Violence

[adoucette]

I thought I better re-state that middle point.

Companies can pay tax. Companies are not people, so, yeah, they can pay some tax. People OTOH are... people! So, they should not be forced to pay income tax.

Well Michael, then that just means you would be ok will all taxes being collected via a different mechanism, like Corportate taxes and Excise Taxes and Fees, which ALL get passed on to the end consumer.

The DIFFERENCE though (which you continually ignore), is that all these other means of taxes are much more REGRESSIVE than an income tax.

So all this long rant boils down to Michael is you are bitching about the PROGRESSIVE nature of our tax system.

All you are saying is you want those with HIGH INCOMES to pay a significantly smaller share of the US taxes.

Good luck with that.

 

[adoucette]

We're seeing it in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, England and in the USA as well. What we should say is, we'll see more of it and it'll be worse.

Seeing Student loan bubbles burst over there Michael?
Nope, try again.

Mary makes $35K a year. Thanks to John's buddies at the bank, John (who ALSO makes $35K a year) he owns 5 houses. He should be going bust as house prices return to a reasonable affordable level - so that Mary can enter the market. But, that's not what's happening. Mary's loosing income from tax BUT WORSE she's also subsidizing John's bad investment by her forced participation in USD. When the Federal Reserve bails out the Banks, it's people like Mary who are left to live in her car while John gets to keep his 5 homes. That's stealing.
That's not moral.

NO NO NO.

The Homeowner Assistance part of TARP would only help out John if he could pay the mortgages on his 5 houses. Clearly he could not on an income of $35k, so again all you do is make up a STRAWMAN which doesn't match reality so you can claim you are right.

And you forget that there is also Federal Help for Mary to buy a home.

And the Banks have paid back their loans so you really have no leg to stand on.

Um, income is YOUR PROPERTY!!

Ah, let's look back at your previous statements.

Companies can pay tax. Companies are not people, so, yeah, they can pay some tax.

Well when you tax a business they add the cost of the tax to the cost of the product, so then part of the INCOME they make from the sale of the product goes to the government as Tax. This is no different, when you make income, part of the income goes to the government as tax, the rest then becomes your property.

I'd agree if it were a company, as companies are not people. But, if you initiate force against a Citizen, then, yes that's IMO a violent act. But, if you think forcing someone to give up their money by pointing a gun at their head isn't violent - well, that's your choice. Most people who have been mugged, probably feel otherwise :shrug:

It IS initiation of force against another person, and that is immoral.

And how is taxing a Corporation which then passes the Taxes onto the buyers of the product ANY DIFFERENT Micheal?

Consider the Farmer above who sells his produce at the same price, but pays no income tax. In your situation the cost of his Seed, Fertilizer, Tractors, Electricity, Gas etc would ALL go up, since all the suppliers would be making up the lost income tax to the govt via much higher Corporate taxes, so his Income would go down.

The NET to the Farmer is roughly the same, but overall, the RICH would pay far far less tax in you scheme.

So BFD, you make more income than most and so you are on here day after day saying we should make the tax structure more regressive and lower the taxes on the rich.

Good luck pushing that solution.

I think many parents spank, even if they say on a survey they don't think it's appropriate. I asked a colleague of mine (he has two kids) if he thought spanking was appropriate and he said no. I said: You never hit your kids? He said: Well, to be honest, sometimes. But I feel bad afterwards, I just loose my temper.

I see you are not one to let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

I'm not saying I personally am superior. Actually, there's no such thing as a "superior" person. I will say that perhaps I have a different attitude because I was never spanked. Or, at least I'll entertain that this MAY be a possibility.

You most clearly ARE saying you are morally superior Michael.

I can clearly see the immorality of initiation of force whereas others can not

And I suspect that belief that you are superior is why you won't accept that you are wrong, even when the documented facts are presented to you.

Collection of progressive Income taxes are not a form of violence.
The TARP funds have been paid back by the banks.
The high income earners pay, by far, most of the Federal Income Taxes.
The low income earners are NOT subsidizing the high income earners.
The homeowner assistance program doesn't operate like your examples claim.
An Income based Tax system, with increasing TIERS based on increasing income is a Progressive Tax system which puts more of the tax burden on those who can afford it.
A Corporate, Excise, Sales and Fee based tax system is Regressive and puts a higher burden on those with the lower incomes.

 

[Asguard]

There was some debate after the GFC about a transaction tax, it was stopped because it would end up being a poor tax, because if it's 1 cent even per transaction then those who take out $20 are paying WAY more than those tAking out $20000.

 

[iceaura]

So, roads, hospitals, schools, libraries, telecommunications, television, internet, ect..... is all available to be provided to us by companies. IF there's honest competition then we will get an affordable service at a cheap price.

What's so hard to get?

Well, a whole bunch of road systems competing with each other for my business is a bit difficult to "get". Likewise competing libraries, hospitals, internet backbones, sewer systems, and such.

But a more central problem is this idea that government is bad because it can initiate force. Since the possibility and capability of initiating force is a fact of the real world, I regard sequestering it in a government, as much as possible, to be prudent management. Government is not bad because it can initiate force - that's its job, to keep and order that capability, so that people can rely on the social contract they have made.

 

[Michael]

All you are saying is you want those with HIGH INCOMES to pay a significantly smaller share of the US taxes.

Good luck with that.

Yeah, I already understand the Cattle are lined up with you on your side of the paddock instead of out here in the meadow where life is good. Yes, in the Farmers paddock you will have to figure out who gets milked and how much if you want your USD feed pellets.

Oh assumption you make is we NEED all these wasteful government services (like virtual anal probing TSA agents with IQs in the mid 60s). So you keep thinking we need the same level of tax. Well, we don't. Once those so-called services are cut that tax expenditure will go down.

AND they WILL be cut. You don't get to print up $20 TRILLION dollars bailing out the Farmer and his wife who bet the Farm in Vegas and lost big.

Which should be fine for you. You're already so happy to be milked - what's a bit more time on the suction-cups going to matter??? You've been arguing with me for page after page on how you just can't wait to be milked. You must be milked. You want me milked too. We all need to line up in our stalls and let the Farmer have his way with us. Well, you get your wish. You're about to be milked and milked real real good.

 

[Michael]

Now, let's see, where were we?

Is it moral to initiate force against an innocent person? Yes or No?

 

[Michael]

Well, a whole bunch of road systems competing with each other for my business is a bit difficult to "get". Likewise competing libraries, hospitals, internet backbones, sewer systems, and such.

But a more central problem is this idea that government is bad because it can initiate force. Since the possibility and capability of initiating force is a fact of the real world, I regard sequestering it in a government, as much as possible, to be prudent management. Government is not bad because it can initiate force - that's its job, to keep and order that capability, so that people can rely on the social contract they have made.

Then you'd think you'd reduce the role of government in society - seeing as in ALL services can be provided for by other institutions (organizations of humans).

It is more than possible to produce libraries, hospitals, internet backbones. Those things like roads can (and are) paid for by use - for example, fuel. Sewers can likewise be dealt with at a local level where the citizens hire a company to do the job and fire them if they suck. Of course, this means an informed society that actually gets off it's lazy arse and does something. An apathetic society will never get anything done. Which is, IMO, anther reason to HAVE free-markets as it forces you to BE a part of society.

Government, as the ONLY organization of humans that can initiate force against the citizens should therefor be limited in it's role in society.
Example: Upholding the Law.
Protecting our private property.

See, but people don't want that. They secretly hate and envy one another - particularly those who are successful. SO, they use the State immorally to steal from Peter to pay THEM.
As they say, what goes around comes around. Look who's now being milked - middle class America. Karma's a bitch and she's only just getting warmed up.

When it's not anal probing us at the airport it's restricting our rights (example: drug laws) and stealing our private property through both income tax as well as inflating our fricken currency. When it's not doing that it's manipulating the market further screwing us over (example: The Great Sugar Shakedown).



Think about this. In the 1400s the King or Lord of the Estate decided who could and could not do which job. You'd need, for example, permission to work as a baker or a candlestick maker. Does this seem fair? Well, try selling a hotdog in New York - you need a license. Try working a medical doctor - again, a license. The King had his reasons and we now have ours. BUT, in a FREE society people would have the right to choose. We are not in a free-market society and the roosters are already landing at the roost.

 

[adoucette]

Now, let's see, where were we?

Is it moral to initiate force against an innocent person? Yes or No?

Asked and answered multiple times.

Asking again won't change the answers you get Michael.

But since it's clear the issue to you is all about not wanting to pay taxes, that was also answered:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2907994&postcount=18

 

[adoucette]

Then you'd think you'd reduce the role of government in society - seeing as in ALL services can be provided for by other institutions (organizations of humans).

And yet that's what Govt does.
It doesn't actually build roads, or sewers or internet backbones etc
It hires companies based on their competitive bids to do these things.

It is more than possible to produce libraries, hospitals, internet backbones. Those things like roads can (and are) paid for by use - for example, fuel. Sewers can likewise be dealt with at a local level where the citizens hire a company to do the job and fire them if they suck.

Except how do you collect the money from all these people to build the sewers? Decide who is on the selection committee to review the proposals submitted? Who monitors the progress and quality of the job and disburses the funds? Who decides if over-all the project sucks?

Now answer the same questions for the water supply and the roads and the regulation of the utilities and the schools (etc etc etc) and what you have is all these various groups that need to be formed and all of them need money to be collected and all of them need people to work full time on these complicated and lengthy issues

Now add in managing the police, courts, jails etc and guess what, you've just created another Govt.

Of course, this means an informed society that actually gets off it's lazy arse and does something. An apathetic society will never get anything done. Which is, IMO, anther reason to HAVE free-markets as it forces you to BE a part of society.

And yet an informed society has done exactly that, and they created a government laying its foundation and organizing it's powers in such form as to them seems most likely to solve these problems.

 

[adoucette]

See, but people don't want that. They secretly hate and envy one another - particularly those who are successful. SO, they use the State immorally to steal from Peter to pay THEM.

Thanks Michael, it's good that you remind us every now and again what your REAL beef is with the Govt.

You don't want to pay PROGRESSIVE taxes.

LOL

Good luck with making the argument, that those who can most afford it shouldn't pay any more than those barely getting by.

So of course you want a MINIMALIST govt, in the hopes of lowering your taxes, since you don't appreciate any of the value you get for your taxes (not that they aren't there, but you clearly underestimate what it takes to provide those services and apparently only want to pay for just those services you directly use).

Too bad you can't see the BIG picture Michael.

Open your eyes.

Helping out the less fortunate is what rational and moral people do.

So maybe you could try a little compassion on for size?

 

[Michael]

Asked and answered multiple times.

Asking again won't change the answers you get Michael.

But since it's clear the issue to you is all about not wanting to pay taxes, that was also answered:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2907994&postcount=18

No, that post was specifically regarding taxation. I'm asking about initiation of force in general. Is that moral or not? Can you come up to someone on the street and initiate an act of aggression/force towards them if they're completely innocent?

 

[Michael]

And yet that's what Govt does.
It doesn't actually build roads, or sewers or internet backbones etc
It hires companies based on their competitive bids to do these things.



Except how do you collect the money from all these people to build the sewers? Decide who is on the selection committee to review the proposals submitted? Who monitors the progress and quality of the job and disburses the funds? Who decides if over-all the project sucks?

Now answer the same questions for the water supply and the roads and the regulation of the utilities and the schools (etc etc etc) and what you have is all these various groups that need to be formed and all of them need money to be collected and all of them need people to work full time on these complicated and lengthy issues

Now add in managing the police, courts, jails etc and guess what, you've just created another Govt.



And yet an informed society has done exactly that, and they created a government laying its foundation and organizing it's powers in such form as to them seems most likely to solve these problems.

Those should be handled at the State, or when possible local, level. We don't need nor should we support a big fat bureaucrat vampire squid in Washington deciding who can or can not sell sugar in Michigan. But we have it anyway - so, you should be happy.

 

[Michael]

Thanks Michael, it's good that you remind us every now and again what your REAL beef is with the Govt.

You don't want to pay PROGRESSIVE taxes.

LOL

Good luck with making the argument, that those who can most afford it shouldn't pay any more than those barely getting by.

So of course you want a MINIMALIST govt, in the hopes of lowering your taxes, since you don't appreciate any of the value you get for your taxes (not that they aren't there, but you clearly underestimate what it takes to provide those services and apparently only want to pay for just those services you directly use).

Too bad you can't see the BIG picture Michael.

Open your eyes.

Helping out the less fortunate is what rational and moral people do.

So maybe you could try a little compassion on for size?

I do see the big picture and it's a corrupt government 69ing with their crony capitalistic pig friends in New York.

It's not about me paying income tax. With proper investment anyone can arrange their finances so as not to pay much income tax. You think the ultra wealthy pay a lot in income tax? Ah, no. Haven't you ever heard Robert Kiyosaki speak? That's one of his central planks - he made $80 million in 2010 and got a tax rebate! The worst things get, the better he does. And he says as much. He's pretty upfront when it comes to how the government is screwing the average American over. The system is rigged and if you want to get wealthy you need to play along or you're going to get screwed. His words and he probably knows.

So, it seems to me that you're the one that doesn't get it. Society is going to hell in a hand-basket and you're completely oblivious to it. The next generation IS being crushed, right now, as we speak, and the old and infirm (who don't have rental coming in one way or another) are going to have their arse handed to them in their old age. Many are moving into their cars to save a bit extra cash. It's that bad out there for many Americans.

I want to end the Federal Reserve, not because I'm worried about paying taxes - TTYTT money really is NOT a big factor in my life, I didn't have much of it growing up and I have enough now doing what I enjoy doing. I want to End the Fed because it's destroying our society.

But, it's not going to end any time too soon.

Which is exactly what you want - so you should be happy. Bail out the too big to fails and screw the middle class and working poor. I know all too well how low people will go - they'll live nearly like animals. You don't need to go to Afghanistan or South Asia to see extremely destitute - just go to Detroit, you'll see some scrawny half-starved Cattle thanks in part to the Fed.

 

[adoucette]

I do see the big picture

You clearly don't Michael.

It's not about me paying income tax. With proper investment anyone can arrange their finances so as not to pay much income tax. You think the ultra wealthy pay a lot in income tax? Ah, no. Haven't you ever heard Robert Kiyosaki speak? That's one of his central planks - he made $80 million in 2010 and got a tax rebate! The worst things get, the better he does. And he says as much.

LOL, and of course you BELIEVE this BS

http://regator.com/p/233135734/is_rich_dad_robert_kiyosaki_getting_rich_off/

 

[adoucette]

I want to end the Federal Reserve, not because I'm worried about paying taxes - TTYTT money really is NOT a big factor in my life, I didn't have much of it growing up and I have enough now doing what I enjoy doing. I want to End the Fed because it's destroying our society.

Can't tell by your posts.

So many of them are nothing more than you wanting to do away with the PROGRESSIVE income tax and replace it with very REGRESSIVE sales taxes and usage fees

 

[adoucette]

Those should be handled at the State, or when possible local, level. We don't need nor should we support a big fat bureaucrat vampire squid in Washington deciding who can or can not sell sugar in Michigan. But we have it anyway - so, you should be happy.

And the Federal Govt doesn't do that Michael.

But the Federal Govt is responsible for regulating trade with other nations.

We are in fact the "United States" and as such we have one Federal govt (composed of representatives from all 50 states) that makes trade agreements with other nations, set quotas or impose tarriffs, but these apply to all 50 states.

 

[adoucette]

No, that post was specifically regarding taxation. I'm asking about initiation of force in general. Is that moral or not? Can you come up to someone on the street and initiate an act of aggression/force towards them if they're completely innocent?

It's a problem of mixed metaphors Michael.

The police, part of the Executive branch, arrest you because they believe you to have done something wrong by breaking laws created by the Legislative branch.

If you resist arrest, they are allowed to use sufficient force to detain you.

The DA, as part of the Judicial branch, looks at the evidence the police have and decide if that is sufficient to hold you for trial.

The courts hold a trial and your peers then determine based on a fair review of the evidence from both sides and with the presumption that you are innocent until proved guilty by the state, finally determine if you are in fact "innocent of the charges".

So yes, the police can and do arrest people, and occasionally have to resort to force to do so, on people who are later found to be innocent.

(actually they may or may not be innocent, our courts actually make a determination that you are guilty or not guilty. Not guilty is not necessarily the same as being innocent (see OJ Simson as an example))

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

So your stance is violence is acceptable for the "greater good"?

That aside, government is a group of humans. Not a "thing". A collection of people. It doesn't keep society above the hardships of nature at all. Entrepreneurs do that. Scientists working in labs do that. Farmers working in fields to that. Teachers in schools do that. Government doesn't actually DO anything other than pass Laws and regulate the actions of people like Entrepreneurs, scientists, farmers and teachers. Often making a mess of things in the process.

Granted that is all true but would you rather have capitalistic government or say a totalitarian regime controlling your thoughts and actions from your birth to your life? Violence is part of life whether you like it or not, you may not realize it right now but your life is collaboration of acts both peaceful and violent in nature. Take for example a nice steak or fish dinner you have...Where did the meat come from? A animal that was alive at one point, how can you consume it…you have to kill it, gut it, clean and then cook it, all “violent acts”( or crazy by vegan standards) The point is it is not a question of morality. It is more a question of practicality. Would it be practical convincing a lion to stop hunting gazelle or for a sweat shop in India to stop making cheap clothing that you buy at the local store? For the lion it’s obvious...it will continue to consume another life force to sustain its own, is it practical for you to save a couple dollars on a dress or shirt by having cheap expendable laborers perform mundane task?

 

[Michael]

You clearly don't Michael.



LOL, and of course you BELIEVE this BS

http://regator.com/p/233135734/is_rich_dad_robert_kiyosaki_getting_rich_off/

I've personally never paid to attend a seminar by him or anyone else. The point is he doesn't pay much in tax and is filthy rich. AND it's not just him - that arse hole running on the GOP ticket Flippy only paid 15%.

Robert Kiyosaki just flat out stated it in an interview with Peter Schiff. Which made for an interesting debate and a slight argument where the two different POV became apparent.

Peter was of the mind that economy serves the people in some "hidden hand" philosophy whereas Robert was of the mind that Cattle get milked and as dumb beasts of burden deserve it. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be. So, again, the only point I am making regarding Robert Kiyosaki is he stated how the monetary system is rigged and has been for a LONG LONG time. I find people like him generally disgust me. That said, I did buy a reasonable amount of silver partly on some of his commentary years ago as it aligned with what I had been thinking for quite some time. Just because a person is sick in the head, doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to what they have to say and evaluate it.

I seem to remember the "Oracle of Omaha" saying pretty much the same thing.

Can't tell by your posts.

So many of them are nothing more than you wanting to do away with the PROGRESSIVE income tax and replace it with very REGRESSIVE sales taxes and usage fees

No, you're still thinking in terms of a Federal Reserve and single currency. There's no NEED for an income tax. Believe it or not there are other more equitable monetary systems that would be much more representative of the people who make up the bulk of society.

Why anyone would willingly hand over their personal Liberty to a group of bankers is beyond me. That's just beyond moronic IMPO.

And the Federal Govt doesn't do that Michael.

But the Federal Govt is responsible for regulating trade with other nations.

We are in fact the "United States" and as such we have one Federal govt (composed of representatives from all 50 states) that makes trade agreements with other nations, set quotas or impose tarriffs, but these apply to all 50 states.

Quotas and Tariffs are idiotic and only act to protect the monopoly of an industry.

I never took you for one to support such shenanigans? This isn't a case of cutting off you nose to spite your face is it?
Tariffs are BAD for the economy and overall act to reduce long term prosperity. Quotes are worse still.

It's a problem of mixed metaphors Michael.

The police, part of the Executive branch, arrest you because they believe you to have done something wrong by breaking laws created by the Legislative branch.

If you resist arrest, they are allowed to use sufficient force to detain you.

The DA, as part of the Judicial branch, looks at the evidence the police have and decide if that is sufficient to hold you for trial.

The courts hold a trial and your peers then determine based on a fair review of the evidence from both sides and with the presumption that you are innocent until proved guilty by the state, finally determine if you are in fact "innocent of the charges".

So yes, the police can and do arrest people, and occasionally have to resort to force to do so, on people who are later found to be innocent.

(actually they may or may not be innocent, our courts actually make a determination that you are guilty or not guilty. Not guilty is not necessarily the same as being innocent (see OJ Simson as an example))

OK, I see your POV but that still doesn't go to the morality of initiating force against an innocent person.

Say, Slavery, was it moral 100 years ago? I don't think it was. It wouldn't be today either, even if 51% of the Citizens voted to reinstate it. Why? Well, if we accept initiation of force as immoral, then we have our answer.
:shrug:

 

[Michael]

Granted that is all true but would you rather have capitalistic government or say a totalitarian regime controlling your thoughts and actions from your birth to your life? Violence is part of life whether you like it or not, you may not realize it right now but your life is collaboration of acts both peaceful and violent in nature. Take for example a nice steak or fish dinner you have...Where did the meat come from? A animal that was alive at one point, how can you consume it…you have to kill it, gut it, clean and then cook it, all “violent acts”( or crazy by vegan standards) The point is it is not a question of morality. It is more a question of practicality. Would it be practical convincing a lion to stop hunting gazelle or for a sweat shop in India to stop making cheap clothing that you buy at the local store? For the lion it’s obvious...it will continue to consume another life force to sustain its own, is it practical for you to save a couple dollars on a dress or shirt by having cheap expendable laborers perform mundane task?

OK, so, one thing I do think is important is to raise children without spanking them or harming them. That's one way to change human society.

Yes, I agree that animals die so I can eat steak. This is true.

As to India - these are humans and while we are animals we're very different in our intelligence and can organize ourselves to build pyramids or rockets to the moon.

As I understand it, the Pyramids were NOT built by slave labor. It's now know that teams of Egyptians built these freely and happily. This is the thing: These State run projects gave the people something to do. The Nile flooded regularly and so long as it did so they could organize to build 'make work' projects. But, their society stagnated and IMO squandered their productivity on such projects - which is why they were eventually overrun and ruled by others.

This then brings up a question of how to organize humans?