Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Switzerland’s Struggle Against Fiscal Imperialism

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Those who believe in logic & reason actually apply them, not just blindly follow what someone said, it's called appeal to authority, & it is something that free-thinking people avoid engaging in. Sure, there's nothing wrong with presenting a thought that someone else has/had put forth but it should never be accepted unquestionably.

    Even mafia often claim territories & make people pay for living within "their territory", it doesn't make it "voluntary". People pay the mafia because they are being threatened, & the same holds true for government's extortion-racket!
    My point here on this internet message board isn't to prove to you, from first principles, that our founding father's were right or wrong. It is to attack a line of thought that I see all over this board that says "all people can do whatever they please so long as no harm is done to anyone else, while not seeing the own hypocritical view that they take advantage of all the benefits society provides through the mechanism of government.

    Everyone all over this place just loathes the very idea of government, when all it really is, is our collective "company" that is accountable to the people.
    Reflect the Light!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    That is not how our government operates, and you know it.
    It isn't? Please tell me how it is different.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I see the core of your question. You are asking a question which can only be answered by an appeal to authority, so here it is: WE collectively decide what is right and wrong via the democratic process. I understand that it is not perfect, but it is the best we have, and I frankly don't see an alternative. You don't like that the people around you have chosen a system that decides to tax everyone with the threat of violence in the background. Move or change it.
    When you're a slave in a coutry where most people believe slavery is alright, you can't just change it or move! When you are a woman in a world where the majority of the people don't believe that women are equals with men, you can't just change it or move! If you're a poor Chinese peasant with no human rights, you can't just change it or move!
    I'm not asking for the world, or freebies from the money stolen from other people as socialists do, I'm simply proposing TRUE equality of rights. It isn't a lot to ask for I believe. So far as change is concerned, it can only occur with one person at a time, & for the moment, you could be a part of that change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I don't think that the government should have more rights than people, or that companies should be identified as people either.
    But they do, & you seem to support that situation. I can't go out there & threaten people for money, just because I want to build a public school or whatever "public services" or charity I wish to provide (& keep a big chunk of the loot for myself as people within government do ) but people within the government can do this? It's not equality.

    Of course, companies shouldn't be identified as people but then the government is a sort of a company as well except it claims a territorial monopoly on robbery, violence & coercion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    This is a serious question for you though: to what authority do you appeal for property ownership? Said another way, who is it you "own" property from? Is it just finders-keepers from now until the end of time?
    Previous finder/owner I guess but doesn't it work that way for other things? To what authority do you appeal for ownership of the clothes on your body, your pen, your TV & whatever? Why should property be any different? And, I don't know if you have noticed but people DIE after a while so there's no question of owning something until the end of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I don't agree. The government robs, IMO, when they seize property unjustly or exercise eminent domain on behalf of a corporate entity. The same is true if they seize any other asset class.
    Well, that's just weird logic. If they threaten for money (& they DO seize if you don't comply) then that's ok but it's not ok to seize property........by the way, cash is also an asset, not to mention, if you don't hand over cash, they'll seize whatever assets you have anyway.

    The thing is, sometimes, in order to think freely, we have to step outside our comfort-zone, abandon (at least temporarily) the constructs that we've been taught/learned over the years, & see where our reason & logic takes us. I don't mean to patronize you but I was there, "how will government work if people don't pay taxes", "what about law & order", etc etc & I'm not saying that one shouldn't be concerned about those questions but when you take things to their logical conclusions & just accept the truths they present you with, no matter how unnerving they may be, we can't keep on ignoring them......That's why I've said, I don't expect people to stop paying taxes or revolt or claim to know exactly how society will organize itself without taxation &/or government but I just expect them to accept, if they are being true to themselves & their commitment to fairness & equality, that laws should apply equally to everyone, no exceptions. There was a time, when many people believed slavery was ok, that women shouldn't be considered as equals, etc etc but things changed for the better, slowly but surely, as more & more people accepted the conclusions that they were led to because they were right; so may be some day, enough people will accept that equality, without exceptions, is a desirable outcome.......
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    My point here on this internet message board isn't to prove to you, from first principles, that our founding father's were right or wrong. It is to attack a line of thought that I see all over this board that says "all people can do whatever they please so long as no harm is done to anyone else, while not seeing the own hypocritical view that they take advantage of all the benefits society provides through the mechanism of government.

    Everyone all over this place just loathes the very idea of government, when all it really is, is our collective "company" that is accountable to the people.
    Except, you can't really sell the shares of this "company" & get anything in return. This "company" only sucks its shareholders dry until death, not to mention, it treats its shareholders unequally. In reality, if the government said, "ok, you don't need to pay taxes or follow our rules but you can only use our services on a pay per use basis" then many people will gladly accept it, & I'm not just talking about people on this board but a massive chunk of the taxpayers, irrespective of their political affiliation, because taxpayers are getting a raw deal. But, the government will never do this, because this "company" will fail very quickly if it does this, & that's why it has to forcibly extort money out of people through veiled coercion under the mask of legitimacy.

    And, you know what's hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is accepting that robbery/extortion is wrong & then justifying government-robbery/extortion...........
    Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 03-15-2015 at 01:20 PM.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Except, you can't really sell the shares of this "company" & get anything in return. This "company" only sucks its shareholders dry until death, not to mention, it treats its shareholders unequally. In reality, if the government said, "ok, you don't need to pay taxes or follow our rules but you can only use our services on a pay per use basis" then many people will gladly accept it, & I'm not just talking about people on this board but a massive chunk of the taxpayers, irrespective of their political affiliation, because taxpayers are getting a raw deal. But, the government will never do this, because this "company" will fail very quickly if it does this, & that's why it has to forcibly extort money out of people through veiled coercion under the mask of legitimacy.

    And, you know what's hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is accepting that robbery/extortion is wrong & then justifying government-robbery/extortion...........
    I agree with you here, and I think that is a better way...hold on a minute while I respond to your previous comment...

    I don't think it would necessarily "fail" per se, but it would have to change how it "does business."
    Reflect the Light!

  8. #36
    The reason why it's not theft, is because of voting. Voting makes it not theft, because we voted that voting makes it not theft.

    If we voted that 1+1=3, so it would become.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  9. #37
    On the second day, God said let there be voting!
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    When you're a slave in a coutry where most people believe slavery is alright, you can't just change it or move! When you are a woman in a world where the majority of the people don't believe that women are equals with men, you can't just change it or move! If you're a poor Chinese peasant with no human rights, you can't just change it or move!
    I'm not asking for the world, or freebies from the money stolen from other people as socialists do, I'm simply proposing TRUE equality of rights. It isn't a lot to ask for I believe. So far as change is concerned, it can only occur with one person at a time, & for the moment, you could be a part of that change.



    But they do, & you seem to support that situation. I can't go out there & threaten people for money, just because I want to build a public school or whatever "public services" or charity I wish to provide (& keep a big chunk of the loot for myself as people within government do ) but people within the government can do this? It's not equality.
    So I agree with you, but again, you're pushing the "human" rights discussion into a realm where it really doesn't belong to make a point that is not valid in this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Previous finder/owner I guess but doesn't it work that way for other things? To what authority do you appeal for ownership of the clothes on your body, your pen, your TV & whatever? Why should property be any different? And, I don't know if you have noticed but people DIE after a while so there's no question of owning something until the end of time.
    I traded something I made (represented by money) for something they made (represented by product I purchased). That voluntary transaction constitutes all that is required for ownership of property. That is the authority to which I appeal.

