gvg

1. Dawh meant money equals power as in a fuedal type society. Yes, maybe there was that one guy who worked hard. But then, his son doesn't have to work... than his.... etc. but they are still the most powerful. i believe this is what dawh was getting at. 2. You are greatly overestimating the good nature of humanity. Otherwise the fuedal system would have worked, communism would have worked, and we'd all be singing kumbaya. This is, I think, a major reason we can't agree. We view humanity differently. 3. I don't know locke or whatever, so I won't comment on this. 4. The law of nature, though, is very evident on anybody fluent somewhat in evolution: The strong will survive, survival of the fittest, etc. And this is fine in the wild; after all, humanity got here that way. But we are supposed to be able to go above that, and allow EVERYONE to not just survive, but thrive. And yes, there are people who don't give a s*** about anyone else. You think wall street cares about you? Or the insurance business (who gains profit from your suffering, and even denies you coverage if you are already suffering)? No. Most people don't care about anybody else. The rule of thumb for capitalism is social darwinism, the strong will survive. is this what you really want? I don't. 5. Dawh wasn't criminalizing anybody, just showing that minimum wage laws protect those who need protection. Can a father of six really afford to work for as little as a single man in his early twenties? No. This allows the father to compete. 6. Americans are already being forced by businesses who are outsourcing. Google is in CHina, Nike uses slave labor, Walmart is f'd up, Gap uses slave labor. They don't want to deal with 'whiny American workers.' They want profit, and are willing to step on anybody's toes to get there. That's why you have to be a mean SOB to succeed in business. My dad has told, not in a bad way, that I'm too nice to be in business. Business is cruel. And they don't care.

I only brought it up cause Dawh talked about 'survival mode' or whatever. Anyway, I just thought that since we were continually changing subjects at this point, i would throw it in there. Just showing that the poor seem to be punished. Anyway, it was irrelevant. Just wanted to see what you thought. It wasn't about the non-aggression principle. All I'm going to say on that is that I abide by it until it gets in the way of what's good for as many people as possible. And the gov. provides more pos. than neg., it's just that we are in a war right now that was supported by almost everyone at the time it started and is now being irresponsibly dealt with (again, I do think change is needed). So if you really think that taxes violate the non-aggression principle, then I guess I don't fully abide by the non-aggression principle. Ah well. But see, I don't think taxes= violence, but if we are looking at it from your perspective, than I guess the non-aggression principle needs to be violated for the greater good of what's right for the most people. Whatever provides the most rights as possible and provides the most protection economically (through regulation, yes) and allows for the most health and allows for the most prosperity... than it is for the better. And if that means you think I'm violating the non-aggression principle, so be it. I guess I'm a violent maniac then, what with my wish for a public health care system that gets as many people covered as possible, what with my socio-capitalist ways, what with my support of welfare programs that help the needy, what with my possible leaning toward a public-'big Pharma' where profiting off of people's pain is actually immoral, what with my support of gov. paid tuition so that those who are barred from college for financial reasons can actually go, what with my taxing of the rich so that as many people as possible are helped so that the middle class doesn't disappear, what with my support of a gov. by the people and for the people, what with my economic regulations so that the super-rich, Wall Street, and so on are forced to stop raping the American people and the world. I suppose I am a crazy socialist maniac. Is that truly what you think?

I don't think you realize that the man did it for years under a false name. And they don't know where he is. Obviously, it would be easier for him to scam people; after all, would you bother looking for him on the other side of the country? And again, yes, I really think you overestimate the charity of humankind. Have you been living in a bubble? We are in a class war, upper vs lower. they want their money, and couldn't care less about the rest of us. And everybody else is in the same position, so it really doesn't matter. i don't know if you saw those two things I posted, but look at them. And this: And yes, I will concede that the CURRENT system isn't working. No one is supporting the current system here. We want to go more 'left,' you more 'right.' The CURRENT system sucks. And poverty is classified (as of 2008) as an income of $1.25 or less a day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

And after replying to Dawh, UtF, I want to know what you think of this: http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2009/09/07/same-to-you-buddy/ And this: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/?wa_user1=5&wa_user2=Weird+World&wa_user3=blog&wa_user4=popular

This is just a guess, but wha dawh meant by the Joe blow thing is that you are so sure people will help other people through private charities that gov. one's (ie unemployment, SS) aren't needed. Dawh was saying that that isn't true by explaining that people won't care as much about what happens to other people, which is why your thing won't work. this may not be what dawh intended, so don't assume that it is. And companies aren't people. yes, they have to be treated differently. because they aren't people. And as dawh said, corporations must have gov. approval or whatever, so there is no violation of your 'non-agression principle' because they did agree to it (and have been abusing their 'rights' by outsourcing, being anti-union (did you not read in the article above where the one company killed union members/leaders in Colombia?), and generally being dicks.)

http://www.cracked.com/article_15967_awful-truth-behind-5-items-probably-on-your-grocery-list.html Just to continue the warm and fuzziness of corporations. Yay coke. And Chiquita. And a few others. Wonderful.

Oh yes, that guys right. I use republican and democrat as insults now. Liberal and conservative are the ideologies. Democrat and Republican are organizations (center-right and far right respectively; there's no more liberal 'party', not counting the third parties) It's a game. All it is. That's all i see on the news. 'How can they impress more voters? Who can win? Who will gain momentum and who will lose it?' They sound like sports teams. We NEED more independents/third parties in congress until the main parties are gone. I would love to abolish them all though. All you need is a candidate, not party loyalties.

UtF: First, if it was a report done by someone, and they have facts for it, then.... there's no opinion really. The facts support it. THough we have to do both. Also, WTF with the twisting of Dawh's words. That's not what was meant. You are obsessed with this violence thing, yet you turn a blind eye to the more inherent horribleness of places like Walmart and other corporations, which USE slave labor (actual violence and slavery!) as I've shown before. Seriously, enough. If that is what you are going to interpret everything as, then we can't continue this discussion. I did not interpret it that way at all, although I'm glad you didn't call Dawh crazy

Hold on, i never said ALL of our problems were tax based. What I meant was that with all the stuff that happened, the taxes didn't help. i don't blame this on liberterians, i blame this on a variety of factors. The guy you showed is partially right; just increasing taxes/repealing the bush tax cuts won't cure everything. We need a combination of cuts and taxes. Just one won't work. For instance, after WW2, taxes on the rich went to 90% (this was under Taft/Eisenhower during America's 'golden years' period of the 50s/60s) and they cut unneeded things in order to pay of the debt for that war. It worked because there was a combination. We need to do both (taxes+spending cuts) because yes, as this guy pointed out, just adding taxes without cutting stuff is useless. That link was a reply to Quag saying that taxes weren't part of it. They are (and they aren't a few precentage points lower, they are at lest 50% lower for the rich (don't know about the rest) only in that they aren't enough to fix what needs to be fixed. Although it should be noted that all of the countries with higher tax rates (like the netherlands (was it them or Denmark?) and Germany) also spend on things like public health care and, for Germany, free college tuition and yet still are less indebted than us (Germany has a freakin' 1.5 trillion dollar surplus). And we were better of in the 90's without the Bush tax cuts (it was under Bush that the debt inflated). But in actuality, i blame the debt on the wars and the fact that we owe 50% of our debt to the Fed (which, as I've mentioned before, is a private bank.) That's what's the real issue. The taxes are only a factor in that they aren't helping. But you know what else may help? I dunno, an end to the drug war would save many billions of dollars. Maybe stopping our money-giving to the oil companies. Maybe not trying to be the center of world affairs anymore. These are small (and large) things that would kinda help, along with cutting military spending and closing tax loopholes (and yes, increasing taxes). Of course, you want to end the whole system anyway, so this is irrelevant to you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/ten-charts-showing-how-low-american-taxes_n_875067.html?#s290516&title=10_Tax_Breaks I think taxes had something to do with America's recession.

I disagree. While I do think you are correct with the real estate/debt thing, the low tax rate, coupled with our wars, was really an important part of it. If we had higher tax rates, I doubt the wars would have caused AS MUCH of an economic disaster as they did (still would have been bad, but not as bad). So i do think the tax rate had something to do with it. What are the tax rates in Canada? Personally I would go with a system between 70-40-30 or 60-40-20 (rich-middle-poor). I think it would bring a proper balance, and if we cut it off as 1 mil. income= rich (which it does in my view), then i think it is even more effective. We can break it up even more if necessary (like 50 for 500,000-whatever income is before 1 mil (cause i doubt someone makes 999,999. It's a weird number for an income)).

Society cannot run this way without the rich, the mob, etc. (the big kids on the block) returning us to feudalism. I don't think you realize how close we are to it. Without a gov., we would plunge into it immediately. Currently, 400 Americans own the equivalent of 155 million americans' wealth. There is then the rest of the rich, the upper middle class (the 'poor rich'), the middle class (shrinking daily), and the poor (growing daily). We as Americans are currently paying the lowest rates in at least 70 years (i think it was that), and we are in almost as bad an economic recession as the great depression (when the rates, i believe, were lower). Obviously taxes help everybody or that wouldn't be true.

UtF: 1. I don't agree with you that taxation is theft. I don't. Mostly because you can avoid many/all of the taxes involved (as Quag keeps trying to point out with his questions that you seem to be ignoring) and because money is really the only form of 'property' that the gov. prints (they create through their efforts (printing) after all, so it is in a sense the government's). So, no, i don't see taxation as theft. Does the government own you and your property? No; I am not a communist. But even if you look at it as theft (which I don't), it helps so many people and so many things that i still argue that it's moral. 2. I am of the philosophy that whatever helps the most people in the end is the right thing to do(Generalization). The government uses taxes to fund knowledge, fund welfare, etc. these things are set up in our declaration of independence (the pursuit of happiness part). The rich have plenty to live off of even after taxes, so it doesn't hurt them at all, and that money goes to the poor, which does help them (obviously other stuff too, this is just an example). Thus, it really doesn't hurt anybody. Obviously nobody likes taxes; that isn't the question. But really, you haven't convinced me that a stateless society will work NOW. And it isn't just our disagreeance of human nature (you seem to have a mmuch more positive view of it than I do). i just don't see how it could work, even with a multi-generational thing (which, as I believe quag pointed out, just gives the Mafia/Mob/warlords/whatever more time to set up their stuff). Your society is quite defenseless, it seems like knowledge will quite disappear (fter all, you asked if the current anti-matter research was worth it; a reasonable queestion, but you seem not to care if it gets paid for either way. The way I see it, whatever doesn't get the money won't happen, even if that thing is research into a life-saving medicine (I know you'll say people wouldn't be stupid enough to do that, but look at the stem cell debate in the US)), and I really just can't see how it would work. All the historical evidence points to a weakening of gov. as a low point of society (and what is anarchy if not the complete end of gov. power?) and strong centralized governments leading to new glorious ages (Rome, Mongol Empire, etc.). Recent events involving Wall Street, slave labor used by big corporations, the complete crapiness that is corporate pharmacies 9Big Pharma) and private insurers (hell, even chocolate corporations get into the mix: http://www.cracked.com/article_18616_5-bitter-truths-about-chocolate_p2.html (there's another page). A quote of importance regarding the cartel argument: "Executives from rival companies, according to one affidavit, have been meeting in coffee shops since 2001 (or possibly earlier) in order to set prices, meaning we all probably paid too much for every candy bar this past decade. Motivating this uneasy alliance, most likely, was an increase in the cost of cacao and milk, and the more or less unchanged level of chocolate sales." Proof of cartels). The gilded age, Standard oil and that big steel company, the horrible practices that went into meat production before the invention of the FDA. i see nothing that supports you. And I am not a big brute. I quite like the non-aggression principle, i just don't see taxation and the like as breaking it. I would love for your society to be a reality, and I think if the world was made up of people like you, me, Quag, Dawh, Izzy, Current, and others on this site, i think it would work. But we are not the majority of the world. Humans are simply not ready for such a society, and won't be in the near future either (possibly not at all).

You really twisted my words, you blew off what I said. Enough with the goddamn slavery. What you're advocating is corporate slavery! And you know, everyone has their own opinion. You have no right to tell me I'm not human because I have an opinion. What I meant by "i don't feel bad" is that the rich have been getting gifts, yet they complain when the gov. tries to tax them some more so they can take some of the money the rich earned on the back of the middle and poor classes and return it to the system. You leave them in the dust. you are not helping them at all. Your system is quite cruel, and based on the faulty premise that taxation is slavery you wish to destroy what the founding fathers, what everyone has worked to try and perfect. "We the People"- there's a reason that's in their. You have disrespected the founding fathers, our supreme court justices, our veterans (you atacked the military as murderers!) Sir, you are cruel. I can say these things too. You are cruel. Very much so. And then i try and have a civilized conversation, and everyone else does, and you sit there and insult us. Current has avoided it because he hasn't said anything yet that you dislike. But I've felt it, Dawh has felt it, Quag has felt it. You need to calm the f*** down. If you are not here for civilized discussion, then stop replying. In order to repay the debt everyone has to sacrifice. The rich can stop moaning while they bath in bars of gold, the wall street CEO's can stop complaining till they stp stealing form the American people. These are the ones you are defending! There are indeed the good ones, but there are those who need to stop being divas. I am going to be the grown up here and not dismiss you with an 'I'm done with you too.' You can reply or not. If you don't, this discussion can end without any learning being done. Or it can continue, and you can stop with the insults. I am not enslaving you, or anyone. Not everyone can be fully happy. The rule of the majority does not give the finger to the minority. Women's rights? Abolitionists? The Jewish lobby that is always in Washington? Hell, even the oil lobby is in Washington. Belive me, the minorities are well represented.

http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=32 http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=65 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/28/ethicalbusiness.retail There you go. Care to argue facts? I was not taught propaganda actually; I make my own opinions thank you. And you aren't understanding what i'm saying. Without a force over their head, companies, especially multinationals, can do what they want. They ruined Africa, they did what they did in these articles (those workers had NO CHOICE). At least in office, people can control them, vote them out, whatever. So please stop making me look like a bad guy. I want to help as many people as possible. I read the news. I hear both opinions. And the private sector is a horrible place to look for accountability. The info in those articles is well known, yet people still shop at each. Why? BECAUSE IT'S CHEAP! People don't care enough about the well-being of others to bother worrying about them buying from places like Walmart (I don't shop there on purpose and neither does my family. We are in the minority. 138 million Americans shop there each week. http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/as-union-leaders-bash-wal-mart-many.html That is disgusting). These things won't be fixed with no government, they will be worsened! Yes, there are horrid politicians, but the difference between them and Big business men is that Politicians can be controlled by the people; they have people to answer to, CEO's want profit. (I'm generalising, I know not all CEO's are bad. Many are though). So enough with the insults. I'll start with facts. I'll give you historical evidence. Zhoud dynasty, Fuedal Europe, Fuedal Japan, Somalia. I hae facts. Tell me when you want them, and enough with the insults. This is a civilized forum. And I never claimed to be morally superior, it's just that the first thing to go with government is knowledge. Again, fuedal Europe is a good example. I find it said when you talk about the poor as wild beasts. I remember your comment about the fence in the other forum. Read that othe rpost i had above, the long one. I can turn around and insult you too buddy. But i don't want to, so you mind stopping?

Don't be silly. not against you. please read my above comment.

UtF: I am defending the constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rights of the people. i am defending what this gov. is supposed to be- by the people, for the people. I am not advocating for what it has become. I was way too young to vote, though if i wasn't, i NEVER would have supported Bush, and i certaintly don't support any politician who is a war mongering nut job. The real problam is that people who could fix the system are either unpopular or do not wish to run. These are the people like Bernie Sanders, like Ron Paul (whom I could tolerate, but I think certain areas he advocates for wouldn't work). I only support self-defense wars and quite frankly the way wars are declared in this country needs to be fixed (we haven't actually declred war since WW2, the rest have been unchallenged executive-branch decisions, which is horrible). I think if enough people tried it could be reformed. i think if people didn't care so much about taxes and cutting the military we could pay back our debt. Germany did it, and they lost WW2! Obviousl it's possible. Without the wars we aren't in this mess. There are ways it could be fixed. Abolishing the system is not one of them. Politicians like the recent ones could be thrown out. look at FDR, look at JFK, hell look at Theodore Roosevelt. It is possible, but going to either extreme of abolishing the whole thing or leaving it as is won't do. I want a government that helps the majority, and if a minority are affected because of it, I seek to reduce that pain 9although not for nothing, the hurt minority would be the rich, so....... I don't feel bad. At all.) I know you keep saying this is immoral, i'm immoral, Dawh's immoral, but I'm going to turn this around: Look at it from my perspective (since I can't speak for everyone). I seek to use govenrment to help as many people as possible, through such things as economic regulation to prevent people from being ripped off by institutions like wall street and the insurance business, while allowing as many political and social freedoms as possible, including the legalization of all drugs, the legalization of prostitution, the legalization of polygamy and gay marriage, the true seperation of Church and state- etc etc. while at the same time regulating it so as not to make it harmful to others (for instance, drugs are for private use only). I seek to help the poor, to help the disadvantaged, and yes, everyone has to sacrifice to help their fellow man. But what I see in your system is selfishness. i see putting your individual right of doing what you want (especially if you're rich, when economic ostratization is like a gust of wind) ahead of the well being of everyone. You yourself have said, oh well poor, that's nature and it sucks. But I seek to do what humanity has been trying to do: fighting nature to ensure the well-being of as many as possible. To me, your system is selfish, helps the advantaged while leaving the disadvantaged in the dust (you said on another thread that if the poor were crawling around for help or something like that, you'd build a fence), and to me, that is cruel. That is disgusting, and to me, YOU are the immoral one. I see in your plan a society that returns to what we tried to escape from, a society tht underestimates human nature, underestimates human and corporate greed, overstimated the charitablity of people, underestimates the true eveil that's outh there (untied we stand, divided we fall)- etc. YOUR system is immoral in my eyes. Maybe seeing that will help you understand my position better, Remember, morality is subjective, and obviously a middle ground must be reached in this discussion: After all, in what i want, you get pure social/political freedom while sacrificing a degree (not much; I'm sorry, but I don't mind taxing the rich 60%, the middle 40%, the poor 20%, those in poverty none) of economic freedom to prevent the utter collapse of the free market and the true corporate takeobver our country has been in danger of for a LONG time (all great countries are). Doe any of what i said make you see my view? i see your system as immoral. Oh, and just for the record, it isn't 'your' money; the Fed (a privately owned institution owned by people like the Mubarak's and the Rockefeller's) prints the money (which is ridiculous, but that's another discussion), the government puts it in circulation (destroying old currency in the process)- its the government's money, technically, and by withholding your taxes, you are stealing. They don't even want it all back. But anyway, to wrap up, i hope what I've said make you see your argumanets from my point of view.