The title really says it all.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Great, another Atlas Shrugger.
"Atlas Shrugged" is the name of the novel in which Ayn Rand presented her philosophy. Regardless of what you think of her ideas, her book is a long, lousy read with cardboard cutouts instead of characters.
Exactly, I couldn't get through the first chapter of the audio book. She was a horrible written.
In the U.S. the majority are Republicans or Democrats. Some are socialists, Greens. All of these parties expect government to work for the people. All expect taxation to be used to pay for programs. They voluntarily choose their political parties and candidates on election day. They vote for taxation. No theft in these cases. Taxation is their choice.
I agree with this to an extent. Two problems:
1. Most Republicans (and some Democrats) don't want their taxes to be paid to the U.S military overseas in the middle east, like Ron Paul. Basically, they don't mind taxing, but they want less taxing and less spending. I should note, this is personal experience, most republicans may want war overseas in the middle east, but I hope my point got across.
2. There are some people taxed, who didn't vote, and doesn't want to be taxed at all, and everything to be privatized.
While the most of Americans fall into your description, there are a lot of people who get taxed more than they should. Would you agree that these exceptions are being stolen from?
That sounds like caveman economics.
What is caveman economics?
Caveman capitalists is a term I made up, to describe people who want markets to be free; and might to make right. It is essentially: bonk the other guy on the head with a club before he bonks you.
Unknown : "While the most of Americans fall into your description, there are a lot of people who get taxed more than they should. Would you agree that these exceptions are being stolen from?'
Proposing that taxation is theft and asserting that some pay more than their share are separate topics.
I am not saying that some pay more then their share, I am saying that some would like to pay less in taxes because they don't believe in what the Government is spending i.e. military, welfare etc, but they are happy to pay taxes for roads and police etc. They consent to some of their taxes, but not all.
Their desire for more equity does not rise to the level of victimization by theft. They can amend the system they voluntarily voted for.
You're right it doesn't. So is it theft or not?
Another bullshit scream by an unrealistic idea of economics. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It's a safety net and a very good one. It is the most successful program ever enacted by the government.
Actually myckob, here is a video explaining what a ponzi scheme is:
@mykcob4: "It is the most successful program ever enacted by the government."
Maybe in America social security/welfare creates nothing but happiness and light, but in countries where I've lived, even the best-intentioned social security systems have had devastating consequences for individuals, families, and society. Being paid to do nothing is horribly demoralizing and demeaning for human beings.
It isn't, our SS system is outrageous.
Social security is founded on other people's money who haven't consented to this i.e. theft.
Do you know how SS works? I don't think you do. It isn't other peoples money. It is money that you have earned and contributed.
Heres a site that estimates how much you can get back on that investment.
The only problem with SS is that the Republicans have been stealing from it to pay for other things like big oil subsidies.
Both employees and employERS pay social security tax.
I hear complaints about taxation all the time. The false indignation spewed by the conservatives. The propaganda that conservatives attribute to taxes. The only thing wrong with taxes right now is that the rich don't pay their fair share. they claim that they pay most of the taxes but the fact is they hardly pay any. Tax shelters, fraud, and several loopholes make sure that the rich don't pay very much if any at all.
Taxation is a necessary fact about any and all governments. It doesn't matter what you as an individual wants specifically for your taxes to pay for and what not to pay for. Your taxes are distributed according to how your representatives dictate. Your only recourse is to vote for the representative that you think will have your best interest.
Now for your wild Libertarian bent. It is unrealistic and downright selfish. Public schools, roads, and many things need to be paid for by the general public to benefit the general public. Privatizing everything is well just childish.
I live near Dallas. We have a ton of new toll roads. Roads that have actually been paid for by taxes. All toll roads do is keep people of little financial means off of them. It is nothing more than discrimination and denying opportunity to those in need. The tolls are collected and pocketed by companies in Holland who contribute huge political contributions to corrupt conservative wackos like Rick Perry.
Let's take the George Bush Tollway. Gas tax, tire tax, battery tax, license fees, inspection fees, tag fees, city county and state property taxes all paid for that highway. But Gov. Perry decided to make it a tollway.
Even the road was paid for ten times over and in ten different revenue streams, they made it a tollway. Where does the money go? To a Holland company that makes large political contributions to GOP candidates.
That is one example of libertarianism in action. Every experiment they have tried along a libertarian ideal has failed. Mandatory privatized schools in Pennsylvania, privatized prisons, toll roads. All have failed and reek of corruption.
So pay your taxes and be happy to do so, because, without the collective bargaining that a single payer system to pay for public needs, you'd pay a great deal more and get less quality for your buck.
"That is one example of libertarianism in action. Every experiment they have tried along a libertarian ideal has failed. Mandatory privatized schools in Pennsylvania, privatized prisons, toll roads. All have failed and reek of corruption."
We have had private prisons since Ancient Rome- it isn't some Libertarian theory went wrong.
Using public funds to benefit special interests is not a libertarian ideal- eliminating subsidies and barriers to entry is.
As far as private companies go, if McDonalds charges absurd prices for low quality burgers, I can go over to Jack in the Crack and get a burger there, or I can go to Stated Brothers and buy the things to make my own burgers, I can't do that with Social Security, if I decide that I would rather invest my retirement funds in a Gold IRA, I can't divert my Social Security taxes elsewhere.
This does not apply to things like roads or bridges, if all the roads surrounding your house are owned by someone else, you are not in a position to chose alternatives, but if someone decides to build a toll road in addition to public roads, I don't care.
I oppose all monopolies, public or private, because they interfere with the free choice of individuals. That doesn't mean I want yo privatize everything, some things like retirement I want to privatize, but other things, like the issue of money or prisons, are a function of government.
1. "That is one example of libertarianism in action." - This isn't libertarianism in action, because if it was, the GOP wouldn't even exist.
2. "All have failed and reek of corruption." - The corruption here is with politicians, with libertarianism, the politicians wouldn't even exist, or wouldn't have nearly enough power to be corrupt on this scale.
3. "Public schools, roads, and many things need to be paid for by the general public to benefit the general public." - Sure there may be some beneficial output, but the cons vastly out-way the pros.
4. "So pay your taxes and be happy to do so, because, without the collective bargaining that a single payer system to pay for public needs, you'd pay a great deal more and get less quality for your buck." - I disagree a whole lot. http://www.dailywire.com/news/16895/why-us-should-privatize-health-care-...
Calvin Coolidge said that any taxation beyond what is necessary to fulfil the basic functions of government is theft. I think you can properly categorize the income tax as a firm of extortion, and it should eventually be replaced with excise taxes and taxes on goods, as was inended by the founding fathers.
I absolutely disagree Harry.
As far as the founding fathers go they didn't want a standing army either so many things had to change to meet a dynamic society. I am opposed to toll roads. They are by their very nature a form of discrimination. Instead of toll roads, we should build public transportation systems that benefit everyone including the environment.
Private schools are a form of discrimination if they take money away from public education. Private prisons for profit are corrupt. I have seen every libertarian idea put into practice fail miserably. they are either corrupt or discriminate.
The founding fathers did not want a standing army, but the Constitution does allow for a standing Navy. Keep in mind, when we came into existence, we had 2 large oceans to our east and west, and peaceful neighbors to our north and south, so a standing army was completely unnecessary.
You want to ban toll roads? If I want to pour asphalt on the ground and charge people to drive on it I should be able to.
"Keep in mind, when we came into existence, we had 2 large oceans to our east and west, and peaceful neighbors to our north and south, so a standing army was completely unnecessary."
Are you absolutely sure about this? That's not how I remember it, but I am old now.
You missed the point entirely Harry. Will still have two big oceans east and west and friendly neighbors north and south. The point is that the constitution is a living document that progresses over time. What the founders actually knew is that they didn't know the future.
You claim that the constitution is a progressive, living document- and that we must assign new meaning to it.
Of course the constitution cannot be interpreted according to the time it was created, otherwise we would have to use gold and silver coin as money, the first amendment would not protect free speech on the internet, and the second amendment would only protect our right to own muskets.
It must be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted, according to our modern era. The founding father's may not have predicted the internet, bit that doesn't mean the First Amendment does not apply to it.
To take this a step further and assign ourselves the authority to assign new meaning to the constitution, is as Thomas Jefferson said "to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."