    Thank you, and yes, I did notice people die after a while, BUT, people are allowed to DEED things to their heirs (in case you hadn't noticed that fact). Certain property is inherently more valuable than other property, and to deny its "return" to humanity forever is not acceptable. Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to deed things to their kids, and I'm actually against the death/estate tax, but taxes on people (property taxes) is one mechanism we use to ensure that property isn't "taken out of rotation" forever. Which, I'm sorry, is a good thing - it allows for change and growth and economy to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Well, that's just weird logic. If they threaten for money (& they DO seize if you don't comply) then that's ok but it's not ok to seize property........by the way, cash is also an asset, not to mention, if you don't hand over cash, they'll seize whatever assets you have anyway.
    I'm pretty confused here, I'm not sure if you got my point. What I'm saying is that both eminent domain (land/property seizure) and taking assets (cash) from people is wrong...what was your point about the logic there? I think you may have misread me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    The thing is, sometimes, in order to think freely, we have to step outside our comfort-zone, abandon (at least temporarily) the constructs that we've been taught/learned over the years, & see where our reason & logic takes us. I don't mean to patronize you but I was there, "how will government work if people don't pay taxes", "what about law & order", etc etc & I'm not saying that one shouldn't be concerned about those questions but when you take things to their logical conclusions & just accept the truths they present you with, no matter how unnerving they may be, we can't keep on ignoring them......That's why I've said, I don't expect people to stop paying taxes or revolt or claim to know exactly how society will organize itself without taxation &/or government but I just expect them to accept, if they are being true to themselves & their commitment to fairness & equality, that laws should apply equally to everyone, no exceptions. There was a time, when many people believed slavery was ok, that women shouldn't be considered as equals, etc etc but things changed for the better, slowly but surely, as more & more people accepted the conclusions that they were led to because they were right; so may be some day, enough people will accept that equality, without exceptions, is a desirable outcome.......
    Patronizing tone (not that bad) forgiven. I write pretty clearly too...you have to on the internet. I'm with you (I think). I was super excited when Ron Paul first came into my awareness back in 2007 and I agreed with nearly 100% of the things he spoke and wrote about - and I generally still do. Where I have come to now, however, is a more realistic view of what the rest of humanity is capable of doing, or allowing society to look like. Unfortunately, a lot of what has come to mean "libertarian" is just unrealistic; not because it is impossible, but because nothing concrete backs it up. I'll use the "Fair Tax" book as an example (as well as the movement at large)...forgive me because I don't think very highly of it.

    A long time ago that book was really pushed on me as a solution to the IRS and taxation, etc. I resisted reading it at first, but finally caved. You know what? There is not a shred in that book that lays out one specific thing that will be done to ensure government/society/humanity/whatever will be able to operate in the same manner that it currently does. Which is not a requirement I have laid out, but which is the book's most pronounced claim. And to me, that is indicative of a larger trend within the "libertarian" movement (in all its current forms) whereby its members complain incessantly about perceived injustices and harms, while simultaneously not actually working towards specific alternative solutions. Put bluntly: we spew a lot of hot air. That is an unfortunate realization for me to come to, because in that manner, and only that manner, we're not all that different from the other two parties...
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 03-15-2015 at 02:27 PM.
    Reflect the Light!

  11. #39
    While internationalman is a biased source, fact is that the SVP as part of the governing coalition in Switzerland, will not cave in to the IRS.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    You can store your money wherever you like, but tax avoidance is a crime. Remember that our nation was founded upon "no taxation without representation." It wasn't founded upon "no taxation whatsoever." We weren't so naive to think that a nation could be run without a funding stream.
    I am not an anarchist. I am not apt to be a temporal anarchist for another 500 to 700 years. I am not advocating for the abolition of government. You appear to have me confused with someone else.

    If you think this congress represents anyboody but themselves and their donors, you are sadly mistaken, therefore 'no taxation without representation,' is if anything, more relevant today than it was in 1775.

    The only true part of your statement is that you'll meet the enforcers. I will say again though, extortion involves non-voluntary action in a relationship. Citizens who voluntarily stay in place (i.e. remain citizens), but who whine about having to pay the price of admission...well, I just don't have much sympathy for them.
    Likewise, per your way of thinking, mob enforcement is voluntary. It is voluntary to conduct business, it is voluntary to exist in their territory. If you do not want to pay mob enforcement money, it's pretty simple. Do not do business, do not live in mob territory, or kill yourself. In either case, paying mob enforcement is purely voluntary, so again, identical to the IRS.

    I disagree, but will highlight for the crowd that your argument justifying eminent domain because it is a constitutional power, while simultaneously resisting taxes (which - news flash - is also a constitutional power) should create a lot of cognitive dissonance in your mind.
    You are in error, which seems to be a habit of yours. I did not justify eminent domain, I explained it. Also, asset forfeiture (which is the practice we were comparing and contrasting, not taxation) is not in any Constitution in America or the 50 States. Moving the goalposts around to try and validate your argument - no matter how compelling your goal - is still moving the goalposts around, and is therefore still sophistic.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    So I agree with you, but again, you're pushing the "human" rights discussion into a realm where it really doesn't belong to make a point that is not valid in this discussion.
    You think it is not valid because you have limited your scope & definition of what constitutes a "human right".........a scope defined by somebody else, & the definition just as arbitrary as any other, that you choose to accept at face value, for no other reason than that's the scope & definition of have been exposed to, & you have accepted it without questioning.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I traded something I made (represented by money) for something they made (represented by product I purchased). That voluntary transaction constitutes all that is required for ownership of property. That is the authority to which I appeal.
    Well, that's how it should be with everything then. But that is not the case with taxes; firstly, because there's an implicit threat of violence, & secondly, because people within the government aren't themselves the owners of the land government supposedly owns. Government is a fictional being, just like any corporation, & hence, neither can it own anything, or demand any compensation from people residing on "its" property, unlike a real property-owning person can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Thank you, and yes, I did notice people die after a while, BUT, people are allowed to DEED things to their heirs (in case you hadn't noticed that fact). Certain property is inherently more valuable than other property, and to deny its "return" to humanity forever is not acceptable. Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to deed things to their kids, and I'm actually against the death/estate tax, but taxes on people (property taxes) is one mechanism we use to ensure that property isn't "taken out of rotation" forever. Which, I'm sorry, is a good thing - it allows for change and growth and economy to work.
    Considering what I've said above, taxes of any kind, can only be considered inherently unjust.
    And, property is no different than any other economic good out there, & forces of supply, demand & price ensure optimal use of given resources within an economy. So, there will always be incentives for people to sell/lend their property, the subject of which has been debated to death in a pretty long thread about Land Value Tax, where many respected members here have offerred enough arguments that such fears are unwarranted & such proposed property-taxes unnecessary. You can have a look if you wish

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I'm pretty confused here, I'm not sure if you got my point. What I'm saying is that both eminent domain (land/property seizure) and taking assets (cash) from people is wrong...what was your point about the logic there? I think you may have misread me.
    Yeah, I may have misread you. Sorry, my mistake. So, do you concede that extorting taxes out of people is wrong? If yes, then why would you expect someone to pay taxes? As I've said, I don't go around recommending people not to pay taxes because the mafia could come after them but I certainly don't have anything against those who choose not to pay. If anything, if more people decided not to pay, then the government will either have to change its ways & lower taxes or it will fall; people not paying taxes merely speeds up the inevitable, which isn't a bad thing at all, in my opinion. In fact, many countries (including U.S.) has precedence that higher taxes lower compliance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Patronizing tone (not that bad) forgiven. I write pretty clearly too...you have to on the internet. I'm with you (I think). I was super excited when Ron Paul first came into my awareness back in 2007 and I agreed with nearly 100% of the things he spoke and wrote about - and I generally still do. Where I have come to now, however, is a more realistic view of what the rest of humanity is capable of doing, or allowing society to look like. Unfortunately, a lot of what has come to mean "libertarian" is just unrealistic; not because it is impossible, but because nothing concrete backs it up. I'll use the "Fair Tax" book as an example (as well as the movement at large)...forgive me because I don't think very highly of it.

