Here's why
effena
Dear God, that video was pathetic.
Why do many people on this site hate the rich so much?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Because people having a good life > you buying a million dollar sports car.
I can understand avarage people complaining about taxes, but utterly rich people can afford it. I just think materialism has become way to dominant in this world, and I'm saying that as a socialist, and not a conservative.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="effena"]Here's why
pianist
Dear God, that video was pathetic.
This one's better. It has a temper tantrum.
It would be ok if she wasent such a ugly girl lol Her face was disgusting to look at lol
As for the rich, Rich people are cool, you either have alot of money or you don't, if you dont like it, your jusr jealous, or you need to have a chat with the president and ask him.
...if you dont like it, your jusr jealous...
CoreoVII
That's just a glorified ad hominem attack...
[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]they tried a system like this is wisconsin for a tiny bit and the bad schools got better out of fear of closing. i dont know why it didnt last though.
in the system i envision with vouchers being wealthy means nothing when it comes to education. just enroll. every kid has the same amount attatched to him, this way they just compete for enrollment. As the school gets better they grow and can accept more students. Also, this will show which areas have a big number of students which will create competition since theres a profit motive.
its win win as far as I can see. A lot of countries do something similar to this, and go figure they all beat us on international tests.
pianist
Thing is, a school has a limit to how many students it can accept, and then there just won't be any more space. So everyone will be vying for the best schools, and the crappier schools will be under-attended. It would be interesting to know why this experiment was shut down. Again, I think the idea has a lot of potential.
the better school would just expand, the worse off schools will compete. better schooliing for everyone
[QUOTE="trix5817"]Do you realize the tax bracket that he would be in? He'd probably be getting taxed for 40% of his income........
pianist
So what. He would bring home $180 000. Most people don't make $180 000 before taxes, let alone after. And the same statement would be true even if he was taxed much more. How many people do you know that make even $100 000 before tax?
Look, I don't care how much you earn. Go out and earn as much as you can - but the more you earn, the more responsibility you have to pay. Every dollar you earn is STILL going to provide you with a portion of the dollar after tax, unless the tax rate is 100%.
You know what I can't understand? How intelligent people fail to grasp the fact that you can not, as a government, impose a flat tax rate and hope to break even when the vast majority of the wealth belongs to a very small minority of the population. Not only will you fail to bring in the necessary revenue, but you'll be placing the burden much more on those who can least afford to pay. Losing 40% of $300 000 will NOT affect your life the way losing 40% of $30 000 will. You'll still be wealthy. The person making $30 000 will really struggle. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy haven't even come close to flattening the rates, and look what it has done to governmental debt in the past 8 years. Reagan's supply side economics, which were supposed to balance the budget in two or three years, led to a fiscal crisis and economic slump in 1982, and a 290 billion dollar budget deficit (from 77 billion) by the time he handed the reins over to H.W. National debt QUADRUPLED in just 12 years (from about 1 trillion to 4.3 trillion) because of Reagan's policy, which H.W. foolishly failed to amend.
As Einstein once said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Sheesh. The writing's all over the walls and people just won't read it. Cutting taxes for the rich is not a sound fiscal strategy.
I don't like the Flat Tax. However, I'm support the Fair Tax a 110%. The income tax is a joke. It really needs to be abolished.
[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]A lot of people feel that the rich should pay tons of money to support all kinds of other people and pay huge amounts of taxes. And my question is.. why? Why should the rich be penalized so heavily for working hard and succeding? They put in the work, they earned the money.
effena
Here's why
I work 10 hours a day and I'm broke. There's some things in this world like ignorance, bad luck, and minimum wage.
And that's our fault.....why? Do you feel like people owe you something? Because honestly, nobody owes you anything.....life is not fair. Get over it, move on, and try to improve yourself and your life.
actually I think most rich folks haven't earned they're money. I never see lawyers getting their hands dirty, or doing anything strenuous. But that's just me.mohfrontline
Which do you think takes more skill and intelligence, being a lawyer (something in which you have to go to school for a VERY long time for, not to mention pay a lot to go to law school), or someone who digs holes for a living? Tell me, which do you think has more value?
[QUOTE="mohfrontline"]actually I think most rich folks haven't earned they're money. I never see lawyers getting their hands dirty, or doing anything strenuous. But that's just me.trix5817
Which do you think takes more skill and intelligence, being a lawyer (something in which you have to go to school for a VERY long time for, not to mention pay a lot to go to law school), or someone who digs holes for a living? Tell me, which do you think has more value?
The hole is probably more valuable than a personal injury lawyer. :P
I don't like the Flat Tax. However, I'm support the Fair Tax a 110%. The income tax is a joke. It really needs to be abolished.
trix5817
Fair Tax is an interesting idea, and personally, I wouldn't mind it being given a whirl, even if only as a temporary experiment to help clear up the significant debates about whether it will work or not. The big problem I can see with it in theory is that the government would be effectively crippled by a period of time in which people don't buy, choosing instead to save their money. And then how do you pay for essentials, which need to be paid for whether or not the money is coming in? It would be like being forced to pay rent, but being unable to get a job because of the prevailing economic conditions.
