The logic of state funded self indulgence.

[Unidian]

Ryan, et al.,

Which public services can the private sector provide "better" than government can? Roads and highways? Try paying $40 or $50 in tolls just to get to the corner store. The postal service? Try paying $25 to send a letter across the country. Public education? Try paying $50,000 per child only to have them totally indoctrinated with pro-business propaganda (which you might not mind, but most of us would). Health care? We already see what a disaster that is, and yet people still refuse nationalized medicine even though the $200 a month in taxes it would cost them would be far less than the $800 a month they are handing out to HMO's now. Social security? Get rid for millions of elderly starving in the streets after some free-market huckster relieves them of their retirement savings on some fraudulent stock scheme. Wall Street won't mind, though, because they will get a cut of every transaction in a trillion dollar sector...

It goes on and on. Aren't people willing to think at all, or are they simply blinded by their basic animal resentment at money being taken out of their paychecks?

[brokenhead]

That's what donations and volunteering time are for, not taxation. The money in my check is mine to keep and do with as I please. It's a direct tax on my person, which means it's unavoidable. My labor is also a part of my person, an even exchance of service for money, there is no gain or profit happening. The taxes that are taken out of my paycheck is in every way imaginable theft and robbery

I sense resentment, Nick. Which I share, up to a point. Taxation is Society's way of building and maintaining an infrastructure.

I recall being flagged down by a state trooper on an Interstate for speeding. In this instance, there was no danger to my self or any other motorist, I was simply exceeding the posted speed limit. My initial reaction (after the incident, of course) was this is literally highway robbery. Society has refined highway robbery to the point that they'll take a check! to pay the fines. When my indignance subsided, I realized that it was just society working correctly. Can we all agree to that?

The resentment you feel upon being taxed is a delusion, Nick. That money was never yours. You live in a society that requires upkeep. Upkeep has to come from people. And we are the people.

[Nick]

It doesn't matter whether you care or not. You participate, and that means you have an obligation.

The vast majority of my participation in society is paid for out of pocket ON TOP of what I'm already taxed. So technically I'm paying double for my participation as opposed to someone like you who's getting a free ride.

Nonsense. Society is providing you with the ability to do almost everything you do on a daily basis. Without the institutions and infrastructure built by collective civilization, you wouldn't have a job in the first place.

That's obviously the case with you, but society doesn't "provide" me with anything. The money I earn and taxes I pay provides me the ability to do some of the things I do. Stop trying to make it seem as if everyone else is on welfare so you don't feel like such a lazy mooch.

Without government regulation, chances are you'd already be dead in 40 different ways. One of the most obvious would be food poisoning, because in a truly free market, no food quality regulations exist. The list of dangers you would be exposed to goes on and on. Without collective oversight, free markets collapse almost immediately. They cannot exist independently, except in a form where absolutely no collectively-maintained institutions exist (which in cludes money itself, FYI). The only true "free market" is the one that existed in the primordial cave.

This paragraph has "scared little girl" written all over it. Dead in 40 different ways, assuming everyone would poison your food, and nobody would step up to start a non-government consumer protection group? Are you kidding me? Seriously you need to grow a pair or get a sex change.

[Unidian]

Nick,

That doesn't justifty direct taxation (theft). And again a belief in taxation is blind faith in the idea that Government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

Thanks for the tip, Mr. Reagan. But as I said earlier, this sort of thinking relies on the false premise that money witheld by taxation is "your money." It isn't. It is the rightful property of every citizen in your country of residence. You implicitly agree to this social contract by continuing to reside in that nation and taking part in the various opportunities it provides.

Let me put it this way, 99.9% of what society "provides" for me I would love to see eliminated, or I could get along just fine without.

Okay, Mr. Thoreau, you'd be fine without roads, food quality standards, and even the rule of law? Best of luck, then. Have fun hacking your way through the underbrush with a machete every morning - at least until someone sells you some bad meat or you get killed by a random psychopath who cannot be held accountable.

[Unidian]

This paragraph has "scared little girl" written all over it. Dead in 40 different ways, assuming everyone would poison your food, and nobody would step up to start a non-government consumer protection group? Are you kidding me? Seriously you need to grow a pair or get a sex change.

LOL, brilliant. Anyway, that's my cue to cut my losses in terms of aspirin intake. You can only argue with a Quinnologist for so long before this sort of thing rears its hilarious but entirely thread-killing head.

Take it easy, Nick, and remember - April 15th comes early. :)

[Nick]

The resentment you feel upon being taxed is a delusion, Nick. That money was never yours. You live in a society that requires upkeep. Upkeep has to come from people. And we are the people.

First of all this society has many aspects to it that I would love to see eliminated, and many others that I could do just fine without. So unless I get to decide exactly where my taxes are going it's simple theft. And guess what, if I actually got to decide where my taxes were going, I wouldn't need to be taxed in the first place because I could spend it myself. But hey I'll support the government taxing my paycheck as long as the taxes go the the Bank Account made out to Mr. Nicholas Treklis.

Now lets talk about the majority of money that actually does come out of my check due to taxation. Let's start with the Federal Income Tax. First of all it's unconstitutional, second it doesn't pay for a single social service. It only serves as a mininum payment to the Federal Reserve on the National Debt. And the vast majority of that Debt is caused by spending money within the Military-Industrial Complex and War. So basically it provides the government with the incentive to spend money it doesn't have so American can expand and protect its empire. Now lets look at the Social Security Tax. All I have to say is that I'm taxed for a service that I will never recieve. End of story.

[Nick]

Thanks for the tip, Mr. Reagan. But as I said earlier, this sort of thinking relies on the false premise that money witheld by taxation is "your money." It isn't. It is the rightful property of every citizen in your country of residence. You implicitly agree to this social contract by continuing to reside in that nation and taking part in the various opportunities it provides.

Talk about tyranny of the majority. I'd put you right up there with Hitler and the rest.

Okay, Mr. Thoreau, you'd be fine without roads, food quality standards, and even the rule of law? Best of luck, then. Have fun hacking your way through the underbrush with a machete every morning - at least until someone sells you some bad meat or you get killed by a random psychopath who cannot be held accountable.

Did you get beat up a lot when you were younger?

Oh and I like the way you get to exclude what you see fit from the .1% of society I would keep. ha!

[Philosophaster]

Now lets look at the Social Security Tax. All I have to say is that I'm taxed for a service that I will never recieve. End of story.

This assumes that the only people who benefit from Social Security are the ones who directly receive money from it. And the same goes for welfare and other public social services.

This kind of pseudo-reasoning runs all through libertarian ideology -- the idea that because a person does not receive a dollar back for each dollar he is taxed, the government simply must have been "robbing" him. But everybody benefits from the existence of the police force, fire department, and military. Everyone also benefits from lower rates of severe poverty that come about due to welfare, given the association of deep poverty with all sorts of social pathology, including crime. There is no way to restrict the positive externalities that result from lower poverty and a stable, secure country.

But libertarians generally don't care to look beyond the immediate features of a situation. Taxation = forced transfer of money = robbery = case closed, right? I guess it all fits right along with the pseudo-axiomatic kind of philosophy practiced here, and with the idealized image of the "independent, unattached masculine man" that members of this site cultivate for themselves.

[Unidian]

Talk about tyranny of the majority. I'd put you right up there with Hitler and the rest.

Yeah, Nick, good call. Ryan Rudolph preaches blatant Nazism in here, and yet I'm Hitler. Good thinking there. Just out of curiosity, have you ever eaten large quantities of paint chips? If so, you really ought to try some kind of herbal detoxification product.

Did you get beat up a lot when you were younger?