    A long time ago that book was really pushed on me as a solution to the IRS and taxation, etc. I resisted reading it at first, but finally caved. You know what? There is not a shred in that book that lays out one specific thing that will be done to ensure government/society/humanity/whatever will be able to operate in the same manner that it currently does. Which is not a requirement I have laid out, but which is the book's most pronounced claim. And to me, that is indicative of a larger trend within the "libertarian" movement (in all its current forms) whereby its members complain incessantly about perceived injustices and harms, while simultaneously not actually working towards specific alternative solutions. Put bluntly: we spew a lot of hot air. That is an unfortunate realization for me to come to, because in that manner, and only that manner, we're not all that different from the other two parties...
    While I'll be the first one to concede that many of the things expressed here are unrealistic to a great extent (at least for now), I think for a lot of us it comes down to one word - CONSISTENCY. It's important for us to be consistent & principled in our arguments, & it would be difficult for any one of us (who have these "unrealistic" positions) to make you understand, if you don't look at things the way we do & are more inclined towards practical progress rather than principles. For example, it'd just reek of hypocrisy for us to say that x type of tax is unfair while y type of tax isn't, because to us, they all carry the same implicit threat. But forget about the "unrealistic" ones amongst us, where do you think people like yourself, who emphasise on practical progress, to any degree, let's say Constitutionalists, what & how much do you think can be changed about how things are? Probably, not much. Any kind of big change is unlikely to come until something big happens, & when that time comes, when society becomes receptive to change, as my signature claims, politically impossible can become politically inevitable.

    More than anything else, in the long run, I think the real changes will be brought on by the market forces, as they usually are. And, one of the things that I think could happen is (& this is even thought I don't think "change it or move" is a fair argument ) that as people's mobility between countries increases & as people "vote with their feet", (capital has already become very mobile), governments may more & more be reduced to being mere "corporate bodies" that we've talked about, less & less in a position to control people, basically, "companies" that facilitate residency services to people. While this may seem far-fetched, this already seems to be happening, as many countries are moaning about their rich people leaving for tax havens & such, & as tax havens becomes more "profitable business model", other governments will also have to change their "business strategy" & lower taxes & minimize their impingement on the lives of their residents & treat their residents better in general in order to attract "customers". Again, even if it seems like a stretch at this point, considering how much most governments meddle in their citizens' lives, it can happen because there's a big market, amongst taxpayers in so many countries, who aren't getting the bang for their buck, so there's definitely a high demand for low-tax destinations with less restrictive living conditions.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  15. #42
    First of all, thank you for the well thought out and reasoned response - not too common sometimes .

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    You think it is not valid because you have limited your scope & definition of what constitutes a "human right".........a scope defined by somebody else, & the definition just as arbitrary as any other, that you choose to accept at face value, for no other reason than that's the scope & definition of have been exposed to, & you have accepted it without questioning.......
    On this point, I think we will just have to disagree. I choose to make a distinction between what I consider 'natural' rights (those I previously referred to as 'human' rights), and those 'legal' rights granted to individuals based on certain personal characteristics - such as citizenship in a country, etc. I assure you that I have examined these thoughts and they aren't accepted blindly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Well, that's how it should be with everything then. But that is not the case with taxes; firstly, because there's an implicit threat of violence, & secondly, because people within the government aren't themselves the owners of the land government supposedly owns. Government is a fictional being, just like any corporation, & hence, neither can it own anything, or demand any compensation from people residing on "its" property, unlike a real property-owning person can.
    And what is the threat, pray tell, on the side of the 'owners' of property? Do you think no violence will be done to those who 'trespass?' Claim a right, and there is an attendant threat (implicit) of violence - can't have one without the other. Just try it. Just because there is a threat does not make it wrong - there are implicit threats embedded in every law ever written in the books. It's what gives law the force of law. And to say that just because the "people in the government don't actually own the land" gives them no right to enforce laws, is akin to saying just because a police officer isn't being directly threatened doesn't oblige him to stop violence he is witnessing. Government exists to serve this exact purpose. Why do you think it exists? It's not like the people in the government are taking it for themselves, sheesh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Considering what I've said above, taxes of any kind, can only be considered inherently unjust.
    And, property is no different than any other economic good out there, & forces of supply, demand & price ensure optimal use of given resources within an economy. So, there will always be incentives for people to sell/lend their property, the subject of which has been debated to death in a pretty long thread about Land Value Tax, where many respected members here have offerred enough arguments that such fears are unwarranted & such proposed property-taxes unnecessary. You can have a look if you wish
    This disagreement stems from our dispute about the difference between 'natural' rights and 'legal' rights. I don't think property taxes are unjust. Who, exactly, is it that you think you own property from? The Indians? No? Oh, I guess you were the first person who ever found this spot of land you call 'home' first, and therefore you have claim to it for eternity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Yeah, I may have misread you. Sorry, my mistake. So, do you concede that extorting taxes out of people is wrong? If yes, then why would you expect someone to pay taxes? As I've said, I don't go around recommending people not to pay taxes because the mafia could come after them but I certainly don't have anything against those who choose not to pay. If anything, if more people decided not to pay, then the government will either have to change its ways & lower taxes or it will fall; people not paying taxes merely speeds up the inevitable, which isn't a bad thing at all, in my opinion. In fact, many countries (including U.S.) has precedence that higher taxes lower compliance.
    When you use a loaded term like "extortion" how do you expect me to disagree with you? I'll strip the loaded term. No, taxation is not wrong. It's part of the social contract that society at large has determined to be in the best interest of itself. If you don't like it, you can work to change it or find a different society that has rules that are more amenable to your desired way of life.

