substantial) chunk of the American people would today be illiterate.
Another example: “Hmm, so more state cures crime and war?” This was, again, a misrepresentation of my argument, which in fact was one of the simplest, commonest, and most self-evident justifications for government and therefore for taxation that has ever been used: man has proved himself, beyond any doubt, to be eminently capable of all imaginable forms of iniquity, evil, and savagery. The majority, which does not succumb to these (at least in their most boisterous and socially disruptive forms), needs protection from the minority which does.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Wait, I gotta ask one question. This should be good—
Reddog, Zeb,
What do YOU guys do for a living???
Playboy? Trader? Assistant manager?[/quote]
When I go around bragging that I’m smarter than everyone else because of what I do for a living, then you can ask, otherwise it’s none of your fucking business.[/quote]
Really, you don’t purport to be smarter than people who feel differently than you? You’re the one who said I don’t know what a subsidy is and that you do. Sorry, man.[/quote]
Yes you are. I said you didn’t know what a subsidy was because you demonstrated that you did’t by implying it was the same as a decreased tax. I don’t purport I’m smarter than people who “feel” different from me, I purport to be smarter than people who clearly demonstrate their ignorance. I this case, you.
I don’t favor anybody over anybody else. I favor everyone keeping what they earn and not being forced to turn it over to someone who earns less. My profession has no bearing on my argument.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Good luck.[/quote]
Back at you imposter.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
You seem to have missed my point. I was not, as you say, defending socialism (though given the title of the thread, I can see why you would think so). I was simply, at the request of another poster, providing a justification for the act of taxation itself.
[/quote]
fair enough, but the zeal with which you defend, confuse and equalise certain human achievments like money, clean or mass produced food with a benevolent taxfed state was a tad absurd.
You can call it a necessary evil, but don’t come and tell me it’s the natural or righteous order of things.
To twist your logic ad absurdum: “Imagine you are intimate with your girlfriend, what would you do without condoms -state-supervised industrially manufactured condoms!- if your girl doesn’t wish to conceive? Good luck with natural condoms, made of bear-intestine. Because there aren’t any bears left! Public officers shot them dead! And if you want to marry the girl, the state and no one else will allow you to - no government no marriage!”
Much of it was tautological, because some sort of bad governance had been shaping humane history for thousands of years.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Beyond that: I don’t disagree with many of the points you made. But, unfortunately for you, almost none of them actually attacked the premises of my argument.
For example: “Infrastructure is good, but it has to be kept in check since it’s extremely prone to corruption and criminal behavior.” This is an argument for better government, sure, and a nod in the direction of the eternally applicable truth that nothing in this world runs perfectly (and some of it quite poorly). But this is not in any way a fundamental condemnation of the act of paying money for the upkeep of infrastructure. Indeed, unless you are or yearn desperately to be a self-sufficient hermit, no such fundamental condemnation can be made.[/quote]
The point is: I cannot be a hermit, but as sure as Amor’s arrows I have to pay taxes to the people that disowned me off my natural heritage and won’t allow any form of systematic seclusion.
And: What IS better government? It’s practically (99%) always smaller government.
Taxes, most of the time, pay the fine things you mentioned more in theory then they really do.
The vast majority trickles away unseen.
If you yearn desperately for clean food, good infrastructure and the other things you mentioned, you should strive to find other ways to make them happen. Because taxes are not the only way, and surely a bad way.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another: “from a systemic pov that real idea of “hygene” and health has to go a lot further.
Have you realized most people are fat or malnourished, often sick and that most food is far from ideal quality?” People are fat and malnourished, therefore the act of paying taxes to government regulators who ensure the cleanliness of food is unjustified. Quite obviously not a sound argument. Here, once again, we have an argument for better regulation, smarter government. If only the FDA could hire some t-nationers to beat the “6 bagels a day” crowd out of Washington. But, and this is extremely important: this is not an argument for the cessation of government food regulation. Walk into an industrial slaughterhouse today. Look around. It won’t be pretty. Then, try to imagine what it would look like without any government health/cleanliness regulations. I’ll give you a hint: not fucking good.[/quote]
Better government.