Yeah, but nowdays I give the beatings, Nick. You've been getting one in here this afternoon, although I doubt you realize it. That's okay, though. I might have gotten beat up as a kid, but you're the one who became a Quinnologist as an adult. Try as I might, I can't imagine sucking at life quite that badly. It's just more proof that life is suffering, I guess. :)

Is that the sort of response you were aiming for? Do you feel better now that you have it? If so, I'm glad to be of service. Let me know if I can offer any further help.

[Nick]

Now lets look at the Social Security Tax. All I have to say is that I'm taxed for a service that I will never recieve. End of story.

This assumes that the only people who benefit from Social Security are the ones who directly receive money from it. And the same goes for welfare and other public social services.

This kind of pseudo-reasoning runs all through libertarian ideology -- the idea that because a person does not receive a dollar back for each dollar he is taxed, the government simply must have been "robbing" him. But everybody benefits from the existence of the police force, fire department, and military. Everyone also benefits from lower rates of severe poverty that come about due to welfare, given the association of deep poverty with all sorts of social pathology, including crime. There is no way to restrict the positive externalities that result from lower poverty and a stable, secure country.

But libertarians generally don't care to look beyond the immediate features of a situation. Taxation = forced transfer of money = robbery = case closed, right? I guess it all fits right along with the pseudo-axiomatic kind of philosophy practiced here, and with the idealized image of the "independent, unattached masculine man" that members of this site cultivate for themselves.

Whether or not a tax benefits me at all is not the point. The point is I can spend my money better than any government can with the benefit being 10, 100, or 1000 times more effective. And as I've stated I would support socialization of basic services such as fire/emergency, law enforcement, and defense. What I'm against is direct and unavoidable taxation such as the income taxes and payroll taxes. A limited and reasonable sales tax on certain services would more than suffice to support these things. Also, as time goes on, even sales taxes could be phased out due to a likely increase in donations and volunteering.

[Nick]

Talk about tyranny of the majority. I'd put you right up there with Hitler and the rest.

Yeah, Nick, good call. Ryan Rudolph preaches blatant Nazism in here, and yet I'm Hitler. Good thinking there. Just out of curiosity, have you ever eaten large quantities of paint chips? If so, you really ought to try some kind of herbal detoxification product.

Did you get beat up a lot when you were younger?

Yeah, but nowdays I give the beatings, Nick. You've been getting one in here this afternoon, although I doubt you realize it. That's okay, though. I might have gotten beat up as a kid, but you're the one who became a Quinnologist as an adult. Try as I might, I can't imagine sucking at life quite that badly. It's just more proof that life is suffering, I guess. :)

Is that the sort of response you were aiming for? Do you feel better now that you have it? If so, I'm glad to be of service. Let me know if I can offer any further help.

What? Am I supposed to percieve what you said as witty and impressive or something? All I got out of it was a good explanation as to why you are such a little bitch, to put it bluntly.

[brokenhead]

Whether or not a tax benefits me at all is not the point. The point is I can spend my money better than any government can with the benefit being 10, 100, or 1000 times more effective. And as I've stated I would support socialization of basic services such as fire/emergency, law enforcement, and defense. What I'm against is direct and unavoidable taxation such as the income taxes and payroll taxes. A limited and reasonable sales tax on certain services would more than suffice to support these things. Also, as time goes on, even sales taxes could be phased out due to a likely increase in donations and volunteering.

You want your cake and eat it, too?

[Unidian]

What? Am I supposed to percieve what you said as witty and impressive or something? All I got out of it was a good explanation as to why you are such a little bitch, to put it bluntly.

Ah, much better than your last effort. Keep swinging, champ. Flail those little arms out there angrily and see if you can hit something. It's a great show. :)

[Nick]

You want your cake and eat it, too?

Not sure how that applies to what I said. Besides, what's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?

[Philosophaster]

Whether or not a tax benefits me at all is not the point. The point is I can spend my money better than any government can with the benefit being 10, 100, or 1000 times more effective.

Is this simply an assumption of yours, or what? I would never question that you could spend money in a way that would be more beneficial to you personally. The trouble is that there is more involved in maintaining a good social order -- at least what I consider a "good social order" -- than the atomic interactions of atomic individuals. Nobody is saying that individuals are never competent to spend money as they see fit, or that government is always more competent, or that government always makes the right choice. Most of the time, the free market works quite well, but there are some situations where it does not.

It all comes down to our values -- to what sort of society we want to create, and what means we consider permissible to create it. Libertarians and welfare-supporters have different ideas about both what an ideal society would look like and what are the best means to get there. I don't know that much more can be said.

[Nick]

Ah, much better than your last effort. Keep swinging, champ. Flail those little arms out there angrily and see if you can hit something. It's a great show. :)

So where exactly did you get the impression I was angry? Because I called you a little bitch? I was only stating a fact, no need to be jumping to any conclusions on my emotional state over it.

[Nick]

Whether or not a tax benefits me at all is not the point. The point is I can spend my money better than any government can with the benefit being 10, 100, or 1000 times more effective.

Is this simply an assumption of yours, or what? I would never question that you could spend money in a way that would be more beneficial to you personally. The trouble is that there is more involved in maintaining a good social order -- at least what I consider a "good social order" -- than the atomic interactions of atomic individuals. Nobody is saying that individuals are never competent to spend money as they see fit, or that government is always more competent, or that government always makes the right choice. Most of the time, the free market works quite well, but there are some situations where it does not.

It all comes down to our values -- to what sort of society we want to create, and what means we consider permissible to create it. Libertarians and welfare-supporters have different ideas about both what an ideal society would look like and what are the best means to get there. I don't know that much more can be said.

Right and I think I've explained quite effectively my position as to why I think a Libertarian oriented style of limited Government and limited taxation would serve the most people most effectively. In all honesty I don't know how anyone could disagree with it when they take an honest look at the past, present, and future of Government with respect to the direction of Society as a whole. It seems simple enough for a child to understand.

[Philosophaster]

The simplest philosophy may not always be the correct one. ;-)

[Unidian]

So where exactly did you get the impression I was angry? Because I called you a little bitch? I was only stating a fact, no need to be jumping to any conclusions on my emotional state over it.

Nice try. Be sure and try to avoid admitting that I touched a nerve in order to save face. Transparent, but what else can you do?

When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, Nick, for heaven's sake, stop digging. There's a little tidbit of wisdom that will serve you better in life that a stack of David's books. :)

[Nick]

Whatever helps you sleep better at night, man.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unidian,

Which public services can the private sector provide "better" than government can? Roads and highways? Try paying $40 or $50 in tolls just to get to the corner store. The postal service? Try paying $25 to send a letter across the country. Public education? Try paying $50,000 per child only to have them totally indoctrinated with pro-business propaganda (which you might not mind, but most of us would). Health care? We already see what a disaster that is, and yet people still refuse nationalized medicine even though the $200 a month in taxes it would cost them would be far less than the $800 a month they are handing out to HMO's now. Social security? Get rid for millions of elderly starving in the streets after some free-market huckster relieves them of their retirement savings on some fraudulent stock scheme. Wall Street won't mind, though, because they will get a cut of every transaction in a trillion dollar sector...

Yes, but it works out the same because you either pay for the services separately or you have all the money taken off as taxes. Typically someone who clears $1000 every two weeks loses about 35% of their income, so if they had an extra $700 a month of disposable income, they would be able to afford toll highways, health insurance, or trust funds for private education. You make it sound much more dire than it truly is.

Moreover, People should only pay for services if they use it, it makes much more sense for the people who use a toll highway to pay for its maintenance and upkeep, why should someone who doesn’t use a strip of highway be forced to pay for its upkeep in the form of taxes? Also, My other point is that when the government has a monopoly over certain services, the services do not get better or advance as quickly over time, and the price stays the same. Competition with any service is a good thing. And as far as the health care problem in the US, the government could impose some regulations on the insurance companies to correct their immoral behavior. In my Country, government jobs pay much more than private enterprise, which is at the expense of the tax payer, who loses up to 35% of his income, and many of these jobs are not even necessary.

[Leyla Shen]

That's what donations and volunteering time are for, not taxation. The money in my check is mine to keep and do with as I please. It's a direct tax on my person, which means it's unavoidable. My labor is also a part of my person, an even exchance of service for money, there is no gain or profit happening. The taxes that are taken out of my paycheck is in every way imaginable theft and robbery.

(I do try to keep up with everything in a thread, but sometimes it’s a little unrealistic for me. Especially given the activity in threads like this. Perhaps, you will be prepared to engage “live,” even if it means repeating yourself.)

And by "even exchange" we merely mean recompense for what Marx calls "labour power"; that is, enough $ to keep a man alive and able to continue to work at his job . . .

As with the welfare state (and by it I specifically mean a welfare state: state run health care, education, social security and employment), taxation, Nick, is what happens within capitalism, not socialism. So, your earlier call to abolish socialism in protest of "excessive" welfare is completely misguided, in my view. In fact, the welfare state itself embodies improvement in wage labour under capitalism. With it, not only is capital (or profit/surplus) actually guaranteed (what happens with the extra $ being incidental to this), but so is your wage.

By nature, classic socialism (in the purest ideological sense) has no taxation and no welfare since, within it, the means of production is employed only for use and not for profit. Therefore, any ideological conception you have of socialism when making it synonymous with the welfare state is incorrect. In it, there is no such distinction. Everything is "welfare." The point might at first appear subtle, but it isn't really. It actually is the distinguishing characteristic between the two political ideologies.

So, just as your wage is yours to do with as you please by virtue of the goodness of capitalism, so to is the welfare recipient's money his to do with as he pleases (which isn't a lot, by relative standards, as you know). It is for this reason that Philo, I think, said to you that the free market does not solve everything. Capital is at the base of all Western economies and your charge of theft and robbery, therefore, appears to be grounded in some other ideological assumptions when it does not address capital as the primary factor in this brand of "socialism" (the effect) you're talking about.

[Nick]

Leyla, I never said capitalism, the free market, or anything else for that matter would "solve everything". What I explained through out this thread is an alternative form of Government compared to the one's in existence now, and the ones that existed in the past. And while I understand and appreciate your argument it really it doesn't mean anything to the actual ideas I'm trying to express. So instead of turning this into an argument over semantics and trying to continually argue your point against mine, I think it would serve us both best if you read over everything I've said and actually try to understand exactly what I'm trying to express. It's not that hard, I guarentee you will know exactly what I'm talking about.

[snow bunny]

Leyla, I never said capitalism, the free market, or anything else for that matter would "solve everything". What I explained through out this thread is an alternative form of Government compared to the one's in existence now, and the ones that existed in the past. And while I understand and appreciate your argument it really it doesn't mean anything to the actual ideas I'm trying to express. So instead of turning this into an argument over semantics and trying to continually argue your point against mine, I think it would serve us both best if you read over everything I've said and actually try to understand exactly what I'm trying to express. It's not that hard, I guarentee you will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Wow, Nick, that's pretty self-centered. I haven't read any of your b.s., but it doesn't sound like you are going anywhere particularly original in that latest post. I don't really care, but you just seem to want to toot your own horn.(lurkers keep in mind that I am now very wary of a specific member here looking to bash me any chance he gets, so I will go on the offensive elsewhere, as it were.)

[brokenhead]

You want your cake and eat it, too?

Not sure how that applies to what I said. Besides, what's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?

Ya know, I never got that expression either, Nick. But it still applies. You, sir, need to become more politically active. Myself? I pay attention, I discuss, I vote. Maybe you need to vote two or three times to feel you are getting you money's worth. Why don't you try it? I'm not sure what the alternative to your complaint could be. Except to move somewhere else. I look around myself and I see other Americans (I'm in Pennsylvania, USA) who also pay taxes. The system doesn't seem to be targeting me more than anyone else. And I look around me and I see America and not some other place. So since I don't like showering with other men, I pay my taxes.