Fred Thompson will become the next President of USA

[taks]

better to take money from the top of the social layer than from the middle...

theft is theft, regardless of which layer the money is taken from. it is not "better" to take it from any layer, it is better to not take it.

 

taks

[taks]

Hilary with her socialitist bull**** will give us more problems than any republican would

Oh yes, and Iraq is so going well.

i.e., a strawman.

 

taks

[Pop]

The words "health care" and "education" do not appear in the US constitution.

I'm suddenly reminded of this article.

[taks]

some people repeatedly suffer from the inability to differentiate infrastructure needs that require everyone's input (because they all benefit equally), with individual needs in which everyone is capable of handling on their own.

 

also, i should point out that fire fighting, police and many similar functions are handled at the local, not federal (usually not even state), level. oddly, st. louis' police department is actually a state run organization (but that's a remnant of a problem encountered during the civil war).

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

better to take money from the top of the social layer than from the middle...

theft is theft, regardless of which layer the money is taken from. it is not "better" to take it from any layer, it is better to not take it.

 

 

Oh yeah? But 99% of the worlds resources are owned and controlled by 1% of its population, doesnt that seem illogical? I mean, if you know your Star Trek, you will know that in order to found the federation, build enormous friggin' spaceship and phasers and all that, they not only did a complete redistibution of wealth, but also abolished the monetary system altogether. And if you dont dig that, then you can get right off this fine planet and go party with the Romulans, mister. Because anyone who doesnt like Star Trek and all it stands for, hates freedom and we all know what that means: live long and prosper... in gitmo!!

[Calax]

better to take money from the top of the social layer than from the middle...

theft is theft, regardless of which layer the money is taken from. it is not "better" to take it from any layer, it is better to not take it.

 

taks

I suppose we know why you think that any form of economic change is a bad thing... you consider taxes theft.

[taks]

no, i don't generally consider taxes theft (though i do view income taxes as theft). neither do i view economic change bad, though i do view economic change towards socialist models as bad. your statement implied that it is OK for the government to take from the rich and give to the poor, which i do view as theft. socialist constructs are indeed theft, and in the corporate world they have a simple name: pyramid schemes. i never understood why it is people can justify pyramid schemes as legitimate when governments do them, yet greedy capitalist scandals when corporations do them... i think they should be illegal no matter who is on the implementation end of things.

 

personally, i prefer usage taxes. i.e., taxes on goods and services, not income. local governments subsist quite well on these types of taxes. and, until the US federal government decided it needed to broadly expand its powers, it did fine on these as well.

 

taks

[taks]

Oh yeah? But 99% of the worlds resources are owned and controlled by 1% of its population, doesnt that seem illogical?

in a socialist model the disparity is even worse. at least in a capitalist model you have a possibility of being part of that 1%. some of it depends on luck, some on heritage, some on hard work and some simply on intelligence/education. in a socialist model, ultimately, only those that began with wealth can ever have it. the common man owns nothing, controls nothing, and has little if any incentive to strive towards anything other than nothing.

 

I mean, if you know your Star Trek, you will know that in order to found the federation, build enormous friggin' spaceship and phasers and all that, they not only did a complete redistibution of wealth, but also abolished the monetary system altogether. And if you dont dig that, then you can get right off this fine planet and go party with the Romulans, mister. Because anyone who doesnt like Star Trek and all it stands for, hates freedom and we all know what that means: live long and prosper... in gitmo!!

this sounds like a variant of the chewbacca defense. i should plead no contest at this point, shouldn't i?

 

taks

[Sand]

I still think that a socialist/capitalist hybrid society would be best. Vital industries and services that everyone depends on should be freely given to everyone, while non-vital goods and services follow the capitalist model. Medical care should be 100% free to all citizns, but if you want a X Box 360 then you pay for it as normal.

[Meshugger]

no, i don't generally consider taxes theft (though i do view income taxes as theft). neither do i view economic change bad, though i do view economic change towards socialist models as bad. your statement implied that it is OK for the government to take from the rich and give to the poor, which i do view as theft. socialist constructs are indeed theft, and in the corporate world they have a simple name: pyramid schemes. i never understood why it is people can justify pyramid schemes as legitimate when governments do them, yet greedy capitalist scandals when corporations do them... i think they should be illegal no matter who is on the implementation end of things.

 

personally, i prefer usage taxes. i.e., taxes on goods and services, not income. local governments subsist quite well on these types of taxes. and, until the US federal government decided it needed to broadly expand its powers, it did fine on these as well.

 

taks

 

Ron Paul, is that you posting under a pseudonym?

 

Well at least you sound like him (and i don't mean it in any condoning way, that guy is an interesting fella, wanting to leave national health care and the public school system to the states, abolishing the federal reserve-system, income tax and the IRS)

[Calax]

I wasn't saying take from the rich give to the poor, what I was saying was if you take from everyone, take more from the rich and don't give them loopholes to keep the money.

 

After all that money could actually, you know, be given to states for school systems, or public works projects.

[Kaftan Barlast]

in a socialist model the disparity is even worse. at least in a capitalist model you have a possibility of being part of that 1%. some of it depends on luck, some on heritage, some on hard work and some simply on intelligence/education. in a socialist model, ultimately, only those that began with wealth can ever have it. the common man owns nothing, controls nothing, and has little if any incentive to strive towards anything other than nothing.

 

 

No, no, the common man could own plenty of stuff. Like beach towels, a toaster, a tapedeck, his house, a fruitbowl... thats sort of thing.

 

 

this sounds like a variant of the chewbacca defense. i should plead no contest at this point, shouldn't i?

 

 

You could, but that would be no fun.

 

 

 

 

p.s

look at this silly monkey!

[taks]

No, no, the common man could own plenty of stuff. Like beach towels, a toaster, a tapedeck, his house, a fruitbowl... thats sort of thing.

in a truly socialist society, the common man owns nothing. the variants, i.e. hybrids, pay lip service to property rights, and hence the concept of ownership, but even then, it is only lip service. the state always has the authority to take away whatever it is you have, which means you're really only borrowing it. i.e., your right to own your property is granted by the state, not considered inalienable. more true for real property than it is for a fruitbowl, but property is the only thing that ever matters in the long run (everything else is "in the noise" w.r.t. real value).

 

taks

[taks]

I wasn't saying take from the rich give to the poor, what I was saying was if you take from everyone, take more from the rich and don't give them loopholes to keep the money.

 

After all that money could actually, you know, be given to states for school systems, or public works projects.

you say tomayto, i say tomahto. you're still taking from the people (dis-proportionally), and giving back to someone, particularly those that aren't getting anything taken from them. at least with usage taxes you pay for the impact you have on society. the more you buy, the more "public" resources you use (via infrastructure in general) so the more you pay. in the end, certainly those that spend the most will pay the most, but at least they have a choice. i'm one of the spenders, for sure, so i'd have a high tax bill (overall) either way...

 

taks

[taks]

Ron Paul, is that you posting under a pseudonym?

 

Well at least you sound like him (and i don't mean it in any condoning way, that guy is an interesting fella, wanting to leave national health care and the public school system to the states, abolishing the federal reserve-system, income tax and the IRS)

nope. i haven't read too much about him, though from what i've read he has a few ideas i like, and a few i don't like.

 

taks

[Sand]

No, no, the common man could own plenty of stuff. Like beach towels, a toaster, a tapedeck, his house, a fruitbowl... thats sort of thing.

in a truly socialist society, the common man owns nothing. the variants, i.e. hybrids, pay lip service to property rights, and hence the concept of ownership, but even then, it is only lip service. the state always has the authority to take away whatever it is you have, which means you're really only borrowing it. i.e., your right to own your property is granted by the state, not considered inalienable. more true for real property than it is for a fruitbowl, but property is the only thing that ever matters in the long run (everything else is "in the noise" w.r.t. real value).

 

taks

 

Well, the state can take property away anyway. Its called imminent domain. Something that some people in Ames is learning about which the city plans on expanding a street to four lanes, but that would mean tearing up property and taking 8 houses from property owners and land from a dozen others.

[taks]

yes, but imminent domain has strict rules for implementation, something the kelo decision apparently missed entirely.

 

i agree, however, that even in our version of property rights there are no true property rights. it's a question of how much it takes to remove property between systems. ours was much more favorable to the property owner, prior to kelo, now it's a bit fuzzy.

 

for the road example, i don't disagree with imminent domain. for a walmart, however, it is a travesty.

 

taks

[Sand]

The thing is it is worthless. It will not increase any of the safety of that street nor increase its use. The main reason why they are proposing to take this property is because there were a group of drivers whining because they had to wait 5 minutes to pass that intersection during peak traffic. Big freaking deal. There are other streets in Ames that are in more dire shape than that one and there has been no research done to see if there can be any alternatives than taking people's houses.

 

Hell, the buying of property budget has only been allocated $800,000 USD which is laughable since the average price on the houses along are close to $150,000 USD in market value and the on top of the land grab the market value for all the properties involved is close to $2 million.

[taks]

the public needs to speak out on that one if this is truly the case. of course, given kelo, it is still difficult. the one bright spot of kelo is that it did leave the discretion up to states to decide, and many states have followed with legislation that restricts the term "public good" to true public benefit (not just a tax base increase, which is what kelo was about).

 

taks

[Sand]

A lot of people are rallying against the city council on this. If they do go forward I expect a new city council in the next elections.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Sand

[Kaftan Barlast]

No, no, the common man could own plenty of stuff. Like beach towels, a toaster, a tapedeck, his house, a fruitbowl... thats sort of thing.

in a truly socialist society, the common man owns nothing. the variants, i.e. hybrids, pay lip service to property rights, and hence the concept of ownership, but even then, it is only lip service. the state always has the authority to take away whatever it is you have, which means you're really only borrowing it. i.e., your right to own your property is granted by the state, not considered inalienable. more true for real property than it is for a fruitbowl, but property is the only thing that ever matters in the long run (everything else is "in the noise" w.r.t. real value).

 

 

You know I did a quick google search on "soviet fruitbowl" and it appears you might be right about this:

 

 

See? No fruitbowl present.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[taks]

poor soviets without a fruitbowl.

 

sand, that's always the final arbiter in such cases. if the council does something bad, you can always vote them out (or run for election yourself). i'm guessing at least a few of those involved in the kelo case are now without jobs, or will be during the next election cycle.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

I suppose we know why you think that any form of economic change is a bad thing... you consider taxes theft.

Let me give you a scenario here Calax. Suppose you are walking down the street and you see a homeless guy sleeping on a bench. If you walked up to him and gave him a hundred dollars, that would be a pretty nice thing to do. You would probably feel pretty good that you did that right? But suppose instead of you giving the him money I pointed a gun at you and forced you to give me the hundred dollars. That is theft right? I took something from you that I did not earn. Now if I go over to the homeless guy and give him the hundred dollars I stole from you does that change the fact I stole it? Or to be even more accurate, if I stole the hundred dollars from you I could only give the homeless guy fifty dollars because I had to recoup the cost of the gun I used to steal the hundred from you. . And then the homeless guy thanks me for giving him money and gives you a dirty look for giving him nothing even though it is was ultimately your money in his pocket.

 

That is how taxes work.

[Pop]

 

If only they got rid of all the sound, and the images of politicians.

[Calax]

I suppose we know why you think that any form of economic change is a bad thing... you consider taxes theft.

Let me give you a scenario here Calax. Suppose you are walking down the street and you see a homeless guy sleeping on a bench. If you walked up to him and gave him a hundred dollars, that would be a pretty nice thing to do. You would probably feel pretty good that you did that right? But suppose instead of you giving the him money I pointed a gun at you and forced you to give me the hundred dollars. That is theft right? I took something from you that I did not earn. Now if I go over to the homeless guy and give him the hundred dollars I stole from you does that change the fact I stole it? Or to be even more accurate, if I stole the hundred dollars from you I could only give the homeless guy fifty dollars because I had to recoup the cost of the gun I used to steal the hundred from you. . And then the homeless guy thanks me for giving him money and gives you a dirty look for giving him nothing even though it is was ultimately your money in his pocket.

 

That is how taxes work.

Not quite... especially given that if you don't have taxes you don't have jack squat..

 

in your anology instead of you holding me up, then giving the other guy fifty, it'd be more of we'd all be languishing with him in the gutter because there would be no power, no water, no dams, no roads, no houses, no boats, no planes because each of these are either insured or partially owned by the government in almost all cases. The government also pays for Airports and such, and without an income tax it wouldn't have enough money to pass gas much less invade iraq.

 

Also the government isn't giving the homeless guy money... just taking less or none at all from him.

And aren't you the one who's always saying that Freedom isn't free and if we want to stay free we should pay our taxes so that our armies can invade little terrorist countries and we can spy on people that might or might not be terrorists?