Violence

So a work force that works for free are not slaves? Right…. And how do they know they were happy?
As for not harming a child…”Pain makes the ears work better”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RE: Happy
Egyptians were on the whole quite literate and they wrote their satisfaction on the inside of the pyramids (which are filled with packed chips and rock). Often bragging how their "team" beat the other team on that day. We also have thousands of letters from wives to husbands and friends to friends. So, we have an idea of their life. Like us, they liked to drink, f@ck, joke and do what they perceived as meaningful work.

The thing is, it wasn't productive. While it did maintain their society for literally thousands of years they became ungodly stagnate. If you look at statues from 3000 year apart you can hardly see a difference. As a matter of fact, stagnation BECAME their culture. They started to worry that if something changed, maybe the Gods would turn on them. The Nile was so regular - it dictated their way of seeing reality. Consistency became the goal. So, while they had a 3000 year head start on the rest of the world, in only a few generations the Greeks (they invited to learn about math and sometimes hired as mercenaries) in very short order, soon ruled over them.

RE: punishment
Well, I think this is wrong. You might be able to get a Slave to work if you whip him/her but he or she will work much much harder if they think they are doing so for their own benefit. This is why we have a Central Bank. It gives the illusion to the Cattle they are free - thus they work much much harder than if they were told they truth, that they're debt-slaves. People are now working 50-60 hour a week 'freely' (much harder than Slaves or Serfs) - both mother and father. Hardly see their kids at all. Well, they should be happy because soon their kids will be working along side them to pay the banks the TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS needed to pay back their gambling debts AND entitlements. You need a lot of $8.20 hours to pay back Trillions WITH interest.

But hey, you're safer now... with them nasty Terrorist 12 year olds locked away in Gitmo and a TSA finger in your anus.

Perception means a lot in a world of Cattle....:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually the majority of the workforce for building the pyramids was not slave labor but was actually hired by the priests, and for much of the same reason that although slavery was present in Christendom for more than a thousand years, so few of their churches and cemeteries were built by slave labor. Such "sacred" things were usually trusted only to the most capable people available, and such capable people were almost never slaves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you know this how?
His word?
LOL
Right

Well I don't know who Flippy is, but if all your income is Capital gains you can pay about that much.

So?

Capital gains comes from investments you make with the money you have left over AFTER paying income tax, and so it is logical to be at a lower rate than income.

And I could care less what someone like Kiyosaki thinks?
Nor have you given me one reason I should care.

And yet in this whole discussion you have yet to point out to a large successful country that can be run without an Income tax (the very few small countries that don't have an income tax in no way resemble the US)

Except we haven't done so.

Simply your opinion, but there are clearly valid reasons for both.

So make your case.
Your assertion carries little weight.

Sure it does.
Read it again.

Nope, and it was also illegal well over 100 years ago.

 

So how did they pay them? or better yet did they convert them to their relgion just likes the preist did the native americans via torture and death!
Once again if you brainwash someone to do anything for you with "noble ideas"...they are your slaves

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They may not be Physical slaves through chains and bonds but they were mentally enslaved to an ideal, so by that logic the pyramids were built by slaves...not the archtypal slaves envisioned by society but by brainwashed people.

 

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

 

Typically with gold, though some might have gotten cattle or land in exchange for their labors(the practice wasn't common, but it happened). The documentation on this is rather solid, in fact slavery was in decline at that point in Egypt's history. The only reason this myth persists is because of the biblical story of the Exodus, which never happened in reality.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the building of the pyramids? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Actually the religions(yes, there were more than one) of ancient Egypt were pretty tolerant of other religious beliefs, even if they found them a bit odd. In fact, the same can be said of most polytheistic religions, as the idea of there being a god that they don't worship is pretty standard among it's adherents(most of whom didn't actually worship all of the gods in the pantheon). You don't really find that much inter-religion animosity until the monotheisms spring up, though the polytheists weren't(and aren't) precluded from thinking that their way was just "best".

While I would typically agree, this is hardly an accepted definition of the word and is obviously not the definition I was working from, so what relevance does this have to my post?

Again though, that wasn't typically the way the Egyptian religions worked, they typically didn't care who you worshiped.

So by a definition that isn't a generally accepted definition(thus necessitating a clarifying statement by those who wish to use it in their arguments) and a definition that I wasn't working with my post is wrong. Congratulations on the first Fallacy of Ambiguity that I've seen from you.

 

I suppose I should thank you, however do the obvious lack of body language and tone of voice I cannot properly interpret your post as genuine or as sarcasm, no offense of coarse on your part, I have to be skeptical of what others post about me or say to me.( I’m a guarded person)

 

Well, I always like to congratulate people on the first fallacy I catch them in. Especially since I like your posts and would prefer to see growth in a positive direction rather than a negative direction.

 

Alright, that is far more clear now. Thanks for warning me of a slippery slope in the ways of forum debate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'd like to see you qualify "successful". Exactly what IS successful? Is it a nation where children are raised in day supervision facilities while both parents work weekdays and weekends to make ends meet? Where Citizens volunteer to fight in nations many of them have never heard of and could hardly (if at all) find on the map? The average citizen has nearly no idea about the political process let alone the monetary system? That's probably a success - if you're a farmer.

The USA is an example of a large successful Nation that did NOT have a Central Bank. I'd argue that since sneaking one into existence nearly a hundred years ago, it's been a weight around our neck (as a people) ever since.

That humans continue to progress is hardly a rational reason for maintaining the statuesque. Muslim nations did well there for awhile - so a Caliphate is what? The ideal system of governing? Or even a good one? I don't think so. And neither is our monetary system.

Interest rates should be set by the free-market and NOT by some unelected douche bag sitting in New York. That's how free-societies work. It's obvious you're not interested in living in one. Which is why you happily support the TSA while I don't.

What happens if a "Terrorist" uses a car to blow up a building? Maybe mandatory TSA stops on the road complete with anal probe?


Anyway, its logical fallacy to even suggest that because at this point in time most nations have Central Banks that therefor this is a acceptable monetary system. 200 years ago Slavery was legal. If people hadn't stopped accepting Slavery as moral, we'd still have it to this day. 50 years ago females were not allowed to vote. If people hadn't questioned the then current system - such would be the case today.



Lastly: I didn't quite get your answer as to whether it is moral to initiate force against an innocent person.

EXAMPLE: Suppose a person has a farm and produces some apples. He grew the trees. He owns the land. He picked the fruit. Some people come and trade with him their oranges for his apples - is it moral for the government to steal a portion of this trade? Is it moral to send in police and force these farmers into prison if they don't bow down and lick the boot on their neck? You really think North Koreans in power give two shits about their average person on the street? Do you really think The Federal Reserve governors give two shits about you? No. You're a number in a book. Cattle whose labor is to be bought and sold. Sadly, you don't see to recognize it as it's happening to you :shrug: Which, when you look at how fervently North Koreans support their despotic government - isn't really surprising. Not surprising at all. No wonder societies that start out free end up enslaved. Willingly enslaved I might add.

 

So you label the US prior to central banking - a country which matched your description there pretty closely, except that the kids would have been at work themselves rather than left to play all day long in some special nice place - as "successful"?

We had a reasonably well regulated Central Bank in the US for a very long time, and the former seven or eight year crash and hardship cycle that blighted the country for the century prior seems to have been well handled during that time. Only in the recent aftermath of the repeal of those banking regulations and financial curbs have we had to deal with crashes of the proportions formerly routine.

Likewise with income taxes - as long as they were high enough and progressive enough they seem to have prevented the kinds of relative wealth accumulation that did so much damage in the past - recent lowering and flattening of them seems to have returned us to the pattern we had suffered prior to their establishment, and were happy to have avoided for so many decades.

They are. Check your credit card bill, bank account statement, etc.

And yet you want a "free market" to handle your road system, medical care setup, internet backbone, educational system, and so forth.

Do you have any familiarity with how free markets actually work in a modern industrial corporate economy? The role, for example, of financiers, in their operations?

The short answer, which you have received many times, is "No". Everyone agrees on that, pretty much - it isn't an issue here.

 

No Michael, it's your claim that your proposed system of no income tax is so great. I've simply asked you to show us a large successful country that operates without one.
You are basing this on SOME evidence that your system is better, aren't you?

Or is it rather just your pie in the sky dreaming of some utopia with no idea how it would really work?

Who cares what you support since EVERY country has airport security that operates pretty much just like the TSA.
Why?
Because terrorists and crackpots have been hijacking and bombing and crashing planes since at least the 60s, and security checks keept that number to a minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
http://www.examiner.com/crime-justice-in-national/airplane-bombings-have-always-been-with-us

Because your term "innocent person" means NOTHING in regards to taxes.

You don't pay taxes because you are guilty of anything, you pay them as part of your income and purchases.

So you want an anwser, try redefining your terms into something that has proper meaning.

Well first of all, taxation isn't stealing, but ignoring your predjudical language, if you just take care of yourself by what you grow, and you barter with your neighbors, you have no reportable income and you pay no income tax.

Indeed, the government will likely PAY YOU.

 

I did: The United States of America. pre-1913.

What? Should I start using Double plus ungood too?

Why should a free person have to report their income to the State? Why? They shouldn't. Just because all the men on the island take a vote that raping the woman who washed ashore is now "legal" does in no way make it moral. She is innocent Arthur. Making ANY sense yet?

Free humans who trade with one another should NOT have to subject themselves to some other humans (elected or otherwise) who use FORCE to steal from their labor. I fail to see what's so hard to gasp here.

It's like you're knee deep in 1984 can't seem to grasp the very notion that Income Tax may well BE Orwellian. You know? How everyone in the book just accepts Big Brother. No one questions anything. language is altered to control conversation. That's what you seem to be doing. Innocent suddenly seem unsettling so you alter the word to make yourself feel better about supporting theft. How do we determine what's right and what's wrong? We must go to first principals. Is it moral to steal? No. Is it moral to initiate force against someone who has done nothing against you? No. See how simple this is? Therefor, do not create a monetary system of thievery and then initiate force against Citizens born into it and expect it to be anything other than immoral. Is that so hard to get? Is change THAT scary?

Muppet's. That's what Goldies call the "Big Game" they 'take down'/sucker into buying overly complex debt-based 'financial products'/2-bit scams.
You? Ha! You and I are not a Muppet.
Us they'd call Cattle. There to be milked of income/production at the maximal level yet still remain viable and able to produce meat and milk. Why you're so happy to support it.... I have no idea???

I was wondering? Was it the nude picture I posted that one time? I mean, did that set you off on a path of anti-Michael? Are you so happy to cut your nose off to spite your face? Or is it you truly don't see that the system we have is indeed immoral?


OK then, do you support Free markets? You know, free trade between human beings (assuming there's no violence involved)? How about a free market on interest rates? Should the free market set the interest rates or some douche bag at the Federal Reserve? You do know Alan Greenspan caused most of this mess trying to blow up another bubble to help out rich new yorkers after the dot.com bust. Yup, next stop housing all aboard. Now it's bonds themselves. That last great bubble. Think of this, if it weren't for a twist of fate, it could have been Corzine who was Fed Chair. Look at what a crooked wicket incompetent turd he IS. Why any sane thinking rational person would let someone like Corzine control their fate? Why? I'd really like to know. Why are you so happy to let people treat you like Cattle? I just don't get it? The fed pellets really taste that good?

That's called stealing Arthur and it's immoral. Just because you get the government to do your stealing for you, doesn't mean you're not stealing.

Any tax you are forced to pay, against your will IS stealing. When you pay a State tax on an item you choose to pay - you are choosing to pay it knowing that you are paying some tax.
See the difference?
We have roads, we pay tax in our gas as we purchase it. The more roads you use, the more fuel you buy, the more tax you pay. This seems bit more fair. Maybe there's an even fairer way? Why not think about it? Before you launch into Progressive/Regressive taxation - try and remember that we COULD live in a world of competing currencies. The State COULD issue currency without using Fed Notes at all. So could private citizens - and we used to. ALL sorts of non-violent monetary systems could be tried.

 

LOL

So, I presume that's the BEST you could find?
The US 100 years ago?

But the fact is the income tax was first used in 1862 Michael.

There were some years without it prior to 1913, when the Constitution was ammended to specifically allow it.

But the point Michael, is that was 100 years ago and the world is a far different place.

That was when we were dumping Hg in the water and putting anything we wanted in the Air.
That was before WW1 and well before we had or needed an Air Force.
That was before the Interstate system.
That was 25 years before Child Labor laws were passed.
That was before women could vote.
etc etc etc

Do try to stick to relatively recent history when making your arguments.

 

Nope.
There is no difference except how the tax is collected.
You prefer REGRESSIVE taxes, like sales and exise taxes.
Most people prefer PROGRESSIVE taxes, like tiered income taxes.

So the net of your argument is pretty sad Michael.
You aren't claiming that taxes are inherently bad, you just want us to drop the progressive ones, (the ones where the majority of the tax is paid by those who earn the most money) and switch to regressive taxes and really sock it to those who don't earn that much money.

Don't think you are going to get much support for your plan Michael.

Sure, but it can't get the roads built to start with.
So in this case we use both means of paying for them (useage fees are about HALF the costs)
And of course that doesn't work for things like the military or the police or the EPA or FEMA or OSHA etc.
Which is why we use a progressive income tax.

 

My argument is NOT about regressive versus progressive taxation. It's about using force versus free choice. One system requires force and the other doesn't.

It doesn't matter "what people want". I'm not selling the idea. I simply stating a fact: One system utilizes the initiation of force and the other doesn't. It doesn't matter if most of society "want slavery" - it's still immoral. It doesn't matter if the majority of men at a party decide they want to have their way with a girl. It's initiation of force and that is immoral.

But, going to the topic of this thread, what did you think of the Youtube video regarding the Broke Window fallacy? Do you agree building for the sake of building is wasteful and unproductive?


One more time: Groups of Humans can do ANYTHING government can do except initiate force. EPA or FEMA or OSHA etc... all of those services can be provided by private businesses. ALL OF IT. Society is moving in my direction and will get here someday - I'd guess 3-5 generations from now.

 

Previous bouts of immorality came on the heels of debt driven war.

Do you have ANY IDEA how many Black Americans are in prison between the ages of 18-30? About 1 in 5. That's f*cked up. Here's a little known fact: post-WWII Black men were more faithful family men when compared with White men? They also had lower unemployment. Isn't it interesting, Liberal ideology (including welfare) did what 100+ years of Slavery couldn't - utterly decimate the Black community.

 

Doesn't matter what SPIN you put on your proposal Michael, still the NET effect of your proposal is to replace our PROGRESSIVE income tax system with a completely REGRESSIVE tax system based on Sales, Excise and User Fees.

Which says you want to shift a HUGE percent of the tax paid from the wealthy to the middle class and poor.

Not going to fly Michael.

Why of course you are trying to SELL the idea.
You are all over the Forum with it (probably on other forums as well), indeed you are like a broken record just repeating the same tired mantra over and over and over and over.

Except no one but you has bought into Income Tax = Rape

Like I said, just a broken record.

Didn't watch it.
You want to make your argument, then make it Michael.

Not without collecting taxes to pay for it. The only question is should it be a PROGRESSIVE system like we have, where the high income earners pay a larger share, or a REGRESSIVE system like you are advocating where we can really stick it to the poor.

No they are not Michael.
That's BS and you have provided NO evidence that tax systems, in general, are becoming MORE Regressive as you suggest.

 

I don't care if the general public likes stealing - it's still immoral.

No, I'm not "all over the internet" - I barely have time for this one forum.


Lastly, I'm for structural change that will actually make things fairer. You OTOH like the current system. Well, you could charge 100% income tax from all Americans who make over 20K a year and it will do nothing to put even the tiniest dent in the debt your wonderful Federal Reserve has racked up.

Speaking of which: What do you think of that? Suppose income tax was 90% for anything over $20K? Do you think that's moral? How do you decide what is and is not moral? If the majority voted for it - then I suppose you'd what? Think it's suddenly moral? What if you also had to share your house with strangers? We'll say the drunk you didn't pay who attempted to clean your windows. Say the entire society decided to randomly assign the 'poorer' with the 'richer'. Would you feel violated in anyway being FORCED to give up almost ALL of your income and being FORCED to live with a drunk transient?

What about people in other countries? Why shouldn't you HAVE to pay for them? What? You don't care about them? Well? What if you were FORCED to pay 50% of your income to take care of people from all over the world? Would you say that's moral?

See, this is the thing Arthur, I did win the debate. You do agree with me. It's just that you're being logically inconsistent. Kind of making it up as you go along. We both know you'd kick up a shit fit if you were forced to give over 90% of your income over $20K and forced to live with a drunk stranger and forced to pay for people living in Mexico and Nigeria to have a good life.

And that's a fact.