[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I want taxes up way higher than that.Look, IF you want to be taxed to death, by all means, have fun with that. I for one do not want my taxes up to 15%.
Democratik
Sorry but, any higher than that is unreasonable.
I want to be TAXED more, now.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
So what's the term for a good, sensible middle ground as opposed to all the unrealistic extremes being thrown around? theres really no "one good" system that im aware of. Ive noticed that social democracy tends to work out quite well at this time. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the only thing consistent is anarcho capitalism. Im almost certain that nobody wants that The only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous. We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Unless you are an anarcho capitalist, you really have no claim to the title individualist.Democratik
[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]I guess Libertarianism, but even that has some holes. No way am I libertarian on economic issues. That is to say, I could be if they weren't so darn extreme. They want a nearly pure capitalist economy with no anti-trust laws. Talk about economic suicide. I guess there is no middle ground.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] So what's the term for a good, sensible middle ground as opposed to all the unrealistic extremes being thrown around?mattbbpl
I want taxes up way higher than that.[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Look, IF you want to be taxed to death, by all means, have fun with that. I for one do not want my taxes up to 15%.
Snipes_2
Sorry but, any higher than that is unreasonable.
Nah. Right now, we have a lot to learn from our past, and Europe's current situation. Most specifically Norway. We need to raise taxes up to pre-Reagen numbers and start to actually develop this nation again[QUOTE="Democratik"]theres really no "one good" system that im aware of. Ive noticed that social democracy tends to work out quite well at this time. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the only thing consistent is anarcho capitalism. Im almost certain that nobody wants that The only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous. We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it. I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the us[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] So what's the term for a good, sensible middle ground as opposed to all the unrealistic extremes being thrown around?mattbbpl
Not for long.Well, you can have fun developing this country again. I'll stay in the currently "undeveloped" state we're in.
Snipes_2
Hopefully you arent going to. Hopefully you have access to quality education and healthcare for the rest of your life with free access. not free as in price, since im talking about taxes.Well, you can have fun developing this country again. I'll stay in the currently "undeveloped" state we're in.
Snipes_2
I do have great pride in the current aggressive development that is going on around me, funded directly by tax dollars. The government is directly instrumental in improving many neighborhoods around me. Neighborhoods that, left alone for the free market to develop, just languish in disrepair for decades.Well, you can have fun developing this country again. I'll stay in the currently "undeveloped" state we're in.
Snipes_2
I want taxes up way higher than that.Democratik
Sorry but, any higher than that is unreasonable.
Nah. Right now, we have a lot to learn from our past, and Europe's current situation. Most specifically Norway. We need to raise taxes up to pre-Reagen numbers and start to actually develop this nation again I'd be more open to this line of thinking if I wasn't paying for things that I shouldn't be paying for (pork, no-bid contracts, subsidies) while the government opens up previously secured funds (social security, lottery) to general spending. Before the government demands anymore of my money, I want them to stop stealing and laundering what I'm already giving to them.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Democratik"] theres really no "one good" system that im aware of. Ive noticed that social democracy tends to work out quite well at this time. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the only thing consistent is anarcho capitalism. Im almost certain that nobody wants thatThe only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous.Democratik
We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it.
I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the us That does sound possible, but the American people would never go with the idea of their dollars going to a party that they completely disagree with.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Democratik"] theres really no "one good" system that im aware of. Ive noticed that social democracy tends to work out quite well at this time. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the only thing consistent is anarcho capitalism. Im almost certain that nobody wants thatThe only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous.Democratik
We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it.
I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the us Finally something we can agree on. We do need campaign reform.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I do have great pride in the current aggressive development that is going on around me, funded directly by tax dollars. The government is directly instrumental in improving many neighborhoods around me. Neighborhoods that, left alone for the free market to develop, just languish in disrepair for decades. for once, some of the nasty roads in pa dont have as many potholes as usual. All thanks to Obama and his stimulus package.Well, you can have fun developing this country again. I'll stay in the currently "undeveloped" state we're in.
