For my Libertarian friends
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=59549
Printed Date: November 22 2024 at 18:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: For my Libertarian friends
Posted By: Finnforest
Subject: For my Libertarian friends
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 16:44
|
Found this clip that I thought you might enjoy. What gets me is how far TV journalism has fallen. People used to be able to watch stuff like this on TV, while now news is considered where Lindsay and Paris partied last night. Edward R Murrow is spinning in his grave. God I love a good, dry discussion in black and white. A boring set, a lite bulb hanging from the ceiling, lots of cigarette smoke....those were the days. Anyway, the clip.... |
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 17:16
|
reminds me of Charlie Rose's show so what's the crux of this thread Jim, the decline of intellect in TV journalism or Rand's philosophies?.. I'll say this: I'm sick of philosophy in general, a feeble attempt to organize ideas and views, a trap wherein true principles and ethics are ignored in favor of an Idea Set |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 17:45
|
Yeah we all long for the "old days" Everything was good back then. Especially with the cigarette smoke, the good ol days of manliness and suave right? One of my profs told me that people, professors included, used to smoke right in class. I do wish we go back to that some time... Well we're not. That's progress for ya... Since this is a thread for Libertarians I guess I'm leaving. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 18:02
| . |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 18:55
I think they need to smoke more. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 21:01
|
I agree, which is why I enjoy The News Hour and of course the indomitable Charlie Rose.
However, I can't say the same about Ayn. "Greed is good and altruism is evil" sounds to me suspiciously like an attempt to validate being a bad person... ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 21:53
|
Ayn Rand is/was a cancer, as evidenced by her saying most people don't deserve love. Thank Gawd libertarianism doesn't have to stand on her overly masculine shoulders to survive. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 22:00
|
I prefer a different old philosophy on love:
------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging." Albert Camus |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 22:13
You must be kidding me... |
stonebeard wrote:Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 22:14
|
Funny, I tried to pay my cell phone bill with love and I got escorted out by security. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 01:22
|
A thread for Libertarians you say!
Maybe we can get Pen Jillette to join Progarchives now -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 02:44
Why are you mentioning philosophy in an Ayn Rand thread? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 02:54
 |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:01
 |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:03
 |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:11
|
Heh, look, I'd like to reserve the term 'philosopher' for people of far greater intellectual potential than Rand, and most importantly for people who actually had something profound to say. Although she did stress the existence of a reality independent of our hopes and wishes. Seeing that so many people seem to think their perception is reality that's gotta count for something. Too bad her 'philosophy' is a u-turn on that basic principle, though. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 05:14
Did you watch the clip? |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 05:58
Candidate for post of the year! ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 06:09
|
I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor. Let's be honest- marijuana has caused way fewer deaths and maimings than drink and causes fewer health problems than cigarettes. So is why is that illegal? Why do we spend exorbitant amounts of money arresting and jailing people who use and deal it? Has prohibition taught us nothing? I've never toked myself- not once- but as I contemplate the beer I will enjoy today, I'll just say that I'm no hypocrite. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 06:59
|
Oh, and something about love: People toss that word around an awful lot without it having any clear meaning. If a man comes in meaning to rob and murder my family, how can I possibly love that man in any meaningful respect? No, if I love my family, I will hate that man, and do what I must to protect my wife and children (and please don't come at me with Christ's words that "You should love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you," as though I've never heard that statement or never studied it in context). I'd actually take Rand's proposal that "not everyone is deserving of love" a big step further: No people are deserving of love (it's a biblical concept)- we're all wicked. But as God chose to love us despite our sin, we should love others, meaning we should forgive the faults of people we despise and show kindness to them (even if we don't want to!). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 10:30
Not to mention that the drug schedules are based on: addictiveness, and medical uses. Alcohol and tobacco are both highly addictive, serve no real medical purposes, and prolonged use of them will do damage to most organs of your body. Weed may not be harmless, but MUCH more so then alcohol/tobacco not to mention to mention the possible medicinal uses. Yet it is illegal while booze and cigs are legal and advertised! In fact weed is a schedule 1 drug, above coke and on the same level as heroin!? I've heard some say that taxing it would eliminate our debt and pay for healthcare. I just do not think THAT many people do it. But no doubt it could generate some serious revenue if marijuana was legal and had an excise tax. I believe Milton Friedman, (God to conservative/libertarians) was one of the first to condone it. And while we're here I want to know: How do you guys feel about gay marriage and abortion. Because I've known quite a few people claiming to be libertarian, some pretty hardline but only ONE identified as pro-choice, (though personally against it). A true libertarian should be pro-choice going by their own philosophy... And for the record, when it comes to social issues I have a libertarian streak, it's the economics though I'm going to avoid here |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 10:53
