|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Still wrong. Taxation for constitutionally alowable expenses is not theft.
Money taken for expenses NOT allowed by the constitution IS theft.
You can repeat your mistaken statement as many times as you like. It won't change the fact that taxes are (sadly) legal. It won't change the fact that the law of the land (the constitution) allows this. It also won't change the fact that the 10th amendment (whether ignored or not) speciffically states that anything not allowed for in the constitution is NOT allowable by the Feds.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
Still wrong. Taxation for constitutionally alowable expenses is not theft.
How so?
Quote:
You can repeat your mistaken statement as many times as you like. It won't change the fact that taxes are (sadly) legal. It won't change the fact that the law of the land (the constitution) allows this. It also won't change the fact that the 10th amendment (whether ignored or not) speciffically states that anything not allowed for in the constitution is NOT allowable by the Feds.
You're arguing from a legal perspective. I'm speaking from a rational perspective.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
How so?
Because the constitution IS the law of the land. Our justice and legal system does not consider something allowed by law (rightly or wrongly)to be theft.
Quote:
I'm speaking from a rational perspective.
Another news flash for you.... legally your perspective doesn't count. If I was arguing from your perspective.... it still wouldn't count.
And comparing taxes to giving to charity is in no way rational.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
How so?
Because the constitution IS the law of the land. Our justice and legal system does not consider something allowed by law (rightly or wrongly)to be theft.
Well, guess what? Our legal system doesn't consider welfare to be theft either. So you can either define theft by what the law considers theft,in which case welfare would not be theft, or you can consider it taking something which does not belong to you against the other person's will, in which case all taxation for any purpose is theft.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm speaking from a rational perspective.
Another news flash for you.... legally your perspective doesn't count. If I was arguing from your perspective.... it still wouldn't count.
And comparing taxes to giving to charity is in no way rational.
First of all, I wasn't comparing taxes to charity. I was saying that if distribution of wealth is theft then charity falls under that definition. Second, legally your perspective doesn't count either since welfare, like it or not, is legally accepted in this country.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Read and learn  [Re: ]
#2074251 - 11/05/03 05:52 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
mushmaster writes:
what i think it really boils down to is that there unfortunately must be some initiation of force by the government. it must collect some tax if it is to do anything at all. i don't think a governmnent can exist that does not tax... it is still stealing, but is absolutely essential.
Actually, this is not necessarily so. There are several ways a government can raise money that are purely voluntary. Lotteries, bequeathments, and insurance on contracts come to mind. There are probably others.
If government were reduced to performing its legitimate functions and no others (courts, cops, and a military used strictly for self defense rather than global adventurism), these methods might be enough to cover all the costs. If it weren't enough, some taxes (but never income tax) might be required to make up the shortfall. Ethically speaking, this tax, small as it might be, would still be theft. However, as you point out, it would be the minimal possible amount of theft. Perfection would be nice to achieve, but humans are imperfect.
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Well, guess what? Our legal system doesn't consider welfare to be theft either.
Wrongly. Read the 10th.
Quote:
So you can either define theft by what the law considers theft,in which case welfare would not be theft, or you can consider it taking something which does not belong to you against the other person's will, in which case all taxation for any purpose is theft.
You left out a third. An unconstitutional taking. Any taking allowed for in the constitution is allowable and therefore not theft. Social programs are not covered by the constitution. Therefore it is theft.
Quote:
First of all, I wasn't comparing taxes to charity.
Bullshit. Here, since your words seem to have escaped you...
"Otherwise charity would also be stealing. It can be FUNDED by stealing, but if that's the case, then so are these "legitimate" functions of government which are funded by the same means."
Quote:
I was saying that if distribution of wealth is theft then charity falls under that definition.
If you can't see the difference between giving willingly and taxes, you're a lost cause and a perfect example of the failure of the American education system.
If I am walking down the street and put money into a panhandlers cup (charity) and then when I get home I mail a check for my taxes due, there is no difference in that both are legal. The taxes paid for the legitimate function of government, as allowed for in the constitution, are legal and are therefore NOT theft. It is when they are used for unconstitutional purposes that they become theft.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Well, guess what? Our legal system doesn't consider welfare to be theft either.
Wrongly. Read the 10th.
Whether you think it's right or not has no bearing on whether the law thinks it is.
Quote:
Quote:
So you can either define theft by what the law considers theft,in which case welfare would not be theft, or you can consider it taking something which does not belong to you against the other person's will, in which case all taxation for any purpose is theft.
You left out a third. An unconstitutional taking. Any taking allowed for in the constitution is allowable and therefore not theft. Social programs are not covered by the constitution. Therefore it is theft.
I left it out because "theft" was in the dictionary long before there was such a thing as the constitution.
Quote:
Quote:
First of all, I wasn't comparing taxes to charity.
Bullshit. Here, since your words seem to have escaped you...
"Otherwise charity would also be stealing. It can be FUNDED by stealing, but if that's the case, then so are these "legitimate" functions of government which are funded by the same means."
Ya, and? I was comparing it to WELFARE, not to taxation. Are you having trouble understanding the difference between these two things?
Quote:
Quote:
I was saying that if distribution of wealth is theft then charity falls under that definition.
If you can't see the difference between giving willingly and taxes, you're a lost cause and a perfect example of the failure of the American education system.
I see the difference perfectly. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that theft is theft regardless of what the money is used for.
Quote:
If I am walking down the street and put money into a panhandlers cup (charity) and then when I get home I mail a check for my taxes due, there is no difference in that both are legal. The taxes paid for the legitimate function of government, as allowed for in the constitution, are legal and are therefore NOT theft. It is when they are used for unconstitutional purposes that they become theft.
Apparently the lawmakers and judicial system in this country disagree with you.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Well I'll give you an A for tenacity. An F for logic and understanding.
No point will be conceded for you have made none.
I have other things to do than argue with someone who even attempts to compare taxes and charity as it relates to distribution, and poorly at that.
But hey, we agreed in other threads tonight so at least there is that.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: Evolving]
#2074436 - 11/05/03 06:51 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolving said:
Quote:
afoaf said:
I didn't say free market capitalism inevitably
leads towards monopolies.
I never claimed that you did.
Quote:
I know how much you'd wish that I had said
that considering how much you love playing
your monopoly card.
That's a pretty weak dodge, care to address the request or will you continue to do the 'bob and weave.' If you cannot answer the request, please exhibit the intellectual fortitude to admit it.
Quote:
If you can't differentiate between 'lead towards
monopoly' and 'invariably create monopoly'
then I think that this conversation has reached
an impasse.
I have no problem understanding the difference. You apparently however have a problem understanding what I stated or responding to a simple request.
if you concede that I never stated that monopoly is
inevitable then why are you trying to browbeat me
into arguing a point with you that I don't believe?
natural monopolies have never existsed in a free
market, nor have I ever claimed that they existed.
I simply stated that capital tends to gravitate into
the hands of the few in these sorts of systems
Quote:
Quote:
to gain larger and larger
pieces of the pie.
Do you fail to realize that the 'pie' is not static, that it grows and grows? Economics is not a zero sum game.
while overall market volume continues to increase, I'm referring
to the percentage of the market that these entities hold.
these too, tend to grow and grow until they are either hedged
by competitors or regulated down.
would you like a coke or a pepsi?
Quote:
Quote:
I'm still only left with a choice between OSH
and Home Depot instead of the variety of local
hardware stores and lumber yards that have all
but vanished from my town.
Ask yourself, why have they vanished. Some reasons, smaller selections, higher prices, inneficient business practices. The part of the equation you seem to ignore is that these large chains would not exist if they were not giving customers what they want. It is the customers as much as the management who have made these businesses successful.
see walmart predatory pricing example
Quote:
Quote:
note, costs, convenience and quality are not
markedly better at these warehouse outlets.
Note, I don't know if you can see from where your head is stuck but the behavior of customers is ample evidence that you are wrong. Why would someone start shopping at another store if there was nothing to be gained by abandoning the vendors he frequented before?
surely there is something to be gained by shopping at the
store using predatory pricing to eliminate its competition,
cheaper prices. but that's not really fair competition in
a free marketplace is it?
Quote:
Quote:
there may never be a true monopoly, but the
choices available to me in the marketplace have
shrunk markedly and will continue to do so.
I wonder where you live and how long you have lived, because I find the exact opposite situation. I have much more choices now than my parents did, there are more products and more price competition.
depends on the market and the goods.
Quote:
Quote:
the rich get richer while the poor get poorer
The poor are getting poorer? Could the poor of 50 years ago have afforded television, cable TV, VCRs, DVDs and automobiles? How many of the poor 100 years ago had indoor plumbing, central heating and air conditioning?
wow, I don't know a lot of poor people with televisions, cable
TV, VCRs, DVDs and automobiles or central heating and air
conditioning.
what poor people are you talking about?
Quote:
Quote:
Most American families have seen their level of
well-being stagnate over the last quarter-century--
and that's even before the current economic slowdown.
Between 1973 and 1998, the real hourly wages of the
average American worker fell by 9 percent. (This
contrasts with the preceding quarter-century, 1947 to
1973, when real wages grew by 75 percent). Indeed, in
1998 the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage was
about the same as in 1967. As workers' wages have
stagnated, economic inequality has worsened. In 1974
the richest 5 percent of American families earned 14.8
percent of total U.S. income; by 1998 their share had
risen to 20.7 percent.
During the same periods, government meddling in the economy increased, taxes increased, regulations increased, the number of government offices and officers increased, the monetary supply has increased, the number of behavior that have been criminalized has increased and government debt has increased. Perhaps, we have a smoking gun... (if you are not too blind to see it).
either poor people are getting poorer or they aren't.
how are you going to argue that poor people have
it soo good now with all their fancy gadgets and
then try to say that they are getting poorer because
of big government?
that seems contradictory.
maybe I'll simplify this a bit:
I did not say that monopolies are inevitable in
free market capitalist societies.
I have never stated that natural monopolies
have or will ever exist without external
intervention.
so why then are you badgering me to answer
a question, namely:
Please give an example of any monopoly that
has come into existence and maintained it's status
longer than the length of a patent WITHOUT the
material or legal help of a government.
when I have never taken the position that this
situation is possible?
is my 'head stuck'?
do I lack 'intellectual fortitude'?
why don't you tell me, plank by plank, why you
think that I should vote for Howard Dean?
what?
you DON'T think I should vote for Dean?
then I guess you don't have to answer that question...
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: afoaf]
#2074620 - 11/05/03 07:32 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
afoaf writes:
wow, I don't know a lot of poor people with televisions, cable
TV, VCRs, DVDs and automobiles or central heating and air
conditioning.
what poor people are you talking about?
Excerpted from http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2060
The following are facts about the 35 million Americans defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
* Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.
* Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
* As a group the poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above recommended levels. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, on average growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
pinky
--------------------
|
PsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess
Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: Phred]
#2074641 - 11/05/03 07:37 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I need to get on board with some of those poor folks, alot of the middle class folk I know dont even have some of that shit.
There is no way in hell some of those stats are not seriously skewed.
--------------------
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
I'm confused. Luvdemshrooms keeps going on about how the government providing welfare is not allowed in the constitution but...:
Quote:
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs 
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
|
PsiloKitten writes:
There is no way in hell some of those stats are not seriously skewed.
The only stat that is seriously skewed is the one that defines those people as "poor". The perennially indignant need there to be as many poor people in America as possible in order to justify their constant meddling and to support their massive income redistribution schemes. Clearly there are nowhere close to 35 million poor people in America.
pinky
--------------------
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: Tao]
#2074738 - 11/05/03 08:00 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
'general Welfare of the United States' is not the same thing that he is referring to. 'The United States' refers to the union of the states, the Country as a whole, for the purpose of the Constitution was to set up the structure of the Federal government. It was not addressing handouts to individual residents of the states.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: Phred]
#2074804 - 11/05/03 08:16 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
first, I'd like to note for the audience that the home
page for www.humaneventsonline.com features banner
ads for the '25 most dangerous liberal playing cards'
and books by coulter and o'really.
*Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air
conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of
the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
how has the cost, availability and economy of air conditioners
changed over the past 30 years?
surely the all knowing and benevolent free market has allowed
the air conditioning manufacturers some gains in efficiency and
thus decreased cost of purchase, use and maintenance.
*The average poor American has more living space than
the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and
other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to
the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those
classified as poor.)
the average ant has more living space than anyone living in
those cities.
here's an idea, for an honest comparison let's pick cities that
aren't listed as those with the highest population density
or at least those not on continents with average population
densities over 4 times that of north america.
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa012599.htm
the sheer absurdity of these two examples makes me
question the rest. I wonder what these 'various government
reports' are that they cull their data from....how do they
define the poverty line.
but all this is beside the point, I still want to know why I should
have to answer a question whose answer I never refuted...?
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: Evolving]
#2074821 - 11/05/03 08:20 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
if the 'common defense' implies the necessity to spend
trillions paid to crony defense contractors surely we can
afford a little something for the 'general welfare'.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: Phred]
#2074828 - 11/05/03 08:23 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ: even pinksharkmark once admitted that historically, all capitalist systems have devolved into communism eventually.
pinksharkmark: Stop lying about what I said. Nowhere at any point in time, in this forum or any other, have I ever said any such thing. Get your facts straight or shut the fuck up.
Quote:
DoctorJ: Besides, capitalism always reverts to communism over time...
Pimksharkmark: Historically, this is true. It wouldn't be true if it weren't for the democratic process, however. Two Peters will ALWAYS eventually vote to rob one Paul. It's just a matter of time. When a country's voters allow the checks and balances of a constitution to be subverted through unlimited majority rule, Capitalism will always devolve into Socialism.
Link
Quote:
DoctorJ: All it takes is one bad capitalist to negatively influence the whole system. When one person plays dirty, everyone else is forced to do the same in order to compete.
pinksharkmark: Untrue. If one person breaks the law, that does not mean that every other player in the system must break the law.
I was not talking about breaking laws, I was referring to pursuing market dominance when I used the phrase "bad capitalist".
Quote:
There are no ways in which Laissez-faire Capitalism is like Communism. None. The two are polar opposites. You either have an incomplete grasp of Capitalism, an incomplete grasp of Communism, or both.
ah, such a pity that a person as intelligent as yourself does not see how opposites can be equals 
Let me try it this way: Capitalism and Communism have a relationship. One could not exist without the other. Any economic system will alternate between capitalism and communism over the course of time. The point is not to embrace one system, but realize how both are useful in different situations and apply them effectively.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: afoaf]
#2074839 - 11/05/03 08:28 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said:
if the 'common defense' implies the necessity to spend
trillions paid to crony defense contractors
It doesn't.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: DoctorJ]
#2074844 - 11/05/03 08:29 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Stop lying about what I said. Nowhere at any point in time, in this
forum or any other, have I ever said any such thing. Get your facts
straight or shut the fuck up.
that shit looks pretty straight to me. 
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Read and learn [Re: afoaf]
#2074934 - 11/05/03 08:48 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
'general Welfare of the United States' is not the same thing that he is referring to. 'The United States' refers to the union of the states, the Country as a whole, for the purpose of the Constitution was to set up the structure of the Federal government.
but thats just your interpretation. it is open to other interpretations as well. some parts of the united states are more protected than others. some citizens are provided more welfare than others. and if the 'the united states' refers to the union of the states, as you so dogmatically declared, they could have said that, but they didnt.
im sorry, but if you little internet boys think you found some giant hole in american legislation that no judicial review (with many people way more knowledgeable about legal matters than any of us) ever found, than perhaps you should go back and locate a flaw in your reasoning rather than saying something so incredibly presumptuous.
--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Learyfan
trendal
Evolving
Great_Satan
DigitalDuality
HagbardCeline
carbonhoots
lonestar2004