Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a Liberal my biggest disappointment with President Obama's policies are his continuation of the Mideast Oil Wars the Republican Conservatives got us into. Just as you Conservatives do not want to pay for urban welfare I do not want to pay for Cattle grazing subsidies, endless wars for over priced military contractors and the rest of the RED State (how inadvertently accurate) government largess. We, in the BLUE states, have plenty of things to do with our money that are far more important the fixing rural poverty in some feudal Republican kingdom of God like Oklahoma.
You conservatives do get it. You get most of the government welfare and unneeded spending.
See... the governments takes our money and gets into everything. Why not reduce the governments take and they won't get their tentacles into so much?
So, are you going to vote for Hillary "Let's go to war" Clinton? I'm guessing yes. Conservatives have their group, the TEA Party, which votes on principle and will oppose those on the same "side", while liberals will vote for the Democrat, period. You don't see a TEA Party on their "side". Democrats having nothing to fear from the liberals, because they march in lock step no matter what. Republicans like Cantor and Dewhurst have to fear the wrath of those who aren't Democrats (liberals, same thing).
LOL, you really believe this? If I vote for Hillary it will be because the Republicans have put up another loser like they have the last 2 elections. And as far as the Tea Party being a party which votes on principle, LOL what are you smoking?
If you claim the authority to take ANYONE'S labor, by force, for any reason... you are still in clear and direct violation of the principles of self-ownership and individual freedom.
There is no way around that.
Either I am a free man who can not be violently coerced into giving up the fruits of my labor, or I am not, period.
Would you propose this to a ex-slave right after slavery ended? "We are going to continue taking your labor by force, but only in certain situations. "
Quote:
They'll probably just attach wages for the back taxes plus some interest. There was even an amnesty there for awhile.
That is still theft.
Taking something another person owns without their permission is theft... EVERY TIME.
Quote:
The IRS has made its mistakes and I mentioned one earlier, but the idea that they will violently haul you off to jail is overstated.
Tell that to Wesley Snipes.
Truth is, if I refuse to pay long enough, the ONLY tool the state ultimately has to make me comply is violence and the threat thereof.
It is well hidden from people who don't like to think, but if you follow the steps, it always leads to violence.
Let's say I don't pay taxes, and they send me a threatening letter. I ignore it. They send me a court summons eventually, I did nothing wrong by not bowing to thuggery, so I ignore it. They put out a warrant for my arrest, and I get pulled over, they try to arrest me and I resist because I was never in the wrong for not bowing to thuggery.... guess what... violence, lots of it, probably involving a police officers gun and my death.
Ultimately, they CAN NOT enforce these rules without the threat of violence at some point.
Quote:
So what is your revenue proposal if no income taxes?
You know that roads, street lights, etc.. all existed BEFORE the property tax, right?
This isn't the thread to explain new forms of governance, but I will tell you this: I will not endorse ANY system that trashes the ideas of individual freedom and self-ownership.
I would advocate a system, where if the people who want a government program, and they can't afford it, tough.
If you have to use violence to get people to pay for your idea, it is a crappy idea.
Quote:
Maybe a national lottery and some casinos owned by the Federal government?
I would only be interested in that if they were forced to compete with the private market, in which case they would probably go out of business... if not, they would be forced to operate effeciently just to stay in business.
Current government programs face no competition, that is why they get more money the worse job they do.
Quote:
A national sales tax?
You are talking about taking money against peoples' wills again.
If I own myself, and my labor, you don't have a right to claim that you get a chunk of whatever business I do, and again, if I chose to ignore it, it can only be enforced with violence.
Quote:
Voluntary donations and cross our fingers we can pay our service people, enforce food safety laws, maintain and build roads, Social Security, etc?
The government SUCKS at building and maintaining roads, they SUCK at food safety, they SUCK at retirement (SS is a scheme), and they SUCK at foreign policy.
If somebody wants to voluntarily give their money to an organization that sucks, that is their issue. I would rather see these services opened up to competition, so I can pay the road company that doesn't suck, so that I can invest my money with companies I choose and trust, etc.....
I system based on the ideas of peace and cooperation should be the goal, but to many neanderthals who don't read political theory or philosophy can't think past enforcing their ideas with violence.
While ruggedly whining about how the rest of us aren't working hard enough to keep them from being individually sad. Like it's our concern or something.
Weird, he was complianing about my post... you want to show me where I "whine about people not working hard enough to keep them from being individually sad"?
I just want fools to stop using violence on me to take my money, I believe that using violence on any peaceful person is wrong, and I don't whine about the level to which anybody works. They can work 0 for all I care, but they should receive 0 compensation for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
There are already libertarian paradises around the world
When money is created out of thin air, it gets its value from the already existing money, it literally sucks the wealth from the money in your pocket. It does so without permission from those the wealth is taken, this is just a hidden tax.
*Ben Bernanke orders a pizza. The cashier asks him how many slices he would like the pizza cut into, 4 or 8? Ben Bernanke responds, 'Make it 8, I am really hungry today!'....*
This "I don't give a F" attitude is exactly what's holding back Latin America. If you want a place where no one feels obligated to help anyone and (by direct consequence) money can buy you anything, move to Brazil or Mexico and see what true laissez-faire economic & political life is like.
You want the government to stop investing in infrastructure & its people, and you somehow think that business will thrive with crap roads and an illiterate population. Like I said, move to another country and see what libertarianism really means.
Banana Republics and libertarians aren't quite the same as libertarians don't support tyrannical despots as leaders. You may be referring to anarchy but, even that is different than communism.
If you claim the authority to take ANYONE'S labor, by force, for any reason... you are still in clear and direct violation of the principles of self-ownership and individual freedom.
There is no way around that.
Either I am a free man who can not be violently coerced into giving up the fruits of my labor, or I am not, period.
Would you propose this to a ex-slave right after slavery ended? "We are going to continue taking your labor by force, but only in certain situations. "
That is still theft.
Taking something another person owns without their permission is theft... EVERY TIME.
Tell that to Wesley Snipes.
Truth is, if I refuse to pay long enough, the ONLY tool the state ultimately has to make me comply is violence and the threat thereof.
It is well hidden from people who don't like to think, but if you follow the steps, it always leads to violence.
Let's say I don't pay taxes, and they send me a threatening letter. I ignore it. They send me a court summons eventually, I did nothing wrong by not bowing to thuggery, so I ignore it. They put out a warrant for my arrest, and I get pulled over, they try to arrest me and I resist because I was never in the wrong for not bowing to thuggery.... guess what... violence, lots of it, probably involving a police officers gun and my death.
Ultimately, they CAN NOT enforce these rules without the threat of violence at some point.
You know that roads, street lights, etc.. all existed BEFORE the property tax, right?
This isn't the thread to explain new forms of governance, but I will tell you this: I will not endorse ANY system that trashes the ideas of individual freedom and self-ownership.
I would advocate a system, where if the people who want a government program, and they can't afford it, tough.
If you have to use violence to get people to pay for your idea, it is a crappy idea.
I would only be interested in that if they were forced to compete with the private market, in which case they would probably go out of business... if not, they would be forced to operate effeciently just to stay in business.
Current government programs face no competition, that is why they get more money the worse job they do.
You are talking about taking money against peoples' wills again.
If I own myself, and my labor, you don't have a right to claim that you get a chunk of whatever business I do, and again, if I chose to ignore it, it can only be enforced with violence.
The government SUCKS at building and maintaining roads, they SUCK at food safety, they SUCK at retirement (SS is a scheme), and they SUCK at foreign policy.
If somebody wants to voluntarily give their money to an organization that sucks, that is their issue. I would rather see these services opened up to competition, so I can pay the road company that doesn't suck, so that I can invest my money with companies I choose and trust, etc.....
I system based on the ideas of peace and cooperation should be the goal, but to many neanderthals who don't read political theory or philosophy can't think past enforcing their ideas with violence.
You'd make less money in your theoretical anarchist state because the cost of doing business would go up dramatically, negating whatever you think you could save in taxes.
If you claim the authority to take ANYONE'S labor, by force, for any reason... you are still in clear and direct violation of the principles of self-ownership and individual freedom.
There is no way around that.
Either I am a free man who can not be violently coerced into giving up the fruits of my labor, or I am not, period.
I always love this nonsense. It comes from people that want all the benefits of a society, but none of the costs.
If you are benefiting from the society and refusing to contribute, your are stealing from us. Feel free to go live your self reliant ways, but don't use our money, our resources, our land, etc etc. Get out. You cannot choose to both use our system, and not contribute towards it.
Trying to cloth that in some verbage about how taking the fruits of your labor is evil is utter nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
