On February 02 2011 01:57 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote: Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
1) To resolve conflicts of interests between members of the society.
Did I win the thread now?
I am not quite sure, but I think that you really mean to refer to "the state" not to "the government" in your sentence, and the primary concern of the state is actually to internalize and resolve conflicts of interest usually by setting up a legislative system and establishing jurisdiction.
If you really just mean "the government", then it's even easier since its main purpose is to channel and control the legislative power in a state which has not - necessarily - anything to do with defense. There are lots of groups well able to defend themselves without making use of a government.
I believe we should do away with mandatory taxes (ie. income tax, property tax, etc) and drastically increase sales tax. Then ALL tax is voluntary. If you want to spend your money, you pay a tax on it.
This would affect all socioeconomic classes the same. The rich are buying 40,000 dollar automobiles that they would have to pay a %tax on where the poor are buying 2,000 dollar cars. The rich buy name brand groceries and the poor buy store brand.
Also, where does the government get off thinking they can manage my retirement fund better than I can? That's absurd. Social security is a joke. I'll pay into it my entire life, and will probably never collect a cent from it.
My parents generation was told their entire life that they would be able to retire at 65 receiving full social security benefits. Recently the age was raised to 66 1/2.
What if you were hired to do a job, they told you they would pay you 500 dollars a week (after tax), and come Friday, your check only said $450 on it. Of course you would be upset, you would ask the boss,
"You told me you would pay me $500, why only $450?"
And he would respond,
"Oh, the company is running low on funds. When you worked for us all week we realized we weren't managing our money properly and that we wouldn't be able to pay you what we said we could. You cool with that?"
Doesn't matter if you're "cool with that" or not, because that's the way things are. The government takes your money to give it to people who can't won't work, and promises to give you some of the money they took from you back, without interest, when you retire.
I'm gonna go now. Silly internet political discussions.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl.
Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid?
You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now.
Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do.
We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't.
Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them.
Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
No it is not the only reason. Preventing internal conflicts by enforcing rules/laws is another important one. Also maybe you could look at the actual word government, what is the root of that word, maybe it has something to do with the purpose of the government ?
On February 02 2011 02:21 Moody wrote: I believe we should do away with mandatory taxes (ie. income tax, property tax, etc) and drastically increase sales tax. Then ALL tax is voluntary. If you want to spend your money, you pay a tax on it.
This would affect all socioeconomic classes the same. The rich are buying 40,000 dollar automobiles that they would have to pay a %tax on where the poor are buying 2,000 dollar cars. The rich buy name brand groceries and the poor buy store brand.
Also, where does the government get off thinking they can manage my retirement fund better than I can? That's absurd. Social security is a joke. I'll pay into it my entire life, and will probably never collect a cent from it.
My parents generation was told their entire life that they would be able to retire at 65 receiving full social security benefits. Recently the age was raised to 66 1/2.
What if you were hired to do a job, they told you they would pay you 500 dollars a week (after tax), and come Friday, your check only said $450 on it. Of course you would be upset, you would ask the boss,
"Oh, the company is running low on funds. When you worked for us all week we realized we weren't managing our money properly and that we wouldn't be able to pay you what we said we could. You cool with that?"
Doesn't matter if you're "cool with that" or not, because that's the way things are. The government takes your money to give it to people who can't won't work, and promises to give you some of the money they took from you back, without interest, when you retire.
I'm gonna go now. Silly internet political discussions.
That sales tax idea gives me such a hardon. I've been talking about that exact idea with some of my friends at the bar for a while. For one thing, it would wrangle in some of that invisible money floating around with all the illegal immigrants working here in Houston, TX under the table.
No offense to them or anything, but if I have to pay for their kids to go to school and learn under a more expensive curriculum because it teaches it all in Espanol, they should contribute too.
On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote: This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out.
So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance.
I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory.
The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights.
From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts.
A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air.
I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other.
I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society.
I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it.
Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
The world that you advocate is a beautiful utopia where every person is a rational intelligent persn that has transcended byeond petty human traits such as greed, jealousy and out-group hatred. Oh how I would love to live in that world and how I would fear to be unworthy of it. The simple fact is that we are, as a species, not ready for this idea of, lets call it rational anarchy in the words of Robert A. Heinlein.
Popular science has - in the recent years - shown us over and over again how irrational humans are and until that changes fundamentally, I am afraid that states under the rule of law are the best alternative we have, especially if they are founded on a constitution that limits the power of the state.
It has nothing to do with a utopia or every single person being rational and intelligent. Quite the opposite, the more irrational and ignorant people are, the more reason NOT to prop up huge organizations of immense power that will inevitably be composed of those very same humans.
In fact your so called popular science only points to the the very idea of government being irrational, which it can already be proven to me.
It's very foolish to think "hey, humans are irrational, so we can't trust each other...so lets let other humans lord over us with immense power, that will fix it!".
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl.
Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid?
You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now.
Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do.
We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't.
Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them.
Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
It is not a fact... Stop spewing off random beliefs of beliefs being facts.
A true gem of a counterargument. Why don't you refute my statement with evidence? Talk to any anthropologist, it's fact.
The Leviathan might be a good place to start... I really don't feel that any amount of evidence is going to change your close mindedness.
People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling - Cox 4 : 07
You could never get something like this in place anyways, unless you'd make all taxes voluntary. And then people'd not put down money for something they don't need themselves or think they shouldn't have to pay for. And who's going to do it then? See how well everyone's on their own works out for a society.
You're not just part of the pieces of a society you like or need, you're part of the whole. You pay taxes for the whole. Amount and targets towards which said funds are then used is what you can argue about though and that's what we elect representatives for, specifically because of how people'd decide otherwise (and look how well they do :/).
On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote: This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out.
So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance.
I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory.
The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights.
From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts.
A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air.
I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other.
So you would not - under any circumstance - use violence if individuals don't follow the rules of a community? You realize that you could not enforce those rules then and that societies - by definition - develop rules (or codes of conduct), right? It seemed to me that you were rather against a certain rule ("every citizen with an income has to pay tax") than against the fact that rules need to be enforced (or otherwise are meaningless).
I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society.
I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it.
Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
What exactly do you mean by "it has accomplished nothing"? Looking at the technological advances and the quality of living when compared to say 100 years ago, I come to a completely different assessment. Do you think it is mere coincidence that the most advanced (by technological and demographical standards) countries happen to be those with a stable political system in the form of a "state" (more specifically a democratic state in recent history)?
There is a difference between rules in a community that can be agreed to, in a community that can be left, and drawing lines of ownership around the entire earth.
You credit government for these accomplishments? The USA was a place of extreme innovation simply because it had by far the least restrictive government in the entire world. The less restrictive the government is, the better off a society will be in technology and advancement, all the way down to zerg. Now that the USA has a controlling, gargantuan government, it's innovation will also come to a halt.
This is exemplified over and over and over again through out history, people innovate when they are free to innovate. When they are taxed nearly to death and can barely get by, they will barely get by.
On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote: This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out.
So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
That's my point.
26 states have filed lawsuits against this bill. This is more dissention across the country over a piece of legislation in the history of the U.S..
Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it.
Oh wow, 26 states. They probably all decided that independently and don't happen to all be republican states do they? You're acting as if all the people in those 26 states are against the bill, while it's just the Republican party trying to block every bill that the Democrats could label as a success.
Using "Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it." as an argument is therefor just ridiculous. It basically means that you think because the Republican party is doing everything to stop a bill it has to be wrong.
As for your anti health care argument, it saddens me greatly that people still think like this. Of course a health care system is not always fair, and you always have people profiting from it and people losing money because of it. Much like any state investment in highways isn't equally used among citizens.
However, it's fucking HEALTH we're talking about. If the richest country in the world doesn't have a system that prevents its citizens from dying because they don't have the money to get treatment, where the hell is this world going? Do you think we reached the pinnacle of civilization standards and that humanity shouldn't improve its own general living conditions anymore?
Lastly, despite being "the land of opportunity", the US is still one of the hardest civilized countries for a poor person to get a decent education and leave poverty. The popular opinion that poverty is a result of laziness/stupidity is a retarded one and a result of the very skewed image you get upon receiving all the opportunities the poorer people didn't get. The reality is, most of the times when a person can't afford his medical treatment it's not his own fault.
Sorry, you are wrong on the last paragraph. The US has one of the largest gaps between rich and poor in the industrialized world but actually has one of the most socially mobile populations.
The problem with health care in the US is it's already socialized, but people are in denial over it. Hospitals can't refuse emergency treatment for people that can't pay for it. So they end up passing the costs to their other patients who can afford it or have the insurance to pay for it. Not to mention that once something gets to the emergency state, it's more expensive to treat it compared to doing it earlier.
However, since it's not "officially" socialized and people don't have to pay taxes for it, plenty of people opt out, then get sick and can't afford it. They then wait until it gets worse and more expensive to treat, go to the emergency room, then pass on their costs completely to other people.
On February 02 2011 02:21 Moody wrote: I believe we should do away with mandatory taxes (ie. income tax, property tax, etc) and drastically increase sales tax. Then ALL tax is voluntary. If you want to spend your money, you pay a tax on it.
This would affect all socioeconomic classes the same. The rich are buying 40,000 dollar automobiles that they would have to pay a %tax on where the poor are buying 2,000 dollar cars. The rich buy name brand groceries and the poor buy store brand.
Also, where does the government get off thinking they can manage my retirement fund better than I can? That's absurd. Social security is a joke. I'll pay into it my entire life, and will probably never collect a cent from it.
My parents generation was told their entire life that they would be able to retire at 65 receiving full social security benefits. Recently the age was raised to 66 1/2.
What if you were hired to do a job, they told you they would pay you 500 dollars a week (after tax), and come Friday, your check only said $450 on it. Of course you would be upset, you would ask the boss,
"Oh, the company is running low on funds. When you worked for us all week we realized we weren't managing our money properly and that we wouldn't be able to pay you what we said we could. You cool with that?"
Doesn't matter if you're "cool with that" or not, because that's the way things are. The government takes your money to give it to people who can't won't work, and promises to give you some of the money they took from you back, without interest, when you retire.
I'm gonna go now. Silly internet political discussions.
Come on. You think this makes it voluntary? No, it's not voluntary. It's every time you exchange something voluntary between two people, you must pay tribute to a non involved third party, or be kidnapped or killed. That is not voluntary.
It's like saying income tax is voluntary, because you can just choose to be a bum on the streets and not pay any taxes at all, or you could just let yourself starve to death. It is your own desire to live and be successful that is used against you.
If you give others you will get back more than it will be to be greedy or just think of yourself.
That verse that some dude wrote was written to brainwash people into tithing.
The problem with that is, It's not greedy to want to keep your own money. Nor is it greedy to not want to give your money to people who did not earn it.
Religion and government are nearly the same thing.
Those taxes should be mandatory on people who make 100k+ per year. And even more for peoples who's income is in the 1mil + like actors and stuff. Their income and popularity come from the people, the least they can do is pay money to protect those people. If it was voluntary no one smart would pay. But some people who are living pay check to pay check really need a break. But there are people who make more money in 1 month then people make in 2 years and they should be taxed 24x the ammount everyone else is.
On February 02 2011 02:48 Mafs wrote: Those taxes should be mandatory on people who make 100k+ per year. And even more for peoples who's income is in the 1mil + like actors and stuff. Their income and popularity come from the people, the least they can do is pay money to protect those people. If it was voluntary no one smart would pay. But some people who are living pay check to pay check really need a break. But there are people who make more money in 1 month then people make in 2 years and they should be taxed 24x the ammount everyone else is.
All that would do is cause everyone to not make more that $99k a year and take a big shit on the economy.
Of course no one would pay taxes if they didn't have to. But, then they'd wonder where the government was when they fall under hard-times and don't have the means to help themselves, or when they can't get to work when the roads deteriorated, or if there's a natural disaster that just blew all of their possessions to kingdom come. People don't plan ahead, and shit happens all the time, so socialized systems are put in place as a safety net for those afflicted with misfortune.
If everyone thought only about themselves, places like California would not be the economic and technological powerhouse it is. How the fuck are Californians supposed to generate enough food and fresh water to maintain themselves AND their economy? This is why humans invented trade.
For those of you saying that SS is for people who are supposedly "too dumb" to save for their own retirement, I would advise you to keep in mind that not everyone has the same education level as you do, or is as money-savvy.
As far as SS is concerned, while it is a giant Ponzi scheme in its current state, it needs to be reformed and not done away with. A lot of people rely on it and as long as its reformed (so that its solvent), it will at least provide some benefit for those paying into it.
On February 02 2011 02:48 Mafs wrote: Those taxes should be mandatory on people who make 100k+ per year. And even more for peoples who's income is in the 1mil + like actors and stuff. Their income and popularity come from the people, the least they can do is pay money to protect those people. If it was voluntary no one smart would pay. But some people who are living pay check to pay check really need a break. But there are people who make more money in 1 month then people make in 2 years and they should be taxed 24x the ammount everyone else is.
All that would do is cause everyone to not make more that $99k a year and take a big shit on the economy.
Really? I find this idea quite fascinating. 99k a year is quite a lot of money and, frankly, I often fail to see how the extremely high salaries some people get are justified. Progressive income tax is a good idea IMO. Also, it is a good idea to combine income taxes with a VAT because a VAT alone will lead to black markets too easily.
On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote: This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out.
So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair.
Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance.
I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory.
The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights.
From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts.
A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air.
I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other.
I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society.
I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it.
Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
Actually governments are beneficial, at least in terms of killing. In ancient or isolated, primitive societies with no real government the level of deaths by other humans are a lot higher.
Now arguably some governments are worse than no government, but governments generally are better than no government.
However More government is not always better... some is good, more is bad. (you state that basically saying you would like violence for "self defense"+"retaliation") but not other things.
How do you keep violence limited to self-defence and retaliation? And how do you keep 'retaliation' limited... I'm guessing "I kill you and your family after raping your wives and daughters for accidentally bumping into me" is not the type of retaliation you think society should have.
So how do you limit violence... you set up a specific Limited structure for violence... a government.
That "violence" in defense or retaliation is what government is for. And it needs to be limited so that it does not misuse it.
If you give others you will get back more than it will be to be greedy or just think of yourself.
That verse that some dude wrote was written to brainwash people into tithing.
The problem with that is, It's not greedy to want to keep your own money. Nor is it greedy to not want to give your money to people who did not earn it.
Religion and government are nearly the same thing.
In a theocracy, maybe. Otherwise, this claim is a little absurd.
If you give others you will get back more than it will be to be greedy or just think of yourself.
That verse that some dude wrote was written to brainwash people into tithing.
The problem with that is, It's not greedy to want to keep your own money. Nor is it greedy to not want to give your money to people who did not earn it.
Religion and government are nearly the same thing.
In a theocracy, maybe. Otherwise, this claim is a little absurd.
Of the 12 apostles, luke was a gentile...he brainwashed some people for his own ends
31676
5535
245
39
14
EPT
