I get it. You advocate the use of force by government only when it comes to protecting your interests and laws you like. So you're whole position boils down to you don't like paying taxes. I get that. Most 1% apologists don't. No, they can choose not to live in our society. It is completely different when a government does something pursuant to a validly passed law.
I consider the use of force justifiable only to protect person or property, or to hold a trespasser accountable for his actions. Actually, my position boils down to this: I consider the use of force justifiable only to protect person or property, or to hold a trespasser accountable for his actions. I consider use of force to take other people's property unjust. A validly passed law is not necessarily a just law, and I can't support an unjust law.
I get it. You advocate the use of force by government only when it comes to protecting your interests and laws you like. Good for you. We don't get to individually pick and choose what laws we want in a democracy. I get it. You advocate the use of force by government only when it comes to protecting your interests and laws you like. And you don't like paying taxes. Good for you. Fine. You don't have to support it.
As do you. As does everyone who is capable of making ethical judgements. Unlike you, I don't consider it ethical the threaten people with violence unless they turn over their property. We do, however, get to debate the merits of laws.
This is silly. Your whole method of argument seems to be how much you can mis-characterize my statements. Maybe others are impressed. I'm not.
Taxation involves threatening people with violence unless they turn over their property. You support taxation. Do you consider it ethical?
For me it comes down to what is economically 'natural' and what is economically 'forced'. For example, taxes are 'forced' by government. If a guy wants to hire a person for $8/hour, and the worker agrees to the $8/hour, but the government mandates that it must be $10/hour, this is 'forced'. There are generally negative repercussions when something is forced versus a natural process. Case in point; everyone hates taxes! And in taxation, there exists a political and real line in the sand how much tax revenue can be collected. The same applies to forced increases of business expenses, like the cost of labor, in which there is a limit when alternatives are sought to remedy escalating expenses. Being a land owner, and I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the government won't allow a guy take 10 pounds of fresh produce from me in return for 4 hours of their labor? This seems stupid to me when both the worker and me agree...
Just want to chime in that if people have a choice, then collecting taxes is not violent or unethical. People may not admit it but those living in the USA can leave anytime they wish. If they don't like taxes, or a business does not like forced wage scales, or both don't like environmental policies, they can leave. If they stay, then IMO this is an agreement to abide by the laws and pay applicable taxes, etc. We see this all the time at City and County and State levels in which people and business are coming and going seeking the best scenario for them. The same now holds true at the international level for people and business...they can relocate to other areas which make more sense for them...
I do know that there is a better chance that an employed person will buy the $60 shoes than an unemployed person buying the $30 shoes.
I think sometimes there's a conception that wealth redistribution is supposed to be a means to an end. Doesn't wealth redistribution presume that people want the wealth, so wouldn't that presume that you have to keep on redistributing forever?
The problem is that the worker's wage is not based on what he contributes to producing the good, but on market condition. If there is an oversupply of labor, labor prices fall, and the lower cost is reaped by the owners as higher profits. And the market doesn't care that workers don't get paid even a poverty level of income or that the middle class is sharing in the economic gains it helps produce.
I don't consider it ethical, or sane to take the position, like you have, that all taxation is theft. The US has a voluntary tax system. If you don't want to pay taxes or abide by the laws of the US you are free to leave. If you choose to stay then you have agreed to abide by the law and pay your taxes. That is the deal with living in the US and most other nations for that matter. Your perception of taxation and government in general as inherently coercive with threats of violence is confused. Consider your precious property, you land. Where did your right to that land come from? Unless you live in one of the original 13 colonies your right to own land originates in the federal government, which owned all that land and conditionally transferred it to private ownership. The colonies had their own conditions. There has never been an unconditional right to private property ownership in the US, never. So, tell me, where does your notion of unconditional private property ownership free from government come from?
I do happen to live in one of the original 13 colonies. But how did the federal government come to own the land you claim it owns? By unethical means, I would assume.
Depends on which lands in particular. A lot of it was bought or gifted from someone else. But I agree that much of it was obtained through unethical means. But of course that then means that the folks who obtained control of the land from the government, their share of ownership isn't exactly ethical either, and its not as if we can just 'hit the reset button' and give everything back over to the Native Americans......can we? -Meta
No, I don't think we can hit the "reset button". I think that the current ownership is representative and sufficient.
Sorry.... Meant to say, I told you that people weren't going to take you as seriously if you tried to claim the government didn't have a right to collect its own currency back in taxes. -Meta
Amen brother. And we have example here in our own history of what works the best for the non elites, and also the current example of what does not work at all for the non elites. Capitalism left of its own devices will only create a sliver of a middle class. It therefore has to be regulated in order to make it work for the majority instead of just for the minority. That is why the Nordic nations have been successful, and the reason we saw our middle class explode into the largest in world history. We know how well the FDR model works. That it was dismantled by GOP neoliberalism over the last 35 years has been devastating for the non elite americans. How and why this is only an issue being talked about by one man, sanders, shows the power of the oligarchs,, to keep this subject off the table. Until sanders spoke up, questioning neoliberalism was totally off the table. If you did, the word "socialism" was pulled out to get conditioned knee jerk reactions from the propaganda dead brains out in the discourse. And of course the examples used were the failed states that were not combining market capitalism with some socialistic principles like the Nordic states. When you do not get honesty in this debate, an objective brain would totally discount the people who use failed states as an argument against a mixed model.
If I'm in a pool of similar labor and there is much more supply than demand my wages are going to be depressed...this would be my job and wage reality. I have two choices; either accept my current position or strive for more. Any kid with a single brain wave has had a good idea how much different jobs pay so if they pay attention they can prepare themselves for the jobs and income they desire. You're going to say this is too harsh, that there are external reasons, bad luck, etc. The millions of American workers who did not prepare themselves, or today refuse to increase their workplace value, are simply relegated to a life of low wages, job insecurity, unemployment, and economic struggles. At this point I ask why should we reward these people with compensation/income that they have not earned by forcing things like minimum wages or living wages, etc.? If you do this, what does it say about the novel concept that all of us start at the bottom and we work ourselves up to the levels of our potential...we do this by obtaining education, trades, higher skills, performance, etc. We can guess a huge percentage of those today earning $17/hour started working for $7/hour and for whatever myriad reasons, over time, earned higher and higher wages. You simply want to bypass this step and increase $7.25/hour to $17/hour without any personal investment, time, or higher productivity. Americans demand higher profits because profits drive the economy and investments...then you complain about profits as if they are evil?
Your every post is the same theme, typical of 1% apologists trying to protect their privileges. Your every post blames the 90% of Americans. They are lazy, they are uneducated, they don't push themselves, they spend too much money. And on and on. It's obvious why you blame the lazy middle class. Because you don't want to acknowledge the fact of the privileges and benefits the rich have gotten from "trickle down" economic policy, and you want to protect those policies that have redistributed so much of America's income and wealth from the "lazy" middle class to the rich. You *never* acknowledge that higher taxes on workers while slashing taxes on the richest may have something to do with it. You never acknowledge that a MW that has not kept up with inflation or FLSA policies that have languished on overtime or that dwindling union power have anything to do with it. Nope. It's the lazy workers. It's their fault. But 90% of Americans didn't start becoming lazy in 1981, the year Reagan was elected, and the year his "trickle down" revolution started. So you can call 90% of Americans lazy and stupid and whatever you want to make yourself feel better. I'll call you out every time.
actually, americans work harder, take less vacation , and retire later than anyone else in the world. we are the hardest working people in the world. and yet, the average american is now poorer than the average canadian, who works far less. WTF? we work harder and get paid less. yea--blame the workers for that one.
Maybe this is why? http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...lt.jsp?country1=Canada&country2=United+States And...why do you suppose so many people want to live in the USA while almost no US citizens want to relocate outside of the USA? Here's the sad truth...no matter where one lives in this world, including the pathetic and failed USA, our lives are what they are and only the individual can force change. In the USA, unlike many other nations, every single person has opportunities before them from school age to death. It is incumbent upon each person to explore these opportunities and acquire what they need to achieve the life they desire. If the US is so horrible, then moving is a good option. If low income is a problem, then obtaining more education and skills, etc. are good options.
