It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Semicollegiate
In the end the Supreme Court is as powerful as the constitution.
edit on 26-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Dannijca
There isnt jobs in USA because they dont have factories. All the big USA companies have their factories in poor countries, where they can enslave people.
Originally posted by Mcupobob
Originally posted by Dannijca
There isnt jobs in USA because they dont have factories. All the big USA companies have their factories in poor countries, where they can enslave people.
Who wants to work in a factory anyways? Prolly within mine and your lifetime(in less your like 80?) were going to see factories be a thing of the past. Automation is the way of the future, which is a good thing. We should be shifting our eduction system to better equip kids for upcoming future. Were going through a second industrial revolution. Were switching over to a tech-based service economic. Soon the blue color worker will be a thing of the past and thank god for that. I have nothing against the blue collar worker or what they do, its tough work. But when their no longer needs, and our society can solely focus on creating artist, scientist, teachers, and engineers.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Mcupobob
This is quite a naive post IMO.
Businesses do engage in all sorts of elicit behaviour all the time, when it saves/makes them money. They should be more regulated, especially in relation to how they attempt to manipulate government.
Many groups, and even people like Ron Paul, dont want any regulations. Because they "believe" that markets will destroy bad businesses. They believe this becuas, it suits their pro-Corporation agenda, not because there's any evidence of this actually happening.
Business can not be trusted to self-regulate. People that say it can should also be considered untrustworthy.
The whole problem with this debate is that when someone says "deregulations" people picture companies killing puppies and fish, dumping toxic waste everywhere, and everyone working at sweatshop factories. Nobody wants that, we just want some common sense. Its not if regulations themselves are good or bad, its about which regulations are good or bad.[
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
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".
Lots of ridiculous behaviour you're displaying here.
Well, for one, sane people tend to believe in concepts like, "society" and a minimum standard of living.
People, most people, believe, rightly, that the history of societies shows us that the more level a system is, the more satisfied the populous and the easier it is to govern.
The easer a society is to govern the less
Corruption and the more readily society changes to accommodate shifting social realities.
You can argue that wage inequality is and limiting access to healthcare and education is good for a socirety, but you'd better have more than a hairbrained philosophy to back you up.
The tax system you describe, who would necessarily increase wage inequality, would lead to greatr dissatisfaction and on a long enough timeline, collapse.
It's obviously not your point by point, "rebuttal" but the fact that you attack points I'm not making. For instance, you claim I am trying to justify a belief by saying it's popular.
Kinda like when Tony Blair said that god told him to invade Iraq. That's on par with, "taxes are unconstitutional and immoral".
It's also a handy way to avoid the real point I'm making: you won't get people, enough people, to view the world through your extremist viewpoint to create the society you think is most fair. Reductio ad absurdum. So arguing this extreme point is essentially simply a meaningless philosophical debate.
Especially considering you have nothing but an ideology as "evidence" for your beliefs.
Additionally, the ridiculous binary position you take, taxes vs jail/violence is on it's face incorrect. If you do not resist arrest for breaking the law you will probably not have huge armed swat teams threatening you with violence.
But herein lies the crux of your logical fail. If you CHOOSE to break the law, you choose to accept the consequences.
You also claim that the majority is for some form of welfare. That is completely untrue.
On top of that BS, if you personally believe in the concept of welfare, and your big moral stand is based on PERCENTAGES.... well, it pretty much undercuts your argument.
You attempt to equate the desire to collect taxes, something the founding fathers believed in and one of the MAIN reasons the constitution even exists, to communism
You then assert I'm somehow advocating media corruption,
If you want less corruption, separate business from government.
What I said was that the degree of wage inequality matters. And it does. Go compare the levels of wage inequality in countries that are out performing America, countries that are happier than America, and see if your nonsensical theory holds up. Data will out.
Finally, the tax system you describe will necessarily lead to greater wage inequality, because it will give more control to a minority who will further rig the system to their benefit.
It also leads to a system of corruption because the ultra-rich feel that they don't have to obey the same laws as everyone else; because they don't.
This isn't a theory. Read history books. Learn from the past.
But like all systems that ignore the majority, their corporate fantasy, if it ever came to pass, would implode, like all dictatorships, violently and to the detriment of ALL.
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.
The "evidence" for my beliefs that initiating violence against innocent people is immoral comes from my own moral code, which of course is different to yours (which I suspect is pretty similar to whatever your government tells you it should be).
A society is easy to govern if the people/media do not question the governance. This leaves the door wide open to all sorts of corruption.
You are implying that wage inequality is a causation and happiness index a correlated effect. I've seen no data or studies to support this. It's just as likely wage equality is an effect from some other causes related to happiness.
No, it wasn't.
Again, the point is very clear:
Your beliefs are fringe and will not gain traction.
If you don't think your beliefs are relevant, why have them? Intellectual amusement? Or what?
It's like people trying to convince the world Kenny Loggins is gonna make a comeback. A waste of your time.
First, that's not evidence.
You're just ignoring all of that and going back to the old "taxes=gun violence" nonsense that I roundly destroyed by pointing out that you chose to involve the cops by breaking he law and in other places the cops don't use violence, as a rule, to arrest people who break the law.
You realise I live in Ireland? Yes? You realise that the government doesn't have to tell people to pay taxes. People pay taxes every time they shop... yes?
How about this: go learn some history - go do some research - try and see if your "theories" hold any water.
As for the comparison to the mob... if the mob ran the schools, built infrastructure, ran the military and made sure our food was safe, etc., etc... then they wouldn't be the mob... It's such a silly argument... and one that underlines your desperation...
You then claim you don't know where I got the percentages argument. That's because you're forgetting your own words. You said, "most people believe in some sort of welfare"... if that's the case, then you're simply arguing that a certain amount of violence (taxes=violence remember) is justified.
What amount of violence are you cool with? And is moral? What a ridiculous claim. And an accidental one, because your core beliefs are contradictory and confused.
I'd argue you've seen very little data.
My ACTUAL argument is that the correlation exists.
If you think taxes have caused anything other than people paying taxes you've chosen to ignore pretty much all of history.
Here this'll help:
Taxes don't cause politicians to spend tax money on weapons, politicians cause politicians to spend tax money on weapons.
We have higher taxes in Ireland and barely any military spending... so...
Taxes aren't the problem.
Finally, people do live in a relatively free market and they chose to buy McDonalds and Jersey Shore, etc. You have no evidence that complete deregulation would lead to enlightenment, because none exists.
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
old "taxes=gun violence" nonsense that I roundly destroyed by pointing out that you chose to involve the cops by breaking he law and in other places the cops don't use violence, as a rule, to arrest people who break the law.
Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
More so do people who respect innocent human beings enough that they do not wish to threaten them (or have government heavies do so on their behalf) with violence to coerce them into behaving a certain way. Because these people are compassionate and intelligent enough to realise that wealth is relative they readily help those in need to maintain a minimum standard of living - without the need to be threatened with automatic weapons. People deserve the chance to feel good about helping the less fortunate, rather than the resentment that comes with being threatened with violence and income stolen.
I also find it immoral for anyone to threaten me with violence so that I will pay for their kid's education. I'd rather pay for what I use and probably donate a bit extra to a charity supporting those who can't afford it but desire to educate themselves or their children. Same goes for healthcare.
I find your writing a bit opaque and circuitous, but I think I get your idea. So you are saying that compassion always wins and there is no need for taxes?
It's like that Ron Paul moment, when he said that he would literally pull the plug on the dying man on life support to save money, then said that some church or charity will pick up the tab for life support so he won't have to really pull the plug?
What you completely ignore is that in a society with the level of inequality like what we have in the US, inequality perpetuates itself.
In many countries, education is much less expensive than in the US or even free. And nobody has a problem with that.
As for the healthcare, with its current costs, it's only upper middle class who can afford to pay the full ticket, and not even that. In my local hospital, the bill for delivering a baby via c-section was above $30k. What do you recommend for those who don't have $30k in the bank, abortion pill?
I hate paying taxes, by the way, but the way things are, they are the only way between a relatively civilized society that we have and complete savagery.