Happy Columbus Day

[Bofa-Deez]

I'm not exactly sure what you are searching for in this Google search, but I highlighted a key word in there for ya.

I didn't say anything about federal government vs state government. Are you saying that theft only comes from taxes if it's from the federal level?

I was correcting my answer as you quoted me. I am more against Federal Income taxes as well as state income taxes. A consumer tax is understandable. Those who consume more pay more in taxes to support whatever t5hey want. If they don't want to pay consumer tax, they can choose not to buy the product. An income tax is direct theft

 

[Imapepper]

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Sure sounds like taxation to

To frame my thinking about a matter, I try to begin from a libertarian standpoint. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I also believe that ship sailed a long time ago. We don't live in that world anymore.

The first Libertarians were socialists, modern "Libertarians" are nothing more than Propertarians hijacking a term that's been used by socialists for over 150 years.

 

[Equilibrium31]

That's just as laughable as Fox News being "fair and balanced"

Public perception is what politicians care about the most. That's why they obsess over polling so much. They do also pay attention to what constituents say, albeit more from the aggregate level. If your views are pretty different from the majority of views in your area, then of course it won't matter what you believe. Such are the joys of sharing the world with other people.

 

[jjvw]

The first Libertarians were socialists, modern "Libertarians" are nothing more than Propertarians hijacking a term that's been used by socialists for over 150 years.

Is that why some libertarians are arguing for a minimum basic income these days? I have to jump through a few too many hoops to understand that one.

 

[jjvw]

... Such are the joys of sharing the world with other people.

People are the worst. It's much easier to be "conservative" in Wyoming than it is in NYC.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

The first Libertarians were socialists, modern "Libertarians" are nothing more than Propertarians hijacking a term that's been used by socialists for over 150 years.

Socialism has worked before, just never when a "government" is involved. Don't get me wrong, I am not for socialism at all when it comes to organized voting societies tied together under a government, but it could work for small nomadic tribes

As for being hijacked, the swastika was hijacked also. The dems, while fighting for slavery and oppression of black people have also hijacked this sense of caring for all people now. As a modern day Libertarian, I refer to the constitution and the Federalist Papers before developing my views on what should be legal in this country.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Is that why some libertarians are arguing for a minimum basic income these days? I have to jump through a few too many hoops to understand that one.

Hell I missed that one. Are you speaking in general or a certain figure? If you are speaking of a basic minimal income paid by funds collected by taxation, you are no Libertarian. You are a socialists masquerading as one.

 

[Equilibrium31]

I was correcting my answer as you quoted me. I am more against Federal Income taxes as well as state income taxes. A consumer tax is understandable. Those who consume more pay more in taxes to support whatever t5hey want. If they don't want to pay consumer tax, they can choose not to buy the product. An income tax is direct theft

Come on, that's some heavy use of hyperbole to call tax "theft".

And any sort of world that operated that way would be incredibly draconian in the way it treats people. Those who consume the most tend to be the same people who are least capable of producing: The elderly, the sick, the disabled, etc.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Come on, that's some heavy use of hyperbole to call tax "theft".

And any sort of world that operated that way would be incredibly draconian in the way it treats people. Those who consume the most tend to be the same people who are least capable of producing: The elderly, the sick, the disabled, etc.

Yet all of these people managed to survive before federal taxation. I also donate (not just money but free time) to charities that work with these people and their needs in my community. We can do 10 times more with a quarter of the money than the inefficient government bureaucracy can. Imagine how many more dollars these organizations could raise if the government let everyone keep an additional 25% of their income. But then we may realize that the government has been stealing our money and still treating our disabled vets and elderly like shit. Provocative.

Maybe we need to step up in our society and do the right thing instead of allowing the government to steal our money and do a piss poor job of putting it to use. I can tell you one thing, the sick and elderly have eyes that light up when they see we are there to help. I doubt they have the same reaction to a government beaurocrat

Why would you consider it offensive if your neighbor takes 25% of your income without asking yet it's totally fine for your government? doesn't sound like much of a stretch to me. But what if your neighbor was using it to fix the roads or giving it to the police? Would that make it okay for him to take it?

 

[Bofa-Deez]

@gg1

You know this is all your fault for trying to celebrate Columbus Day, right?



Just kidding. I enjoy bouncing around and debating ideas with you guys and I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. It's healthy conversation without the vitriol that helps us understand our common points and how we can use them to build a better society of jeepers and Americans.

I would buy any of you a beer and cook you some gumbo, no matter what you think about indigenous people or income tax. And that's the truth

 

[Equilibrium31]

Yet all of these people managed to survive before federal taxation. I also donate (not just money but free time) to charities that work with these people and their needs. We can do 10 times more with a quarter of the money than the inefficient government bureaucracy can. Imagine how many more dollars these organizations could raise if the government let everyone keep an additional 25% of their income. But then we may realize that the government has been stealing our money and still treating our disabled vets and elderly like shit. Provocative

Why would you consider it offensive if your neighbor takes 25% of your income without asking yet it's totally fine for your government? doesn't sound like much of a stretch to me. But what if your neighbor was using it to fix the roads or giving it to the police? Would that make it okay for him to take it?

You keep talking about times before federal taxation as if it's some kind of comparison to the modern U.S., even though this was before we had cars or anything resembling the modern military we have today.

As for my neighbor "taking" any of my income, it doesn't work like that. People don't just get to pluck out free tax money for nothing. If it worked like that, you and I could just take it back ourselves.

But, if my neighbor gets injured or laid off and needs to collect unemployment in order to stay afloat until they find their next job, I'm ok with that. Even from a pure fiscal perspective, I know that it's much cheaper to have people who are hit with unfortunate life events able to recover and become productive citizens again than it is to have them fall into destitute poverty that they can't recover from.

Do I realize that many government programs don't work the way they should all the time? Of course I do. But just like babies and bathwater, I don't think the solution is to scrap them in favor of anarchy. I expect politicians to be held to higher standards and fix those programs.

I also don't live with any delusion that the private market would do any better with them. I graduated college in the middle of a recession and experienced what a corrupt private sector can do the economy first hand. I've seen what Enron did and what many other companies like them did.

At the end of the day, there are bad people that will ruin positions of power, regardless of whether that's in a government role or private role. There's nothing magical about a government or private sector role that makes everything better.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

As for my neighbor "taking" any of my income, it doesn't work like that. People don't just get to pluck out free tax money for nothing.

That's exactly how it works for politicians. When was the last time one of them was held accountable for fraud? It is not the taxes in general that piss me off. Its that people are elected to congress thousandaires and leave millionaires. Yet they always need "more revenue." If you think you can fix it by voting, well voting gave us the Donald and it should have never come to that, and they will probably never allow it to happen again.

When people make millions working for the government, they are skimming off money that is supposed to be going to public services, yet they fly private or first class, representatives fly to foreign countries to look at dam systems. I mean, if this is the modern era like you claim, whats wrong with a powerpoint and teleconference.

Roads are not and should not be the priority of the federal government. neither are police and firefighters. Local government and consumer taxes could handle all of this. The feds take between 18% and 24% tax on EVERY GALLON of fuel pumped in the US, yet they are on TV preaching how it is the presidents fault. Bullshit! It's our fault for allowing it to come to this.

Sometimes you need to tell your drug addicted child "no." The government is our drug addicted child. We created it, we enabled it to become a monster, and it needs to be told "no."

 

[Imapepper]

Socialism has worked before, just never when a "government" is involved. Don't get me wrong, I am not for socialism at all when it comes to organized voting societies tied together under a government, but it could work for small nomadic tribes

As for being hijacked, the swastika was hijacked also. The dems, while fighting for slavery and oppression of black people have also hijacked this sense of caring for all people now. As a modern day Libertarian, I refer to the constitution and the Federalist Papers before developing my views on what should be legal in this country.

You refer to the Constitution yet hate the 16th ammendment?

 

[Bofa-Deez]

You refer to the Constitution yet hate the 16th ammendment?

Yep

I also like some of Trumps polices, yet hate the man. See, I'm an equal opportunity hater

And when speaking of the "law of the land," remember slavery was once the law of the land. So was killing Indians. Some laws allow activities that should be illegal.

 

[jjvw]

....

Roads are not and should not be the priority of the federal government. neither are police and firefighters. Local government and consumer taxes could handle all of this. The feds take between 18% and 24% tax on EVERY GALLON of fuel pumped in the US, yet they are on TV preaching how it is the presidents fault. Bullshit! It's our fault for allowing it to come to this.

Years ago when I started looking at voter guides I noticed that the Libertarian candidate would often have no response to a question or one to the effect of that not being the responsibility of this office. Meanwhile, the other candidates have a paragraph or two.

If one assumes there must be a detailed response for how the government must involve itself in an issue, then the Libertarian platform is a non-starter when they don't have a plan of action to begin with. Even if no action is the desirable action.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Years ago when I started looking at voter guides I noticed that the Libertarian candidate would often have no response to a question or one to the effect of that not being the responsibility of this office. Meanwhile, the other candidates have a paragraph or two.

If one assumes there must be a detailed response for how the government must involve itself in an issue, then the Libertarian platform is a non-starter when they don't have a plan of action to begin with. Even if no action is the desirable action.

Well sated. There are many topics that ARE NOT the responsibility of the office or the Federal government.

If the EPA has been in existence for nearly 50 years with an 8 billion plus dollar budget, then why is there a climate crisis that will put Florida underwater in 10 years? - more taxes needed

If the Department of Education has been in existence for nearly 40 years with a budget of 8 billion, how come our schools suck and our children are so dumb? - more taxes needed

I could go on...

 

[jjvw]

...

If the EPA has been in existence for nearly 50 years with an 8 billion plus dollar budget, then why is there a climate crisis that will put Florida underwater in 10 years? - more taxes needed

...

If the EPA existed 100+ years ago, Colorado might have fewer SuperFund sites from unregulated mining operations.

I use libertarianism as a starting point to think about how to find a balance between control and a free for all. I don't trust unfettered laissez faire capitalism to have society's long term interests in mind any more than I trust the government to make choices in my best interest.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

If the EPA existed 100+ years ago, Colorado might have fewer SuperFund sites from unregulated mining operations.

I use libertarianism as a starting point to think about how to find a balance between control and a free for all. I don't trust unfettered laissez faire capitalism to have society's long term interests in mind any more than I trust the government to make choices in my best interest.

Maybe, and it can't be proven or disproved, but I would doubt it. By the time the government identifies a problem, then comes up with a manageable solution, the problem is generally too far gone IMHO. But you may be right. I also do not trust unfettered capitalism and I am aware of the many flaws of it. I just have yet to hear a better plan. Kinda like Trump again, he was not in any way, shape or form the best man for the job. The rest were just so unpalatable. Choosing the lesser of two evils will be the death of this country.

 

[jjvw]

.... Kinda like Trump again, he was not in any way, shape or form the best man for the job. The rest were just so unpalatable. Choosing the lesser of two evils will be the death of this country.

That's why I voted libertarian. Even though it was a wasted vote, I felt it was the lesser of many evils, including Trump. I hate that we are continually in a place where voting to keep someone out of office is more important than voting to put the right person in office. I feel like it's been that way my entire adult life.

 

[Equilibrium31]

That's exactly how it works for politicians. When was the last time one of them was held accountable for fraud?

A "quick google search" answers that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_politicians_convicted_of_fraud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

It is not the taxes in general that piss me off. Its that people are elected to congress thousandaires and leave millionaires. Yet they always need "more revenue." If you think you can fix it by voting, well voting gave us the Donald and it should have never come to that, and they will probably never allow it to happen again.

When people make millions working for the government, they are skimming off money that is supposed to be going to public services, yet they fly private or first class, representatives fly to foreign countries to look at dam systems. I mean, if this is the modern era like you claim, whats wrong with a powerpoint and teleconference.

AOC and Ted Cruz are actually working a rather unlikely alliance against allowing former congressmen/women from becoming lobbyists, which is one of the main ways so many of them gain their wealth from public office.

So there is some reason to have hope for the political system, even though as you mentioned, we have a very corrupt official who was elected president.

Roads are not and should not be the priority of the federal government. neither are police and firefighters. Local government and consumer taxes could handle all of this.

And local government/taxes do handle the majority of this. However, there is need of a federal police force above state law enforcement. Reasons for this can be found by looking back at much of what happened during much of the civil rights movement. In particular, just look at Bull Connor.

The feds take between 18% and 24% tax on EVERY GALLON of fuel pumped in the US, yet they are on TV preaching how it is the presidents fault. Bullshit! It's our fault for allowing it to come to this.

Sometimes you need to tell your drug addicted child "no." The government is our drug addicted child. We created it, we enabled it to become a monster, and it needs to be told "no."

So here's my problem with libertarianism. It's the same problem that's coming from a lot of conservative media nowadays, which is that it's mostly arguments against things based on problems with existing things.

You don't like high taxes? Ok, that's fine.
You don't like government corruption? Yea, we agree.

But what *do* you want instead?

We can all agree that tax dollars shouldn't be wasted, should be kept as low as possible, and that they shouldn't be controlled by corrupt officials. However, just calling for and end to all those things is just replacing some problems with even worse ones.

Pointing out problems doesn't do much when you don't have any solutions and libertarianism tends not to have many solutions.