    On your point about gov't having to change, I don't think so. The IRS exists and exerts an 'economic' cost on those who choose to do business that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    While I'll be the first one to concede that many of the things expressed here are unrealistic to a great extent (at least for now), I think for a lot of us it comes down to one word - CONSISTENCY. It's important for us to be consistent & principled in our arguments, & it would be difficult for any one of us (who have these "unrealistic" positions) to make you understand, if you don't look at things the way we do & are more inclined towards practical progress rather than principles. For example, it'd just reek of hypocrisy for us to say that x type of tax is unfair while y type of tax isn't, because to us, they all carry the same implicit threat. But forget about the "unrealistic" ones amongst us, where do you think people like yourself, who emphasise on practical progress, to any degree, let's say Constitutionalists, what & how much do you think can be changed about how things are? Probably, not much. Any kind of big change is unlikely to come until something big happens, & when that time comes, when society becomes receptive to change, as my signature claims, politically impossible can become politically inevitable.
    I want to make the point that while I did discuss practicality, my points were principled - and if they didn't read that way previously, it was because it wasn't the focus of my post. Here I've attempted to highlight the differences, in principle, that we have. I don't consider having to pay taxes to the government that runs the stop lights, the military, the border, the FAA, or the FCC, wrong. Yes, of course the execution leaves much to be desired, but that is not a violation of my 'natural' rights. Paying for those services I receive is fine; taxation without representation is unjust.
    Reflect the Light!

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    First of all, thank you for the well thought out and reasoned response - not too common sometimes .
    Thanks. You have also managed to argue without getting unnecessarily aggressive, which is also a bit of an achievement on Internet forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Here I've attempted to highlight the differences, in principle, that we have. I don't consider having to pay taxes to the government that runs the stop lights, the military, the border, the FAA, or the FCC, wrong. Yes, of course the execution leaves much to be desired, but that is not a violation of my 'natural' rights. Paying for those services I receive is fine; taxation without representation is unjust.
    I could have addressed some of the other questions you have raised but I think it would be redundant because you have rightly spotted the crux of our disagreement - which, (according to me) is that I think equal rights for all should be the basis of any "fair" system; while you don't agree with that, your argument seems to be that it's ok to crush the concept of equal rights under the weight of opinion of most voters. You might be ok with it but I am not.

    As I've said before, if a system where everyone has equal rights is the most desirable & fair then why should people in government have more rights than rest of the people? Why should they have the right to extract money out of people with threat of violence while that same right isn't extended to everyone else? Just because most of the voters agree with that?

    In effect, your argument seems to be - if you live in a society where most people (most voters) don't think equal rights for all is a desirable system then those who do believe in equal rights should either put up with it or leave; & based on what you've said, you're firmly in the camp that doesn't believe everyone should have equal rights.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Fiscal cliff! fiscal Cliff! the sky is falling! vs the Paul Plan????
    By A_Silent_Majority_Member in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 12:46 PM
  2. Switzerland pays price for fiscal sanity
    By Zippyjuan in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 08:12 AM
  3. Corporate imperialism
    By forsmant in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 01:03 PM
  4. Facing Fiscal Meltdown, Municipalities Struggle With Pensions
    By FrankRep in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-14-2010, 03:08 PM
  5. Imperialism?
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 09:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •