Who are you voting for?

[JoleneBrody]

Facts don't "seem" to be one way or another, that's why they're called FACTS. In fact, CALLING something ridiculous is an opinion, but I'm sure you'll find a way to ARGUE that too. Your ongoing theme SEEMS to matter more about the argument jousting than anything else.

*slow clap*

 

[VeronicaChaos]

I agree that taxation is theft and furthermore, slavery. I'm in the minority, but I can't really find any other words to describe someone taking money from you that you never agreed to give, as well as forcing a % of your labor to be spent earning for them instead of yourself.

Maybe it's just my perspective, but I think both sides in this thread on this matter have been pretty rude. It's just easy to not see it when it's your side, I guess.

Just because I'm willing to compromise and accept certain things for the greater good of us all working together, doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think it's more helpful for us to focus on what we can all agree on and work from there, as opposed to going out of our way to find the issues we can't see eye to eye on.

As far as taxes go, I'm less concerned with trying to end all of them, and more interested in coming up with alternatives that can lead to a peaceful decrease in them.

Edited to add: I feel like most people aren't willing to admit they don't know the answers to everything. The truth is, none of us do, and we're all hypothesising. But the way these conversations work always: if you don't have the solutions, don't criticize how it is. That's not conducive to coming up with new solutions together.

I don't think I have all the answers to eliminating taxes. Maybe there isn't one. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist that could be more beneficial to more people. And that doesn't mean that how it works currently isn't a problem when it's so obvious that it is, and that's why we're having this conversation.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Yeah I gave @LuckySmiles a "disagree" because Trump doesn't just want to stop massive "refugee" immigration, he wants to put a moratorium on all muslims entering the US from the Middle East (and recently he even added "countries compromised by terrorism" which he said includes France, Belgium and Germany) until the US can figure out how to vet them properly.

His position is actually more extreme than it was at the beginning but the words he is using are softer. So it looks like he "revised" his position and is backpedaling when in reality he is doing the opposite. At the beginning he only wanted to put the ban on muslims coming from muslim countries, but now he is also adding European countries with terrorist cells.

I wish someone in Europe would do this, but the EU would have to be disbanded first. So each country gets their borders back and can protect them and control them to protect their citizens from harm.

Truth is there aren't records for most of these people because the countries they come from don't keep them. Many of them even have access to fake passports like we have seen in Europe, thousands of supposed refugees weren't refugees and didn't come from Syria, they just got a fake or stolen syrian passport. Until the US figures out how to vet these people letting them in is too big of a risk.

That's a good point then. It's easier to spot someone coming directly from Afghanistan with radical views, than a radicalized Afghani who made a pitstop in Germany first.

EDIT: easier vs harder. transposed my examples.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

In fact, that seems a running theme. Folks seem to substitute CALLING something ridiculous for actually making an argument why it is. How curious.

Well, I may not agree with you; but as an American, I would fight, shed my blood, even lay down my life -- to defend your right to foul every conversation you enter with your numerous, outrageous, and bombastic ludicrosities.

As far as taxes go, I'm less concerned with trying to end all of them, and more interested in coming up with alternatives that can lead to a peaceful decrease in them.
...
I don't think I have all the answers to eliminating taxes. Maybe there isn't one. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist that could be more beneficial to more people. And that doesn't mean that how it works currently isn't a problem when it's so obvious that it is, and that's why we're having this conversation.

Now this is a Libertarian approach I could go along with. And here are two points I feel very strongly about...

"We must stop dishing out lucrative bailouts, handouts, and contracts to crony capitalists on the backs of hard-working, private-sector taxpayers.

We must end the War on Drugs to bring down high crimes rates that plague poor neighborhoods."

taken from https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lp-to-democrats-its-cruel-to-be-kind

 

[LuckySmiles]

It's pretty awesome that we made it almost 10 pages without someone uninformed calling Bernie a communist. So close. Hehehe.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it here, but I'd hardly consider @Lunella or @supermila uninformed in terms of communism.

I think their experiences would show they are much more informed about it than the average American.

random anectdote:
When people say it's maybe something that's been passed through our educational system it makes a lot of sense to me. I took a social inequalities course in Karl Marx my first semester of college at a very liberal arts school, where I got to request the grade I thought "i deserved" on the final via an essay. I wrote some nonsense plea about how I had to register late and got stuck in the course, have no interest in the topic as it was being portrayed, promised not to be a sociology major, and would just like a passing grade for my requirement.
I shit you not, that was the basis of my essay. And I got a B- on that test and in the class.
This is a minor example. But my professor was def a communist paid by the state. hah.

 

[Mila_]

I agree that taxation is theft and furthermore, slavery. I'm in the minority, but I can't really find any other words to describe someone taking money from you that you never agreed to give, as well as forcing a % of your labor to be spent earning for them instead of yourself.

Maybe it's just my perspective, but I think both sides in this thread on this matter have been pretty rude. It's just easy to not see it when it's your side, I guess.