But I'm glad to hear you're not a flat tax supported. Fair Tax hasn't been proven one way or another. The notion of flat tax (or more appropriately, the notion of lowering the tax burden of the rich) has been proven by history to be an abject failure numerous times.
The rich already pay 80% of this countries taxes. Why would I hate them?LukeAF24
ha, the top 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes...that's BS
because people have this twisted idea that other people can dictate what someone deserves. so they get made and say they want the government to steal from them and give to everyone. i think it's a mix of jealousy, brainwashing, and twisted morals.lilburtonboy748
Insatiable greed is no more 'moral' than the idea of keeping the income gap in check - unless you're a fan of monopolies and feudal-style aristocracies.
[QUOTE="LukeAF24"]The rich already pay 80% of this countries taxes. Why would I hate them?lilburtonboy748
ha, the top 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes...that's BS
Yep. And how much of the wealth do they control? Ever bother to look into that figure? Ever bother to look into how much they retain, despite paying 40% of the taxes?
So I suppose you'd rather tax everyone equally to be fair. Problem is that just doesn't work. It would only work if everyone had the same amount of income. If most of the money is controlled by a small minority and you tax everyone an equal percentage rate, then you will NOT be able to balance a budget without stripping away practically every service the government offers, and you will be crippled in a time of war. In the last two and a half decades, we have TWO perfectly fine examples of Republicans lowering the taxes on the rich with totally disastrous results. How many times do we need to fail at the same thing before we realize it just doesn't work?
[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]because people have this twisted idea that other people can dictate what someone deserves. so they get made and say they want the government to steal from them and give to everyone. i think it's a mix of jealousy, brainwashing, and twisted morals.pianist
Insatiable greed is no more 'moral' than the idea of keeping the income gap in check - unless you're a fan of monopolies and feudal-style aristocracies.
greed? who cares about greed? other people values (aka greed) are none of your business whatsoever. who are you to tell someone they can't be greedy? maybe we should punish people that are self-conscious too. maybe we should punish people with insecurities. for you to sit here and tell me that a person's attributes are any business of the government's is ridiculous. greedy people are not doing anything wrong as long as they don't violate your rights in any way, which they don't. in fact, they are the one's having rights violated by having their property rights taken away from them. people freely give them what they have. what they do with their wealth is none of my business or the government's.
[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="LukeAF24"]The rich already pay 80% of this countries taxes. Why would I hate them?pianist
ha, the top 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes...that's BS
Yep. And how much of the wealth do they control? Ever bother to look into that figure? Ever bother to look into how much they retain, despite paying 40% of the taxes?
So I suppose you'd rather tax everyone equally to be fair. Problem is that just doesn't work. It would only work if everyone had the same amount of income. If most of the money is controlled by a small minority and you tax everyone an equal percentage rate, then you will NOT be able to balance a budget without stripping away practically every service the government offers, and you will be crippled in a time of war. In the last two and a half decades, we have TWO perfectly fine examples of Republicans lowering the taxes on the rich with totally disastrous results. How many times do we need to fail at the same thing before we realize it just doesn't work?
do you see what you're doing? you are not arguing from a stance of principles. you show no tolerance for principles, rather just what you think might yield results. you don't care about whether an act such as taxation is immoral, you only care about what might happen as a result of the act. that is an immoral way of going about life.
do you believe in human rights? if so, you are one giant contradiction because believeing in human rights is a principle. human rights are saying that rights must be upheld no matter what the result. you don't believe in human rights, so you?
greed? who cares about greed? other people values (aka greed) are none of your business whatsoever. who are you to tell someone they can't be greedy? maybe we should punish people that are self-conscious too. maybe we should punish people with insecurities. for you to sit here and tell me that a person's attributes are any business of the government's is ridiculous. greedy people are not doing anything wrong as long as they don't violate your rights in any way, which they don't. in fact, they are the one's having rights violated by having their property rights taken away from them. people freely give them what they have. what they do with their wealth is none of my business or the government's.
lilburtonboy748
Who are you to tell us that those who take the most from society shouldn't shoulder the most burden of contributing to society? It works both ways. You're in no position to decry the morality of 'stealing' from the rich (who are rich only because of society) if you condone greed. Either the greed of the rich is catered to, or the greed of the lower cIasses is catered to. Get it? You're calling the lower cIasses greedy (like it's a bad thing), then saying that the rich should be allowed to be greedy (like it's a good thing).
A greedy person can earn all he likes. I'm not a proponent of an income cap. Let a person earn billions if he can - but let that person contribute to society like someone who makes billions, too. He would have nothing but a mud hut and a farm (which he would have to work himself) if not for society.
And on top of this, there's reality to account for. I'm sorry, lilburtonboy, but you can't run a country without taxation of some sort unless you want an anarchy. And you can't run a budget surplus and provide anything - not even a defense budget - if you don't 'steal' more from those with the most money than you do from those with the least. Again, you're welcome to try to argue against history, but you'll only end up looking like a fool. There is NO logic behind the notion of abandoning taxation altogether, or in a flat tax system. None. And it's no wonder that lowering the taxes on the rich always results in a disaster, instead of the 'magical' trickle down effect that its proponents always predict. Smoke and mirrors - that's all it is.
i dont really understand why the rich would pay more taxes. for the most part they have worked hard to get there or continue to work hard to stay. i realize there are exeptions to this but everyone should pretty much pay the same percentage metaldude05
Give me a break. As mentioned earlier, Henry Kravis makes 50k AN HOUR for his job of being a douchebag.
[QUOTE="trix5817"]I don't like the Flat Tax. However, I'm support the Fair Tax a 110%. The income tax is a joke. It really needs to be abolished.
pianist
Fair Tax is an interesting idea, and personally, I wouldn't mind it being given a whirl, even if only as a temporary experiment to help clear up the significant debates about whether it will work or not. The big problem I can see with it in theory is that the government would be effectively crippled by a period of time in which people don't buy, choosing instead to save their money. And then how do you pay for essentials, which need to be paid for whether or not the money is coming in? It would be like being forced to pay rent, but being unable to get a job because of the prevailing economic conditions.
But I'm glad to hear you're not a flat tax supported. Fair Tax hasn't been proven one way or another. The notion of flat tax (or more appropriately, the notion of lowering the tax burden of the rich) has been proven by history to be an abject failure numerous times.
People wouldn't necessarily save their money. What the Fair Tax does is get rid of people puting money into tax shelters. This is money would be spent, boosting the economy and the government would get the money it needs. Remember, the rich account for a HUGE amount of the country's spending.
What is also does is force people such as drug dealers and tourists to pay taxes. Nobody can cheat the system. Everybody has to pay taxes. Although the poor would get rebates, allowing them to afford the essentials.
And with the Fair Tax, corporations no longer have to pay income taxes, which will lead to them lowering their prices.
do you see what you're doing? you are not arguing from a stance of principles. you show no tolerance for principles, rather just what you think might yield results. you don't care about whether an act such as taxation is immoral, you only care about what might happen as a result of the act. that is an immoral way of going about life.
do you believe in human rights? if so, you are one giant contradiction because believeing in human rights is a principle. human rights are saying that rights must be upheld no matter what the result. you don't believe in human rights, so you?
lilburtonboy748
I'm arguing from a stance of reality. And if you want me to argue from principles - here's my principle. Unchecked greed is immoral. Since it's my opinion and my principle, you have no hope whatsoever of convincing me otherwise.
Now back to reality - certain principles work really great on paper and don't work in reality. The principle that we should all care for one another and that we should cooperate and help each other, both monetarily and personally, seems like a dream world by comparison to what we have now (and it's no surprise, then, that such a world is the basis of many religioius descriptions of paradise). But communism doesn't work. We know that, because the principles can not lead to a successful economic situation.
It's no different with the principle that tax should all be fair and equal. Communism is all about being fair and equal. It doesn't work. Neither does the notion of taxing everyone equally. I believe in both human rights and human obligations. A human has the right to earn as much as he can, but the more he earns, the more he is obligated to support the system that allows him to earn what he does. Why? Because it simply can not work any other way. If you operate on a notion of equal taxation, you will run your country into bankruptcy. Again, don't argue with history, and don't pretend that if we try the same flawed idea one more time, it will play out differently.
Incidentally, a human does not have a right to benefit from society without contributing anything in return. That's why the same constitution that allows for our basic rights also allows for the government to collect tax. It's in the same damn document. So unless you want to repeal all the other rights we're provided by the constitution, don't say a person has the right not to be taxed. Taxation is only 'theft' to a person who is so narrow-minded and greedy as to fail to realize that EVERYTHING HE HAS was only made possible by society. Left on a deserted island by himself, a billionaire is just another man, struggling to eke out a living. But hey, at least he won't have to pay taxes.
People wouldn't necessarily save their money. What the Fair Tax does is get rid of people puting money into tax shelters. This is money would be spent, boosting the economy and the government would get the money it needs. Remember, the rich account for a HUGE amount of the country's spending.
What is also does is force people such as drug dealers and tourists to pay taxes. Nobody can cheat the system. Everybody has to pay taxes. Although the poor would get rebates, allowing them to afford the essentials.
And with the Fair Tax, corporations no longer have to pay income taxes, which will lead to them lowering their prices.
trix5817
It all sounds great on paper, trix, which is why I would like to see it tried - but don't get your hopes up until we see it in action. Unfortunately, history has proven over and over again that some great sounding theories actually don't work in reality, and there are a lot of knowledgable people who are concerned about the potential problems this idea could cause. It takes a while to figure out why, but eventually, you stumble across a fatal flaw that prevents it from working in the real world the way it does on paper.
If it does work and the government can continue to raise enough money to provide what it needs to provide, then I'm all for it. Heck, it could be BETTER than an income tax... but if it doesn't work, I don't want us to stick with it, hoping that it will magically start working. We tried that with Reaganomics and look what it did for us. Then Bush tried that same idea again. Idiot. Like it was going to play out differently the second time around. Obviously, a different tax policy, but if the Fair Tax isn't working, I want it thrown in the trash heap before it quadruples our national debt...
[QUOTE="trix5817"]People wouldn't necessarily save their money. What the Fair Tax does is get rid of people puting money into tax shelters. This is money would be spent, boosting the economy and the government would get the money it needs. Remember, the rich account for a HUGE amount of the country's spending.
What is also does is force people such as drug dealers and tourists to pay taxes. Nobody can cheat the system. Everybody has to pay taxes. Although the poor would get rebates, allowing them to afford the essentials.
And with the Fair Tax, corporations no longer have to pay income taxes, which will lead to them lowering their prices.
pianist
It all sounds great on paper, trix, which is why I would like to see it tried - but don't get your hopes up until we see it in action. Unfortunately, history has proven over and over again that some great sounding theories actually don't work in reality. It takes a while to figure out why, but eventually, you stumble across a fatal flaw that prevents it from working in the real world the way it does on paper.
If it does work and the government can continue to raise enough money to provide what it needs to provide, then I'm all for it. Heck, it could be BETTER than an income tax... but if it doesn't work, I don't want us to stick with it, hoping that it will magically start working. We tried that with Reaganomics and look what it did for us. Then Bush tried that same idea again. Idiot. Like it was going to play out differently the second time around. Obviously, a different tax policy, but if the Fair Tax isn't working, I want it thrown in the trash heap before it quadruples our national debt...
I'm convinced it would work. But who knows until it's actually implemented. What we need though is a politician who actually has the balls to try and implement it. But it's not going to happen unless the public wants it, which is why it needs more coverage in the media.
It's funny when you tell someone about what the Fair Tax is, and all they say is, "whaaa!!! i dont want to pay 23% sales tax! thatz teh craziez!!!". But then when you actually explain to them why it would most likely work, they'll usually end up supporting it.
The vast majority of the rich don't philanthropize AT ALL. Even Andrew Carnegie, who was just about the richest industrialist of his time, espoused that the rich are OBLIGATED to give their profit away to charity once they become successful. He himself eventually gave away over 90% of his wealth by the time that he died. I think that the rich shouldn't be getting these Bush tax breaks, and instead pay MORE taxes so that the U.S. can afford to keep its infrastructure from breaking apart. The Bush tax cuts are founded on the theory of the trickle-down effect, which is utter B.S.Lord__Darkstorn
Carnegie was a wonderful man, and there are others. If every rich man realized his obligation to society and understood that he had led a WONDERFUL life because of society, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think Gates has a similar plan in mind. And several noteworthy wealthy individuals have criticized tax cuts for the rich, because they understand that the policy is totally idiotic from a logical point of view if you're trying to run a sustainable government.
I'm convinced it would work. But who knows until it's actually implemented. What we need though is a politician who actually has the balls to try and implement it. But it's not going to happen unless the public wants it, which is why it needs more coverage in the media.
It's funny when you tell someone about what the Fair Tax is, and all they say is, "whaaa!!! i dont want to pay 23% sales tax! thatz teh craziez!!!". But then when you actually explain to them why it would most likely work, they'll usually end up supporting it.
trix5817
The problem is that most people, without intending to be mean, just aren't bright enough to sit down and weigh the pros and cons of a new idea with no historical evidence to support their conclusions. Change never comes easy for the majority, because change always 'feels' dangerous. It challenges people to give up something which has been working well enough for them for the CHANCE that something will work better. But it could also work worse. And people really don't like risk, particularly when it involves things they really can't understand.
They make too much to need tax cuts.. Those tax cuts should go to Middle and lower class people who work and struggle to feed they're families and keep them from living in some hole on the streets.A lot of people feel that the rich should pay tons of money to support all kinds of other people and pay huge amounts of taxes. And my question is.. why? Why should the rich be penalized so heavily for working hard and succeding? They put in the work, they earned the money.
The_Mac_Daddy
"Who are you to tell us that those who take the most from society shouldn't shoulder the most burden of contributing to society? It works both ways. You're in no position to decry the morality of 'stealing' from the rich (who are rich only because of society) if you condone greed. Either the greed of the rich is catered to, or the greed of the lower cIasses is catered to. Get it? You're calling the lower cIasses greedy (like it's a bad thing), then saying that the rich should be allowed to be greedy (like it's a good thing)."
No one has a right to tell anyone what to do.Simple as that. You cannot justify telling me what to do and what not to do as long as i don't violate your rights. And the rich make their money off of voluntary transfers from people consenting to give it to them. That is justice. Saying that they have to give back to the community requires a use of force. It's totalitarianism to say that they should be forced to give to the community.
"And on top of this, there's reality to account for. I'm sorry, lilburtonboy, but you can't run a country without taxation of some sort unless you want an anarchy. And you can't run a budget surplus and provide anything - not even a defense budget - if you don't 'steal' more from those with the most money than you do from those with the least. Again, you're welcome to try to argue against history, but you'll only end up looking like a fool. There is NO logic behind the notion of abandoning taxation altogether, or in a flat tax system. None. And it's no wonder that lowering the taxes on the rich always results in a disaster, instead of the 'magical' trickle down effect that its proponents always predict. Smoke and mirrors - that's all it is."