Ayn Rand was an atheist so she would probably accuse you of completely missing the point. She is also not that really good a representative of libertarian politics. Most philosophers who support the same political course of action as she did (e. g. Robert Nozick) are no big fans of the ethical egoism she used as an argument in favour of it. (of which she's one of the few big-name defenders) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 10:59
Not necessarily- arguably the biggest argument about abortion is whether or not it is murder (from a moral standpoint if not a legal one). If a libertarian had to be pro-choice due to his philosophy, then he would have to say it's all right to shoot the slow checkout lady at Walmart because she's an inconvenience to him. That of course is absurd. Gay marriage is the same way, I think, but is probably much more likely to be supported by libertarians (but I still know several who do not support it and yet can easily be considered libertarians by a plethora of other beliefs). Remember, a label can be helpful, but if the subgenres here at Prog Archives have taught us anything, it's that they often aren't. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 10:59
Touche! ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 11:55
I'm just saying. Libertarianism is as little government control in our lives as possible. So, by that theory even if you are opposed to abortion, you should support pro-choice anyway....because the government can not tell you what/what not to do. I guess I'm just being a smart ass though.. I know obviously opinions can differ...and I guess you can go the Ron Paul method and say a fetus is a life, so a libertarian MUST be pro-life since you have to support their rights.And yes, almost all the libertarians I know DO support gay marriage. Again, for the reason that the government can't tell them what to do. Though social issues aren't usually their thing, they seem to more bent on economics. And that's where libertarians and myself get into some fun debates |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:03
|
It seems like a lot of Republicans these days are becoming libertarians without actually taking in the full ideological stance of the viewpoint. It's just a way for them to be a little more edgy and anti-socialist.
-------------  
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:06
I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed. As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:09
The only way to really push the marijuana legalization argument is by saying that it will help push the economy through taxation. If you simply argue that it's immoral for morally upstanding citizens to go to jail for using a substance that makes the more mellow and grows naturally out of the ground then no one seems to listen - except for other cannabis users. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:10
Yes, isn't that funny. I never heard the term really mentioned in national politics until a certain man from Texas by the name of Ron had a big internet campaign. After that I swear Libertarians started coming out of the woodwork. Sure, many were and just decided to some out in support, but I see it like a baseball team that did good. Now everyone is a "fan" Especially with Obama, the Democrats and their "socialism" sudddenly EVERY republican speech, regardless of content, manages to work the "big evil hand of government" into it? And I agree with Doc on the excise tax on cigarettes. They are WAY to high, esp in NJ and NY. It does hurt lower income earners mostly. And Wizard. I DO think legalizing it will make money, of course it will. I just do not think it is to the level advocates say....Although I would if we were able to pay for a new health care system from cannabis money. |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:18
I consider myself a moderate social libertarian and somewhat economic libertarian, although certainly my economics leans to the left. I'm both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Government has absolutely no business in personal moral decisions unless such a moral decision (say drinking and driving) presents a clear threat to public safety. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:25
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:31
|
Dr Hand I forgot who it was, but someone during the 2008 campaigns said The "Invisible" hand guiding the economy has came and slapped us! |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:32
Just to clarify, I think you're missing the point of libertarianism- Libertarianism doesn't say that the government can't tell us what to do- that would be downright delusional. The overarching purpose of libertarianism is show where government involvement in the private lives of citizens has no business. If the government can't tell you what to do, then why can't you marry your copy of Thick as a Brick? Because government recognizes marriages and makes marriage meaningful in terms of economics, taxes, etc. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:41
|
I disagree Robert. I think neo-conservatism has taken on the name of libertarianism, when the only liberty they want to promote is keeping the government's hand out of the pockets of the rich. Libertarianism is about as little government control as possible in people's lives, not just economically, and not just if you're wealthy, but everyone. That means government is not supposed to make people's moral choices for them when it does not involve an issue of public safety. Gay marriage, abortion, marrying one's copy of Thick as a Brick do not constitute public health or safety issues.
If you take the social libertarianism away, all you are left with is economic libertarianism and social authoritarianism...that's conservatism, not libertarianism. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:46
|
Isn't that what I said? "government involvement in the private lives of citizens has no business." Maybe different words, but that was the point I getting at. And of course libertarians realize, (as much as they may not like) SOME taxes are needed, so we can at least fund the military, roads and essentials. Also, there has to be some government say, like speed limits and lights and all that. If you take it to THAT extreme you just become an anarchist. But still, no government involvement in our private lives. By that definition, a libertarian should be pro-choice, support gay marriage, as well as SOME levels of drug de-criminalization. Of course they would also be opposed to gun control. And again, I know you can be libertarian overall and pro-life. I'm just saying by the strict definition that should not be the case |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:49
Exactly. And thank you. Since that was the conclusion I came to as well. That's why the "old school" conservatives hate modern republicans. They are conservative, not libertarian. The guys like Pat Buchanan for example, is even LESS tolerable about the welfare state and all that then most republicans. Not to mention they are NON-INTERVENTIONIST which clearly Republicans have strayed from. And the whole pro-life, defining marriage as between a man and woman, crackdown on drugs are all the opposite of libertarianism. And Rob you say, then it should be allowed you could marry your copy of "As Thick as a Brick". Obviously that's silly, but by libertarian definition you should say...well if thats what you really want to do, fine. Doc hit it on the nose. As long as it does not impact public safety, or the safety of others. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:52
And for my librarian friends, shouldn't you be shelving books or something? 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 12:57
We could not only pay for healthcare, but arguably healthcare costs would go down. Marijuana would probably replace alcohol and tobacco as the drug of choice for many, and since marijuana is far safer and healthier than both drugs then medical situations associated with both would be reduced. Also, marijuana is an effective medecine for a variety of conditions, and those with such ailments could easily grow their own medecine in their backyard instead of having to pay for it. Everyone wins. Also, stress is associated with life threatening illness, and cannabis does wonders for reveilving stress.  -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 13:08
Don't get me wrong. I am 100% in favor of legalizing it, (and no I do not use it and never have). I'm just saying, I would like some numbers here. And what do you think about selling? Obviously possession, growing, use of would be legalized. But I've heard many say they still think drug dealers should be punished. Either because it is still profiteering or because of crime. OH! And on more reason for legalizing it we forgot. The jails which are filled past the brim, which is not only bad for conditions but our taxes. It would reduce the overall prison population, lessening the burden on the system, and of course making sure we have more room for murderers and rapists who deserve to be there. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 13:29
|
The benefits of legalizing it far exceed the cons.... with one single problem: the prescrption drug industry lobby will never let this happen.... As well as the tobacco and alcohol industry, all of which have links with each other... And I have enough experience to tell you that it FAR less stupidity-inducing than Alcohol and death-inducing than cigarrettes. And nowaday it's already an american-grown product, we no longer import it. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:04
You mean it isn't???
 Oops. I could be in some trouble.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:07
Believe me...I chose Walmart for a reason... It seems like whichever line I get in, no matter how many people are in front of me, the cashier inevitably flicks on the light over the register to get a manager... We had one cashier who insisted on wrapping EVERY glass jar we bought in two inches of plastic bags....  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:08
Selling should be treated in the same way selling alcohol or tobacco is treated - regulated. There should be an age limit on who can buy and possess as there is with alcohol and tobacco. -------------
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:11
Tobacco is on it's way to be illegalized. As an ex-smoker, I feel I can see the slow migration is in process. Already anyone who smokes is viewed as lesser. It's unspoken, but evident. Even if it never becomes illegal, it will be taxed to high heaven to the point that it won't be worth the pleasure. Sad indeed. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:12
By the way, I disagree. I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then! ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:18
Sales taxes are generally regressive, whereas income taxes are progressive. Unless of course we are talking about taxing the sh** out of luxury items. That might be ok. Maybe a 30% tax on the Plasma TV, the new luxury car, the mansion, etc. That might be alright. Or maybe a progressive sales tax...the more the item costs, the higher the rate of taxation. For example...something less than $100 is tax free, up to $1000 at 2%...all the way up to anything over 100,000 at 45%. Something like that would be fine.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:24
Good luck becoming a homeowner. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:25
Now that is a concept. It would push becoming self-sufficient, wouldn't it. Especially for the penny pinchers. -------------
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:26
Heh...tobacco and alcohol are taxed like a super luxury.  -------------
|
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:30
|
My basic issue with Libertarianism as a concept is that it sort of assumes that maximum freedom is created by a lack of or 'minimal' presence of government restraints, while in fact you are born under the yoke of natural restraints which good government can effectively remove. Hence, having more government does not make you less free, it can, in fact, guarantee your freedom. Hence, removing the freedom to murder allows a right not to be murdered to be effectively enjoyed. Pooling resources via tax to create roads and the general right to travel by car (and by foot safely) is a form of government subtracting 'economic freedom' per se (in the sense of not giving them absolute independence with regard to the use of their money), but at the same time allowing a vastly expanded general freedom to travel efficiently and in relative safety and indeed to move socially and economically, to travel a longer distance to work in something that suits you better, to give you more opportunities in education, social life, work, purchasing, selling etc. Now, is road maintenance an absolute necessity of government. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say it is (unless you're defining necessary government intervention as something private agreement couldn't accomplish)... everyone could walk, live more locally and stop financing these roads, but I think that nonetheless it is creating freedom of a much more important kind and much more significant extent than would be possessed by retaining that amount of tax money. So, basically, that's my beef with libertarianism itself and why I consider myself a liberal socialist... I think economic restraints and government control can, if properly exercised and exercised with an appropriate measure of restraint, result in a society where we collectively possess more genuine and guaranteed freedom. Regardless, very interesting clip, but I can't say I'm convinced by her arguments here (and I admit, I haven't read enough of her work to say I understand them in context). Firstly, her definition of objective existence appears to me insufficient and after that I can't really see how she's going to the end results from there. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:47
OK well throw in an exemption for homes. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:05
AHHHHH....I take it you mean the "fair tax" or removing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax? Here is my problem with that: It would be a regressive tax. Those at lower incomes, (and not just the poor) the working class, lower middle, even middle class in some areas spend all, if not most of their income. They have to. Between what you MUST buy the few things you would want, usually all of their income is spent. Like wise as income goes up, spending goes DOWN. Yes, obviously they buy things but they save a lot more of their income. If you want proof, my old roommate came from a very affluent family, (he said his WHOLE family is worth about $1 million) but he lived SO frugally. Seriously, his place looked like a slob lived there. Side note: His family also kept most of their money in offshore accounts, and of course gets tax breaks from Bush  But anyway. As income goes up you spend less, and save more...because you can. SO, a consumption tax unfairly impacts lower earners. They would be paying the bulk of the tax and almost all of their income would be going to taxes... Also, the sales tax would have to be high. The number in the "Fair Tax Act" puts it at 23%. That could really impact their ability to purchase. I know I would spend alot less if I had to pay a 23% sales tax! How is shifting the tax burden to the middle class good? And call me socialist all you want, but a progressive income is the right thing to do. Why do you think the income tax has ALWAYS been progressive, and from the 30's to 81 it was WAY more progressive than it is now. If a consumption tax like that was imposed I am going to Canada. See ya later eh!? Only way I would support a consumption tax is if it is....surprise: a progressive sales tax. Lower earners would HAVE to receive some money back. Not to mention there would still have to be an estate and luxury tax. Also there would still have to be corporate taxes. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:21
I hate that you spent so much time formatting a response to what was kind of a joke. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:27
|
Hey man you never know. There are people, and not just a few that really DO want to nix the income tax and replace it with all sales tax. Especially being the libertarian you are, how could I know you were kinda joking Although if any DOES condone a consumption tax, at least my argument still stands |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:37
Let me put it this way (and I'm not really that libertarian by the way...I'm pretty conservative I'd say, despite the tomatoes I'll get tossed my way here)... I think income tax punishes (bad word that, but I've been drinking too much to come up with another right now, so I'll go with that) earners. I wouldn't mind it if there was serious discussion about nixing the income tax for a consumption tax. You made the point that poorer folk (myself included) spend most of their income, but on what? Rent and utilities, yes? Things that can easily be exempt? I go out to eat about twice a month (cheap places almost without exception) and we do not buy anything other than groceries and miscellaneous items (like prog ). Rich folk mostly want money to buy nice things, take trips, and live it up some. In that way, they would be bearing the brunt of the US federal tax. So what if they still have millions left over? "Punishing" (again, poor word) the wealthy is never a good idea. They are wealthy for a reason almost always. Good for them. Also, you forget that if people had no income tax, the middle class would have more money to use at their discretion, and that is always a good thing for the economy. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:44
|
Well, the whole thing is that if you try to replace the income tax, there are all kinds of hurdles with implementation. And I don't believe for one minute that those who have rigged the current system for their benefit won't find a way to do it again. By the way, I wouldn't complain too much at being tossed tomatoes if they're tasty home grown ones. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Tomatina.jpg">  And, oh yeah, there definitely has to be a tax exemption on prog, whenever we can agree on just what that is. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:45
Your sorry liberal hippie ass would probably throw organic ones at me...and organic sh*t gives me diarrhea. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:47
|
Sadly enough our tomatoes aren't producing very well this year. I could spare some cayenne peppers to throw at you though. The cayenne plant is being very fruitful. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:48
|
Flat tax...same rate for all, no tax exceptions for anyone, especially the wealthy who know the loopholes and how to end up paying LESS tax than the middle class. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:51
|
They would have more income. But 23 cents of every dollar would be spent on what they buy. So OK, lower earners might be alright, and could be exempt. But a 23% sales tax (and I just use that number since it was the one proposed) is pretty f*cking high, so middle class families may have more money overall but so much would be spent on consumption. I imagine overall they'd have less money. And as I said, the wealthy can afford to be frugal and in this case they would be more frugal. I guess I would not be opposed to a consumption tax as long as it's fair. Lower earners should be exempt from certain purchases. The actual sales tax should be progressive on the item being bought. Estate and luxury tax remains. And corporations should still have to pay taxes. Also, there would be NO Social Security or welfare under this plan. There'd be no money for it, unless you put payroll taxes back. And all this would defeat the idea |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:54
I like peppers. Organic peppers would be like sh*tting molten lava! ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:58
A flat tax would be better than and less problematic than a consumption tax....but still wrong. Again, it is regressive by nature. It impacts lower earners hardest, the middle class would pay the bulk of taxes, and the wealthy would, in effect, be getting HUGE breaks. What would the flat tax be? 15% If that was the case, let's say you make $375,000 right now. Under that flat tax, that'd be a 20% cut. Let's say the flat tax was 25%, then that would REALLY kill lower earners, especially if there are NO exceptions, (which there could not be because as you said people would loophole out of it) |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:58
|
We can make a fierce salsa. Being organic gardener though you'd be in for a whole world of hurt. By the way, if you can hold out until later in the season, we can probably throw some habaneros at you. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:59
But the wealthy aren't frugal. They spend a crap load. Who cares if they save half their income if they spend millions each year on lolcat posters? I'm opposed to Social security anyway- I say phase that sh*t out over a period of decades. Let people save for themselves. Here's a better idea: Let Ramen noodles and Spam be exempt. Then if you're flat broke, you can still eat without paying taxes. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:18
|
I don't know. The consumption tax thing SOUNDS good but it seems too simple. I bet once we started going into details things would get messy. Although, I guess one way to help a flat/consumption tax would be reforming the AMT. The AMT was designed to target high income earners that looped their way out of paying taxes. It has gotten out of control as of late, but if we put it back to it's original form... I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Obama has said no the idea and even with some moderate Democrats I do not see a chance at a flat/consumption tax soon. Now back to legalizing weed.... |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:22
It will take a joint effort... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:26
......Ah I couldn't help it |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:26
I'll be the token conservative. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: mr.cub
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:27
Best idea I have heard in years. Of course you will need a microwave for the noodles ------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:30
Do you really think the wealthy are paying all those high taxes? Guess again. They got wealthy or remain wealthy because of tax breaks in the guise of tax exceptions. They make their money work for them by doing something the poor and middle class can't afford to do...invest wisely. It's not like they are sitting on piles of money. They are sitting on piles of assets. They turn what they earn. edit: Oh yeah...everything is also a write off. That nice Mercedes? They need it for business. Write it off. The new addition on their house holds an office for their business. Another write off. You get the picture. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:30
So, despite our positions from all over the spectrum, and disagreement on everything we have "legalizing weed" down. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:36
Um...no you don't. I've eaten them sh*ts raw plenty of times. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:39
Well then....what's the point!? Even a flat tax, with no exceptions, would not work. They would find some way out....probably through off shore accounts. OK! how about this. Instead of income tax, and instead of consumption tax what if the whole thing was replaced with payroll tax. Every person, (depending on income of course) will have so much taken out. Also, businesses, (again depending on size) will so much taken out. That way there is NO way out. And since it'd be direct NO need for any welfare or money back so no way to slither out. We would also notice a business, especially a large one, NOT giving the money. OK, I am now running for Congress. Prepare to see me in 2014! |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 17:51
|
weed |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 18:43
Indeed. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 19:43
Mmmm The Residents. You know, he was kind of once in a band with Fred Frith? True. 147 - NEVER MIND THE SEX PISTOLS HERE'S BONGOS, BASS, AND BOB! (WHAT ON EARTH -------------   
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 21:13
Fascinating, I wouldn't have thought we'd all be in agreement that Ayn Rand was a terrible person. Also, http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32825 - Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department .
 What a coincidence, five Ayn Rand fans on the same train! They must be going to the same convention. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 21:14
|
Alex isn't here... he loves Ayn Rand.
-------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 21:16
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 21:17
good stuff |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 06:05
I never said I thought Rand was terrible either. I like her ideas in theory, but she's a sh*tty writer. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 14:51
|
Coming from a state where Illegal immigration is a huge issue Sales Tax is the only way illegal immigrants pay taxes. Certainly the shady employer that hires them doesn't withhold money and send it to the state, and yet they use all the services that taxpayers use and overload a system not meant to handle them. California would not be broke if there were a better way of taxing these people. As for the business I say make it a felony to hire an illegal immigrant and you might see a drop when some the owners of these businesses get put in jail. I do feel empathy to the illegal immigrant but there has to be something done about this situation. Ignoring it, building walls there has to be some better ideas. So right now in California the sales tax is a good thing.
------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 14:58
100% agreed. That's another difference between libertarians and Republicans. Reps talk a big game about cracking down on illegal immigration but they will never do anything. Because they need those immigrants to be used as cheap labor for businesses. And I have NO problem with immigration at all, and I do feel for the illegals as well...they are just hoping to do what all our families did by coming here...but it's gotta be legal. And yes, walls aren't going to solve anything, people who hire them have to be punished. |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:04
As a traditional Democrat, I agree as well. But in addition, I feel if they came into the country illegally, they need to be punished as a criminal aka trespassing or the like. -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:07
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:20
Jesus never said you couldn't be wealthy. He just said you'd have a heck of a time getting into the kingdom of heaven. -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:22
There is a huge difference between being wealthy and being an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoist - ethical egoist . For one, being an ethical egoist makes you a bad person, while being wealthy only makes it easy for you to be a bad person. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:32
|
"Greed is good" isn't what I'm talking about. I don't believe everything Rand believes. (Although in terms of building a productive economic system, greed is an integral part...almost no one starts a business just because they want the nice people to have yogurt. When Rand speaks of "greed," I don't think she means being a dick to get money. She's talking about not depending on other people to make your fortune, and that the desire for wealth (in theory at least) would drive businesses to compete and provide consumers with a choice of excellent products and services.). Paul wrote to the Thessalonians against moochers: 6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching #fen-NIV-29669a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=3#fen-NIV-29669a - a ] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. 14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. In other words, in terms of being practical, you earn your keep. That's certainly in line with much of Rand's ideas...in that vein remember that Rand wouldn't support government bailouts for businesses.------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:42
Wow! They should post that at the Welfare sign-up line along with Christians not allowed. -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:51
And...I tend to agree. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 15:55
And I would like to add a thank you for sharing that. I thought I knew the Bible well, but I don't recall that item. It really seems like something that is not brought up...ever...on Capital Hill. It would be political suicide. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:01
It is a tough one. I am torn. I do not advocate "amnesty" because as you said it IS illegal and you can't just say "ah fine y'all can stay" but I guess it's the softie liberal in me (I hate him sometimes) but I just can not punish people that want to come to America for their betterment. I mean that is what out country was, (supposed to be) about. And as for Ayn Rand I will admit I do not know much of here so I did some quick research. She actually advocates "rational self interest" aka selfishness and is against altruism?! Reminds me of my one friend at school who is libertarian...after a long debate he finally just said, "its this simple, as long as I have my money I don't care." Money is good, and obviously we all want money. My problem is GREED. The excessive hoarding of money, having so much it's really un necessary...just for the sake of it. Doing anything/crushing people for it. And libertarianism is the epitome of greed. IMHO of course |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:03
Well, that's what happens when big league people use the Bible to their own ends...I promise you I'm not one those, and someone shoot me when I become one. Honestly, I think Christians all need to be in a loving, Bible-believing church, and should it happen that they need help, such a church would be willing to aid them until they can be more self-sufficient (that's clearly the Acts chapter two model, which, by the way, was not limited to the church, but was fairly common among various groups in the Greco-Roman world): Acts 2:44-5 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:05
The founders never thought we'd be exploited by immigrants though. It pisses me off I have to pay for illegal immigrants using our sustem for their personal benefit. Like Health Care. -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:07
Semi-related, I once read an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that said that the reason some people make more money is because their job brings more satisfaction to people, therefore we should tax them less since they are bringing the most benefit to society. An idea like that is fascinating to me, because it's so obviously stupid that I have no idea where to begin arguing against it. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:09
Illegal immigration is the sh*ttiest situation ever. Why? If a pregnant woman has a child in the US, that child is a US citizen by law. Yet children pay no taxes until they're at least 15...but the child's parents pay nothing. That child can go to school and have all the benefits that come with being an American without the parents paying a dime. At the same time, what heartless ass would send the parents back home and leave the child here? Still, I have a definite opinion about the subject. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:11
Make the home country pay for them. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:12
Yeah, and although never explicitly stated, (that I know of) most of the founder fathers, and America in general only meant that for immigrants that were educated and skilled and could contribute to society. That's why they had no problem with the wave of German immigrants, but had major problems with...well everyone else. Honestly, we can only do so much on our side. Part of it is really up to Mexico...they COULD crack down on people entering illegally. I mean Mexico actually has VERY strict immigration rules, illegal and legal. Unless we step up border patrol like one hundred fold |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:13
|
Illegal immigrants don't pay zero taxes. There's sales tax and property tax, which is what funds the schools in most districts, and I'm sure there are other indirect taxes I'm not thinking of. And that's also assuming all illegal immigrants are doing under the table jobs, when I bet a fair amount of them are just pretending to be legal, and then they would be paying income tax as well. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 16:17
I read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem, as well as many essays by her "followers" (imagine that- people had followers even before Twitter!), and I think I know what she means. Charity is okay by Rand- it really is...so long as you, the person with the pursestrings, want to give to charity. What she opposes would be things like government bailouts (which is a form of altruism), os socialistic tendencies to "spread the wealth," because that means the people who worked for what they had would have to share it with those who don't have (whether those who don't have worked or not). It's like this: A man eats in a restaurant and gets in a conversation with his waiter. The waiter talks about how we all need to "spread the wealth" (an altruistic ideal). So when the bill comes, the man tips nothing, but informs the waiter that he will give his 20% to several homeless people on the street. The waiter is pissed. That's the sort of thing Rand is getting at, I think. Here's a question for you: Should women without jobs, who keep having children but rely on the government: A) Have their kids taken away B) Stop receiving support C) Be sterilized (the US has been there, by the way) D) Be forced into labor E) All of the above F) None of the above G) Other ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |