"Big" government

[steve74baywin]

A new morning, a different day.
Rereading this morning and found a couple of things I wanted to comment further on.

So you consider taxation stealing and you believe that education is not a goal worthy of the tax dollars "stolen" from you. Fair enough, but just understand that that is the crux of the job before you. That's the key thing you need to convince people of. Many of us disagree that taxation is theft, regardless of what it is used for.

You say many of you disagree. I think we should question the word "taxation". I think it is just a clever word used to disguise something. Taking money or taking the fruits of someones labor from them even if they don't want you to is normally stealing, or I'd say it is stealing. What makes it this thing you call "Taxation"? What is the definition of the word? I may go look it up later today, but it may be a busier day than usual here.
It is like a magical blanket word. What is stealing, what is normally stealing, no longer is if it is called tax.
The only way anything can morally take from a man is if that man gives him permission, if this is not the case then something else is claiming ownership of that man.
I think there is a reason this country went over a hundred years without a tax on income, and that is because it was understood to be contrary to liberty. There were certain taxes allowed, mainly on imports and exports, things that involved the greater system to aide in for survival, and you still could avoid paying it, you had a choice to buy the goods that were taxed, or not buy them. So you weren't directly taxed.

It is wrong for someone to hate education and the educational system simply because it has been hijacked.

I'd further question this. Do they really hate "education" or just this current Edu system.
I know I for one think education is a wonderful thing, by it's definition. You could say me spending this much time in this forum is to educate. I love education. I know you weren't referring to me, but I think you incorrectly assumed these people commenting in the papers hate "education" all together. Most of them probably have no problem or think it is good to educate younger people and older people. I think everyone needs more education. However, I really don't like a lot of what is put forth in this current system, couple that with them taking the money via force to then teach a distorted few of history,,,hogwash. It is like taking money from tax to defend the country and then going on the offensive in Iraq.
If many of these people are saying they hate "education" in general they probably aren't taking the time to clarify what it is they actually hate, or your assuming.
I just don't think they hate education in general.

[Amskeptic]

I think we should question the word "taxation". I think it is just a clever word used to disguise something. Taking money or taking the fruits of someones labor from them even if they don't want you to is normally stealing, or I'd say it is stealing.

There were certain taxes allowed, mainly on imports and exports, things that involved the greater system to aide in for survival,

Hello.

[steve74baywin]

I think we should question the word "taxation". I think it is just a clever word used to disguise something. Taking money or taking the fruits of someones labor from them even if they don't want you to is normally stealing, or I'd say it is stealing.

There were certain taxes allowed, mainly on imports and exports, things that involved the greater system to aide in for survival,

Hello.

Yes Colin, but they were in part called "in direct" taxes...Taxes on goods, and mainly imports.
(I thought this could be mistaken when I typed it)
When I say "greater system to aid in survival", like survival of the system the taxes are taken from and for, IE, to keep the ability for goods to arrive in a nation, they taxed imports. This still allowed someone living in the hills to not be taxed for something he didn't want or use. This in alignment with Liberatarian systems and not in the Totalitarian we have today.
The founding fathers were smart and had freedom on the mind. The weren't for the enslavement direct tax on a mans income, labor, or efforts. There would have been more support to fight whoever implemented that type of tax than the support they receive for fighting the King for his taxes.
A tax on income, Income tax, a direct tax on mans labor and effort, would have gotten people more into fighting than the taxes the King of England was doing.

The main difference is, to tax goods coming to an area a certain way to pay for what is needed(perhaps protection) to get them to that area, is much more civil and humane. The main reason is it still allows for freedom and liberty. If we all live near each other 400 miles from the coast and we trade, work and sell goods amongst ourselves and we don't use anything shipped in, then if we didn't purchase anything shipped in or use anything shipped in, we weren't taxed. Freedom, liberty, you still have a choice.
Today, some people, for example, someone like you, called Colin, he thinks milk should under go regulations. His desire is achieved via an income tax. Us living 400 miles from the coast who don't use it, who work and trade, buy and sell in our area, get taxed on our income to pay for something you want done to something you bought. When we don't have a choice, and we must pay for this thing you want, it is called theft and or slavery. That there is the opposite of freedom.
Crap, now I've run out of time.

[Amskeptic]

Today, some people, for example, someone like you, called Colin, he thinks milk should under go regulations. His desire is achieved via an income tax. Us living 400 miles from the coast who don't use it, who work and trade, buy and sell in our area, get taxed on our income to pay for something you want done to something you bought. When we don't have a choice, and we must pay for this thing you want, it is called theft and or slavery. That there is the opposite of freedom.
Crap, now I've run out of time.

Listen, in the great Experience Called Life, I happily trade in some of my baby waa-waa desires for self-centered wants, for the Greater Good.
I hate waiting at traffic lights, too bad.
I don't want to pay more for safe milk, but I will.
I hate gas taxes and tolls, but I do utilize our expensive-to-build-and-maintain roadways.
I hated paying FICAFUCAWhatever taxes for my employees, but I understood the benefits of doing so.
I will happily watch my taxes go towards social services.
To describe it as "theft" or "slavery" is silly childishness, IMO.
Theft, to me, is making college students cough up salaries for rich coaches.
Theft, to me, is watching mortgage holders lose their homes to keep high-flying bankers rich.
Colin

[Sylvester]

Theft, to me, is making college students cough up salaries for rich coaches.
Theft, to me, is watching mortgage holders lose their homes to keep high-flying bankers rich.
Colin

Here here!

[steve74baywin]

Listen, in the great Experience Called Life, I happily trade in some of my baby waa-waa desires for self-centered wants, for the Greater Good.

That is good, but it is YOUR choice, you have no right to make that choice for others. Sorry. Good for you to be willing, but let others have the choice to be willing.
Edited to add, also, I don't think it is good to call it "the greater good". That is very subjective and it is your opinion. I don't think we all agree that all the people who died since the Iraq war is for the "greater good", maybe it is for the banking dynasties good. I don't think distorted history taught to our kids is for the greater good, but instead for the good of those in power.

I don't want to pay more for safe milk, but I will.

Good for you again, but you have no right to make that choice for others.

I hate gas taxes and tolls, but I do utilize our expensive-to-build-and-maintain roadways.

That is the beauty of a tax related to the usage, you use the roads, you should pay.
I wish you could see the difference. You want the road, you use the road, you pay for the road. What I am speaking of here is being forced to pay for something I don't want or I don't use.

I hated paying FICAFUCAWhatever taxes for my employees, but I understood the benefits of doing so.

That is one thing that you understand what some of the benefits might be, but it would
be better if you understood that people should have a choice.

I will happily watch my taxes go towards social services.

Once again, good for you. But everyone is not you, they deserve to
have the choice, liberty and freedom. It is their life, they may only get one life.
Their life is not your life.

To describe it as "theft" or "slavery" is silly childishness, IMO.

So even though it fits under the definition of theft, you think it is silly.
That takes some further investigating. Speaking the truth about a matter is silly
to you? This actually worries me a little.

Theft, to me, is making college students cough up salaries for rich coaches.

That is a violation of their rights, "making" them is a violation of their natural rights, it could be considered stealing their time. But sure, if someone is actually "making" them, then that is theft.
I think your not speaking or dealing in truth again, I don't think anyone "makes" them
do it. I think they have a free choice to not cough up salaries for the rich.
Colin, this does sound like changing the meaning of words and doublethink.
You think something taking money from us against our will isn't theft.
Someone voluntarily paying more for something than you think it is worth you say is theft.??? Sorry Colin, but I think you need to search within on this one.
When you deny a truth and make a not truth a truth that is pretty scarey.
(I realize you are not alone in doing this, I speak to all who do it and not just you)

Theft, to me, is watching mortgage holders lose their homes to keep high-flying bankers rich.
Colin

It depends on how they lost it for it to be considered theft.

What I see from the above is generalizations and catchy phrases to bring about
a desire. One needs to get back to truth and the true meanings of words.
Voluntarily paying too much for something isn't theft. Taking something from someone using the threat of incarceration and using guns to enforce it is theft.
You should say you are for stealing from people if you think it is a good thing, but don't change the meaning of the words, it muddies up the conversation.

Please still love me....
Thanks for this Free Speech Forum.

[dingo]

"The confused and pointless “Occupy Wall Street” movement seems to have brought to the forefront of public discussion again the notion that all of this could be sorted by taxing the rich. That this is even debated shows how little the public appreciates the sheer mind-boggling extravagance of the modern welfare-warfare state: In 2011 the U.S. government will have spent at least $3,700 billion while taking in about $2,200 billion, thus running an eye-watering $1.5 trillion deficit. It collects less than $1 trillion in income tax. Thus, even if the government doubled its intake from income taxation instantly it could not close the budget gap. The situation is completely out of control, and to those who believe that this is no problem because the U.S. government can always print the money, I can only say: Be careful what you wish for."

[Amskeptic]

"The confused and pointless “Occupy Wall Street” movement seems to have brought to the forefront of public discussion again the notion that all of this could be sorted by taxing the rich.

I barely know how to respond to this.

"Confused and pointless" tells me right away that perjorative judgments underlie your perspective.

The OWS movement *has* opened up a dialogue. That's pretty good.

Nobody has claimed the notion that ALL of this could be sorted out by taxing the rich.

What HAS been declared, is that the rich have been getting FAR RICHER during this recession. Can you answer this point?

What HAS been suggested is that the rich pay a greater share, like only what they paid during the Clinton years, is that so terribly damn difficult or yeegods, unfair?

Dingo, answer this squarely:
Why has American productivity gone up so much over the past two decades, yet the people who actually make the goods have been barely holding even, while the top has seen their income double?

Does anyone have the simple courage to note that tax CUTS for the rich did not do a damn thing for employment??

Of course we cannot fix the mess with a single option like raising taxes on the rich, but why the hell can't we even put it on table without being excoriated????
Colin

[dingo]

Yes your points are well made. Perhaps i was too hasty in throwing up that quote. maybe what i am driving at is that is insufficient to attack merely by regulation or adjusting taxation...the grand system which underpins and enables the whole ponzi-style fraud is the fiat monetary system. Most likely it will crash of its own inherent flaws...

[steve74baywin]

The words I highlighted above are the reason I find it extremely difficult to converse with you. I cannot engage in a conversation with someone who distills nuance to extremes.

I think it makes it hard for you to have a case because I get to the truth and heart of the matter and that washes your argument away. I don't want the meanings of words changed or the opposite to be used. I don't like doublethink.

Real adults understand that there are trade-offs and compromises surrounding them. A family also has "greater good" issues when individual members have to check their individual desires. You might even demand of your child that he/she participates against their will occasionally, or contribute financially (oh no, a tax) towards a shared family goal.

I think real adults should understand there are no promises of a utopia, and to use force to make others help you reach a utopia is a very childish non evolved thing.
The role/relationship between a parent and child is different than the role between government and free adults.
We try to point out that some peoples idea of what that role should be is wrong, that is when and why we use that phrase "mommy government", because it seems like some want or think the government has the role of mother. Usually, when we use that phrase people take offense, but do you see why we use it? It seems some do think that is the role of government, I say no.

Real adults are not especially happy with the current state of affairs in the governing of this country, but they do not disparage the entire concept of our government.
Colin

This is where I'd say, some adults take a step back and look at the big picture and get a bigger, greater more thorough understanding, then they say like me that this current government is wrong, but we see how the original "concept of our government" was better. Real adults (to use your popular phrase) get to the truth and heart of the issue. We wouldn't say to someone like me who wants to return to the limited "concept of our government" and claim he wants to "disparage the entire concept of our government" when I clearly talk of undoing the wrongs that have happened over the last 100 years when we took a step backwards and veered from observing Natural Law, Individual Rights and Liberty principles and instead veered towards a system controlled by the rich, a system that now that Individual rights can be violated, the rich influence the government to get it to be in their favor. A real adult doesn't beg these rich to give them move benefits, a real adult looks at the truth of the matter.

[Amskeptic]

A real adult doesn't beg these rich to give them move benefits, a real adult looks at the truth of the matter.

Who is begging for benefits? Good grief.
I attempt to discuss the fairness of shared participation in paying for the services of our country, and you call it begging?

You consider your perspective the truth of the matter?
I disagree.
Colin

[denjohn]

It seems this thread is devolving from the original topic to a "Big Government" pissing contest between two valuable contributors.
Sad to see their energy so wasted.
I propose a reset and offer the following article as perhaps some common ground:
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/20 ... t=My+Yahoo

The most hopeful thing in my mind is that the Status Quo is devolving from its internal contradictions and excesses. It is a perverse, intensely destructive system with horrific incentives for predation, exploitation, fraud and complicity and few disincentives.

The social capital and "return on investment" earned from investing time and energy in community and other social networks has been replaced by a check from the Savior State--a transfer payment that surely beats the troublesome work of investing in community in terms of risk and return.

The net result of the Savior State dominating society and the economy is the rise of a pathological mindset of entitlement and resentment--the two are simply two sides of the same coin. You cannot separate them.

Once self-reliance has been lost, so too has self-confidence been lost, and the Savior State dependent--individual and corporation alike--soon distrusts their ability to function in an open market.

This is a truly sad, self-destructive state of affairs, and deeply, tragically ironic. The calls for "help" quickly lead to dependence on the Savior State, and that dependence quickly breeds complicity and silence in the face of repression and predation by the State and its corporate partners.

In a very real sense, citizens relinquish their citizenship along with their self-reliance and self-worth once they accept dependence on the State.

I often mention that the U.S. has much to learn from so-called Third World countries that are poorer in resources and credit. In many of these countries, the government is the police, the school and the infrastructure of roadways and energy. Many of these countries are systemically corrupt, and the State is the engine of enforcing that corruption.

Rather than something to be embraced and lobbied, involvement with the State is something to be avoided as a risk. In everyday life, people rarely encounter the government except in law enforcement or schooling.

As a result, people depend on their social capital and community for sustenance, support, work and connections.

This is not altruism, it is mutually beneficial.

Once a community dissolves into atomized individuals who each get a payment from the Central State, then they no longer need each other. Rather, other dependents on the State are viewed as competitors for the State's resources.

These atomized, isolated individuals have a perverse relationship with the State and what remains of the community around them: lacking the self-worth earned from work or engagement/investment in a community, then their only outlet for self-identity is consumption: what they wear, eat, drink, etc. as consumers.

This dependence on the State also serves the State's goal, which is a passive, compliant populace of dependents, and distracted, passive workers who pay their taxes. Thus dependence on the State and a hollow consumerism are ontologically bound: one feeds the other.

The era of debt-based consumption as the engine of "growth" and "prosperity" is coming to an end. Adding debt via credit no longer creates growth; it actually takes away from the economy by expanding debt service (interest payments).

The vast majority of developed-world people have had the basics of life since the late 1960s -- transport, food, shelter and utilities. The "growth" since then depended on cheap, abundant oil and a consumerist mentality in which one constantly re-defines and renews one's identity not from social investments in others or the shared community but from consumption.

Not coincidentally, this dominance of consumption as the only metric for "growth" (as opposed to, say, productive activity) has been paralleled by the dominance of the Central State.

The end of credit-based consumption will be a very positive development, as will the devolution of the Savior State. The Savior State is like oil--both are at their peaks and are starting their inevitable slide down the S-curve. The world they created was not as positive for human fulfillment and happiness as we have been told.

Indeed, study after study has found that people with the basics for life, a higher purpose that requires sacrifice and a tight-knit community are far and away happier than isolated, atomized, insecure consumers, regardless of their wealth and consumption.

This potential to re-humanize our economy is why I am hopeful.

More at the link above.

[steve74baywin]

A real adult doesn't beg these rich to give them move benefits, a real adult looks at the truth of the matter.

Who is begging for benefits? Good grief.
I attempt to discuss the fairness of shared participation in paying for the services of our country, and you call it begging?
You consider your perspective the truth of the matter?
I disagree.
Colin

Colin, it can be called begging. The extent at which some people attempt to muster up support to then continually ask these rich politicians to provide more benefits from this system is like begging. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK OR LOOK TO MOMMY FOR BENIFITS ANYMORE.
Sorry Colin, but yes, I do tend to stick to truth and the true correct meaning of words.
Like we discussed, taking something against someones will and using force, the threat of incarceration and guns is stealing and theft. Willingly paying more for something than you think it is worth is not theft.
Calling such a violent means to extract money from people, even besides the fact that they use some of this money to kill people in other countries, but calling it "shared Participation" is exactly one of the things I am talking about. Saying the "fairness" of "Shared Participation" when it is guns and threat of jail to force it from you, and then saying "greater good" when they wage wars against the innocent is not talking in truth. It is more what I call "propaganda".
But, if we must agree to disagree here for now, that is what it is.

