One of the greatest mysteries of today is whether a pirate is good or bad.
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
No, it's really not. It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
Arguable. The rich benefit immensely from having a government around to keep the poor from
barbecuing them ("eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy").
The state creates and defends many artificial "property rights" - patents and trademarks, mineral rights, water rights - that obviously benefit those it designates as owners. Its reserve banking systems, chartering of corporation
The fed. doesn't keep the poor from barbequeing the rich first of all. Police are provided by state and municiple governments. Further that's not a service provided to the rich, it's a service provided to everyone. If you've lived in both bad and good neighborhoods you'll also know that it's a service that's taken advantage of far more in poor neighborhoods than rich ones.
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to create wealth by protecting them against others just as much as they protect the wealthy. Do you pay more for a soda depending on how much you enjoy it? No, so why would you more for a service simply because you were able to better use it than others? And if that IS how you're going to assign taxes, wouldn't that require that low income families who recieve government assistance pay higher taxes? Also, things like mineral and water rights are again generally not federal in nature.
National defense benefits everyone. In fact, it benefits those without means even more than those with. Those with means have the ability to provide for their own protection, and a far greater chance of favorable treatment from an invading force. Poor people are the ones who get raped, murdered, and impressed into service. If you're living in a cardboard box you've a much higher chance of being killed by fighting in the streets. The demographics of those who actually end up getting killed when fighting starts are skewed because the poor take advantage of our need for national defense far more often than middle to upper classes do. The military will provide a)training b)salary c)room and board to just about anyone who wants it. That's quite an improvement over what the ghetto offers (and I know because that's where I live).
I'd like to see a move away from all progressive taxes entirely. Punishing people for producing wealth is asinine. Tally what the government needs to function and apportion it to the states according to their populations. Low income families should be offered partial or full exemption, but I think that if taxation was done equally we'd see a huge drop in taxes as people realized that well, they don't want those services if they actually have to *pay* for them.
Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value.
You seem to be arguing from a fairness point of view - to complete that point of view all money from inheritance should be put into a common pool, no one should be allowed to give gifts beyond some token value, and anyone who dupes or forces other people to give them m
Actually, I was born into the part of the bell curve that earns less, and I'm still on that part of the bell curve. I live in a ghetto and earn so little yearly that most years I get a full refund on taxes (though within a few more years that should start changing). I don't like the system because it's inequitable and allows, even promotes rampant social irresponsibility. The people just keep voting themselves bread and circuses... (if you don't know what that's from, take a look into roman history)
H
A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work
by being declared to work.
-- Anatol Holt
It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1, Insightful)
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the el
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Arguable. The rich benefit immensely from having a government around to keep the poor from barbecuing them ("eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy").
The state creates and defends many artificial "property rights" - patents and trademarks, mineral rights, water rights - that obviously benefit those it designates as owners. Its reserve banking systems, chartering of corporation
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to create wealth by protecting them against others just as much as they protect the wealthy. Do you pay more for a soda depending on how much you enjoy it? No, so why would you more for a service simply because you were able to better use it than others? And if that IS how you're going to assign taxes, wouldn't that require that low income families who recieve government assistance pay higher taxes? Also, things like mineral and water rights are again generally not federal in nature.
National defense benefits everyone. In fact, it benefits those without means even more than those with. Those with means have the ability to provide for their own protection, and a far greater chance of favorable treatment from an invading force. Poor people are the ones who get raped, murdered, and impressed into service. If you're living in a cardboard box you've a much higher chance of being killed by fighting in the streets. The demographics of those who actually end up getting killed when fighting starts are skewed because the poor take advantage of our need for national defense far more often than middle to upper classes do. The military will provide a)training b)salary c)room and board to just about anyone who wants it. That's quite an improvement over what the ghetto offers (and I know because that's where I live).
I'd like to see a move away from all progressive taxes entirely. Punishing people for producing wealth is asinine. Tally what the government needs to function and apportion it to the states according to their populations. Low income families should be offered partial or full exemption, but I think that if taxation was done equally we'd see a huge drop in taxes as people realized that well, they don't want those services if they actually have to *pay* for them.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
You seem to be arguing from a fairness point of view - to complete that point of view all money from inheritance should be put into a common pool, no one should be allowed to give gifts beyond some token value, and anyone who dupes or forces other people to give them m
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
H