[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I applaud you for seriously pimping your english and getting the hang of exchanging blows with the big boys.[/quote]
I gotta agree with this Florelius. I gather that English isn’t your first language, but honestly you write on here as if it were. Very impressive…for a Commy bastard 
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I gotta agree with this Florelius. I gather that English isn’t your first language, but honestly you write on here as if it were.
[/quote]
Thanks smh23, it meens alot to me 
Are you saying that it would not be as impressive if I was a libertarian bastard 
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
No, what I claimed is that it would justify a minimal state AT BEST, IF you could make that point, which you have not done.
The idea that what I make is not mine until the government takes its cut is interesting and quite an assumption. Care to back that up in any way?
Also, I just disputed your claim so it is entirely disputable, the fact that it is taken for granted by most people is an argumentum ad majoram and logical fallacies do not constitute an argument but reveal the lack of one.
What you have to realize is that ethics is actually hard and requires a little more effort that rationalizing your gut feelings and preconceived notions.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
A couple of things you need to know about this forum so you dont get to frustated.
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]
I’d agree as long as we didn’t have fiat currency, which could be manipulated for trade advantages. You neeed to address all three legs of that stool.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[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]
You totally missed the point. In a subsidy, the gov’t takes money from you & I and gives it (unearned) to another entity. In a tax-break, the money was earned by the entity that is “allowed” to keep it. As most tax money is wasted anyway, letting them keep more of the money does no ijury to any other party.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[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]
THANK GOD!!
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[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]
You totally missed the point. In a subsidy, the gov’t takes money from you & I and gives it (unearned) to another entity. In a tax-break, the money was earned by the entity that is “allowed” to keep it. As most tax money is wasted anyway, letting them keep more of the money does no ijury to any other party.[/quote]
This is YOUR opinion. And he most certainly did address the point. You just didn’t like the response.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Complete bullshit. The gov’t intervention (protection of property rights) is necessery only because of gov’t restricions on liberty (self defence). I do not need the gov’t to protect my private property. The threat of violence is a sufficient deterent.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[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]
You totally missed the point. In a subsidy, the gov’t takes money from you & I and gives it (unearned) to another entity. In a tax-break, the money was earned by the entity that is “allowed” to keep it. As most tax money is wasted anyway, letting them keep more of the money does no ijury to any other party.[/quote]
This is YOUR opinion. And he most certainly did address the point. You just didn’t like the response.
[/quote]
No, you fail to recognize the difference because in your world all money and production thereof belongs to the gov’t.
I’m going to make a statement that conservatives used to say to me during the last Iraq war:
“Love it or leave it!”
Taxes are very low in Ghana. See how that suits you.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
I’m going to make a statement that conservatives used to say to me during the last Iraq war:
“Love it or leave it!”
Taxes are very low in Ghana. See how that suits you.[/quote]
Even lower in Somalia lol. Why not book a one-way flight if you all think that government is so fucking oppressive?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Complete bullshit. The gov’t intervention (protection of property rights) is necessery only because of gov’t restricions on liberty (self defence). I do not need the gov’t to protect my private property. The threat of violence is a sufficient deterent.
[/quote]
lol this is the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that you people are childish. “I don’t need the police because I’m big and bad.” Grow the fuck up.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
I’m going to make a statement that conservatives used to say to me during the last Iraq war:
“Love it or leave it!”
Taxes are very low in Ghana. See how that suits you.[/quote]
Now this is the reasoned, thoughtful and articulate argument I would expect from a 17 year-old, uneducated, internet tough guy. Or a liberal college professor, it’s so difficult to tell the difference.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Complete bullshit. The gov’t intervention (protection of property rights) is necessery only because of gov’t restricions on liberty (self defence). I do not need the gov’t to protect my private property. The threat of violence is a sufficient deterent.
[/quote]
lol this is the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that you people are childish. “I don’t need the police because I’m big and bad.” Grow the fuck up.[/quote]
Once again, you missed the point. You were trying to make a philosophical justification for taxes and the gov’t to impose them. I was simply pointing out that you failed. Police protection is not a justification for gov’t or taxes. Now if a group chooses to pool their resources and provide that, all well and good. That does not mean it is philosophically justified any more than you& I agreeing to sell a car philosophically justifies the existence of the car.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Now if a group chooses to pool their resources and provide that, all well and good.[/quote]
Exactly. That is called government, and it’s exactly what happened.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Complete bullshit. The gov’t intervention (protection of property rights) is necessery only because of gov’t restricions on liberty (self defence). I do not need the gov’t to protect my private property. The threat of violence is a sufficient deterent.
[/quote]
lol this is the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that you people are childish. “I don’t need the police because I’m big and bad.” Grow the fuck up.[/quote]
Love it. You know his kind probably have their property around their trailer mined. All types of guns, knives, and a copy of The Turner Diaries.
Until someone threatens you with more violence, or forms a gang or lynch-mob for whatever reason they damn-well please…
It’s hard enough to keep the police we have honest, at least they are held accountable to the government that we elect.
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
The left-leaning guys who are posting have more patience than I do. Or less sense…
Do you really think you are going to get an American-style Conservative to see reason? To bend or compromise even a little? I read a few of these comments, not many, and it’s just the same old crap. No thought, no depth. Most conservatives couldn’t find the correct definition of “Socialism” if you put it on the screen, much less understand why it isn’t the same as Communism, or Nazism.
Bottom-line: Socialism might not be the best option but when you compare it to the war-obsessed Neo-con agenda it look amazing. Currently the US values the death of an Iraqi civilian higher than the life of an American child. If that doesn’t make you think the USA is nuts…nothing will.[/quote]
Social-ism means that society comes before the individual. Since society is just a made up word, it means they are using the word as a tool, for some individuals to enslave others.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Now if a group chooses to pool their resources and provide that, all well and good.[/quote]
Exactly. That is called government, and it’s exactly what happened.[/quote]
That is not only not a justification, it is also historically wrong.
Why not just give up?
You want to force people for their own good, just admit it and move on.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
You totally missed the point. In a subsidy, the gov’t takes money from you & I and gives it (unearned) to another entity. In a tax-break, the money was earned by the entity that is “allowed” to keep it. As most tax money is wasted anyway, letting them keep more of the money does no ijury to any other party.[/quote]
You are twisting definitions. I know there is a difference between a tax break and a subsidy. But often a subsidy can come in the form of a tax break. Its as simple as that.