In Loving Memory Of Joseph Stack (1956-2010)

[Consent Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

You know what needs to be killed? This thread with the asinine title.

Thank you for contributing to this thread's continuation with your post.

[Buckhorn]

Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn

Oh we have taxation with representation all right and no one questions that. But the question is, who is being represented? When our tax dollars went to bail out Wall Street, who was represented? When are tax dollars are used to fight wars that the majority of Americans's do not support, who is being represented? When our tax dollars are used to fund a government that passes laws making it legal and lucrative for American corporations to move out of the country and in the process lay off thousands of employees, who is being represented? When our tax dollars are used to provide salaries and benefits for politicians which are way out of line with the salaries of the majority of people they claim to represent. who is really being represented?

You have your vote. You have the power to petition your government. You have the power to lead people to your cause. What more do you want?

It's not a perfect system and a democratic republic is a slow moving meatgrinder of political accomplishment. But it's the best we got.

Relative. Are you also taking into consideration all the enforced mandated expenses? Any time one must spend money against their will and with threat of punishment or sanction, I call that a tax.

That's a republican favorite. Cutting taxes while raising fees. Tommy Gun Thompson did that in WI. Fees are not taxes. The cost of a driver's license is not a fundamental right. It's a privilege.

Yes and that is probably be design and definitely works in the taxing authority's favor because the once a year reporting causes most people not to think about taxes the other 364 days of the year and makes it easier to fall into the apathetic torpor that the government wants us to be in so it is all the easier to manipulate us. You post is proof positive that their scheme works.

This is proof of nothing. OK what if the gov. required you to file weekly tax statements? You'd be crying that the system is oppressive for that reason alone. Instead you point to annual filing as a scheme to lull the population into a blissful state of tax amnesia. That's sort of paranoid.

My views aren't as extreme as you think although my rhetoric may be. When you push for an extreme solution, at least there will be forward movement. You push for A in hopes to getting B.

Good luck with that.

No I am definitely a part of my community and one of the ways I contribute to my community is by working and paying my own way. I am not a drain on my community in any way. My use of the roads is paid for by gas taxes and my annual vehicle registration fee. The one time in my life I collected unemployment, it was paid for by my former employer and myself paying into the UC fund. From a non-monetary standpoint, I am a peaceful person who does no harm to others. That's all anyone should be expected to do.

You are what you are b/c of the accomplishments of others. Sure you had a hand in directing your own affairs but you certainly are not the sole reason for your station in life.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

That's from Einstein and I think he got it right.

Something tells me you are in a minority there because even when taxes per se are not center stage, any issue that is pressing must be decided based on the application of taxes. Whether it's healthcare, education or crime, it's always about taxes. Universal healthcare, for example, is not really a divisive issue in and of itself. Who wouldn't want it? It is the funding of it that is the issue and that is taxation. Almost every pressing issue is about taxes my friend.

I take a moral view of Health care. Every pressing issue is about taxes b/c you view every pressing issue as about taxes.

[Consent Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Buckhorn

You have your vote. You have the power to petition your government. You have the power to lead people to your cause. What more do you want?

It's not a perfect system and a democratic republic is a slow moving meatgrinder of political accomplishment. But it's the best we got.

Buckhorn I'm sure that you didn't intend it this way, but this answer rings of blithe resignation to me. Everyone knows about the process of representative government and how slow it is. But in the meantime we all have to live with the circumstances that to a large extent we were thrown into. And also, have you ever actually spoken face to face or over the telephone with your representative? I have with several of them at both the state and federal level back in the day when I actually believed they had the people's interest at heart and not their own personal agendas. And even then when I went into the conversation with some degree of optimism, the conversation always concluded with me feeling that they never answered my question but tap danced around it while touting all their supposed accomplishments. Now this disenchantment and feeling of being marginalized by the political establishment did not happen overnight for me, it took a few decades because I didn't want to believe the worst. But example after example showed me that my growing cynicism of government and politicians was well founded. I guess the final straw for me was the bank bailouts. At a time of economic hardship when Main Street was struggling, the government chose to help Wall Street instead. Representative government my a**. I don't know of a single individual who would have endorsed that bailout and I finally knew in my heart what my head was telling me all along. The government doesn't represent us, they represent the banking and financial interests. Oh sure, once in awhile they will toss us a bone with some form of token legislation designed to help the people just to keep us questioning their true loyalties, but make no mistake, this is a nation controlled by the large corporations and the banks.

It was with this realization that I decided I want nothing to do with this government. I love this country, the landscapes, the cities, the people and the diverse culture. But I hate its current government. Should I repeat that and add an exclamation point? I hate this government! How about again with exclamation, but in caps and bold this time? I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT! Our tax rate may not be the highest on the planet, in fact I know its not. But it is too high for what we receive in return. Most of the services we do receive come from taxes designated for that service such as taxes on gasoline paying for highway maintenance, etc. And the more local the taxing entity, the more one benefits from the taxes collected, for example your city taxes pretty much stay in your city and are used to educate your children, pay for your fire and police protection, etc. But the largest portion of your income taxes are federal and frankly I have no clue what benefit I receive from them nor do I know of anyone else who benefits from them. Even your Medicare and Social Security is funded by a separate tax than the federal withholding. I talk to people every day who have lost their jobs due to downsizing or closures and are without medical insurance now. But you can be certain that both the politicians and the corporate CEOs are doing fine despite the economic conditions of the rest of us, and why wouldn't they. The government steals from the struggling to reward the privileged. There was a song in the '60's that featured the lyrics "all are helped and none are hindered." Well the government certainly is not helping all and is in fact hindering many. So I say get the hell out of the way! If you can't help us, don't hinder us with your stifling laws and your cumbersome taxes. If most people have to fend for themselves, then so be it, but then the government needs to get off our backs and let us do what we need to do to survive. If and when the politicians ever decide to truly represent the people...ALL people, and work toward making our lives better, they will get my loyalty back. In the mean time they can all pound sand!

Originally Posted by Buckhorn

That's a republican favorite. Cutting taxes while raising fees. Tommy Gun Thompson did that in WI. Fees are not taxes. The cost of a driver's license is not a fundamental right. It's a privilege.

Several times I've inferred from some replies to my posts that people think I am a Republican. First, to be consistent with my above stated position, I have repudiated my right to vote. Until this government represents ALL people, I refuse to participate in it in any voluntary way. Maybe that sounds counterproductive to some, but to me it is consistent and ultimately it is my decision. But returning to my former party affiliation, while I initially registered as a Republican, (my parents were) I eventually realized that the Republican party didn't have the best interest of the people at heart. I was an independent for awhile, then a Libertarian, then a Green. And I was never a party voter. I always voted issues.

Originally Posted by Buckhorn

This is proof of nothing. OK what if the gov. required you to file weekly tax statements? You'd be crying that the system is oppressive for that reason alone. Instead you point to annual filing as a scheme to lull the population into a blissful state of tax amnesia. That's sort of paranoid.

Yes a weekly tax reporting system would be more oppressive, but it would keep taxation in the forefront of people's minds and perhaps instigate a radical response. Perhaps people would either demand that their tax dollars actually be invested in them or if not, demand a reduction in taxes. You know a friend of mine once suggested that instead of having our income taxes deducted directly from our paychecks, we should have to pay them ourselves every year the day before election day. I like that idea! Paranoid? Do you think I'd be posting this kind of material if I was paranoid? A healthy distrust of your government and a questioning of authority is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Buckhorn

Good luck with that.

Luck is probably all most of us got.

Originally Posted by Buckhorn

You are what you are b/c of the accomplishments of others. Sure you had a hand in directing your own affairs but you certainly are not the sole reason for your station in life.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

That's from Einstein and I think he got it right.

I take a moral view of Health care. Every pressing issue is about taxes b/c you view every pressing issue as about taxes.

Buckhorn, I could not agree with you more on this one. I can appreciate that at some essential level, we are all one with one another and the universe. I've read Jung and his theory of a universal unconscious makes sense to me. But it is a blurry line between a person as an individual and a person as a integral member of society. We have an obligation to society, yet we are morally responsible for our own decisions and ultimately responsible for our own well being. I must admit that on a personal level I am more attracted to existentialism than say the philosophy of Hegel, but that may have much to do with my temperament. Anyway, I know I owe much of who I am to the people in my life and their influence on me. But very little of this is because of the government. The people who made the biggest impact on my life were my family or my friends and neighbors, not my congressperson. Perhaps the government serves as the infrastructure through which all these other influences work, but I kinda think these people would have been a positive influence on me anyway.

As it is now, the government, at least at the federal level, takes much more than it gives and we would never tolerate that in any other situation so why do we tolerate it here?

[blackacidlizzard]

Originally Posted by blackacidlizzard

I have not stated that I have empathy for Stack, you are leaping to a conclusion, possibly because I said one can be reasonable and have empathy for such a person.

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

So, the bottom line is that you condone or applaud the murder of a man that worked for the IRS ...

Do I need to point out the error here?

Nevermind my reading abilities

They seem to be the most pertinent issue here.

it is your moral compass or lack thereof is what is questionable.

Something which you only think you have a grasp of because you can not avoid emotion-laden mistranslations of even my most plainly stated words.

[blackacidlizzard]

Originally Posted by harrymiafl

Well,I think that the majority of people are the only ones with the right to define reality...

Four thousand years ago the earth was flat. If, four hundred years ago, you lived in what is now New York, the earth was upon the back of a giant version of some animal which lived in your area. If you lived in the Soviet Union in 1950, Joseph Stalin was a compassionate fighter working to make your life better.


Ok, granted we're talking about issues of human action and not strictly observable physical phenomena (well, in some sense, actions are, of course, completely observable, but I'll try to give as much slack as I can - who knows? I might learn something)

The common way that outrage is expressed, and the statements of outrage by "both sides" in this discussion are no exception, is with the tacit assertion that it is the action itself which is a problem (go back and read your own posts to see if they fit this mold)

Perhaps you are being completely honest and have risen above such beliefs, though. Do you say, fully aware of the implications, that you oppose "murder" not on the basis of the action involved, but only based upon what a large number of people think about any specific act?

And if this is so, where do you draw the boundary between the opinions you consider relevant and those you disregard? Your family? Your neighborhood? The residents of the "state" or "nation" you live within?

If we look across the entire human population, there are a great number of people (possibly a majority) who see you and me (I am assuming you live in the "USA") as (in the words of that professor whose name escapes me) "little Eichmans"

If the majority thinks you are a murderer, is it true? Is this all that labels for human activity refer to, the belief held by a large number of people?

[blackacidlizzard]

Originally Posted by Buckhorn

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished.

While I am not sure if this is the case for you (I pick up some hint of it, but no certainty) there is a common conflation between "state" and "society."

Some manner of state is, of course, an element of most societies at present, and indeed there is no clear line of demarcation between the state and the rest of society, but none of this indicates that a state is an integral or necessary part of society. If a society wishes to provide for its less fortunate members, the people within that society do not need to be forced into doing so. One reason that one may view taxation as a central issue is that it is the one widely accepted form of forced transfer of material from one person to another. I submit that the incentive structure set up by such an accepted practice (or perhaps it is because of the monopolization of the practice, though, of course if it was acceptable behavior for everyone it wouldn't get much done, you'd levy a tax against me and I'd levy a tax against you and we could all have fun issuing meaningless decrees - or worse, sending out our own goon squads to collect, but what incentive could we give them - certainly not the secure roles today's US goon squads have) necessarily leads to an ever expanding web of violence. I would like to see violence held to a minimum, and supply common goods in the same way I supply myself with personal goods (as I already do, in fact, mostly through charitable organizations). Service providers typically only use violence when it is paid for by others, as violence is very expensive (United Fruit, the East India company, and the British oil monopoly being three blatant examples, but many other more subtle examples exist - often sold to the common man as "consumer protection" for instance...) Government, on the other hand, is founded with the assumption of this "right to violence" and "right to income obtained through violence." This sets up a nasty reality. (at least in my view, if you like violence, then this isn't a reason for you to stop supporting the blood-drenched beast)