Interesting! So where do you draw the line? How much are the other 20 people morally allowed to take from the 21st person? If they all vote to kill him or make him their slave, is that suddenly ethical just because they're the majority? If not, why is taking his possessions ethical?
Yes. If you are stranded in a lifeboat, and everyone votes to use you for food, I think that's ethical. I draw the line somewhere because majority rule can also be tyranny, which is why I think it needs to be tempered by a constitution that protects minority rights. The line can be changed by necessity, I don't make clear moral lines, as they are all subjective and relative to the situation.
Barter does not help you escape taxes: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/20090310-barter-save-cash-a2.asp
it's not taxes as i see as the major problem as the use of taxes. i have no problem paying for my roads to be safe and well cared for. i have no problem paying for local police and fire departments to ensure the city is safe. i have no problem paying for the cleanliness of my parks and wildlife services. however the problem is the efficient use of my taxes. my money funds a declining education system. as much as the men and women in the military are brave beyond measure, their service is used for useless wars that make my nation and community growingly hated across the rest of the globe. my money funds the FDA which seems to miss some vegetable or food contamination once every three months. it's like any other service i pay for, i don't mind spending the money for the needed service as long as i get what i pay for. at the point that stops being the case, something needs to change. either the service is improved to my expectations or i find a new service provider. if enough of us get angry and demand better service from who's in office and who we put in office, we will see better use of our tax dollars. our responsibility as taxpayers is to be informed about the services we are getting (following the congress and the bills it has in the house), demanding which services we want to see in place (calling our congressmen, staging rallies to support what is important to us, organizing grassroots support for politicians and bills), and supporting politicians that stand for our cause (btw this isn't meaningless slogans like "Vote for Change. this is clear outlined plans for what we want. it is putting these people in office.) i understand people are upset in america about a variety of problems. the first step to solving the crisis in america is with each individual taking inventory of themselves, organizing with like-minded individuals and taking ACTION to make the changes they want to see in place. for anyone who hasn't seen crash course, i'd beg you to spend an hour a day for the next few days this week and watch it by googling "crash course."
As for barter being tax exempt, no it is not. You have to be careful with barterning not all exchanges are tax exempt. My point is that it is a life style choice you make. You do not like the atlernatives so you choose to engage in transactions that result in taxes being levied.
All good points, Nasor and Roman and anyone else People that argue for taxation say "well you can stop using this service" Even if you do, you still must pay a tax. You still are forced to use this currency, and forced to do such and such and use such and such. There is no choice. If spidergoat really wants free education (not that I'm saying you do, just an example), why don't you fund it? Why should I, if I don't want to? What happens if I don't consent to you using my money for your goals? I cannot take your money to fund my goals. Why can you take my money? Social contract? You have no choice to begin with! The services are given to you without you ever asking; and, as it is a monopoly, you can't get them anywhere else even if you wanted to. Not to mention that it is literally theft. Why is the government entitled to my money simply because they declare it so?
Why are you entitled to take my money simply on a whim? We are no less slaves simply because we get to choose a new master every few years. The fact of the matter is, government is imposed on you without your consent. Under a laissez faire system, you can still be ruled if you want; just don't force me to be.
It isn't your money, as I explained. You wouldn't be making any money if you lived in the forest. But we have a society, and you are free to take part in the decision-making. The power is all yours. The government is imposed on us WITH our consent.
Why is it these right wing nut jobs are so damn dense? All that just went over their heads. They do not have to engage in activities that would cause taxable events. They do not have to use currency, but they do. What they are saying is, I want to use your currency. I want to use your roads and your services. But you know what I don't want to change my lifestyle and I don't want to pay for those goods and services...reminds me of some of the career welfare folks I used to know in my days as a paramedic working in a major metropolitan area. The right wing nut jobs are just as bad as the intentional career welfare receipents. They want everything but they don't want to pay for it. I would be willing to bet these guys don't even now pay their fair share of taxes if you took a pro capita approach to government expenditures. I probably pay more in tax on one month than these clowns pay in a lifetime and they are bawling like little babies about tax.
Al Capone redistributed wealth, the Government redistributes wealth. Both employed force and coercion to go about this redistribution.
Yes, it is your money. You receive that money in exchange for the provision of labour, whether it be specialised or unspecialised. So? :shrug: Clearly we are not free to take part in the decision making, given that the government often employs coercion in order to force us to obey its whims. Speak for yourself.
Why are socialist fucks all so god damn dense? Why is it so difficult to grasp that one should be allowed to choose whether to pay (and thus be supplied) with a service, and that one should only pay for what one uses? Let me tell you about the superannuation scheme in Australia. A certain percentage of your earnings are placed in a superannuation fund by the Government (usually via the purchase of shares). Naturally this is done without your consent, since Australia is becoming more of a nanny state day by day. Given that the stock markets have recently plummeted, the value of superannuation funds has plummeted. This means that many people who were planning on retirement will need to keep slaving their ass off. All because the Government saw it fit to invest their money in a manner that wasn't appropriate for them. As my mother (who is near retirement age) pointed out, if she had been allowed to deposit that money in a term deposit account, should would have made a gain instead of a loss. There is no greater evil than a nanny government.
Who is preaching for a nanny government? This is just red meat for the unthinking masses. If I had all the money I paid into the American Social Security Program, I would be delighted. But that aint so, nor could the government afford to pay me for all the money I have contributed to the fund...the American equalivent of your superannuation scheme. So I am not going to worry about it. And the reality is that we all need to pay our fair share of the tax to support our governments....not that I like paying my tax any more than anyone else. But it is the price we pay for living in our societies. It is a social obligation...just like supporting your family. There is nothing wrong with wanting a minimalist government nor wanting fiscal conservatism. But I think you need to pull out the old dictionary and look at the definition of socialism.
Most of you here seem to be equating tax money with public services. In actuality, tax dollars go to politicians who decide what to do with those tax dollars. (In the US) The idea of a politician is that they are a public servant. The populace votes them in to office (hiring them if you will), the politician enforces the will of the people, or works towards the greater good. Yes, tax dollars are taken from the public to pay for welfare, roads, and the like. But ideally, if you disagree with how a politician is spending your money, you can vote against them (essentially firing them), and then elect someone who you deem more qualified. From that perspective, taxes are more-or-less paying for a service. And if you disagree with the service you're receiving, vote for someone else. The only thing about taxes that I see as theft is the income tax, which is not in written law.* And I don't have a source, but I remember hearing that your property can be seized without a warrant, and the seizure can be done if you are a suspected terrorist. That's theft. * The movie Zeitgeist. Two IRS agents are quoted involving my claim.
Maybe not you in particular, but on average, yes. Democracy serves the interests of the most people at any one time.
Absolutely. Note that I said socialist, not socialism. One bird doesn't make spring or something. Definitely lay off the drugs, mang. I'd use a different currency, if it was legal. But it's not. They take your stuff, fine you, kick your doors in, send in the FBI, send you to prison for using a currency that's not printed by the Treasury. Alright, if 2 million thieves, or 200 million thieves vote to steal your car.... So if you were in a lifeboat, and the 20 other people decided to eat you, you'd let them? No it's not. You haven't made an important decision in your lifetime. No one on this board has made an important decision, and likely never will. You're a pawn, dude.
