Roots of American Taxation

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Roots of American Taxation

 http://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700

 

 

Vastet has made the assertion that taxation is necessary for civilization to survive and thrive. Yet history has proven this belief is completely false.

All of the cities and counties of the US and Canada settlements started out with a very small group. They provided their own defense, transportation, social services, education, security, etc. They would ask for volunteer and provide charity for those in need. If you refused to contribute, they did not make a slave out of you, you just no longer recieive any community benefits. These settlers were farmers, ranchers, fishermen, etc... No tax collectors. As the settlements progressed, you had more specialized workers such as homebuilders, carpenters, merchants. They were volunteer firefighters, police and teachers. People made their own music and art. There was never a good reason to give up this system.

But then once the communities became prosperous, in came the opprotunists. Whores, pastors, snake oil sales men and of course lawyers, government beauracrats and tax collectors. You may say the problems of growth led to the need for taxes, but this contradicts Vastet's other assertion that too many people is absolutely never a problem. It would seem his belief is a man's purpose in life is to become a slave of the state to fund endless immigration and other people having large families. Slave/Citizens should also fund people that don't want to work or work in a field that doesn't pay. The state's only goal is perpetual growth fueled by perpetual slavery of workers and business owners.

 

Obviously these no tax societies thrived because the populations rapidly increased. Who who move to a hellhole? If taxation is so necessary, they first settlers would have been tax collectors. Instead history shows the opposite. Once a society became prosperous people fell for the promise of just a little taxations to solve problems of population growth. Then little by little the taxation became modern slavery. Taxation actually caused the breakdown of communities and families because people look to the government instead of each other. I detest this cultural change.

So we know for a fact that a volutary cooperation society can work. Unfortunetly too many people fall for the scam of trading freedom for the promise of security.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Understood-

Consider, no civilization of the past has survived. They're gone, kapoot,zip zero. But consider also that what you propose really isn't civilization. The problem is, when the folks as you say created their communities/societies that they lived within changed for the worst "because" civilization set in. History has it, whenever a few rule the many it will collapse. The collapses are caused by the fact that a few cannot properly decide for the many and cannot possibly be perfect. The flaws of the few infest the many and all become of the same flaws which eventually ends the social structure. The very first flaw incorporated into any civilization is the few that run it or plan it. Bear in mind that if the few are flawed everyone has to live by "their" minds eye, which eventually becomes like a mental desease that everyone aquires. It's what the Old Seer Psycho guiys refer to as a progresseive insanity syndrome, meaning the longer the flaw rules the worse it gets. The Greek experienced the effects of these flaws and--in 125 years their civilization was a gonner. The more insane they became the more they thought they were normal, and their new normal was merely just another insane idea.

Even today polititians cannot admit fault or flaws becasue the few that rule "MUST" do so under the guise of perfection, but they will admit they're not perfect ---but yet---are exempt from the consequenses of their decisions. They create a paradox of perfection VS flaw that becomes the lie that starts the insanity. Lies become truths to maintain their hold on ruling---becasue they are gratified by the popularism in being the rulers. They cannot admit fault or the ruled will see their flaw. To rule over others needs the rulers to be perfect, anything less will eventually collapse the entire system, and being that no one can rule perfectly sets in motion the collapse the very instace they think of ruling others. A civilization cannot possibly be founded on truth, becasue the founders have to be flawed by nature itself. Lieing to the population is necessary to make up the shortfall of their imperfection. After a while the lie itself begins to rule and in turn the rulers become enslaved to the lies. Then, the rulers end up ruling via the flaws which are masked in the proposition of it being necessary for them or someone to control others.

What you see happening in the world today is this very described process--the lies have caught up with the liers and very few see it. The entire world is not working as planned---and --- the progressive insanity system is well established. The system as is cannot be fixed--as evey attempt to fix it will add to the insanity. Civilizations cannot be established on any different ideas and plans that have not alredy been planned or done in the past. Logic has it then, that no other civilization will work either, as any civilization can only befounded on what previously did not work, because there's nothing different to do to create a civilization then what's already been done.

Your idea of small communities is what will work---if the people within them heed the lessons of what it takes to be a liar. If anyone in your small community/society starts ruleing---kick his ass out. You must live by agreement amoung your neighbors without the permission of some loud mouth predator thats init for themself, and the lazy bastids sits in the shade and gathers from no labor of their own. By now we should all know how the process works,,, so,,,, kick the blowhard bastid out. The guy with all the good ideas is the one to kick out---and HARD. The small 100 family economy is the wave of the future. Very simple---mind you own god damn business and leave your neighbor alone. If you need help don't by-pass humility on the way to your neighbors to ask for it.

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet has made

EXC wrote:
Vastet has made the assertion that taxation is necessary for civilization to survive and thrive.

Strawman. Civilisation in general doesn't need taxation. Ants have civilisation without taxes.

Having a technologically advanced society like ours, however, does require taxation.

EXC wrote:
There was never a good reason to give up this system.

False. The building of roads and infrastructre as well as defence of the nation required taxation from all participants of the world wars. The result of keeping that taxation in place is a global community with the ability to talk to pretty much anyone and connect to the vast library and storehouse that is the internet from pretty much anywhere. Society wouldn't have gotten here without taxes. We'd still be in the 1800's you so strongly call for. I prefer this century thanks.

EXC wrote:
You may say the problems of growth led to the need for taxes, but this contradicts Vastet's other assertion that too many people is absolutely never a problem

Ridiculous. One has nothing to do with the other.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I agree with Vas.Show me a

I agree with Vas.

Show me a country with out taxes and I'll show you a country where they have tourism or massive natural resources such as oil or natural gas.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree with Vas.

Show me a country with out taxes and I'll show you a country where they have tourism or massive natural resources such as oil or natural gas.

 

it is correct to assume any society will have taxes. However, in EXECs case the taxes wouldn't be impossed by any central authority. The taxes (technically equates to burden) are a matter of charity. In his small (it would have to be of limited number/size  ) economy or society it would be known by all it's members as to what is needed to be done  collectively. Items and labor would be donated for use or construction of projects which wouldn't be many. In his community there is a different mindset in existance and no one needs direct control of anyone else. The society is regulated by an understanding of "what not to do" and "how not to be". Civilized societies become to large for central control to be effective and over time the control is lost for lack of being able the regulate to many loose ends , meaning people at the margin become to many to control, as can be seen in large cities today. Eventually so many poor are created that they cannot be controlled effectivly. A small society can maintain standards of behaviour without central control as everyone knows everyone, and anyone's "person" condition is in constant exposition. EXECs society could not be based on seeking social greatness or status of one or all, but rather a case of peaceful existance. The main flaw in any society is trusting one or a few in positions of authority which cannot possibly work as history has proven. A small social group needs no central authority other then"if they believe they do" by an entity that wants superiority. But ant ssmall society would know they need no such person

There's no such thing as "royal blood". There is nothing in the Kings blood that is any different then that of the common masses. Royalty is based on mere belief of the masses rather then facts. No king does any better job of rulling then any body politic---all rulering requires the same proceeses no matter what label it is given. The very same laws that a king has to make are the very same as any small group that rules have to make. This equates to "no difference" in the works. If kingdoms fail so will any other form of devised government. Kingdoms start by deception--to install belief in the people that you are someone special, when what you're doing is nothing more then any other prick would do.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC

EXC wrote:

 http://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700

 

 

Vastet has made the assertion that taxation is necessary for civilization to survive and thrive. Yet history has proven this belief is completely false.

All of the cities and counties of the US and Canada settlements started out with a very small group. They provided their own defense, transportation, social services, education, security, etc. They would ask for volunteer and provide charity for those in need. If you refused to contribute, they did not make a slave out of you, you just no longer recieive any community benefits. These settlers were farmers, ranchers, fishermen, etc... No tax collectors. As the settlements progressed, you had more specialized workers such as homebuilders, carpenters, merchants. They were volunteer firefighters, police and teachers. People made their own music and art. There was never a good reason to give up this system.

But then once the communities became prosperous, in came the opprotunists. Whores, pastors, snake oil sales men and of course lawyers, government beauracrats and tax collectors. You may say the problems of growth led to the need for taxes, but this contradicts Vastet's other assertion that too many people is absolutely never a problem. It would seem his belief is a man's purpose in life is to become a slave of the state to fund endless immigration and other people having large families. Slave/Citizens should also fund people that don't want to work or work in a field that doesn't pay. The state's only goal is perpetual growth fueled by perpetual slavery of workers and business owners.

 

Obviously these no tax societies thrived because the populations rapidly increased. Who who move to a hellhole? If taxation is so necessary, they first settlers would have been tax collectors. Instead history shows the opposite. Once a society became prosperous people fell for the promise of just a little taxations to solve problems of population growth. Then little by little the taxation became modern slavery. Taxation actually caused the breakdown of communities and families because people look to the government instead of each other. I detest this cultural change.

So we know for a fact that a volutary cooperation society can work. Unfortunetly too many people fall for the scam of trading freedom for the promise of security.

