# Katie and Jennifer



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 1, 2011)

Katie, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.

"I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."

He then asked about her friend Jennifer.

"She's not doing very well. Her GPA is 2.0 because she spends most of her time partying rather than studying. She often skips classes because she is too hung over, or having fun with the many guys she hangs out with. Jennifer is very popular."

Her father then asked Katie why she didn't request that the Dean's office deduct 1.0 from her 4.0 and give it to Jennifer so they would both have a 3.0 GPA. Clearly riled by that suggestion, Jennifer exclaimed, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked very hard and Jennifer does almost nothing!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Libertarian Party."


===
Stolen from Facebook


----------



## billc (Dec 1, 2011)

Nice post.  I'm pretty sure you saw this demonstrated on the video in a thread a few months ago.  It is even better when real life people refuse to share their grades.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Katie, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.
> 
> "I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."
> 
> ...



How is that Libertarian? that stands directly against the principal of self-ownership!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 1, 2011)

Bob, that's more communist than libertarian.


THIS is more libertarian:
http://www.lp.org/platform


----------



## Carol (Dec 2, 2011)

I would also like to know how that is libertarian.  That sounds authoritarian to me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 2, 2011)

Read it carefully.


----------



## Carol (Dec 2, 2011)

Oooohhhh.....got it


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2011)

Have fun beating the **** out that strawman, guys.  Reminds me of all those emails where the smug atheist has God's power demonstrated to him by a humble believer (like the college prof. and the student with the chalk).


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Read it carefully.



Well now I just feel dumb.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 2, 2011)

If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.

If it is not right to take surplus from one to benefit one with a deficit in -1- case, it is therefore not right in -any- case.

You can argue 'responsibility', 'duty', and so forth.
Those arguments don't matter.

It's not the job of government to enforce those.

Charity done at gun point, is not charity.

I posted this on my Facebook wall...
It got  -UGLY-.

The argument was given that these services/systems exist because people want them.
Because people don't want the sick to suffer, the hungry to starve, and the old to be abandoned.
All honorable and just things, IMO.
But.
The argument was that these services are forced on us, because the people want these services forced on us, because if we didn't force the people into this forced giving, then they otherwise would not give, so that the people they didn't want to suffer would end up suffering.

Think about it.

"I don't want you to suffer, but I don't want to freely give you my money so I want these other people to force me to give it to you so that I can help you."

The illogic of it all would choke a Vulcan.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 2, 2011)

You can take the argument to the extreme of course.

Person A enjoys a healthy sex life because their partner is insatiable.
Person B lacks nookie because their partner shags like a Vulcan...once every 7 years and only under pain of death.
So the government can 'subsidize nookie' by requiring partner swaps so that everyone gets a fair amount of rompybompy.
As determined by the Federal Department of Shagging, created under some 3,500 Family Protection Act that was read by a couple of internet bloggers, but no Senators prior to voting and signing into law by a president who has creative ideas for the use of the desk and some cigars.


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2011)

Excuse me Bob, I believe the actual technical term is "Knocking Boots."  Just trying to be accurate.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You can take the argument to the extreme of course.
> 
> Person A enjoys a healthy sex life because their partner is insatiable.
> Person B lacks nookie because their partner shags like a Vulcan...once every 7 years and only under pain of death.
> ...



Booty should definitely be given up freely. Even charity booty. Perhaps _especially _the charity booty.

We really should start a booty charity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Katie, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.
> 
> "I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."
> 
> ...



Okay, lets take it to the next level.

Lets say a third party comes in with a gun and forces the girls to share what they earned.  Would you consider that immoral?

If you say yes and we apply this universally, then any time the government forces you to pay for something, it's immoral.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Okay, lets take it to the next level.
> 
> Lets say a third party comes in with a gun and forces the girls to share what they earned.  Would you consider that immoral?
> 
> If you say yes and we apply this universally, then any time the government forces you to pay for something, it's immoral.



Um... You two are basically saying the same thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2011)

Are we? 

What is a good excuse for a third party to forcibly redistribute someone else's money?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Are we?
> 
> What is a good excuse for a third party to forcibly redistribute someone else's money?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Yes. Yes you are. You are making EXACTLY the same point as Bob.



Bob Hubbard said:


> If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
> it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
> it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.
> 
> ...


 
It's okay, makalakumu. You have been assigned a seat in the dunce chair, but me and Carol aready warmed it for you:cheers:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 5, 2011)

Ah yes, because everyone with a low GPA has one due to partying and irresponsibility; correlatively, everyone with a high GPA clearly has it due to hard work and austerity.  In addition, clearly, one party is the one doing all the giving up while the other is doing nothing but taking; it is entirely impossible that the one supposedly giving up their GPA isn't reaping any benefit by doing so.  Nope, this argument is entirely accurate of taxation and not at all self-serving.

Oh, and as some insightful individual whom I don't recall and am too lazy to look up from the previous thread on this topic pointed out, colleges and universities already do this to a certain extent.  Heard of bell-curve test grading?


----------



## HammockRider (Dec 5, 2011)

So anyone who needs any type of government assistence is a drunken, lazy slut? I know for a fact that that's not true.

But assuming for the sake of the discussion that it is true, does it also apply to all the huge "too big to fail" companies that received massive amonuts of tax dollars as bail out money?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 5, 2011)

HammockRider said:


> So anyone who needs any type of government assistence is a drunken, lazy slut? *I know for a fact that that's not true.*



Correct.


> But assuming for the sake of the discussion that it is true, does it also apply to all the huge "too big to fail" companies that received massive amonuts of tax dollars as bail out money?



The government should not be bailing out or otherwise subsidizing business. Period.


----------



## Master Dan (Dec 5, 2011)

*Katheran*, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.

"I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."

He then asked about her friend *Kaisha.
*
"She's not doing very well. Her GPA is 2.0 because she spends most of her time helping her single mother provide food and shelter for her 4 siblings . She often misses classes because she is to poor to get the medical treatments she needs to help with her disabilities and delayed congnative learning skills due to poor diet and lack of sleep since she sleeps most nights afraid due to the high crime area she is forced to live in.* Kaisha *is not popular has never known her father and does not have nice clothes like the other kids who make fun of her and she thinks of suicide.

Her father then asked Katherin why she didn't request that the Dean's office for financial assistance for Kiasha and take some personal time to help her with her studies? Katherin Clearly riled by that suggestion, exclaimed, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked very hard why dosn't that dirty looser just kill herself and reduce the surface population thats draining our resouces?

The father slowly smiled and said, *"Welcome to the GOP.*"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 5, 2011)

I repeat:

If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 5, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> *Katheran*, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.
> 
> "I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."
> 
> ...



There's nothing wrong with collectivism as long as it's done by volunteer.


----------



## granfire (Dec 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I repeat:
> 
> If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
> it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
> it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.



I can give you my A's, it still won't make you smarter.
:angel:


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 6, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> *Katheran*, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.
> 
> "I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."
> 
> ...





This is a bunch of crap. I'm not GOP, and really disagree with many of their platforms, but demonizing them and mischaracterizing them only detracts from any meaningful conversation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2011)

Is it  right to take a surplus from one person to give to someone with a deficit?
Against their will.
By force.

_Yes or no._


I say no. It's not right to steal. period.
Don't give be it's our responsibility to care for others, our duty, and so forth.
You are responsible for you, and those in your direct care (ie kids).
I don't want to pay taxes. I do so under duress. If I don't, the government will step in and steal my other property and deny me my freedom.
You can say that 'its the law', well, so is taking your car apart at intersections so as to not scare horses.
You can say it's our 'Christian Duty', well, then tax the Christians, not me.
You can say it's our responsibility, well, you handle it then, I got enough other things to deal with.
You can say it's just the 'right thing to do', and while you maybe right, that doesn't mean I should have to participate at gun point.
Just because some pols got together and wrote a 'law' that says it's ok for them to do it, it might make it 'legal', but it doesn't change the fact that it's still theft and still done under duress.

It's 2 separate arguments really.
It's "is right to steal" and "should we help others".


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Is it  right to take a surplus from one person to give to someone with a deficit?
> Against their will.
> By force.
> 
> ...



So all taxation is immoral theft, got it.



Bob Hubbard said:


> I don't want to pay taxes. I do so under duress. If I don't, the government will step in and steal my other property and deny me my freedom.



So you're a freeloader, got it.  You don't want to pay for what you receive.  If you don't want to pay taxes and don't want to be a freeloader, leave the country - that is the only route open to you.  But don't call refusing to pay for what you receive the moral choice.  You don't do it when people shoplift or default on their mortgages, so don't do it for people that refuse to pay their taxes.  Freeloaders all.


----------



## Master Dan (Dec 6, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> This is a bunch of crap. I'm not GOP, and really disagree with many of their platforms, but demonizing them and mischaracterizing them only detracts from any meaningful conversation.


Relaly what do they do average, disadvantaged, low income or non white people every day? Get a bath and get a job? Yeh its crap alright they just can't seem to smell where its comming from. Trickle down theory has transformed to believe me when I tell you its raining and I'm peeing on your leg. The premise of the original thread is that all peopleare strugling because its thier fault, they are lazy, they do drugs, low morals on and on and many of the supposed solutions come from people who have 100 times more than they need and operate under the assumption that all they have came from thier own individual effort? Really out of 7 billion people you have two hand two legs a brain health and all by your self without any gratitude only a dog protecting its bone and in dog mentality your bone is not enough I want yours as well. 

Yes Yes it may be a threat to those who feel bad about a law that mandates controls and contribution but its just as wrong to pass laws enfluenced by greed, special interest money to take away rights, safety, jobs and now even trying to take away voting rights which will be the last thing the right wants. This mentality that your worth is predicated by your possesions and bank account and the have nots are some how undesirable is the real class war. Lack of empathy is a curse on the person who has it and one day they will be doomed to walk in the same shoes of the person they are looking down at. 2012 president or not I hope there is a major change to through republicans out and entrenched corupted democrats as well and go back to rebuilding the US not breaking it up to sell of to make a profit. 

I sat next to a prominent doctor of our community at a Christmas party a member of our church and he states he actually believes Herman Cain inocent and wanst to vote for anybody but Obama? what a racist elitist attitude!!! his wife as well as another person just publicly promoted in law enforcement wife are two of the most abrasive jerks in town that offend others with thier i'm so good and you should be like me and anybody who isn't is less worthy. 

You are all delusional in your own propaganda and all I can say is when the hungry come to eat you maybe you will figure it out


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So all taxation is immoral theft, got it.



If you think otherwise, send in -more- on April 15th as a donation with your return. You've always had that ability, to donate money to the government.
I wonder why almost no one does that......



> So you're a freeloader, got it.



No. I pay taxes. Therefore I am not a freeloader.  The only freeloaders are the people who pay -no- taxes.



> You don't want to pay for what you receive.


Like what?
I'm more than open to toll roads, fee's paid -directly- to the fire department and police departments for their services (file it under insurance).
I pay a water bill, an electric bill, a gas bill, phone bill and garbage bill.
I pay for all items shipped out by me via US Mail.
I don't have any kids in school....why should -I- keep paying school fees?
I'm now legally required to have health insurance, so I have it, never mind that when I didn't I hardly if ever needed it. Costs me more now than before. Whatever.
I've never been on welfare, never collected food stamps, never used HEAP, BELMONT or a dozen other such programs.

Hardly someone who doesn't pay for what they receive. 
I even have supporting memberships on a dozen other communities that I lurk on to support them.



> If you don't want to pay taxes and don't want to be a freeloader, leave the country - that is the only route open to you.  But don't call refusing to pay for what you receive the moral choice.  You don't do it when people shoplift or default on their mortgages, so don't do it for people that refuse to pay their taxes.  Freeloaders all.



So buy me a plane ticket out of here then.  Better yet, lets put it to a vote: Congress can pass a tax that will buy tickets for all willing to leave. You get to pay for my free 1 way away, and bang your chest and cry how you're a "patriot". 

I'm not refusing to pay for it.
I have little choice.
If I refuse, they will come and arrest me.
Imprison me.
Steal my property.
So that some lazy good for nothing waste of fracking DNA can sit on their ***, drink losers kool aid, and watch gameshows all afternoon, while someone who has been busting their *** since they were 15 can pay for it.
I will pay, I will call you a thief, and I will damn you for it all.
I'll occupy a career and keep on producing so that 40% can consume without contribution.
Pthhhhpt!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> when the hungry come to eat you maybe you will figure it out



I will feed them a diet of cold steel and hot lead should they seek to take what is mine.
Bad enough the government steals 28% of what I make now.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 6, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> *Katheran*, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.
> 
> "I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."
> 
> ...





How about we avoid the broad brush painting in this forum?  

Your above example doesn't exactly help win support for the argument, when you turn off the potential listeners with such methods.


----------



## billc (Dec 6, 2011)

I agree with Bob and Josh.  Also, by any measure, conservative christians are found to actually give more to charity so Master Dan's point is incorrect.  The girl in that example actually does have a lot of help available through both government welfare programs and private help, and universities are full of money for scholarships to the truly needy.   Back in the 90's it was said that of all the welfare money given to those who needed it, only 26 cents of every government dollar went to the actual recipient.  I wonder if that has stayed the same or if it has increased.  

What always confuses me is when people who support the government taking money from one person to allegedly give it to another person in greater need, why is it that most of the time the bulk of that money ends up going to the politicians and their friends, and the person who had the money taken is called the bad guy?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2011)

People will say "Geeze Bob, you're a heartless bastid.".
No. I'm not.
I donate to food pantries, various charities and a dozen causes regularly.
By choice.
Not because if I don't, I goto jail.

Do I think there are people out there with legitimate needs, honest bad luck, who need help?
Yup.
Do I think we should help them?
Yup.
Do I think the person who walks by a starving kid while eating a foot long from Subway is a jerk?
Yup.

Do I think the government should require that jerk to share?

Nope.

It's too easy for the government to pass more taxes to cover up shortages, rather than run efficiently.

Why is the person who insists on keeping what they earn, and that others live responsibly the 'bad guy'?


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2011)

Personally, I think a middle ground is the way to go.   Charging a fee for service for critical functions like the fire dept or the police means only those with the means to pay can afford emergency care.  I refuse to believe that Bob's example was anything more than an extreme philosophical position and not a real world case.  Suggesting that the fire dept. take a visa payment prior to putting out a house fire, or the police respond only on a fee for service basis is, in my opinion, a ridiculous position to take.

However, we do pay a lot in taxes and in some cases, don't get a lot in return.   

There's a middle ground.  I also believe that this is a situation where both sides have completely legitimate positions.  This isn't about one side being right or wrong.  This particular thread articulates two fundamentally different philosophical beliefs, and then dips into the reality of applying either of these positions in real life.  Philosophy is clean.  Life is messy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2011)

Steve, we are now required to have health insurance, by law, regardless of ability to pay for it. I see nothing wrong if that position is acceptable, in requiring that everyone purchase 'police coverage' and 'fire protection' under the -exact same terms- as the health bill was passed.

Let me rephrase:
Charging a fee for service for critical functions like the _Hospital_ or _Doctor_ means only those with the means to pay can afford  emergency care.

Charging a fee for service for critical functions like _Education_ means only those with the means to pay can afford _ to learn_.

Charging a fee for critical necessities like _food and water_ means only those with the means to pay can afford to _live_.

Charging a fee for critical necessities like _clothing_ means only those with the means to pay can afford  to _wear pants_.

Charging a fee for critical necessities like _shelter and housing_ means only those with the means to pay can afford _a roof over their heads._


Now, while I think that everyone should have health care, schooling, food, water, shelter and of course pants, I don't think the government should be involved.
Some would argue otherwise, and that's fine.
They are welcome of course to contribute more voluntarily.



I am of course possibly being extreme, possibly serious, possibly tongue in cheek, or possibly bored between Scooby Doo episodes.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
> it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
> it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.
> 
> ...



Those who know what's best for us
 Must rise and save us from ourselves.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2011)

Steve said:


> This particular thread articulates two fundamentally different philosophical beliefs, and then dips into the reality of applying either of these positions in real life.  Philosophy is clean.  Life is messy.



If I put on a fancy costume, come to your house with a gun, and demand money, what am I?

The problem that this thread addresses revolves around the use of force when it comes to solving societies problem.  Talking about the government is actually a red herring.  The "government" is just a group of people who are initiating the use of force against another group of people within in the confines of imaginary lines drawn on paper.  The initiation of force is the impetus that moves money from one hands to another, or as in the case of this example, grade points from one person to another.

So, when I say it's not moral to steal from me or threaten me, I'm not saying that I don't care about the poor.  I'm not saying that I people who can't pay should watch their property burn down.  I'm not saying that the physically weaker need to line up like sheep for the predators.  I'm not saying that the sick should just die if they can't pay.

I'm saying that stealing and extortion are wrong and I'm suggesting that we find other solutions for problems that don't involve aspects that are fundamentally immoral.  

This is an easy concept to understand.  A five year old could explain it.  The problem is that there are way to many political terms that have long trains of convoluted ideas that make excuses for stealing.  There are too many people whose entire livelihood would disappear if stealing were to be considered absolutely immoral.  

The bottom line is this, however, we won't have a healthy and sustainable society until we address this issue.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2011)

Fire insurance at work.

http://consumerist.com/2011/12/fire...n-to-the-ground-because-of-unpaid-75-fee.html
[h=2]Firefighters Watch Another House Burn To The Ground Because Of Unpaid $75 Fee[/h]


> The deal is this: If you live in the city limits of South Fulton, your  property gets service from the firefighters. Live outside city limits,  then your option is to ante up the $75 or risk losing everything to a  fire.





> According to the AP, *the homeowners* &#8212; who are staying for a couple of  nights at a local hotel, courtesy of the Red Cross &#8212; *had no insurance on  the property*.



So, they could have had Fire Insurance which would have gotten a fire department to put the fire out, but chose not to pay for it.
They also decided against buying insurance on the house and property.
End result, they lost everything.

So because they chose to be irresponsible, I should feel sorry for them and blame the fire department?
Nope.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Fire insurance at work.
> 
> http://consumerist.com/2011/12/fire...n-to-the-ground-because-of-unpaid-75-fee.html
> *Firefighters Watch Another House Burn To The Ground Because Of Unpaid $75 Fee*
> ...



You know Bob, I would feel bad for them.  I might choose to help them depending on the circumstances.  I would also tell my friends to *not *do that.

Stupid is forgivable sometimes, but you can't force someone to do it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 7, 2011)

Has everyone forgotten the whole "representation" part of taxation?  The government isn't a tyrant or a burglar putting a gunt to your head, requiring payment by force.  The American people, via their collective choice, put those legislators in place to determine tax rates.  

I know I know, that doesn't fit into the narrative.  Just ignore the detail.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Has everyone forgotten the whole "representation" part of taxation?  The government isn't a tyrant or a burglar putting a gunt to your head, requiring payment by force.  The American people, via their collective choice, put those legislators in place to determine tax rates.
> 
> I know I know, that doesn't fit into the narrative.  Just ignore the detail.



And  RP.....

Are these representatives doing the 'will of the people'?



> [h=2]Congressional Job Approval[/h]
> PollDateApprove Disapprove SpreadRCP Average11/3 - 11/1512.381.7 -69.4FOX News11/13 - 11/151280 -68Politico/GWU/Battleground11/6 - 11/91283 -71Gallup11/3 - 11/61382 -69CBS News/NY Times10/19 - 10/24984 -75Associated Press/GfK10/13 - 10/171682 -66Gallup10/6 - 10/91381 -68CBS News9/28 - 10/21180 -69FOX News9/25 - 9/271183 -72CBS News/NY Times9/10 - 9/151280 -68CNN/Opinion Research9/9 - 9/111584 -69Gallup9/8 - 9/111582 -67Associated Press/GfK8/18 - 8/221287 -75Gallup8/11 - 8/141384 -71FOX News8/7 - 8/91081 -71CNN/Opinion Research8/1 - 8/11484 -70Gallup7/7 - 7/101877 -59FOX News6/26 - 6/282071 -51CBS News/NY Times6/24 - 6/282070 -50Associated Press/GfK6/16 - 6/202176 -55NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl6/9 - 6/131874 -56Gallup6/9 - 6/121776 -59CBS News6/3 - 6/71872 -54FOX News5/15 - 5/172469 -45Associated Press/GfK5/5 - 5/93068 -38NBC News5/5 - 5/72270 -48FOX News4/25 - 4/271875 -57CBS News/NY Times4/15 - 4/201675 -59NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl3/31 - 4/42073 -53Associated Press/GfK3/24 - 3/282771 -44FOX News3/14 - 3/162465 -41ABC News/Wash Post3/10 - 3/132769 -42Gallup3/3 - 3/61874 -56NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl2/24 - 2/282269 -47CBS News2/11 - 2/142462 -38Newsweek/Daily Beast2/12 - 2/153058 -28FOX News2/7 - 2/93160 -29CNN/Opinion Research1/21 - 1/232672 -46FOX News1/18 - 1/192265 -43ABC News/Wash Post1/13 - 1/162866 -38Associated Press/GfK1/5 - 1/102669 -43Gallup1/7 - 1/92073




That constant 60% and higher approval rating clearly says they are...wait, I was looking at the wrong column again?
Damn.

So, tell me again....where's my representation?

If I tell you "give me 25% of your income. If you don't, I'm going to take your car, and lock you in the basement for 7 years." is a crime, is theft, is illegal, why is it legal when the government does it?
Because they government says it is.
But who is making the rules when only 20% or less of the people think the government's doing the right thing?



Freeloader:
- a person who imposes on another's hospitality without sharing in the responsibility or cost.
- a person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return

Hmmm.....


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, tell me again....where's my representation?



Well, ignoring the question of whether media approval rating polls are reliable, I'd say it's in the fact that the American people keep voting them in.  People can complain all they want on internet forums or gallup polls, but the vote is what counts.  Don't like the current policies?  Vote out the legislators who made them.  The fact that you don't like how they're going about things doesn't suddenly render their taxation design illegitimate.  Go ask Syrians or Libyans what government coercion really feels like. Unfair =/= coercive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Has everyone forgotten the whole "representation" part of taxation?  The government isn't a tyrant or a burglar putting a gun to your head, requiring payment by force.  The American people, via their collective choice, put those legislators in place to determine tax rates.
> 
> I know I know, that doesn't fit into the narrative.  Just ignore the detail.



What makes you think that you have any control of this system at all?

54 cents out of every dollar that is taken from me by the Federal government goes to kill and pay for killers to do corporate wet work over seas.  How does that fit your narrative?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Go ask Syrians or Libyans what government coercion really feels like.



That would be an interesting conversation.  How many countries around the world have US/Corporate dictators that are installed because they improve the business climate?  That's your tax dollars at work!  

Control?

You don't have control over this.  I'm sorry to say this, but it's a misplaced faith.  The guns and the power and the money are have gotten so huge that our political system has become a theater to put on a show that makes the citizens think they have influence.  

Now, as they strip our rights away, create extra constitutional super congresses, and vote to lock up or American citizens without any due process, this program has about run it's course.  The first step to fixing anything about our society is realizing that you don't have control.  The second is pointing the finger at the reason why you don't have control.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2011)

I pay taxes because if I didn't, the government will come and seize my property, and deny me my freedom.
I don't give them permission to take my income.
I give it to them because if I didn't, they will -steal- my stuff and lock me up.

Duress:
Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on  someone to do something against their will or better judgment.

They threaten me.
They will assault me.
They will constrain me.
As such I give them my money -against my will-.

You will never convince me otherwise.

But that's ok.
I will be receiving a Mark of Reprisal shortly which will authorize me to travel the US and rape, pillage and burn as I wish.
This will be completely legal, as I will have a document that says so.
Having the document makes all the difference between legal and illegal.
Right?
:roflmao:


I repeat my question:
Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?

Yes or no.

It's a simple question, really.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I repeat my question:
> Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?
> 
> Yes or no.
> ...



Out of sheer humor, I have to guess you'd have taken the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham (or however it's spelled) on the whole Robin Hood thing. 

But no, it's not really a simple question. Taxation schemes are designed by representatives that you, a member of the voting or non-voting public, placed there. You're sitting here claiming that the taxman is just a hired thug acting on behalf of some mafia agent, and that's just not the case. People who receive punitive taxes for speaking out against the government are oppressed. People who fear being shot by their nation's military or corrupt police if they don't wear the right clothing or join the right religion are oppressed. People who are forced to take certain jobs or pay taxes without any say in the matter are oppressed. Having to pay taxes (still ridiculously low-rate taxes compared to other democratic nations, if I remember correctly) to a government you're represented in is not oppression, and it is not coercion. If you don't like it, lobby it. You have that right; the people who are legitimately staring down the barrel of a gun do not. 

And lest I be accused of sidetracking, as for the grades-to-taxes comparison, it is deliberately simplified. In the conveniently simple grades example, the exchange is wholly beneficial to one and wholly detrimental to the other; that's not the case with tax money. We all benefit from the various services taxes (when properly used) provide for: police, roads, schools, emergency services, social security, etc. And when they're not properly used, or are unfairly distributed, well that's where the representation part kicks in.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm not asking if it benefits anyone.

I can walk into my local supermarket, grab an armful of food off the shelf, run out, and before I'm tackled by the cops give it to the starving homeless that are hanging out there.
Does the fact that the food I stole benefited the starving make my theft not theft?

Again, I'm not saying we can't work to make changes. I'm not saying we're better or worse than others. I don't care if it benefits all of us, some of us, one of us or none of us.

That is irrelevant to the question.

I'm asking a simple, yes or no question.

I repeat my question:
* Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?*

What the item in the state of surplus is, is also irrelevant.

Yes.
or
No.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Out of sheer humor, I have to guess you'd have taken the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham (or however it's spelled) on the whole Robin Hood thing.


No. He was a thief. Period.
So was Hood.


----------



## granfire (Dec 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No. He was a thief. Period.
> So was Hood.



I see what you did there!
:lol:


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm not asking if it benefits anyone.
> 
> I can walk into my local supermarket, grab an armful of food off the shelf, run out, and before I'm tackled by the cops give it to the starving homeless that are hanging out there.
> Does the fact that the food I stole benefited the starving make my theft not theft?
> ...



That's the problem, people want to lump the other parts of taxes into the situation to justify the government spending the money any way they want.  Everyone uses the roads etc, not everyone goes to the state to give them free money.  The question originally (in the form of a joke/satire) was it is fair to take the excess of one person and give it to another person.  

No, it's not fair to take the excess of one person and distribute it to someone else.  In fact, in several speeches proponents of this have even referred to distribution of wealth.  So, it really is that simple.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I repeat my question:
> *Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?*
> 
> What the item in the state of surplus is, is also irrelevant.
> ...



So basically, any taxation is theft?

And no, I'm not answering yes or no.  Yes/no, red/blue, black/white, wrong/right thinking does not in anyway contribute to any type of resolution.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> So basically, any taxation is theft?


Yes.

"I'll say this plainly, I've said it before - Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do," says Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/22/judge-andrew-napolitano-why-taxation-is

What is the difference between a mob boss who wants 10% "protection money" and the government what wants 10% "for services rendered"?
If I put a gun to your head, take 10% out of your wallet, then later give you a pizza, is that "right"?

It's simple.
I do not wish to pay.
My voice is not being heard, my representative is not representing me.
I pay under duress, because not to pay would cost my property and my freedom.
I have a gun to my head, and a voice is saying "your money or your life".
That is not a choice.

It's a mugging.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> So basically, any taxation is theft?
> 
> And no, I'm not answering yes or no. Yes/no, red/blue, black/white, wrong/right thinking does not in anyway contribute to any type of resolution.



I think there is a clear seperation between taxes used to pay for things that everyone uses (roadways, police, fire, etc.) and social handout programs or the government funding things like the arts.  Many people feel that this is NOT the job of the government at all, but social groups like churches or other charities set up and run by donations.

For example, our city recently got a federal grant for $100k to put up a frame to hang artwork from it on an overpass.  It could ONLY be used for a project like that.  Many people complained that money was spent that way.  Why is the government using tax dollars to pay for something like that?  That is well beyond the scope of what the federal govt started as, and what taxes were meant for.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2011)

The US would not be $100T in debt, our cities decaying, our economy a wreck, if people were responsible, if the government was small and held to strict limits, and if we weren't forced to fund thousands of redundant, bloated and ineffective 'feel good' programs. 

I'm an artist, but I don't support government funding of the arts.
I'm poor, but I don't support handouts for the poor.

It's a hard line I've drawn in ink. I will not say "I'm against X,Y & Z, but not W because I care about W and we should make an exception.".
No, no exceptions.
Strict read of the USC, what it specifically authorizes, is not kosher. Period.
Until the Ratification of the 16th Amendment, Income Taxes were unconstitutional.
I support the removal of the 16th.

Taxation is legalized theft of personal property.
It doesn't matter what good it might do, it is still theft.

Understand I am arguing a -very- narrow point here. I am not debating if they do good, or bad. My sole 'heavy' point is that it's theft.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 9, 2011)

Well, if you're going to say that all taxation is theft, there's not really much discussion left to have.  I maintain that it is not theft because you, as a voter and citizen, have a say in the matter.  You can lobby, you can vote for new representatives.  I suppose you could argue the viability of an opt-out system (i.e. I didn't vote for this tax, so I wont pay it), but then you have to think about what all opting-out means.  Your child may not attend the school, but you sure as hell still get the benefit of public education.  You may not drive, but you still reap the benefits of DUI laws.  Just to name a few.  

As for punisher's distinction, I will definitely agree that some tax programs should be revised, but even with welfare, it's arguable that you're still benefitting from the fact that those people aren't out on the streets, homeless.  And so often people say they're just getting hand-outs, but there's all kinds of restrictions, requirements, and limitations that have been and can be applied to those programs.  Florida just implemented such restrictions on unemployment benefits, as an example.  But even when faced with a bonafide unreasonable tax....again, lobby.  You're a voting citizen, use that.  

That's about all I can say on the matter.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 9, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> Relaly what do they do average, disadvantaged, low income or non white people every day? Get a bath and get a job? Yeh its crap alright they just can't seem to smell where its comming from. Trickle down theory has transformed to believe me when I tell you its raining and I'm peeing on your leg. The premise of the original thread is that all peopleare strugling because its thier fault, they are lazy, they do drugs, low morals on and on and many of the supposed solutions come from people who have 100 times more than they need and operate under the assumption that all they have came from thier own individual effort? Really out of 7 billion people you have two hand two legs a brain health and all by your self without any gratitude only a dog protecting its bone and in dog mentality your bone is not enough I want yours as well.
> 
> Yes Yes it may be a threat to those who feel bad about a law that mandates controls and contribution but its just as wrong to pass laws enfluenced by greed, special interest money to take away rights, safety, jobs and now even trying to take away voting rights which will be the last thing the right wants. This mentality that your worth is predicated by your possesions and bank account and the have nots are some how undesirable is the real class war. Lack of empathy is a curse on the person who has it and one day they will be doomed to walk in the same shoes of the person they are looking down at. 2012 president or not I hope there is a major change to through republicans out and entrenched corupted democrats as well and go back to rebuilding the US not breaking it up to sell of to make a profit.
> 
> ...



I am delusional in my own propaganda. That is an interesting statement. To which propaganda do you refer?I am not a Republican, nor do I often vote for republican candidates or measures. I am a centrist libertarian.

I recognize most of the statements you have made as originating from Newt Gingrich, who has a track record of hypocrisy and questionable if not damnable ethics, and unseemly quotes to boot. And I in no way endorse him. If you are going to target me with your simmering vitriol, that is fine. But you will find it far more worthwhile to attack the claims I actually make than this strawman you are currently evicerating. In fact, you will find we likely agree more than disagree when it comes to critical points, when the rhetoric is burned away like so much... well... straw. So the greater question is: are you more interested in engaging in meaningful conversation, or mental masturbation? Your call, chief.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2011)

But can I not pay and not be punished?
What -choice- do I have here?

Are you saying it's not theft because it's beneficial?
That would mean that if I stole bread to feed the poor, it's not really theft, right?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The US would not be $100T in debt, our cities decaying, our economy a wreck, if people were responsible, if the government was small and held to strict limits, and if we weren't forced to fund thousands of redundant, bloated and ineffective 'feel good' programs.
> 
> I'm an artist, but I don't support government funding of the arts.
> I'm poor, but I don't support handouts for the poor.
> ...



I agree. Technology is at the point where many of our public services could be charged on a pay-by use basis.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But can I not pay and not be punished?
> What -choice- do I have here?
> 
> Are you saying it's not theft because it's beneficial?
> That would mean that if I stole bread to feed the poor, it's not really theft, right?



Oh for crying out loud....it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking. Do we really need to dive to this level of sophistry? 

I sure would love to see the viable government that doesn't impose taxes. Really, I would. While we're in fantasy land, I'd also like my student loans forgiven and a date with Scarlet Johansson and Jessica Alba--at the same time.

Oh hey, while we're at it, is every cop who arrests someone guilty of abduction? No? Well why not pray tell?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Oh for crying out loud....it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking.



According to this reasoning, morality is defined by law, therefore anything that is legal is moral.  Do you believe that?


----------



## billc (Dec 9, 2011)

There is a great, short book on this by Frederic Bastiat called "The Law," where he discusses this very issue.  He wrote "The Law," in 1848 and if you want to look at the different aspects of this debate he breaks them all down.  The book is only .99 on Kindle.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323470300&sr=1-1



> Propery and Plunder
> 
> Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources.  This is the origin of property.
> But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.  This process is the origin of plunder.  Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid Pain--and since labor is pain in itself--it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work...When, then, does plunder stop?  It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Oh for crying out loud....it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking. Do we really need to dive to this level of sophistry?
> 
> I sure would love to see the viable government that doesn't impose taxes. Really, I would. While we're in fantasy land, I'd also like my student loans forgiven and a date with Scarlet Johansson and Jessica Alba--at the same time.
> 
> Oh hey, while we're at it, is every cop who arrests someone guilty of abduction? No? Well why not pray tell?




"it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking."

The only reason taxes aren't theft is because someone passed a law saying so?
So.  If someone passed a law making rape legal, it would be ok then right?

"is every cop who arrests someone guilty of abduction?"

Yes.
It's only legal because someone passed a law saying so.
There's also the term 'unlawful detainment'. Cops get hit with it occasionally when they exceed their powers.


Why do I have to wear a seat belt but a cop doesn't?
Someone wrote a law that says I have to but he doesn't.

Why can't I talk on my cell phone and drive, but a cop can?
Because someone wrote a law that says I can't but he can.



Let me try a different tact.
Is pizza a vegetable?
It is according to the US Government.
Ketchups a beverage, and tomatoes are vegetables too.
According to laws passed.

Must make them so, despite all the evidence that says otherwise.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 14, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There's also the term 'unlawful detainment'. Cops get hit with it occasionally when they exceed their powers.



Indeed, and it's unlawful because the cop exceeded their power when commiting it.  If they remain within the bounds of their authority, an arrest is entirely lawful and the cop's done nothing wrong.  Similarly, a taxman collecting the dues established by the legislature isn't committing theft...unless, of course, he attempts to pocket some of it for himself, or demand more than the tax scheme requires.  

You still haven't answered me: if all taxes are wrongful theft, how the hell is any government supposed to fund itself?  Voluntary donations?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> You still haven't answered me: if all taxes are wrongful theft, how the hell is any government supposed to fund itself?  Voluntary donations?



Service fees.  Tolls.  Usage fees.   There are ways so that those who use government services pay and those who don't, don't.

It would result in about 75% decrease in the size of government, as government would be forces to run lean-n-mean, actively fight chronyism and fraud, and function efficiently. No more $900 hammers. Senators would work for free, part time, holding real jobs and do true public service.

It's a fantasy, I know, much like finding an honest politician, or gold at the end of the rainbow.

At the Federal level - eliminate all things not specifically authorized by the US Constitution.
Good bye Medicare, Medicaid, Departments of energy, education, and so forth.  Goodbye DHS, TSA, DEA, HUD, SSI, FICA, etc etc.

In fact, let it run on donations...see how much people -really- want in the government.

Extremist, I know, but there's a point in there for those who look.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 14, 2011)

Wow.....okay I guess we're done on this conversation topic.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 14, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Service fees.  Tolls.  Usage fees.   There are ways so that those who use government services pay and those who don't, don't.
> 
> It would result in about 75% decrease in the size of government, as government would be forces to run lean-n-mean, actively fight chronyism and fraud, and function efficiently. No more $900 hammers. Senators would work for free, part time, holding real jobs and do true public service.
> 
> ...



Oh there'd still be those hammers. That was a specific hammer that had justification for its existence and justified its cost (look it up). But the important difference is that it would be in the private sector. I think space exploration in private hands would get us there quicker and more efficiently, anyway.

However, there is one sticking point on our argument, Bill. Whenever we look at adding a new service, there would be startup capital required. I'm assuming new services would only be added when we have the coffers full enough to pull that off?

Also, how would military matters be funded?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Dec 14, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Wow.....okay I guess we're done on this conversation topic.



Or you could meet the specific claims with counter claims or point out problems with his claims. Just sayin.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 14, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Or you could meet the specific claims with counter claims or point out problems with his claims. Just sayin.



"Justice and government to those that can afford it" is not a concept I wish to contend with.  There's a certain point where disagreement is so absolute that discussion is futile.  Feel free if you wish to, however.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Oh there'd still be those hammers. That was a specific hammer that had justification for its existence and justified its cost (look it up). But the important difference is that it would be in the private sector. I think space exploration in private hands would get us there quicker and more efficiently, anyway.
> 
> However, there is one sticking point on our argument, Bill. Whenever we look at adding a new service, there would be startup capital required. I'm assuming new services would only be added when we have the coffers full enough to pull that off?
> 
> Also, how would military matters be funded?



I still remember that wonderful song lyric "For what they spend on a 5c nail, you could send you kid to Yale....Wrench. For. Sale."

The military can hold some bake sales, maybe sell cookies. Get the parents to go door to door with sales kits.
"If you buy now, Johnny gets a shiny new F22 to fly."

Actually, if I recall correctly, the military isn't supposed to be permanent and requires re approval every so often since a standing army isn't in the USC.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> "Justice and government to those that can afford it" is not a concept I wish to contend with.  There's a certain point where disagreement is so absolute that discussion is futile.  Feel free if you wish to, however.



I fear you continue to miss my point.  Let me attempt a final time to clarify.

I said taxes are theft.
Legalized theft.
Legalized because the government wrote a permission slip to allow it to do so and call it something else.

This is the same reason why you must wear a seat belt, can't talk on your phone while driving, and must stop at red lights while a guy wearing a police uniform in a car with certain markings can do all 3.
Someone wrote a law saying it was ok for them to do, but not for you.


Under our current situation, I am mandated to turn over a certain percentage of my wealth to the state, for them to do as they wish with it.
I have no real choice. I do it, or -else-.
I have no real say. My desire to change things is trumped by the myth of "common good".
My insistence that the system do something about the fraud, waste, corruption and mismanagement is ignored as being 'too hard', 'too costly', or 'more trouble than it's worth'.

I don't honestly think the government should hold bake sales or depend on charity.
Because I don't think they are smart enough to run a bake sale without ****ing it up for one.....and few if anyone would actually give them any money if they didn't have a gun to their head.

If you disagree with the last point, all I have to ask is, how much -extra- did you send in last year? If the answer is 0, why didn't you contribute more?

If the government didn't steal some portion of our earnings for their own use, they would have to turn to other means.
Tariffs and tolls to name 2.
2 methods which worked well for the first 100+ years of our nations history I might add, and the main cause for Lincolns illegal war against the legally seceded South as his cry of "who will collect the tariffs!" showed. (He just wanted the money from the Southern ports.)

Art museums need government money. Without it, they close up. Why? Because most people don't care.
The government must steal some of your income to pay unemployment/retirement to others. Why? Because most people wouldn't put a dime on the side if they had a choice.
The government must demand everyone chip in for the schools. Why? Because if they didn't, half the population wouldn't be able to afford to goto school because the costs would be beyond them.

Just because I call taxation what it is, doesn't mean I think that actual full-tilt anarchy is the answer.  I fully recognize the need for some limited amount of gun-to-the-head action for the real good of the people.

It's the BS bloat that I disagree with, the waste, which if it was eliminated would mean that I could keep more of what I earned for one, and that the money that was stolen from me would actually be efficiently used for the real good of others.

Does that clear up the disconnect?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2011)

Who is holding the gun to whose head? That is the fundamental question in politics and its completely immoral. Who controls the gun?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 15, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Does that clear up the disconnect?



To a certian extent, but I still believe that you're deliberately ignoring the role that voting and representation actually play in the legitimacy of taxation.  You may not like taxes going toward welfare, and I may not like taxes going toward the Iraq war, but we each still have a say (albeit indirect and only significant if part of a greater movement) in how those taxes get collected and spent.  To me, that makes all the difference between begrudgingly paying Uncle Sam and handing over money at the barrel of a gun; you seem to think they're synonymous.  

Ironically enough, what you've pointed out about donations is exactly why the whole "Well Warren Buffet can pay more" claptrap is meaningless...taxation only works if its compulsory.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2011)

If I don't pay, eventually men with guns come to take me away.
In the old days, if you didn't pay Bruno, men with bats came for your knee caps.
The difference is that men with guns who were voted into power said the first one is ok, but not the second.

To me, it's like arguing over the e in tomatoe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> To a certian extent, but I still believe that you're deliberately ignoring the role that voting and representation actually play in the legitimacy of taxation.  You may not like taxes going toward welfare, and I may not like taxes going toward the Iraq war, but we each still have a say (albeit indirect and only significant if part of a greater movement) in how those taxes get collected and spent.  To me, that makes all the difference between begrudgingly paying Uncle Sam and handing over money at the barrel of a gun; you seem to think they're synonymous.



Back in the day, when I considered myself liberal, I considered it my duty to pay taxes because I lived in this society and reaped it's benefits.  After 9/11, my views began to change on politics, partly because I began to learn things that were not taught in the public schools or state colleges, and partly because the government that I was supporting had intensified a global campaign of death and destruction as well as clamping down on civil rights at home.  Eventually, I got to the point where I decided that I didn't want to voluntarily pay for this anymore, because my "consent" was a tacit agreement with an innumerable amount of completely immoral policies.  This is the first time the Libertarian argument about taxation really hit home.  There is no consent, no matter how much you agree with a policy, no matter how much you might benefit from it.  

There is only a gun in the room and all power flows out of that gun.

Once I had this epiphany, I started to see politics from a different perspective.  I noticed that when political power was backed with implicit violence, the struggle of special interests groups, suddenly made more sense.  Essentially, we had one group of people struggling to control the gun in the room and turn in on another, so that the implicit violence of the State would, at the very least, not harm them, and even better, aid them.  This corrupting influence bled its way into things that I thought I supported, things like public education and universal health care.  For example, I saw that whenever a new mandate was passed, there was always some special interest group that was going to benefit from it and as long as you were in that special interest group, it was good, but if you weren't in that special interest group...

Eventually, the recognizance of the inherit violence of the system helped me make sense of that fact that so many sociopaths had entered politics in search of power.  What kind of people are going to reach for the promise of implicit violence to force people to do what they want?  How do psychopaths seize the reins of power in a society and destroy it from within?  Why do the members of certain societies actually support psychopaths in power as they destroy society with government power?  Imagine there is a gun on the table and all one needs to do to grab it, is get organized and motivated.  The strongest, most cunning, and unscrupulous will eventually grab that gun and make it do it's bidding.

Let this perspective percolate through your view of history and see what you think.  Think about current events in the US and see if you can see this pattern.  It all goes back to force.  Taxation is theft and the system is backed by implicit violence.  If you want to fight over the gun in the room, eventually someone bigger, meaner, stronger and smarter is going to take it from you.


----------



## TwentyThree (Dec 15, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> To a certian extent, but I still believe that you're deliberately ignoring the role that voting and representation actually play in the legitimacy of taxation.  You may not like taxes going toward welfare, and I may not like taxes going toward the Iraq war, but we each still have a say (albeit indirect and only significant if part of a greater movement) in how those taxes get collected and spent.  To me, that makes all the difference between begrudgingly paying Uncle Sam and handing over money at the barrel of a gun; you seem to think they're synonymous.
> 
> Ironically enough, what you've pointed out about donations is exactly why the whole "Well Warren Buffet can pay more" claptrap is meaningless...taxation only works if its compulsory.



You've stated repeatedly that we somehow got to "vote" on all of this (never mind I never got to vote on, oh, whether or not Social Security should exist, or for that matter, an income tax...)

I have, repeatedly, voted against taxation, voted for candidates (when I was allowed to - ballot access for minority candidates in this country is a joke) that shared my viewpoint, and my candidates lost, repeatedly (on rare occasion the people were smart enough to avoid taxing us all for the benefit of a special minority, which is usually the case).

Does my act of voting AGAINST such things make me exempt, then?  If not, why not?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2011)

Here's another thing to consider that I think counters the idea that voting legitimizes taxation.  When the government goes into debt, the unborn are literally being taxed for today's policies.  Therefore, I'm paying for wars like Vietnam and my children will be paying for the wars we're having right now.  None of us were given a chance to vote on it.  It's theft.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 20, 2011)

Ok, I'm clearly unenlightened then.  We're all sheep, governments out to get us, tinfoil hats please.  

Really, I got it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Really, I got it.



Nope, they got you and they got your money and they are killing people with it and you can't stop it.  When you try to stop it and live with some integrity, then you'll discover the nature of taxation.


----------

