Next time you meet a wealthy person, thank them...

[lasersailor184]

Until then, you're asking people to exchange the burden of taxes for the burden of living in conditions that will profoundly affect every aspect of their lives in a negative way, from health to living conditions to education to the basic conveniences that you probably don't even notice you have. This is not an exchange that anybody but you wants to make.

All of these are things that any private owner can easily give you, at half the cost and twice the productivity.  And make a profit for himself.

It'd be a free market.  You don't want to pay 3,000 a year for your kids?  Either move somewhere else that's cheaper, pay it, or teach them yourself.


But you'd never want anybody to have that choice, would you?


I can't give you a 20th century example, because since roughly 1860 the american mind has been subverted away from independence to depend on the government.  Income taxes, welfare programs, foreign aid, foreign wars, the 16th ammendment, socialism, public health care...  All these things have been unnecessarily implemented since 1860.  The american people never had these things before, even in densely populated areas.

I'm willing to bet that were this exchange forced upon us, you and your high-powered rifle would be among the first seeking relief from the nearest centralized authority.

We shall see.  But don't worry.  I don't believe the wait will be too long for you.

[Neubob]

Against all odds, sailor, you've also managed to mis-read me.

The US's trend toward federalization, or whatever term you choose to use for a central government is not just the US's, it's everywhere. That's why you can't find a modern example. This is a global issue, not an American one. Big modern societies simply do not exist without it. If they had, I'm sure you would have rubbed it in everyone's face long ago.

As far as me not wanting the choice, I never once said that I don't want an alternative. I never once said that I like taxes. I only said that they were necessary.

Of course I would prefer to live without taxes. Of course I would prefer not to be supporting useless, inefficient federal programs and social crutches for members of society who will contribute nothing to the world besides solid waste and CO2. Of course I would prefer to permanently silence the prayer in school question by having the freedom to circumvent the issue entirely. Homeschooling is a questionable method, as our friend Hawklore proves on a weekly basis, but I'd never want to rob anybody of that choice. Of course I would want all of these freedoms for everyone. It would be a better place where people are not forced, by virtue of a lack of an alternative, to have their kids educated in a system controlled by a big, inefficient and disjointed central government.

That, however, is just not realistic, and that is what this argument is about. This concept of self-government is extremely desireable. The problem is, it just won't be able to sustain our current living conditions, to say nothing of making them better. There is no evidence that it would work. There is no viable way to maintain it. There is no viable way to even start this thing, as you'll need centralization, of some sort, merely to oust our current system. Then, finally, you have the issue of human imperfection, IE, the liklihood that you'll be engaged in a sniper battle with the first guy who wants what you've got.

I'll repeat myself now, I don't like taxes. I've just never seen a way to effectively avoid a central infra-structure. Unfortunately, neither you nor anyone else has not proven that it is feasible. The day that humanity evolves into a state where we can govern ourselves intuitively, without a need for external administration, I will be right there, minus the rifle, in support of it--provided that I don't have to give up the stuff or prospects I have today.

[lazs2]

none of us like taxes but unlike laser... we have paid em.  we aren't living off daddy and mommy.

I know guys who can indeed hit a man out to 1,000 yards.. they would follow me with the right incentive...  I would bribe em by letting em have all lasers parents stuff and all the pot they could find in his room.

The American indian had your utopian anarchy in some of it's tribes.   It could not grow or advance and was far more at the whim of nature and other tribes than people who were governed.   your pre constitution rhode island was also a phony...

You realize that right?  It only survived because it was under the protection of it's ruler.. the King of england?   It wasn't every man for himself.  Any neighbor that wanted to burn the colony of rhode island to the ground would have to answer to the most powerful government in the world.   You are pointing to a colony that was protected by the most powerful nation on earth.

I believe that we need very limited government that we need a small standing army and a court system to uphold constitutional and human rights.

We could all probly pay about one one hundredth of the taxes we now pay and make it work...  Almost every government service we have now could be privatized except the standing army and the courts.

With no taxes there would be no need for public schools or vouchers.   Vouchers are a good interim solution tho and less socialist than public schools.

I have nothing against you but you do seem to be living a life of relative privlidge that you did nothing to earn.   You would impress me more if you left home with nothing and showed us how to do it.   Many people are self taught.. I myself have went to night school for years while working.. I paid my own way.  I have been flat broke before... no... worse than flat broke.. a broke person was better off.. he didn't owe anything.

I want to be more free and pay less taxes but I realize that, having lost fights in the past, that I can lose to a superior force..  I am old enough to not think I am invincible and to realize that at some point I will be even less capable... who will I turn to at that point to get me justice or protect my rights?  You?

Do I want to travel around (this ain't pre constitutional rhode island) and be at the mercy of every local warlord?   Who would tie all these little American utopias together?   Maybe we would just never leave our tribe?

lazs

[lasersailor184]

your pre constitution rhode island was also a phony...

You realize that right? It only survived because it was under the protection of it's ruler.. the King of england? It wasn't every man for himself. Any neighbor that wanted to burn the colony of rhode island to the ground would have to answer to the most powerful government in the world. You are pointing to a colony that was protected by the most powerful nation on earth.

This is exactly symptomatic of the problem.

You do realize that the US government did exist before the constitution, right?  The united states government existed for 11 years before the constitution was written.

But of course, you did not know this.  None of you did.  After declaring independence, the US government wrote up the Articles of Confederation.

For those of you who skipped grammar school, the government under the articles of confederation was weak centrally, and strong in the states.  Namely, the central government was only a loose confederation of friendly states, and didn't really have the power to do anything without the states permissions.  But the articles of confederation was plagued by the same problems that plague us now.  Heavy taxes, no free enterprise, corrupt government officials.

That is, except for Rhode Island.  Rhode Island came together, kept governmental power out of anybody's hands, and did amazing.  While other states spent most of their time taxing the crap out of their own citizens, violating "Human rights", Rhode Island prospered.  Their people made money, the government had little or no power, and things were good.

And Rhode Island freaked the **** out when the constitution was written.  Why?  Because they had achieved utopia, and a bunch of handsomehunkes were messing it up.  Rhode Island didn't even go to the constitutional conventions.  They should have never entered into the union.

[Terror]

I like the Fair Tax idea.  A Federal Sales tax with a "prebate".  It makes more sense to me than the "invisible" income tax system we are stuck with now.

What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This non-partisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral – the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Terror

[Mustaine]

Originally posted by mietla
well said, but it touches yet another principle of dems' politics.

The assumption is that the economy is a zero sum game. If someone makes profit, it HAS TO BE at someone else's expense. They just can't accept that it is possible to create value/wealth to everybody's benefit.

The dems treat wealth like energy, you can't create it, you can only transfer/convert it.

long past in the topic but i just HAD to point out the similarities:

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglass in the movie Wall Street
The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bull****. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own....
It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.

and he was far from a democrat in that movie

[bj229r]

Yah but a bunch of Hollywood leftists wrote it

[Silat]

Originally posted by lazs2
sorry laser.. don't buy it.   under your defenition any government that was supported in any way by the people would be socialism... the only form you would want would be anarchy or... no government.

What could work is that in my government you would be assesed for your share of the support of the government... the courts and the defense.   If you declined then a list would be made of all the people who were fair game and not defended under the court system.   it would be in the paper and anything done to you would be of no concern of the government.

Is that not socialist enough for you?   If you want to drive on the roads you simply pay the road tax in the form of fuel taxes.

While you would have no protection of the courts... the people who did pay would be able to use the courts to take everything you owned.  

This I suppose would be fair and a good way for you to not participate in protection of your rights under the law.

As for... "decide now"   how dramatic of you...  You do not need to decide government in such a cut and dry either or way... you can have gaurantees and reasonable fees for such services.   This is not socialism in my opinion.

you don't feel that we need an army as we have now...  probly not but....you must admit that we need some type of army and we need an even larger one if we do have to go to war.    How exactly do you propose we pay for it?

You say the courts and the government don't protect your human rights?   are you kidding?   surely they could do a better job but perhaps you think the areas of tribal africa are more of a paradise?   that roving bands of thugs are not something you need to worry about?    That courts never dispense justice in the U.S. and no courts would be better.

Or perhaps.... you simply have never really thought it out?

lazs

Good explanation Lazs ...

[Neubob]

He never thought it out

He thinks that an 18th century agrarian society of less than 9 thousand people is a Utopia. He thinks this and yet, he uses public roads every day, uses the mail service every day, uses public sanitation, every day....uses countless benefits of modern technology, everyday.

He does this, not giving much, if any consideration to the fact that his utopia would have never contributed any of these advancements to society. He gives no consideration to the fact that his Utopia would was rightfully swallowed up by the newly formed nation.

Personally, I think that Sailor pines for the Pennsylvania Dutch existence. Nevertheless, I doubt he would survive well in such a setting.

[lazs2]

laser if you keep contradicting yourself then we aren't gonna make any progress  unless you are at least willing to admit it.

If the rhode island non government worked so well then why doesn't it still exist?  why doesn't the pre constitution American government exist under the articles of confederation?

They don't exist cause they never really did.   they existed under the rule and pleasure of the king of england.  

Your idea that we need no government or army or courts to protect our rights is proven wrong by your examples...  rhode island was dominated first by the brits and then by the U.S. and... they had no say in the matter... the pre constitutional Americans only achieved independence through a standing army and a central government.

Utopia without protection is a ripe plum waiting to be picked by the first strong arm.   It will get eaten and the pit thrown away.

I am all for a return to pre 1912 levels of government.   I would love for the civil war to not have happened either.. the states not being able to secede was an abomination...   We need more states rights and we need a few states to secede to give us nut jobs and red staters a place to live without being under the heels of the blue state metrosexuals.

In the old west the central government was weak...  People had little idea of it nor did they pay taxes to it or see it in any real way... Maybe a federal judge or marshal every decade or so and maybe vote in some federal election once in a blue moon...   The people had to form vigilante groups to protect themselves.   They had to pay for courts and marshals and jails.   Like your utopia rhode island they pretty much governed themselves but... like rhode island they did so under the whim and the neglect of the people who actually ruled them.

lazs

[republic]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I plan to start thanking rich people for their contributions to our society.

How does a person's net worth in any way measure their contribution to society?  Do I contribute more to society when I get my paycheck, and less after I've paid my AH subscription?

Would the rich 1% pay taxes if they didn't have to?  Is it really a contribution if it is required by law?  Am I contributing more to society when I drive 65 and less when I'm driving 75?

If you want to thank someone who truly contributes to society...thank a teacher, a police officer, a fireman, a soldier...

A teacher teaches because they want to.  A police officer protects because he desires to.  A fireman is ready because he is honored to.  A soldier stands up so you don't have to.

I would think the day to day privileges of wealth would be thanks enough for the wealthy...

[lasersailor184]

Wow, this is rediculous.  Even after explaining it you people still have it wrong.

Neubob, are you aware that every single thing you listed was the result of private innovation?  Not public?  Why are you so confused as to think that these are the result of governments?

Lazs, the rebuttal for every single thing you've said has already been posted.  Asking you to read it the first time was too much, but I'm too angry to post it a second time.

[storch]

Originally posted by Neubob
He never thought it out

He thinks that an 18th century agrarian society of less than 9 thousand people is a Utopia. He thinks this and yet, he uses public roads every day, uses the mail service every day, uses public sanitation, every day....uses countless benefits of modern technology, everyday.

He does this, not giving much, if any consideration to the fact that his utopia would have never contributed any of these advancements to society. He gives no consideration to the fact that his Utopia would was rightfully swallowed up by the newly formed nation.

Personally, I think that Sailor pines for the Pennsylvania Dutch existence. Nevertheless, I doubt he would survive well in such a setting.

I argue the very point with people routinely.  the impression I come away with is that the concept of paying your way through life is alien to many. whats interesting to me is that these people are usually the ones who use more social services than people like myself who are happy to contribute and expect nothing but the bare minimum in return.

that is why they are broke and will always be so.

[lazs2]

laser... I believe that a constitutional republic with a strong bill of rights is the best we can get.

Better even than anarchy.    I have rebutted everything you have said but you don't get it.   You are a utopian and an anarchist.   You really have no idea what you are tho...  you sail boats your parents bought you and go to schools they paid for.  You are under their protection and the protection of the courts lest you would not survive.

There are bad people in the world... they will break you down like a shotgun and have their way with you and your family and then burn the place to the ground... you won't be able to stop em.   You just haven't figured that out yet.   Heck...you may even shoot a few but... that will just make em angry and make em think you have something worth taking..

The rhode island no government you speak of DID NOT EXIST.. get it?   It existed only under the good graces of the real government.

lazs

[Neubob]

Laser, nobody here is confused except for you. The fact that somebody in the private sector invented something does not mean that they have the capacity to maintain or protect it, much less nurture it to the point of national significance. In extreme cases, those people with the mega-bucks that can personally finance the creation of things like oil refineries and railroads, would have never survived long enough, or had the conditions necessary to build their fortunes, because of the problem that your Utopian Anarchy would create. Put briefly, your system would stunt the growth of every aspect of personal wealth, as well as public good. Yeah, sure, we'd have your version of a utopian society, we just wouldn't have warm sanitized water in which to bathe.

Your Utopia died not because it was taken over by evil federalists. It died because it was obsolete. It was obsorbed into a system that could more readily harness the power of a larger, consolidated society. It was inevitable progress that did this, and although the system that swallowed it was far, far from perfect, it was far more pragmatic and practical than the bare-strings system that it replaced.

Had this not happened, and on a national scale, America today would be a band of disjointed clans, unable to integrate between towns, much less between coasts. The things that require massive manpower and feats of organization to accomplish, would remain a pipe dream.

I find it pretty interesting that given all these opportunities to state a case, you managed to leave out perhaps the most important and relevant example of your utopian system in the modern world. You either left it out because you were not aware, or because their example would hurt your case.