Look at the age demographic of most conservatives.

They want to return to the "good old days" which in their minds is tradition, and the status quo.

As for me, I was born in the 80s so what they want would be a radical change for me, growing up with the internet and therefore being exposed to a lot more a lot earlier. I don't understand social conservatives that usually tout the bible as tradition. In their minds it is the status quo, but not in mine. 

Conservatives didn't want interracial marriage, too. Oh, and they didn't want an end to slavery. Every subject that has had change, people that were conservative over the issue wanted it to stay the same.

From one generation to the next, conservatism will reshape itself entirely based on what they consider "tradition" and the "status quo". This also applies from one region to the next, as what in one country is conservative may be incredibly progressive to the next, and vice versa.

As the Captain might say, ORLY?

Perhaps the way you're misusing status quo? It does not mean the way things were (as you claim trying to pass off regressive policies because of the age of the claimant).

It's the way things are now (which is what the current crop of neo-conservatives want to retreat from)

 I'm not saying that it is in truth conservative to want to change something back to the way it was before, just that the proponents of that will always see it that way.

Tradition changes along with society, and with it what is conservative.

I love your terminology. It is hard to keep from laughing right now.

"When you repeat socialist propaganda like "The workers would own the means of production", this means nothing of substance."

Ridiculous. It is a statement of fact. It is simple and basic English with perfect spelling and grammar. Your incapacity to understand it is your own choice.

"You have to translate this into 'what are the men with the guns(MWTGs) going to force people to do and not do?' This would tell us exactly what you have in mind. So please translate your propaganda into what this means in the real world."

I have already done so in other threads on the same topic. You never responded. The words are still there for you to read, and considering the recent restructuring should be easier than ever to find. I'm not going to repeat myself word for word just to have you ignore it again.

based on achievement rather than fortune, the more land he will be able to farm, and the more money he'll make for more production. The government effectively buys his product from him. Then at resale, like has always been done, costs of transport and production are added, so there is no loss. Perhaps a few cents more are added to actually gain profit, so the government not only doesn't lose money but gains it. Things like roads, healthcare, policing, etc. are factored into wages from the getgo. There's no need to tax after the fact.

And here I said I wasn't going to repeat myself...

"Just tell in plain English what the MWTGs are going to do."

Not much more than they already do, and more likely less.

I find it curious though that the only part of the post you answer is a technicality. I would much rather hear your opinion on the statements of the economist quoted on that website you posted a link to - he does say that trouble in Iceland started with privatization of the banking system, doesn't he?

In my post I should have written unbridled and extremely wealthy capitalist firms and individuals. Those are the ones running the world at the moment, while the capitalists you talk about just play by the rules thinking they can be a winner "like that guy" if they try hard enough. Naturally, they ignore the fact those are the house rules. And the house always wins.

Another thing you don't want to define is how anyone is "leaching" off of you. Am I advocating anyone take something you earned? Do I want to take away any of you liberty? I want the MWTGs to leave you alone.

"Show me a single post where I can know what the MWTGs will force on people. What will they arrest people for doing or not doing?"

You want me to compile an entire book of law for you? Just how desperate are you? You go and ask a lawyer how long it would take just to copy all of US law by keyboard. What a ridiculous request.

"How does it translate into: What will the men with guns force people to do? Sorry but this is the only way I can understand things."

That is apparent. It means you lose the argument. You cannot attack what you do not know and are unwilling to understand.

How did you miss my last sentence: "There are criminal socialists also."?

If it can be demonstrated that there is a simularity between criminal behavior and capitalism, it can be demonstrated that there is a simularity between criminal behavior and socialism also.

That's not a rational statement EXC, government has a lot of faces.

In some nations,even, governments operate, close to what most consider ideal, as democratic people's representation (would you believe?) and then there is a veritable spectrum of types of government in the world reaching all the way past Men with Guns to Men with "God's" Authority.

Yes, EXC but WHY is he in charge? That's the question you need to ask, that's the point that we've been circling in this thread.

He's in charge because he is at liberty to purchase that power, as ownership, with money.

He can purchase it, with money, because it's not held in any kind of trust by any kind of social contract for any kind of purpose.

It's for sale, and all he needs to get it, is some money which he is at full and free liberty to earn in whichever manner and to whatever unlimited amount the market allows. There are no laws restricting the means by which he might make his money and no taxes restricting the amount he can make.

Everything you've been saying will make the world perfect EXC, IS WHY the warlord is in charge in Somalia.

Nobody restricting his freedom to do the business the market demands, nobody taking a proportion of his profits to upkeep the community which is the market that he exploits.

Perfect.

There are armies of men with guns saying they're in charge of Somalia because: (and listen carefully this is important) Guns are/were the backbone of the MARKET in Somalia, civil wars were created by gun supply for the explicit purpose of creating gun demand (capitalism at it's finest).

Yes EXC. That's what I have been saying over and again.

These people consider themselves good honest capitalists making the most of their liberty to make a profit unimpeded.

And in their country they aren't wrong to say that. Our laws, standards and expectations do not technically apply to their activities since we have, and can have, no standing social contract with them in the form of a peoples representative state.

Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.

A mafia boss does not shake down the people with money. WTF?

And democrats/ socialists who do this sort of thing have failed at democracy because the purpose of democratic delegation is not popularity, it is representation. Taking money from the wealth class, in a democracy, should be done with the proper measure of objective justification.

A democrat is supposed to stand for equity and social justice, for everybody, wealthy and poor. It's an ambitious ideal, yes somewhat extremely so, but it is absolutely nothing, whatsoever, like the straw man you're attempting to construct with this mafia analogy, EXC.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I have been indoctrinated into the cult of mass glorification of bloody American history EXC, I'm an Australian.

America was established however it was established, I don't have any particular reverence for it's birth that you can emotionally attack, you've proceeded from false premise.

Oh EXC, you don't have that high ground, capitalism does not have the high ground on the issue of forcing on other people what they do not want, you are sorely mistaken.

The example I already mentioned a few paragraphs above, ie the fact that the gun trade in Somalia was created BY free market capitalism to force upon Somalian's a WAR that they did not want in order to drive up their demand for guns - I'll let that be enough for now.

Capitalism - get down off your high horse, you are not so innocent of THAT.

Well for a start, I'd have them get people in general give up on this damnable obsession with guns FFS. What a crock. I find your typically American style paranoia and superstitious belief in the 'godliness' of arms sick to the taste EXC, frankly. 

It's not all about guns and money in the rest of the world, did you know that? Did you know that there are places in this world where guns and money aren't demigods? I wonder if you actually know that?

That's a lie. Just last week you and I were discussing the rationale for taxation in this very thread. Details are continuously forthcoming, you're just strawmanning again.

I'm not angry about this EXC, I believe it illustrates how capitalism: a.  promotes personal gain over the principles of law and b. fails it's social contract by taking significantly more from society than it ever delivers.

You want to make changes to the current laws to have your socialist utopia. How can I go to a lawyer to know what's in your mind? And changing laws really doesn't matter because if you do things like raise taxes, people will just hide more of their income unless the MWTGs invade everyone's privacy.

You're the one proposing a change, so you tell us the bottom line of how this change is forced on people. What new things will the MWTGs force on people?

Except that in socialism, the person that "lost" the property still owns it (along with others).

But if you get out of line, MWGs come and take you away and force you to get back in line. So we're all ultimately ruled by the gun.

He's in charge because no one is challenging him militarily. He's got more people loyal to him. He shakedowns whoever has money but no army to oppose him, then gives it to his supporters. How would your version of socialism be any different?

He takes what he wants, money or property. But, he does have to practice wealth redistribution and socialism to stay in power. He must take good care of his soldiers. He has to do something to help the poor citizens, otherwise they may rebel and convince the soldiers or join up with other warlords.

And how do the politicians take care of the money under our system? We gas pay taxes for roads, the politicians can move the money around and spend it on whatever they like to stay in power. You have this view that a socialist politician is going to be more honest than a warlord, why? He's going to take from who he can and give it to whoever he need to give it to stay in power.

The anthropologists find tons of spears and shields dating back millions of years in this cradle of humanity. So probably the early humans that invented the first spears got rich trading it to all the warring tribes millions of years ago. The gun is just an advance in technology, but it's the same old story for millions of years. War and conflict is inevitable given our situation that we live on a planet with limited resource while we can reproduce with exponential growth rates. So the conflicts that create war have been there with or without guns.

But we could change this cycle with a rational system for equitable usage of natural resources and mandatory birth control. But no one seems ready for that so the gun will rule until we are.

Because the only social contract that could work is equitable sharing of natural resources, allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and investments, paying for just the product and services you use, conditional benefits to the poor such as use of birth control and mandatory completion of job training.

But the socialist like yourself don't seem to find this acceptable. You want to shakedown anyone with money and give it unconditionally to those that keep the powerful in power. That's why your system is more like Somalia.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/mafia.htm

Socialist/communist governments essential act as a mafia. That's why the Soviet Union went from communism to being ruled by the Russian mafia. This change in the form of government was pretty much in name only. The communist bosses shakedown anyone with a business or money, the keep a lot for themselves and give enough to the poor to keep them from revolting.

It's inevitable that it will be done to keep those in power in power. So you have 90% of the people supporting higher taxes on the other 10%. An unsustainable system.

The problem is equity and justice are relative terms. With wealth redistribution, one man's just equity is another man's theft of his property. So the system is unsustainable.

If you made the goals maximize everyone's opportunity to happy, allow everyone to benefit from natural resources equally and prevent peoples bad choices from becoming societies burden. There are things that can be done that would benefit everyone. A win-win for everyone. But wealth redistribution is win-lose, so it will lead to conflict and wars.

I actually agree with you to the extent to which we allow capitalist to buy up natural resources and monopolize them. Because of this, we are forced to work for capitalists and buy capitalist products to survive. So fix this problem. But just taxing the shit out of anyone with money is not the answer. Taxing for use of natural resources is the answer.

So you're going to have the MWGs try to take all the citizen's guns? So you're just showing them that the gun rules.

I'd like to see rationality rule the world rather than the gun. But take health care for example, the socialist that are committed to this should start a voluntary co-op and show us how wonderful non-profit health care can be, show us with evidence that your system is better and everyone will join. But they don't do this, they want to force it on people (via the gun) because their real motive is stealing from whoever got more money.

Where in Denmark? If one gets out of line and says I'm not pay 60% income tax, I'm sure MWGs show up at your door and tell you yes you are. Where is there a place where MWGs don't show up if you get out of line?

It is a law for highly progressive income tax for unconditional wealth redistribution, right? You already complain about how people hide their income and wealth to avoid the tax man. So do you want the MWGs to invade everyone's privacy so their can be no hidden wealth or income? Do you invade the privacy of the poor to prove they are really poor and not disguising their poverty just to get freebies?

If we had a system where the government only collected taxes for natural resource usage and use of service. We wouldn't need to invade everyone's privacy. We wouldn't be punishing hard work and innovation.

But it is pretty strange then that Vasset supports the Canadian system over the American system for health care. In the USA, the socialists are free to start a co-op with whatever rules they want for benefits and premiums for their voluntary socialist organization. They just can force others to join and pay for it. Whereas in Canada, if you have any income, MWGs will force you to pay for the health care system whether you want it or not.

OK then what happens. Someone in Canada starts a business and decides not to pay income or profit taxes? Does just a "snooty Jewish accountant" show up and tell them they have to pay. Or does eventually the sherriff show up and arrest you? And if you resist arrest, he pulls out one of his weapons on you.

Because our social progams in the USA like Social security and medicaid taxes must be paid or federal agents show up to arrest you.

Face it, all politics all boils down to what you want the men with the guns(your surrogates) to force people to do. No matter how polite or non-violent people pretend to be, this is the bottom line.

Of course, you totally failed to address what I had written:

There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

If you do your money transfers through a bank, then the MWGs go just go the bank and force them. People go to the Caymen Islands banks cause the MWGs from North America and Europe are not allow in. If you do cash or barter, then the MWGs come to your home or business.

Bring em on. But when you tell them to get lost, they call the MWGs.

There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

(Maybe you'll even get the point eventually.)

This is getting really silly, EXC. No we are not ultimately ruled by the gun, huge strides have been taken, in philosophy and political constitution over human history, toward the ideal of a society that isn't ruled, but instead built on cooperation and agreement, communities which are collectively guided and determined according to a basic framework of consonant premises.

Now we may not have achieved this lofty ideal in toto just yet, but just because you feel, personally, that the only thing keeping you agreeable to societal norms is the armory of your elected state, doesn't mean that everybody feels that way. It doesn't mean that we have endeavoured no further toward the aspiration of a cooperative amicable human collective than the dark ages.

Why does someone need to challenge him militarily?

Because he has established himself as a military force.

How and why did he establish himself as a military force?

Because it was in the interests of securing and protecting his capital gain, just as you've been espousing EXC, he's enjoying his unlimited freedom to be armed (with a militia armed to the teeth) to enforce his rights to his bought property and interests.

Actually Somalia is technically a bit further along than this. The transitional government backed by the UN has established itself as a military player in the Somali civil war now. But at any rate, I do believe you are wrong to say that a warlords (African or Mafia) by systematic practice "shakedown" those who have money, when its obviously easier and less messy to do business with them instead. I'm sure they always prefer a clean, profitable and repeatable transaction when it comes to those who can supply them with resources such as money.

I've told you EXC. It's very simple. I advocate a natural progression into amicable collective direction for communal states. I've given you the basic framework of principles, and the rationale already, but again:

a. There is a bottommost, foundational standard of living assured for all participants in the community. This would include guaranteed access to the three basic needs of humanity (food shelter clothing) and extend up to guaranteed access to the basic needs of the community in order to insure for its collective well-being (health care, education and a system of justice). Thus assurance that every member of the society is free to eat and clothe themselves, and every member of the community is free to access services to improve/maintain their health and knowledge. The flip-side of this is that every other member of the community is also assured they are not unnecessarily exposed to the dangers of illness, extreme ignorance or desperation.

b. a foundation of public wealth and ownership of resources (other than humans who are established in principle a) is established and held in perpetual trust. All activities within the state enter into social agreement with that trust. Exploitation of any and all public wealth or resources (including humans and the established trust) must be duly compensated by reimbursing the state administration responsible for the upkeep of the public standard.

c. The state unites under a banner of Collective Aspiration which serves as the state's patron identity. A representative body is established, by election and appropriately meritocractic means, to convene on progressive issues. More than one state can be established this way and freedom for mature adults to move between states according to their affinity with collective ambitions would be ideal, of course.

Okay? Satisfied that you have been told now?

I explained to you already that this is because of a compromise that both sides of the political fence are willing to live with for their own reasons. Again: The left wants fair and just compensation for the engulfment of public resources by "wealth creators", the right doesn't really want it at all but will let it exist if administered in such a way that it is manipulable for their interests.

What ends up out of the compromise of theses two conflicting notions is the poorly aimed relatively useless, but sometimes almost substantial for the purpose, progressive income tax.

Yes! it is for Wealth redistribution. It is for wealth redistribution for the simple reason that Wealth "Creation" is mostly purposeless, frivolous and a severe burden on the public good. Wealth redistribution is well justified by social contract EXC, OK.

Or is arguing for libertarians being the men with guns.

What public goods?

Are you talking about water, air, parks, wild game, ice, ...what? What "public good" has been privatized?

lol This sounds familiar.

Do you remember, "No one has disproved "god" to date, and all the evidence seems to lead to support it"? 

Which fallacy is being made here, clock? Do you even know? Do you even care?