Your view on Politics

[Reveilled]

Well, is it really so different?  If your property is being taken from you without permission accompanied by a threat, does it make a difference whether the entity which is taking it is some guy on the street or people in government?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not without permission. It's by a legitimate and democratically elected government. If you don't agree, you can vote for a party which wants to cut taxes, or stand for election yourself.

 

It's called the social contract. The government provides services that people want, and people pay for it with taxes. European countries have higher taxes than the US because we have a different contract with out states, and expect more services.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How does a government being "legitimate" and "democratically elected" give it permission to take the property of people who don't want to give it up?

[SteveThaiBinh]

How does a government being "legitimate" and "democratically elected" give it permission to take the property of people who don't want to give it up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because the politicians who are elected state clearly that they will collect taxes to pay for government services. If they also introduce taxes they did not promise, the voters can fire them at the next election if they want. Again, if you're not happy to pay taxes, you have to work to get a low tax government elected.

 

Democratically elected governments are basically legitimate and can make laws within the bounds of the constitution. Without that, nations can't really hold together.

[Jellybelly]

Reveilled: You Americans are all about taking what you want and giving nothing in return, aren't you? It's customary to pay for one's goods, isn't it?

[Reveilled]

How does a government being "legitimate" and "democratically elected" give it permission to take the property of people who don't want to give it up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because the politicians who are elected state clearly that they will collect taxes to pay for government services. If they also introduce taxes they did not promise, the voters can fire them at the next election if they want. Again, if you're not happy to pay taxes, you have to work to get a low tax government elected.

 

Democratically elected governments are basically legitimate and can make laws within the bounds of the constitution. Without that, nations can't really hold together.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But where should the bounds of the constitution be? One might say that calling taxes robbery is extremely short-sighted. On the other hand, one might say that calling them anything else is nothing more than tyranny by majority. Just because the Majority (or in most democracies, the plurality) thinks that politicians who are elected should take x amount of money off of everybody, doesn't mean that it isn't wrong to take that money off of the people who didn't want the money to be taken away from them. Most everyone accepts that no matter how "legitimate" or "democratically elected" a government is, a majority shouldn't be able to take the lives of the minority. Why should it be able to take the property of the minority?

[Reveilled]

Reveilled: You Americans are all about taking what you want and giving nothing in return, aren't you? It's customary to pay for one's goods, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You notice how, underneath the number of posts a person has made, there's sometimes a little field that tells you where a person is from? I would suggest that before jumping to wild conclusions about where people are from. I could understand if it wasn't there, but jeez, reading isn't so hard.

[SteveThaiBinh]

But where should the bounds of the constitution be?  One might say that calling taxes robbery is extremely short-sighted.  On the other hand, one might say that calling them anything else is nothing more than tyranny by majority.  Just because the Majority (or in most democracies, the plurality) thinks that politicians who are elected should take x amount of money off of everybody, doesn't mean that it isn't wrong to take that money off of the people who didn't want the money to be taken away from them. Most everyone accepts that no matter how "legitimate" or "democratically elected" a government is, a majority shouldn't be able to take the lives of the minority.  Why should it be able to take the property of the minority?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a serious problem. What is a 'fair' tax? There's no neutral, objective way to answer that. For example, the Thatcher government introduced the Poll Tax, where everyone paid exactly the same, no matter how rich or poor they were. Many people refused to pay because they thought it was unfair and that the government was breaking the social contract by doing this. Some people were sent to prison for it. But none of the major political parties, except maybe the Greens, supported breaking the law in this way.

 

The practical point is that you may think it's 'wrong' to take money off certain people, but there's no consensus over what tax levels should be. It's contested, and when you have issues that are fundamentally contested, the only way of resolving that is through the political process and elections.

 

Ultimately, there has to be one system, one law for everyone. Without that, you can't hope to construct a decent system. It's galling at first to realise that the state has such power over you just because you happened to be born within its territory. But I don't know of a viable alternative.

[213374U]

Most everyone accepts that no matter how "legitimate" or "democratically elected" a government is, a majority shouldn't be able to take the lives of the minority.  Why should it be able to take the property of the minority?

And why shouldn't they?

[Rosbjerg]

I view it more like paying for a room in a hotel for instance .. the more you pay the more you get! it's not like robbery because you get something in return ..

of course the less you pay the less service you get, and you have to eat out or go somewhere else for breakfast etc.

[213374U]

Great analogy.

[nightcleaver]

I'm a republican so I'm yay for moral values in goverment and everyday life. Also Bush I think is doing a good job and the War in Iraq was for a good reason, to end the terror there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The more conservative morality is a morality based on service to some higher purpose. Generally, this means religion of some kind. For adherents to this view, a particular act is defined a "moral" or "immoral" depending on existing dogma based on interpretations of some historically-revealed truth. (disclaimer: yes, there are deeply religious liberals who find support for their political views in ancient texts. As anyone else describing populations as "liberal" or "conservative," I am generalizing a bit.)

 

The more liberal morality is a morality based upon fulfillment of ones inner potential. Thus, there is strong liberal support for public education, family planning, aid to the poor (since economic realities often prevent self-fulfillment), etc. "The Joy of Sex," for example, is a very moral book, according to this view-- it helps people lead happy, fulfilling lives, and society as a whole is bettered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was a very impartial approach; thank you. I have to disagree with you, though, because of that.

 

First of all, liberal can mean several different things, as can conservative. In many ways, modern repbulicans aren't entirely conservative; and democrats are sometimes conservative as well. The public school system is in-line with a conservative approach to ruling, but it is not republican.

 

But I understand that, in this country, we don't usually talk about the conservative/liberal approach to government, but rather we talk about parties.

 

Now, I'm liberal, and I believe in high purpose. I can think of quite a few republicans who don't, who prefer their twenty bucks in the mail to soup kitchens for the poor. That's an exaggeration, but you get my point; DIFFERENT high purpose. Their "high purpose" could just as well be called "fulfillment of the self" for how it encourages capitalism, as opposed to socialism.

 

I think that people think too much about party alignment; it's unbelievably wrong when people decide based on party, EVEN IF THAT'S TO BE EQUALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH EACH. Yes, you heard me correctly. Because then, are you really thinking for yourself in being "independent" of either party, or in fact having your opinions controlled and determined equally by the parties, and thus by the larger culture?

 

Now, mentioning the division of parties is hardly a crime; truthfully, PARTICIPATING in the division isn't. Maintaining individuality isn't done by avoiding names and the mentioning of such division, but by not committing yourself to actions you find distasteful and don't truly want to do.

 

Here I go into my own opinions.

 

And I know some "liberals" who are all about "fulfillment of the self," and they REALLY annoy me. And I'm sick of Bush being compared to Hitler; Hitler was a speed freak, yes yes, but I feel that Bush is just an idiot. Sorry for being so partisan, but I have to say that.

 

I suppose the facts are "up for opinion" on how important it really is to stop drilling holes in the earth for relatively frivolous purpose. Good for the economy? What about GOOD for PEOPLE? Or even GOOD for GOD? If you destroy the earth, you quicken your death, sorry; you make it impossible for people to just live and be who they are. There won't be any amish as they are today if the US becomes a corporate wasteland, GB junior.

 

We forget the importance of survival and culture. And christianity isn't our culture; that's been tested, and proven.

 

It annoys me when people try to govern themselves on no better basis than 5 bucks in the mail on Tuesday, or, "That man has a nice smile," no matter how hellish their life becomes. But I'm patient, and understand I can only control myself. I am a liberal, and I believe in the higher values, beyond forcing my opinions on others.

 

Unlike some. Such is life.

[Darth_Radnor]

WTF?  You liked being taxed to death. Everyone knows that low taxes bring good economy. Remeber that 90's great economy was started by Reagan's tax cutting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like number man said, that's oversimplification. If you put it that way Regan's tax cutting and increased spending on military could very well lead to a crash in US economy during the next decade.

 

Simply put, I hate deficits.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Personally I would prefer we eliminate wage tax and the IRS. Instead put a federal sales tax based on a percentage of the item being sold. More expensive the item is the more the individual is paying in taxes.

 

Such as a $500 television set here in Iowa would cost an additional $35 for the sales tax. Put in a 10% federal sales tax, make that an addition $50 for a total of $585. The more luxarious the cost of the item, such as a $100,000 sail boat or $50,000 diamond necklace, the more tax you pay while at the same time there would be no income tax to take your money.

 

People will have more money to spend, and the federal government would get their tax money. It would also be near impossible to cheat as well.

[B5C]

Like number man said, that's oversimplification. If you put it that way Regan's tax cutting and increased spending on military could very well lead to a crash in US economy during the next decade.

 

Simply put, I hate deficits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey nobody liked deficits, but manageable deficts are still ok.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"As for the social democracy of the scandinavian countries, I think it's a "nice" ideal, but in some cases I think certain things, like child support (I'm not sure how to say it) is a bit too high. Over 100 USD a month per child in the family?"

 

I suppose that having a child is likely to set your income back by more than that if you're willing to actually participate in its life, and as such, I see it as a fair compensation.

Now, you might want to argue that it's the parents' choice to have a child, and it is, but then again, the society needs children.

 

"Also, I've heard people with a really lousy job sometimes actually profit by becoming unemployed."

 

As far as I know, that's only a problem with part-time jobs. Even though the pay is better than you get for being unemployed, once the job is over you'll have to wait some time before you get unemployment money. Which might just tip the scales in favor of not taking the job at all.

[WITHTEETH]

I haven't had time to read the whlle forum but i am from the United states and her eare my opinions:

 

I hate bush personally. but don't hate americans please

 

it wasn't a "just war" by Aquines and also some people like to fit Empathy in with the rules. becasue terrorism breeds terrorist and i think our regime is creating it, or already. and i just read on BBC News ,com that saddams army is almost entirely from his old regime. way to go bush! Buck Fush!

 

Also im all for socialism and what bush is doing to our Social security is just dumb. why tear out the kitchen when all youi need to do is fix the drain? grrr

 

Also i dont mind republicans alot of them are nice but extreme radical christians are nutz, they need to spit there apple out of their mouth and relaize they didn;t eat from the tree of knowledge, because it doesn't work that way.

 

And to the pharmicists who reject our women from having the day after pill. GET A NEW DA#@$# JOB!!!!!!! As the arrogent donald trump would say "your Fired"

[taks]

Reveilled: You Americans are all about taking what you want and giving nothing in return, aren't you? It's customary to pay for one's goods, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

funny, but how is paying for somebody else's "goods" all about taking what we want and giving nothing in return? why is your child's education my concern. why is your retirement my concern. why is your inability to work my concern?

 

we aren't about "taking what you want," at all... we're about "doing for yourself."

 

get that through your narrowminded view and maybe you'll have a better understanding of what it is that truly drives us.

 

taks

[taks]

I haven't had time to read the whlle forum but i Also im all for socialism and what bush is doing to our Social security is just dumb. why tear out the kitchen when all youi need to do is fix the drain? grrr

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hate to tell you but by definition, social security is known as a pyramid scheme. funny how pyramid schemes are illegal for normal citizens to run, yet somehow a necessity for the government.

 

get real. the "drain" is social security itself. it's a 14% tax on our payroll to pay for current retirees that don't have brains enough to save a few bucks while working.

 

taks

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"funny, but how is paying for somebody else's 'goods' all about taking what we want and giving nothing in return? why is your child's education my concern. why is your retirement my concern. why is your inability to work my concern?"

 

Well, it might be just me, but isn't that "taking care for others" business kinda the whole point of society?

 

A pyramid scheme is a fraud based on recruiting an increasing number of investors.

Typically, new recruits pay a sum of money to join the "program" and become a distributor of a product or service, and are told that they'll make money based on the number of new recruits they in turn bring in. The basic idea is that the higher up on the pyramid you are, the more money you'll make.

In reality, what happens is that only the originators of the pyramid scheme make money and the rest lose theirs when the pyramid scheme collapses. Eventually ALL pyramid schemes collapse, as the recruiters on the lower levels fail to bring in enough new participants to support those above them.

 

"hate to tell you but by definition, social security is known as a pyramid scheme. funny how pyramid schemes are illegal for normal citizens to run, yet somehow a necessity for the government."

 

I don't really make the connection. Ellaborate, please?

[Lucius]

Screw the planet too right Taks? I mean, you'll be dead before you see the effects anyway, so how is it your concern?

[draakh_kimera]

Don't try to argue with taks. He's got a pretty good grasp of some socio-economics, but he did once say that sweden was more capitalist than the US "

[Rosbjerg]

hate to tell you but by definition, social security is known as a pyramid scheme.  funny how pyramid schemes are illegal for normal citizens to run, yet somehow a necessity for the government.

 

get real.  the "drain" is social security itself.  it's a 14% tax on our payroll to pay for current retirees that don't have brains enough to save a few bucks while working.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Taks .. you'r Christian right? most republicans I know are.. and most of them fiercly defend their christian faith.. how come then, that you would rather have the poor guy die because he can't afford anything .. rather than helping him, like your good books tells you too!?

 

and pyramid scheme .. what are you talking about! it's not the politicians that are getting all the money! it's equally diveded out between those who need it! poor and rich .. get real yourself!

[B5C]

I haven't had time to read the whlle forum but i am from the United states and her eare my opinions:

 

I hate bush personally. but don't hate americans please

 

it wasn't a "just war" by Aquines and also some people like to fit Empathy in with the rules. becasue terrorism breeds terrorist and i think our regime is creating it, or already. and i just read on BBC News ,com that saddams army is almost entirely from his old regime. way to go bush! Buck Fush!

 

Hey without the invsion of Iraq. Saddam will be in power milking the Oil for Food program. The Kurds and Shiites will still be 2nd class citizens. Also the adding a new democratic regime is re-starting democratic revolutions in the middle east. The lebanons are revolting agaist their Syrian occupiers, the Kurds and Students in Iran are revoting with more strength, the Saudis are now adding some sort of democratic reform, Egypt will now start multi-party elections, and the Kuwaiti women are asking for the right to vote. Also note we have a Kurd and a Shiitte as President and Prime Minister of Iraq.

 

The terrorists in Iraq is about 10,000 storng and only composed of mostly Syrians, Jordianians, Egyptians, Iranians, and Saudis. Also most of the Iraqi people hate the terrorists. The most popular TV show in Iraq is a show that shows terrorists for what they are and mock them. The Iraqi National Army is almost strong enoth that they can do most of the defense them selves. Also strikes agaist US troops is at a all time low in three years and most of the terrorist attacks are agaist Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians.

 

So do you believe bring democracy is still wrong?

 

Also im all for socialism and what bush is doing to our Social security is just dumb. why tear out the kitchen when all youi need to do is fix the drain? grrr

 

You need to stop listening to AARP propaganda. The private plan is VOLUTARY! Also people who are 50 and over WONT SEE A CHANGE! Social Security is my money too and I want some control. Im not my grandparent's piggy bank.

 

And to the pharmicists who reject our women from having the day after pill. GET A NEW DA#@$# JOB!!!!!!!  As the arrogent donald trump would say "your Fired"

 

If she was raped and I will agree with you, but if she wasnt raped and had sex with a man without protection. ITS HER FAULT!

 

The simple way is to not have sex in the first place! You can wait.

[WITHTEETH]

I haven't had time to read the whlle forum but i Also im all for socialism and what bush is doing to our Social security is just dumb. why tear out the kitchen when all youi need to do is fix the drain? grrr

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hate to tell you but by definition, social security is known as a pyramid scheme. funny how pyramid schemes are illegal for normal citizens to run, yet somehow a necessity for the government.

 

get real. the "drain" is social security itself. it's a 14% tax on our payroll to pay for current retirees that don't have brains enough to save a few bucks while working.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1st: Cool down, i am a real person... or maybe just energy.

 

2nd: Social Security was made to stop older poor people from going homeless

 

3rd: I understand where the money goes, and i don't mind helping out others when it comes back to me.

 

4th: i was talking about the change in sopcial secuurity is not rational. don't make this personal bud

[B5C]

2nd: Social Security was made to stop older poor people from going homeless

 

Yes only during the Great Depression. Social Security wasnt designed to be a savings plan.

[mkreku]

So do you believe bring democracy is still wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe forcing democracy by war is doomed to fail. Also, I don't believe in the american version of democracy. Actually, I wouldn't even call it a real democracy, but seeing your view on so many other things, I just know that explaining it to you would be fruitless.