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

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Your evidence of "absolute federal power" is very silly. Any law can be challenged up to the Supreme Court who interprets the law based on the constitution. The constitution can be amended by the people. In the end the Supreme Court is as powerful as the constitution.

On top of that, many of the other founding fathers disagreed with Hamilton and Hamilton, and this seems to be important to you, served in the Revolutionary War.

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)

Sounds like the Constitution exsists at the Supreme Courts convienience.

A natural evolution of the centralization of power.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


That's a ridiculous reading of what I said... The Supremes basically "explain" the Constitution and enforce it... they don't control it... if a case doesn't reach them they're powerless.. more or less..

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.

Maybe its just me but I like the idea of a society that doesn't need to labor, and spends its time exploring culture, philosophy and science. Maybe I'm just an optimist someday, I know there will be problems and obstacle and it won't be a utopia. A step closer though maybe?

OT: As for the article I agree with it. The thing is I don't hate regulations, I hate how they're used as a racket. They're put into place to kill off competition in the corporate world. So that only old school corporation can afforded to cost to keep up a business, and that very few people can front the money it takes to get into it. Not to mention the loan you have to get form the banks, who do need to be regulated.

The whole problem with this debate is that when someone says "deregulations" 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 what regulations are good or bad. Think of it in the context of a law, is a good law that makes sense, or is it stupid law that doesn't and has some motive behind it?

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.

Probably the scientists and engineers that did work in the factories of the US. One example is the fabric "factories" that had upgraded in the 90's- early 00's where nearly everything was computer controlled and the "blue collar" workers for the most part had to change specs in the computer, take measurements, and inspect while standing under an air conditioner vent. The most manual work was the forklift driver that had to drive over and move the product around. The "Blue Collar" work took a 2 month course at the local community college and two months training on the job.

These new machines were completely computer controlled as I said and it took engineers, and IT guys to program and maintain them not considering the companies that were building the machines, designing chemicals for use (chemists) for the "factories". At the company I worked for we had two environmental scientists, 3 chemists, 15 engineers, 12 IT guys, 2 doctors, 4 nurses, untold many that had business degrees. The company at the time also paid for anyone that had a "blue collar" job to go to college and I mean they paid every penny as long as the person signed a contract specifying they would work for the company for 5 years after graduation. This was just one location the company had 12 "factories".


People think of factories and think of the 1800's sweaty back and doing everything with your hands. That is an old stereotype. Many scientists, computer technicians, engineers, doctors, nurses, business field etc. lost their jobs too when these places closed. Many went to work at the local consumer based stores as a stop gap till they could relocate to other areas after their jobs ceased. It was unusual times seeing the friendly chemist guy working a register at Wal-Mart a week after the company closed. He is memorable because he would walk around with bits of cloth taped to his skin to make sure whatever new chemicals used wouldn't cause allergies or harmful reactions. Now we can bury our lead and melamine infested clothing from China now.

The reasons this company closed were many. There is no way to compete with extremely cheap labor without cutting wages. The newer workers with less pay did not buy the end products (clothing) this company made and instead bought cheap clothes from discount sellers. (I've always have said that any company where the employees cannot afford to buy what your are selling you are in trouble). The reason I say this is because when your pay cannot afford the nice things you are making you see the flaws in your product and tell others even if it is minor and eventually these people let the flaws pass more often.

Take BMW I worked there for the summer as a temp some years ago. To me it seemed strange watching all the temps coming in (1/4-1/2 the work force) driving broken down cars. The temps from several different agencies were promised they would be considered for full time work but, that was not true. What they had was a bunch of disgruntled people working there making products they could not afford. It comes to me as no surprise that BMW is having quality issues with that particular plant now and the locals bad mouthing the quality. This is because these temps have told everyone , "Do not buy a BMW! I worked there and I can show you the problems if you want to know. "

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.

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.[

I fixed it up a little to make it more clear.

I didn't say self-regulations, I said we need to reevaluate regulations themselves and remove a lot of them. To make it easier for small business to compete in the market. To examine which regulations are good and which are bad.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

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

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

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

Meaning they are getting less value for their money than if they were to decide for themselves how to spend it. I would prefer to like all that my taxes pay for. I especially do not wish to be involved in funding the manufacture of machines of war.

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.

Please try to support your argument with some sort of logic. We have already established that guns will be used for coercion if you wish to keep all that you earn.

If you want your taxes to go to better use, vote in better politicians

I would prefer to go about my life without being constantly threatened with violence.

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.

Implying that there may be some statistical correlation between tax rate and happiness does not mean taxation is a moral practice. I would suggest that the higher standard of living has much more impact on the happiness index than tax rate.

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.

Just the opinion that initiating violence against innocent parties is immoral.

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

Kinda. But then again, not really.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Lots of ridiculous behaviour you're displaying here.

But I'll cut to the chase.

No tax system as you've described has ever worked, and in fact it's rarely ever been suggested by serious peope.

Why?

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.

I have the history of democracy on my side.

Wage inequality leads to instability and corruption. The tax system you describe, who would necessarily increase wage inequality, would lead to greatr dissatisfaction and on a long enough timeline, collapse.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Lots of ridiculous behaviour you're displaying here.

Really? Could you go into any specifics? Do you not like the way I rebut point by point? It is you who has been peppering your replies with witty insults in lieu of actual logic or reasoning.

Well, for one, sane people tend to believe in concepts like, "society" and a minimum standard of living.

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.

This is always the first pro-taxation argument. Obviously the majority is all for some level of welfare, therefore the coercion is not required.

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.

Communism being the most level.

The easer a society is to govern the less
Corruption and the more readily society changes to accommodate shifting social realities.

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 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.

Wage equality = bad. Why would I have wasted so much time and money on university if I could get the same pay serving drinks and admiring hot women?

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.

The tax system you describe, who would necessarily increase wage inequality, would lead to greatr dissatisfaction and on a long enough timeline, collapse.

Will you explain the mechanism(s) which will cause these predictions?

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


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. That's manifestly not true. 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. In Ireland, if I don't pay my taxes, I won't be surrounded by gun toting cops, and the same goes for many countries. you may, in extreme cases, in America, but that's as much a reflection on law enforcement in America as it is on the "violence" of paying taxes.

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, shows how deep down your very confused ideological rabbit hole you've gone.

You then assert I'm somehow advocating media corruption, when in FACT, if the standard of education was raised, the media would find it much harder to lie. Ignorance makes media and corporations jobs easier... If you want less corruption, separate business from government. If you want that raise the level of education and the level of engagement. Make people love their society so they'll chose to to protect it.

Next you claim "wage equality = bad".

I never said all wages should be exactly equal. But that doesn't matter.. you made your jab.. congrats.

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.

Greater wage equality leads to social unrest, via a breakdown of the govern-ability of the masses along class lines. 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.

Between endemic institutional corruption, which benefits a small minority, and the exacerbation of existing class friction society will become less stable and eventually collapse.

This isn't a theory. Read history books. Learn from the past.

What the rich should want is a stable society where they can slowly, but SURELY, accumulate wealth. What the rich almost always create is corruption and bubbles and class warfare.

There's a strong strain of "benevolent corporate dictator syndrome" that runs through libertarians. 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.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

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.

That was actually your opening argument in this post. The rest of that post had very little substance and seemed to mainly rely on calling me a nut-case and this gem:

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.

Of course. I'm under no illusions. Do you really post on ATS in an attempt to shape the world to your liking?

Especially considering you have nothing but an ideology as "evidence" for your beliefs.

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).

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.

The threat of implied violence remains - come along nicely to your cage (against your will) or we will initiate violence.

But herein lies the crux of your logical fail. If you CHOOSE to break the law, you choose to accept the consequences.

Just as those who CHOOSE to not comply with mafia protection rackets choose to accept the consequences.

You also claim that the majority is for some form of welfare. That is completely untrue.

You are suggesting that most people are in favor of taxation yet not in favor of some form of welfare? How can that be?

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.

Don't know where you got that from, its based on the morality of initiating violence against innocents. I've said many times that I would rather voluntarily help others than do so more or less "at gunpoint."

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,

I do no such thing.

If you want less corruption, separate business from government.

Agreed. I'm all for government getting their sticky fingers out of the free market.

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.

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.

I am enjoying all the adjectives you describe my opinions with though.

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.

That sounds more like the corrupt system of government and corporate lobbying in place today.

This isn't a theory. Read history books. Learn from the past.

Like the past few years?

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.

In the free market the majority have the say by voting with their wallets.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


No, it wasn't.

Again, the point is very clear:

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.

Your beliefs are fringe and will not gain traction. That's not because they're unpopular (they are), it's because they are wrong-headed.

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.

I ahte pulling out quotes, but I'll make an exception for this nugget:

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).

First, that's not evidence. Second that not the belief in question, the one you wanted me to explicitly spell out. 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.

A better equation for you would be "break the law=go to jail".

Then, if that wasn't enough, you tell me that I simply believe, "what the government tells me".

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...

Yes, the guy building the bridge = mob hitman. Good luck with that.

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.

Then you claim you didn't equate my statements about the importance of a governable populous with media corruption... in fact, you said:

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.

The implication being that if the goal was simply governability I should am for non-questioning, which you then say will lead to corruption.

So the claim is I believe ignorance=governability=corruption... and I'd somehow be cool with that as I want governability for stability in society.

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.

I'd argue you've seen very little data.

My ACTUAL argument is that the correlation exists. Go check. You're claim that "wage inequality=good" is therefore not true.

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.

Simple: GREED. Why? Business People would rather Pay 10 cents an Hour Than 10 Dollars an Hour.
PURE GREED !!!!!!

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

No, it wasn't.

Again, the point is very clear:

Now you are misquoting yourself to make it appear that statement was not in a paragraph all on its own.

Your beliefs are fringe and will not gain traction.

That still doesn't make initiating violence against innocents any more moral.

If you don't think your beliefs are relevant, why have them? Intellectual amusement? Or what?

You are suggesting that I shouldn't think for myself and have an opinion as to what I find moral and immoral? That I should just believe everything that is legal to be moral and everything illegal to be immoral? These beliefs may be a bit ahead of the times, but the era of information has arrived and the younger generations replacing the older continue to be more informed, awakened and questioning. I, and many others, do not rely on government or society to tell us how to think and act.

It's like people trying to convince the world Kenny Loggins is gonna make a comeback. A waste of your time.

If you post on ATS in an attempt to convince people of your beliefs and change the world it is you who is wasting your time.

First, that's not evidence.

Of course, that's why it was in quotation marks, as I was relating it to your use of the word. I'm sorry that you couldn't find a quote from me as hilarious as your Tony Blair statement.

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.

If you deny that the coercion used to influence people into paying taxes against their will is violence (or kidnapping people and locking them into cages, which could be argued to be a violent act), please explain what you believe the coercion to be. Let me know what threats against innocent people you believe to be so moral are?

I roundly destroyed your argument by pointing out that you choose to involve mafia heavies when you choose to not comply with their protection racket.

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?

Surely you are not suggesting taxes in Ireland are optional. Sales taxes are collected by businesses in response to implied threats by government to the directors of the business. That is why they do not offer customers the option of opting out of the sales tax. Do not try to argue that by choosing to purchase a product you are paying a sales tax willingly.

How about this: go learn some history - go do some research - try and see if your "theories" hold any water.

It is the way of the future my friend.

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...

So you only have a problem with mafia protection rackets because they do not spend the money to your liking?

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.

You misrepresent my arguments. If most people believe in some sort of welfare then violent threats are not required to coerce them into providing welfare. No amount of violence against innocents is just.

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.

It appears you are the one who is confused.

I'd argue you've seen very little data.

Even if I had it would not change the statistical relationship.

My ACTUAL argument is that the correlation exists.

Got any evidence or should I just take your word for it?

If you think taxes have caused anything other than people paying taxes you've chosen to ignore pretty much all of history.

What? I argue against threatening innocents with violence. Are you trying to suggest that innocents are not being threatened with violence or that violence has never been carried out against those to resist the theft of their property?

Another serious by-product of taxes is that it allows the government to buy things the free market would seldom provide - machines of war, etc.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

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.

Mafia protection rackets don't cause mafia bosses to spend protection money on hitmen. Mafia bosses cause mafia bosses to spend money on hitmen.

Some organized crime organizations spend hardly any money on hitmen... so...

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.

I do not argue that deregulation would lead to "enlightenment." If people enjoy McDonalds and Jersey Shore then it is their right as free human being to do so. It absolutely disgusts me how eager some people are to use threats of violence to impose certain lifestyles on others.

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.

Unless he signed a contract he wasn't aware of, he didn't have any hand in formulating those laws, so the analogy is still relevant and the refutation of it falls into an infinite regress.

The only people that should be untrustworthy are the ones who advocate institutionalized violence because of their irrational fear of individuals dictating to their own conscience.

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 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?

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.

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 some places in the world it's worse. I was in Thailand 10 years ago and spoke with one Thai who was educated and intelligent, and he said there is definite lack of upward mobility in the society because it's too hard to pay for education. So the upper class children remain upper class automatically, and the lower class have no way to advance themselves. I don't see any virtue in that arrangement. 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? And we have a mortgage to pay, you know? 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.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


Remind me to murder people, as I had no hand in formulating laws against murder...

reply to post by buddhasystem

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?

I'm not saying compassion always wins but violence against innocents will always be immoral.

But as the majority of the population seem to be strongly in favor of taxes, primarily for the purposes of welfare, there is no reason why these people wouldn't be happier providing this welfare voluntarily (and actually feeling really good about their contribution to society and the less fortunate) than perhaps resentfully providing it as a result of being threatened with violence.

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?

If I were on life support (and had no money/assets) I would not agree with thugs threatening and robbing people of their property in order to fund my medical bills. I would however, be extremely grateful to any voluntary donations from people who feel compassionate to my situation.

What you completely ignore is that in a society with the level of inequality like what we have in the US, inequality perpetuates itself.

I don't think it is a given that a reduction in taxation and increase in deregulation would increase inequality. Sure, a progressive tax rate takes more from higher earners, but the distribution of coercively funded welfare does not close the gap. Lower costs to start up and run businesses would go much further.

In many countries, education is much less expensive than in the US or even free. And nobody has a problem with that.

The reason education is so expensive in the US is because of government "help". Ron Paul is against violently funded student loans because if anyone and everyone is eligible for a student loan for any degree and any cost, it means education providers can charge whatever the hell they want without the demand curve dropping as price increases. In the free market loans would only be granted to those who would be likely to pay them back at a steady and reasonable rate. As the cost of education increases, the risk taken on by lenders increases (student may not pass, not get a high enough paying job, etc). Less and less people would qualify for a loan as price increases, meaning the education demand curve would drop as price increases, resulting in a fairer priced education for all, and one that ends up being more affordable for the poor.

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?

There are already too many people in the world, any discouragement to having children, especially from those who can't afford to provide for them, is a plus. But for those who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, it would be more moral for them to ask for charitable help than threatening others with violence as a means of getting what they want.

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.

Perhaps one day completely civilized societies will emerge.