 

 

"Voluntery cooperation" code for, "just do it my way" 

 

No dumbass, there is only one species. There are two core attributes our success as as aspecies survives from, and you do understand that there was a time IN OUR SPECIES history that there was NO printed money or coin. We can choose cooperation, but we also use force. What you are advocating is "only when I get what I want". 

 

Humans have always grouped, and more often that not we protect that which we are familiar with, mostly local and mostly what our parents raise us with. 

Freedom means the ability to compete with ideas and in the west that means you don't get everything you want all the time.

If you don't like your opposition voting, TOUGH SHIT. You simply are arguing the same way I see theists argue, you are ok with everyone up and until they challenge your social norms. 

The taxation of the middle class and poor is a problem, the cost of living for the middle class and poor is a problem. NOT TAXING BILLIONAIRES is what is causing that DUBMBFUCK. 

We have had the age of "don't tax the rich" and deregulation since Reagan, and all that has got us is an exploding pay gap and worker pay that is NOT keeping up with the cost of living.

And you wont even listen to a BILLIONAIRE like Nick Hanaure who says workers do not make enough. 

You sound like an apologist arguing fine tuning and second law of thermodynamics and all this elaborite bullshit is just you arging "I don't like it when people call my bullshit bullshit".

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:However, in

Old Seer wrote:
However, in EXECs case the taxes wouldn't be impossed by any central authority.

And there's the problem. You need a centre of authority or else you're vulnerable to influences and military aggression. Anarchy always sounds nice in theory, but in practice it can never work. There will always be enough people willing to follow a power structure to outnumber, out produce, and out strategise a group of individuals who are focused too much on themselves.

It's true that having a centre of authority creates its own problems. But nations with centres of authority have survived millennia. No anarchist state has survived a century. Both have problems, but one is stable and the other isn't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
However, in EXECs case the taxes wouldn't be impossed by any central authority.
And there's the problem. You need a centre of authority or else you're vulnerable to influences and military aggression. Anarchy always sounds nice in theory, but in practice it can never work. There will always be enough people willing to follow a power structure to outnumber, out produce, and out strategise a group of individuals who are focused too much on themselves. It's true that having a centre of authority creates its own problems. But nations with centres of authority have survived millennia. No anarchist state has survived a century. Both have problems, but one is stable and the other isn't.
From what I understand/see, no civilization has suvived itself or the forces that eventually destry . No civilization has ended by the will or cations of the general public. It's always been the ones running it that have run it into the ground. The ones running civilization are no different then the ones that started it.

Hitler wanted a 1000 year civilization. That means he expected it to end at a time in the future. What would cause him to think it would last only 1000 years. Beats me, but that idea of his wouldn't get past WW2. When looking at the present situation it's just a matter of time when civilization world wide collapses in on itself. The very same processes inplay today to destry civilizations are the same as in the past. It's not working, and being the global idea is in acted the who;le shebsang goes down the shitter together. Someone better have a plan before the new Hitlers arrive. There's a Supreme Court Judge thinking that is likely to happen.

There's an understanding in the world, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result Civilizations depend upon that craziness. It cannot ever work. People have to relate to each other on a set of different principles. Those principles don't require civilization or numbskulls to run people's lives. If a person won't allow the neighbor to run their lives over the backyard fence, then why let any other run their lives from a tall building down town. Neither can do a proper job of running the affairs of others and molding them into an image of those who run the state. The people are always required to take on the flaws of the leaders ---and---the flaws of the leaders are the same as the last ones---and---down the shitter it goes again. The shitter is created by the leaders, not the followers. What particular plan can you propose that is different from any that has already been done.

The Seers proposition is to break off into small economies operated by those in it, and gets linked to another just like it. Each specializes in thier trade. But the predators cannot be allowed in, and no one is established with centralized authority over the others. A threshing crew works this very way--and the grain gets put into the bin---if all have proper carings for others. No centralized authority has the patent on intellect. The worlds civilization are on the wain, and not repairable. Every tning from the past has been tried and as the past ---have failed. This is why the people are upset with things---it only worked for the rich and elites---as usual. and they are the ones that broke it. Consider 2008 and what happened at that time.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old Seer

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
However, in EXECs case the taxes wouldn't be impossed by any central authority.
And there's the problem. You need a centre of authority or else you're vulnerable to influences and military aggression. Anarchy always sounds nice in theory, but in practice it can never work. There will always be enough people willing to follow a power structure to outnumber, out produce, and out strategise a group of individuals who are focused too much on themselves. It's true that having a centre of authority creates its own problems. But nations with centres of authority have survived millennia. No anarchist state has survived a century. Both have problems, but one is stable and the other isn't.

 

I agree, and it frustrates me that when you point this out, that the Ayn Rand Somolia advocates think you are arguing for a one party oppressive state like Stalin's Russia or North Korea, and we are not advocating that.

Humans will always form groups so you can have no rules wich basically ends up with only rich warlords but it can also lead to sick fucks like Gaddaffi or the Un Family.

In the west you still have government but with, when society particisipates checks and balances on power. So it amounts to anti monopoly, not anti private sector.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's always

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
However, in EXECs case the taxes wouldn't be impossed by any central authority.
And there's the problem. You need a centre of authority or else you're vulnerable to influences and military aggression. Anarchy always sounds nice in theory, but in practice it can never work. There will always be enough people willing to follow a power structure to outnumber, out produce, and out strategise a group of individuals who are focused too much on themselves. It's true that having a centre of authority creates its own problems. But nations with centres of authority have survived millennia. No anarchist state has survived a century. Both have problems, but one is stable and the other isn't.

 

I agree, and it frustrates me that when you point this out, that the Ayn Rand Somolia advocates think you are arguing for a one party oppressive state like Stalin's Russia or North Korea, and we are not advocating that.

Humans will always form groups so you can have no rules wich basically ends up with only rich warlords but it can also lead to sick fucks like Gaddaffi or the Un Family.

In the west you still have government but with, when society particisipates checks and balances on power. So it amounts to anti monopoly, not anti private sector.

 

the central authorties that are doing the aggression. As long as there are central government they will alway attack someone for their goodies. How can you say what you're saying when it's the very people and processes that cause the problems. People don't start or cause wars and strifes---the elites do. You're saying that we need the people who cause the aggression to guard from agression. You're also saying--the people need the ones causing the problem to eliminate the problem. That's the very reason civilization can't work.

In addition- It is an historical fact the no people on their own have attacked any other, not that I know of. If that's the case, then, if no place on the planet had central leaders no one would attack anyone. Would that not be correct. Because there's no one to organiz the public for a war. That logically means that to eliminate wars and strifes between region---get rid of the leaders and don't become a follower of any would would try. IOW, tell'em to kiss your ass, and if he/she/them/they, it dosen't---kick their ass. That would pre-empt any future war. The people of the US ( IE) don't hate the Russian people, and the Ruissian people don't hate the people of the US--The US goernemnt dosen't like Putin, and Putin dosen't like the US government---and it'll your ass on the front line not the President's of the US or Putins. So, the enemies of the US aren't the Russian people and vice versa, right. So, what needs to be done here to eliminate the problem.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Civilisation in

Vastet wrote:
Civilisation in general doesn't need taxation. Ants have civilisation without taxes.

Civlilization requires cooperation. This means they agree to provide products and services to one another and the group with something of similar value in return. Taxation has become the right of elite rulers one select classes of persons to take from the rest with no guarentee of anything in return. If taxation meant user fees, it would feel differently, but only a fool would think we have anything like that now.

 

Vastet wrote:
Having a technologically advanced society like ours, however, does require taxation.

But let me guess, no matter how technologically advanced a society becomes, the government can't just charge people based upon their usage of service. So we must tax the working man even though very little of his activity adding to the need for such services. So we must accept a system that lets freeloaders, welfare queens and corrupt politicians be our masters. Fuck technolgy if it just makes us into slaves

Vastet wrote:
The building of roads and infrastructre as well as defence of the nation required taxation from all participants of the world wars.

With nation defense, everyone inside the national borders benefits from not being invaded. So tthis could be justified as a user fee. Landowners should be charged more because they have more to defend. But now the welfare state has evolved into citizens funding the invation of illegal immigrations and cheap labor for corporations.

Vastet wrote:
 

The result of keeping that taxation in place is a global community with the ability to talk to pretty much anyone and connect to the vast library and storehouse that is the internet from pretty much anywhere. Society wouldn't have gotten here without taxes.

There were great doubters about voluntary community projects like Linux, Wikipedia, etc... So the internet would have taken off without government funding. Who benefitted from the internet funding? A handful of billionares, so this was welfare for the rich.

Vastet wrote:
 

We'd still be in the 1800's you so strongly call for.

I'm for people living with whatever technology they are comfortable with and are able and willing to pay for. The internet didn't make everyone's life better, so why did they pay for If you want life saving medicine at any cost, you are telling the medical industry you are willing to be their slaves. Maybe some people will take their chances with death rather than choose slavery.

Vastet wrote:
 

One has nothing to do with the other.

Do you ever listen to how the politicians endlessly justify new taxes? We need new schools, hospitals, police, roads, etc...? The land to buy all this is so expensive. Now, we must pay for refugee resettlement into cities with massive housing crisis.

The elites have duped you totally. Taxation is all about fueling economic growth. All government at every level does is fuel growth. But, the tax dollars always end up with the rich. It is a way for them to force people to buy their stuff without actually earning it. Who suffers? The poor, the working man and the environment.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: What you are

Brian37 wrote:
 What you are advocating is "only when I get what I want".  

That is actually the welfare state you support. I've advocated over and over that the rich must pay for the natural resouses of a country they access. That everyone pay for what they use.

An entitlement society is the opposite of that. It is "I'll support the political system only if it is giving me free stuff". The Democrats are giving you just enough to keep you alive so you can be a slave to ths system.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Civilization is normally

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 What you are advocating is "only when I get what I want".  

That is actually the welfare state you support. I've advocated over and over that the rich must pay for the natural resouses of a country they access. That everyone pay for what they use.

An entitlement society is the opposite of that. It is "I'll support the political system only if it is giving me free stuff". The Democrats are giving you just enough to keep you alive so you can be a slave to ths system.

expressed by 3 things. It's an economy, or by it's a culture, or it's a government. If you incorporate all three into one it's facism. But, Facisn is a government. So, no matter how it gets worked out it's a few over the many. That cannot happen unless the masses are lied to and duped into it.

OK, let's start from the beginning. You are a member of culture of floks about 20,000 years ago. You work together as any good cave floks would with the others in your group. So. along comes a day when you decide you should be boss/king/the big kahona. Stop and think ---what do you have to do to bring that about. Bear in mind--the others really don't need you. If a mastradom stompped you into putty the rest would go on, right. And being that they were already OK with things, what can you offer them to make things better for them---when they don't need you to do anything better for them.  OK, so, what woulf you do,say, etc to all the others to convince them you should be boss. What sayeth ye.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:From what I

Old Seer wrote:
From what I understand/see, no civilization has suvived itself or the forces that eventually destry . No civilization has ended by the will or cations of the general public. It's always been the ones running it that have run it into the ground. The ones running civilization are no different then the ones that started it.

Doesn't matter. You have 2 choices:
1: A society that lasts probably less than 50 years, guaranteeing significant struggles for the entire population in all areas and never advancing. Where all anyone cares about is themselves.
2: A society that lasts thousands of years, where most needs by the majority of the population are met, technology and science advance at an incredible pace, and people work together to solve problems.

Pick one.

Old Seer wrote:
There's an understanding in the world, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result Civilizations depend upon that craziness. It cannot ever work.

If it didn't work then we'd have abandoned it already. It does work. It works great. It has worked for 20,000+ years. It will continue to work until all life is extinguished. There is no alternative.
It won't last forever no, NOTHING lasts forever. Why try to make something last forever when it's impossible for anything to last forever?

Old Seer wrote:
The Seers proposition is to break off into small economies operated by those in it, and gets linked to another just like it. Each specializes in thier trade. But the predators cannot be allowed in, and no one is established with centralized authority over the others.

Then some day someone creates an authority and conquers them all. No resistance is possible because you don't have a central authority. Your system is a pipe dream that wouldn't last 20 years before someone smashed it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Taxation has

EXC wrote:
Taxation has become the right of elite rulers one select classes of persons to take from the rest with no guarentee of anything in return. If taxation meant user fees, it would feel differently, but only a fool would think we have anything like that now.

No. If taxation were replaced with fees, there would effectively be no highways or bridges in your country. Sounds like the 1800's to me. User fees are impossible to implement, inefficient, and insufficient. Can't collect a road toll without a road. Can't build a road without a toll. So no roads.

It is highly amusing how you constantly fail to understand the most simple things.

EXC wrote:
But let me guess, no matter how technologically advanced a society becomes, the government can't just charge people based upon their usage of service.

You have yet to demonstrate a way in which it could be done. Same with the rest of the species.
What we have isn't perfect, but it works a lot better than the stagnation you offer.

EXC wrote:
So we must tax the working man even though very little of his activity adding to the need for such services.

The working man has access to roads, police, fire, health, groceries, telephones, and more because of taxes. He uses all of it constantly through his life. Your argument is a lie.

EXC wrote:
With nation defense, everyone inside the national borders benefits from not being invaded. So tthis could be justified as a user fee. Landowners should be charged more because they have more to defend. But now the welfare state has evolved into citizens funding the invation of illegal immigrations and cheap labor for corporations.

So in other words, you want to replace taxes with taxes. Rofl.
So what if half the population doesn't want defence and refuses to par? You just let an invader pick them off while defending those who could afford it?
Oh but half the population didn't pay, so your military is shit and can't defend squat and gets rolled over.

lol the fact you can say all this nonsense without seeing how quickly it falls apart is mind boggling.

EXC wrote:
There were great doubters about voluntary community projects like Linux, Wikipedia, etc... So the internet would have taken off without government funding. Who benefitted from the internet funding? A handful of billionares, so this was welfare for the rich.

Everyone benefitted. Even the poorest.

EXC wrote:
I'm for people living with whatever technology they are comfortable with and are able and willing to pay for.

You don't get any technology. he government paid the way with taxes. No taxes, you get the 1800's. This is a fact.

EXC wrote:
Do you ever listen to how the politicians endlessly justify new taxes? We need new schools, hospitals, police, roads, etc...?

Mostly because we do. lol

EXC wrote:
The elites have duped you totally.

No you're the one who's been duped. Who by I'm not sure. But you clearly want to live in an impossible world where pigs fly, money grows on trees, and facts aren't facts.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:OK, let's

Old Seer wrote:

OK, let's start from the beginning. You are a member of culture of floks about 20,000 years ago. You work together as any good cave floks would with the others in your group. So. along comes a day when you decide you should be boss/king/the big kahona. Stop and think ---what do you have to do to bring that about.

You must be skilled in the art of war and politics. You must allign yourself with the men of group that are excellent warriors and weapons builders. You must promise them many things after you lead them to victory. You must enslave those you conquer, control the land to accumulate wealth to pass out to your supporters. Not much has changed in 20K years, just technology and propaganda have become more sophisticated. Human nature has not changed.

Old Seer wrote:

Bear in mind--the others really don't need you. If a mastradom stompped you into putty the rest would go on, right. And being that they were already OK with things, what can you offer them to make things better for them---when they don't need you to do anything better for them.  OK, so, what woulf you do,say, etc to all the others to convince them you should be boss. What sayeth ye.

 

The only convincing was the point of spear at your head. Today it's the gun in the tax collectors' holster. You promise your supporters a share of the plunder. What has changed? People of reason are drowned out by the masses duped by the elites. Politics is the same as war, the art of promising plunder.

Trump gives the plunder of our natural resources to his cronies. A Democrat will give the plunder of tax man to government unions and welfare recipients. The game never changes.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 What you are advocating is "only when I get what I want".  

That is actually the welfare state you support. I've advocated over and over that the rich must pay for the natural resouses of a country they access. That everyone pay for what they use.

An entitlement society is the opposite of that. It is "I'll support the political system only if it is giving me free stuff". The Democrats are giving you just enough to keep you alive so you can be a slave to ths system.

Blow it out your fucking ass moron. I am sorry someone sold you the old cold war commie bullshit, but that is your fault you fell for it. 

The middle class and working poor are hurt by the corporate welfare, not billionaires being taxed. 

You wont even listen to BILLIONAIRE NICK HANAURE when HE says workers don't make enough.

Nobody should be talking about increasing taxes on the middle class or poor, but no, to claim uber billionaires cant afford it is fucking nonsense.

We ALREADY HAVE A WELFARE STATE, it is called corporate welfare. 

I am not anti private sector, merely anti monpoly. Saying that the pay gap will kill us long term is NOT calling for Catro's Cuba. Saying that pay is not meeting the cost of living is also NOT calling for Stalin's Russia.

WE'VE HAD Reagan's failed trickle down ecomics and it does not work. We had the opposite policies between WW2 and 1980 and that created an economic boom.

You are an idiot if you think more of the same will work. You obviously didn't learn shit after Bush and the GOP crashed our economy did you?

FUCK YOU, I am not a commie, have no disire to oppress you merely for telling you you are fucking full of shit.

The real welfare queens are the 1%. And if you think they give one fuck about you you are deluded and have been conned.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Very good.

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

OK, let's start from the beginning. You are a member of culture of floks about 20,000 years ago. You work together as any good cave floks would with the others in your group. So. along comes a day when you decide you should be boss/king/the big kahona. Stop and think ---what do you have to do to bring that about.

You must be skilled in the art of war and politics. You must allign yourself with the men of group that are excellent warriors and weapons builders. You must promise them many things after you lead them to victory. You must enslave those you conquer, control the land to accumulate wealth to pass out to your supporters. Not much has changed in 20K years, just technology and propaganda have become more sophisticated. Human nature has not changed.

Old Seer wrote:

Bear in mind--the others really don't need you. If a mastradom stompped you into putty the rest would go on, right. And being that they were already OK with things, what can you offer them to make things better for them---when they don't need you to do anything better for them.  OK, so, what woulf you do,say, etc to all the others to convince them you should be boss. What sayeth ye.