Once again, I live in reality too, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't live by principles. I'm fine with no taxation. We could have the same structure but everything could be private rather than government. That way justice is upheld and no rights violated. There is plenty of LOGIC behind what I'm saying. Murray Rothbard is much more logical than you or i will ever be and argued for just this. Don't ever say that something is not logical just because you don't understand it.
Oh, and I don't care about history. I care about what SHOULD be done, not what is and what was done.
[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]do you see what you're doing? you are not arguing from a stance of principles. you show no tolerance for principles, rather just what you think might yield results. you don't care about whether an act such as taxation is immoral, you only care about what might happen as a result of the act. that is an immoral way of going about life.
do you believe in human rights? if so, you are one giant contradiction because believeing in human rights is a principle. human rights are saying that rights must be upheld no matter what the result. you don't believe in human rights, so you?
pianist
I'm arguing from a stance of reality. And if you want me to argue from principles - here's my principle. Unchecked greed is immoral. Since it's my opinion and my principle, you have no hope whatsoever of convincing me otherwise.
Now back to reality - certain principles work really great on paper and don't work in reality. The principle that we should all care for one another and that we should cooperate and help each other, both monetarily and personally, seems like a dream world by comparison to what we have now (and it's no surprise, then, that such a world is the basis of many religioius descriptions of paradise). But communism doesn't work. We know that, because the principles can not lead to a successful economic situation.
It's no different with the principle that tax should all be fair and equal. Communism is all about being fair and equal. It doesn't work. Neither does the notion of taxing everyone equally. I believe in both human rights and human obligations. A human has the right to earn as much as he can, but the more he earns, the more he is obligated to support the system that allows him to earn what he does. Why? Because it simply can not work any other way. If you operate on a notion of equal taxation, you will run your country into bankruptcy. Again, don't argue with history, and don't pretend that if we try the same flawed idea one more time, it will play out differently.
Incidentally, a human does not have a right to benefit from society without contributing anything in return. That's why the same constitution that allows for our basic rights also allows for the government to collect tax. It's in the same damn document. So unless you want to repeal all the other rights we're provided by the constitution, don't say a person has the right not to be taxed. Taxation is only 'theft' to a person who is so narrow-minded and greedy as to fail to realize that EVERYTHING HE HAS was only made possible by society. Left on a deserted island by himself, a billionaire is just another man, struggling to eke out a living. But hey, at least he won't have to pay taxes.
Unchecked greed is immoral to you, that doesn't mean that it is. They have not violated anyone's rights. The attributes that someone has is none of your business, why don't you get that. Ok, if you think greed is immoral, then don't be greedy. However, don't impose your values on others.
No. don't say you believe in human rights. That's absolute BS. In order to believe in a right, you must believe that it has to be upheld at all times, no contradictions. By saying humans have an obligation to do certain things, you assume that we all think that people have these obligations, which they don't. You obviously have no respect for a free society where we can have different values. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I have no right to impose that on everyone because it is a value, nothing more.
You don't even know what a right means. A right means that something cannot be taken from you, it doesn't mean that you have to enable someone with something. You say people have property rights, but at the same time say they have no right to keep it. You make no sense. Let me ask you this, since you don't believe in property rights, how can you believe that they have a right to delegate something which they do not own(property)?
[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]They make too much to need tax cuts.. Those tax cuts should go to Middle and lower class people who work and struggle to feed they're families and keep them from living in some hole on the streets.A lot of people feel that the rich should pay tons of money to support all kinds of other people and pay huge amounts of taxes. And my question is.. why? Why should the rich be penalized so heavily for working hard and succeding? They put in the work, they earned the money.
SupaBaddy20
property isn't based on what we need, it's based on what we are entitled to. what we deserve and what we need are irrelevant when speaking of property rights.
Goody. This thread is still going.
Hey pianist. I was wondering if what you thought of the idea of a rich person giving back to society, but in a different way other than money. I'm talking about something that can benefit everyone (including the donator) in a society, maybe kind of similar to all the buildings and projects that Carnegie helped fund in his later years, but also something that's different to a degree.
No one has a right to tell anyone what to do.Simple as that. You cannot justify telling me what to do and what not to do as long as i don't violate your rights. And the rich make their money off of voluntary transfers from people consenting to give it to them. That is justice. Saying that they have to give back to the community requires a use of force. It's totalitarianism to say that they should be forced to give to the community.
Ah, you're one of those. The problem with staunch libertarians is the that they're exactly like stanch communists. They believe in a set of principles that will simply never work in reality. They honestly believe that we can run a society with no government, and that we'd be much better off leaving everything to individuals. Yeah, we tried that. That's what we did before the development of government - and you know what happened? Totalitarianism - because people are greedy, and are not capable of living in an anarchy. Eventually, someone who wants more than he can glean from his own land will attack someone else who is weaker to take his. And there won't be anybody there to do a damn thing about it, because everybody is interested only in looking out for themselves. Eventually, you get a bunch of conglomerates that have one purpose alone - to take as much as they can from whoever is weaker than they are.
So you have a simple choice - either accept a much larger controlling organization that provides stability and justice to its citizens (a government) at the expense of having to pay for this organization, or accept anarchy, and the fact that it will lead to chaos.
You're living in a dream world. You're asking for a world where modern society can exist without any money to pay for it - all for the petty notion that a person should have the right to be as greedy as he or she wants.
Once again, I live in reality too, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't live by principles. I'm fine with no taxation. We could have the same structure but everything could be private rather than government. That way justice is upheld and no rights violated. There is plenty of LOGIC behind what I'm saying. Murray Rothbard is much more logical than you or i will ever be and argued for just this. Don't ever say that something is not logical just because you don't understand it.
Your principle is unrealistic. That's really all there is to it. You think that a person should have unlimited and free access to any property he or she can acquire, yet fail to realize that all of this property exists because of society, not because of the person who takes it. Again, give a billionaire the choice of living on a deserted island without tax, or in modern society with tax, and he's going to choose the former. And if he has any sense at all, he'll be willing to compromise his principle that taxation is theft, because failure to compromise that principle would leave him in a much worse situation than he is in. Tax is the reason he can be wealthy, because tax is what keeps modern society functioning and protected.
I'd really like to know how you intend to operate a 'private' army, or how a 'private' army is going to uphold justice. Whoever controls the largest private army makes the rules. It's that simple. It's human nature, and it won't play out any other way. As for Murray Rothbard, he's the Karl Marx of the anarcho-capitalist world. He comes up with economic ideas which do not take into account human greed, which will never allow a peaceful anarchy to succeed - just like Marx failed to account for the destructive force of greed on his notions of communism. Don't speak of the man like he is an oracle passing down the truth of the world to us mere mortals. He has many detractors who are every bit as bright as he is, and every bit as well-versed in economic theory, and they have valid points.
Oh, and I don't care about history. I care about what SHOULD be done, not what is and what was done.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You're asking us to bankrupt our current society, or throw away all the progress we've made in the last several thousand years to return to anarchy and individual communities fighting with each other for survival. Neither option is in any way appealing.
lilburtonboy748
[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]No one has a right to tell anyone what to do.Simple as that. You cannot justify telling me what to do and what not to do as long as i don't violate your rights. And the rich make their money off of voluntary transfers from people consenting to give it to them. That is justice. Saying that they have to give back to the community requires a use of force. It's totalitarianism to say that they should be forced to give to the community.
Ah, you're one of those. The problem with staunch libertarians is the that they're exactly like stanch communists. They believe in a set of principles that will simply never work in reality. They honestly believe that we can run a society with no government, and that we'd be much better off leaving everything to individuals. Yeah, we tried that. That's what we did before the development of government - and you know what happened? Totalitarianism - because people are greedy, and are not capable of living in an anarchy. Eventually, someone who wants more than he can glean from his own land will attack someone else who is weaker to take his. And there won't be anybody there to do a damn thing about it, because everybody is interested only in looking out for themselves. Eventually, you get a bunch of conglomerates that have one purpose alone - to take as much as they can from whoever is weaker than they are.
So you have a simple choice - either accept a much larger controlling organization that provides stability and justice to its citizens (a government) at the expense of having to pay for this organization, or accept anarchy, and the fact that it will lead to chaos.
You're living in a dream world. You're asking for a world where modern society can exist without any money to pay for it - all for the petty notion that a person should have the right to be as greedy as he or she wants.
Once again, I live in reality too, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't live by principles. I'm fine with no taxation. We could have the same structure but everything could be private rather than government. That way justice is upheld and no rights violated. There is plenty of LOGIC behind what I'm saying. Murray Rothbard is much more logical than you or i will ever be and argued for just this. Don't ever say that something is not logical just because you don't understand it.
Your principle is unrealistic. That's really all there is to it. You think that a person should have unlimited and free access to any property he or she can acquire, yet fail to realize that all of this property exists because of society, not because of the person who takes it. Again, give a billionaire the choice of living on a deserted island without tax, or in modern society with tax, and he's going to choose the former. And if he has any sense at all, he'll be willing to compromise his principle that taxation is theft, because failure to compromise that principle would leave him in a much worse situation than he is in. Tax is the reason he can be wealthy, because tax is what keeps modern society functioning and protected.
I'd really like to know how you intend to operate a 'private' army, or how a 'private' army is going to uphold justice. Whoever controls the largest private army makes the rules. It's that simple. It's human nature, and it won't play out any other way. As for Murray Rothbard, he's the Karl Marx of the anarcho-capitalist world. He comes up with economic ideas which do not take into account human greed, which will never allow a peaceful anarchy to succeed - just like Marx failed to account for the destructive force of greed on his notions of communism. Don't speak of the man like he is an oracle passing down the truth of the world to us mere mortals. He has many detractors who are every bit as bright as he is, and every bit as well-versed in economic theory, and they have valid points.
Oh, and I don't care about history. I care about what SHOULD be done, not what is and what was done.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You're asking us to bankrupt our current society, or throw away all the progress we've made in the last several thousand years to return to anarchy and individual communities fighting with each other for survival. Neither option is in any way appealing.
pianist
I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the military, courts, police etc... That's a huge contradiction. You're a joke, what I believe has never been tried. I'm not an anarchist. You should know that because I believe in property rights. Abiding by principles of human rights isn't that crazy of an ideal. It very well could work. We tried it with the Constitution but there were too many flaws and too much power to be had. Saying that it can't happen is out of the question considering it's never been tried.
Having a federal government and anarchy are not the only choices. Don't shrug off this argument by saying i'm being unrealistic. It just evades all of my points.You're acting like a politician.
And saying that property exists because of society is hilarious. You should have thought about that one first. As for what you said of Rothbard...no one that believes in human rights has been able to counter his arguments so don't compare him to Karl Marx. Rothbard realizes the destrucive force of greed, but doesn't care. It's irrelevant to upholding rights. You don't believe in human rights, but for the few that do, we have to be consistent in every way. Someone who argues for results like you cannot even understand that principles are all that matter because the purpsoe is to uphold what's right and wrong. Consequences cannot be right or wrong, only motivations and actions. The results are irrelevant.
For you to think that property rights kind of exists is a contradiction. You think that they can have some of what they are entitled to, but not all. You either believe in property rights or you don't. If you believe that it can be taken, then you believe that using force on another person is acceptable and that property rights do not exist.
You call violation of human rights progress, i call it immoral, oppressive, and unjustifiable. I'm going to bed, nighty night, don't let the bed bugs bight.
Oh, if you ever wanna talk to me anymore, message me cuz it's rare to find someone like you i can actually discuss this with. message me if you woulkd like anytime.
Unchecked greed is immoral to you, that doesn't mean that it is. They have not violated anyone's rights. The attributes that someone has is none of your business, why don't you get that. Ok, if you think greed is immoral, then don't be greedy. However, don't impose your values on others.
They have made use of a system that allows them to be successful and failed to compensate THE SYSTEM. A person can not earn billions without society. In fact, he or she will have enough trouble simply surviving. No luxuries - just finding food to eat each day. It's not people that you are directly compensating when you pay tax. You're not giving your money to the poor for nothing. Rather, you're giving your money to prop up the system that allows you to be successful and prosperous. If some of that money ends up back in the hands of people who bought your services or products, big deal - they'll probably use it to buy more of your products and services. You could not be nearly so successful without the system. And if you use the system but fail to pay tax, you are taking advantage of what it offers to you but failing to pay your contribution to keep it running smoothly. So that burden falls on other people - and you're effectively stealing from them.
Society is a service to everyone who partakes in it. Simply because we can't slap a price tag on the service does not mean that it is not one. If you don't like the service, move to your deserted island. No longer will you have the benefit of the service, but no longer will you have to pay for it. If you DO use the service, pay your part to keep it running.
Plenty of people who are wealthy realize that they have an obligation to society. They understand that their successful lives could never have happened without this wonderful system, and so they give back much of what they earn. They've got it right. Those who feel they owe nothing have got it wrong.
No. don't say you believe in human rights. That's absolute BS. In order to believe in a right, you must believe that it has to be upheld at all times, no contradictions. By saying humans have an obligation to do certain things, you assume that we all think that people have these obligations, which they don't. You obviously have no respect for a free society where we can have different values. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I have no right to impose that on everyone because it is a value, nothing more.
I believe that a person has the right to life, and that it should be upheld at all times. Are you a death penalty supporter? I believe a person has the right to pursue happiness at all times - society makes it possible to pursue greater happiness, and taxes are necessary for society to function, so I support taxation to HELP people pursue happiness. No exceptions. I believe a person has a right to a speedy and fair trial. No exceptions. But there are other rights I question. I question the right to bear arms. And I wholeheartedly disagree with the right to not pay tax on the grounds that it is theft, because a person does not have a right to benefit at the expense of others, and so again, if you benefit from society, you must shoulder your burden in allowing it to continue to function, or you are stealing from it.
You don't even know what a right means. A right means that something cannot be taken from you, it doesn't mean that you have to enable someone with something. You say people have property rights, but at the same time say they have no right to keep it. You make no sense. Let me ask you this, since you don't believe in property rights, how can you believe that they have a right to delegate something which they do not own(property)?
Haha... if a right can not be taken from you, what do you think happened in Nazi Germany? Plenty of peoples' right to life was taken from them. A right is nothing more than an idea. You think too much in black and white terms. People have the right to own and acquire property in the pursuit of happiness - that doesn't mean people have the right to freely partake of the advantages of a system which makes it much easier to acquire property, and which other people pay for - because if they do, they are violating the property rights of the people who DO pay for it. If you want your anarchy (by this I mean a lack of federal governance), then that billionaire is going to be much more worried about his next door neighbor gathering up his friends and taking his things from him by force than he will be concerned with selling his wares to them. Again, abandon the unrealistic dream and ACCEPT that most people are greedy and incredibly selfish. Because of that, civilized society can not exist without some measure of control, and it has to be enough control to prevent greedy individuals from garnering enough support to challenge or usurp the control to their own ends. That's how a dictatorship forms.
lilburtonboy748
I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the military, courts, police etc... That's a huge contradiction. You're a joke, what I believe has never been tried. I'm not an anarchist. You should know that because I believe in property rights. Abiding by principles of human rights isn't that crazy of an ideal. It very well could work. We tried it with the Constitution but there were too many flaws and too much power to be had. Saying that it can't happen is out of the question considering it's never been tried.
It won't work. Simply put, you can't expect every individual to honour the property rights of others. Thousands of years of human history - hundreds of wars - attest to that fact. Humans are greedy. They can not be trusted to honour the rights of someone who has something they want if they are able to round up enough support to take it by force. So I don't want this tried. A simple understanding of human nature dictates that it will result in total chaos, and as a rather non-violent person myself, I would likely be a victim of the outcome and lose what I have to an individual or group who is prepared to take what I have because he can.
Having a federal government and anarchy are not the only choices. Don't shrug off this argument by saying i'm being unrealistic. It just evades all of my points.You're acting like a politician.
Then what is the choice you are suggesting? Miniature local governments? Yeah - we tried that too. We didn't make it nearly as far as we did with larger governments. Pre-unification Germany and Italy are perfect examples. Heck, Ancient Greece is an excellent example. Small city-states could never accomplish what a larger, organized society could. The larger a unit we can control, the more we can advance. But without control, you have no unification, and without unification, you have none of the benefits of a large society. Works just like economies of scale in an industrial endeavor. We go further when we work together.
And saying that property exists because of society is hilarious. You should have thought about that one first. As for what you said of Rothbard...no one that believes in human rights has been able to counter his arguments so don't compare him to Karl Marx. Rothbard realizes the destrucive force of greed, but doesn't care. It's irrelevant to upholding rights. You don't believe in human rights, but for the few that do, we have to be consistent in every way. Someone who argues for results like you cannot even understand that principles are all that matter because the purpsoe is to uphold what's right and wrong. Consequences cannot be right or wrong, only motivations and actions. The results are irrelevant.
I'm not comparing his idealism to Marx - I'm comparing his baffling support of an idealism that could never work in reality on account of human nature to Marx. As you so aptly state, he doesn't care about human nature. Too bad that makes his ideas irrelevant, because they can't work. We don't live in a perfect world. If humans weren't greedy, Marx's idea could work, and so could Rothbard's. We could choose whichever one we wanted. But humans are greedy.
If, by your definition, I do not support human rights, then I am satisfied. Frankly, what you feel is pretty irrelvant to me, as is what I feel pretty irrelevant to you. I'm a realist, not an idealist. I don't think reality will allow for a black and white approach to even worthy ideals.
As for your first statement - can an individual fashion a computer from scratch? Can he mine and refine the resources for the components, then fashion it on his own? Property absolutely exists because of society, because no one person would be capable of building the complex technology and luxuries we have alone. If this WAS possible, life would have been much better for people 2000 years ago, and human development likely would have taken a very different course.
As for land... the ability to own it is also the result of society to an extent, because society is what protects your right to own it. The military prevents another country from seizing it (even if you hired your own protection, there's no way it could hold off another NATION's military). Without society, we can't have a national military, because soldiers will be signing on with the highest bidder, and will be in no way obligated to protect anyone but their employer.
For you to think that property rights kind of exists is a contradiction. You think that they can have some of what they are entitled to, but not all. You either believe in property rights or you don't. If you believe that it can be taken, then you believe that using force on another person is acceptable and that property rights do not exist.
No, not really. You have the right to acquire as much property as you can, but do not have a right to acquire it through the use of society, yet fail to compensate society for it. There's no contradiction there. Earn as much as you want - then meet your obligations. It's too bad people won't do step 2 on their own. But most people don't even realize they are using society, or that they have an obligation to it.
You call violation of human rights progress, i call it immoral, oppressive, and unjustifiable. I'm going to bed, nighty night, don't let the bed bugs bight.
Violation of human rights as you know them allows for our modern society. We're doing better now than we were when we didn't have modern society. So yes, perverse as you may feel it is, taxation 'theft' has led to human progress. Anyway, I wish you a good night as well.
Oh, if you ever wanna talk to me anymore, message me cuz it's rare to find someone like you i can actually discuss this with. message me if you woulkd like anytime.
Frankly, it's not my primary area of interest. I find that the people who are most willing to debate this are those who - like you - disagree with the way things are now. But perhaps I'll take you up on your offer another time. Nice talking to you!
lilburtonboy748
I don't believe in any income tax, but a higher tax on everything you buy. The redistribution of wealth is nothing more than extreme liberalism which leads to a communsit economy. Im not rich or poor, but middle class.stupiddk
I don't think you understand communism.
A lot of people feel that the rich should pay tons of money to support all kinds of other people and pay huge amounts of taxes. And my question is.. why? Why should the rich be penalized so heavily for working hard and succeding? They put in the work, they earned the money.
The_Mac_Daddy
People dont hate rich people. For the most part.
I got a question: why do you make this personal? Its an objective, non-personal issue.
With that said, people appear or think they hate rich people because theyre under the idea that the current administration is giving them tax breaks and, as a result, they conclude that the rich must be in bed the the current president and his cabinet. Thats true in many cases, but only for the very cream of the crop and well connected.
No, most rich people are not hated. They might be naive to people less fortunate than them, and the less fortunate might eye that new BMW a bit too jealously, but other than that I'd say there is some good understanding going on.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment