Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

[Guest]

I disagree with gvg's assertion that China would be out to get us if we didn't have a military. Given the global economy we have today, we are too big to fail. If China attacked us and devastated our economy, how would we pay them back? It's in their economic interest for us to maintain at least a marginal economy. They're probably far more upset with the GOP's brinkmanship with the debt ceiling than they are with our military might. If we start defaulting on our financial obligations, then they might start looking at military options. We need to invest in our economy and our infrastructure, instead of insisting on austerity measures. If our economy shrivels to the size of a raisin, it won't matter how "balanced" our budget is, it won't pay off our debts in any reasonable timeframe and our children and their children will be paying for our economic idiocy.

Dawh: The US government is never going to pay off its debt. The system is broken; it is on a crash course. The whole economy will crumble when our debt finally gets too large. The Chinese will have to forgive our debts to avoid a world war and so we will have wound up on top, borrowing from them without paying them back, but that is certainly not the moral thing for us to do.

[Quag]

Come on UTF defend your premise!

*repost*

ok lets try this, please answer these questions:

1. Are municipalities responsible for water/sanitation and the majority of roads as well as other services?

2. Do the citizens of these municipalities recieve the benefits of these services?

3. By their nature is it impossible to avoid these benefits if you live in the municipality?

4. Do Municipalities raise most of their income through property taxes?

5. Does much of the North America exist outside of municipal boundaries?

6. Are these areas thus exempt from property taxes?

7. Are you free to choose where in North America you live?

Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from.

[Guest]

Wait...if you do not have to pay for a DRO then who would pay for it?

Other people maybe. I was just imagining charitable DROs that offered free membership for people below a certain income level. I imagine most DROs wouldn't offer free membership to people with a good amount of money, but who knows, maybe they'll develop a way to pay for basic membership through advertising or something. Court cases on disputes could be expensive, but simply giving the DRO your identity so they can add you to a list wouldn't take much effort and could probably be done for no cost to the customer by any good DRO. The DROs would of course want as many customers as possible so providing the basic membership fro free would surely be a good thing. The DROs could then make their money when their customers go to them with contracts that they want enforced. For example, maybe I'll get a membership with a DRO for free, but then when I go get a job my employer and I will make a contract for my employment and then will pay the DRO a little bit to make sure that if we have a dispute regarding my employment at a later date the DRO will be there to make sure we hold true to our agreement. I was employing someone I certainly wouldn't mind paying my DRO some money to enforce my contracts with my employers. After all, what happens if my employee doesn't do his job but just runs away with the money I pay him (assuming I pay him before he finishes his work... the employee might want the money first but it could also work where he only gets paid after he works in which case the employee would be the person who would like to pay a DRO to make sure that if the employer doesn't pay him then the DRO will pay him and then go after the employer to get his money that he agreed to pay the employer. So anyways, perhaps DROs would make it so you don't have to pay for membership, but you do have to pay each time you want the DRO to back one of your contracts with another person. As that is a service that I (and I imagine many other people) would want I think people would willingly pay the DROs for their services and wouldn't feel that they're having to pay to avoid being thought of as a potential criminal. Although even then as I said I don't think that anyone would need worry being treated like a criminal for simply not having a DRO. The DROs would blacklist you if you became a criminal, they wouldn't simply drop your membership. And I think that a very inexpensive system of developing a list of non-criminals to verify that you're not a criminal assuming a false identity could be made too. Anyways, you can scrap all of this DRO idea if you wish and I would still say that you should follow the non-aggression principle, rather than forcing people to pay for court systems that they don't wish to pay for. Perhaps DROs as I've described them aren't the best way to deal with disputes and criminals in a free market stateless society (in fact, I'm sure they're not the best... only a small percentage of people have even considered the question of how to deal with the problem peacefully without a coercive state so I'm sure that much better systems will emerge once people stop tolerating the the state solution of violently imposing one standard of law across a geographic region. The state leaves no room for agreements in the system. If the state deems something a crime and deems X as that crime's punishment, you just have to live with it because the state is going to violently enforce its punishment by forcing you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, etc.

[gvg]

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.

[Guest]

But think- if there is no gov., and no one wants to pay the debt, who will pay the debt? it won't matter how our economy is- when no one pays the debt, they'll get us. Think about it. At least now we are actively paying off the minimum of the interest payments each year. Could you imagine if we stop? (which is what would happen without a gov., after all who would WANT to pay otherwise?) So yes, WITH a gov., what you say has merit. (I still disagree- after all, the british controlled us and we bought only their goods really- China could do the same. But that's besides the point). But I am reffering to what would happen in UtF's gov. free world. No one would pay, thus why would that go 'unpunished' by China? But that was just an example anyway. I just mean in general a militaary prevents us from being screwed. In a world without our military, all it takes is something like WW2 Japan (who was able to take over China after all) to come along (if N. Korea gets their act together, they are a viable option. Easily.) to develop and we're done. You think the soviets wouldn't have gone and expanded to include us in their communist empire? (Like they did with Poland)

I'm giving specific examples here, but you know what I mean: We need a military. It is a large reason (or at least was) a major reason for us getting to where we are.

I don't like where we are--in debt to China. And you're right, our military is a large reason for getting us here. As I said to dawh, though, our government isn't going to pay it's debt. It will continue to force taxpayers to pay for it, but it will continue to grow and in the end China is going to have to forgive our debt.

Again, i don't like war, and I wish it wasn't needed. But even the swiss, the definition of nuetrality, have a decent military and force their citizens into service. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland Yes i know it's wikipedia) Do I want that? No. But the military is necessary. We wouldn't exist at this point without it.

Is war against me needed?

[gvg]

I don't like where we are--in debt to China. And you're right, our military is a large reason for getting us here. As I said to dawh, though, our government isn't going to pay it's debt. It will continue to force taxpayers to pay for it, but it will continue to grow and in the end China is going to have to forgive our debt.

Is war against me needed?

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

[Guest]

Private Sector accountability! That is the funniest thing I've read today. Seriously? Let's begin a list:

-wall street

-insurance companies

-places like Walmart and Nike that use foregin slave labor and pay their employess less than living wage (especially walmart, which doesn't allow unions even)

You've got to be kidding. Voluntarism is the best accountability there is. Walmart and Nike using foreign slave labor and paying their employees less than living wage? Are you kidding? You better perform a reality check because Walmart or Nike don't force anyone to work for them--the government forces people to work for them. If Walmart offers someone a job for a small amount of pay, the person can choose to accept it or turn it down. They're not slaves. Nobody is forced to give Walmart any of their work or money. if you can find one example to prove otherwise I would very surprised. The government on the other hand forcefully takes ownership of part of what I produce. If anyone uses slave labor it's our government. Our government has no accountability because no matter what it does it will still be able to tax me against my will. No private company can do such a thing. If I don't want a company's product or if I don't like how a company makes its product or anything else then I can choose to not work for that company or give it my money. That is the best accountability there is and the government seriously lacks it. Voluntarism is the opposite of slavery. "Private Sector accountability! That is the funniest thing I've read today." This is very sad to read. What did they teach you in school? Propaganda? Not a surprise... it's too bad.

i could keep going, but you get the point. These are things the gov. has done nothiong about, so it's easy to see what will happen woithout one at all. Companies care not about accountability, but profit. Oil companies in NY are currently trying to make it legal to frack, which destroys land, pollutes it heavily, and harms humans. They are only stopped by gov. enforced laws.

To the private sector, the ends justify the means. Social darwinism runs amock. Com one, man. The private sector invented these things. Accountability my a**. You'd see more outsourcing, more slave labor, more pollution, more abuse. There would be no end. It's horrifying to imagine.

I would much prefer to trust the president, say, or a politician than a CEO of any major company or cartel (like that of Wall Street) with my life. I kid you not. i would never trust those slimy, scaly, disgusting, horrible excuse for humans like those on Wall Street.

This is so unfortunate. Earlier you said, "i blame the politicians behind such wars as Iraq" because you see them as the evil people responsible for forcing taxpayers to pay for the immoral Iraq War, but now you're saying that CEOs of major buisness are much worse ("slimy, scaly, disgusting, horrible excuse for humans"). I've been told that I'm too optimistic about people and their ability to solve problems peacefully recently on this forum, but I think the truth is that you and other statists think that humans are extremely evil violent brutal people. I don't agree with this, but if it is true, why you do support giving such people power over you in our government? Why do you think that because they're elected they'll suddenly behave like gods? They won't. They're still selfish. They'll still have wars and force you to pay for them. It's really sad to see you talking like this. I thought there was hope but the more I read of you speaking of voluntarism as if it were slavery and state violence as if it was justice the more I am doubting your future.

[Guest]

Doesn't mean they're right. but according to you, if no one wants to pay, that makes it the right thing to do.

No, it means that I support letting them not pay even if I think they should.

Recently theoretical phycisists were able to collect anti-hydrogen particles for 16 minutes (a new record). Do you realize what could be accomplished if this thing was developed?

But by your logic, if nobody cares about it, we'll let it die. just like medical research. And alternative energy research. The general public is uneducated. Many think anything scientific is unevil, and most of them (like the Koch brothers) are very rich, so ther goes that. Prayer would end up being the answer.

I hope i made sense. i am so tired right now cause of my finals ALL AROUND ME. but you get what i mean right?

Actually, I don't really get what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that if people don't want to pay for something it's wrong to force them to pay for it anyways. You're not morally superior to people even if you think they are generally uneducated.

[gvg]

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?

[Guest]

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.

The only government that truly has the consent of the governed is no government at all. The Constitution never proposed a government to be by the people, for the people. The Constitution proposed a tyrannical government just like all governments in history except that rather than have one tyrant in power, the majority would have power over everyone else. While some dictatorships in history were by one person, for one person, our current government is still only by the majority, for the majority. You give the minority the finger--you don't have their consent.

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,

Yes it is immoral. I know you all aren't sociopaths but that leaves few other reasons why you're morally okay with taking ownership of me. I'm not your slave. If I produce something you have no right to take it away from me.

I want a government that treats everyone fairly, not just the majority. "The hurt minority would be the rich, so....... I don't feel bad. At all." !!!!!

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.

You're making a grave mistake in thinking that advocating for the state will help the poor. The fact that you think I'm immoral for not violently forcing people to help the poor against their will is very saddening. I care about the poor greatly and if you do too as you claim then I strongly urge you to help them yourself rather than force others to help them. I also urge you to consider what will happen to the poor when our government has borrowed too much money and suddenly isn't allowed to spend any more on the poor. Your "solution" for helping the poor is clearly not sustainable and if you truly care about them you ought to rethink your "solution."

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).

"Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that human rights are superior to property rights simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of human." --Ayn Rand

I agree. You have no right to the title of human. You have lost the little respect I still had for you.

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.

The fact that you buy this nonsense is a reason to think that you're brainwashed. I don't have to use the government's currency. I can barter my goods or use pebbles as currency. It doesn't matter: the government still taxes you. Even if you claim I don't own my money or any land or any material resources that I might transform into something of great value, you cannot deny that I own myself without me being absolutely certain that you are a complete and utter tyrant. And yet you DO deny that I own myself. I can sing in my beautiful voice for all to hear, but if I accept payment for my songs in the form of money, goods, or services, the government taxes me on the transaction. The government says I do not own my own voice because I am not free to trade my voice voluntarily with other people without the government seizing part of what I get in the transaction. If I sing for a million people and each person freely gives me a dollar (or something worth a dollar to avoid your currency ownership delusion) then the government will seize a portion of what those million people give me as a coercive, enslaving tax. "The hurt minority would be the rich, so....... I don't feel bad. At all." You don't feel bad making property out of others? Not even a little? Well shame on you.

I am done with you.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Use the Force

[gvg]

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.

[Quag]

Come on UTF defend your premise!

*repost* 4th time UTF are you afraid of the implications of replying to me?

ok lets try this, please answer these questions:

1. Are municipalities responsible for water/sanitation and the majority of roads as well as other services?

2. Do the citizens of these municipalities recieve the benefits of these services?

3. By their nature is it impossible to avoid these benefits if you live in the municipality?

4. Do Municipalities raise most of their income through property taxes?

5. Does much of the North America exist outside of municipal boundaries?

6. Are these areas thus exempt from property taxes?

7. Are you free to choose where in North America you live?

Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from.

[Guest]

"Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that human rights are superior to property rights simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of human." --Ayn Rand

You are seriously quoting Ayn Rand as a credible source?! Of all the possible philosophical sources you could use, you choose one that has the least standing to offer an opinion so far as I'm concerned. There's a reason that "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" flopped at the box office (beside it just being a bad movie in general). She only has a devoted cult following to support her ideology.

And the quote provides very little context or explanation of what it means or how it's justified. She asserts that "[o]nly a ghost can exist without material property." But there's no reason provided to prove that that is true. You provide no evidence that demonstrates why this is the case (and neither did she). In the end, that is why you do not agree with the rest of us. You continue to make an assertion that the rest of us refuse to accept. That's what Quag has been trying to get you to respond to for the last four pages.

You say that violence is immoral (and that taxation is violence). Now you've added the assertion that property rights are inherent, if we accept that quote as representative of your views. But you've provided no basis to show these statements to be true. You seem to be advocating for some kind of "Natural Laws" that are inherent to humanity. But where do the "Natural Laws" get defined? Theologists say God gives us these laws and most people who reject the God Hypothesis, while still supporting the idea of Natural Laws, have a mystical basis for their views. My sense is that you don't have any of those reasons. So where do these laws come from?

Do I think that violence is wrong? Yes, in most cases, but my reasoning is that the constant threat of violence prevents society from functioning. There is no Natural source for why violence is wrong. It is wrong purely from the sense that I could not live with a neighbor if I had to constantly worry about whether that neighbor is going to hurt me and my neighbor would likely equally live in fear of me. So we need to come to an agreement that neither of us means the other harm. There's nothing inherent in humanity that guarantees this agreement. That's why we need a social contract with other people. And I would need O(n²) contracts to individually arrange a peace agreement with each person, which is an unreasonable arrangement for anyone to make. So we come together as a group to form a Social Contract that encapsulates all of the people in a group and that provides the basis for our interactions with each other.

In addition to the agreement covering all of us, it needs to be relatively stable so that people in a society can operate with a general expectation that the circumstances won't change rapidly. If I'm a purveyor of alcohol, I need to be reasonably sure that people aren't going to change their minds tomorrow and ban its consumption. The contract needs to be flexible enough to change for new and extenuating situations, but in general, it needs to remain relatively unchanged to permit me to operate in society with certain expectations about allowed behavior. Your system provides no such guarantee.

In addition, violence is not an inherently immoral thing in human society. If it were, then everyone would recognize that it is wrong naturally. Psychopaths don't. They are happy to hurt others when they see it to their benefit (and sociopaths do as well to a lesser degree). Violence has been codified into cultural laws and beliefs. Ritual sacrifices, honor killings, vendettas. If violence is inherently immoral, how could those be accepted practices in any human culture? Violence is only immoral in so much as we have an agreement with people that it is wrong. If there is no such agreement, how can we be sure that everyone will acknowledge its "immorality"?

[Guest]

You are seriously quoting Ayn Rand as a credible source?! Of all the possible philosophical sources you could use, you choose one that has the least standing to offer an opinion so far as I'm concerned. There's a reason that "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" flopped at the box office (beside it just being a bad movie in general). She only has a devoted cult following to support her ideology.

As a source? What are you talking about? Ayn Rand was simply expressing the same view that I hold, which is that if you advocate for “positive" rights (I mentioned them earlier in this thread I believe) then you're really advocate that "some human beings have the right to make property out of others". You can't say that the poor have the right to free health care, etc, without violating the rights of the productive people by forcefully taking their money from them and spending it on the poor. You're claiming the right to the product of the other person's effort against their will. That's theft and the government enforces the theft violently.

I agree with you that Ayn Rand was quite a poor philosopher (so many of her arguments were very flawed logically), but in terms of her moral opinions I wholeheartedly agree with her that it's wrong to take ownership of (steal) other people/what they produce without their consent, even if you're redirecting their efforts towards things you consider "human rights" (government healthcare for the poor, etc). The fact is that the government takes what people produce without their consent. If someone doesn't want to give you money to spend on the poor or some other societal or charitable thing, then let them have that choice. It’s their money, their property—they own it. It's wrong to point a gun at them to take their property from them even if you're going to give it to other people (e.g. the poor) rather than yourself.

I value consent and so did Ayn Rand. It has nothing to do with her ability to make philosophical arguments. Also, the fact that you're speaking of credible sources means that you care more about who said something than what was actually said. Can’t you evaluate whether or not you think stealing is wrong yourself without looking for a credible source to say it? Also, the fact that you think that I have been trying to argue for a moral opinion is saddening as well. You can't argue that killing is wrong and you can't argue that threatening to lock up people if they don't give you their money to help the poor is wrong either. They're both opinions not facts that you can deduce or discover in the world with evidence. You can try to persuade people of these morals but you can’t argue for them in the sense that Ayn Rand tried and failed to argue for them.

Throughout this thread I've been trying to get you to see that while you may be okay with the government taxing you, etc, there are other people in your country who are not okay with it and so from their perspective it is downright theft. If someone says, "May I have your money to spend on helping the poor?" and you say "okay," you might not think that they are coercing you to give them your money. But, if you try saying, "no, I don't want to give you my money," then you'll see that they really had a gun under their coat their whole time. I haven't been trying to argue for the non-aggression principle--it's an opinion. I've only been trying to show you that what you advocate is violent and tyrannical and if you see that then maybe you will decide to change your opinion yourself by deciding that it is wrong to initiate force against other people. I can't argue that to you--I can only try to get you to see that what you support is coercive. You might pay your taxes voluntarily but there are many other people who certainly don’t pay them voluntarily, but only pay them because the government will seize their property with force if they don’t—that’s coercion. You're not asking people if they would like to donate to the poor, you're taking what they produce from them with the threat of force (and force if they refuse to pay up) regardless of whether they are okay with it. The government may not be violating your consent, but it is violating others' consent and I thought that if you realized that you might change your opinions.

And the quote provides very little context or explanation of what it means or how it's justified. She asserts that "[o]nly a ghost can exist without material property." But there's no reason provided to prove that that is true. You provide no evidence that demonstrates why this is the case (and neither did she). In the end, that is why you do not agree with the rest of us.

There’s no reason provided to prove that this is true? Of course there isn’t: you can’t prove an opinion. Are you suggesting that you disagree with her on this though? Don’t you consider your own body your property at the very least? *dumbfounded * (Is this really finally your admission that you think you own me?) Ayn Rand was expressing her viewpoint that all humans own their own bodies and what they produce. If people were ghosts they wouldn't have a body to own, but people do have bodies and so she was saying that she thinks people own their own bodies. The fact that Ayn Rand and I think that people own their own bodies is an opinion though as I said, so your statement “You provide no evidence that demonstrates why this is the case (an neither did she)” makes no sense. You don’t provide evidence for opinions such as this basic moral opinion that people own their own bodies.

Also though, if you really disagree with the opinion that people own their own bodies (as you imply you do when you next said "In the end, that is why you do not agree with the rest of us") then of course I would say that that is an outrageously immoral opinion of yours. If you really think that YOU (/the government) own my body and that YOU (/the government) own what I produce instead of ME owning these things then of course I would agree with you that this is why I do not agree with you on the morality of taxation. But, I thought you were denying that you enslave other people this whole time? I thought that you were denying that you claim ownership of other people and what they produce without their consent? I thought you were denying that you are tyrannical? I thought you were denying that "The doctrine that human rights are superior to property rights simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others"? I thought you were denying that when you tax people to pay for the poor you are making property out of them (taking ownership of what they produce) without their consent? I thought you were denying owning my body and the things that I produce when I work? I thought that this was the central point of debate in our discussion and apparently you did too as you just said that "In the end, that is why you do not agree with the rest of us.” But, if you finally agree with me that your political practices show that you think you/the government own me and what I produce, then can I ask you once again if you still think that this is moral? I know you said that you thought that the slavery in the south in the 1800s was immoral so why do you think that letting me decide if I want to produce or not, but then taking ownership of what I do produce if I so choose to produce is so much better? I know it’s not as bad of a form of slavery as what used to exist in America, but it’s still slavery and it’s still bad. I don’t think you own my body. If you really do think you(/the government) own my body, what may I ask makes this form of slavery so much different from what America used to have that suddenly makes it moral? Is it the simple fact that if I choose not to produce then you don’t punish me? Because I certainly don’t see that as a descent excuse. If I do choose to produce that still doesn’t give you the right to claim ownership of what I produce. What I make still belongs to me. My body still belongs to me no matter how productive I am. Even if I sing a beautiful song for a million people and accept a million dollars worth of goods/services/songs in return from the million people, I still fully own my voice and those people still fully own their goods/services/songs that they trade to me (in my opinion). Why do you think it is moral of you to claim ownership of my beautiful singing voice and the songs, goods, and services, that the people I sing to will give me in return for singing? I really don’t see how you think it’s moral for you to enslave me in this way, even if you don’t punish me for not being productive.

You continue to make an assertion that the rest of us refuse to accept. That's what Quag has been trying to get you to respond to for the last four pages.

No (at least I don’t think so), quag thinks that the government taxing me isn't coercive because I choose to trade a certain amount of goods with other people within the United States. I could make the same argument by saying that me taking your computer from you (to my house with force if necessary to get it there) isn't actually coercive either because you chose to produce/trade for a computer. If you, like quag, still can't see that you stealing my property forcefully is coercive regardless of the fact that I chose to produce my property (my money, my computer, etc), then perhaps you're right that I "continue to make an assertion that [you all] refuse to accept." Right now I thought that quag was the only person who disagreed that taxation is coercive. I think gvg understood that it was violent and that he was violating peoples' consent, but still thought that it was a morally good thing to do anyways. Quag denied that it was theft while gvg seemed to agree that it was theft, but was okay with it anyways. I'm unsure about you (I feel like you may have miswritten earlier when you implied that you disagreed with Ayn Rand about people owning their bodies), which is why I'm asking again: do you agree with me that the government takes other peoples' property and claims it as their own property when it taxes them or do you disagree in that you think the government owns what people produce? And then the second question: If you agree with me that the government seizes peoples’ property without their consent (theft), do you think this moral or immoral? If you disagree with me on this (like quag) in that you think you/the government owns people and what they produce, then as I said to quag earlier, maybe we really don't agree on enough fundamental things to continue our discussion.

Also, perhaps I'm wrong about gvg: maybe he still denies that what he supports is theft and thinks that the government owns what people produce. I’m not entirely sure—at some points it seems as though what he is saying means that he most certainly thinks that the government owns what people produce and the next moment when I try clarifying he rejects the idea altogether.

You say that violence is immoral (and that taxation is violence). Now you've added the assertion that property rights are inherent, if we accept that quote as representative of your views.

I agree with Ayn Rand on the quote, but for clarification I think the fact that I think I own my body (and what I produce) is an opinion, not an “inherent” property right. You could hold the opinion that you own my body and I wouldn’t say that you were wrong (in a factual sense). I would say that in my view that is extremely immoral of you and our discussion would be instantly over (as soon as I was sure that you actually thought you owned my body… right now I’m thinking that you may have misspoke or perhaps didn’t understand that the point of Rand’s ghost comment was to say that of course you should think people own their own bodies at the very least).

But you've provided no basis to show these statements to be true. You seem to be advocating for some kind of "Natural Laws" that are inherent to humanity. But where do the "Natural Laws" get defined? Theologists say God gives us these laws and most people who reject the God Hypothesis, while still supporting the idea of Natural Laws, have a mystical basis for their views. My sense is that you don't have any of those reasons. So where do these laws come from?

As I said earlier in this post, my view that I own my own body and what I produce, etc is an opinion. If you want to disagree with my views on these property rights by claiming that you or the government actually owns me and what I produce or trade for, then I certainly wouldn’t say that there was anything logically wrong with your opinion. The discussion would be over though (as soon as I confirmed for the last time also that you still think that you or the government owning me is moral).

Do I think that violence is wrong? Yes, in most cases, but my reasoning is that the constant threat of violence prevents society from functioning.

Uhh…. The constant threat of violence by the government if people don’t pay their taxes or don’t follow any of the state’s other laws is what I thought you thought kept (not prevented) the society functioning. Now you’re saying the opposite of what I thought your view was.

Post continued below…

[Guest]

…continued:

There is no Natural source for why violence is wrong. It is wrong purely from the sense that I could not live with a neighbor if I had to constantly worry about whether that neighbor is going to hurt me and my neighbor would likely equally live in fear of me.

I would agree that violence isn’t inherently wrong, but it’s an opinion that we hold that violence is wrong because we don’t like people using violence against us or threatening to use violence against us. Having said that, I’m not sure why the idea that you might not be afraid of your neighbor because you are wielding monstrous force (violence) against him hasn’t crossed your mind. And if it has, what about the fact that your neighbor might then be afraid of you and angry at you for threatening to use violence against him if he doesn’t pay his taxes to you?

So we need to come to an agreement that neither of us means the other harm.

I agree—I mean you no harm and you don’t mean me any harm. The thing is, you are harming me (accidentally apparently) and I want to make you aware of that. While it’s possible that you think you’re “helping” me by taking my property away from me against my will, I tend to strongly disagree with, and even if you are right in that you are “helping” me by my own values (that I am somehow blind to myself?), I would very much appreciate it if you stopped taking my money away from me against my will and let me retain ownership of my property (money) even if you think it would make for a “worse” world in your view or mine. The fact is that I don’t hold the view that you’re helping me by taking my money away from me against my will (I think you’re harming me) and so while you’re doing it accidentally/unknowningly, you’re still doing it and so I would like you to be aware so you can stop (as I’m sure you will, since you mean me no harm).

There's nothing inherent in humanity that guarantees this agreement.

Of course, I agree.

That's why we need a social contract with other people.

Oh no, no, no.

And I would need O(n²) contracts to individually arrange a peace agreement with each person, which is an unreasonable arrangement for anyone to make. So we come together as a group to form a Social Contract that encapsulates all of the people in a group and that provides the basis for our interactions with each other.

Taking this as your reason for holding the view that “we need a social contract with other people” in the previous quote:

Do you make any agreements with your friends saying that you don’t mean each other harm? I would think not. I don’t get what your reason is for saying you would need many contracts with people without a social contract. Do you think that the reason you can interact with your friends because there is a social contract with them that says that violence is wrong? I don’t understand. What is this “social contract” that you claim exists and how does it provide the basis of our interactions with each other and also how does it apply to the discussion we’re having? Are you maybe saying that the government is a social contract or something? I don’t get what you’re saying at all actually, now that I’m trying to reply to what you wrote.

In addition to the agreement covering all of us, it needs to be relatively stable so that people in a society can operate with a general expectation that the circumstances won't change rapidly. If I'm a purveyor of alcohol, I need to be reasonably sure that people aren't going to change their minds tomorrow and ban its consumption. The contract needs to be flexible enough to change for new and extenuating situations, but in general, it needs to remain relatively unchanged to permit me to operate in society with certain expectations about allowed behavior. Your system provides no such guarantee.

What is this “social contract”? I’ve never heard of anything like what you just described? I have no idea what you’re talking about…. 

In addition, violence is not an inherently immoral thing in human society.

Uhh, first, I thought you said earlier that “There is no Natural source for why violence is wrong.” Doesn’t this directly contradict what you just said in the above quote?

Also, our government is an institution of violence. It solves problems with violence. If the poor need help, it doesn’t help them: it points guns at people with money to force them to help the poor by redistributing the wealth to the poor against the wealthy peoples’ consent. So this also makes me disagree with what you just said in the above quote.

If it were, then everyone would recognize that it is wrong naturally. Psychopaths don't. They are happy to hurt others when they see it to their benefit (and sociopaths do as well to a lesser degree). Violence has been codified into cultural laws and beliefs. Ritual sacrifices, honor killings, vendettas. If violence is inherently immoral, how could those be accepted practices in any human culture?

Wait, what? You and I do NOT tolerate those psychopaths. Your question makes me think that you think that a stateless society accepts violence or something? That’s absurd—I’ve been saying the exact opposite of that. I’ve even gone further than you in my lack of tolerance for violence in that I don’t tolerate the government’s violence/threat of violence while you do accept it.

Violence is only immoral in so much as we have an agreement with people that it is wrong. If there is no such agreement, how can we be sure that everyone will acknowledge its "immorality"?

I’m the one advocating the non-aggression principle. This doesn’t require that everyone goes around and asks each other, “Do you agree with me that violence is wrong except in self defense,” but it presumably means that if someone uses violent force aggressively rather than in defense against someone else then people would in general view this as a crime and treat it like one (seeing as in general people would accept the non-aggression principle).

So I agree with you that “Violence is only immoral in so much as we have an agreement with people that it is wrong” because if people tend to disagree with me about the non-aggression principle (as they do tend to disagree) then society will go on taxing me against my will, etc, with the threat of force making sure that I pay up. I don’t see what your point is, though, especially with your question, “If there is no such agreement, how can we be sure that everyone will acknowledge its "immorality"?” Are you saying that there exists a “social contract” (whatever that is… I still have no idea) that says that violence is wrong? Because I disagree about the existence of such a “social contract” especially since most people in our society such as yourself accept aggressive violence as moral. I’m the only one on this form that I know of who thinks that violence is morally wrong except in self defense.

[gvg]

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).

[gvg]

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.

[Quag]

Come on UTF defend your premise!

*repost* 5th time UTF are you afraid of the implications of replying to me?

ok lets try this, please answer these questions:

1. Are municipalities responsible for water/sanitation and the majority of roads as well as other services?

2. Do the citizens of these municipalities recieve the benefits of these services?

3. By their nature is it impossible to avoid these benefits if you live in the municipality?

4. Do Municipalities raise most of their income through property taxes?

5. Does much of the North America exist outside of municipal boundaries?

6. Are these areas thus exempt from property taxes?

7. Are you free to choose where in North America you live?

Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from.

No (at least I don’t think so), quag thinks that the government taxing me isn't coercive because I choose to trade a certain amount of goods with other people within the United States. I could make the same argument by saying that me taking your computer from you (to my house with force if necessary to get it there) isn't actually coercive either because you chose to produce/trade for a computer. If you, like quag, still can't see that you stealing my property forcefully is coercive regardless of the fact that I chose to produce my property (my money, my computer, etc),

Where in any of my posts have I said it was ok to steal? You keep saying taxation is theft. Please read the 5th repost of mine and tell me where I am wrong. Please dont come up with another silly water/computer/slave analogy that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. You made a claim that I and many others consider absurd ie taxation = theft/violence/slavery. now I have tried to point out where your logic falls apart and instead of answering me you just come up with one false analogy after another. My analogy of the bar with the 2 drink minimum you dismissed without refuting, my pointing out that you can move was replied with the silly Martian post which again I have refuted and again you ignore.

It almost seems as though you are so indoctinated in your philosophical almost religous belief that taxation=theft/violence/slavery that you cannot even look at the possibility of it not being true. Instead of assesing and refuting or agreeing with other points of view, you keep restating in a different way your own convictions. Now if you could try and come up with a LOGICAL arguement againt my point of view, I may not agree but at least eventually we could agree to disagree. Instead you insist on ignoring what I say, then claim I said something else that fits in with your own point of view. That is not having a logical, reasoned discussion.

I will ask again, will you reply to my post?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Quag

[Quag]

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.

GVG you seem to be inferring that the taxation rate has something to do with the recession. I have to disagree with this. It seems to me that the real estate bubble, that burst with rising interest rates and the over indebtedness of the average american was the main cause. We had no bubble here in canada and were relatively untouched by the recession. I do not know what the "ideal" taxation rate should be but like in most other things the extremes 0% or 100% taxation will lead to disaster. I believe that rate would be the one that would let the govt work effectively as long as they did it efficiently. I do not think anyone knows what that should be and govts are still grappling with the effective and the efficient parts.

[gvg]

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)).

[Quag]

gvg, Jimmy Carter had very high rates and a major recession as well. I dont think the taxation rate was a major facor then or now.

As for canadian tax rates well thats a good one here in quebec we have federal and provincial, and their calculations on the income arent the same. example I always make more money as far as Quebec is concerened than i do according to the federal govt.

but here goes this is federal

15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, +

22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), +

26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), +

29% of taxable income over $128,800.

this is provincial (quebec only other provinces have other rates)

0 - $39,060 16%

$39,060 -$78,120 20%

$78,120 - 24%

basically top bracket is over 50% but working it out exactly is a pain in the a** lets just say there is lots. We also have sales tax both provincial and federal, provincial is applied on top of federal.

For the record I beleive our rates are too high

[gvg]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[gvg]

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.

[Guest]

Here's an illuminating chart regarding the cause of the current debt. The chart shows that the largest, single contributor to our debt is the Bush Tax Cuts, but the wars and the economic downturn also contributed heavily. The single biggest thing we could do to reduce the size of the debt would be to end the Bush tax cuts.