[Amskeptic]

A real adult doesn't beg these rich to give them move benefits, a real adult looks at the truth of the matter.

Who is begging for benefits? Good grief.
I attempt to discuss the fairness of shared participation in paying for the services of our country, and you call it begging?
You consider your perspective the truth of the matter?
I disagree.
Colin

Colin, it can be called begging. The extent at which some people attempt to muster up support to then continually ask these rich politicians to provide more benefits from this system is like begging...Sorry Colin, but yes, I do tend to stick to truth and the true correct meaning of words.

This is manipulative and patently absurd. You preen and prance at the keyboard that you are devoted to true and correct words, then you come up with perjorative words like "begging" and absurd claims that people continually ask rich politicians for more benefits. The truth of the matter is, that benefits for poor people have been getting slashed for years. True and correct, Steve?

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK OR LOOK TO MOMMY FOR BENIFITS ANYMORE.

What is this?? Who are you talking about here?? Anymore? True and correct, Steve?

Calling such a violent means to extract money from people, calling it "shared Participation" is exactly one of the things I am talking about. Saying the "fairness" of "Shared Participation" when it is guns and threat of jail to force it from you, and then saying "greater good" when they wage wars against the innocent is not talking in truth. It is more what I call "propaganda".

Because you decide that the system of taxation pisses you off does not mean that my definition of fairness or shared participation is wrong!

I think it makes it hard for you to have a case because I get to the truth and heart of the matter and that washes your argument away.

In the lofty confines of your mind, perhaps.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

The truth of the matter is, that benefits for poor people have been getting slashed for years. True and correct, Steve?

Absolutely wrong, this is exactly what I am talking about.
There are more benefits for the poor today than 50 or 100 years ago, and especially more than 200 years ago when people were free and didn't get any benefits from the government.
Seriously Colin, this government was started to protect rights. Two hundred years ago it protected rights. If we are talking about the same thing when we say benefits, I'd say there was no/ZERO benefits from the government.
If the government only gave out $100 dollars in food or medical benefits this year that would a 100% increase over 150 years ago.

See what I am talking about. The government was started to protect rights, and providing benefits to poor people didn't even exist and wasn't a role of government.
Individual Rights have gotten less over the years, benefits have increased, this is due to people going from free to back under the control of something.
Benefits were at Zero. They are not at Zero now, that is an increase. I do not
call that "getting slashed".

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK OR LOOK TO MOMMY FOR BENIFITS ANYMORE.

What is this?? Who are you talking about here?? Anymore? True and correct, Steve?

Most certainly Colin. After the start of this government in this country we no longer looked to the King or the newly created government for more benefits.
We did not ask our government, and certainly we didn't ask the King for benefits.
When we were under the King we asked for stuff. Around 1800 you can not tell me or show me a benefit we asked the government for. We just wanted freedom. We did not look to ask the government for food or medical coverage.
Under the King we may have asked, but once we set up this government we didn't any more, we had become free.

Calling such a violent means to extract money from people, calling it "shared Participation" is exactly one of the things I am talking about. Saying the "fairness" of "Shared Participation" when it is guns and threat of jail to force it from you, and then saying "greater good" when they wage wars against the innocent is not talking in truth. It is more what I call "propaganda".

Because you decide that the system of taxation pisses you off does not mean that my definition of fairness or shared participation is wrong!

I think it makes it hard for you to have a case because I get to the truth and heart of the matter and that washes your argument away.

In the lofty confines of your mind, perhaps.
Colin

Sorry Colin, I have used the standard well excepted definition of words.
It is you that is changing the meaning of words and in some cases using the opposite.
This very post once again shows a changing of words and/or history by you.
Give me some examples of government provided benefits that have been slashed from what they were even just 40 years ago?
I don't think you can. I know you can't from 200 years ago.

This is why I say freedom and liberty principles are no longer understood.
We used to have to ask the King for benefits when we weren't free and we were subjects of a King. When this country was started free people new what that meant and they no longer asked the government for benefits, just for the protection of their rights so they could remain free. Now we have lost freedoms, so we now have to ask for benefits again. Or, when something is taken from you against your will, then you must ask for it back.