|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare.
Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare.
|
On May 26 2013 09:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The whole "I pay less tax rate than my secretary" line is a bullshit lie anyway.
You're not going to find many cleaners paying a larger income tax rate than billionaires either. It's 99% bullshit.
Neither the cleaner, nor most of the billionaires pay any net taxes (They receive more in Welfare than what they pay in taxes), which would be groovy, except for the welfarism (thievery). So, the middle gets screwed to fund below them, as well as shield the wealthy from competition and pad their all ready large accounts. Let's not even get into the fact that many billionaires made a lot of their money through Government privilege via regulatory schema's, out right writs of monopoly, and things like eminent domain, as well as benefiting from the Cantillon effect (first/early receivership of new monies).
Beside that, while taxes are important and should be abolished, it won't fix much if the State maintains monopoly on money and continues to print to pay for their spending which can be more deadly than taxation is. Right now we live in both hells with the presses inflating away (a tax in itself), and outrageous tax burdens. In other words, both aisles are wrong in their assessments and little will change without being opened to the truth of the matter. Corporate Welfare is as bad as Queen-Welfare (for lack of better term :p).
People like Sheldon Richmann and Kevin Carson do good work exposing such dialectical non-sense.
|
On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare.
Class Warfare exists, just not in the Marxist sense. I'm really saddened that the liberal class warfare theory has been usurped by those wretched folk (Marx co-opted and stole it then twisted it from folks like Charles Dunoyer and Charles Comte <3). It is as Franz Oppenheimer knew, the tax-eaters vs. the tax-payers, the political vs. the economic. That has been true since humanity first existed. Today, they justify their thievery in many names and forms - for your own good, for your own protection, for the poor and downtrodden which they keep dependent and in economic bondage.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=full_quote.php?quote=150&Itemid=275
There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others… I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.”
|
On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare.
Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though.
|
On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though.
Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either.
Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone.
I'm really not sure how to respond to you on your post wegandi. Socialism isn't a structural idea its an ideology as much as capitalism is an ideology and not a structural idea. They have their good points and they have their bad points (like child workers and soviet union).
|
On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone.
It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning.
|
Neither the cleaner, nor most of the billionaires pay any net taxes (They receive more in Welfare than what they pay in taxes),
I doubt that someone paying in the 15% federal tax bracket (~$9000 to $36,000 yearly income) is paying less in income and payroll taxes than they would receive in various welfare benefits. Also don't forget state and local income and payroll taxes.
Maybe the lowest income bracket ($0-$9000) come close, but if you're making that amount of money it's pretty impossible to meet basic living expenses so I don't really care if they receive more than they pay.
I also doubt that billionaires receive more in "welfare" than they pay in income taxes. Unless you're talking about government largesse and tax codes helping their businesses and investments. Which is not exactly a fair way to look at things, since in that case there is not one single direct beneficiary of the "welfare," but rather multitudes of indirect beneficiaries, employees and consumers both.
It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning.
Oh please.
If there is anything less true than "I pay less tax rate than my secretary," it's "there is a class war, and the rich are winning."
Apparently the definition of class war is "tax rates" and the rich are "winning" if tax rates on them are not at a confiscatory level.
|
On May 26 2013 09:58 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone. It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning.
The rich have nothing to do with class warfare, except insofar as their being recipients of State-power / taxation.
Oppenheimer picks up a theory of the state which was common among early 19th century French liberals such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, and Augustin Thierry. As Oppenheimer correctly notes, Karl Marx got himself horribly confused on this matter, seeing slavery as an economic category and seeing economics as driven by “force”. We have been paying the price for this confusion every since.
In other words, the warfare is between those wielding the political means (of violent force, of taxation, of legislation), and those in the economic means, who trade their labor for the labor and property (money) of others. Commerce, is the great moral crusade we must all strive towards, not State-power and aggrandizement.
|
On May 26 2013 10:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:58 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone. It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. The rich have nothing to do with class warfare, except insofar as their being recipients of State-power / taxation. Show nested quote +Oppenheimer picks up a theory of the state which was common among early 19th century French liberals such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, and Augustin Thierry. As Oppenheimer correctly notes, Karl Marx got himself horribly confused on this matter, seeing slavery as an economic category and seeing economics as driven by “force”. We have been paying the price for this confusion every since. In other words, the warfare is between those wielding the political means (of violent force, of taxation, of legislation), and those in the economic means, who trade their labor for the labor and property (money) of others. Commerce, is the great moral crusade we must all strive towards, not State-power and aggrandizement.
Commerce is not a moral crusade, lol.
|
On May 26 2013 10:08 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 26 2013 09:58 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone. It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. The rich have nothing to do with class warfare, except insofar as their being recipients of State-power / taxation. Oppenheimer picks up a theory of the state which was common among early 19th century French liberals such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, and Augustin Thierry. As Oppenheimer correctly notes, Karl Marx got himself horribly confused on this matter, seeing slavery as an economic category and seeing economics as driven by “force”. We have been paying the price for this confusion every since. In other words, the warfare is between those wielding the political means (of violent force, of taxation, of legislation), and those in the economic means, who trade their labor for the labor and property (money) of others. Commerce, is the great moral crusade we must all strive towards, not State-power and aggrandizement. Commerce is not a moral crusade, lol.
That's the problem.
|
I was making a post when I realized that I was in the wrong footing when complaining about class warfare. Me complaining about democrats using it is just hard grapes for it being an effective tool for people who want to advance socialism and capitalism not having a counterpart to advance capitalism.
This is probably going to be the one time I admit defeat you should enjoy it.
|
On May 26 2013 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
I was making a post when I realized that I was in the wrong footing when complaining about class warfare. Me complaining about democrats using it is just hard grapes for it being an effective tool for people who want to advance socialism and capitalism not having a counterpart to advance capitalism.
This is probably going to be the one time I admit defeat you should enjoy it.
This is the first time I've seen a capitalist feel some sour grapes over the defeat of the Soviet Union 
|
On May 26 2013 10:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:08 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 10:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 26 2013 09:58 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners.
They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone. It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. The rich have nothing to do with class warfare, except insofar as their being recipients of State-power / taxation. Oppenheimer picks up a theory of the state which was common among early 19th century French liberals such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, and Augustin Thierry. As Oppenheimer correctly notes, Karl Marx got himself horribly confused on this matter, seeing slavery as an economic category and seeing economics as driven by “force”. We have been paying the price for this confusion every since. In other words, the warfare is between those wielding the political means (of violent force, of taxation, of legislation), and those in the economic means, who trade their labor for the labor and property (money) of others. Commerce, is the great moral crusade we must all strive towards, not State-power and aggrandizement. Commerce is not a moral crusade, lol. That's the problem.
People probably have no idea how true this is. Commerce (and by extension capitalism) is the opposite of a moral crusade. "commerse" works by praying on the bad parts of humanity (greed, selfishness, ambition) to reward the good parts of an economy (Talent, efficiency, entrepreneurship).
|
On May 26 2013 10:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Neither the cleaner, nor most of the billionaires pay any net taxes (They receive more in Welfare than what they pay in taxes), I doubt that someone paying in the 15% federal tax bracket (~$9000 to $36,000 yearly income) is paying less in income and payroll taxes than they would receive in various welfare benefits. Also don't forget state and local income and payroll taxes. Maybe the lowest income bracket ($0-$9000) come close, but if you're making that amount of money it's pretty impossible to meet basic living expenses so I don't really care if they receive more than they pay. I also doubt that billionaires receive more in "welfare" than they pay in income taxes. Unless you're talking about government largesse and tax codes helping their businesses and investments. Which is not exactly a fair way to look at things, since in that case there is not one single direct beneficiary of the "welfare," but rather multitudes of indirect beneficiaries, employees and consumers both. Show nested quote +It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. Oh please. If there is anything less true than "I pay less tax rate than my secretary," it's "there is a class war, and the rich are winning." Apparently the definition of class war is "tax rates" and the rich are "winning" if tax rates on them are not at a confiscatory level.
Just one example of a larger problem - http://c4ss.org/content/13568
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/20/no-more-corporate-welfare
http://books.google.com/books?id=OOgV_Eu-ASAC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=sheldon richman corporate welfare&source=bl&ots=7qpwyijX5-&sig=S0TAO8RAOUazyaYxxMw_Y0kZJyE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0mKhUejvPOL9igL1joDIAQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=sheldon richman corporate welfare&f=false
Etc. etc. etc. Gee, I wonder how much Dole benefited monetarily from having the US Government colonize Hawai'i, Guatemala, and a host of other South American countries. Something tells me they gained a bit more than whatever they payed in taxes...
|
On May 26 2013 10:08 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 26 2013 09:58 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone. It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. The rich have nothing to do with class warfare, except insofar as their being recipients of State-power / taxation. Oppenheimer picks up a theory of the state which was common among early 19th century French liberals such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, and Augustin Thierry. As Oppenheimer correctly notes, Karl Marx got himself horribly confused on this matter, seeing slavery as an economic category and seeing economics as driven by “force”. We have been paying the price for this confusion every since. In other words, the warfare is between those wielding the political means (of violent force, of taxation, of legislation), and those in the economic means, who trade their labor for the labor and property (money) of others. Commerce, is the great moral crusade we must all strive towards, not State-power and aggrandizement. Commerce is not a moral crusade, lol.
Yes, it is. It is the abroggation of violence as a means of sustenance, and a recognition that peace and trade is superior. The only other choice is the aforementioned violence.
|
Etc. etc. etc. Gee, I wonder how much Dole benefited monetarily from having the US Government colonize Hawai'i, Guatemala, and a host of other South American countries. Something tells me they gained a bit more than whatever they payed in taxes...
Is this 1896?
|
On May 26 2013 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Etc. etc. etc. Gee, I wonder how much Dole benefited monetarily from having the US Government colonize Hawai'i, Guatemala, and a host of other South American countries. Something tells me they gained a bit more than whatever they payed in taxes... Is this 1896?
I chuckled, but my point was that benefits do not cease to be immediately after the fact. If we were to follow property rights, then we need to add up all the benefits Dole has had from those properties since they were stolen from the rightful owners of title. It is just but one example in a long string of them. Just look at companies like Shell today to see modern examples. I find it unsettling how so-called defenders of the 'market' throw away property rights when it doesn't suit their narrow agenda. You're not a defender of the market, but of industrial interests. You give a bad name to all those who do defend property rights, imho. (A value-free moral perspective)
|
On May 26 2013 10:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Etc. etc. etc. Gee, I wonder how much Dole benefited monetarily from having the US Government colonize Hawai'i, Guatemala, and a host of other South American countries. Something tells me they gained a bit more than whatever they payed in taxes... Is this 1896? I chuckled, but my point was that benefits do not cease to be immediately after the fact. If we were to follow property rights, then we need to add up all the benefits Dole has had from those properties since they were stolen from the rightful owners of title. It is just but one example in a long string of them. Just look at companies like Shell today to see modern examples. I find it unsettling how so-called defenders of the 'market' throw away property rights when it doesn't suit their narrow agenda. You're not a defender of the market, but of industrial interests. You give a bad name to all those who do defend property rights, imho. (A value-free moral perspective)
What in the hell is wrong with you. The dole company didn't steal anything. The guy who started the dole companies pineapple operations in hawaii (ironically where it gets the dole name) got the land when it was an independent republic before it ever became an american territory. The guy was the cousin of the coup leader and that is why he went to hawaii. the annexation of the islands were of a strategic base to control all of the pacific. I'm pretty sure hawaii is pretty happy with all that happened with the ungodly amount of tourism dollars the locals have gotten.
Your problem with them exploiting 3rd world countries is a problem with free trade. Your complaining about what corporations do is nothing more then you complaining about a dog chasing cars. just because they don't know what they're going to do when they catch one doesn't mean it makes any less sense for them to chase it.
Liberals complaining about "corporate welfare" are just hypocrites. They want government spending but they only want it to go to things that don't grow the economy.
|
Nearly half of Americans say that growing marijuana should be legal, and even more support legalizing the growing of hemp, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov Poll.
The online poll found that 47 percent said it should be legal to grow marijuana, while 37 percent said it shouldn't.
Younger people were significantly more likely to back legalization of pot cultivation. About half of every age group under 65 said growing marijuana should be allowed, compared with 36 percent of those 65 or older.
A partisan gap was also in evidence -- 54 percent of Democrats, but 34 percent of Republicans -- supported legalization of marijuana growing. Independents, at 48 percent, were between members of the two major political parties.
The overall results are in line with an earlier HuffPost/YouGov survey that found 51 percent in favor of legalizing marijuana, and taxing it and regulating it similarly to alcohol. A separate poll by the Pew Research Center found legalized marijuana use gaining majority support for the first time this year.
While slightly less than half of the public approves of legalizing the growing of marijuana, according to the most recent HuffPost/YouGov results, 56 percent said it should be legal to grow hemp, an industrial form of cannabis that has no psychoactive ingredients, while 24 percent said it should not.
Twenty-three percent of those who opposed legalizing the growth of marijuana said they supported the hemp proposal.
Source
|
On May 26 2013 10:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 26 2013 10:08 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 10:07 Wegandi wrote:On May 26 2013 09:58 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:57 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:49 HunterX11 wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes.
The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. Class warfare doesn't need justification to be a fact of reality any more than gravity does, though. Ironically gravity doesn't have justification either. Just because its a fact of life doesn't justify using it for political gain. Republicans can saw how abortion is majority used to kill black people as a fact of life, that doesn't make it any more of a reason for them to use it. Useing class warefare populism as the only way you get into office should be offensive to everyone. It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. The rich have nothing to do with class warfare, except insofar as their being recipients of State-power / taxation. Oppenheimer picks up a theory of the state which was common among early 19th century French liberals such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, and Augustin Thierry. As Oppenheimer correctly notes, Karl Marx got himself horribly confused on this matter, seeing slavery as an economic category and seeing economics as driven by “force”. We have been paying the price for this confusion every since. In other words, the warfare is between those wielding the political means (of violent force, of taxation, of legislation), and those in the economic means, who trade their labor for the labor and property (money) of others. Commerce, is the great moral crusade we must all strive towards, not State-power and aggrandizement. Commerce is not a moral crusade, lol. That's the problem. People probably have no idea how true this is. Commerce (and by extension capitalism) is the opposite of a moral crusade. "commerse" works by praying on the bad parts of humanity (greed, selfishness, ambition) to reward the good parts of an economy (Talent, efficiency, entrepreneurship).
You've got it the wrong way around
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
