They need to tax the poor/middle class more!

You cannot prove any of the above. the market determines rewards, not envy. and your definition of "Steal" is specious garbage

 

I don't have to prove it, because you and all other readers already know it is true. You just have to refuse to know it.

A market where some people own and buy and sell other people's rights to liberty is not a free market. It is a slave market.

One of the most profoundly evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit by it.

It is completely valid, accurate and correct: deprive another, without permission or just compensation, of what they would otherwise have.

 

Complete abolishment of income tax nation and state. If you can't afford to run the government it's time for cuts.

 

I don't see lots of readers backing up your extreme views

 

I get a fair number of likes, and even fan mail once in a while. Obviously, when almost everyone buys into the false dichotomy fallacy of capitalism-socialism, both sides are going to oppose anyone who demolishes that fallacy.

 

the only thing you have demolished is perhaps someone thinking your extreme views are workable in the USA

 

No doubt it is comforting for you to tell yourself that.

 

nah, I am just laughing at extremist nonsense.

 

"Nonsense" that you have proved yourself incapable of even addressing, let alone refuting....

 

How do I refute your opinion? its not worth refuting because it is based on extremism

 

you claim the current tax system is "unfair" and you want to change it. I claim its unfair because the top bracket pays far more than it should and I can prove that two ways
1) one percent of the population should pay one percent of the taxes-that is objectively fair in one paradigm

2) the top one percent make 20% of the income, they should pay 20% of the federal income tax-that is even more objectively fair and since they don't own 100% of the wealth they should not pay 100% of the death tax which of course is a wealth tax-again objectively fair

3) finally, no one can honestly claim the top 1 percent use 40% of all government expenditures that are funded by the income tax and the death tax so the top one percent are again paying more than their fair share

so what do you bring-unproven and common sense rejecting bullshit that the top one percent are using more than 40% of what the government allocates in spending. You cannot prove that

so what you have is an opinion that you have never proven.

 

You can't, because fact and logic are with me.

"Extremism" is nothing but name-calling. The fact is, you cannot refute a single sentence I have written, and you cannot address the facts I have presented, so you have to contrive some way to evade them. You do that by calling those facts "extremism."

 

you have an opinion as to what is fair. you cannot prove that is correct. I have an opinion as to what is fair. I back mine up with numbers but that doesn't prove my definition is correct either. Your views appear to be based on envy.

 

Yes, and it is objectively correct.

I have provided facts and logic that support it, based on the relevant dictionary definitions: free from favor, self-interest, bias, dishonesty, injustice or deception; just; appropriate; rightful, reasonable, balanced, impartial, etc.

Yes, and yours is objectively incorrect, as it is not consistent with the relevant dictionary definitions enumerated above.

No. The numbers you have provided are irrelevant because your definition is objectively incorrect.

No. That is a purely evil claim that you have deployed as an ad hominem fallacy to distract readers' attention from the relevant facts. It is logically and morally equivalent to slave owners claiming that the abolitionists' opposition to slavery was based on envy of slave owners. It is just pure, vicious, smirking, Satanic evil. One of the most evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it. You have repeatedly committed that grotesquely and despicably evil act in defense of your beliefs, which effectively proves those beliefs are false and evil.

 

when we strip away all the factual assertions you make-none of which can prove your definition of fairness is more accurate than mine and when we 86 your virtue signaling bullshit that anyone who doesn't support your radical attacks on the prosperous, all we have left is your unprovable OPINION that your system is more fair than what I want

 

I.e., if you disregard the relevant facts of objective physical reality that I have identified.

False. They prove that by the DICTIONARY definitions of fairness -- which I am using and have cited, and which prove you objectively wrong -- what I advocate is fair, and what you advocate is unfair.

I.e., my identification of the fact that to have anything to say at all, you have to resort to the profound, despicable, vicious, anti-human evil of accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it...

No, that is a fabrication on your part. I have never attacked the prosperous. I have only identified the privileged as the largest and least deserving subset of the prosperous, and attacked their privileges. By contrast, your "arguments" have all been logically and morally equivalent to those used by slave owners against the abolitionists, and are therefore already known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed on my part.

No, I have proved that by the dictionary definitions of fairness, my system is in fact fairer than what you want. You simply want whatever unfairness you think will redound most to your own narrow financial self-interest. It's not a mystery. Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is indeed the root of all manner of evil. All evil is caused by greed.

 

this is all opinion. your definition of privilege cannot be proven since it is a term that you try to apply in areas that most would reject, You try to pretend that you have the moral high ground when all you are doing is trying to cover up a seething case of envy with grand pronouncements of "fairness" and your pretense that your silly Georgian nonsense is going to make things "fairer" is akin to you saying blue is a better color than red

 

No it isn't, and you know it. Calling facts "opinions" does not make them less true, sorry.

Garbage. Definitions are either agreed by usage or defined for communication. They cannot be "proven" except by recourse to a dictionary. I have stated the definition of privilege that I am using to communicate efficiently about a particular economic phenomenon: legal entitlements to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. That is what I am talking about. You just don't want anyone to talk about it because you have already realized that it identifies the fact that you profit from evil, and intend to go on profiting from evil, and do not care that others are harmed by the evil that you profit from.

That is nothing but more of the same evil, despicable ad hominem filth, the exact same evil, despicable ad hominem filth that slave owners tried to use against the abolitionists. And you are using it for the exact same reason they did: to distract your attention from the fact that you are rationalizing and justifying evil.

No, that is garbage diametrically contrary to fact. It is indisputable that people getting to keep the value they produce, and not being legally entitled to steal from others -- i.e., the system I advocate -- is fairer than people being forcibly robbed of the value they produce to provide subsidies for greedy, privileged parasites who are legally entitled to steal from others: i.e., the current system, which you advocate.

 

prove your definition of "fairness" is true. That you call the capitalist system theft if pretty much steaming cow manure

 

I gave you a number of dictionary definitions of "fair," and they support my usage, not yours.

By definition, capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production: natural resources and producer goods. Natural resources have never been -- cannot be -- made into private property except by stealing them from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use them.

 

why is fair not 1% paying 1% of the taxes/ Your opinion again

IF IT IS LEGAL to use natural resources, then it is not stealing. how does your existence in a certain geographical area give you any rights over resources another uses?

 

For the same reason that fair is not 1% paying 1% of the grocery bills, 1% paying 1% of the mortgage payments, or 1% making 1% of the wages.

The definition of "fair" is not a matter of opinion.

Garbage. You can't make stealing not stealing by just passing a law that says it isn't. If the government were issuing literal licenses to steal, the license owners would still be stealing. They would just be doing it legally. Law cannot change fact. You don't seem to understand that if the government passed a law that said it's not murder if you kill a Jew, that would not change the fact that killing a Jew is just as much murder as killing anyone else. Your "logic" is the same logic slave owners used to justify owning their slaves' rights to liberty: the law says I own your rights to liberty, so you don't have any rights to liberty any more; I own them.

By my existence giving me a right to liberty. The fact that someone is using a resource implies they are exercising their liberty right to use it. Why would I have any less liberty right to use it than they have?

 

yawn, why isn't it fair for one percent to pay one percent of the taxes. The government doesn't issue licenses to steal and your understanding of natural law and the laws of nature are rather undeveloped, what are the facts? throughout history and all living things-some succeed and some fail. Is that fair? is it fair that the mouse in my yard is eaten by the hawk? Your rantings about legal issues shows you have no understanding of law. Murder is a legally defined act.

 

I already told you: for the same reason it isn't fair that 1% pays 1% of the grocery bills, 1% pays 1% of the mortgage payments, or 1% gets 1% of the wages.

Sure it does: land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc. are all effectively licenses to steal. And more importantly, the fact that government does not issue licenses to steal in the form of petty larceny, burglary, embezzlement, etc. is irrelevant to the point that if it did issue such licenses, those acts would still be stealing.

No, that's just more denial from you unsupported by any facts or logic.

Fairness only applies to human beings because only human beings (except sociopaths, who are ruled by their greed) have moral capacity. More importantly, the fact that life is often unfair is not a reason for our institutions to make it even more unfair.

I understand it incomparably better than you.

No, you are just objectively wrong, as usual. It is an act that human beings have recognized is wrongful since before the first laws were ever written. We have defined it in law to distinguish it from other acts of homicide such as self-defense, but the concept of murder was not created by law.

 

more opinion not facts. your definition of wrong cannot be proven and even less valid is your constant attempts to claim anyone who doesn't by in the envy based nonsense you spew is "evil". I love your bs about "understanding" something better than I do when you don't even understand that the biggest license to "steal"is by the government with taxes