Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Freedom" thread or something
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Freedom" thread or something
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 211212213214215 294>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 13:24
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

 
You ask why I feel Libertarianism leads to "Little House on the Prairie".  But you answered your own question right here.  In order to have the level of society we have now - with sophisticated industry and things like "internet" and "subways" and such - we have to work together.  We can't adhere to this rampant individualism that I see inherent in the brand of Libertarianism you adhere to.  We need each other in order to have this level of sophistication, and I don't see that working without taxes.
Indeed, the theoretical principle of 'defining human interactions via bi-lateral contracts without need for any superimposed legislation' is simply naive and completely impossible in practice in a complex world as this we live in. Little House On The Prairie was probably even a too highly developed society for that to work in practice.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 13:34
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

What's the implied discipline approach here for parents who are not "wishy-washy"?

You make an interesting point.  It's never easy.  Every child is different.  However, here is what the Libertarian approach sounds like to me:


I don't know what that (the "Libertarian" approach to parenting) even means.  I was asking how non-wishy-washy parents discipline their kids, given the premise that wishy-washy parents tell them "Don't do that."

I guess my house is a relatively benign oligarchy.  Wink
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 14:30
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

 
You ask why I feel Libertarianism leads to "Little House on the Prairie".  But you answered your own question right here.  In order to have the level of society we have now - with sophisticated industry and things like "internet" and "subways" and such - we have to work together.  We can't adhere to this rampant individualism that I see inherent in the brand of Libertarianism you adhere to.  We need each other in order to have this level of sophistication, and I don't see that working without taxes.
Indeed, the theoretical principle of 'defining human interactions via bi-lateral contracts without need for any superimposed legislation' is simply naive and completely impossible in practice in a complex world as this we live in. Little House On The Prairie was probably even a too highly developed society for that to work in practice.


How so?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 15:26
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I myself have never argued for the abolishing of government, only the abolishing of taxation.

Then I'm interested in hearing how you would envision a government working without taxation.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 16:54
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I myself have never argued for the abolishing of government, only the abolishing of taxation.

Then I'm interested in hearing how you would envision a government working without taxation.


Here is a basic, very brief article on the subject of government without taxation.

If we accept the axiom that government is the servant of the people (and never the other way around), then we cannot also uphold the notion that the government can raid a man's paycheck and take what it wishes.  A servant cannot steal from his master.

The important question then is "What is the purpose of government?"  The Libertarian argues that the government's role is to enforce the non-aggression principle (which includes arbitrating contractual disputes).  That is all.  If this is the sole purpose of government, then funding it will be extremely easy to come by, given the fact that people will eagerly donate over $700,000 to a bullied bus monitor when the asked amount was a mere $5,000.  Things get funded when people want them to be funded.  This is better than politicians taking your money and then deciding how it will be spent.

"What about the poor?"  Our government has done nothing to solve poverty.  We have amassed about $11 trillion in debt since 2000.  That's enough to give every man, woman, and child in the US about $35,000.  I don't doubt Geoff's sincerity and the sincerity of Democrats who want to feed people, clothe people, keep folks warm in the winter and cool in the summer.  But the methods they endorse are ineffective and expensive, and our past 100 years of history shows that.  We've had a federal reserve, a progressive income tax, a minimum wage, sub-prime mortgages, and a host of other governmental programs, and poverty remains with us.  I can point to why each of these things has failed if you would like, and it isn't because of a lack of funding.

The big worry is that people won't organize and pool their resources to have things like police, firefighters, schools, etc.  Our nation's unique history shows that this isn't true.  Even the criticism that we'll turn into the "wild west" is rather ironic, since the American West was quite Libertarian and you were certainly less likely to be shot there than in modern day Chicago.  There is an article on Libertarianism principles in practice in the so-called "Wild West."  If you are interested, the link is here.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 17:40
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

 
Indeed, the theoretical principle of 'defining human interactions via bi-lateral contracts without need for any superimposed legislation' is simply naive and completely impossible in practice in a complex world as this we live in. Little House On The Prairie was probably even a too highly developed society for that to work in practice.


How so?
Do I really have to answer that? You are a smart person, just thinking a bit about it should make it evident. I say again, do not base your Libertarianism on what the current US government is or does, think wider.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 18:24
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



Here is a basic, very brief article on the subject of government without taxation.


This all sounds nice.  And in theory it would be nice if people could say "I'm not going to pay for that" and then the government could say "well, then you're not going to get to use it."  But there are too many things in society that people benefit from which there would be no way of enforcing payment.

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

But the methods they endorse are ineffective and expensive, and our past 100 years of history shows that. 

Um, no - why is it that the states with the worst deficits are all Republican?  The states with the worst poverty rates are all in "the Bible Belt"?  The states with the least likelihood of upward mobility are in "the south", which always vote red?  You might be able to make a case that Democratic (the party) policies don't work (it would take quite a bit of work), and then I'd just turn it around and say "that's because they've been met with fierce resistance by the religious Right Wingers who are absolutely insistent that they are right and are willing to sabotage the country rather than be proven wrong."  Interesting exercise - look at insurance rates after Obamacare started to be implemented.  They've gone down drammatically in the states that actually voluntarily implemented it.  Then the conservatives tried to make a case that it wasn't working using Indiana as an example.  The reply was "that's because you're tearing it apart to try to make it look bad - of course it's not going to work right."  And then, surprise surprise, it came out that they fudged the data and the insurance rates have actually been going down for most people.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 20:30
Okay.

Below are the 10 states that are projecting the largest shortfalls for FY 2012.

State Projected FY 2012 shortfall
(in millions of dollars)
California $21,300
Illinois 17,000
New Jersey 10,500
Texas 10,000
New York 8,200
Connecticut 3,800
Minnesota 3,800
North Carolina 3,000
Ohio 3,000
Florida (tie) 2,500
Oregon (tie) 2,500

 

When viewed as a percentage of the full state budget, the task of closing these budget gaps can appear even more daunting. In Illinois, for example, the $17 billion 2012 shortfall is more than half the size of the 2011 state budget. Altogether, 40 states project shortfalls for their 2012 budgets, with a total that equals 19 percent—nearly one-fifth—of their 2011 budgets. Below are the ten states with the largest projected 2012 shortfalls, relative to their most recent budgets.

State Projected FY 2012 shortfall
(in millions of dollars)
 Shortfall as Percentage
of FY 2011 Budget
Illinois $17,000 52.3
New Jersey 10,500 37.5
Nevada 1,300 36.7
Mississippi 1,200 27.6
South Carolina 1,300 26.1
California 21,300 25.7
Minnesota 3,800 25
Texas 10,000 22.3
Connecticut 3,800 21.6
Louisiana 1,700 21.2
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 20:32
If you hate Republicans, then why do you support a system in which they can rule over you?
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65513 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2013 at 20:36
^ that's a great question, wish I had an answer
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 02:17
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

If you hate Republicans, then why do you support a system in which they can rule over you?

Because he doesn't want to force his political opinion on others? You of all people should understand that.
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 04:16
The Government dosent excatly steal you money, when they tax you, in a democraty.
People vote, based on their opinions, and trough some system (based in the countries constitution) some people are chosen to make the rules, included in these rules, is the state budgets. 
You may belive they did wrong, but stealing is a bit over the top.
 
NB:
If you want a tax free system, how about scecurity ? I dont think the article gets that clarified. 
Even back in the oldest times someone was paying for military/police/firefighting, in most cases Rulers took the gold from the upper class, upper class took the gold from low class (I dont wanna mention slaves)
 
Now a days we live a more complex world, dont you belive we should support some form of disaster protection and help the people who have been hit !
What if a neuclear plant blows up ?
 
In those situations is very hard to rely on local resources, hole states may be struck at the same time.  
 
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 05:19
Rob, what you may be looking at is states that are investing right now.  When you invest, it looks bad if people just look at your current budget.  But if you look at studies that show how much a state receives in benefits from the federal government vs. how much they pay in taxes, it's always "the Bible Belt" that is sucking up all the resources, whereas the true blue states like CT, NY, and such that are paying more into the system than they are receiving from it.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 05:32
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

But the methods they endorse are ineffective and expensive

Here's another thought.  You haven't offered up anything to support this claim, and even if you did I'm not sure how much it would tell us about what I'm about to offer as a possibility, but think about this:
Let's just say I was against government programs that help the poor.  So I go out and I take a look at some non-profit organization and do a study on their numbers showing how "efficient" they are.  Then I go out and do a study on a government program and show how "inefficient" they are.  But I neglect to tell you that one of the reasons that the government program is so "inefficient" is because they actually pay a decent salary to their workers, as opposed to the non-profit organization which pays their workers a mere pittance.  So basically, what I'm saying is that I think people who help the poor should be poor themselves.

People love playing games with numbers.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 07:15
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Rob, what you may be looking at is states that are investing right now.  When you invest, it looks bad if people just look at your current budget.  But if you look at studies that show how much a state receives in benefits from the federal government vs. how much they pay in taxes, it's always "the Bible Belt" that is sucking up all the resources, whereas the true blue states like CT, NY, and such that are paying more into the system than they are receiving from it.


It's starting to sound like you have a real problem with the system.  Clap
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 07:21
Ah, here's what I was talking about:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
My 2012 List
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 07:26
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Ah, here's what I was talking about:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union


Nearly half of Americans get cash from other taxpayers and pay no federal income taxes themselves, so I don't see how this is surprising.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 07:38
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Ah, here's what I was talking about:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union


Nearly half of Americans get cash from other taxpayers and pay no federal income taxes themselves, so I don't see how this is surprising.

That's a very misleading statistic that Romney misused.  Everyone pays taxes.  But there are different types of taxes.  So what the rich like to do is to take the rich tax, and point out that poor people aren't paying that specific type of taxes.  Which they aren't paying because they don't own stocks and bonds.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 07:48
Think of it this way - let's say Romney (or any Republican) got up there and tried to generate outrage by pointing out the vast number of people in America who didn't pay property taxes.  That doesn't necessarily mean America is allowing people to be moochers - it probably means much of America is too poor to afford to own property.  That's what they are doing by pointing out the "half of Americans" who don't pay taxes.  They're picking out a specific kind of taxes that only applies to stocks and bonds and trying to make their target audience believe that they should be outraged over moochers in society.
My 2012 List
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2013 at 08:15
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Ah, here's what I was talking about:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union


Nearly half of Americans get cash from other taxpayers and pay no federal income taxes themselves, so I don't see how this is surprising.

That's a very misleading statistic that Romney misused.  Everyone pays taxes.  But there are different types of taxes.  So what the rich like to do is to take the rich tax, and point out that poor people aren't paying that specific type of taxes.  Which they aren't paying because they don't own stocks and bonds.


It's not misleading, and I didn't get it from Romney.  It's true and I was very precise with my language.  I bolded it and put it in red for you.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 211212213214215 294>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.242 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.