Potential Alternatives to Capitalist system( Part 2)

got it, so one day soon people will start to understand that the liberty that comes from owning their piece of the rock is in reality like slavery and they will give up their land to a Nazi government?

 

how so if other's are free to buy and sell land and other property?? If someone sells land to be free of it the buyer is like a slave holder? You really do sound like you have issues

 

I don't know that it will be soon. Lots of people still believe idiotic religions that were already absurd and morally indefensible thousands of years ago. And it's not like slavery wasn't a thing for at least tens of thousands of years before people wised up.

The Nazis came to power promising land reform, but never did anything about it (other than confiscate Jewish-owned land and give it to their cronies at pfennigs on the mark). They didn't want to step on the Junkers' toes.

 

If anyone would have liked and tested your theory it would have been the Nazis. Maybe you'll have better luck next time.

 

You mean, how does slavery remove people's rights, when slaves are perfectly at liberty to buy their rights from their owners...?

The circumstances of coming to own land are irrelevant to the associated abrogation of rights, just as the circumstances of coming to own a slave are irrelevant to the associated abrogation of rights.

Oh, I do indeed. It is a constant struggle for me not to be consumed with anger. I just can't seem to turn my back and ignore it as you do when liberty, justice and truth are relentlessly ground down under the heel of greed, privilege, and dishonesty.

 

The Nazis started out as the National Socialist Workers' Party long before Hitler came along, and retained some of their early ideological baggage until they actually came to power; but the Hitler faction had a totally different agenda, and basically ignored the party's ideological roots. Crushing the unions by violence was sort of a giveaway on that score.

 

When Hitler wanted to take over the Nationalist Party in Germany, he was introduced to the Krupp* family who eventually financed him. He promised to crush the unions, which suited them perfectly.

How many times in history have we heard exactly the same story. About how some mentally ill people believe in the supremacy of their race or racket and are willing to pay politicians to help achieve their goals. Where do they get the money to do so? From the rich who would most profit.

Now, tell me that America is not pretty much in that very same condition. The Plutocrats will do anything and everything to maintain the status-quo of personal taxation, of which taxation-unfairness is a key cause of America's presently gross Income Disparity.

And what was one of the Dork's first promises? To reduce corporate taxation.

The Dork is certainly not Hitler, but the situations are nonetheless remarkably similar ...

*See the third-paragraph here.

 

taxes are unfair to the top 1% since they pay 44% of all federal income taxes rather than the 1% which they should pay. They don't want to maintain rate they want to reduce it

 

ever get anything right? If the top 1% owned America they would pay 1% of taxes, not 44%. Please don't ever let being wrong bother you!!

 

??? Why on earth would those who receive a grossly disproportionate share of the income not pay a disproportionate share of the one tax that is levied specifically on income?

Of course. Ideally, they want to pocket all the benefits of government spending, while paying none of the taxes that provide those benefits. And they are getting close.

 

why should they pay more for govt than anyone else?? Should they pay more in a supermarket too??

 

Right back atcha, champ:

They don't pay 44% of taxes, that is just an oft-repeated fabrication.

Ah. That explains a lot....

The claim that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes is nothing but a declaration that the tax system should be grossly unjust.

 

the top 1% get trillions in welfare entitlements each your??? Who knew except you?

 

Because they GET more from government. The entire value of their privileges -- land titles, IP monopolies, bank charters, etc. -- is wealth that government has given them NET OF any associated tax liabilities.

When they TAKE more, as they do from government and society, yes, they should pay more. As it stands, they take far more, and pay far less in tax than what they take. That is how they get so much richer so quickly, without making any commensurate contribution.

 

Not you, obviously, despite my having explained it to you multiple times. The Henry George Theorem proves that all government spending on desirable services and infrastructure that is not wasted through incompetence or stolen through corruption is given to landowners. The entire value of bank shares, and most corporate market value, of which the rich own the great majority, comes from government-issued and -enforced privileges.

 

is Walmart unjust because it charges everyone the same price?

 

so Apple's value comes from govt priviledge? 100% idiotic and absurd and liberal

 

how can they get more when they support govt with their money and the products they invent. Absurd. Govt sucks off Apple; Apple does not suck off govt.

 

By owning government-issued and -enforced privileges: legal entitlements to profit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights. The main ones are land titles, IP monopolies and bank charters.

They don't support government; government supports them, by issuing and enforcing the privileges that enable them to take money from working people, consumers, and everyone else.

The entire value of their patents is a welfare subsidy from government.

FACT.

Speaking of absurdities, I suppose that must be why so many companies like Apple are making so much money in places where there is no government "sucking off" them, like Somalia....



- - - Updated - - -

Yes, of course. Without their government-issued and -enforced patent and copyright monopoly privileges, almost all their profits would be competed away.

Fact. Just... fact.

 

It charges everyone who takes home the same things the same price. Those who take more have to pay more. Capisci? People don't take all the same things from society. Not even close. The rich inherently take far more. Now do you understand? 1 + 1 = 2

 

impossible of course since govt's serve people who created them for minor administrative chores. It would be like saying the referee at a football game creates the teams and decides who wins.

 

Maybe on Planet Zondo...

Come to think of it, even on Zondo, government does not in any way resemble a football referee.

 

its supposed to here according to our Constitution, not even an income tax because that gave govt too much control over people. Instead they had an excise tax that could be avoided by simply not buying the taxed items.

 

Oh, really? Where does it say that?

Silliness.

Wrong. An excise tax is passed on to others according to the relevant elasticities of supply and demand. Google "tax incidence" and start reading.