I hope you realize you cannot wish some things to happen.
If you attest a flaw, it means there is already bad government at work.
From that point, it usually goes downhill as big brother will demand more and more money to burn which it’s apologets defend with said slogan - “we’ll do better this time!”.
There was a hilarious threat where Sloth (I’m pretty sure it was him) mentioned how he would simply crush all of America’s enemies, drive his armies home in record time and do so again whenever a threat was looming beyond the shining sea.
If it would be that easy, those fine soviet generals would have tamed Afghanistan thirty years ago!
History teaches us the best a government can do in it’s few bright moments is to achieve some sort of rotten compromise.
Better government - I’m sorry, it won’t happen!
Perhaps you can show me where some government made a stupid mistake and from it’s own accord managed to systematically overcome it’s flaws.
It usually takes decades where generations of empowered, stubborn civil servants just die off to overcome such a system.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another example: your haphazard attack on my justification for education. You misrepresented my original premise (“language a state property”), which in fact was: it is only through some or another form of coercion that all children of a particular society receive at least a basic degree of education. In the absence of government, an inestimable (yet inarguably substantial) chunk of the American people would today be illiterate.[/quote]
How about coercion to force people to brush their teeth? It would save BILLIONS on paper, jobless dentists would simply join the ranks of the “dental patrol corps” who is allowed to break into your house to control toothbrushes.
Happy and healthy smiles would be everywhere , just like today the average westerner is a marvelous specimen of culture and education!
Sorry again, the bulk of education today is completely and utterly lost.
Schools are an expensive day-care centre, grown historically to abuse the child’s absent parents into some sort of productive, robot-like behaviour as well as to make them all march into one direction eventually. Which can have it’s merits.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another example: “Hmm, so more state cures crime and war?” This was, again, a misrepresentation of my argument, which in fact was one of the simplest, commonest, and most self-evident justifications for government and therefore for taxation that has ever been used: man has proved himself, beyond any doubt, to be eminently capable of all imaginable forms of iniquity, evil, and savagery. The majority, which does not succumb to these (at least in their most boisterous and socially disruptive forms), needs protection from the minority which does.[/quote]
Like with basic education, public health, infrastracture, there is a need for some form of defense.
However, your premise was an aggressive laudatio, stating:
ONLY the state can protect anything!
But:
You own argument hints that your aforementioned evil can as well come from the concentrated power that is a military force.
Now what?
Taxation is at best a nasty, uneasy compromise that has to be watched and adjusted (read: radically minimized).
It’s morally shaky not an imperative.
Give me an argument for and you have an argument against.
Please understand that historically grown legitimations of structures are a more of an excuse then an argument for.
[quote]florelius wrote:
on another note, I am a bit surprised schwarzfahrer didnt agree with you because
he is usually spot on himself. [/quote]
thank you, florelius.
My own convictions seem to place me outside of the big ideological congregations.
My left friends see a rightwinger in me, while right guys label me a commie.
I applaud you for seriously pimping your english and getting the hang of exchanging blows with the big boys.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
on another note, I am a bit surprised schwarzfahrer didnt agree with you because
he is usually spot on himself. [/quote]
thank you, florelius.
My own convictions seem to place me outside of the big ideological congregations.
My left friends see a rightwinger in me, while right guys label me a commie.
I applaud you for seriously pimping your english and getting the hang of exchanging blows with the big boys.[/quote]
you are welcome and thank you for the comment on my english 
Well I am pretty far left and I find you left of center…
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
on another note, I am a bit surprised schwarzfahrer didnt agree with you because
he is usually spot on himself. [/quote]
thank you, florelius.
My own convictions seem to place me outside of the big ideological congregations.
My left friends see a rightwinger in me, while right guys label me a commie.
I applaud you for seriously pimping your english and getting the hang of exchanging blows with the big boys.[/quote]
I would like to add that I like Sxhwarzfahrers libertarian-ish coming out so much, that I cannot really post right now why smh post was not an argument per se, but circular reasoning and yes, tautological.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
An addendum: you seem to espouse elements (or the entirety) of the childish nonsense that is modern-day anarchism. If I’m right: the multiple billions of people on this planet cannot coexist haphazardly and ungoverned. The state that we put in place as a consequence of this inarguable fact costs money. And so we pay taxes.
Get your head out of your ass.[/quote]
Oh, what the hell.
Says you.
Unwarranted assumption, no justification for more than a minarchist government, even if true.
So yes, if you could prove that, you could have around 5% of my income, but you would not have to make me, because I would give it voluntarily.
edited
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
with the money they made, no less
[/quote]
This is the real practical problem right here. You made the money, true, and yet you wouldn’t have made a cent of it without the government toward whom you feel such animosity.
Who printed the money? Who backed it? How did you make the money…were roads involved at any step of the process, i.e. did the transportation of any good or human being contribute to the act of you making a single dollar of the money in question? If yes: who keeps those roads safe from medieval-style highway robbers (who, incidentally, exist in droves in Somalia, where no de jure state exists)? Who keeps them in relative good condition? How about railways? Were airplanes involved at any step of the process? Who regulated the airlines?
Where did you, on a corporeal level, get the energy which you used to make the money? My guess would be from food. Why did you not spend more time worrying about the safety of the food you were eating (a preoccupation which would have been likely to eat up, on the eve of each and every meal, a modicum of your time and mental acuity at the very least)? Was it because of some regulatory body in whose absence standards of cleanliness in agriculture and food production would have been incalculably lower, as evidenced by both deductive logic and historical example? Did you drink water to sustain your own life during the making of the money in question? Was there a regulatory body involved in the assurance of the cleanliness and reliable availability of the water?
Did you interact with other people while earning the money in question? If so, how did you communicate with them? My guess would be that it was in some sort of language. Who taught you this language? Was it in a school? Was there an authoritative body responsible for the fact that, regardless or your parents’ wishes or prejudices, you had been obliged to attend said school and learn to speak, read, and write said language? Who funded the school? Who ensured that it operate in a relatively respectable manner?
Were you murdered or stolen from during the course of the making of this money in question? Why not? Was there some protective authority in place designed to halt or minimize criminality? Who paid for this?
I am assuming that you made this money at a certain geographic location on Earth. Was this location, during the course of your making the money, at any time overrun by conquering soldiers? Were you enslaved by a foreign power, or killed by invading warriors? Why not? Was there sort of large protective “army” in place to ensure against that?
The institutions and agencies responsible for the above benefits, we call the state. You used it, you pay for it.[/quote]
But I would love to use private money they just wont let me. If by “backing” you mean constant inflation that makes it worth less, basically a state run monopoly enforced with the threat of violence, well, that is not a blessing, that is a problem.
I dunno who keeps these roads safe from highway robbery, but I do know who regularily extorts money for the most ridiculous reasons. So I guess the answer is noone, but I could tell you who the people making me get out of my car and taking my money from me work for.
So you are saying companies would poison their customers if it were not for governments. That does not seem like a solid business modell to me, but in the case that they actually do poison them, they more often then not do it with the governments blessing. And no, I do not think that raids on Amish farms that sell raw milk is worth the money.
As a sidenote, the FDA saves about 16000 life years per annum. Through cost of regulation, more expensive drugs or the lack of development of drugs, because developing one is just too damn expensive they cost about 300000.
Governments invented language?
Interesting.
Public schools did help me though, they dumbed down my competitors and beat every spark of creativity out of them. Helps with the ladies too, because by comparison I cannot help but look good.
So, I guess you have a point there.
Anyway, you did not make an argument here.
We kind of get that you think governments and their multitude of “blessings” are kind of awesome, I however dont.
So why is the fact that you think something is awesome a justification to take whats mine against my will? Becaaauuuussse, this is the point you consistently fail to adress.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
are you serious? This is a joke, right?[/quote]
No, its very obviously not a joke. I’d love to hear what about it is funny to you, though.[/quote]
nevermind him, your post was spot on and you know it.
on another note, I am a bit surprised schwarzfahrer didnt agree with you because
he is usually spot on himself. [/quote]
Spot on?
Could you point me to the ethical justification for taxation please, I seem to have missed it.
Hey, rapists think that rape is awesome!
If they can come up with a flimsy excuse for why it is really for the good of the victim, would they have “justified” their actions?
Because, methinks what is in her own interest should be for the woman to decide, but maybe I am wrong, who knows?
Just trying to apply this reasoning to non government moral agents.
Maybe doctors could catch people with tranquilizer guns in the streets and operate on them if they have reason to believe that it is for their own good?
Afterall, they are the experts and they would have no financial interest if they could demand money from their, um, patients, afterwards.
Those pesky consent forms simply stand in the way of an efficient public health care system.
Could someone just walk into my home and paint my walls, in whatever colors they see fit and demand money afterwards just because I, arguably, benefitted from it? Granted, I might not want my walls painted, nor did I like the color, but maybe I am just a little slow and do not know what is good for me?
Or maybe someone could walk into a business and want some money to protect it from real or imaginary dangers and if those people do not pay up they come and beat them up or take them away?
Oh wait, I was trying to limit this post to non government entities.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Good luck.[/quote]
Back at you imposter.
[/quote]
Back at you, high school dropout!!!
Holy shit, I just realized that this is a forum totally dominated by right-wing extremists! Good luck getting those ideas accepted by ANYBODY except the biggest nutjobs and the ultra-rich.
You guys DO realize that you’re fucked, right? The last laugh will be on the middle-class—WHICH YOU ARE ALL MEMBERS OF!
Why do you all continue to shine the boots of your masters??? I know, because you all believe that lie called: “The American Dream.” Good luck!
[quote]florelius wrote:
A couple of things you need to know about this forum so you dont get to frustated.
- Its highly conservative, we liberals/progressives/socialists are few.
[/quote]
This isn’t actually true. There are very few real conservatives on this board. What we have is a heap of ideologically driven zealots.
Take almost any topic and you will see the arguments made by 90% of PWI posters are not based on utility and realistic policy, but upon beliefs.
As a true conservative I am outnumbered at least 10:1 on this board. As an example: Lets talk about minimum wage (as it is related to the topic).
I believe that a minimum wage is bad for the US. And I think it should be abolished.
At the same time I think that IF we have a minimum wage in the US then we need to enforce import tariffs on countries without a similar minimum wage. Anything else just screws the middle class and poor.
Plenty of the so called “right-wing” will agree with my first point, but vehemently disagree with my latter point. And the disagreement is largely due to ideology.
Of course what they don’t understand is they are shooting themselves in the foot. Because what happens when we have a minimum wage here, but have no import duties/tariffs against countries like China and India? Well many of the low skilled jobs go to China and India, and Americans are disadvantaged. Without a steady stable job these people struggle to improve their lot in life and are easily convinced that more government is the solution. There is no chance that these people will vote to decrease the size of government when they are reliant on the government for survival.
On the other hand if we had both minimum wage and tariffs then the poor would be able to get stable steady jobs at a reasonable wage. They could become self sufficient and would be much more likely to vote for cutting the size of the government. The downside is certain items would become more expensive. But I don’t think they would become significantly more expensive.
The best choice for the nation would be removing minimum wage and having no tariffs. The next best, and much more realistically achievable, is introducing tariffs on countries without a similar minimum wage and keeping the minimum wage here. All the other options are horrible.
Ideological zealotry is destroying the United States.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
A couple of things you need to know about this forum so you dont get to frustated.
- Its highly conservative, we liberals/progressives/socialists are few.
[/quote]
This isn’t actually true. There are very few real conservatives on this board. What we have is a heap of ideologically driven zealots.
Take almost any topic and you will see the arguments made by 90% of PWI posters are not based on utility and realistic policy, but upon beliefs.
As a true conservative I am outnumbered at least 10:1 on this board. As an example: Lets talk about minimum wage (as it is related to the topic).
I believe that a minimum wage is bad for the US. And I think it should be abolished.
At the same time I think that IF we have a minimum wage in the US then we need to enforce import tariffs on countries without a similar minimum wage. Anything else just screws the middle class and poor.
Plenty of the so called “right-wing” will agree with my first point, but vehemently disagree with my latter point. And the disagreement is largely due to ideology.
Of course what they don’t understand is they are shooting themselves in the foot. Because what happens when we have a minimum wage here, but have no import duties/tariffs against countries like China and India? Well many of the low skilled jobs go to China and India, and Americans are disadvantaged. Without a steady stable job these people struggle to improve their lot in life and are easily convinced that more government is the solution. There is no chance that these people will vote to decrease the size of government when they are reliant on the government for survival.
On the other hand if we had both minimum wage and tariffs then the poor would be able to get stable steady jobs at a reasonable wage. They could become self sufficient and would be much more likely to vote for cutting the size of the government. The downside is certain items would become more expensive. But I don’t think they would become significantly more expensive.
The best choice for the nation would be removing minimum wage and having no tariffs. The next best, and much more realistically achievable, is introducing tariffs on countries without a similar minimum wage and keeping the minimum wage here. All the other options are horrible.
Ideological zealotry is destroying the United States.[/quote]
Interesting, but look up what the McKinley tariffs did to the economy. Then he was shot.
Do you really think reverting bak to the 1930’s is the way to go?
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Interesting, but look up what the McKinley tariffs did to the economy. Then he was shot.
Do you really think reverting bak to the 1930’s is the way to go?[/quote]
I think they are two separate situations. AFAIK McKinley put very high tariffs in place to increase revenue and protect local industry. Which I feel is a bad idea.
I don’t want tariffs to protect local industry. If an American company cannot compete against a German company then fuck them. I also don’t want to increase government revenue.
I want to introduce a tariff so external companies have to operate at the same standard that we force our local companies to act at. So basically tariffs to make sure everyone is operating on the same level playing field.
Without these tariffs our laws state that a business manufacturing in the US must jump through 10 tons of red tape, but another business can import the goods from a country within which there is no red tape. How can the first business compete? Only by pushing its own manufacturing offshore. This is true with regulation, with minimum wage, with patent and copyright laws etc. All of it makes it difficult for an American company to compete.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Yes you are. I said you didn’t know what a subsidy was because you demonstrated that you did’t by implying it was the same as a decreased tax. I don’t purport I’m smarter than people who “feel” different from me, I purport to be smarter than people who clearly demonstrate their ignorance. I this case, you.
[/quote]
Why can’t a subsidy be given in the form of decreased tax? You are completely ignoring indirect subsidies. Only a fool trying to stroke his e-peen would act so.
Based on your definition if the government taxed the oil companies at the normal rate AND then paid them $x money… it would be a subsidy.
But if the government just selectively lowers taxation rates on the oil companies so that they paid $x less than they should have… it would not be a subsidy. :S
Retarded. Thankfully economists understand that not all subsidies are direct. Any government granted economic benefit is a government subsidy.
[quote]orion wrote:
So why is the fact that you think something is awesome a justification to take whats mine against my will? Becaaauuuussse, this is the point you consistently fail to adress. [/quote]
My point is simply that your property isn’t yours until the right amount has been deducted from it in order to pay for the GOVERNMENT services without which said property would not have existed/been earned by you. For examples, see my earlier post. A police force alone costs money and is absolutely indisputably necessary in order to obtain, maintain, and protect private property. That in itself is a simple and inarguable justification for taxation.
Perhaps they take too much. Perhaps they are prone to use what they take poorly. You say that I think government is awesome: I don’t. The assholes in power piss me off as much as they do any pseudo-anarchist with his head lodged firmly in his own bowels. But I understand, as do most adult human beings, the necessity of government and therefore taxation.
You said yourself a page back that my post provided a justification for a minimal amount of government. My argument, which elicited that particular response of yours, was: the multiple billions of people on this planet cannot coexist haphazardly and ungoverned. The state that we put in place as a consequence of this inarguable fact costs money. And so we pay taxes.
Not a shred of that is controversial or disputable. Cut your losses and admit that, without government (and therefore taxation), you’d be hiding in your basement right now from looters and rapists with shit in your tighty whiteys.