Taxation

[SilverDNA]

to say 100% taxation is robbery is easy. Now at witch exact point taxation turn into robbery ?

when taxes are raised and then the money is spend on other things by the government as it seams fit?

("lupus est homo homini"/ "man is man's wolf" as Plautus would have put it?)

When taxes are spend in such a way that they have nothing in common with the original raised taxation model ?

when the money of the trusting citizens that are given through taxation are abused by the such created fond managers?

when money is of such taxation is thrown directly out of the window in the name of the people and the one really responsible isn't held responsible because it was the peoples will in witch he/she did it ?

...or when the money of such taxes is used to raise studies of lobbyists in a biased way such furthering a damage to society?

 

Above are only a view examples of what can happen and the all happened in Germany within the last 20 years... sorry but the models of abuses are interchangeable to any country in my opinion and still my above question remains.. at witch exact point it is legit to call taxation robbery and abuse of power over entrusted money from a democratic citizens?

sorry but if the ones that make bad decisions with money entrusted by them how do you call it in a private sector ? Fraud? do you let such people get away with it ? funny a governments actions speak sometimes louder than words and so I think it is valid to check all raised taxes point by point if the money is spend on the Tax original intended cause it was risen .. if it is spend in another way or it is used to abuse basic constitutional laws ... oh dear... then it isn't a valid taxation then it is fraud.

And this is only the simplified version of a very complex problem.. Who watches the watchmen in a democratic nation? If the citizens can be lead like a bull on the nose ring from one fraud to another always keeping reasons on studies that are forged by lobbyist amd are paid by taxmomey... should be clear where this leads to or isn't it ?

Edited February 15, 2012 by SilverDNA

[imperistan]

Stop calling it donations or unselfishness then. imo the best way to describe it is government insurance. You pay the government an insurance premium and they promise to grant you certain guarantees.

 

You're misunderstanding what Voluntarism is and how it works. Feel free to look it up, as I don't have the will atm to sit here and explain it to you. (though I admit I probably should have made it clear that this is what I was talking about in the first place. Sorry about that. I haven't discussed this sort of thing in a long time and back when I did discuss it frequently I was usually speaking under the understanding that both sides knew what the other was talking about and as such were just debating specifics. Obviously that isn't the case here)

 

Long story short, donations are given to support those who already voluntarily do what they do at their own expense. Those who don't donate cannot reasonably expect to receive X service for free unless the person giving X service decides to do so. Most of the time, refusals would only really matter when it comes to healthcare or public works. Protection services and basic government functions likely wouldn't concern themselves about whose donating or not if they're actually needed by X person.

 

Legislating a moral tone to a population has been tried since the days of Augustus Caesar and has never worked, at best it was ignored and at worst it lead to repression and civil collapse.

 

No one is legislating anything. Legislation presumes the use of coercion, and coercion does not exist in this system.

 

If we are unhappy with programs instituted under said governments, we still have the right to vote and may request that our paid elected officials do as we ask. Our taxes are paying them to do just that.

 

Voting tends to be a worthless tool when your choices are two sides of the same idiotic coin and a third side that will never receive the proper backing, funding, and for that matter votes that they'd need to get elected. And often times the third side is just a third side of the coin anyway.

 

Voting is worthless when the systems surrounding it is fundamentally fixed towards perpetuation of the status quo.

[HeyYou]

Nothing specious about it. You say the idea that taxation is in any way a moral issue is "ludicrous", yet you won't answer a simple yes or no question about a hypothetical tax. Or, rather, you are agreeing with HeyYou, whose answer is essentially "maybe". Which also implies "maybe not". So maybe it's not such a ludicrous idea after all?

 

HeyYou, you might also want to reassess your answer, or at least tell us your thoughts on the philosophy of communism. There is essentially no difference between communism and your "acceptable" 100% tax with all needs wants provided for.

 

Pure communism would be just fine. Trouble is, there is no way on god's little green acre if would ever work with humans involved. It's just as likely to happen as a 100% tax in the US. The government might pass it, but, it wouldn't last ten seconds, and there would be revolution. You are going to extremes here.

 

Stop calling it donations or unselfishness then. imo the best way to describe it is government insurance. You pay the government an insurance premium and they promise to grant you certain guarantees.

 

You're misunderstanding what Voluntarism is and how it works. Feel free to look it up, as I don't have the will atm to sit here and explain it to you. (though I admit I probably should have made it clear that this is what I was talking about in the first place. Sorry about that. I haven't discussed this sort of thing in a long time and back when I did discuss it frequently I was usually speaking under the understanding that both sides knew what the other was talking about and as such were just debating specifics. Obviously that isn't the case here)

 

Long story short, donations are given to support those who already voluntarily do what they do at their own expense. Those who don't donate cannot reasonably expect to receive X service for free unless the person giving X service decides to do so. Most of the time, refusals would only really matter when it comes to healthcare or public works. Protection services and basic government functions likely wouldn't concern themselves about whose donating or not if they're actually needed by X person.

 

Legislating a moral tone to a population has been tried since the days of Augustus Caesar and has never worked, at best it was ignored and at worst it lead to repression and civil collapse.

 

No one is legislating anything. Legislation presumes the use of coercion, and coercion does not exist in this system.

 

If we are unhappy with programs instituted under said governments, we still have the right to vote and may request that our paid elected officials do as we ask. Our taxes are paying them to do just that.

 

Voting tends to be a worthless tool when your choices are two sides of the same idiotic coin and a third side that will never receive the proper backing, funding, and for that matter votes that they'd need to get elected. And often times the third side is just a third side of the coin anyway.

 

Voting is worthless when the systems surrounding it is fundamentally fixed towards perpetuation of the status quo.

 

Exactly. That is the current problem we have here in the states. The system is unworkable, but, the only people that can fix it, are those that profit the most by NOT fixing it. Therefore, nothing will ever change.

[imperistan]

ure communism would be just fine. Trouble is, there is no way on god's little green acre if would ever work with humans involved.

 

Not necessarily. If you approach it right with the right initial people then it can work. And if you can maintain it, then it will keep working. Its just that history has shown us that the people who often push for communisn and manage to establish it usually aren't the right people nor do they approach it correctly.

[HeyYou]

ure communism would be just fine. Trouble is, there is no way on god's little green acre if would ever work with humans involved.

 

Not necessarily. If you approach it right with the right initial people then it can work. And if you can maintain it, then it will keep working. Its just that history has shown us that the people who often push for communisn and manage to establish it usually aren't the right people nor do they approach it correctly.

 

I put forth, that there is no such thing as "the right people" for that position. Far more often than not..... people in a position of power, will abuse that power for their own gain. There will be the 'wealthy leaders' at the top, and then, everyone else at the bottom..... Humans can't do pure communism. We are too greedy/selfish/whathaveyou.

[imperistan]

ure communism would be just fine. Trouble is, there is no way on god's little green acre if would ever work with humans involved.

 

Not necessarily. If you approach it right with the right initial people then it can work. And if you can maintain it, then it will keep working. Its just that history has shown us that the people who often push for communisn and manage to establish it usually aren't the right people nor do they approach it correctly.

 

I put forth, that there is no such thing as "the right people" for that position. Far more often than not..... people in a position of power, will abuse that power for their own gain. There will be the 'wealthy leaders' at the top, and then, everyone else at the bottom..... Humans can't do pure communism. We are too greedy/selfish/whathaveyou.

 

No offense, but I don't think you actually know what real communism is.

[Aurielius]

ure communism would be just fine. Trouble is, there is no way on god's little green acre if would ever work with humans involved.

 

Not necessarily. If you approach it right with the right initial people then it can work. And if you can maintain it, then it will keep working. Its just that history has shown us that the people who often push for communisn and manage to establish it usually aren't the right people nor do they approach it correctly.

 

I put forth, that there is no such thing as "the right people" for that position. Far more often than not..... people in a position of power, will abuse that power for their own gain. There will be the 'wealthy leaders' at the top, and then, everyone else at the bottom..... Humans can't do pure communism. We are too greedy/selfish/whathaveyou.

 

No offense, but I don't think you actually know what real communism is.

There is no such animal as 'real communism', most advocates of it always refer to theory but never practice, always citing that it is bad or misplaced implementation of the idea. If a political concept cannot be practically used in a real world context then it is so much useless utopianism. I have an extremely clear knowledge of real application of it and of the view that Czech friends had of it, who endured it before they were fortunate enough to rid themselves of it's yoke. Your proposal falls under the category of I know whats best for even if you don't, lord save us from 'well intentioned' ideological zealots.

I agree with HeyYou that there is no such thing as the 'right people', anyone who thinks they are right for the job are obviously the 'wrong people'.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Edited February 15, 2012 by Aurielius

[imperistan]

There is no such animal as 'real communism', most advocates of it always refer to theory but never practice, always citing that it is bad or misplaced implementation of the idea.

 

The communism you seem to be referring to isn't communism. Indeed,out of virtually all of the main "communist" societies to have existed, save for two specific ones, all were explicitly not communist but instead totalitarian or oligarchical regimes that used communism as a red herring or something completely different from it that just bastardized the name communism.

 

Indeed, communism as the modern world knows it has been plagued by massive problems and systems that have no business being called communist. First you have Marxism, and while Marx may have helped push communism into a spotlight, it is underdeveloped and fails to account for the practice of itself (and not to mention still clings to outdated and absurd notions of class and vertical power distribution (via what is essentially theft), and indeed clings still even to the notion that communism can actually be built out of the rubble of a post-revolution capitalist society and expect to survive). Then you have its offshoots like Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc which are far and away from what they claim to base themselves on. Notions of a state, coercion, and again vertical power distribution (all concepts that are explicitly not communist) are all perpetuated by these off-shoots and in Stalinism they just outright turn communism into totalitarianism. Then you have most everything else, which either amounts to pure theory or inept tripe that wouldn't be feasible period.

 

But out of the whole bunch there's the one theory that's been the only one to produce pure practical and virtually successful examples of itself, on two separate occasions. And thats anarcho-communism, which in essence the purest form of communism (and what I refer to as "real" communism) as it develops past Marxism's initial theories (and as such abandoning absurd notions along with it presuming establishment) while simultaneously accounting more for the actual practice of itself. Where it doesn't account for however, are the two things that actually undermined and eventually brought down the Free Territory of the Ukraine during the Ukrainian Revolution and parts of Spain of during the Spanish Civil War.

 

And those things are statist/capitalist intervention, and failure to maintain via improper planning of societies initial start and its further growth, improper safeguards to maintain stability, etc etc. Anarchist Spain was brutually put down by direct fascist intervention and hostile takeover. the Free Territory was undermined by the Bolshevik government, which was both a problem with intervention and improper safeguards against the Bolshevik tactics, which included propaganda and surprise attacks against the Mahknovist forces, who were actually allies before the Bolsheviks decided to get rid of the Free Territory, leading up to where they were just outright taken over.

 

However these two things that have consistently failed to be accounted for are not just limited to communism but generally any non-statist ideology/philosophy/whatever. Defense is the single most crucial part of starting a non-statist society in a world dominated by statism, and it is constantly overlooked. And in fact, the main reasons those two A-Communist societies managed to be as successful as they were (besides the obvious ease a revolution provides in doing such a thing) is because both did make some leaps towards defense. Both had fairly decent armies and were able to establish themselves, but their downfall resulted in trying to go up against hostile statist forces.

 

And thats ultimately another big problem. You can't start such a society in the wake of a revolution unless that revolution is intended to replace the entirety of the old society. If the old society is not going to be replaced in its entirety then revolution simply is not a feasible option. Peacefully gaining independence is the only way. Ideally, such a society would seek independence through statist channels and plead their case and hopefully win their independence.

 

Practically, the land needed to support society would have to be seized via civil disobedience and a strict rule of pure, individual self-defense. And the point of that last bit is to undermine any statist attempts at retaking the land as the generally ruthless and child-like attempts that they are.

 

Long story short, there is such a thing as real communism. And the right people who know what need to be accounted for and are capable of acting to that end (as well as to the other necessary ends for that matter. True leaders in their own right (and don't confuse leadership with coercive obedience. Think of a position like that of the Harbinger in the Companions for an easy analogy)) are a necessary part of establishing real communism within a society, be it old or new. What your Czech friends likely saw as communism was more likely to be the brutal bastardizations committed by people who long since lost the right to be referred to as Communist.

[Ghogiel]

I wish the forum didn't spaz out and eat my last post. :(

 

Basic gist is, in the US there has been a successful propaganda campaign against communism. Indeed to the point that the term socialist has be come a slander, used to damage a persons character and poise them as an enemy of the state, to the point of making it illegal in 1940. It has as much chance of being voted in as the Taliban does. Corporations fund and pretty much run the west, the resources and means to production are the only thing they use to keep that power, they aren't letting their grip go on that.

 

People identify with the current political parties so strongly, that no matter what those parties do, their followers will still identify themselves as such. In effect propping them up indefinitely.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Ghogiel

[hoofhearted4]

People identify with the current political parties so strongly, that no matter what those parties do, their followers will still identify themselves as such. In effect propping them up indefinitely.

 

^^ This. This is why 3rd parties have almost no chance for actual presidency anymore....the only way to have a chance is to run as one of the two main parties. because more often then not, people will vote based on D or R over anything else. not saying this is the case for every Democrat or Republican. and thats not to say 3rd parties cant do well. in recent years they are doing slightly better.....in the end, who ever the media backs up is who wins. because ppl cant think for themselves and will take everything their preferred news station(s), be it CNN or Fox or what have you, say, and just go with that.