gvg Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 The "powerful" people aren't businessmen, but rather are politicians. Businessmen don't use violence against you whereas it's a politician's job to use violence against you. And WHO do you think the lobbyists, etc. are that control what many politicians do, convicing them to do things like give tax breaks to big oil companies while screwing the lower classes in the process? BUSSINESSMEN, or at least their representatives. When the bailouts (which i'm sure you disagree with, as I do) occured, guess who got them to go even after congress voted against them? A collection of executives from Goldman Sachs and friends (bussinessmen) who were a part of the Bush administration's Treasury department (I think it was that) who then used the money.... to bailout Goldman Sachs and its frieands while leaving others to die. Bussinessmen are VERY powerful, and VERY corrupt, and its naive to not think so (this is big bussiness we are talking about here). The Federal Reserve (which to be honest with you has a HELL of a lot of problems, and I know many liberterians and fellow liberals alike who loathe it) was started BY BUSSINESSMEN. Carlin said it best: Bussinessmen control most politicians. I admit. Many people admit it. Some, like Bernie Sanders and, yes, Ron Paul, actually care in their own ways about the American people (even if I don't agree with Ron, he does). Bussinessmen are powerful. They WILL willing violate your sacred NAP. Without care. They already do. Walmart gives their workers the bare minimum wage they can, which isn't even enough for them to live without a second source of income (and many of these people can't go elsewhere for whatever reason). And god forbid you unionize. Two Canadian Walmarts (Quag, I LOVE you guys =)) voted to unionize. And were shutdown. If bussinessmen could have it their way, we'd go back to the gilded age, the days where you were paid pennies with no benefits. Lost your hand? REPLACED. Without any benefits. How do you think the great monopolies developed? By being goody goody? Politicians are puppets. You seem to think that people are evil unless they carry the government's guns in which case they suddenly start operating for the good of society. Uh... that's not what Dawh said. The government has done great wrongs in the past. Lack of equality, slavery, three-fifths compromise. It's just that these things are eventually changed in time because it works FOR THE PEOPLE. Not some, the many. People can change governments MUCH EASIER than they can change bussinesses and such. Walmart was sued by a huge group of women for discrimination. The supreme court ruled that, due to that damn citizens united ruling that makes corporations=people (oh yeah, no business influence there), that many people couldn't sue one place. But they are still going to sue in smaller groups, though because Walmart has better lawyers it's obvious that they'll have an easier time winning. And people will still buy from them because they have "Everyday low prices" (or is that K-Mart?). And they will continue their BS. If this happened with governemnt, there'd be impeachments, party changes, complete uproar. Hell, Bill Clintons cheats there's an uproar, a CEO cheats people buy their goods. There is a difference. My SS teacher said it well. I asked him why there was such a similarity between our poor, middle, rich, superrich pyramid and the fuedal pyramid. He said becuase it is the same. We came to the same conclusion: The ONLY thing stopping us from degrading into corporate controlled fuedalism is the government. The set-up is there; the ability is there. It's been skewed that way for a while. Only the government stands in the way. Fuedalism is the WORST system of government possible, in my view, on equal footing with Stalin-style dictatorships. Do you really want it back? Now, for your other stuff. First off, I call everyone's political ideas opinions, so if you are offended, I apologize. Second, I think i've proved to you through historical examples, like the fuedal era and gilded age, that less government (there hasn't really been an example of none, so...) means more for the rich. Serfs are screwed, nobles are fine. I'll give more: Whenever there's been a strong central force, such as the Romans, the Han, the Mongols, etc., human society has EXPLODED in ideas, knowledge, wealth, and so on. Whenever there has been a collapse, like what happened after the end of Rome, the Hand, and the Zhou, it was hell on Earth. History is important, as Glenn Beck has said =) But seriously it is. It's a cycle. For example: Roman Republic run by Nobles of sorts, the patricians, rise of a very centralized government (note: I am not vouching for totalitaarianism, it's just that that's all there has usually been until recently) with prosperity, decline, and collapse with pure war and hell. The Han: Similar. The Islamic Empire: Look at the loveliness known as the Middle East now. Is that the proof you wanted? I know that lobbyists occur with governments. but at least the people can vote and say DO NOT LISTEN TO THE a**hole WITH THE LIMO SUPPORTING GOLDMAN SACHS, so there's the possibility of control. Without such a controlling force, there's no such chance. My ideas aim to help as many people as possible. Your system allows some people to use violence against other people to harm those people for their own benefit. Once again: The rich man in your society can commit murder, say 'screw you' to the DRO (or any such organization), and leave for the mountains to live a life of luxury. The poor man steals some bread that he otherwise can't afford for his family, he's condemned, ostracized, and probably perishes along with those he cares for. See the difference? I would think it a good idea to have some principles to follow so that if you even have to make a good decision you are more likely to make a decision that you are happy with. Obviously, don't murder, don't steal. But for any tough decision, any complex decision, these things can be twisted. For instance, there was a case in England where some guys stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean decided that, since the cabin boy was already weak from drinking seawater against their advice and was near death anyway, they should 'finish him off' and eat him so that they can survive, which they did. The thing went to court, and i haven't read the outcome of the trial yet, but I am fine with such a thing. It goes against my 'Don't murder' and 'Don't hurt' people instincts that are found in most humans, but this was a special, complex case in which these things had to be compromised for the greater good. Now, i don't know what you think, and I would like to know, but anyway, that's that. Oh, here's the video: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_sandel_what_s_the_right_thing_to_do.html Now, I reject the idea that money counts as property in the way you imagine. It is used for 'all debts public and private', but it is made and authorized by the federal reserve and the US govenrment, and thus is not yours. For instance, if I lost my car (somehow) and some guy found it, it isn't his because well, i have my name on it in a way. but if I drop a ten dollar bill, and someone finds it and doesn't give it back, well, tough luck to me, it is no longer mine to use. That's not property in the way i imagine it. And don't say the same can be said for, say, a purse, because actually you have a receipt, you have friends, you have the stuff in the bag to prove that it is yours after all. Not the same with money. In fact, the gov/federal reserve are the owners of the money, and are simply letting people use it under their authorization, and so trying to keep it is actually stealing on your part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Why shouldnt you leave your house? was your house built in a municipality? The rules were in place when your built/bought your house, you knew that buying/building a house where it is means you have to pay taxes. Why do you think that you can change the rules becaue it suits you? This is part of the social contract people have been talking about. The living room example has nothing to do with it. If you move into my living room it would have to be by my consent and I would expect you to pay rent. Ie. You moving in, means you agree to the terms, just like you buying a house in a municipality means you agree to all that that implies, INCLUDING PAYING PROPERTY TAX. Again you bring up slavery why? How is it even remotely related to this discussion? you are not a slave, taxation is not violence/theft/slavery. You can move a slave cannot. You can change jobs a slave cannot. Stay in your house, move out, I dont care, but dont try and tell me you do not WANT to move and therefore taxes are THEFT/VIOELNCE/SLAVERY. Why shouldn't I leave my house? Seriously? Because it's mine and I've lived in it my whole life. It's mine more than anyone else's. In a practical sense the people who vote in my town to charge me property taxes for it are thus claiming ownership of it through the government, but they have no right to do so. As we're saying the same things back and forth and clearly not getting anywhere, could you attempt to address the concept of non-property(land property)-tax taxation? I don't see how you could make this same error that there is a "social contract" saying that the government owns my land not me applied to other things. This is because when we're talking about ownership of other things, like a meal that I produce, we say that I own it not just because I bought the raw materials (I suppose you could claim the government owns the raw materials), but because I was the one who put in the labor and transformed the raw materials into a lovely delicious meal. Due to this undeniable evidential fact that you can observe (the fact that I produced it with my own brains and labor), you can't deny that I actually own the meal that I produce by claiming there is a social contract that means the government owns the things that I made. I think you would agree that such a claim would be absurd. While you have easily managed to deny that I own my land by claiming the existence of a social contract that means that governments own my land, I can't imagine you saying this same thing about products that I produce such as a meal that I want to sell without looking like a complete fool. So how would you attempt to argue that it's okay for government to impose income taxes on me for the income that I make by selling the things that I produce and thus I own or sales taxes on me when I sell products that I produce and thus I own? I didn't produce my land--I just bought it from someone else. But, I do produce the products that I produce, and that is surely a strong argument for ownership. I'm sure you won't claim there is a social contract that means that despite the fact that my labour produced the meal, the government owns the meal, not me. And remember that I successfully rebutted your "benefit" argument by providing several examples (I can provide several more, if you want) of why just because someone benefits from something doesn't give you the right to charge them for it. Also, everyone reading this, take note that quag didn't reply to my rebuttal. I can only think that the reason for this is that he didn't see how he could. If someone goes and fights a war to defend your home, quag, do they have the right to charge you for that war? Of course not due to the fact that you never asked them to go fight that war for you and you never agreed on a price for it. The person, organization, or other entity (e.g. government) just went and fought the war for your benefit and then went up to you afterwards and demanded X amount of money for it. Nobody has any right to charge you in such a way even if you did benefit from their service. There are endless examples of services like this that people can provide to benefit you either directly or indirectly, actively or passively, and the only ones that you would say it's legitimate for the service-provider to force you to pay for the service is when the service-provider is a person working for a government. You might act as if this is a reason, as if the fact that the person works for a government is a magical reason why you should have to pay that person the amount of money they demand, but clearly it isn't an actual reason as there is no reasonable explanation why you should have to pay that government person but not another non-governmental person who provides the same service to you and demands the same payment. So your benefit argument fails. The "social contract" argument that you applied to property taxes in which you claimed that I don't really own my land, but rather the government does, surely fails to all non-property-tax taxes such as sales taxes as clearly I do in fact own the products that I produce with my own labor. So what possible reason are you going to come up with now to try to claim that the state is justified in violently demanding sales tax from me? There is no reason and I will continue to show you why the reasons that you give fail. So what's your attempted justification of the sales tax on the lovely meal that I cook up and sell? What gives anyone the right to demand a portion of the money I make by selling my creation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Just noticed your new post. Note that I am 15. Oftentimes i want to do chartiy type stuff, like donations, that my family simply cannot do because we don't have the money. I do participate in charitable stuff at school, I do sign petitions and email officials and send letters and discuss and make my own petitions. I do what I can, i just can't do much. So i don't feel like a hypocrite. personally, if i ever make more than I need to live, i hope I will do the responsible thing and give at least half of the extra to charity. I've always said: If i somehow beat the odds and win the lotto or become rich, i'm going to, after sharing with my family and friends, be Bill Gatesesque and donate. So for instance, if I win 100 mil. I would hope that i'm not an a** and at least give half of what's left after I give some to relatives and the like to charit. Now, i don't know how much future self will be, but trust me, I do (or try to do) as i say =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Me to dawh: "Something is wrong with your perception of reality. You seem to think that people are evil unless they carry the government's guns in which case they suddenly start operating for the good of society. That doesn't make any sense at all. The "powerful" people aren't businessmen, but rather are politicians. Businessmen don't use violence against you whereas it's a politician's job to use violence against you." Do you know what a lobbyist is? Are you aware of the number of businesses that profit off of wars in general and some wars in particular? Yes, I know what lobbyists are. What's your point? The many businesses profit off of wars only because of the existence of the state. Nobody would voluntarily pay these businesses $700 billion a year (or whatever the U.S.'s military budget is). The only reason why these companies manage to rake in such huge incomes on war is because they get their money from the state and the state gets their money by taxing people against those peoples' will. Even the people like gvg and dawh in this discussion who claim that taxation is not coercive, but voluntary, would not dream of voluntarily funding such wars that the U.S. government wages. Gvg and dawh wouldn't pay a cent out of their own pocket (i.e. they wouldn't voluntarily pay) to companies like BAE and Lockheed Martin for guns and missiles and tanks to send into Iraq and Afghanistan and many dozen military bases around the world to wage war. No, the only reason why businesses manage to profit off of war is because of the state which pays these businesses for their war weapons. It's the state that is the reason why their is such an industry for war; if it wasn't for the state there wouldn't be 1% of the current war market left for businesses to try to profit in. If it wasn't for the state, then BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and the vast majority of other companies like them would either go out of business in an instant if they didn't change to sell different products. Having said that, nobody should be surprised that such companies that rely on the existence of the state like these war companies lobby many millions of dollars a year to make sure that the state continues giving them incomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 So how would you attempt to argue that it's okay for government to impose income taxes on me for the income that I make by selling the things that I produce and thus I own or sales taxes on me when I sell products that I produce and thus I own? Did you use government roads at any point, like driving your car to get stuff or using a truck? Did you use a store, which are usually located on government leased land? Did you use vegetables or farm products which are subsidized by the government? Did you use water tested by the EPA to wash off any lingering EPA and FDA approved chemicals (or dirt, whatever). Did you use electricity or oil or gas to cook, which are in some way subsidized by or realted to government practices? See where i'm getting at? Do you have a government approved license to sell stuff? (The lack of which allowed my younger brother and his firend to be kicked out of a town festival when they tried to sell drinks in an area being used by those who had leased the government land with their government license to sell). Does that answer your question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Oh, and I do support the military. Just not the current extent to which it is being used, which is why i try to make my voice heard and, when i can finally, will vote for policies that reduce it. Voting. The question asked to start this thread. You know, i have a plan for you to acheive your ideas. First, convice enough people to elect someone like ROn paul who will give the States huge rights they never had before. Then, in your state, get someone elected like the guy in Texas who wants to secede. After doing so (which would be much easier under Paul and is actually allowed with gov. apporval (which Ron would give) and a 3/4 vote of the populace), the easy part is to finally ease your new 'nation' into your anarchic system. Its elaborate, it could take awhile, but then aren't most major changes like that? So you can get what you want through voting despite your thoughts to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Interpreting that phrase, "utilitarian as I should be without being as utilitarian as I could be" I would take it to mean that if he really wants to he should live a life on a small budget and donate the rest of what he makes to charitable causes to help out poor people who are less fortunate than he is. He also could kill some rich man to take his money and give it to thousands of poor people, but surely he shouldn't do that. The thing is though, I presume that gvg isn't living such an altruistic, utilitarian, life just from the fact that he is participating in this luxury of Brainden discussion. On the other hand, his political views support what I said he should NOT do, which is threaten and use violence against richer people to steal their money and give it to poorer people. Ignoring the strong possibility that this does is not actually consistent with the utility principle, even if it is consistent with the utility principle he still shouldn't commit such initations of violence against these rich people. So I think I understood and agreed with your bold phrase exactly, I just thought that what gvg was doing was the opposite of what the phrase suggested, i.e. he supports violence at times because he claims the utility principle supports it and at other times where he could be voluntarily and peacefully giving up his time and effort to charitable cuases, he instead participates in the luxury of having this discussion here on Brainden while people in the world are starving. So really if anything "as utilitarian as I should be without being as utilitarian as I could be" should mean that he should not threaten rich people with violence to force them to give their wealth to poor people, but instead should (if he wants) just spend his own time, effort, and money, being charitable to these poor people himself. Note: I'm not saying gvg should give up every luxury to live such a charitable life. I'm only saying that if he wishes to support the utility principle he should support it first with his own actions (being very charitable and enjoying few luxuries) before considering the possibility of being violent to support the utility principle. Admittedly, 'should' and 'could' are very vague terms and can be interpreted a number of ways, but I never really intended that sentence to be the focal of a discussion in the first place. I just thought it was a clever phrase. You also seem to be confusing Utility with Mother Theresa... If "pragmatism" is just "whatever I feel works" then I would say I'm a pragmatist too. I care about the consequences of things, but due to the fact that it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to predict the consequences of various possible courses of actions, I think it's helpful to have principles to follow. I think the Non-Aggression Principle is one of those principles that the more people follow (on an absolute basis... no exceptions for "charitable" theft) the better the world will be. So note that while it is just a deontological rule, the only reason why I follow it is because I think that following it will result in the best consequences. Pragmatic ethics was mentioned briefly (and linked) in that Wikipedia article on Consequentialism. I didn't read that article, but my takeaway was that it argues that ethics and morality advance like the scientific method. Each generation formulates new and better ethical codes, thus changing and improving morality with time. In some ways, it's related to Kant's and Hegel's views on moral truth, who believed that while there might be an absolute truth, we can only approximate it for now, so we will continue to advance toward that truth slowly (whether we can ever reach it is unclear). And when I said "all the philosophers," I was talking about the philosophers I had mentioned earlier in the "State of Nature" discussion: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, et al. I'm not aware of "libertarian philosophers" who have jumped into that debate. They all argue that for one reason or another, the State of Nature is undesirable. I agree. The State of Nature is less just and more arbitrary than human societal constructs. I put far more stock in human ingenuity than in natural capriciousness. I already replied to gvg about this after you posted this, so I'll allow you to read what I wrote there first. Basically the question is, what if the person refuses to pay taxes and resists the state trying to arrest them? Would the state just say "okay" or will it actually follow through with trying to make you pay up? Very rarely is the state faced with someone who actually refuses and resists all the way, but if someone does refuse to give in to the state's demands then this is the predicament that the state faces. No one from the U.S. government is going to shoot someone who refuses to pay taxes until they pull out their gun first. This is probably not comprehensive, but there are many civil methods that the IRS utilizes to force compliance with tax law before they initiate any criminal proceedings against a tax protestor. There's no gun, until you bring your own. So even if you had a point (and no one here thinks you do), you'd still be wrong by matter of degrees. As I said earlier, if person A slaps you on the wrist and person B stabs you in the arm, I doubt that you'd treat them the same way, even if both are acting violently against you. And just because no one rebuts every argument you make doesn't mean that you've won that argument. If you argue A, B, C and someone rebuts that, and then you argue B, A, C, you haven't presented a new argument, you've just reordered the argument we've already had. I feel that many of your arguments boil down to the same essence that we've covered over and over. We've never acceded to your arguments and you've never acceded to ours, so we're at an impasse. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on the validity of government institutions. We do not view a government as a person, so any time you try to associate government actions with the actions of a single person (or a small group of people), we don't acknowledge those as valid arguments. We have decided that in order to live in what we view as a peaceful society, we have to cede powers to the government to do things that individuals don't have the power to do. We do this because we believe that we have the power to change our government if we find it to be misbehaving and the government will grant stability and a level of safety unavailable in the State of Nature. Changing the State of Nature is more difficult and less controllable than changing human constructs. Finally, just because Somalia is doing better without a state than it was with a violent dictator (I don't know myself because I haven't been reading those links), doesn't mean that a stateless society is better than a constitutional republic (which is ostensibly what Western democracies are); it just means that the stateless society is better than the crazed despot. It certainly doesn't mean that anarchies are better than any form of government. So I don't that that's a feather you can put in your cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 And WHO do you think the lobbyists, etc. are that control what many politicians do, convicing them to do things like give tax breaks to big oil companies while screwing the lower classes in the process? BUSSINESSMEN, or at least their representatives. When the bailouts (which i'm sure you disagree with, as I do) occured, guess who got them to go even after congress voted against them? A collection of executives from Goldman Sachs and friends (bussinessmen) who were a part of the Bush administration's Treasury department (I think it was that) who then used the money.... to bailout Goldman Sachs and its frieands while leaving others to die. How are you missing the reality of the situation? If the businessmen had the power why would they waste so many millions of dollars lobbying the powerless government? They wouldn't. The reality is that the government has the power, i.e. the guns, and the corporations thus lobby the government for millions of dollars a year in order to influence the government so that they can benefit from the government's legal violence. Read my last post that I just wrote to Curr8nt. Bussinessmen are VERY powerful, and VERY corrupt, and its naive to not think so (this is big bussiness we are talking about here). Bussinessmen control most politicians. I admit. Many people admit it. Some, like Bernie Sanders and, yes, Ron Paul, actually care in their own ways about the American people (even if I don't agree with Ron, he does). Bussinessmen are powerful. They WILL willing violate your sacred NAP. Without care. No, no, no. You have it all backwards. The businessmen aren't "VERY powerful" as you say. They're not powerful at all. They don't have the legal right to initiate violence. The legal right to initiate violence is power--the state is power. That's why these big businessmen and corporations spend so much of their money trying to influence the government. Yes, they succeed and thus you can say that the businessmen are "powerful" but the actual power, the actual violent force, is the government and the businessmen just try to control it for their own gains as any selfish person would. And similarly the selfish politicians in the government accept the bribes of the lobbyists so they benefit too. Everyone's happy (everyone meaning the lobbying businessmen and the politicians), except those who fall victim to the government violent initiations of force, i.e. the people. You can pretend that it's the businessmen who initiate force, but that's not true. Sure, the businessmen may influence the politicians to direct the force in a certain way, but the actual ones to initiate the force are not the businessmen, but the coercive states. Without these states, without these coercive institutions that have the legal right to use violence, there would be no coercion-apparatus for the big businessmen and corporations to lobby. Politicians are puppets. Wonderful observation, I agree. Politicians are puppets with guns. Corporations like to bribe these puppets with money (lobbying) in order to profit more, but that's just the natural reaction you would expect of selfish people living in a system where such coercive puppets are available for corporations to influence. So the problem clearly isn't that some people are selfish and will control these violent puppets, but rather is that these violent puppets exist at all. If these puppets didn't have the legal right to use violence then they would immediately cease being puppets as corporations wouldn't lobby a single cent to them as there is nothing that they could do to make the corporations benefit more. Uh... that's not what Dawh said. The government has done great wrongs in the past. Lack of equality, slavery, three-fifths compromise. You don't understand: everything that the government does right now is a "great wrong." When the government passes a law to regulate a business, it does so not because "the people" vote and say that that will be fore the greater good of society. No, the actual reason they pass that regulation into law is because some corporation lobbied some politicians to pass the law so that the corporation could benefit from it. The regulation law passed is just a statement that the coercive U.S. government will criminalize businesses that do a certain thing. The corporation wanted the law passed because it would help eliminate their competition or some other reason that would result in the corporation profiting more. "The people" do not benefit. The majority of the people do not even benefit. The few people in that corporation benefit at the expense of all the other people. Now, this is not the fault of the corporation, but is the fault of the people who support the existence of such a state that has the power to coerce others with regulations. Corporations and everyone else will always be selfish; you can't expect that to change. What you can change though is getting rid of this government which acts as an apparatus through which corporations and individuals can lobby and vote for their own benefit at the expense of others. This corporatism, this parasitism, is the inevitable result to having a state that has the legal right to initiate violence. There is no government, not even a democracy like the US government, that can avoid this problem. People are selfish, not altruistic, so when you give an institution the right to initiate force against others you can only expect people to vote and lobby in such a way that they benefit themselves, not others. You can't change this selfish nature of people. All you can do is eliminate the institution that allows people to use violence against others for their own benefit. But, that is enough. If you get rid of the state then people can prosper despite their self-interested nature. In fact their self interest helps them to prosper unless you allow one man to impose his will on another man against the other man's will (which is what the state does when it passes any law or regulation). We came to the same conclusion: The ONLY thing stopping us from degrading into corporate controlled fuedalism is the government. The set-up is there; the ability is there. It's been skewed that way for a while. Only the government stands in the way. Again, you have it exactly backwards. The ONLY thing ALLOWING (not stopping), society to be so degraded into corporatism is the government. If it wasn't for the government, corporations would have nobody to lobby. Now, for your other stuff. First off, I call everyone's political ideas opinions, so if you are offended, I apologize. No, I'm not offended although I'm glad to hear you weren't trying to degrade my views by calling them mere "opinions." Second, I think i've proved to you through historical examples, like the fuedal era and gilded age, that less government (there hasn't really been an example of none, so...) means more for the rich. I wouldn't say you've proved that, no. You didn't describe much except to say that in general you think history shows that stronger central government result in more prosperous societies whereas weaker governments result in richer rich people and poorer poor people. That doesn't really persuade me of anything. Also, I would say again that the opposite is in fact true. Looking at our current society, for example, I would say that it is the corporations that love that the state, and it is the poor people who (should) despise the state. For example, when the big corporation bribes a politician for many millions of dollars, why does it do it? Is it because it's afraid of the politician (what would it be afraid of?)? Mostly not, no. It's mainly because the politician has the power to pass a law that will make it more difficult for competitors to compete with the corporation, or because the politician has the power to pass a law that will grant a legal monopoly to the corporation (perhaps it's a "monopoly" on a very specific market only), or pass a law to in some other way regulate people to make it so that the corporation can profit. If you think about it, the only reason why a corporation would spend X money lobbying the government would be if it thought that by spending X amount of money lobbying it could benefit by at least X back. So anyways, I think it is these rich corporation people who you despise that are actually the one's who benefit from the state. It is these rich people that you despise who benefit by lobbying the state so that they can increase profits using the state's legal right to forcefully impose regulations on people. Also, just look at the big companies like BAE Systems or Lockheed Martin that profit from war. Do they desire a weaker government or a stronger central government? Clearly their entire business depends on the existence of the state as only the state actually pays them billions of dollars for all the weapons for war. So contrary to what you said in the above quote, I would say that in general more government means more for these rich corporations, whereas less and weaker government means that these corporations can benefit less from the government's ability to impose regulations on people forcefully. I know that lobbyists occur with governments. but at least the people can vote and say DO NOT LISTEN TO THE a**hole WITH THE LIMO SUPPORTING GOLDMAN SACHS, so there's the possibility of control. Without such a controlling force, there's no such chance. And people vote like this all the time and yet it's completely ineffective as lobbyists still lobby TONS of money (you want to look up the number?) per year in order to make their corporations benefit at the expense of others. You speak (in the above quote) about needing a "controlling force" but what I think you're missing is that you don't have to "control" corporations any more than not giving them a coercive state that they can lobby. If these corporations had no state to lobby to for regulations then I guarantee you that you would despise corporations. The corporations benefit from the state's laws that harm others. It's thus the state and it's power to have such laws that it can force against others that is the problem, not the corporations acting in their own interest like everyone else. Once again: The rich man in your society can commit murder, say 'screw you' to the DRO (or any such organization), and leave for the mountains to live a life of luxury. The poor man steals some bread that he otherwise can't afford for his family, he's condemned, ostracized, and probably perishes along with those he cares for. See the difference? Actually, in our current society the rich man (and his corporation) commits the crime (indirectly) by lobbying for the state to pass a law or regulation that screws over some smaller business that can't afford to lobby as much or some consumer whose vote is ineffective at affecting what regulations the politicians pass in comparison to the supreme effectiveness of the much larger corporation with more money to bribe with. Thus, in our current system is the poor that falls victim to the rich in general, as the poor and their votes don't have as much influence on the politicians as the rich corporations and their millions of dollars in bribes. Do you see the difference there? The injustice comes when someone uses force against another person for their gain at the other's loss. The state is the institution that can provide this injustice and the wealthy corporations are better at influencing that injustice to benefit themselves than the poor voters can try to influence it. Note: I sometimes refer to this injustice (when someone uses force against another person for their gain at the other's loss) as "the big guns" of the state. You can try to get a majority of "the people" (lower and middle classes) to benefit from these big guns by having them use the big guns to take the rich peoples' money, but I believe the reality of the situation is that the rich corporations are more effective at controlling where the big guns point and thus despite the fact that we live in a democracy, it is the few who benefit from these big guns at the expense of the majority. Now, I reject the idea that money counts as property in the way you imagine. It is used for 'all debts public and private', but it is made and authorized by the federal reserve and the US govenrment, and thus is not yours. For instance, if I lost my car (somehow) and some guy found it, it isn't his because well, i have my name on it in a way. but if I drop a ten dollar bill, and someone finds it and doesn't give it back, well, tough luck to me, it is no longer mine to use. That's not property in the way i imagine it. And don't say the same can be said for, say, a purse, because actually you have a receipt, you have friends, you have the stuff in the bag to prove that it is yours after all. Not the same with money. In fact, the gov/federal reserve are the owners of the money, and are simply letting people use it under their authorization, and so trying to keep it is actually stealing on your part. You've mentioned this idea that the government owns your money multiple times throughout this thread and I hope that you can finally realize that you are in error (at least I confidently think you are and you haven't responded to my reason). So I'll say the reasons again. Basically the government requires by law that you accept US dollars. If I want to use my own currency with my customers but then you come to my store with your US dollars, I have to accept your US dollars. If I don't accept them, then you can take me to court and the court can rule on what price (in US dollars) I will receive for my products. The court will then rule to forcefully seize whatever my product is that I am selling and will give it to you and will give me the amount of US dollars from you that it decided on to me, whether I like it or not. So that's one point... another is that I'm required by law to pay taxes in US dollars. Thus, if I again try to have my own currency the state forces me to at least hold on to some US dollars. Also note that the state taxes me on my own currency. It doesn't just say, "If you sell something for X US dollars then you have to pay Y% sales tax," but it also says, "If you sell something X of your own currency (or even bartering) then you have to pay Y% of that to us as a sales tax. Thus, even I manage to avoid dealing with US dollars as much as legally possible the government will still claim ownership of a portion of my property (my property being my wealth in terms of products that I barter for or non-US currencies that I make in trades). So it's not just US dollars that the government claims it owns, but everything that I barter for or buy with my own alternative currency. Thus, when you say that the government/fed reserve own my money and they are just letting be borrow it, that misses the point that it's not just the green paper US dollars that they claim they own, but also the gold that I receive in exchange for the goods I sell or anything like that. It's not just US dollars, but all other currencies and goods and services that I may barter for. So I hope you can finally put away the erroneous idea that money "is made and authorized by the federal reserve and the US govenrment, and thus is not yours." It's true that the US government produces the green pieces of paper that I use as money. Ignoring the facts that it legally requires me to accept that money as currency and ignoring the fact that it requires me to pay taxes in that currency (two arguments on their own), there is the main argument that when the government taxes me, it's not just taxing me on the US dollars I have with the justification that it owns those US dollars, but it is also taxing me on all the gold, other currencies, and other products that I receive by trading with others... and on what justification does it do that? On the justification that it owns the gold and other goods that I receive from others for the goods that I produced and formerly owned before trading them away? That's not a decent justification in my view. So you can claim that the government has the right to tax me because it owns the green paper money that it makes, but realize that it taxes me on more than just how much of that green paper money that I make and thus by using that as the justification you are implying that you think the government owns all of the goods and alternative currencies that I receive in trades with other people, not just the US dollars that I receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curr3nt Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Actually, in our current society the rich man (and his corporation) commits the crime (indirectly) by lobbying for the state to pass a law or regulation that screws over some smaller business that can't afford to lobby as much or some consumer whose vote is ineffective at affecting what regulations the politicians pass in comparison to the supreme effectiveness of the much larger corporation with more money to bribe with You believe that without government all the corporations would then decide to play nice? Without a governement who would stop then from just taking what they want? Coal mining cities were brought up earlier in the thread. Again, I'm not an expert on these company towns (I did learn/read about them before, but not in a lot of depth). How did these company towns come to be? Did one company buy a bunch of land and then begin mining it and set up a town around the mine in which workers came because the mining company was offering them work? (This is just a guess). Because first of all, if this is the case, then surely the workers are responsible for choosing to move in to a town owned by one monopolistic company. Surely the demand of the people to live in a town with competing businesses rather than in a town where everything is owned by a single business would mean that in a town where there are many businesses and competition, such a monopolistic company would never form. It is only when the mining company buys a whole plot of land that it plans to mine and build a city around that people desperate for jobs would move into. But, could you honestly imaging a town in a free market stateless society that began with competiton--like the town you live in, for example (whichever town that is)--ever forming into one big company like that that could charge whatever exorbitant fees on everything it could? Of course not. You and every other person in the town wouldn't dream of it. You all like the competition and you would all make sure not to sell your companies to one big massive company that would employee and give you food, your house, etc. You wouldn't have to use violence against people to make sure that this monopolistic company didn't form, would you? (Please tell me at this point you're at least admitting the possibility that violence wouldn't be necessary to prevent your town from becoming a "company town"? If not, I must say you're perception of the people in your town is depressing... how stupid and apathetic do you think they are that they would allow your town to become a "company town"? I think it's essentially impossible. You can either start out by having one company buy a large plot of land with valuable resources or... that's it. There's no way your town would form into a company town even without using violence to prevent it from happening. Don't you agree? It seems absurd to me to think it would happen. Every incentive is against it and almost every person in the town wouldn't want it. So the few people who want to own your town wouldn't ever fulfill their dream... nobody would sell them their businesses to let them form such a monopoly. Do you agree?) It would be relatively easy for a corporation to take over a city given money and time if there were no laws against it. Just gain control of the utilities, roads and a "security" force. Once they control the power, water, roads and have the means to enforce their control then can start influencing other business. Take control of the media and limit access to meeting places and any resistance would have to be underground. No freedom of speech to protect you from the corporation labeling you as a trouble maker and using force against you for disagreeing with their right to do business the way they want. Instead of lobbying the government they would start lobbying your DROs to work against anyone that causes them trouble. Money is power and left unchecked it will show itself for what it is. ----- I also can't help but draw the comparison to what Quag was asking you earlier. then surely the workers are responsible for choosing to move in to a town owned by one monopolistic company then surely yourself or ancestors are responsible for choosing to move in to a country owned by one government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Admittedly, 'should' and 'could' are very vague terms and can be interpreted a number of ways, but I never really intended that sentence to be the focal of a discussion in the first place. I just thought it was a clever phrase. You also seem to be confusing Utility with Mother Theresa... Pragmatic ethics was mentioned briefly (and linked) in that Wikipedia article on Consequentialism. I didn't read that article, but my takeaway was that it argues that ethics and morality advance like the scientific method. Each generation formulates new and better ethical codes, thus changing and improving morality with time. In some ways, it's related to Kant's and Hegel's views on moral truth, who believed that while there might be an absolute truth, we can only approximate it for now, so we will continue to advance toward that truth slowly (whether we can ever reach it is unclear). And when I said "all the philosophers," I was talking about the philosophers I had mentioned earlier in the "State of Nature" discussion: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, et al. I'm not aware of "libertarian philosophers" who have jumped into that debate. They all argue that for one reason or another, the State of Nature is undesirable. I agree. The State of Nature is less just and more arbitrary than human societal constructs. I put far more stock in human ingenuity than in natural capriciousness. No one from the U.S. government is going to shoot someone who refuses to pay taxes until they pull out their gun first. This is probably not comprehensive, but there are many civil methods that the IRS utilizes to force compliance with tax law before they initiate any criminal proceedings against a tax protestor. There's no gun, until you bring your own. So even if you had a point (and no one here thinks you do), you'd still be wrong by matter of degrees. As I said earlier, if person A slaps you on the wrist and person B stabs you in the arm, I doubt that you'd treat them the same way, even if both are acting violently against you. And just because no one rebuts every argument you make doesn't mean that you've won that argument. If you argue A, B, C and someone rebuts that, and then you argue B, A, C, you haven't presented a new argument, you've just reordered the argument we've already had. I feel that many of your arguments boil down to the same essence that we've covered over and over. We've never acceded to your arguments and you've never acceded to ours, so we're at an impasse. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on the validity of government institutions. We do not view a government as a person, so any time you try to associate government actions with the actions of a single person (or a small group of people), we don't acknowledge those as valid arguments. We have decided that in order to live in what we view as a peaceful society, we have to cede powers to the government to do things that individuals don't have the power to do. We do this because we believe that we have the power to change our government if we find it to be misbehaving and the government will grant stability and a level of safety unavailable in the State of Nature. Changing the State of Nature is more difficult and less controllable than changing human constructs. Finally, just because Somalia is doing better without a state than it was with a violent dictator (I don't know myself because I haven't been reading those links), doesn't mean that a stateless society is better than a constitutional republic (which is ostensibly what Western democracies are); it just means that the stateless society is better than the crazed despot. It certainly doesn't mean that anarchies are better than any form of government. So I don't that that's a feather you can put in your cap. I understand that about Somalia about the Somalia debate. Quag probably doesn't though as he brought up Somalia as if it demonstrated that free societies weren't as good a societies with states, but even if it were true that Somalia was doing worse since its state failed and collapsed, that still wouldn't be an argument against a stateless society in general. As for the tax collection thing, if I'm not an employee but an employer and if I don't store my money in banks that the the US government can just reach out to and steal my money from, etc, then I can make it so that the government has to go through me to get my money, rather than just being able to reach around me and snatch the money from me without any struggle. If I were to do this then the only way the government would be able to tax me would be if it actually came at me with force. As for: "No one from the U.S. government is going to shoot someone who refuses to pay taxes until they pull out their gun first. This is probably not comprehensive, but there are many civil methods that the IRS utilizes to force compliance with tax law before they initiate any criminal proceedings against a tax protestor. There's no gun, until you bring your own. So even if you had a point (and no one here thinks you do), you'd still be wrong by matter of degrees. As I said earlier, if person A slaps you on the wrist and person B stabs you in the arm, I doubt that you'd treat them the same way, even if both are acting violently against you." I know this isn't due to failure to pay taxes, but it's an example of the state going out and murdering people for committing non-crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege I actually don't know of any major tax collecting battles, but I'll look some up after this. I have a hard time believing that the government is so all-powerful that it can manage to seize people's money, businesses, and other property while avoiding (reaching around) any attempts by the victim to defend themselves and their property with force. Edited July 7, 2011 by Use the Force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Really? I thought you were better than that. David Koresh, the leader of the militia cult at Waco was a crazy among crazies. He was a cult leader by almost every definition of the term and he was brainwashing his followers and stockpiling weapons. From the article you linked: On August 5, 1989, Koresh (at that point still legally named Vernon Howell) released the "new light" audiotape in which Koresh stated he had been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "Special People." This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only David Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives. In addition to allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct, Koresh and his followers were accused of stockpiling illegal weapons. Authorities investigated these charges and obtained a warrant to search Koresh's compound. The siege came about when the ATF tried to execute a legal search warrant signed by the local judge to look for illegally modified weapons. The Brand Davidians refused, at which point "an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly 2 hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed." There was a lot of seriously messed up stuff going on at that compound and resisting a search warrant is a criminal act, so they're not exactly your model "non-criminals." You did read the article you linked to, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curr3nt Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 But marrying children (I consider 12-14 children) and having multiple wives wouldn't be illegal without a government. The parents and other adults weren't objecting to giving their kids to be married so young. The kids were taught it was alright so they weren't objecting either. So it must be ok! Also stockpiling machine guns and such wouldn't be illegal without a government so these people weren't really doing anything wrong. There is a perfectly good reason to be able to own an automatic rifle. Have to be ready for those zombie attacks. (Please note I do not condone the above acts.) Can you imagine the religious cities that would form without a government? By choice for the parents but the kids wouldn't have much of a chance. Get backing from some religious DRO and away they go to do whatever they please. As long as no one objects it is just fine to do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 "If you sell something X of your own currency (or even bartering) then you have to pay Y% of that to us as a sales tax. Thus, even I manage to avoid dealing with US dollars as much as legally possible the government will still claim ownership of a portion of my property (my property being my wealth in terms of products that I barter for or non-US currencies that I make in trades). So it's not just US dollars that the government claims it owns, but everything that I barter for or buy with my own alternative currency. Thus, when you say that the government/fed reserve own my money and they are just letting be borrow it, that misses the point that it's not just the green paper US dollars that they claim they own, but also the gold that I receive in exchange for the goods I sell or anything like that. It's not just US dollars, but all other currencies and goods and services that I may barter for. Where does it say the first sentence? I've never heard that before. If you make no income and deal in, say, food, what of that is legally taxable? In fact, they'd pay you for not having money. So, I dunno where you got that from. And the bolded part is also ridiculous. the only gold they claim to own is the stuff in Fort Knox. they do not claim to own the stuff you receive if it's a straight up trade (ie my gun for 2 pounds of gold), nor can they tax you for it, unless your receive US currency. Ignoring the facts that it legally requires me to accept that money as currency and ignoring the fact that it requires me to pay taxes in that currency Uh... so you'd rather the state's have their own currencies? Or have multiple legally required currencies? We've tried that before, under the Articles of Confederation. It was chaotic, and very hard to trade beween states because of it. That is why there is ONE currency. As there should be. Multiple ones would cause, and have caused, issues. but it is also taxing me on all the gold, other currencies, and other products that I receive by trading with others That's like saying it taxes your stocks before you trade them in for the green paper money. It simply doesn't happen. As for the rest: First off, you forget that such things as lobbyists and large campaign donations have only really become a HUGE deal recently, especially after one of the dumbest of all Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United. What about the days of Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster? Or Taft, who did the same? Or FDR, in my view the closest thing we've ever had to a socialist in office? Or Truman? Or Eisenhower? MODERN politicians are puppets, but some, like the ones I've mentioned, aren't. And it doesn't have to be this way. Getting rid of political parties for one would do just the things, as those are the two corporate control points (D and R), and even so the Dems got health care reform through which hurts corporations. It doesn't have to be this way, and we don't have to throw out the system to do it. People have voted in such ways before. Do you think Roosevelt had corporations in mind? Or Andrew Jackson? (Though admittedly the only one he really had to deal with was the Central Bank) Or Truman, FDR, or Eisenhower? We just have to get the right guys in, and up our education systems so that we get more LAWYERS or realted things into office, which requires some sort of knowledge in LAW. We need fewer Republican Wall Street cronies and more true liberals like Bernie Sanders or true liberterians like Ron Paul. Fewer religious crackpots and more smart people. How? Maybe an IQ test? Better education related things? I dunno. But just because politicians are puppets now, doesn't mean they have to be. The ones who deregulate, like Bush Jr., are the ones with Corporate interests in mind. You aren't understanding the regulation I mean. I mean enviornmental, safety, health, wage, and anti-trust regulation. You know what else would end corporate control? Outlawing corporations, which admittedly do need government approval =) (Wanna do that?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Shoot, the bolded stuff should be the two sentences before the . And I've noticed another thing: The Articles of Confederation were, in a way, like a DRO. The gov. could REQUEST payment, congress could REQUEST that the State's follow their laws, etc. etc. Notice that it no longer is followed. Why? Because people like the founders knew it sucked. The only really important thing they got done was the NW ordinance of some year (anybody more knowledgeable on the subject correct me if I'm wrong). So we have, in a fashion, historical proof that a system very much like a DRO worked about as well as young Earth Creationsim. (OK, maybe not THAT bad... =)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation Oh yeah, it says it got the Land Ordinance of 1785 done as well. (By the way, completely off topic, but I often wonder why so many people are skeptical of Wiki. It's new way of doing things and constant sourcing is done very well. Why isn't it accepted? Is it because of its Wild West Days?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Really? I thought you were better than that. David Koresh, the leader of the militia cult at Waco was a crazy among crazies. He was a cult leader by almost every definition of the term and he was brainwashing his followers and stockpiling weapons. From the article you linked: The siege came about when the ATF tried to execute a legal search warrant signed by the local judge to look for illegally modified weapons. The Brand Davidians refused, at which point "an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly 2 hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed." There was a lot of seriously messed up stuff going on at that compound and resisting a search warrant is a criminal act, so they're not exactly your model "non-criminals." You did read the article you linked to, right? Better than what? Better than criticizing the government for launching an attack that lead to ten people being killed and then launching another follow up attack resulting in the deaths of another seventy-six people? Dear god, dawh, you better not be defending this. These Branch Davidian cult people may have been complete nutcases and certainly they weren't "model non-criminals" at all especially because of the alleged sexual abuses by the David Koresh guy, but this is by no means an excuse to go attack them. I can't believe you're defending the government's actions here--80+ people died. You said that they were executing a legal search warrant signed by a judge to look for illegally modified weapons as if that justified launching the attack. That is not a justification at all. Having weapons is one thing, threatening to kill people with them is another thing entirely. So they had a bunch of guns and they were religious fanatics, great, but that's not a reason to go after them all with government guns of your own and take them out with a preemptive strike. That is not violence in self defense. That is aggression. I know the people were crazy, but that doesn't mean that they were going to go attack people with their weapons. If the police shot them all dead after they actually tried to attack people I'd understand you, but as the government's execution of the search warrant with armed men and the later siege were clearly the government attacks, I can't believe you're defending it. If someone went into your house with a gun in hand, for example, then even if you took out your gun first (I doubt you have one or want one... I don't either) and fired the first shot at the intruder, spectators of this hypothetical scenario wouldn't claim that the person going into your house with the gun was acting defensively. Even though you shot him, you clearly wouldn't be called the attacker (even if you abused your spouse(s) sexually and had crazy religious beliefs) simply because you weren't seeking to attack the intruder (if you were, the scene of the kill probably would have been out on the street somewhere or in the intruder's home, not in your home), but instead the intruder came into your home armed with his gun and was thus posing a threat to your safety. You didn't go to him with your gun; he came to you with your gun. It doesn't even matter if you had crazy religious beliefs or abusive relationships with several women. This isn't a reason for someone to come and shoot you, especially if such an attack is going to also kill the victims of your sexually abusive crimes. "David Koresh, the leader of the militia cult at Waco was a crazy among crazies. He was a cult leader by almost every definition of the term and he was brainwashing his followers and stockpiling weapons." Certainly; I'm not defending any of these people. I'm simply saying that the governments reaction to these crazies was not an act of defense against the crazies' attack (i.e. there were no attacks by the crazies and and there was no sign that they were planning on using their weapons to go attack people), but instead was an aggressive preemptive attack that was uncalled for. The government officials were aggressors; they were not acting defensively. In any case, even if you claim that the religious people were threatening violence against others, a small threat does not merit such a strong retaliation of violent force. In other words, the escalation of this violence to the point of the 80+ deaths was undeniably due in large part to the government official's uncalled for aggression. So while the cult members may in fact be guilty of violating the non-aggression principle, the government is undoubtedly guilty as well due to its escalation of the violence to the point of 80+ deaths. You were talking about degrees of force earlier when we were talking about what happens when people don't pay taxes. Well, speaking of degrees of force, if someone punches you that doesn't make it acceptable under NAP to turn and shoot and kill them. Similarly, even if you interpret the religious crazies' possession of weapons as a possible threat (although again, who were they threatening?... possessing a weapon alone doesn't constitute a threat to use that weapon against someone, even if you're a cult leader), that does not justify the government's escalating this possible threat of violence with a violent attack that ended in over 80 people dying. So please do not act like you are defending the governments' actions with statements like, "Really? I thought you were better than that." When I posted the Waco Siege link as an example of the government initiating violence against people (initiating actual physical violence resulting in killing people, not just threats of violence), I was by no means defending the actions of the religious fanatics that the government initiated violence against. I was just pointing out the fact that the government violates NAP in more ways than just threatening violence in that it does in fact initiate lethal physical force against people. I do not tolerate such violence for a second and if you're going to defend it then I really can't go on talking with you any longer. Seriously--I can deal with people who break NAP by supporting government taxation that relies on coercion in order to discuss and debate the issue with them (because I feel they're really just ignorant, not immoral at heart), but if you're really going to look at an example of the government actually using the force to kill the so many people and then defend this blatant act of violent aggression, then we're done. I won't and I can't tolerate people who defend such killers. So please, tell me that I mistook what you said as an approval of the government's actions in the Waco Siege; tell me that you do not approve of the government killing the people. "They were executing a search warrant" is not a justification for killing the people, and neither is the fact the people forcefully resisted the search warrant. An act of resistance is an act of defending against an act of aggression. The government violated NAP and they violated it by a mile. Are you really defending the government's actions at Waco? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 For the Waco Siege thing: "A gunfight ensued (debate continues over which side fired the first shot)." "The government was hoping that the gas would safely push the Branch Davidians out of the compound." "In response to the gas, the Branch Davidians shot back." http://history1900s.about.com/od/1990s/qt/waco.htm You can't just assume the government shot first. No one knows. Kinda like the American Revolution. And the Branch Dividians fired back after the government used tear gas. Which doesn't hurt or kill people. Were the government's actions perfect? No. Police raids/sieges are never perfect. But don't make it sound like the government went in, guns blazing, slaughtering their own civilians. And the 80 people died in a fire that started. And unless you wanna find a source that says the government lit the house on fire, that wasn't their fault either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 For the Waco Siege thing: "A gunfight ensued (debate continues over which side fired the first shot)." "The government was hoping that the gas would safely push the Branch Davidians out of the compound." "In response to the gas, the Branch Davidians shot back." http://history1900s.about.com/od/1990s/qt/waco.htm You can't just assume the government shot first. No one knows. Kinda like the American Revolution. And the Branch Dividians fired back after the government used tear gas. Which doesn't hurt or kill people. Were the government's actions perfect? No. Police raids/sieges are never perfect. But don't make it sound like the government went in, guns blazing, slaughtering their own civilians. And the 80 people died in a fire that started. And unless you wanna find a source that says the government lit the house on fire, that wasn't their fault either. I didn't assume that the government shot first: I assumed that the Branch Davidians shot first. My point was that it doesn't matter, as even if the Branch Davidians were the first people to start firing, the ATF agents who tried to execute a warrant and the large FBI police force that surrounded the Branch Davidian compound clearly represent attackers. This should be extremely clear, but for some reason dawh seems to think that any violent conflict in which the police are involved in is to be blamed on the crazy people the police were trying to get at, not the police. Seriously, say there is some crazy king living in a castle and then there is an army that comes to the castle to try to do justice on him and help any people living in the king's castle who might be victims of the king's crimes. Even if the king's men fire at the army first from their castle, the army people would still clearly be the attackers as they came with their army to the castle to threaten the king with force. Also, even if this king was crazy and had sexually abused several of the females in his castle, the army's siege on the castle still wouldn't be justified for several reasons. First, the king's crimes may have been terrible, but do they merit death? Also, if the siege would end up killing not only the king, but also many of his less-criminal followers (as well as many innocent followers and children), then surely it shouldn't be attempted. Also, it should be noted that "On day nine, Monday March 8, the Davidians sent out the video tape to show the FBI that there were no hostages, but in fact everyone seemingly was staying inside on their own free will" (Wikipedia). If the castle siege was a hostage situation in which all of the victims of the king's crimes were yelling out to the army to save them from the king's brutality, then the siege might be worth it to try to save these people even though the siege would put the hostages' lives in danger. The fact though that the Branch Davidians seemed to want to stay (even if they only wanted to stay because they were brainwashed cult followers) rather than want the police to get them out, is surely a stron reason why a siege would not be justifiable, as a siege would put the peoples' lives in danger. And as these people were non-hostages who wanted to stay, there is thus no justifiable reason to put their lives in danger just to bring down the wicked David Koresh crazy guy, who, while a criminal, was most likely not a worse enough criminal to warrant killing anyways. Certainly the "crime" (really a non-crime, just in terms of the "law") of being in possession of weapons is not at all a reason to kill a man. "And unless you wanna find a source that says the government lit the house on fire, that wasn't their fault either." Regardless of the source of the fire (I think Wikipedia says it was unknown and that each side claimed it was the other side), it is evident that if it wasn't for the army attacking the castle there wouldn't be a fire. So even if the wicked/cruel David Koresh himself started the first, killing his followers, this clearly only would have happened because of the army surrounding their home for 50 days. And again, as the army wasn't there to free any hostages from Koresh (i.e. his followers were not hostages) and the army had no reason to believe that Koresh would kill his followers against their will before the siege or attack anyone at all with the weapons he had, there is thus no reason to have the siege (which puts the peoples' lives in danger) in the first place. Thus, again, clearly the siege was an attack and it was clearly an unmerited attack as Koresh had not threatened to attack anyone with his weapons and he was not holding his followers hostage either. Thus, the police wrongly put the Branch Davidian's lives in danger with their siege and their first ATF agent attack (even if the police didn't mean to kill any of them, their actions still put their lives in danger), while David Koresh, a crazy among crazies, hadn't threatened to attack or kill anyone. How do you defend or justify the polices actions? You don't; you can't; they were clearly wrong. They never should have put the the Branch Davidians' lives at risk; they never should have attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 You believe that without government all the corporations would then decide to play nice? Without a government who would stop then from just taking what they want? Of course; the large amount of governmental force behind their "laws" is the reason why you don't say that businessmen play nicely. Has your boss ever threatened you with physical force? Is there anyone in your life who has ever threatened you with violence besides the government and their laws? Coal mining cities were brought up earlier in the thread. Yes, and as I said people voluntarily choose to work for these companies. It would be relatively easy for a corporation to take over a city given money and time if there were no laws against it. Just gain control of the utilities, roads and a "security" force. Once they control the power, water, roads and have the means to enforce their control then can start influencing other business. Take control of the media and limit access to meeting places and any resistance would have to be underground. No freedom of speech to protect you from the corporation labeling you as a trouble maker and using force against you for disagreeing with their right to do business the way they want. Instead of lobbying the government they would start lobbying your DROs to work against anyone that causes them trouble. This is a completely erroneous fear. How does someone just gain control of the utilities and roads and security businesses? You can't just steal a business from someone unless you are already a mighty powerful state. If you tried buying multiple security firms from people in an attempt to obtain a monopoly of force (like a government) so that you could coerce people to collect money from them against their will (like a government) then surely people would see that you were up to as soon as you obtained a substantial portion of the market and would refuse to sell you their security firms (ignoring the significant issue of where you would get all that money to buy off all the security forms) as they would know that if they did they you would have a monopoly of force and would be able to use that force against them. If I have a security firm and you want to buy it so as to obtain a monopoly, even if you magically obtained a ton of money and wealth to offer me for it I still wouldn't sell it to you as I would know that if I did you would use your monopoly of force to forcefully take back my wealth that you gave to me. Money is power and left unchecked it will show itself for what it is. No it's not--guns are power. That's why the corporations' lobbyists trade away many millions of dollars to politicians every year to redirect the government's monopoly force of guns at people to better suit the corporations' interests. If money was power then the corporations wouldn't need the government, but money is just a way to buy the government's gun power from politicians who control those guns. If left unchecked (i.e. without the coercion apparatus that is the state), these corporations would show themselves for what they really are--non-violent people who want to benefit by finding out what you want and then making that and selling it to you. I also can't help but draw the comparison to what Quag was asking you earlier. "then surely the workers are responsible for choosing to move in to a town owned by one monopolistic company" then surely yourself or ancestors are responsible for choosing to move in to a country owned by one government The government doesn't own this country.... And besides, the coal companies that you were referring to didn't initiate force against anyone to steal their property, whereas this is exactly what governments do to people. Governments have a monopoly of "legitimate" coercive force in an area ("legitimate by most peoples' standards, not by mine), whereas the individual coal companies just had monopolies on coal mining in their areas. Coal mining is not immoral, even if there is a monopoly on coal mining by a single company in an area, whereas initiating force against others is immoral whether there is a monopoly of force or not. So you're saying the monopoly on coal is bad and I'm saying the government's monopoly on "legitimate" violence is bad. You're trying to compare this but you're missing the fact that the initiation of violence is immoral whereas coal mining isn't. And more importantly, you're missing the point that the vast majority of the time the reason why there are monopolies on things (e.g. coal mining in an area) is because the government made those monopolies. Who sold the coal mines to the single company forming the monopoly you spoke of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 Can you imagine the religious cities that would form without a government? By choice for the parents but the kids wouldn't have much of a chance. Get backing from some religious DRO and away they go to do whatever they please. As long as no one objects it is just fine to do! [sarcasm] Good point. We should go attack all of the religious families and churches for brainwashing their kids. If we end up shooting the nutty religious adults when they defend themselves with guns of their own, or if their brainwashed children end up getting killed because the church that they are in and we are surrounding burns down, well, all of these deaths wouldn't be our fault because what these religious crazies are doing to their kids is wrong. People can criticize us for causing their deaths, but the truth is that if they didn't want to die they shouldn't have brainwashed their kids. The deaths are thus their fault, not ours. [/sarcasm] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) (Edit: Note: You may want to read the whole post before replying as I summarized everything at the end of the post using numbered bullets.) By the way, everyone, I'm beginning to notice just how much you all choose to ignore the parts of my posts where I make really good points and successfully rebut your arguments. For example, no one has replied to any of my examples regarding providing services to people without asking them first and then going up to them afterwards and charging them your fee using force against their will, justifying the act by saying that they benefited from your services. This was a clear rebuttal of quag's attempted "benefit" justification of taxation and yet he just ignored it. Also, on the same issue of taxation being immoral, I objected to quag/dawh's other argument to defend taxation, the social contract one, but rather than explaining how this supposed social contract somehow gives a group of people the right to forcefully take other peoples' money (something that in all other instances is called theft), you just essentially said, "a social contract exists and thus our actions are justified." You never replied to my objections that I never gave the government my consent to be taxed (thus why there really is no "contract" in the concept "social contract"). Also (related to the idea of a "social contract" above), you never explained how it is that the piece of paper called the Constitution has any authority over me. All pieces of paper that I know that have any authority over me have things written on them that I agreed to, that I gave my consent to. Just because someone writes on a piece of paper that it is legitimate to tax me doesn't mean that it is, even if the organization that that piece of paper represents manages to achieve a monopoly of coercive force in a geographic region, and even if a majority of the population thinks that it is legitimate. Just as when a man forcibly has sex with a woman we call it rape because the woman is against it, it is wrong to forcefully take my money from me if I am against it. It is thus wrong to tax me against my will, even with your piece of paper called the Constitution that says otherwise and even with the majority of people in the geographic United States saying it's okay to tax me as well, for the same reason that it's still wrong for a man to forcibly have sex with a woman even if there is a piece of paper that says otherwise and even if a majority of her peers say it's okay. Also (the fourth thing that I just thought of on the same subject of taxation being immoral that you haven't dealt with), you all tried defending property taxes by claiming that the government owns my land, not me. While there is little I see that I can do to argue with you on this axiomatic point, I instead brought up the issue of non-land-property that I own. If I cook up a lovely sandwich, for example, are you really going to deny that I own the sandwich? I highly doubt it, as I clearly made it with my own labor. And so, how do you justify imposing a sales tax on me for that sandwich against my will? This is the fourth thing that I just remembered that you all are still just ignoring regarding the taxation debate. Gvg attempted to reply to this by going back to and mentioning the fact that I benefit from the government's roads, but as I have already explained with several examples (and you all have ignored), just because someone benefit from something doesn't mean they to pay for it. They only have to pay for it if you asked them if they wanted the service in the first place and if you agreed on a price. You can't just provide someone a service that they never wanted or asked for and then demand X amount of money from them. So again, see my previous examples of this in my earlier posts that illustrate why this is so and why it would be completely absurd if it wasn't so. So a summary of the four points that I just came up with that you all still haven't dealt with on the issue of taxation being coercive: 1. Quag's "benefit" argument. I provided several counterexamples in which someone benefits from a service, but it would clearly be absurd to say they should have to pay for it. 2. The purported idea of a "social contract" as something that exists and justifies the form of theft known as taxation. Explain what this thing is and how it gives authority to some people working in a government to somehow make government theft legitimate. The burden of proof here is on you and yet you're just saying "a social contract exists and thus it's okay for the government to take things from you against your will" despite the fact that when anyone else does this we say it is wrong as it is theft. 3. The idea that the piece of paper Constitution gives authority to the government to tax people (related the the idea of a "social contract"?). How does this piece of paper have any authority over me when I never agreed to it or gave my consent to have it rule over me? 3b (I realized I had two points in one paragraph). Just because a majority of people say that government theft is okay does not make it okay, just as rape is still wrong even if a majority of the victim's peers are okay with her being raped. This is yet another delusion that quag/dawh/maybe others here might have that makes them erroneously think that government theft is okay. 4. I own my property, not the government, so that isn't a justification for the government to tax me. You disputed this in terms of my land ownership and it boiled down to a simple axiomatic disagreement, but then I brought up ownership of things that I clearly produced with my labor, such as a lovely sandwich, which I clearly own. Assuming you don't dispute my ownership of these things that I produce as well (anyone is yet to say whether they think I really own such things or not), how do you then justify imposing sales tax and income taxes on me? Your "argument" that you own my land doesn't apply because you're not going to claim that you own the sandwich I make or the beautiful sound waves that I make with my vocal chords. So how do you justify the sales tax or any other non-land-property tax? Again, you have ignored this and just gone back to the earlier fallacious reasons that I have mentioned like the fallacious "you benefit from it" argument or "there is a social contract that makes it okay" or "the Constitution says the government can tax you." Edited July 9, 2011 by Use the Force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quag Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 1. Quag's "benefit" argument. I provided several counterexamples in which someone benefits from a service, but it would clearly be absurd to say they should have to pay for it. No you have not done anything of the sort. You have attempted to use flawed logic and inapropriate analogies that dont fit. Ignoring facts and logic that dont agree with your flawed premise. You even admit you could avoid paying taxes if you so choose, then turn around and say you are forced to pay them! By the way, everyone, I'm beginning to notice just how much you all choose to ignore the parts of my posts where I make really good points and successfully rebut your arguments. You have never once made a really good point, that is the problem. You do ignore what others say then twist and rearrange and decide we had said something completely different or just ignore it compeltely and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything anyone else has said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) 1. Quag's "benefit" argument. I provided several counterexamples in which someone benefits from a service, but it would clearly be absurd to say they should have to pay for it. No you have not done anything of the sort. You have attempted to use flawed logic and inapropriate analogies that dont fit. Ignoring facts and logic that dont agree with your flawed premise. You even admit you could avoid paying taxes if you so choose, then turn around and say you are forced to pay them! By the way, everyone, I'm beginning to notice just how much you all choose to ignore the parts of my posts where I make really good points and successfully rebut your arguments. You have never once made a really good point, that is the problem. You do ignore what others say then twist and rearrange and decide we had said something completely different or just ignore it compeltely and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything anyone else has said. Uh oh, someone has a bad case of denial. Well, Quag appears to be a hopeless cause, but for any possible spectators reading this, the "flawed logic and inapropriate analogies that dont fit" that Quag is speaking of in the above quote and refusing to point out are in my following posts: Here I provide two examples of times when someone provides a service that benefits someone else and in both cases it becomes quite clear that the service-receivers are not obligated to pay the service-providers because the service-receivers both never asked for the service and never agreed to a price. The two examples were a non-governmental organization providing welfare services to people and a non-governmental organization providing war services to people, in both instances just like a government would do: The later part of this post is on Quag's "benefit" argument. Is what I wrote "flawed logic and inapropriate analogies that dont fit" that don't merit a response from Quag pointing out what the alleged flaws in the logic and analogies are? Let the onlookers decide (note: the earlier part of the post deals with the fact that even if quag denies that I own my land (instead claiming that the government owns my land) he cannot reasonably deny that I own things that I produce with my own labor, such as a meal or a song with my vocal cords) and thus his argument again fails to justify imposing sales taxes or income taxes on me for the meals I make or the songs I sing and sell as I own these things, not the government): Speaking of quag ignoring me whenever I point out something wrong that he says, what about the Somalia mini-discussion in which quag claimed that my counter-argument to his argument that the history of Somalia represented an argument against the idea of a stateless society was invalid because I didn't know anything about Somalia (despite that I read over 150+ pages of papers and articles on Somalia)? I pointed out that his posts didn't reflect an accurate knowledge of Somalia showing everyone that his attempted criticisms of the points I had been making about Somalia actually being better after the collapse of its state than before the collapse were unmerited. Specifically I pointed out that quag referenced non-existence "provisional" governments by saying "But then you say that there are now various 'provisional' governments which are also dictatorships as they are run by warlords--what governments are you talking about?" In reality the only real government in Somalia is the UN backed government that only exists in Mogadishu. Most of the rest of Somalia consists of many clans that follow the customary law Xeer. Thus, the "provincial" governments that quag referred to are non-existent. And yet, rather than admit his error or his false accusation that what I said about Somalia was false, he instead choose to just ignore what I said. But, this should be no surprise as this is what he has usually done when he has been wrong, just as he ignored my counterexamples demonstrating the absurdity of his argument that because someone benefits from something that means that person should be forced to pay for that something. So clearly Quag was wrong about the existence of these "provisional" governments that he claimed were the only things in Somalia that have improved the country ("There has been 0 nada nil no development of infrastructure in somalia since the fall of govt except what was done by so called "provisional" govts") and clearly again Quag's benefit argument is flawed as you can think up many counterexamples in which it becomes exceedingly apparent that just because someone benefits from something doesn't mean that that person is obligated to pay for the service. Here is the Somalia post critizing quag's false statements about Somalia that he failed to address: Also, at one point ( ) quag said, "Untill you realize that I will continue to point out to everyone that your premise is completely based on you WANTING all the advantages of scoiety while you deny any OBLIGATION to that society." This is completely untrue as I have pointed out with my "benefit" argument counterexamples. With the counterexamples I showed that the reason why someone would be obligated to pay for a service that they benefit from is not because they benefited from the services, but rather because they asked the service-provider to provide them with the service for a agreed-upon price. For example, "Hi, would you like this service?" "Sure, how much would it cost?" "$X.00" "Okay, sure." Thus, because the government never asked me if I wanted its roads, or schools, or welfare, or social security, or the court system, or firefighters, or police, or the president, or wars, etc, and because I'm telling you now that I do not want these things from the government, then surely I am not obligated to buy these services from the government. So, quag said that my premise is that I want these things but I don't want the obligation to pay for them. In reality, I'm telling you right now quag, that no I do not want these things, I never asked the government for these things, and I never agreed on a price for these things anyways and thus I do not have an obligation to pay the government when it says "Pay X amount of money to us in taxes because you benefited from our services or else we'll *Insert NAP Violation Here*." In reality, I want to privatize things to eliminate your delusion of being obliged to pay for something just because you benefit from it, so that if someone wants a service from someone they can ask for it and agree on a price for it. In order for you to understand, look at examples of things that are already privatized. If I want a bike, for example, I go and find someone willing to sell me a bike and we agree on a price. They give me the bike and I give them the amount of money that we agreed on. If the government was providing bikes, on the other hand, a group of people called Congressmen would cast votes and if enough people voted affirmative then the government would provide me with a bike whether I wanted the bike or not. Then the government would go around demanding taxes from people using threats of violence to get them to pay, in order to pay for these bikes. "You benefit from the bike so you have to pay our cost for it, whether or not you want the bike and whether or not you agree to the cost we're demanding" says Quag, attempting to justify the government's taxation for these bikes. In reality, people wouldn't be obligated to pay any money for the government's bikes despite what quag and other statists might say, due to the fact that people never asked for the government to give them bikes and never agreed on a price for the bikes either. "Oh, but there's a piece of paper called the Constitution and a social contract..." dawh might chime in. No, there isn't. It's wrong for the government to take peoples' money to pay for these bicycles and wars that people never asked for or wanted or agreed on a price for. By taking the peoples' money using the threat of force despite the lack of consent and lack of ever having asked the people if they wanted the bicycles or wars, the government is coercing the people and stealing from them. I can choose to buy a chair or not buy a chair without moving to a different house. I cannot choose to buy a war or not buy a war unless by "choose" you mean pack up all of my things, sell my house, and move to a different house in a part of the world where nobody forces me to buy wars. Of course I shouldn't have to move in order to not buy a war, just as I shouldn't have to move to not buy a chair. And just as "you benefit from the chair," "the Constitution says we can force you to buy chairs if you live in the geographic 'United States,'" and "there's a social contract giving us the right to force you to buy chairs so long as you continue to live in this area," are not justifications for forcibly taking peoples' money and offering them a chair in exchange, the same reasons are also not justifications for forcibly taking peoples' money in the name of a non-existence obligation to pay for wars. "Here's a war. You benefit from it so you're obligated to pay for it." No, I'm not. I'd only be obligated to pay a certain amount of money for it if I agreed to pay you that certain amount of money in exchange for it. If I'm selling something and you say, "I'll give you a dollar for that," and then I say, "Okay, here," and give it to you, you're obligated to pay me a dollar for it because you agreed to pay me a dollar for it. Living in an area where people force you to buy things against your will, or a piece of paper that says people can force you to buy things, or the fact that you benefit from the thing, do not make it obligatory for you to pay me a dollar for the thing. The only reason why you are obligated to pay a dollar for the thing is because you agreed to pay me a dollar for it. Okay, I'm done. Sorry for everyone who read this all and knew how obvious it was, but I felt the need to repeat the same point over and over and over again to make sure that quag didn't miss it. In this way, no one will deny that quag is just continuing to ignore my posts that point out the errors in his arguments, showing that despite his flawed arguments, people are not obligated to pay taxes after all and thus when the government forces people to pay taxes against their will, the government is actually stealing people's money. Yes, quag, taxation is theft. You can ignore what I said in this post by just saying "Your premise that taxation is violence/coercion/theft is false and your logic and reasoning is flawed and your analogies are inappropriate and don't fit" rather than actually reply to what I said, but that won't contribute to the discussion in any way, so it probably would be better if you just didn't reply at all. I won't mind. Edited July 10, 2011 by Use the Force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quag Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 Nope its not theft! your examples are unfit. You beefit directly and indirectly from roads. You deny this but you are be wrong. as always. no one is pointing a gun at your head. you can pretend that they are but they arent. you can move, you have admitted this, but then think that you are being robbed! Your house would not exist if it wasnt for the govt roads, your job wold not exist if it asnt for the roads. your arguement fails because you admit you could move but say I dont WANT to then say I am FORCED against my will to pay taxes. No you are not you can move but noooo like a baby you seem to think you have the right to live anywhere without any obligation. You claim the constitiion was not signed by you. Admittedly it wasnt. but it set the rules for the world you were born into. You not being a SLAVE can easily sidestep these rules but you dotn want to, you think you can take the world as it is and then avoid the obligations. I think if you actually read my posts you would see that I agree there are taxes that are odious and wrong, but you claim all taxes are theft. that is where your extremism prevents you from seeing reason. just because 1 tax can be wrong does not make all taxes wrong. As to Somalia, try looking at the actual data instead of the opinion peices, the country sucks royally. Yes govt that is actually working against its people can be worse than anarchy but a democracy at its very worst (extremely corrupt) is only as bad as an anarchy. Even Mexico which is very corrupt is better than Somalia. But being insane you will ignore that. I know you will never see reason as you are as brainwashed as the branch davidians you espoused earlier. But for the benefit of others TAXATION is not THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 UtF: By the way, I don't see the sales tax as a claim that the government owns what you make. Think about who the government is taxing: the consumer, not the producer of the good. So, I don't understand why you think it's the government claiming that it owns the goods you produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 UtF: By the way, I don't see the sales tax as a claim that the government owns what you make. Think about who the government is taxing: the consumer, not the producer of the good. So, I don't understand why you think it's the government claiming that it owns the goods you produce. That was quag's argument for why I have to pay property taxes. He said that as the government owns my land then they have the right to force me to pay property taxes (sort of like collecting rent). So rather than pointless try to get him to see how silly of a view it is to say that the group of people with guns in the government own my house, I decided to just point out any other non-land piece of property that I own and ask him how he defends taxing me on that since obviously he isn't going to claim that the government owns what I make. And the government taxing the consumer is just as wrong. Also, when the government taxes the consumer that is essentially a tax on the producer as well. For example, if I'm selling something for 1 dollar, but then the government imposes a sales tax on it, then now the customer has to buy it for 1.06 dollars or whatever the tax rate is. Whether you say that is the buyer paying the sales tax or the seller really doesn't make a difference. Either way the seller pays 1.06 and the seller gets only 1 dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.