Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Right. The only two social possibilities are anarchy or socialism. Nothing in between.So you live in your socialist paradise,
And where is that?and Ill in my free society.
You don't? My, your memory is quite poor. You went with the rhetorical argument that freedom means "then I can walk onto your property any time I want?" To which I replied that you apparently never graduated kindergarten. It was quite amusing. And like I said, here you are, acting all outraged. Awww, poor wittle guy. Awwwwwwwwww.
But yes, complete freedom means that you do not have to obey any laws. And living in a society means you trade away some of your freedoms for the protections and advantages that the society affords you (including, in my example to jviehe, property rights). Do you disagree? And please, try to frame your answer in the form of non-babble. Thanks in advance.
Like I said, irony. And he doesn't even understand why. It's quite amusing.
Really? That doesn't say much for you. Here, I'll make it quite simple for you, but this makes me sad.
Earlier, AdamKadmon said that if someone is "for freedom," that means that he can enter your property any time he wants. In other words, he is saying that wanting freedom necessarily means that you must take the extreme position of total anarchy.
Now, AdamKadmon is defending his own position by saying that it is false that the only positions are socialism or anarchy "with nothing in between." That contradicts his own argument and also indicts his own manner of argumentation earlier. It's called "self-ownage."
There you go, kid.
The point I was making was that when you live in a society, you are accepting a certain amount of limits on freedom; therefore, the debate is not freedom vs. non-freedom (as jviehe implied) but about what level of restriction on freedom is acceptable.
Nice try, though.
In order to escape the confines of reality, which is that taxes pay for the government, you grasp for some nebulous concept called "Fair", and of course you define "Fair" to mean that your desired outcome is implemented, anything else would not be "Fair".
But I define "Fair" as far as taxes go as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.
But every tax is "unfair" to some degree by it's very nature. The income tax is only paid by honest people who file their taxes, dishonest people who hide their income go tax free, that's not fair, but it's reality.
Income taxes only tax income, but a person can make billions of dollars, that don't count as income, and pay no taxes. That's not fair, but it's reality.
To me the fairest tax is the property tax, it's the easiest to collect, the hardest to cheat on, and the most transparent. But the wealthy prefer the income tax and the sales tax, because the property tax hits those with property.
A flat income tax is not fair, because it does not account for the marginal utility of money.
So a graduated income tax is fair, or at least more "fair" than a flat tax, because a graduated tax attempts to compensate for the marginal utility of money.
That's the problem with "Fair", it's imprecise.
When I say that taxes should raise enough money to fund the government, that's a fairly precise goal.
There is a number, a precise number, that defines the revenue target.
Now "Fairness" is how you divide that burden.
And the vast majority of Americans believe the wealthy should pay more, and that's fair...
Why do Socialists want to tax the rich? Just like bank robbers who choose to rob where the money is, the rich is where the money is.
United We Stand.