 

The only convincing was the point of spear at your head. Today it's the gun in the tax collectors' holster. You promise your supporters a share of the plunder. What has changed? People of reason are drowned out by the masses duped by the elites. Politics is the same as war, the art of promising plunder.

Trump gives the plunder of our natural resources to his cronies. A Democrat will give the plunder of tax man to government unions and welfare recipients. The game never changes.

You couldn't do any of that without being a first rate scumbag, right. What you're seing today is what civilization was first designed for--the few control the many for thier own benefit. No matter what modifications have been applied to make it fair, it has always reverted back to it's original intent. that is what we're seeing to day. On the plains of the world the predator rule, ans so likewise in the world of man, the predator rules. The lions have no idea how to anialate each other, give them intellegence and the gazelles will be safe. The lions will aniialate there own kind. This also in the processes we see in effect today. Be patient, they'll They'll do a number on themselves that they won't survive.

And have go with this happy horseshit

http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/VOG.htm

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:What you're

Old Seer wrote:
What you're seing today is what civilization was first designed for--the few control the many for thier own benefit. No matter what modifications have been applied to make it fair, it has always reverted back to it's original intent. that is what we're seeing to day.

The great evil of criminals is that they expropriate wealth they haven't earned. But that is litterally how government finances it's entire operation.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am sorry

Brian37 wrote:

I am sorry someone sold you the old cold war commie bullshit, but that is your fault you fell for it. 

Yes Brian, you should believe that when taxes are raised on the rich, they won't pass it on to you in the form of inflation and lower wages.

Yes Brain it's all Frank Burns and Ronald Reagan's fault. Now take your big pharma medicine.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: A society

Vastet wrote:
1: A society that lasts probably less than 50 years, guaranteeing significant struggles for the entire population in all areas and never advancing. Where all anyone cares about is themselves.

So your theory of humanity is that we can only cooperate or care with a gun put to our head to make us do so? And a select group of elites with the power to tax decide what cooperation and caring there will be. There must be no room to let individuals decide for themselves.

Just religion where we need heaven and hell to make us do right.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Old Seer

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
What you're seing today is what civilization was first designed for--the few control the many for thier own benefit. No matter what modifications have been applied to make it fair, it has always reverted back to it's original intent. that is what we're seeing to day.

The great evil of criminals is that they expropriate wealth they haven't earned. But that is litterally how government finances it's entire operation.

Nope. The government is like any business. It provides services and takes payment. The only difference is that it works towards the good of all the people, when companies work towards the good of shareholders only.

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
1: A society that lasts probably less than 50 years, guaranteeing significant struggles for the entire population in all areas and never advancing. Where all anyone cares about is themselves.

So your theory of humanity is that we can only cooperate or care with a gun put to our head to make us do so?

I never said that, and it doesn't happen either. If any branch of government pointed a gun at your head, then you're a criminal. A thief. A parasite.
People can work together just fine, but a million people can't work together without a structure of authority. It is literally impossible.

EXC wrote:
And a select group of elites with the power to tax decide what cooperation and caring there will be. There must be no room to let individuals decide for themselves.

Just religion where we need heaven and hell to make us do right.

You're obsessed with elites which couldn't exist under socialism. Elites are a capitalism problem and have nothing to do with socialism. Get that through your thick skull.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nope. The

Vastet wrote:

Nope. The government is like any business. It provides services and takes payment. 

What other business can force people to buy it? What other business charges based on your income and ability to pay, not on usage? What other business can provide its' supporters with free stuff at someone else's expense?

Vastet wrote:
 You're obsessed with elites which couldn't exist under socialism. Elites are a capitalism problem and have nothing to do with socialism.

Elitism is a human problem. It is making rules for others that the ones making the rules don't have to follow. Such as provide a service to receive payment is a rule for everyone but government.

Taxation is the funding mechanism of elitism. Fools like you and brian think just taxing the rich doesn't get passed on to you.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What other

EXC wrote:
What other business can force people to buy it?

Most of them actually, unless you have government to put them in their place.

EXC wrote:
What other business charges based on your income and ability to pay, not on usage?

Irrelevant. You live there, you use constantly. Therefore you pay. Unless you don't make enough money, because then you don't use as much.

EXC wrote:
What other business can provide its' supporters with free stuff at someone else's expense?

All of them.

EXC wrote:
Elitism is a human problem.

No it's a capitalism problem.

EXC wrote:
It is making rules for others that the ones making the rules don't have to follow.

Capitalism only. Impossible in socialism.

EXC wrote:
Such as provide a service to receive payment is a rule for everyone but government.

Lies.

EXC wrote:
Taxation is the funding mechanism of elitism.

Lies.

EXC wrote:
Fools like you and brian think just taxing the rich doesn't get passed on to you.

It doesn't retard. Morons like you don't realise you'd still be in the 1800's with no computer to whine on without taxes. You'd be dead without taxes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What you're saying here

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
From what I understand/see, no civilization has suvived itself or the forces that eventually destry . No civilization has ended by the will or cations of the general public. It's always been the ones running it that have run it into the ground. The ones running civilization are no different then the ones that started it.
Doesn't matter. You have 2 choices: 1: A society that lasts probably less than 50 years, guaranteeing significant struggles for the entire population in all areas and never advancing. Where all anyone cares about is themselves. 2: A society that lasts thousands of years, where most needs by the majority of the population are met, technology and science advance at an incredible pace, and people work together to solve problems. Pick one.
Old Seer wrote:
There's an understanding in the world, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result Civilizations depend upon that craziness. It cannot ever work.
If it didn't work then we'd have abandoned it already. It does work. It works great. It has worked for 20,000+ years. It will continue to work until all life is extinguished. There is no alternative. It won't last forever no, NOTHING lasts forever. Why try to make something last forever when it's impossible for anything to last forever?
Old Seer wrote:
The Seers proposition is to break off into small economies operated by those in it, and gets linked to another just like it. Each specializes in thier trade. But the predators cannot be allowed in, and no one is established with centralized authority over the others.
Then some day someone creates an authority and conquers them all. No resistance is possible because you don't have a central authority. Your system is a pipe dream that wouldn't last 20 years before someone smashed it.
Nothing is going to work--that's what I'm saying.  It dosen't mater to me how lon a civilization lasts--it still in the end didn't work. That's why I gave the 1000 Riech as an example. What he's saying is--that someday it won't work anymore. So then, what time standard do we use to determine when (if) a civilizatio0n has worked. The reason it hasn't been abandonded is--they think someday they can get it to work--impossible. The animal mind will do the same thing. If as you say in other posts, "Man is an animal", then that's the problem. So then, considering that "man" is opering on that premise, and it has what has been ruling---then civilization can never work. What you're tellin me in essence ia, that I'm right. If one is to apply a time standard, then at what time does a civoliation stop working and/or desolves itself. Even the founders of the US are aware that when it doesen't work it is tob abollished. So again then, how is one to determine that a civilization has been working. Existing can't mean "working". History shows clearly--that's it always worked for a segment of a population, but not for the rest. As I pointed out, civilization is created by the perdator for the sake of the prdeator, and it's always they that lead it to it's destruction, the people don't. 

  That's why there is the 1%---they won. And, it won't be anydifferent. The only reason possible we are having these troubles today is---because it didn't work. Global trade is becasue nation trade isn't working and is nothing other then an attmap to make trade broader to get it working--and now that's not working for the common person to a degree that they would like. So, if global trade actually worked there would come a time anyways that it wouldn't. Then they'll need another planet to trade with---and there isn't another one to do so.

 Civilization is for the sake of material wealth being #1. That requies a specific mentality. That mentality is based in greed, which is a "negative" mental trait. A negative mental trait is destructive (as we've seen in history). History is a record of this process coupled with the obsession to be the big guy over all the others. Ego and greed along with other negative traits propels the BIG GUY to be damaging to his own process. IE---Mr Trump.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Most of them

Vastet wrote:
Most of them actually, unless you have government to put them in their place.

What are the homeless forced to buy? If Capitalists could force everyone to buy their product, the homeless would all be in jail for not doing so. Yet there are millions free to do as they please.

Vastet wrote:
 Irrelevant. You live there, you use constantly. Therefore you pay. Unless you don't make enough money, because then you don't use as much.

I spend half my time outside USA, but still pay full income tax. Every place I visit in USA has private security since the police are insufficient. They all have automated fire suppresion so they would very unlikely use fire protection. I went to emergency room once in USA but the wait was hours, so I paid for private service. I need protection from identity theft and cyber threats, the government does next to nothing in this area. I think it would be child abuse to send a child to public schools in the USA.

Public services and welfare are far more utilized in poor neighborhoods that pay little to no tax. So please stop arguing that taxes are for what I use. I'm supporting others. Make a case for the welfare state and stop lying.

 

Vastet wrote:
 Morons like you don't realise you'd still be in the 1800's with no computer to whine on without taxes. You'd be dead without taxes.

If your theory of civiliation was correct(that civilization requires taxes), the first settlers into a new area would need to be government officials and tax collectors. They would need to make tax collection as first priority before worrying about food and water. The first building in any settlement would be the tax accessors office.

History shows us just the opposite, workers come first to establish food, water and shelter, then come tradesman and merchants. You can't have taxes until you have a source of wealth to steal, you can't have wealth without first having civilizaton. Then how exactly did the west get settled without sending out tax collectors into the wilderness first?

Were the first single celled organisms tax collectors? Then how did civilization ever develop?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:History shows us

EXC wrote:
History shows us just the opposite, workers come first to establish food, water and shelter, then come tradesman and merchants.



in the case of the early colonial US, usually the first person on the ground was a crown-appointed governor, whose main job was to make sure the colony had adequate supplies from back home until they could become reasonably self-sufficient. the flow of supplies lasted several years and was paid for by the taxes of subjects back in britain, most of whom would never see those colonies. the ships were also crown property, bought and maintained by tax money.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
History shows us just the opposite, workers come first to establish food, water and shelter, then come tradesman and merchants.

in the case of the early colonial US, usually the first person on the ground was a crown-appointed governor, whose main job was to make sure the colony had adequate supplies from back home until they could become reasonably self-sufficient. the flow of supplies lasted several years and was paid for by the taxes of subjects back in britain, most of whom would never see those colonies. the ships were also crown property, bought and maintained by tax money.

There were some times when it was a private venture. I do not believe every explorer was related to a government.

There is Fort Caroline in Jacksonville Florida which was established by the French and was a private venture, first and only French fort in Florida. Later slaughtered by the Spanish when they established St Augustine.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
History shows us just the opposite, workers come first to establish food, water and shelter, then come tradesman and merchants.

in the case of the early colonial US, usually the first person on the ground was a crown-appointed governor, whose main job was to make sure the colony had adequate supplies from back home until they could become reasonably self-sufficient. the flow of supplies lasted several years and was paid for by the taxes of subjects back in britain, most of whom would never see those colonies. the ships were also crown property, bought and maintained by tax money.

Can you site any sources? I had always read that Jamestown was privately financed by tobacco investors. Plymouth was a private religous group.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Jamestown-Colony

The only example I can think of where govenment created and grew a settlement is Washington D.C. But to this day that swamp doesn't produce any wealth and it sucks the rest of the country dry.

We've seen with the Internet where the government provided venture capital. But to grow the internet, they couldn't tax it for the first 40 years. But now that the Internet can be entirely privately financed, the government wants to tax it and provide the users with nothing in return. The tax would hurt the working man and small business. Meanwhile a small group of people got filthy rich off the Internet. So the tax dollars used to finance the early internet amounted to nothing but welfare for the rich.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
History shows us just the opposite, workers come first to establish food, water and shelter, then come tradesman and merchants.

in the case of the early colonial US, usually the first person on the ground was a crown-appointed governor, whose main job was to make sure the colony had adequate supplies from back home until they could become reasonably self-sufficient. the flow of supplies lasted several years and was paid for by the taxes of subjects back in britain, most of whom would never see those colonies. the ships were also crown property, bought and maintained by tax money.

You know what is so fucking stupid about the economic right and "originalists"? Is it really amounts to arging "I was here first". and no, we were not, for the very reasons you stated. Now while we cannot change the past, it certainly seems EXE is doing nothing more than arguing money equals power and might makes right. It was the reason the founders wrote a fuck you letter to the king.

He is arguing for absolute power of wealth, not the anti monopoly concepts set forth in the Constitution. So if all it took was "money is always right", then he should have argued that the Colonists were wrong and we should have stayed under British rule.

He's not against regulations as long as they always benefit his agenda.Unfortuntately for him the Constitution does not provide for a one class or one party or one economic view monopoly of power.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
From what I understand/see, no civilization has suvived itself or the forces that eventually destry . No civilization has ended by the will or cations of the general public. It's always been the ones running it that have run it into the ground. The ones running civilization are no different then the ones that started it.
Doesn't matter. You have 2 choices: 1: A society that lasts probably less than 50 years, guaranteeing significant struggles for the entire population in all areas and never advancing. Where all anyone cares about is themselves. 2: A society that lasts thousands of years, where most needs by the majority of the population are met, technology and science advance at an incredible pace, and people work together to solve problems. Pick one.
Old Seer wrote:
There's an understanding in the world, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result Civilizations depend upon that craziness. It cannot ever work.
If it didn't work then we'd have abandoned it already. It does work. It works great. It has worked for 20,000+ years. It will continue to work until all life is extinguished. There is no alternative. It won't last forever no, NOTHING lasts forever. Why try to make something last forever when it's impossible for anything to last forever?
Old Seer wrote:
The Seers proposition is to break off into small economies operated by those in it, and gets linked to another just like it. Each specializes in thier trade. But the predators cannot be allowed in, and no one is established with centralized authority over the others.
Then some day someone creates an authority and conquers them all. No resistance is possible because you don't have a central authority. Your system is a pipe dream that wouldn't last 20 years before someone smashed it.
Nothing is going to work--that's what I'm saying.  It dosen't mater to me how lon a civilization lasts--it still in the end didn't work. That's why I gave the 1000 Riech as an example. What he's saying is--that someday it won't work anymore. So then, what time standard do we use to determine when (if) a civilizatio0n has worked. The reason it hasn't been abandonded is--they think someday they can get it to work--impossible. The animal mind will do the same thing. If as you say in other posts, "Man is an animal", then that's the problem. So then, considering that "man" is opering on that premise, and it has what has been ruling---then civilization can never work. What you're tellin me in essence ia, that I'm right. If one is to apply a time standard, then at what time does a civoliation stop working and/or desolves itself. Even the founders of the US are aware that when it doesen't work it is tob abollished. So again then, how is one to determine that a civilization has been working. Existing can't mean "working". History shows clearly--that's it always worked for a segment of a population, but not for the rest. As I pointed out, civilization is created by the perdator for the sake of the prdeator, and it's always they that lead it to it's destruction, the people don't. 

  That's why there is the 1%---they won. And, it won't be anydifferent. The only reason possible we are having these troubles today is---because it didn't work. Global trade is becasue nation trade isn't working and is nothing other then an attmap to make trade broader to get it working--and now that's not working for the common person to a degree that they would like. So, if global trade actually worked there would come a time anyways that it wouldn't. Then they'll need another planet to trade with---and there isn't another one to do so.

 Civilization is for the sake of material wealth being #1. That requies a specific mentality. That mentality is based in greed, which is a "negative" mental trait. A negative mental trait is destructive (as we've seen in history). History is a record of this process coupled with the obsession to be the big guy over all the others. Ego and greed along with other negative traits propels the BIG GUY to be damaging to his own process. IE---Mr Trump.

 

No. You're so far off reality I have no idea how to bring you back.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What are the

EXC wrote:
What are the homeless forced to buy?

Food.

EXC wrote:
If Capitalists could force everyone to buy their product, the homeless would all be in jail for not doing so.

No. That would cost money. Better to let them be homeless. It's cheap.

EXC wrote:
I spend half my time outside USA, but still pay full income tax.

You are spending half your time in the US, and you have access to government services even when not at home. Like embassies and passports. You owe your full share as long as you're a US citizen. I don't see you renouncing your citizenship, so it must be worth it to you.

EXC wrote:
Every place I visit in USA has private security since the police are insufficient.

No, private security is cheap and reduces insurance costs. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of police. Did you know it also reduces insurance costs to have a first aid expert on site? Doesn't mean ambulances are insufficient, just means cheaper insurance.

EXC wrote:
They all have automated fire suppresion so they would very unlikely use fire protection.

Considering it was fire departments that came up with and pushed that in the first place, no. You wouldn't have fire suppression without fire departments.

EXC wrote:
I went to emergency room once in USA but the wait was hours, so I paid for private service.

Which you could only afford because of the public option. You also had to wait because of the private option.

EXC wrote:
I need protection from identity theft and cyber threats, the government does next to nothing in this area.

The government does more than anyone else. Without government, you wouldn't have an identity to steal. And anyone who did steal it would be perfectly in their rights to do so. Noone to put them in jail. No court to sue in. No redress of any kind.
Of course there wouldn't be an internet either, so identity theft wouldn't be an issue.

EXC wrote:
Public services and welfare are far more utilized in poor neighborhoods that pay little to no tax.

Welfare yes. Public services no. Public service use increases exponentially with wealth.

EXC wrote:
So please stop arguing that taxes are for what I use.

No. You use it, you pay for it. Period.

EXC wrote:
Make a case for the welfare state and stop lying.

You're the only one lying.

EXC wrote:
If your theory of civiliation was correct(that civilization requires taxes), the first settlers into a new area would need to be government officials and tax collectors. They would need to make tax collection as first priority before worrying about food and water. The first building in any settlement would be the tax accessors office.

I already defeated this argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: iwbiek wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
History shows us just the opposite, workers come first to establish food, water and shelter, then come tradesman and merchants.

in the case of the early colonial US, usually the first person on the ground was a crown-appointed governor, whose main job was to make sure the colony had adequate supplies from back home until they could become reasonably self-sufficient. the flow of supplies lasted several years and was paid for by the taxes of subjects back in britain, most of whom would never see those colonies. the ships were also crown property, bought and maintained by tax money.

Can you site any sources? I had always read that Jamestown was privately financed by tobacco investors. Plymouth was a private religous group.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Jamestown-Colony

The only example I can think of where govenment created and grew a settlement is Washington D.C. But to this day that swamp doesn't produce any wealth and it sucks the rest of the country dry.

We've seen with the Internet where the government provided venture capital. But to grow the internet, they couldn't tax it for the first 40 years. But now that the Internet can be entirely privately financed, the government wants to tax it and provide the users with nothing in return. The tax would hurt the working man and small business. Meanwhile a small group of people got filthy rich off the Internet. So the tax dollars used to finance the early internet amounted to nothing but welfare for the rich.

It was sort of "private". It was allowed to self govern as per James I. It had the backing of many private investors, including the King. It was with out hesitation a move on part of the Government of England to establish a colony in the Americas

The Virginia Company refers collectively to two joint stock companies chartered by James I on 10 April 1606[1][2][3] with the purposes of establishing settlements on the coast of North America.[4] The two companies, called the "Virginia Company of London" (or the London Company) and the "Virginia Company of Plymouth" (or Plymouth Company) operated with identical charters but with differing territories. An area of overlapping territory was created within which the two companies were not permitted to establish colonies within one hundred miles of each other. The Plymouth Company never fulfilled its charter, and its territory that later became New England was at that time also claimed by England. As corporations, the companies were empowered by the Crown to govern themselves, and they ultimately granted the same privilege to their colony. In 1624, the Virginia Company failed; however, its grant of self-government to the colony was not revoked, and, "either from apathy, indecision, or deliberate purpose," the Crown allowed the system to continue. The principle was thus established that a royal colony should be self-governing, and this formed the genesis of democracy in America.[5]


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
we also have to remember

we also have to remember that in the 16th-17th century there wasn't this hard state/private dichotomy like we have now. it is true that many of the initial investors for colonization were joint-stock companies, but it is also true that these companies had no rights outside the pleasure of crown-in-parliament. one example: when the governor of ill-fated roanoke colony returned to england after their first or second year to arrange for more supplies, he couldn't return because elizabeth i refused to allow him any ships, since she wanted to use every available ship against the armada.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Food.So

Vastet wrote:
Food.

So capitalists have conspired to make us feel hunger when we don't eat? Every city has a farmers market where small farmers can sell their stuff. People never have to buy from a corporation.

Vastet wrote:

No. That would cost money. Better to let them be homeless. It's cheap.

Corporations make tons of money from from the prision system. Everything from constuction to food services. They'd love to see taxpayers be forced to take care of the homeless problem.

 

Vastet wrote:

You are spending half your time in the US, and you have access to government services even when not at home. Like embassies and passports. You owe your full share as long as you're a US citizen. I don't see you renouncing your citizenship, so it must be worth it to you.

I paid fees for my passport, takes months to get it, unlike a capitalist business that must be speedy. Called an embassy for help with passport problem, totally worthless. They only work average of 20/hours per week. Our military interventions make it difficult and dangerous for Americans.

It is easier for me to make money working with evil capitialists in the USA since I have experience in their industries. Otherwise I would renounce citizenship.

 

Vastet wrote:

No, private security is cheap and reduces insurance costs. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of police. Did you know it also reduces insurance costs to have a first aid expert on site? Doesn't mean ambulances are insufficient, just means cheaper insurance.

Yes. Thank you for making the argument in favor privatizing  police services. Police unions are way too expensive.

Vastet wrote:

Considering it was fire departments that came up with and pushed that in the first place, no. You wouldn't have fire suppression without fire departments.

BS. Some fire captians said sprinklers would make fire safety better, that is not inventing the technology and paying for it. The companies that make sprinkers, etc.. are all evil capitalist corporations. So now engineers are desinging fire fighting robots. Are you saying firemen are sitting around the firehouse builing robots so they can put themselves out of business? This model of having a public firetruck weave it's way though traffic for half an hour to put is pretty obsolete and expensive. That is what you get without the free market.

Vastet wrote:

 The government does more than anyone else. Without government, you wouldn't have an identity to steal. And anyone who did steal it would be perfectly in their rights to do so. Noone to put them in jail. No court to sue in. No redress of any kind. Of course there wouldn't be an internet either, so identity theft wouldn't be an issue.

BS again. I'm not against government. I'm against paying for something when I don't recieve anything. The goverment lets credit agencies keep false reports. They don't help you recover from theft. So why pay taxes for such a system?

Since before civiliztion, people have wanted to comminicate. So of course there would have been built networks for computers. The investment the DoD made in Arpanet did push things along a bit faster.

BTW, are you saying that the world is totally dependent upon USA for technolgy advancements? Are Canadians and others to incompetent to network computers on their own? The rest of the world could never build the internet without the superior Americans to show them how?

Vastet wrote:

Public services no. Public service use increases exponentially with wealth.

Ask a big city cop where the calls come from.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So capitalists

EXC wrote:
So capitalists have conspired to make us feel hunger when we don't eat? Every city has a farmers market where small farmers can sell their stuff. People never have to buy from a corporation.

1 Without government there's no farmers market, no method of distribution for goods.
2 Just because farmers aren't necessarily corporations doesn't mean farmers aren't using capitalism.
3 Corporations in and of themselves aren't the problem. Capitalism is. Corporations, by one name or another, are inevitable. It is in human nature to form corporate-like structures. Government itself is a corporation-like structure. Street gangs are corporate-like structures. They are everywhere humans are, and always will be. They aren't the problem. They simply manifest the problem at greater scales and are thus more obvious and impossible to ignore.

The problem is the everyone for themselves 'attitude' of capitalism.

EXC wrote:
Corporations make tons of money from from the prision system. Everything from constuction to food services. They'd love to see taxpayers be forced to take care of the homeless problem.

Only because governments pay them. No government, no pay. Or were you unaware that prison companies are just contractors that tax payers pay for? lol. How exactly are you going to feed and shelter millions of poor people for free? Because you sure as fuck can't make someone with no money pay for their imprisonment. Such a system actually was used for awhile. It didn't work. It was abandoned because it can only function when every potential prisoner can afford to pay for their imprisonment.

Ironically, said system actually could function under a socialist system, and could be very effective.

EXC wrote:
I paid fees for my passport, takes months to get it, unlike a capitalist business that must be speedy. Called an embassy for help with passport problem, totally worthless. They only work average of 20/hours per week. Our military interventions make it difficult and dangerous for Americans.

Uh uh, the US has to negotiate with other nations governments in order to provide you with a passport, not to mention embassy services and legal and occasionally even military defence. No business could do better. No corporation could do 1/10th as well.

EXC wrote:
Yes. Thank you for making the argument in favor privatizing  police services. Police unions are way too expensive.

You think security guards don't have unions? lol. Also, you get what you pay for. Not going to be many cops willing to put their lives on the line for the promise of a few bucks. How much do you think it would cost a bank to get the police to help when there's 10 guys in armour with assault weapons robbing the place? I know if I were a cop in such a scenario, I'd charge enough to retire on. Might even be worth 'convincing' a few guys to play the role of the robber just to demand such a fee.

EXC wrote:
BS. Some fire captians said sprinklers would make fire safety better, that is not inventing the technology and paying for it.

No, firefighters have been the #1 source of the science of fire throughout history. Firefighters invented and developed easily 99% of all techniques and technologies for fighting fire that ever existed.

EXC wrote:
The companies that make sprinkers, etc.. are all evil capitalist corporations.

Started by or bought from firefighters.

EXC wrote:
So now engineers are desinging fire fighting robots. Are you saying firemen are sitting around the firehouse builing robots so they can put themselves out of business?

Based on technologies and techniques developed by firefighters, without which such robots would be useless. Robots are replacing all jobs. Your argument is nonsensical and naive.

EXC wrote:
This model of having a public firetruck weave it's way though traffic for half an hour to put is pretty obsolete and expensive. That is what you get without the free market.

No, that's the model you get WITH the free market. Or did the Soviets conquer the US when noone was looking, suddenly implement firefighters, then leave and pretend nothing happened? lol. Do you know anything at all that isn't a lie?

EXC wrote:
BS again. I'm not against government. I'm against paying for something when I don't recieve anything.

Then you are for taxes, because you benefit from your taxes. You lie about it or at best simply fail to comprehend how you benefit; but your beliefs are irrelevant to facts. I've told you how your life will be without taxes, and shown you how to stop having to pay for them. If you really care enough, you'll act. If you don't act, then by your lack of action you volunteer to continue paying taxes.

EXC wrote:
Since before civiliztion, people have wanted to comminicate.

And yet, it wasn't until governments acted that anyone actually built a communication network. Strange that. Oh yeah, it's because the investment was so incredibly expensive and would take such a long time (if ever) to show a return, that only a government could have set the construction of a communications network into motion. And only a government could have set a standard from the start so that the network actually functioned more or less the same everywhere. Without government, there's no network.

EXC wrote:
The goverment lets credit agencies keep false reports. They don't help you recover from theft. So why pay taxes for such a system?

Capitalism.

EXC wrote:
BTW, are you saying that the world is totally dependent upon USA for technolgy advancements? Are Canadians and others to incompetent to network computers on their own? The rest of the world could never build the internet without the superior Americans to show them how?

Hardly. Every country has its own government you know. It's kind of a necessity to be a country. Different governments do things differently. Which is why the phone networks in North America aren't identical to the networks in Europe. Why there are polarised and non-polarised power sockets.

EXC wrote:
Ask a big city cop where the calls come from.

I worked with big city cops. I know where the calls come from. Rich people. You ask a big city cop where the calls come from.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Government

Vastet wrote:
Government itself is a corporation-like structure. Street gangs are corporate-like structures. They are everywhere humans are, and always will be. They aren't the problem. They simply manifest the problem at greater scales and are thus more obvious and impossible to ignore.
 So the answer is make government a massive monopolistic corporation. The problem is corporations have too much power and money and your solution is make government into a monopolist corporation. How insane. 
Vastet wrote:
The problem is the everyone for themselves 'attitude' of capitalism.
 This so called problem isn't capitalism, it's the selfish gene at work. Changing our form of government isn't going to make people less interested in their own survival and desires. Perhapsyou should support genetic engineering if you want to make humans care more about the survival of others than themselves. I need to have the Mother Teresa gene forced upon me. 
Vastet wrote:
  Ironically, said system actually could function under a socialist system, and could be very effective.
 Yes the government runs the DMV, embassies so effectively. They need to run everything.  
Vastet wrote:
  No business could do better. 
 You know what business goes on at our embassies? Providing visa so corporations have an endless supply of cheap labor. Assisting corporations with outsources US jobs and bringing cheap imports to USA. Helping CIA, NSA with spying. No time to help average Joe taxpayer.  
Vastet wrote:
   You think security guards don't have unions? lol. Also, you get what you pay for. Not going to be many cops willing to put their lives on the line for the promise of a few bucks.  
  You believe in the myth of 'public servant'. No such thing. A police union is same as corporation, 100% self interested, got to get to work on the MT gene.What did the 'public servants' do when the shit really hits the fan? The walk away, just as New Orleans after Katrina hit. We should begin replacing cops with local volunteers and technology.  
Vastet wrote:
   How much do you think it would cost a bank to get the police to help when there's 10 guys in armour with assault weapons robbing the place?    
   So if we're going to spend money on policing, shouldn't the government just give contracts to build robo-cops for such senarios? The banks could be charged a fee to pay for it if they   insist on keeping tons of cash on hand. You can never pay anyone enough to do such a job.   Why do I have to pay for cops when I don't have tons of cash on hand?    
Vastet wrote:
   No, firefighters have been the #1 source of the science of fire throughout history.  Firefighters invented and developed easily 99% of all techniques and technologies for fighting fire that ever existed.  Started by or bought from firefighters.   
Oh they all have engineering degees and are experts with electronics and mechanical design? When they are not out on calls they are inventing high tech tools to put themselves out of business. Anysources?So why do they need me to pay their salary benefits and pension? They can just make a living as engineer/inventors. If they have all this spare time and money to invent things, Aren't we overpaying them?   
Vastet wrote:
 Capitalism.    
   The government does't punish people that commit fraud now. Why would they under socialism? Why aren't government officials corrupt and incompetent under socialism? Is there a magic change in their DNA?      I watched Michael Moore's movie on the evils of Capitalism. Every so called failure of the free market is actually a government fuck up. The government guaranteed loans for people that could never afford to pay them back. They guaranteed loans for airline pilots that only make $20K/year. A corrupt judge takes bribes from a corporation. etc... Did you see this movie, everything is a government fuck up, but his insane solution is give government more power and money.    
Vastet wrote:
  I worked with big city cops. I know where the calls come from. Rich people. You ask a big city cop where the calls come from.
  https://vittana.org/26-poverty-and-crime-statistics  Then why is manta of the left, 'to end crime we must end poverty'? 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So the answer is

EXC wrote:
So the answer is make government a massive monopolistic corporation.

No. That's just a path to Soviet style dictatorship. Not to socialism. The answer is to diversify and dilute power by separating government into branches that have their own responsibilities, and increasing transparency so that all citizens have the right to freedom of information requests for free. Dozens of small corporations is the answer, not one big corporation.

EXC wrote:
This so called problem isn't capitalism, it's the selfish gene at work.

That's a bullshit argument with no basis in reality forwarded by an idiot who didn't take any time at all to criticise his own material. The problem is capitalism, which directly and specifically rewards selfishness and punishes selflessness.

EXC wrote:
Changing our form of government isn't going to make people less interested in their own survival and desires.

It doesn't have to, which is why it is superior. Socialism takes actions rooted in selfishness and makes them beneficial to everyone.

EXC wrote:
 Yes the government runs the DMV, embassies so effectively. They need to run everything. 

The government is capitalist. It is not comparable to a socialist government at all. Therefore the failures and successes of government under capitalism are irrelevant.

EXC wrote:
 You know what business goes on at our embassies? Providing visa so corporations have an endless supply of cheap labor. Assisting corporations with outsources US jobs and bringing cheap imports to USA. Helping CIA, NSA with spying. No time to help average Joe taxpayer.  

Capitalism.

EXC wrote:
You believe in the myth of 'public servant'. No such thing. A police union is same as corporation, 100% self interested, got to get to work on the MT gene.What did the 'public servants' do when the shit really hits the fan? The walk away, just as New Orleans after Katrina hit. We should begin replacing cops with local volunteers and technology.  

Lies. There are plenty of public servants. They simply never make headlines because they're boring.
Police unions are a problem, but unions only exist because of capitalism in the first place. A blowback to greedy people attempting to exploit workers. Wouldn't have a place in socialism.

EXC wrote:
 So if we're going to spend money on policing, shouldn't the government just give contracts to build robo-cops for such senarios?

The technology doesn't exist yet. If government did that, you'd just be bitching that they were squandering tax dollars. And you'd be right.

EXC wrote:
The banks could be charged a fee to pay for it if they   insist on keeping tons of cash on hand.

Which banks would pass on to customers, which results in taxation. lol. Your solution recreates the problem.

EXC wrote:
You can never pay anyone enough to do such a job. 

Bullshit. Billions of people work jobs that could kill them.

EXC wrote:
Why do I have to pay for cops when I don't have tons of cash on hand?

Because being robbed isn't the only crime. Some random person attacks you, you really want the cops to stand around watching until you fork over their fee? lol. Some random person kills you, intentionally or not, you really want the investigation to depend completely on whether your estate can pay for the investigation? lol

EXC wrote:
Oh they all have engineering degees and are experts with electronics and mechanical design?

Nope.

EXC wrote:
When they are not out on calls they are inventing high tech tools to put themselves out of business.

Nope.

And yet, 99%+ of all techniques and technology and knowledge of firefighting came from firefighters.

EXC wrote:
The government does't punish people that commit fraud now.

Yes it does.

EXC wrote:
Why would they under socialism?

Why wouldn't they?

EXC wrote:
Why aren't government officials corrupt and incompetent under socialism?

Because they'd be caught and thrown in jail.

EXC wrote:
Is there a magic change in their DNA? 

Nope. Just in the law, in transparency, and in application. Your argument is patently ridiculous. You're effectively suggesting, metaphorically, that the processes of learning in religion are identical to the processes in science. If the entire system is different, then so must be the results.

EXC wrote:
 I watched Michael Moore's movie on the evils of Capitalism.

Michael Moore is an idiot.

EXC wrote:
Every so called failure of the free market is actually a government fuck up.

You have that completely backwards. Every failure of government in capitalism can be traced to capitalism.

EXC wrote:
The government guaranteed loans for people that could never afford to pay them back. They guaranteed loans for airline pilots that only make $20K/year.

Because lobbyists for banks asked them to.

EXC wrote:
A corrupt judge takes bribes from a corporation.

Brilliant! LOL. Thanks for helping prove my point.

EXC wrote:

Did you see this movie, everything is a government fuck up, but his insane solution is give government more power and money.    

lol no.

EXC wrote:
https://vittana.org/26-poverty-and-crime-statistics  Then why is manta of the left, 'to end crime we must end poverty'? 

Your link does nothing for your argument. We weren't discussing crime rates, we were discussing who calls the cops more in big cities. Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The problem is

Vastet wrote:
The problem is capitalism, which directly and specifically rewards selfishness and punishes selflessness.
If socialism rewards 'selflessness' and punishes 'selfishness', then it really isn't altruistic is it. Face no living thing can be selfless. It is BS the elites sell us to make us into their slave. 
Vastet wrote:
Lies. There are plenty of public servants. They simply never make headlines because they're boring.
So then we'd have no problem finding voluteers to be teachers, police, fire, etc... The way things used to be. I would voluteer now but I spend half my time working for government the other half to pay bills.   
Vastet wrote:
Which banks would pass on to customers, which results in taxation. lol. Your solution recreates the problem.
The rich customers keep tons of cash and valuables in the bank. The poor and middle class don't have anything to protect. But with income and sales tax we have now, they pay disproportionate amount. Same with fire services, who benfits the most? Slum Lords that rent out fire traps and businesses like oil refineries. But its paid for on the backs of the working middle class. 
Vastet wrote:
 Some random person attacks you, you really want the cops to stand around watching until you fork over their fee? lol.  
 Total strawman arguement. You know damn well how private security firms work, like insurance. You pay a monthly fee in advance and you receive service for that time period. But you must lie since you can't make your argument with reality. 
Vastet wrote:
Every failure of government in capitalism can be traced to capitalism. 
 Absolutley no failures under Chavism in Venezuala. How are you any different than Hugo? What did Hugo do wrong? 
Vastet wrote:
 Because lobbyists for banks asked them to. 
 The banks wanted to loan money to people that would make only $20K/year salary???? The banks lobbied the government to pay them back in case the borrower did not. Then this is no longer capitalism is it? It is government intervention.   If the govenment didn't have the source of revenue from taxation, there would be no reason to lobby now would there? BTW, as I've explained before,the banks in USA are not free market capitalistic at all. The Fed prints money that it loans to share holder owned banks, they insure savings and all kinds of loans. It is crony socialism. Welfare for the rich. 
Vastet wrote:
Brilliant! LOL. Thanks for helping prove my point. 
 So if a manager or labor group in socialist society get more money based upon how a judge rules. Why wouldn't some of them be tempeted to bribe judges?The solution to corrupt judges is to make them answer to the citizens and not let them have so much power in the first place. But you want so much money and power to flow toward government that they'll be tons of corruption.  

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If socialism

EXC wrote:
If socialism rewards 'selflessness' and punishes 'selfishness', then it really isn't altruistic is it.

Actually, yes it is.

EXC wrote:
Face no living thing can be selfless. It is BS the elites sell us to make us into their slave. 

Irrelevant.

EXC wrote:
So then we'd have no problem finding voluteers to be teachers, police, fire, etc...

You paying their bills? Who said anything about volunteering? I love how desperately you switch topics when you're getting your ass handed to you.

EXC wrote:
The way things used to be.

Things were never that way.

EXC wrote:
I would voluteer now but I spend half my time working for government the other half to pay bills.   

Bullshit.

EXC wrote:
 Total strawman arguement.

No it's a perfectly valid scenario.

EXC wrote:
You know damn well how private security firms work, like insurance. You pay a monthly fee in advance and you receive service for that time period. But you must lie since you can't make your argument with reality. 

So in other words, taxes. Truly amazing how the only option you have to replace taxes is just more taxes. And you're too stupid to see it.

EXC wrote:
Absolutley no failures under Chavism in Venezuala. How are you any different than Hugo? What did Hugo do wrong? 

Venezuela isn't socialist. It's a dictatorship using capitalism. Only the poor in Venezuela are enrolled in a socialist system. It isn't socialism unless everyone is enrolled. By the definition of socialism.

EXC wrote:
The banks wanted to loan money to people that would make only $20K/year salary????

Yes.

EXC wrote:
The banks lobbied the government to pay them back in case the borrower did not. Then this is no longer capitalism is it?

Yes it is. Socialism is only socialism when all individuals are part of the system. Banks are not individuals, so they can't qualify.

EXC wrote:
It is government intervention.

Corporate bailouts are a caricature of socialism which is actually capitalism, not socialism.

EXC wrote:
If the govenment didn't have the source of revenue from taxation, there would be no reason to lobby now would there?

There wouldn't be any national banks capable of lobbying either, so the point is moot.

EXC wrote:
BTW, as I've explained before,the banks in USA are not free market capitalistic at all. The Fed prints money that it loans to share holder owned banks, they insure savings and all kinds of loans. It is crony socialism. Welfare for the rich. 

Which by definition is not socialism, but capitalism. Capitalism funnels resources to the rich. Socialism spreads resources to all. Any and every system you have ever or will ever mention that moves resources to the rich and/or elites is a capitalist system.

EXC wrote:
So if a manager or labor group in socialist society get more money based upon how a judge rules.

Impossible. It's socialism. They have no entitlement to more resources than others unless they earned it by creating more resources than others.

EXC wrote:
Why wouldn't some of them be tempeted to bribe judges?

Let them. Then they and the judge both go to jail.

EXC wrote:
The solution to corrupt judges is to make them answer to the citizens and not let them have so much power in the first place. 

They already answer to the people, at least in theory. In sociaism that would become fact.
Stripping judges of power is the dumbest thing you've yet suggested, which is saying something. Judges keep politicians in line. Probably why you want to take their power away.

EXC wrote:
But you want so much money and power to flow toward government that they'll be tons of corruption.  

Only in your deluded version of reality.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So in other

Vastet wrote:

So in other words, taxes. Truly amazing how the only option you have to replace taxes is just more taxes. And you're too stupid to see it.

A private security company charges a fee, not a tax. They don't arrest you if you don't pay. You are free to choose a different provider. Are you too dumb to understand the difference or are you just a compulsive liar? Are you too dumb to understand the difference between a user fee and a tax?

 

Vastet wrote:

Only the poor in Venezuela are enrolled in a socialist system. It isn't socialism unless everyone is enrolled. By the definition of socialism. 

Well now everyone in Venezuala is poor, so it must be a freakn paradise. If you don't mind eating grass then wiping your ass with rocks.

Vastet wrote:

 

 Which by definition is not socialism, but capitalism. Capitalism funnels resources to the rich. Socialism spreads resources to all. Any and every system you have ever or will ever mention that moves resources to the rich and/or elites is a capitalist system.

Stop your obvious lies. There is no definition of free market capitalism where the government makes loans to borrowers.

Taxation is what moves wealth from producers to non-producers. The rich get richer not from work or delivering quality products and services, but by getting government to take wealth by force and give it to them.

You complain that capitalist lobby the government and bribe politicians. Labor Unions, research scientists, everyone that loves free stuff lobbies the government. That is where the money is. 

It is like you have a bank with a huge pile of cash, then you complain that capitalist theives are trying to get the money. EVERY fucking thief socialist/communits/democrat/republican is trying to get the free money. WTF do you expect with the huge booty government takes with taxation? The problem isn't capitalism, its the huge amount of wealth government has confiscated.

Vastet wrote:

They already answer to the people, at least in theory. In sociaism that would become fact.

The elites have set it up so that judges are the final authority and they answer to no one. There can be no power to the people until judges must answer for every decision and can be fired for making bad ones.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:A private security

EXC wrote:
A private security company charges a fee, not a tax.

No it's exactly the same as a tax. Only difference is you're only paying for one service while with taxes you get a lot of them.

EXC wrote:
They don't arrest you if you don't pay.

They don't give you security either. Only way the government can prevent you from using services when you haven't paid is charge you and throw you in jail, because the governments services are too widespread. Just walking down the street takes advantage of government services. So if you don't pay taxes, you're instantly a thief. Instantly.

EXC wrote:
You are free to choose a different provider.

So are you.

EXC wrote:
Are you too dumb to understand the difference or are you just a compulsive liar? Are you too dumb to understand the difference between a user fee and a tax?

Obviously you're too stupid to see there's no real difference. We already know you're a compulsive liar.

EXC wrote:
Well now everyone in Venezuala is poor, so it must be a freakn paradise. If you don't mind eating grass then wiping your ass with rocks.

Capitalism for you.

EXC wrote:
Stop your obvious lies.

You're the only one lying bitch.

EXC wrote:
There is no definition of free market capitalism where the government makes loans to borrowers

Lies. Every definition of capitalism involves funnelling resources to the rich.

EXC wrote:
Taxation is what moves wealth from producers to non-producers.

No that's capitalism. Taxes does the opposite. Retard.

EXC wrote:
The rich get richer not from work or delivering quality products and services, but by getting government to take wealth by force and give it to them.

Lies. The rich get richer because the rich avoid taxes because capitalism lets them.

EXC wrote:
You complain that capitalist lobby the government and bribe politicians. Labor Unions, research scientists, everyone that loves free stuff lobbies the government. That is where the money is. 

Lies. People who like free stuff don't have the money to lobby politicians. Only the rich can do that.

EXC wrote:
It is like you have a bank with a huge pile of cash, then you complain that capitalist theives are trying to get the money. EVERY fucking thief socialist/communits/democrat/republican is trying to get the free money. WTF do you expect with the huge booty government takes with taxation? The problem isn't capitalism, its the huge amount of wealth government has confiscated.

Lies. Only greedy scum capitalists like you are trying to get the money, as you've demonstrated repeatedly.

EXC wrote:
The elites have set it up so that judges are the final authority and they answer to no one. There can be no power to the people until judges must answer for every decision and can be fired for making bad ones.

Pure bullshit. You know jack shit about the justice system and government in general.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.