Engrish_Major
I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the us That does sound possible, but the American people would never go with the idea of their dollars going to a party that they completely disagree with. Before that happens, Americans have to get off their high horse and stop assuming they know everything. I only know what I know as a theory, I regard nothing I say as fact and I would have no problem funding most opposing parties. Outside the obvious (Nazi etc)[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] The only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous.
We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it.clubsammich91
[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] The only good thing I can say for our (US) current political system is that it swing back and form so neither party extreme gets to fully implement their ideals. Taken to the full extremes, they would both be disastrous.
We're seeing the fruits of a long term right wing power hold right now. The left has finally taken hold and is beginning to swing the other way. Sooner or later it too will go too far and the sands will shift once again. At least, that's how I see it.
I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the us That does sound possible, but the American people would never go with the idea of their dollars going to a party that they completely disagree with. I think the bigger potential issue is this: If the current government controls taxes and the taxes are what funds campaigns, couldn't that potentially give the current administration's party a lot of leverage in elections if they're corrupt?you cant provide any reasoning?I'll stick with things the way they are now (Excluding the Debt and what not).
Snipes_2
[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]That does sound possible, but the American people would never go with the idea of their dollars going to a party that they completely disagree with. I think the bigger potential issue is this: If the current government controls taxes and the taxes are what funds campaigns, couldn't that potentially give the current administration's party a lot of leverage in elections if they're corrupt?This is true, you can't stop corruption and people being greedy. Also someone could form a party and run for an office, but not actually run for office and keep all the money for him/herslesf.[QUOTE="Democratik"] I think America should fund campaigns and parties through taxes. Many European countries do this, and forbid them from receiving corporate money. This assures two things 1) No single party or dual party dominance 2) The Parties work for the people, not the corporations. As it currently stands in the usmattbbpl
I've already addressed this. If you were to lose all of your rights to the government then there is no reason to submit to the force initiated against you. There is no advantage. Once again, this is an idea, not reality. If this type of permissive society existed, then all of its participants would consent to taxation. Your rights don't exist on the whim of the government, you can always resist. If the government tramples on your rights then it would be preferable to resist. The only reason a minarchist doesn't is because, in relinquishing a portion of his rights, he gains security for the rest of his rights. Just like everyone else would in a perfect,minarchist societyNo, the fact that you think I believe rights are handed by government means that you dont have a clear understanding of what im saying. Im saying, that many, if not most libertarians are minarchists who agree that you must force some money from others to support a small government. This flies in the face of the idea of property rights.Democratik
A dog on a long leash is not free to roam. My justification of collectivism comes from my understanding of human nature. Government or no government, we all need each other t o survive. Its been this way throughout human history. Man cannot survive alone, and during the time he does survive in solitude his mental health typically declines. "A minarchist consents to relinquish a portion of his property rights for the purpose of retaining the rest of the very same right."Thats my point. Its a contradiction.DemocratikNo it isn't, its a compromise that is the result of living in society
"Just because a government decided to initiate force against a person in the form of taxation that person does not lose the right to property." Yes, actually it definitely does.Democratik]Earlier you implyed that you do not think rights are endowed by governments. Now you are implying that they are, here explicitly and several times with your dog analogy. Rights are, of course, not the result of governments. Governments can provide security for its people's rights but it cannot create rights anymore than it can take them away. If a government decided that you did not have the right to your life would you lose the ability to defend yourself? No you would not, and only you could decide whether or not to defend yourself. A person can always choose to resist force.
A dog on a long leash is not free to roam. The people who typically try justifying property rights do not have a sound theory. Just like you do not. The only philosophy that actually maintains consistency is anarcho capitalism. DemocratikMy justification comes form the philosophy of liberty and from the concept of a social contract. I own myself and any value I create I own. I have a right to use whatever I create whoever I want, If I choose to relinquish a portion of that value for the sake of securing the rest (like those who exist inside of a state do) then that is my choice. It is not a contradiction, rather a compromise.
you cant provide any reasoning?[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
I'll stick with things the way they are now (Excluding the Debt and what not).
Snipes_2
Yes, I can. For one, I don't need to pay exorbitant taxes.
So you want low taxes, but don't want high government debt? I see you subscribe to the Reagan model (or rather, the Reagan Catch-22)[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not collectivist enough, I guess. I want to keep my money so I can make myself happier. Democratik
Me too.
Unless you are an anarcho capitalist, you really have no claim to the title individualist.Actually, unless you don't label yourself you have no right to the title individualist. That also included labeling yourself "individualist," too. Any label is, in essence, the surrender of individuality.
]Earlier you implyed that you do not think rights are endowed by governments. Now you are implying that they are, here explicitly and several times with your dog analogy. Rights are, of course, not the result of governments. Governments can provide security for its people's rights but it cannot create rights anymore than it can take them away. If a government decided that you did not have the right to your life would you lose the ability to defend yourself? No you would not, and only you could decide whether or not to defend yourself. A person can always choose to resist force.[QUOTE="Democratik"] I've already addressed this. If you were to lose all of your rights to the government then there is no reason to submit to the force initiated against you. There is no advantage. Once again, this is an idea, not reality. If this type of permissive society existed, then all of its participants would consent to taxation. Your rights don't exist on the whim of the government, you can always resist. If the government tramples on your rights then it would be preferable to resist. The only reason a minarchist doesn't is because, in relinquishing a portion of his rights, he gains security for the rest of his rights. Just like everyone else would in a perfect,minarchist society[QUOTE="Democratik"] No it isn't, its a compromise that is the result of living in society [QUOTE="Democratik"]"Just because a government decided to initiate force against a person in the form of taxation that person does not lose the right to property." Yes, actually it definitely does.Frattracide
A dog on a long leash is not free to roam. The people who typically try justifying property rights do not have a sound theory. Just like you do not. The only philosophy that actually maintains consistency is anarcho capitalism. DemocratikMy justification comes form the philosophy of liberty and from the concept of a social contract. I own myself and any value I create I own. I have a right to use whatever I create whoever I want, If I choose to relinquish a portion of that value for the sake of securing the rest (like those who exist inside of a state do) then that is my choice. It is not a contradiction, rather a compromise. The first paragraph is irrelevant to pretty much everything, a s ive already addressed them and you cannot see the massive contradiction in the things you say. There is no compromise you either have property rights or you dont. The issue here is that the people who advocate property rights DONT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN PROPERTY RIGHTS. This does not mean at anytime that ive said rights are handed from government. Third paragraph. Again, tremedous misunderstanding on your point. Im clearly talking about philosophy, not government in the strictest sense. the minarchist libertarian position says you are entitled to your property, except that property which is needed to fund the state. This cannot ever/under any circumstance mean that im implying that rights come from the state. The first sentence in your paragraph is completely out of this conversation. The dog on a leash example is a metaphor for the libertarian position. not my belief as it has actually been very clear from the get go. Taxation is not a matter of consent. You may choose to be taxed. But you must understand at this time the very existence of that state implies that others must be coerced. Just because you choose does not mean everyone else does, and if everyone else decides not to pay the taxes then what? Does it lead to individual seccession that leads to anarcho capitalism? The very thing you are trying to avoid?
Unless you are an anarcho capitalist, you really have no claim to the title individualist.[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Me too.
tycoonmike
Actually, unless you don't label yourself you have no right to the title individualist. That also included labeling yourself "individualist," too. Any label is, in essence, the surrender of individuality.
No it isnt. individualism is a philosophy that you own yourself and your property. Please actually know what weare talking about....:|I wouldn't mind paying more taxes, but only if I see the benefits. Most of the action the government is involved in, I don't agree with. I don't want my tax money go to support something that the majority of the country disagrees with. That's not how a democracy is intended to work. I don't want my money go to pay for Israel to torment Palestinians, and other wasteful spending of that nature.GettingTiredI would agree
I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) hamstergeddonId agree. Most americans dont realize the money they work for actually 100% belongs to the fed. We are just using it.
Well TC, you have manage to post a 10 page topic in the few hours I was offline. Congratulations.
Let me start by stating that I think your intentions are noble. That beings said, your arguments are flawed, and the final result unkown. Without the removal of human greed, I do not think the goals of your utopia is possible.
Humans by nature are collective to some extent. Not in all circumstances, nor with every human being. Some relationships beneficial, some detrimental. Also to some extent they are individual, given the fact that they think and act individually, even if it is towards a collective end. There is no collective action. There is only a collective of individual actions. Long story short, humanity consists of individuals individually acting, sometimes in collaboration with each other, sometimes not, toward an end in an interest that they find worthwhile. Also worth pointing out, that in most circumstances there is nothing to be gained by acting like a jerk... I am not too convinced by "social responsibility" I help my fellow man where I can, but I do not feel, nor am I responsible for helping him.
1. The monopolization of military force within a geographical reason allows government to exist, whether for tyranny or justice. Not the other way around. Furthermore, it does not necessitate that all things can be well provided by government. Different things have different natures.
2. There is a common belief among libertarians that in order to preserve liberty, to an extent some must be sacrificed. As little liberty as necessary must be suspended. No more. In other words, property rights exist. If they do not last, then they are no good.
Because libertarians believe that liberty must be preserved does not mean that they believe that some of the wealth belongs to everyone by virtue of existance.
The rest of society NEEDS the wealthy businessmen to provide jobs, and economic growth. The wealthy by and large PROVIDE government via taxes. Hence they have payed each other off in the marketplace and via taxes.
Long story short, no I do not want my taxes raised. Not that I have much anyway...
Interesting post though. Good brain food.
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) DemocratikId agree. Most americans dont realize the money they work for actually 100% belongs to the fed. We are just using it. I don't see how it can possibly all belong to the fed. I trade my labor for money. You're essentially saying that the fed owns my labor - that I'm a slave to the fed.
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) DemocratikId agree. Most americans dont realize the money they work for actually 100% belongs to the fed. We are just using it.
I am pretty sure most Americans know it...
I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) hamstergeddonThe question is if the government is better at spending money than private citizens and companies...... My contention is that it should go to the entity able to spend it the best and "benefit" the most people. That is not often the government.
Id agree. Most americans dont realize the money they work for actually 100% belongs to the fed. We are just using it.[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) coolbeans90
I am pretty sure most Americans know it...
if you're talking about the symbolic paper we use, then yes, that belongs to the fed. The value it represents though, is another matter I think.[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) MafireeThe question is if the government is better at spending money than private citizens and companies...... My contention is that it should go to the entity able to spend it the best and "benefit" the most people. That is not often the government. People only spend in the interests of themselves. The government spends in the interest of the whole society. Your precious free-market system is not the answer to everything
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Id agree. Most americans dont realize the money they work for actually 100% belongs to the fed. We are just using it.mattbbpl
I am pretty sure most Americans know it...
if you're talking about the symbolic paper we use, then yes, that belongs to the fed. The value it represents though, is another matter I think.If the Fed was abolished tomorrow, and the value of the dollar hit 0, they legally would not have stolen anything from you...
[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think the reason most Americans are against taxes are that they are short sighted and, quite honestly, irrational. When they keep their own money they have a clear understanding of how their money gets spent. What they don't understand, however, is that all money they pay as taxes goes around and benefits them in the end anyways. They have no correlation of tax money paid to tangible benefits. Another reason why we can't trust people to vote for themselves (Sounds elitist, I know. But it's true. Just look at California right now....) hamstergeddonThe question is if the government is better at spending money than private citizens and companies...... My contention is that it should go to the entity able to spend it the best and "benefit" the most people. That is not often the government. People only spend in the interests of themselves. The government spends in the interest of the whole society. I hope you're being sarcastic.......
Human nature is collective. We are all individuals, but our nature is to rely on each other. 1) i never claimed that the government could provide everything. I wouldnt even want that. It does however leave the door open for more government services. Just saying "it doesnt mean the government can do it" is not enough to say no to universal healthcare. "Government cant do anything" is also faulty as it gets, because governments always do it. In many cases, its ran quite well. 2) Its a contradiction. If you have a right, it is not given by a government correct? Why then are you giving some up to a government? THey cant take or make rights, correct? How does that make any sense? If you have an unalienable right to property why then do libertarians consistently argue with a philosophy that you infact do NOT have an unalienable right to property? the only justifiable way to have taxes in the libertarian philosophy is through voluntary taxes, but most libertarians are talking about taxes as we know them now. Yes, the people who agree with libertarianism have no problem paying, but what about anarchists? They are not going to want to pay taxes, but your philosophy basically tells them to bend over and enjoy it. Talk about the nonaggression principle. I keep hearing "you have a right to retaliate" ok, so why not have any form of government, with the basis of "you have a right to retaliate." You can clearly see how a government can exploit this easily. Imagine a fascist regime saying "well, just because were killing all of you does not mean you dont have the right to exist, you just arent retaliating" Libertarians have an incredibly hard time making any sense of their world view. Which is exactly why I cant justify it, and its exactly why im no longer a libertarian. No I dont need wealthy people. Dont listen to that Ayn Rand garbage, she was insane. I can easily have a farm, and have my family work on it with me. With no need for wealthy people or "elites." These wealthy people DO need the rest of us in order to be wealthy because they rely on us giving them money.Well TC, you have manage to post a 10 page topic in the few hours I was offline. Congratulations.
Let me start by stating that I think your intentions are noble. That beings said, your arguments are flawed, and the final result unkown. Without the removal of human greed, I do not think the goals of your utopia is possible.
Humans by nature are collective to some extent. Not in all circumstances, nor with every human being. Some relationships beneficial, some detrimental. Also to some extent they are individual, given the fact that they think and act individually, even if it is towards a collective end. There is no collective action. There is only a collective of individual actions. Long story short, humanity consists of individuals individually acting, sometimes in collaboration with each other, sometimes not, toward an end in an interest that they find worthwhile. Also worth pointing out, that in most circumstances there is nothing to be gained by acting like a jerk... I am not too convinced by "social responsibility" I help my fellow man where I can, but I do not feel, nor am I responsible for helping him.
1. The monopolization of military force within a geographical reason allows government to exist, whether for tyranny or justice. Not the other way around. Furthermore, it does not necessitate that all things can be well provided by government. Different things have different natures.
2. There is a common belief among libertarians that in order to preserve liberty, to an extent some must be sacrificed. As little liberty as necessary must be suspended. No more. In other words, property rights exist. If they do not last, then they are no good.
Because libertarians believe that liberty must be preserved does not mean that they believe that some of the wealth belongs to everyone by virtue of existance.
The rest of society NEEDS the wealthy businessmen to provide jobs, and economic growth. The wealthy by and large PROVIDE government via taxes. Hence they have payed each other off in the marketplace and via taxes.
Long story short, no I do not want my taxes raised. Not that I have much anyway...
Interesting post though. Good brain food.
coolbeans90
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I am pretty sure most Americans know it...
if you're talking about the symbolic paper we use, then yes, that belongs to the fed. The value it represents though, is another matter I think.If the Fed was abolished tomorrow, and the value of the dollar hit 0, they legally would not have stolen anything from you...
That's not due to ownership though, but rather backing. Without that backing, the symbolic paper is just paper. They still would not own my labor, which I would use to trade for value in the system that replaced it (barter, perhaps, or some other backing system more likely).I can barely break even. Tell you what, if you can afford to pay more taxes, then you should be allowed to, but if you're struggling, you should pay less. Only fair in my eyes.JustPlainLucas
Hence the term "progressive taxation". If the US had a system of this that wasn't completely corrupt and retarded, then this would be what happens.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Human nature is collective. We are all individuals, but our nature is to rely on each other. 1) i never claimed that the government could provide everything. I wouldnt even want that. It does however leave the door open for more government services. Just saying "it doesnt mean the government can do it" is not enough to say no to universal healthcare. "Government cant do anything" is also faulty as it gets, because governments always do it. In many cases, its ran quite well. 2) Its a contradiction. If you have a right, it is not given by a government correct? Why then are you giving some up to a government? THey cant take or make rights, correct? How does that make any sense? If you have an unalienable right to property why then do libertarians consistently argue with a philosophy that you infact do NOT have an unalienable right to property? the only justifiable way to have taxes in the libertarian philosophy is through voluntary taxes, but most libertarians are talking about taxes as we know them now. Yes, the people who agree with libertarianism have no problem paying, but what about anarchists? They are not going to want to pay taxes, but your philosophy basically tells them to bend over and enjoy it. Talk about the nonaggression principle. I keep hearing "you have a right to retaliate" ok, so why not have any form of government, with the basis of "you have a right to retaliate." You can clearly see how a government can exploit this easily. Imagine a fascist regime saying "well, just because were killing all of you does not mean you dont have the right to exist, you just arent retaliating" Libertarians have an incredibly hard time making any sense of their world view. Which is exactly why I cant justify it, and its exactly why im no longer a libertarian. No I dont need wealthy people. Dont listen to that Ayn Rand garbage, she was insane. I can easily have a farm, and have my family work on it with me. With no need for wealthy people or "elites." These wealthy people DO need the rest of us in order to be wealthy because they rely on us giving them money.Well TC, you have manage to post a 10 page topic in the few hours I was offline. Congratulations.
Let me start by stating that I think your intentions are noble. That beings said, your arguments are flawed, and the final result unkown. Without the removal of human greed, I do not think the goals of your utopia is possible.
Humans by nature are collective to some extent. Not in all circumstances, nor with every human being. Some relationships beneficial, some detrimental. Also to some extent they are individual, given the fact that they think and act individually, even if it is towards a collective end. There is no collective action. There is only a collective of individual actions. Long story short, humanity consists of individuals individually acting, sometimes in collaboration with each other, sometimes not, toward an end in an interest that they find worthwhile. Also worth pointing out, that in most circumstances there is nothing to be gained by acting like a jerk... I am not too convinced by "social responsibility" I help my fellow man where I can, but I do not feel, nor am I responsible for helping him.
1. The monopolization of military force within a geographical reason allows government to exist, whether for tyranny or justice. Not the other way around. Furthermore, it does not necessitate that all things can be well provided by government. Different things have different natures.
2. There is a common belief among libertarians that in order to preserve liberty, to an extent some must be sacrificed. As little liberty as necessary must be suspended. No more. In other words, property rights exist. If they do not last, then they are no good.
Because libertarians believe that liberty must be preserved does not mean that they believe that some of the wealth belongs to everyone by virtue of existance.
The rest of society NEEDS the wealthy businessmen to provide jobs, and economic growth. The wealthy by and large PROVIDE government via taxes. Hence they have payed each other off in the marketplace and via taxes.
Long story short, no I do not want my taxes raised. Not that I have much anyway...
Interesting post though. Good brain food.
Democratik
Correct. Although we rely on some more than others.
1. Government could do universal health-care. I do not think that it should. I find government is often an ineffective solution, and it should only be used when necessary. I think there are ways to fix the problems with our health-care system without a full blown nationalization. (Disclaimer: No, I do not think congress is trying to do that. Though I still have issues with parts of the bill...)
2. I'm more of a pragmatic libertarian than a "inalienable rights" Randian libertarian. Granted I do have a great love of liberty, and I see it as absolutely essential for humanity to prosper. I do believe that a small amount of liberty is needed to be sacrificed for the preservation of liberty. I do think it is both ethically, and practically beneficial to keep government interventionism to a minimum. I'm a minarchist.
Although I am not entirely sympathetic to this view which I am about to describe, it is worth noting. The libertarians from the Randian minarchist camp seem to believe believe that they have the right to the maximum amount of liberty possible, which is protected by the government. Beyond the initial protection feom harm of themselves or property from other individuals, government isn't required, and should be barred from any further activity. That is at least how I think that they understand it.
The non-aggression principle as a practical basis for society, I think is good where it is possible. Granted, there are areas where government involvement is indeed necessary. But I do not think that tt extends beyond military/police, justice system, legislation, emergency services, and perhaps education and transportation. There are probably some items that I haven't listed that I should have, but I'm rather tired and am not thinking very clearly at this point.
YES you do need the people who provide jobs for millions of Americans. If there is anything that I agreed with Rand on, it was that the people who create wealth are necessary for society, and that the incentives for them to grow the economy should not be removed. (and I wasn't all to keen on many of her ideas, especially her... unusual view of morality)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment