Quote :

"Exactly, I ask for a plan and all he offered was something that would lead to some form of anarchy with no idea of how the world would look after the fact."

Anarchy? WTF? Why do you think this is that complicated? Shrinking government really is that easy: just freeze all current government agency spending at what it was last year. Bills that are expiring, extend. As the economy grows, and government stays the same, the government will have shrunk on net. How will government work? Exactly the same way it worked last year. This was the plan implemented by China back in the 1970s when they amassed the political will to shrink their state. I suspect even you would acknowledge the beneficial outcome of that plan. Canada implemented a similar shrinkage plan starting in the 90s.

You are mistaking political discourse for difficulty of governance. Yes, getting such through congress would be impossible, so really is no point discussing it, but given the political will to shrink the state, the courts and bureaucracy will implement it.

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 11:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/10/2010 11:15:20 PM

Quote :

"So now it's whether it's justified or not? So then your argument here is more that taxes "aren't justified" rather than it being about "coercion"?"

Yes that was always the argument. I claimed that taxes are coercion and that coercion (outside of defense of rights) is unjust. In order for taxation to be justified, it must be shown that the money they are taking is rightfully theirs. Since I have never had a choice in the matter and have not agreed to provide them with any funds, I don't think they can legitimately claim that it is rightfully theirs.

3/10/2010 11:26:41 PM

Quote :

"I claimed that taxes are coercion and that coercion (outside of defense of rights) is unjust. In order for taxation to be justified, it must be shown that the money they are taking is rightfully theirs. Since I have never had a choice in the matter and have not agreed to provide them with any funds, I don't think they can legitimately claim that it is rightfully theirs."

Now you've shrunk it and exposed a hole. What about fender benders? I didn't agree to pay some guy if I bump into his car, why should I be coerced to?

Let's get the argument back to what it really is, you don't think the government should be able to tax.

3/10/2010 11:42:29 PM

That still is defense of property rights. If you destroy someone else's property, that person has a right to be compensated appropriately.

3/11/2010 9:15:23 AM

Whether or not you destroyed their property is left up to laws. Guess what else is in laws.

3/11/2010 6:26:35 PM

If they own the car and you destroy it, what does that have to do with any law?

3/11/2010 7:54:42 PM

Car accidents aren't always that cut and dry, suppose it was a 4 way stop.

3/11/2010 11:09:36 PM

You're just referring to determining who is at fault. Once it is determined who is at fault, that person would need to compensate the victim. What does any of this have to do with coercion?

3/11/2010 11:13:24 PM

Quote :

"Once it is determined who is at fault"

What mechanism do we use to determine who is at fault?

do you now understand the answer to this:
"If they own the car and you destroy it, what does that have to do with any law?"

Quote :

"What does any of this have to do with coercion?"

I am trying to show you how coercion is used to enforce EVERY law, not just tax law.

3/11/2010 11:20:03 PM

Who is at fault is determined by some impartial third party, such as a judge.

Of course force is used to defend rights, as I already said. But what right is taxation defending?

3/11/2010 11:27:59 PM

Quote :

"Who is at fault is determined by some impartial third party, such as a judge."

Who interprets what?

Quote :

"But what right is taxation defending?"

It's not about rights, the government uses force to enforce their laws, taxation is one of them, just like property laws or anything else.

3/11/2010 11:40:59 PM

Quote :

"It's not about rights, the government uses force to enforce their laws, taxation is one of them, just like property laws or anything else."

And now we've arrived at the point where you claim the laws are justified simply because the government has the most guns. That's called tyranny, and I could see this leading here. That's why I started the other thread. This is a larger issue that deserves to be discussed outside of the narrow context of taxation.

3/11/2010 11:52:11 PM

Quote :

"And now we've arrived at the point where you claim the laws are justified simply because the government has the most guns."

No, that's misstating me, you keep trying to inject morals here. I'm just pointing out that the government doesn't use coercion any differently to enforce tax laws than it does to enforce EVERY other law.

3/11/2010 11:57:52 PM

Yes, but what gives the government the right to enforce these laws in the first place? Hence the other thread.

Your entire argument hinges on it being legitimate simply because it is law. As I have pointed out, laws can be immoral. The government can make whatever law it wants. That does not mean all of them are right. Here we are arguing the legitimacy of the tax laws in the first place, not the means of enforcing them. I have already said that if the tax laws are legitimate then it is legitimate to use force to enforce them.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 12:04 AM. Reason : -]

3/12/2010 12:02:20 AM

Quote :

"Here we are arguing the legitimacy of the tax laws in the first place, not the means of enforcing them. I have already said that if the tax laws are legitimate then it is legitimate to use force to enforce them."

You did not say that. I have had to get you to go through this whole damn goose chase to try to explain that to you. The "coercion part is irrelevant. Your real argument is that you don't think tax laws are right, it has nothing to do with coercion, you just threw that shit in there to make things more sensational.

I made this point on the last page. You've yet to make any actual point as to why taxes aren't right, you've only tried to argue why using force to enforce taxes is wrong, which I've had to explain to you, is irrelevant.

3/12/2010 12:16:23 AM

No, here is my argument in this thread:

1. Use of coercion for any reason other than defense of rights is immoral.
2. Taxation is coercion.
3. Taxation is not defense.

Therefore, taxation is immoral. So the fact that it is coercion is not sensationalism, but a crucial premise in the validity of the argument. The first premise is a much larger discussion than just taxation, which is the point of the other thread. If you wish to argue points 2 or 3, that's what I was attempting to discuss in this thread. I think it is pretty clear that taxation is coercion, so the only other debatable point is that taxation is not defense. So if you believe an argument can be made that the tax money belongs to the government and they are just taking back what is rightfully theirs, then feel free.

And by the way, I did say that and you even quoted me on it:

Quote :

"Quote : "So now it's whether it's justified or not? So then your argument here is more that taxes "aren't justified" rather than it being about "coercion"?" Yes that was always the argument. I claimed that taxes are coercion and that coercion (outside of defense of rights) is unjust. In order for taxation to be justified, it must be shown that the money they are taking is rightfully theirs. Since I have never had a choice in the matter and have not agreed to provide them with any funds, I don't think they can legitimately claim that it is rightfully theirs."

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 12:31 AM. Reason : -]

3/12/2010 12:22:36 AM

Let's just argue whether they are legitimate or not. We've both stated that is the argument.

So then I'd rather you define legitimate.

3/12/2010 12:32:46 AM

My claim in this thread is that legitimate use of force is any use which is in defense of rights (defense of life, liberty, or property).

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM. Reason : rights]

3/12/2010 12:39:03 AM

that's not what I asked.

3/12/2010 12:39:46 AM

Legitimate = moral, ethical

3/12/2010 12:48:14 AM

You've only defined one cloudy term with two other cloudier terms. Laws aren't morals, this is why I've told you throughout this thread that morality is irrelevant.

3/12/2010 1:18:27 AM

We're not talking about laws. We're talking about the use of coercion. If you want to claim that laws can only exist using coercion to enforce them, then the use of coercion would extend to laws, but laws are not the starting point. The basis that I am using in this thread is that the only legitimate, moral, or just use of coercion is in defense of rights, and from this it follows that taxation is immoral. The other thread is where I am attempting to explore that assumption.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 9:39 AM. Reason : -]

3/12/2010 9:39:16 AM

Quote :

"We're not talking about laws. We're talking about the use of coercion."

FUCKING SHIT. Didn't we just go through this crap? How does what you are saying here not go directly against what you said here:
we are arguing the legitimacy of the tax laws in the first place, not the means of enforcing them

3/12/2010 5:45:24 PM

All this half assed philosophy aside, the overarching point of this thread is all the howling of the Republicans here and in general about the tax rates is just ignorant misinformed bs for the vast majority of the middle class taxpayer.

Q.E.D.

3/12/2010 5:59:11 PM

^^ Sorry, you are correct. In this thread we have been discussing the legitimacy of the law. In that particular instance I thought you were asking me about coercion. Let me try to clarify again:

In this thread, I have made the claim that force should only be used for defense of rights. Initiation of force is wrong. Under this assumption, a legitimate law (assuming force is used to enforce this law) would only be one which is in defense of rights.

3/12/2010 6:18:58 PM

I assume you are referring to natural rights and not legal ones.

3/12/2010 6:54:25 PM

Yes. Obviously if it were ok to use force to enforce any legal rights, then the government would be justified in passing any law it wished. I have already discussed slavery, which I feel is absolutely immoral, regardless of what the law says. Using force to enforce slavery would be wrong, even if the law says slavery is allowed.

3/12/2010 6:58:01 PM

So then you do realize that legal rights and natural ones are not the same thing.

3/12/2010 6:59:23 PM

Yes and I believe that they can conflict. I see natural rights as being the most basic rights humans need to be free, so any law in violation of these rights I believe to be immoral.

3/13/2010 12:35:22 PM

Who are you to say what is or is not immoral?

[Edited on March 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2010 1:04:02 PM

He is. And he being he, he can say what he believes to be moral. Just as you can say you believe communism is moral.

3/13/2010 1:17:40 PM

I don't think communism is moral, I think morals are irrelevant to political and economic systems.

3/13/2010 1:20:44 PM

Then what is relevant?

3/13/2010 1:51:00 PM

Quote :

"I think morals are irrelevant to political and economic systems."

That itself is a moral statement though, isn't it?

3/13/2010 2:03:46 PM

it's got nothing to do with what's morally right or wrong, it's about what's best for society.

3/13/2010 6:56:13 PM

But what's best isn't always clear. Which is what the problem always is.

Some people think it's "best" if life is simple and slow. Some people think it's "best" to have a more modern, fast-paced lifestyle. The 2 things aren't mutually exclusive in a country as massive as ours, but sometimes it is.

3/13/2010 7:22:45 PM

Thats why we have all this political debate and more than one political party.

3/14/2010 10:09:32 AM

Harry Reid trying to say we have a voluntary tax system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8&feature=PlayList&p=4A0FF4339E8F12D0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

3/14/2010 12:38:56 PM

It makes sense too. Chartiable people don't bitch about socialism. Canada, norway, sweden and finland are probably the most taxed people and still among the most charitable.

Quote :

"Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. We gave Haiti millions of private charity dollars, and many of the donors probably couldn't even find Haiti on a map. "

NO



[Edited on March 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM. Reason : see]

3/14/2010 1:08:36 PM

^ And now we learn why you believe what you do. Did you not notice that the figures provided in the top chart only included funds that were given by the government of the country? Your figure is useless for this discussion. The second figure is more relevant, as it shows that private charity accounted to 1/5th of the total. But all $363 million might have come from Cuba for all we know from the chart.

In the seven days following the earthquake in Haiti, $275 million was donated to U.S. nonprofits providing aid to victims...Corporate giving in the 72 hours following the earthquake topped $43 million.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41036_20100122.pdf

So, it would seem that in the first seven days U.S. private charity was almost double what congress managed to cobble together.

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 1:30 AM. Reason : ,.,]

3/15/2010 1:27:18 AM

Ok, just got my taxes done. Turns out im one evil rich bastard in the top 5% of filers. Who knew. I know most people start running in front of my 10 yr old accord asking for money when they see me coming. LOL Hell and im only in the 25% bracket. We need the fairtax, a flat tax, or more brackets.

Its cool they actually do a breakdown of where your taxes go.

National defense 20%
Veterans and foreign affairs 4%
Medicaid, food stamps, related programs 14%
Unemployment and Social Services 6%
SS, Medicare, and other retirement 37%
Interest on debt 8%
Law enforcement and general govt 2%
Physical, human, and community development 9%

Looks like good chunk to entitlements...time to add some more fellas. Im "rich", bleed me.

3/17/2010 9:11:04 PM

Quote :

"LOL Hell and im only in the 25% bracket. We need the fairtax, a flat tax"

lol. Every flat/fair tax I've read about calls for a 23-27% sales tax.

3/17/2010 9:47:17 PM

Fed: 11.52% State: 4.45% Local (Property): 7.03%

My only complaint really is the latter

3/18/2010 7:10:37 AM

Quote :

"23-27% sales tax"

Which is fine with me and much more fair. How many times boone have you seen me on here complaining about how unfair the sales tax is?

3/18/2010 9:04:02 AM

Quote :

"Who is at fault is determined by some impartial third party, such as a judge. Of course force is used to defend rights, as I already said. But what right is taxation defending?"

Taxation is used, in part, to pay for the police, courts, legislature, and executives that create, maintain, and enforce laws such as the ones that protect a person's property.

3/18/2010 11:17:31 AM

^yes, apparently 2% goes towards that.

I would argue that that is the responsiblity of the federal govt, not providing retirement or viagra.

3/18/2010 11:19:32 AM

I, like all liberals, would argue that the ONLY thing the federal government is responsible for is providing Viagra.

3/18/2010 11:21:52 AM

Viagara for some, miniature American flags for the rest!

3/18/2010 11:49:40 AM

And as a conservative, I would feel that is unfair to cialis.

3/18/2010 11:49:44 AM

Quote :

"it's got nothing to do with what's morally right or wrong, it's about what's best for society."

Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do. - Futurama

3/18/2010 1:42:05 PM