Just because I'm willing to compromise and accept certain things for the greater good of us all working together, doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think it's more helpful for us to focus on what we can all agree on and work from there, as opposed to going out of our way to find the issues we can't see eye to eye on.

As far as taxes go, I'm less concerned with trying to end all of them, and more interested in coming up with alternatives that can lead to a peaceful decrease in them.

Edited to add: I feel like most people aren't willing to admit they don't know the answers to everything. The truth is, none of us do, and we're all hypothesising. But the way these conversations work always: if you don't have the solutions, don't criticize how it is. That's not conducive to coming up with new solutions together.

I don't think I have all the answers to eliminating taxes. Maybe there isn't one. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist that could be more beneficial to more people. And that doesn't mean that how it works currently isn't a problem when it's so obvious that it is, and that's why we're having this conversation.

I can see your side because when they are taking 30% or 40% or even 50% of your money every month it surely seems a lot like slavery, or to use a term I think is better: serfdom. I see that. Income tax was first implemented in 1902 in England. And it was only 2%. Before that people only ever paid taxes when money was needed for war.

The way taxes have increased over the years along with the size of Goverment (someone has to pay for every public employee and initiative regardless how stupid) is worrisome. If you are paying 30% that means for every 3 hours you spend working you turn one over to the State. So if we see it in time per year it means you work 4 months entirely for the State, say, from January until May you dont earn a penny for yourself.

All of those are arguments I think a lot of people agree with. Even the idea that the money needed to pay for the essentials is nowhere near the kind of money they are taking away from people which is used for absurd shit nobody asked for often.

What I personally find stupid and ridiculous is the idea that all taxation is theft. As a citizen you are part of a community and since we live in democracies we are all reaponsible for the upkeep of our cities. How else is everything going to run if we dont at least contribute a fraction of what we make to make our cities safe and clean and livable? There is also the issue of doing our best to make sure people who are down on their luck or incapable of working wont go hungry. And inb4 private companies building private roads: that would make access to services unpredictable and exclusive to those who can afford them.

 

[Behemoth]

Facts don't "seem" to be one way or another, that's why they're called FACTS. In fact, CALLING something ridiculous is an opinion, but I'm sure you'll find a way to ARGUE that too. Your ongoing theme SEEMS to matter more about the argument jousting than anything else.

Well, since you challenged me, yeah, I'll argue it. Though first, I'll point out the vacuous bullshit of accusing me of it mattering more about 'argument jousting' than 'anything else.' Excuse me if I am wrong, but I was under the assumption that in a discussion of serious topics, trying to figure out the proper course was the name of the game. If this was just a game of how folks feel, than none of this would be relevant. Apparently, though, something being an opinion means it is somehow totally and utterly unnecessary to defend.

Here is the problem, calling something ridiculous is an opinion in as much as any value judgement is, but it is still a value judgement, and there is an implicit statement of factual accuracy, or are you trying to imply that by calling it ridiculous, they are not also saying it is wrong. If they are saying it is ridiculous, but true, than why is it ridiculous? To say nothing of the habit folks have of just throwing out 'an opinion' with no supporting argument of why someone holds that opinion. Your posturing and fishing for likes aside, this reveals a rather large contempt for logical inquiry or rational discourse, to say nothing of attempting to take the way something is worded in a colloquial sense and twisting it in an attempt to make a point. That is mere sophistry on your part.

Incidentally, facts CAN seem one way or another because facts are still subject to individual perception, thus they can SEEM to be a thing, hence why further inquiry is required.

In closing, I have a quote, for you: "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." - Thomas Sowell

Well, I may not agree with you; but as an American, I would fight, shed my blood, even lay down my life -- to defend your right to foul every conversation you enter with your numerous, outrageous, and bombastic ludicrosities.

Of course. I'd defend to the death folks right to say what they will.

So long as they expect that I will equally criticize them for what they're saying too. A defense of a right to speak is not a defense of what is spoken, after all.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I wish there was a yawn rating

I'll see your wish for a yawn rating, and raise you one deep longing for a massive eyeroll.

 

[Behemoth]

I'll see your wish for a yawn rating, and raise you one deep longing for a massive eyeroll.

I'm noting a pattern between folks who like to substitute emojis for arguments.

I also only just now noticed these edits...

Edit: cornering markets and hiking the price is a common practice that I shouldn't have to explain.

Edit 2: But I will... in the words of Vito Corleone: when I thought I was done, they pull me back in

Here is how you can corner a market: say there are 5 apple vendors in your neighborhood, each of them employs 3 people and apples cost $1. You have a lot of money and you want to make some more so you want to corner this market. What you do is you sell apples at a loss (below the cost) say at 25 cents, so everyone buys apples from you and stop going to the other vendors. You will be losing money but it is temporary and it is an investment. You put up with these prices until all the other 5 vendors are out, they closed shop. They can't fight you because they don't have enough money to put into it and sell at a loss. Once you are the only apple vendor in the neighbourhood you start selling apples for $2. How does this fare? Well, you are making twice as much as you would do otherwise, but you crashed 5 apple stores, left 5 families without income, left 15 people out of a job and the entire neighborhood has to pay twice as much per apple or go far away to buy them cheaper. Congratulations, you fucked over society to make individual profit.

First off, you still never bothered to argue the ethical nature of taxation, to which your quip about a yawn was about, but hey, lets actually get into your argument.

Here is the problem. The irony of your accusations earlier about what libertarians or ancaps think or do, ones you haven't acknowledged were either ignorant or lies when called on mind you, was that you accused them of taking things in a vacuum, when in reality, this is what you now are engaging in in an attempt to make a point. You're tightly controlling so many variables as to produce what you think is a winning argument, but really it just shows a poor grasp of economics. Because, lets actually break down what is wrong with this theoretical scenario.

First off, how did you first get this 'lot of money?' that allows you to somehow come into a small market and completely undercut them, and survive those losses? By its nature, in a purely free market, the only way to amass such wealth would be to do so by providing actual value to customers. Which, incidentally, you then do again even if you are undercutting costs, because suddenly the consumer is getting apples much cheaper. I'll assume, then, that apples have a cost of 50 cents to 'produce,' that is, to grow and harvest and bring to market, for the sake of this because they have to have some cost, and also some profit, unless you're trying to say that these vendors were selling them at cost, which wouldn't really make a lot of sense. So, lets take that, and then say that this person with a lot of money enters into the market, and sets up a rival company. Well, first off, they're going to have to invest in the infrastructure to enter the market, which is to say they need to invest in orchards and facilities, and thus hire individuals to both build these facilities and maintain them, and pick the fruit. They're going to need to hire people to sell the fruit. This is tacked on to their costs of also selling their product below production cost, bringing several questions up as a result, but most notably why, if they are so rich as to be able to absorb all these costs, are they engaged in such a small market in this way?

Furthermore, this implies that all five of the other vendors cannot weather this long enough to survive till you go out of business, because you're basically playing chicken with them. Further, even lets assume you manage to make it, and drive all five out of business, then jack up the price. You're not actually making a profit yet and "society" (more accurately, the local consumers of apples) has not yet been screwed over, because they had been receiving apples for BELOW cost for a long period, and will continue to do so until such a time as you recoup losses for having sold BELOW market value. In the process, you say you've driven these other companies out of work, but this implies that any company that is smarter than another and drives a rival out of business is somehow immoral because it denies the other company income. It also implies a zero sum that they cannot go into some other business. Further, these five companies now have their assets on the market too. What is to stop another company from coming in, buying out these assets at a low cost, and then selling apples for $1, which you no longer can do because you already undercut and are running in the red? Your scenario posits this end, but that isn't the end at all, it's just all one continuum of market activity.

And, of course, I mentioned earlier already the fact that to even enter the market, and sustain yourself in it, you must create jobs in the process, in the form of the employees and contractors you hire to build and maintain your facilities and sales.

Congratulations, you made it abundantly clear you have no idea how economies operate.

I want to note something: there was a post I rather like earlier in this thread, in part, talking about while they agree taxation is wrong, they're more interested in finding ways to gradually reduce it. I agree, generally, with the post, but would point out that the discussion never got that far, because the very moment I brought up core principles, I was instead subjected to strawman arguments (where arguments were even provided,) long before we could progress to practical discussion of how to go about implementing ideals.

 

[Osmia]

I can see your side because when they are taking 30% or 40% or even 50% of your money every month it surely seems a lot like slavery, or to use a term I think is better: serfdom. I see that. Income tax was first implemented in 1902 in England. And it was only 2%. Before that people only ever paid taxes when money was needed for war.

The way taxes have increased over the years along with the size of Goverment (someone has to pay for every public employee and initiative regardless how stupid) is worrisome. If you are paying 30% that means for every 3 hours you spend working you turn one over to the State. So if we see it in time per year it means you work 4 months entirely for the State, say, from January until May you dont earn a penny for yourself.

All of those are arguments I think a lot of people agree with. Even the idea that the money needed to pay for the essentials is nowhere near the kind of money they are taking away from people which is used for absurd shit nobody asked for often.

What I personally find stupid and ridiculous is the idea that all taxation is theft. As a citizen you are part of a community and since we live in democracies we are all reaponsible for the upkeep of our cities. How else is everything going to run if we dont at least contribute a fraction of what we make to make our cities safe and clean and livable? There is also the issue of doing our best to make sure people who are down on their luck or incapable of working wont go hungry. And inb4 private companies building private roads: that would make access to services unpredictable and exclusive to those who can afford them.

Well put, again. I can't really disagree with anything you wrote here. The last paragraph is key, in response to statements that taxes are "theft". Taxes in a democracy are by definition not "theft." It sure feels that way sometimes; at least it, can feel like coercion. But those taxes were imposed by the representatives we elect and send to Congress, to statehouses and to local government. Anything the government does can be undone or modified. It's not always quick or easy, but it can be done if there is enough popular support to do so.

IMO, living in a democracy constitutes acceptance of (if not agreement with) the laws of that democracy. The choices are to accept the status quo (whether or not you're happy with it or agree with it), change the status quo, or leave. I know that sounds glib ("America: love it or GTFO"). It's just annoying when people complain about government and taxation while at the same time they're enjoying the benefits of those very same things, such as:

• driving on public roads,
• having police/fire protection,
• enjoying the property and health benefits of storm/sanitary sewers, environmental protection, product safety, occupational safety, air traffic control, weather forecasts and warnings, etc.

I know that many of these things could in theory be done by the private sector, but would they be done acceptably, or at all?

 

[Mila_]

Well put, again. I can't really disagree with anything you wrote here. The last paragraph is key, in response to statements that taxes are "theft". Taxes in a democracy are by definition not "theft." It sure feels that way sometimes; at least it, can feel like coercion. But those taxes were imposed by the representatives we elect and send to Congress, to statehouses and to local government. Anything the government does can be undone or modified. It's not always quick or easy, but it can be done if there is enough popular support to do so.

IMO, living in a democracy constitutes acceptance of (if not agreement with) the laws of that democracy. The choices are to accept the status quo (whether or not you're happy with it or agree with it), change the status quo, or leave. I know that sounds glib ("America: love it or GTFO"). It's just annoying when people complain about government and taxation while at the same time they're enjoying the benefits of those very same things, such as:

• driving on public roads,
• having police/fire protection,
• enjoying the property and health benefits of storm/sanitary sewers, environmental protection, product safety, occupational safety, air traffic control, weather forecasts and warnings, etc.

I know that many of these things could in theory be done by the private sector, but would they be done acceptably, or at all?

Here is the problem with letting the private sector take care of say... the Fire Department:

Getting fire fighting service for your home would cost a monthly fee. Signing up would be voluntary so many folks would choose NOT to get it. So your apartment would be covered, but your next door neighbor might not be covered. If the fire starts in your apartment firefighters put it out and everyone lucks out. But if the fire starts in your neighbors apartment by the time the fire spreads to yours it might be too late to save the property. Even if your entire building was covered but the buildings around it are not you will suffer just as much as if you werent covered. The entire city could catch fire because of selective fire fighting.

You cant really treat a society like it was an individual. We are all interconnected.

 

[Osmia]

Here is the problem with letting the private sector take care of say... the Fire Department:

Getting fire fighting service for your home would cost a monthly fee. Signing up would be voluntary so many folks would choose NOT to get it. So your apartment would be covered, but your next door neighbor might not be covered. If the fire starts in your apartment firefighters put it out and everyone lucks out. But if the fire starts in your neighbors apartment by the time the fire spreads to yours it might be too late to save the property. Even if your entire building was covered but the buildings around it are not you will suffer just as much as if you werent covered. The entire city could catch fire because of selective fire fighting.

You cant really treat a society like it was an individual. We are all interconnected.

Funny little short story about Libertarian Police:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

 

[Admiralfoot]

What I personally find stupid and ridiculous is the idea that all taxation is theft. As a citizen you are part of a community and since we live in democracies we are all reaponsible for the upkeep of our cities. How else is everything going to run if we dont at least contribute a fraction of what we make to make our cities safe and clean and livable? There is also the issue of doing our best to make sure people who are down on their luck or incapable of working wont go hungry. And inb4 private companies building private roads: that would make access to services unpredictable and exclusive to those who can afford them.

I agree we need taxes to support things in our communities. I have always wondered why our local governments get the least of our tax money and the federal government takes the most. I think it should be the opposite. I really only want to see the federal government protect our border and provide for national defense. Everything else should be handled on state and local level.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

I can see your side because when they are taking 30% or 40% or even 50% of your money every month it surely seems a lot like slavery, or to use a term I think is better: serfdom. I see that. Income tax was first implemented in 1902 in England. And it was only 2%. Before that people only ever paid taxes when money was needed for war.

The way taxes have increased over the years along with the size of Goverment (someone has to pay for every public employee and initiative regardless how stupid) is worrisome. If you are paying 30% that means for every 3 hours you spend working you turn one over to the State. So if we see it in time per year it means you work 4 months entirely for the State, say, from January until May you dont earn a penny for yourself.

All of those are arguments I think a lot of people agree with. Even the idea that the money needed to pay for the essentials is nowhere near the kind of money they are taking away from people which is used for absurd shit nobody asked for often.

What I personally find stupid and ridiculous is the idea that all taxation is theft. As a citizen you are part of a community and since we live in democracies we are all reaponsible for the upkeep of our cities. How else is everything going to run if we dont at least contribute a fraction of what we make to make our cities safe and clean and livable? There is also the issue of doing our best to make sure people who are down on their luck or incapable of working wont go hungry. And inb4 private companies building private roads: that would make access to services unpredictable and exclusive to those who can afford them.

It's interesting to look at where taxes are actually going. So much is going towards healthcare, which is a whole mess I'll get into below.

I'm noting a pattern between folks who like to substitute emojis for arguments.

I also only just now noticed these edits...



First off, you still never bothered to argue the ethical nature of taxation, to which your quip about a yawn was about, but hey, lets actually get into your argument.

Here is the problem. The irony of your accusations earlier about what libertarians or ancaps think or do, ones you haven't acknowledged were either ignorant or lies when called on mind you, was that you accused them of taking things in a vacuum, when in reality, this is what you now are engaging in in an attempt to make a point. You're tightly controlling so many variables as to produce what you think is a winning argument, but really it just shows a poor grasp of economics. Because, lets actually break down what is wrong with this theoretical scenario.

First off, how did you first get this 'lot of money?' that allows you to somehow come into a small market and completely undercut them, and survive those losses? By its nature, in a purely free market, the only way to amass such wealth would be to do so by providing actual value to customers. Which, incidentally, you then do again even if you are undercutting costs, because suddenly the consumer is getting apples much cheaper. I'll assume, then, that apples have a cost of 50 cents to 'produce,' that is, to grow and harvest and bring to market, for the sake of this because they have to have some cost, and also some profit, unless you're trying to say that these vendors were selling them at cost, which wouldn't really make a lot of sense. So, lets take that, and then say that this person with a lot of money enters into the market, and sets up a rival company. Well, first off, they're going to have to invest in the infrastructure to enter the market, which is to say they need to invest in orchards and facilities, and thus hire individuals to both build these facilities and maintain them, and pick the fruit. They're going to need to hire people to sell the fruit. This is tacked on to their costs of also selling their product below production cost, bringing several questions up as a result, but most notably why, if they are so rich as to be able to absorb all these costs, are they engaged in such a small market in this way?

Furthermore, this implies that all five of the other vendors cannot weather this long enough to survive till you go out of business, because you're basically playing chicken with them. Further, even lets assume you manage to make it, and drive all five out of business, then jack up the price. You're not actually making a profit yet and "society" (more accurately, the local consumers of apples) has not yet been screwed over, because they had been receiving apples for BELOW cost for a long period, and will continue to do so until such a time as you recoup losses for having sold BELOW market value. In the process, you say you've driven these other companies out of work, but this implies that any company that is smarter than another and drives a rival out of business is somehow immoral because it denies the other company income. It also implies a zero sum that they cannot go into some other business. Further, these five companies now have their assets on the market too. What is to stop another company from coming in, buying out these assets at a low cost, and then selling apples for $1, which you no longer can do because you already undercut and are running in the red? Your scenario posits this end, but that isn't the end at all, it's just all one continuum of market activity.

And, of course, I mentioned earlier already the fact that to even enter the market, and sustain yourself in it, you must create jobs in the process, in the form of the employees and contractors you hire to build and maintain your facilities and sales.

Congratulations, you made it abundantly clear you have no idea how economies operate.

I want to note something: there was a post I rather like earlier in this thread, in part, talking about while they agree taxation is wrong, they're more interested in finding ways to gradually reduce it. I agree, generally, with the post, but would point out that the discussion never got that far, because the very moment I brought up core principles, I was instead subjected to strawman arguments (where arguments were even provided,) long before we could progress to practical discussion of how to go about implementing ideals.

You bit into that apple and, while I agree with many of your points, you use your arguments like arrows, and then wonder why your fellow debaters are more concerned with the bleeding than how sharp your arrows are. As a libertarian against taxation, even I had trouble reading your posts that were so dripping with condescension that the actual points were lost. You weren't building an environment that is conducive to the progression you claim to want. As I mentioned earlier, I think every perspective in this thread is guilty of that, but I'm picking on you particularly because I really DO think you have valid points and as someone who believes in them it's frustrating to watch you make enemies with them.

So, if you want to progress to practical discussion, let's set aside our definitions of theft and other alienating statements and begin.

I'll start: in the early 1970's, legislation was passed to require all companies with 25+ employees to purchase HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizers) for their workers, shortly after the introduction of Medicare. These two factors made HMOs the standard for health insurance, which is problematic as they have much higher premiums than the regular insurance for individuals that it replaced. Government regulation has made it impossible for these smaller insurance companies to exist, largely in part due to the inability to sell/buy insurance over state lines. I think a good first step towards a practical and affordable healthcare system would be to allow insurance to cross state boundaries and allow people to purchase whatever insurance they want, regardless of where they live. This would be crucial in creating a free marketplace where smaller insurance companies could enter the picture and create some much needed competition.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Funny little short story about Libertarian Police:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

Funny. And it appears we may be on our way to a Libertarian Post Office.

Had to do change of address with them recently; on the USPS website and in the stuff they sent to my mailbox, all kinds of ads. Home Depot, and DirecTV (who evidently thinks calling me at least once a week isn't harassment enough).

 

[Mila_]

Funny little short story about Libertarian Police:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

Holy shit I am laughing so hard.. the best quote:

"Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t"

 

[Mila_]

It's interesting to look at where taxes are actually going. So much is going towards healthcare, which is a whole mess I'll get into below.

You bit into that apple and, while I agree with many of your points, you use your arguments like arrows, and then wonder why your fellow debaters are more concerned with the bleeding than how sharp your arrows are. As a libertarian against taxation, even I had trouble reading your posts that were so dripping with condescension that the actual points were lost. You weren't building an environment that is conducive to the progression you claim to want. As I mentioned earlier, I think every perspective in this thread is guilty of that, but I'm picking on you particularly because I really DO think you have valid points and as someone who believes in them it's frustrating to watch you make enemies with them.

So, if you want to progress to practical discussion, let's set aside our definitions of theft and other alienating statements and begin.

I'll start: in the early 1970's, legislation was passed to require all companies with 25+ employees to purchase HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizers) for their workers, shortly after the introduction of Medicare. These two factors made HMOs the standard for health insurance, which is problematic as they have much higher premiums than the regular insurance for individuals that it replaced. Government regulation has made it impossible for these smaller insurance companies to exist, largely in part due to the inability to sell/buy insurance over state lines. I think a good first step towards a practical and affordable healthcare system would be to allow insurance to cross state boundaries and allow people to purchase whatever insurance they want, regardless of where they live. This would be crucial in creating a free marketplace where smaller insurance companies could enter the picture and create some much needed competition.

I absolutely agree with you on state lines and Health Insurance. More competition and less red tape would make prices go way down. Eliminating Obamacare would also help heaps since people wont be required by law to get health insurance they may not want or need. I know you are tired of me shilling for Trump but he plans on doing exactly this:

1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

Sauce: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

 

[JickyJuly]

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it here, but I'd hardly consider @Lunella or @supermila uninformed in terms of communism.

I think their experiences would show they are much more informed about it than the average American.

I don't think what I said had to mean she was uninformed about communism. Just Bernie. There is a large window between the extra scoop of socialism Bernie was trying to give America and Communism. I was mostly being cheeky about all the red baiting that has followed Bernie through this year. He's not really that relevant to the thread anymore anyway.

 

[Lili_xo]

Yeah ok Fidel he love the birds.

All communists use similar tactics, it's like they come from the same "school" so to speak.

Bernie Sanders: now you see, this little bird doesn't know it... I think, I think, that maybe there is some symbolism here... No more wars!

Crowd goes wild! The bird stood on his podium! It is a sign

So you see how this feels so eerie. I don't have proof , but I don't think this is a coincidence. I do not believe Maduro's bird story happened and I find it difficult for a tiny bird to fly into the middle of a crowded stadium to stand on a podium next to Bernie Sanders l.

.I hope they at least fed the bird.

But anyway...
the bird story is so old with communists just like the double rainbows and soulmates at hello stuff combined with a sunset with all equal slogans on it( right next to praise of lines for bread and toilet paper)communists love this stuff.
Is all part of building the cult personality bullshit and hypnotizing gullible people...omg I can't even.lmao!!!
So anyway here is Fidel.
(Afterwards children learn that in school as mandatory. You absolutely cannot question the mans goodness if a bird landed.

http://revolucionencuba.blogspot.com/2009/11/case-study-in-charismatic-authority.html

 

[Lili_xo]

Yeah, I guess Donald is pretty secluded from the common person (I'm never gonna shake his hand or be able to say hello

He loves people. Was very easy to walk up to him and ask him fir a pic in front of tower. I saw him walking the street. That was years ago and all he had was 1 person with him. Not even sure if that was bodyguard or friend. On the way to tower he was stopped by many people and unlike many celebs he was all game to give a second to each .
I really hate it when people say stuff about him not having any reaL life experience not even one and just believing everything in the very manipulative media.but sometimes I feel people who hate him are in a different camp simply and that is ok...there will always be friends AND enemies when someone is that known.
I hope he no longer walks ariund streets like that and surrounds himself always with 24hr security cause we need him and there are many out there who do not want to see a free caring for its own citizens USA.
Anyway just wanted to say this and hope is ok- I really think he will make great president- I read many of his books and like the way his mind works.

 

[LuckySmiles]

@JickyJuly I get that. But it's like... if some staunch conservative republican on Fox news was like, yo.. Bernie's a commie...

I'd be like ok whatever paranoid crazy person.

But if someone who's lived through communism says their spidey senses are tingling about certain things/people.. I'd be more inclined to give things a second look.

 

[SexySteph]

Funny. And it appears we may be on our way to a Libertarian Post Office.

Had to do change of address with them recently; on the USPS website and in the stuff they sent to my mailbox, all kinds of ads. Home Depot, and DirecTV (who evidently thinks calling me at least once a week isn't harassment enough).

They've been doing that for years. I don't think they're turning into a privately run postal company, it's just like getting circulars in the mail normally. Notmally those would be included in the change of address packet but since it's moved online it now comes to the mail. (Though I don't think the DirectTV phone calls are related, I've changed my address 7 times in 7 years and never received phone calls as a side effect, I don't even remember including my phone number).

 

[JickyJuly]

I see what you're saying @LuckySmiles , but the good people of Fox News also live in America and say whatever they like. I don't have to put anyone's opinion is somehow heavier based on what their life story may or may not be, and I'm not very familiar with Lunella.

 

[Admiralfoot]

Funny headline about Hillary's acceptance speech last night...Charmless Vessel Shouts Acceptance Speech at America.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...shouts-acceptance-speech-at-american-n2199653

 

[justjoinedtopost]

(Though I don't think the DirectTV phone calls are related, I've changed my address 7 times in 7 years and never received phone calls as a side effect, I don't even remember including my phone number).

No, the phone calls not related to the change of address. Was getting them long before.

The story just reminded me of it, all the ads stuck in with govt. services.

I don't have to put anyone's opinion is somehow heavier based on what their life story may or may not be, and I'm not very familiar with Lunella.

What about the life stories of those in former communist countries who want to go back to communism?

I don't want communism at all. But this seeing red shadows everywhere is getting a little old. How long have we been doing it, 60 years now? Shall I spend the night before Election Day reading my worn copy of "The Persecutor" lest I forget what is at stake?

 

[Behemoth]

You bit into that apple and, while I agree with many of your points, you use your arguments like arrows, and then wonder why your fellow debaters are more concerned with the bleeding than how sharp your arrows are. As a libertarian against taxation, even I had trouble reading your posts that were so dripping with condescension that the actual points were lost. You weren't building an environment that is conducive to the progression you claim to want. As I mentioned earlier, I think every perspective in this thread is guilty of that, but I'm picking on you particularly because I really DO think you have valid points and as someone who believes in them it's frustrating to watch you make enemies with them.

I suspect this is simply a mix of how I speak, intention or not, and the fact that I live by the principle of giving what is returned. When I entered this discussion, there was already a distinct opposition to ideals that I espouse before I even spoke, and the initial response to me only made it more so. Shifting the blame for this onto me seems counter-intuitive. It's tone policing, in essence, and I've no time for it.

For some, of course, I'm condescending because the arguments being presented are worthy of nothing of condescension. Particularly when we get into moral arguments. At that point, I'm not NOT going to come off as condescending because if someone is arguing for immorality, I feel hardly obligated to play with kid gloves or love taps. The further issue is just the whole idea that this is making enemies, when in reality, it's revealing enemies. They may be enemies because they deep down don't actually support the human liberties they claim, or they just openly don't, or they may be an enemy because they are letting their emotions guide them. They are concerned with appearance over substance. I fully understand the fact that humans tend to be emotional first, and then post-hoc justify their (ie: the Rider and the Elephant if we're speaking of Haidt,) awareness of proclivities may not always be enough to stop it, but it should at least give pause or assist. Further still, the best way to counteract this is to get emotionally charged over what is moral and ethical, at least then when your elephant leans, 9 times out of 10 its in a direction you want to be heading anyway.

So, if you want to progress to practical discussion, let's set aside our definitions of theft and other alienating statements and begin.

The problem with this I have, conceptually, is that it doesn't actually address the issues. Proposing solutions without actually pointing out the problems is hardly effective, and you lose your greatest rational point in the process. If folks are alienated by what is true, I don't exactly blame myself. If something is morally wrong, it's morally wrong. Simply because it makes someone uncomfortable doesn't much change anything, to be frank.

I'll start: in the early 1970's, legislation was passed to require all companies with 25+ employees to purchase HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizers) for their workers, shortly after the introduction of Medicare. These two factors made HMOs the standard for health insurance, which is problematic as they have much higher premiums than the regular insurance for individuals that it replaced. Government regulation has made it impossible for these smaller insurance companies to exist, largely in part due to the inability to sell/buy insurance over state lines. I think a good first step towards a practical and affordable healthcare system would be to allow insurance to cross state boundaries and allow people to purchase whatever insurance they want, regardless of where they live. This would be crucial in creating a free marketplace where smaller insurance companies could enter the picture and create some much needed competition.

I agree, because its a good practical first step. Of course, we also have the issue of college costs, because it currently costs so much to become a doctor due to other government issues, and addressing the college cost crisis precipitated by Federal student loans would be a good second step to both bringing down healthcare costs and also to resolving the college crisis.

 

[SexySteph]

The crowd didn't go wild because we're all so brain washed we think its a sign from the universe that he is the savior or anything like that. It was just a sweet moment and a metaphor for what we want, no more pain in the world, peace, etc

How does this demonstrate that he's a communist? You truly believe that Bernie is such a malicious, conniving con man that he had a bird trained to fly onto his podium so that his followers would see it as a sign?

No one has answered this question for me, yet. @supermila @Lunella Can someone please explain to me the bird thing here. Like do you really think something evil was happening here, like training a bird to land on the podium? Or was it just a coincidence that reminded you of other communist leaders?

ETA: This is not to be argumentative. I'm just truly curious what you thought was going on here and why you think this is evidence he's a communist.

 

[Behemoth]

Well put, again. I can't really disagree with anything you wrote here. The last paragraph is key, in response to statements that taxes are "theft". Taxes in a democracy are by definition not "theft." It sure feels that way sometimes; at least it, can feel like coercion. But those taxes were imposed by the representatives we elect and send to Congress, to statehouses and to local government. Anything the government does can be undone or modified. It's not always quick or easy, but it can be done if there is enough popular support to do so.

Ok, but I did not elect them. I did not even consent to the election. They are not representing me, because I did not send them nor grant them consent to represent me. It doesn't 'feel like' coercion, it IS coercion. The sheer fact that you concede that changing things can't happen unless there is 'popular support' is an issue. You're basically conceding that we actually exist in a tyranny of a majority, that somehow the majority can dictate what is right and wrong. Yet it shouldn't matter. The collective has no greater rights than the individual, and their imposition ON the individual is tyranny, plain and simple.

IMO, living in a democracy constitutes acceptance of (if not agreement with) the laws of that democracy. The choices are to accept the status quo (whether or not you're happy with it or agree with it), change the status quo, or leave. I know that sounds glib ("America: love it or GTFO"). It's just annoying when people complain about government and taxation while at the same time they're enjoying the benefits of those very same things, such as:

So what you're telling me is I am somehow bound by a contract I never signed because I was born here? Furthermore, the argument that somehow it's wrong that I utilize public utilities I'm being stolen from to fund, because there are no alternatives, because the state claims a monopoly over those things, and then does a bad job of them. The infrastructure in our country is doing terribly. The police are under no legal obligation to protect and serve, and are not held accountable. Indeed, none of the things you list somehow exist ONLY because of the government. Simply because the government funds them doesn't make them somehow good, because theft is theft, even if the the thief then buys you something with the money they stole. It's still theft.

I know that many of these things could in theory be done by the private sector, but would they be done acceptably, or at all?

Is there a demand for them? Than yes. By the nature of the market, too, they'd be done not merely acceptably, they'd be done to a much higher standard.

Further, isn't this argument basically saying the people are too dumb to know what to buy? Are you arguing that these things would not get funded because the people would not choose to fund them without the state forcing them? If so, why is it then justified for the state to do so, and how can the people be too dumb to choose how to spend their money, yet not too dumb to select leaders who will dictate how they spend money?

But if someone who's lived through communism says their spidey senses are tingling about certain things/people.. I'd be more inclined to give things a second look.

To wit, there is actually a guy I follow on Tumblr who lives in Venezuela who has spoken out about this, and has even risked police to take pictures of the bread lines and the other issues going on, and he is one of the best sorts for things like this.

 

[AmberCutie]

I can see your side because when they are taking 30% or 40% or even 50% of your money every month it surely seems a lot like slavery, or to use a term I think is better: serfdom. I see that. Income tax was first implemented in 1902 in England. And it was only 2%. Before that people only ever paid taxes when money was needed for war.

The way taxes have increased over the years along with the size of Goverment (someone has to pay for every public employee and initiative regardless how stupid) is worrisome. If you are paying 30% that means for every 3 hours you spend working you turn one over to the State. So if we see it in time per year it means you work 4 months entirely for the State, say, from January until May you dont earn a penny for yourself.

All of those are arguments I think a lot of people agree with. Even the idea that the money needed to pay for the essentials is nowhere near the kind of money they are taking away from people which is used for absurd shit nobody asked for often.

What I personally find stupid and ridiculous is the idea that all taxation is theft. As a citizen you are part of a community and since we live in democracies we are all reaponsible for the upkeep of our cities. How else is everything going to run if we dont at least contribute a fraction of what we make to make our cities safe and clean and livable? There is also the issue of doing our best to make sure people who are down on their luck or incapable of working wont go hungry. And inb4 private companies building private roads: that would make access to services unpredictable and exclusive to those who can afford them.

And by being part of this country you silently agree to pay taxes as part of your duty as a citizen. Therefore, not violent theft.

 

[Behemoth]

And by being part of this country you silently agree to pay taxes as part of your duty as a citizen. Therefore, not violent theft.

Does this implicit agreement extend to any other things? By what basis does this implicit agreement stem? Indeed, what are the terms of this contract, and is there any escape clause? Why is someone bound to this by virtue of being born?