|
On February 02 2011 02:40 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:43 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote: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.
You have strange idea on how rules are agreed on in the community. Majority tells you(mostly not directly) what the rules are and you listen or be expelled (this is slightly simplified, because you can of course influence the rules at least somewhat, but then you become part of the majority). Frankly if you want to leave a state, you can, you don't even have to leave the territory, just go somewhere to the wild , you can be pretty sure no will come to collect the taxes.
You simplify things too much and your knowledge of history is lacking. You won't find absolute correlation between innovation and economic freedom. Innovation depends on so many things. Also as personal freedom increases with time, economical one decreases as more regulation of economic behavior come to pass. So it is even hard to say if freedom is on the rise or otherwise, let alone measure those correlations.
|
I think the gov should keep their hands out of my pockets unless it's something that is a necessity. I don't need the gov to help me w/ retirement, i got that covered on my own. In my world money makes money and giving money to the gov doesn't help me in the short or long term. My ROI is going to be higher than theirs 99% of the time.
|
Optional taxes don't work because, as a general rule, people who would opt-in are those who want benefits that they cannot pay for. Otherwise they would just pay for it themselves.
If you had a dollar, and wanted a cheeseburger, why pay the government to buy the burger when you could buy it yourself?
|
On February 02 2011 02:41 andrewlt wrote: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.
This is highly contentious claim, of course it depends how you measure it, but from what I read US has actually lower social mobility compared to many European countries. If you want I can find the studies again(there was some other thread that this was mentioned) and link them.
|
I would love to see a second poll... One simply on how much all the people who voted "No" have in their retirement funds.
|
Personally, I wouldn't. I've always seen Social Security as the government taking a percentage of your pay, and putting it away for you, so that when you retire you'll have income. I believe I'm responsible enough to manage my own finances, and don't need to government to do it for me.
Our government does NOT put that money away for you. That is not how it works. The money coming in is paying for the people who are drawing from it. Social Security is bankrupt. You may be paying money in to it but don't expect that it will be there when you retire.
|
On February 02 2011 03:17 Eskii wrote:
I would love to see a second poll... One simply on how much all the people who voted "No" have in their retirement funds.
Hm, good question. I have a retirement fund mainly because the government massively subsidices them. Otherwise I might not have done it.
|
On February 02 2011 03:02 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 02:51 Treemonkeys wrote: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.
99k a year is not that much really, more than average I guess.
But great catch with that black market. I was thinking how sales tax only could go wrong and nothing seemed to be obvious, nearly thought it was reasonably good idea. It still might work to some degree, but there is definitely a danger.
|
On February 02 2011 03:03 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote: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.
You limit violence by not funding violent organizations (governments). You handle violence that does occur with a court system. Government does not limit itself, no matter how hard people have tried to right down on paper that it is supposed to. The very nature of it means that only another government can possibly limit it, and then you have a war. Of course it misuses violence all the time, why wouldn't it? It is in control.
|
On February 02 2011 03:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 02:40 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:43 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote: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. You have strange idea on how rules are agreed on in the community. Majority tells you(mostly not directly) what the rules are and you listen or be expelled (this is slightly simplified, because you can of course influence the rules at least somewhat, but then you become part of the majority). Frankly if you want to leave a state, you can, you don't even have to leave the territory, just go somewhere to the wild , you can be pretty sure no will come to collect the taxes. You simplify things too much and your knowledge of history is lacking. You won't find absolute correlation between innovation and economic freedom. Innovation depends on so many things. Also as personal freedom increases with time, economical one decreases as more regulation of economic behavior come to pass. So it is even hard to say if freedom is on the rise or otherwise, let alone measure those correlations.
So illegally living in the woods alone is your solution to a violent government.
|
On February 02 2011 03:07 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 02:46 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 02:03 howerpower wrote:On February 02 2011 01:48 Neivler wrote:
"Give, and it will be given to you " Luke 6:39
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.
No, they are both methods created to control ignorant and weak people.
|
I live in Brazil, we pay 47% of what we earn in taxes and we have shitty hospitals, shitty roads, shitty police, shitty urbanization and education specially in the poorer parts of the country.
While our politicians have a gazillion dollars.
Fuck em taxes.
Granted its getting better but holy shit! When increasing taxes is the solution to a problem, it normally means people arent thinking.
|
On February 02 2011 03:03 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote: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.
So you really think primitive societies have killed more people than nearly all wars combined + all sorts of other horrendous shit? Really?
|
On February 02 2011 03:02 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 02:51 Treemonkeys wrote: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.
Yeah, it is a lot of money. You think the government will just say "well, hardly no one is making 100k, I guess we just won't get paid". No, they will lower it and change it until they get what they want.
|
As if the poor needed to be screwed over more.
|
On February 02 2011 03:15 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 02:41 andrewlt wrote: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. This is highly contentious claim, of course it depends how you measure it, but from what I read US has actually lower social mobility compared to many European countries. If you want I can find the studies again(there was some other thread that this was mentioned) and link them.
In a program about 'justice', which I saw on the BBC, they had a chart of social mobility, with I think 5 countries from the West. This was basically how close peoples' income is to their parents'. Denmark had a very high level of social mobility, the UK had the worst, but the USA was second worse, very similar to the UK. Germany was better than the US.
|
Humans are selfish by nature. Im just throwing that out there.
|
Man this thread heated up or what o.o
|
I'm like most people; I want government benefits but I don't want to pay for them.
Please, for the love of God, don't listen to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
