"This Is Why There Are No Jobs In America", by Porter Stansberry

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


The hyperbolic assertion that most people pay taxes, "at gunpoint" is the kind of dishonesty that the anti-tax set has to employ to try and make an un-make-able point. Taxes are not unconstitutional.

Before the Constitution all the of states were being taxed by the then ungovernable "federal government," and the states were an adhoc collection of states, not really a nation.

But of course this "country" was often finding it couldn't bargain as a collective... people didn't treat it like a nation. On top of that, the stuff it wanted to do as a nation, other than commerce, like defence, needed tax money, but some of the states tried to avoid paying taxes... because there was no central system of enforcing taxation.. it was more "agreements" than laws.

So, the Founding Fathers decided to try and create a nation out of this jumble of states.

Each of these guys came from somewhere, and like today's politicians they wanted to protect their state's interests. A lot of the checks and balances in the constitution exist for this very reason.

But, they also wanted to create a great and unique and modern liberal nation. A nation that was governed not by the elite, per se, but by the people (well... white men).

To that end, these elites, businessmen, philosophers, scholars, and revolutionaries, wrote the US constitution. To address the real day to day problems of trade and defence (and raising money for things then seen to be in the national interest), but also to state their lofty and very liberal ideas and ideals.

This was to be a country not where the value of a human was determined by the wealth of his ancestors (all men are created equal), but one which everyone had a chance to be great.

Many people at the time (like Jefferson) felt that to make this idea work, that all mean had a fair shot, you needed to have state financed and run public education. Why? Well, state financed, because people should all contribute to the collective good of society. State run, to protect the tax payers interest. Public, because ALL MEN are created equal and ALL MEN should be given the an equal opportunity to succeed.. The more men that succeed the better the nation would be. The better and more prosperous.

People that said as much were People like Jefferson and Adams, but go look, most of them shared these ideals. Look at not only what the Constitution says directly, but at how the framers interpreted it themselves. For instance, Jefferson advocated taxes for public state run education. Did he not know the intent of the Constitution?

It's so annoying to me to see out of context quotes from these guys used to justify things they would've disagreed with. It's dishonest and small minded. And it shows a selfish interest, not an interest in making America as great as possible.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Uncle Sam forgot to mention where the big corporations that are in bed with him and are shipping jobs over seas stands in this whole situation. We all know the little businesses are the ones being screwed and dissolved in this ordeal.

Originally posted by Procession101
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Uncle Sam forgot to mention where the big corporations that are in bed with him and are shipping jobs over seas stands in this whole situation. We all know the little businesses are the ones being screwed and dissolved in this ordeal.

That's like saying all the businesses the mob extorts money from at gunpoint are "in bed with" the mafia.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Procession101
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Uncle Sam forgot to mention where the big corporations that are in bed with him and are shipping jobs over seas stands in this whole situation. We all know the little businesses are the ones being screwed and dissolved in this ordeal.

That's like saying all the businesses the mob extorts money from at gunpoint are "in bed with" the mafia.

edit on 24-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Government and those big businesses are one and the same thing

Look at the CVs of those running the Fed and rating agencies, and those creating the laws...they're almost all former Goldman & Co employees.

Have you ever bothered to look up who created those bailout bills? Do you believe it was Bush/Obama or some random lawyer??

You'd be wrong, it was a former Goldman CEO!!!

There is no separation between those big businesses and the government because they ARE the government. Politics have been completely bought, and 99.9% of politicians are now mere sock puppets of big business...and all they do is ask "how high?" if big business tells them to jump.

Wake up!!! Here are the details of how big business infiltrated the government to create every single crisis since WW2: LINK

The author does a brilliant researching job, and him calling Goldman "vampire squid on the face of humanity" is VERY fitting. Not everyone at Goldman is evil, but the top management without a doubt is. They are psychopaths who only care about one thing, $$$. And if they could get away with it, they'd kill their grandmothers to make more...while calling it "doing god's work" (like the current Goldman CEO does).

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
This may be something that is defined by contract as well. When you purchase a home, it may be written into the contract that you will not disturb the peace of your neighbors.

It's really hilarious that a "libertarian" is willing to enter 10,000 written obligations. Next time you buy a beer, sign a contract that you drink moderately. Buy a car, promise to never speed. Some freedom.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
However, there will be cases where this will prevent effective execution of the law, because for each case you'll have to summon a panel of experts and have them speak before the jury. It simply doesn't scale. So, in some cases these responsibilities are deputized to a group of people who keep track of the issue and are able to aid judgement.

Many businesses keep consultants on retainer for those purposes.

In a private court system, there wouldn't be a jury unless the customer requests one, but then again, juries in a private arbitration is unnecessary (A jury is a checks/balances mechanism for the state only) because the verdict by the judge isn't legally enforceable i.e. both the defendant and plaintiff can decide if the judgment is in their best interests. The consequences of this decision would then be judged by the contract/agreement before the lawsuit was initiated, and if someone doesn't abide by the judgments, even though it was contractually obligated in the beginning, then they may very well be punished i.e. barring that particular person from future services. Pretty soon, with enough rejections, the persons involved in the lawsuit may permanently bar themselves from all services due to uncooperation, leaving them compromised, especially so if a system like credit reporting agencies are established to log the behavior of customers through the arbitration process.

A modern example of this arbitration process is the MLB. A player can either leave the team and get what he's worth in the market or contract with the organization and consult third-party arbitrations.

and of course there is that case of noise pollution, which would be impossible to handle without _reasonable_ norms on noise level.

Yes, but in two ways, 1. A deaf person won't be affected by the noise and thus the complaint is circumstantial, and 2. if the person/place that emits loud noise was there first, then the current intensity levels are a product of the homesteading principle; if intensity increases, and the person/place knows of their new neighbors, it becomes an act of aggression.

Example cases that demonstrate the measuring methods of noise (or pollution in general): Kerlin v. Southern Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1941) and Sturgis v. Bridgman (1879).

People were encouraged to migrate into densly populated cities and suburbs at almost exactly the same time, historically, that they would have gotten all of the advantages of city life had they remained in their rural origins.

America lost jobs because most people don't care about the truth. And that is human nature or genetics if you prefer.

Everyone should know the basic ideas taught up to the second year of college. Anyone who does not, cannot have a real opinion about anything dealing with politics or economics or health.

Everything about our system has been grown by pandering politicians who gave ignorant people cures to various symptoms but never cures for the basic disease. Everyone must work to understand the basic body of human knowledge, all else comes easily.

Integrating the basic body of human knowledge into one's own life is the meaning of philosophy and the real reason that humans have a brain.

The zombie apocalypse is near.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

The hyperbolic assertion that most people pay taxes, "at gunpoint" is the kind of dishonesty that the anti-tax set has to employ to try and make an un-make-able point.

Try not paying your taxes, then watch how many guns they bring round to come get you...

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Yeah, right. This is the BS I mean.

The vast majority of Americans are not fringer extremists that think taxes are unconstitutional/morally wrong.

Most people don't like all the things their taxes pay for, etc., but do like a lot of it (schools, roads, infrastructure).

Trying to convince people that paying taxes is akin to having a gun at your head is a losing battle and will only make you look like a nut-case.

If you want your taxes to go to better use, vote in better politicians, and most importantly support/demand legislation that limits the amount of control that corporations can have on government.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, all the countries in the world with better education/healthcare/standard of living, where the population always claims to be a lot happier than the population of the US, all of them, across the board, have higher taxes than the US.

So it's pretty obvious that whatever scheme the anti-tax brigade cook up won't be based on any facts, but on an ideology.

Kinda like when Tony Blair said that god told him to invade Iraq. That's on par with, "taxes are unconstitutional and immoral".

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

 

If you want your taxes to go to better use, vote in better politicians, and most importantly support/demand legislation that limits the amount of control that corporations can have on government.

.

edit on 26-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

They take your money. Then they decide whether they will spend it for your benefit or theirs.

You're OK with that?

The Constitution says they should tell you specifically what they will spend it on and then apportion it evenly across the states.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


I suppose you dont believe in the Bill of Rights either.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


It's kind of a bad sign that the first thing they did was to try to protect us from the the thing that would "save" us.
Did we need a constitution?

I agree with you that if we voted in the best people to run the government everything would be as free and prosperous as reality would allow. I meant that our default setting is to give up our money without question.
That means blind faith in people we don't know, very foolish.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


That's a glib reading.

The point of the checks and balances has as much to do with protecting us from corporations and banks as it does with protecting us from a runaway federal government.

Historically the federal government was created for two main reasons:

- a nation would be taken more seriously than a loose grouping of states, in matters of trade and defence
- a central government could make laws which would force states to play fair with each other and disallow states (like CT) from refusing to pay taxes for military stuff which they benefited from.

As the founding fathers were extremely liberal and radical, they took the opportunity to try and create new idea with the constitution, that people had intrinsic value. That was radical and shocked the world.

The Brits are much more inclined to believe in the value of "blood". Americans believe in soil. If you're born here, you have value, no matter what your blood says.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I am an Anti-Federalist. There was no need to give the seed of abolute power to a central goverment. And none of the Founding Fathers that fought in the Revolution were major forces in the adoption of the Constitutional Convention. The politicians made a place for their own kind to thrive at the behest of the money power.

Connecticut would have payed or been boycotted, and alliances work suficiently well for wars and trade

Originally posted by RealSpoke
If you think complete deregulation is a good idea. Look at what the banks are doing right now. There are no regulations on derivatives, it is destroying the world.

Thats because the goverment bails out the derivatives market. The bailout of the banks was a CDS bailout that goldman sachs recieved 100% of face value. So with out goverment intervention the banks would fail and wouldn't be doing that.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


A few things:

The absence or inclusion or people involved in the revolution doesn't actually change the value of the constitution.

Speculation on what may or may not have happened in CT, isn't really evidence of anything.

The federal government doesn't really have absolute power. You must know this.

reply to post by jlafleur02


That would work for about 6 months. Then, an unregulated Market would find ways to get the government to work for it again.

Deregulation = monopoly = replacing democracy with corporate tyranny.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by jlafleur02

 

That would work for about 6 months. Then, an unregulated Market would find ways to get the government to work for it again.

Deregulation = monopoly = replacing democracy with corporate tyranny.

That is about the stupidest thing I have heard so far on this...Sigh. We have corporate tyranny now fool that's what so called democracy got us. But I guess its to complicated for the mentally challenged to figure it out.... Deregulation = taking away the corporate masters ability to intervene in the affairs of private business to regulate their competition out of business

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Alexander Hamilton was the major force behind the constitution and his greatest desire was a national bank and an industrial system like England's. People can't really be free in an industrial system because the workers must live in a city and become dependant on money instead of their own resoursefulness.

CT is speculation either way

The federal goverment made the federal reserve which can invent enough money to put every american citizen in debt for 2 or more lifetimes. Right now you owe $126,120 and rising

us debt clock
www.usdebtclock.org...
When you owe all of the money you make in a lifetime, that is a form of absolute power.

The US government has the potential for absolute power. If a state tried that you could move to a different state. If the Feds do it you're stuck.

incorporate

the taxes are going down to what, 28% ?

that is not roughly half