R
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
manualman
Guest
Be serious and think this through. Great, you bought your car. Where you gonna drive it with no roads? YOU gonna build the roads?Well, I pay for my internet myself. I pay for my car too. I pay for lots of things. I don’t know of anything that taxes pay for that wouldn’t be better provided by a market system.
Do you have any idea what urban life was like before governments provided safe drinking water and sanitary sewer systems (or regulations governing on-site sewage treatment)? Google “cholera” for some fun learning.
When your roof leaks and you hire a contractor to reroof you and he takes your money and runs, then what? You gonna gather a posse and go get 'em? (no police, no courts, etc). For that matter, what are you going to do when a local gang sets up shop and knocks on your door reminding you that your “protection fee” is now due?
Methinks you ain’t nearly as ready for zero government as you think.
R
Reep
Guest
You are so right. The police almost never protect anyone from a crime in progress. It’s definitely a DIY project. When seconds count, your local police are only minutes away.Just so everyone is aware: the government has no legal duty to keep anyone safe. If you call 911 and report an ax murderer at your door the cops have no legal responsibility to show up and do anything.
R
Reep
Guest
The Catholic view is the “mixing of labor” view, and means more than a simple “declaring something to be property.” It is very similar to (but older than) John Locke’s theory in his Second Treatise On Government (1690):Words not mine:
“The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments about “mixing of labor” with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to “first-come-first-served””
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but him-self. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
It is true that “God gave the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race,” but this must be understood as a gift to mankind in general. It does not mean that every man may do whatever he pleases with the land and its fruits even if someone else is already using and improving it.
It means that from the beginning “no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry.” Rerum novarum, 7
This is the idea of “homesteading” property not yet owned by anyone. Thus a man acquires ownership of a plot of land by improving that plot or “mixing his labor” with the land. Likewise an apple or the flowers he picks from that same unowned land become his by the act of gathering them.
R
Reep
Guest
There is much more to this than we sometimes think…Actually, the Catechism and the Bible state that our earthly princes are put into authority by God, and should be obeyed. Give to Caesar…
Check out: St Paul Tweaks the Emperor’s Nose.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Reep,Between my “problems,” my “blindness” and my “anger” I must really be a mess.
Of course I am grateful that I live in a civilized society, with the highest standard of living in history, at a time when I could raise four children without any of them dying of childhood diseases that would have taken them a hundred years ago.
We need an ordered society, but I do not accept the trend toward more government aggression and coercion. Liberty is a good than permits the exercise of free will and virtue. If I can propose a way of accomplishing a needed service without using governmental force, I will do it.
One example: Safety & security is a primary and urgent need. Government meets this need (not always very well): 1) by forcing us to pay taxes and 2) hiring police to keep us safe.
Why must it be this way, when we can protect the safety of our families and communities better and cheaper by private security companies? It’s really not much of a stretch considering that private security now employs three times the number of state and local law enforcement officers. Private security can be extended to everyone–even in the poorest area of town–all funded by voluntary subscribers and a much-needed return to a restitution-based justice system. I can’t lay it all out in this space, but I’d be glad to provide resources. Or check out this link to my blog.
I know we have different views on the role of government. Here in Missouri, there tends to be less tolerance of government interference in people’s lives. Most of us like it that way. Even though we own & carry firearms, buy and shoot-off fireworks and pump our own gasoline, we still feel quite safe. Not that I mind if folks out your way like things a bit more controlled. Peace to you too.
I apologize if I misread the tone of your post. I just get tired of the constant “government is bad”, and “government never does anything good” chants. I freely acknowledge that government often oversteps its bounds, that we have many useless and bad laws and regulations, but I can’t sign up for the “all regulation and law is bad” mantra. If unscrupulous builders did not build unsafe houses that collapsed on families–we wouldn’t have building codes. We have a problem with unsafe drugs being marketed now–even with regulation and testing–imagine if any Tom, Dick or Harry could market whatever he wanted. So while I am not overly trusting of goverment I am as equally as distrusting of the private enterprises you seem to laud–I think neither has a very good track record. Government often falls short of its professed goals while private interprise will do whatever it can to gain a monopoly, pay its employees as little as possible, and sell as cheap a product as it can at as high a price as it can–and if that product is defective so be it. The goal being to sell you what you need while keeping all other options off the market. I think history is littered with examples of the failure of private enterprise and citizens to create this better society, this nicely structured society. It only seems to be good for the rich and powerful–for the Mr. Potters who do whaterver they can to keep everyone else in their slums. As I said earlier I think if all self-professed Christians operated their businesses in a Christian manner–we’d have little need for regulation and lawyers. Unfortunately it seems to be a minority of Christians who do.
I guess I would just like a more reasoned and balanced discussion about the appropriate roll of government in society. While I don’t like the direction we are heading I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water either–I am not interested in going back to the days of the robber barrons, company stores or the lawless old west. I think the issues surrounding the economy, monetary policy and taxation are much more complex and nuanced than many care to acknowledge–prefering sound bites instead.
I wish you well. And will check out your blog to get a more accurate picture of your views. While I sympathize with your general principles I have some apprehension about how they have historically play out in practice.
Peace,
Mark
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I consider taxation theft. I do not consider the state to be legitimate. I don’t accept simply because I happened to be born in a certain location that I automatically consent to whatever people who say they are in charge do or say, nor do I regognize their authority. What I recongize is that they control men with guns who they may direct to kidnap (arrest) me or shoot me if I resist the attempted kidnapping in any way that would have the possiblity to actually escape being kidnapped by an army of police armed with guns. I’m also not a violent person so wouldn’t attempt to resist in the first place, but this does not mean I recognize them or their bosses as having any legitimate authority over me.This has been bothering me lately. Why is taxation not theft and what gives the state its legitimacy? I’m interested in both Catholic and rationalistic explanations.
God is my authority. Jesus is my authority.
And I dont’ accept the argument love it or leave it, or in other words “if you don’t like it go move to siberia”
I believe that anyone and everyone who wants to have leaders and authority figures over them other than God and Jesus should be allowed to, so long as they consent to it.
But I think all men are created equal, and remain equal. And I think that power corrupts and putting power in the hands of a few, given human weaknesses (greed, lust, etc) it is a prescription for disaster.
I have no problem paying in a fee for service type of way for all the services I use.
But let’s face it, the government is inefficient as inefficient can be. In fact they are a territorial monopoly. They occupy the land they say they occupy and do whatever they want on those lands and to the poeple on those lands. And there is no entity they allow to compete with them to provide services in that territory. I think the 2 party system is a joke, it’s 2 cheeks of the same buttocks. I don’t know why so many buy into it.
Slowly dismantling the government in a planned way I think would benefit the citizens of my country. We could start by not waging war around the globe and ending the war on black and brown and poor white people (otherwise known as the ‘war on drugs’) and save trillions and get loads of benefits. Then we could re-assess and figure out ways to actually get the millions that are not productive to be more productive than they are at present so people whose taxes they live off of would have more themselves and would resent others less and the people who live off the dole would be contributing to one extent or another, boosting their self esteem and giving them purpose to their life and making them part of the community rather than outsiders.
Yes, I think that would be a good place to start.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill1940
Guest
Taxation is theft when benefits are offered as bribes to keep politicians in power. Democracy eventually destroys itself when the slothful learn how to vote for a living. It all becomes stealing under color of law. I remember a priest telling me over fifty years ago that a substantial portion of taxation was unjust because it was spent on things which, if known, the taxpayer would disapprove. Nonetheless, I pay my taxes because I may not lie on my return, nor do I want to go to jail, and in recognition of the fact that voting the rascals out is the legitimate means of redress. Hence, I will vote against Obama and his associates. If taxes were thought to be my only reason for doing so, I would be defamed. I vote against him because he has set himself against the Church and the liberties I hold dear. His party has chosen death, I choose life.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Out of the billions and trillions, don’t you think it’s reasonable that some of it is used for those in power’s own gain.Taxation itself isn’t theft because the those who are taxed live in society and benefit from the use of the money. However, misuse of the tax dollars for one’s own gain could certainly be considered theft.
And what about all the perc’s over and above the salaries of senators and representatives, like their own free barber shops, or possibly taking free trips via the taxpayers dime (or a portion of a business trip as a vacation).
I personally, have no idea the ammt of perc’s they are privy to but immagine they are substantial. Is every perc and automatic NON misuse of tax dollars? I mean, do they really need free haircuts? What else do they get for free? And shouldn’t this be all above board where everyone can see exactly what they get, what they are privy to? Shouldn’t this all be common knowledge, assuming someone wants that information?
I can’t even fathom the ammt of money they make via insider trading, lefties and righties have made a fortune investing in companies that had a large hand in supplying good and services for the various wars we have had. Am I supposed to beleive that the people in top positions of power (and their friends) didn’t know ahead of time that 1. there was going to be a war and 2. which companies ‘contracts’ would be awarded to- so by investing they are guarenteed a huge profit as the taxpayers are then forced to pay for the products and services while the stockholders reap the profit. And this happens both during the war (military supply contracts) and post war (re-building contracts).
And that is just one thing that I happen to know about. I"m no brain surgeon nor am I a top executive who could have more insight into the ways and means that the top insiders could benefit financially.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Please discuss with me how I ‘implicitly’ consent to the state’s authority to 1. do anything and 2 take taxes.Although it’s implicit, you do consent to the state’s authority to take taxes
Thanks
B
Bill_7154
Guest
And if the gov’t kicked me 100 million you also might indirectly benefit since you might have a chance to see the pretty cars I drive. And since I would be buying a lot of stuff with that money I would be contributing to the economy so you would benefit.This is true even if that benefit isn’t direct. For example–even if I pay taxes from a bridge I never drive across, I still might benefit from it indirectly because it facilitates transportation and commerce, which affects my local economy and in turn my grocery bill.
So next time you talk to your congressman (I"m assuming you have regular sit down chat’s with them like the lobbiests do) pass along the suggsestion to have 100 mil thrown my way, will ya?
B
Bill_7154
Guest
The state used to (maybe still does) describe what libelous behavior was. Are you aware that back in the day people were punnished for speaking out against the crown. And when people spoke the TRUTH about the crown it was considered especially libelous. I forget the specifics, but people were jailed for this. So saying (and accepting) that because the state does something it is correct is obviously nonsense. Agree or disagree?Theft is a legal concept and is therefore defined by the state. The state therefore defines what is and is not theft.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
So I take it that no matter what you ‘call it’, if it smells like **** and is a load of ****…it shouldn’t happen and hurts when it does?To your point Obama has racked up over 5 trillion in debt since his Presidency. What did we get? Well 47 million on food stamps, record poverty levels, never ending 8% unemployment, $500 million wasted on Solyndra, roads and infrastructure still a mess.
Never covet your neighbors wealth.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Taxes are a funny thing. Everyone focuses on income tax.That’s one reason everyone should pay something in the way of income taxes. They also learn that it takes money to run a government, and they too can give of themselves for the common good.
The biggest tax I pay is INFLATION. I would guess that it’s the biggest tax you pay as well.
And when it comes to income taxes… you and I pay… it’s given to some poor people… and then when they go out and spend it…they pay tax on it…and the people who they buy stuff FROM pay taxes on that money… and then when they re-spend that same money itself… they pay taxes on it… rince and repeat.
Governemt is the biggest scam/con ever perpetrated on the face of this planet. The ammt of people who buy into this scam astounds me. The few at the top benefit (i.e. the private bankers of federal reserve banks, the top politicians, and the citizens who hold very powerful jobs who earn tons of money and sort of drift in and out of government by being appointed on this or that board.
Do you know that some of those on wall street, those that Obama condemned (and then bailed out) either worked or still work for his administration…like the head of Goldman Sacks and the like for example.
Gov’t is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the people. It makes me wonder if all of those people in positions of great power and influence are all the devil’s puppets, seriously.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Excellent way of putting it to put into perspective the scam perpetrated by gov’t. Gov’t is one huge SCAM. They use propaganda, seemingly quite effective, given the number of people who support it. Even those who constantly complain about this or that aspect of it.Under most circumstances, everyone agrees it would be wrong for Joe to take money from his neighbor Bill. Joe would not dream of stealing Bill’s money; he knows it is wrong, and he also knows he could get punished for stealing.
Would it make any difference if Joe can convince 20 other neighbors to gang up and take the money from Bill and give it to Joe? No? What if hundreds or thousands get together and demand the money? What if they call themselves a government? What if they make a law to take Bill’s money?
Obviously, if the government takes Bill’s money, it doesn’t call it theft—it calls it taxation. The question is why is that not a theft? To say that I get “services” doesn’t cut it. Tell that to Catholic parents paying Catholic school tuition while paying for their neighbors public school kids. Is that just? When most taxation NEVER comes back to me, how have I not been robbed?
Wake up and smell the coffee. Gov’t should fear the poeple, not the other way around. Right now the gov’t is so powerful it does whatever it wants with impunity. It doesn’t care what anyone thinks about the way it operates.
And each man is personally responsible for their own behavior. So when someone ‘votes’ for a war, it’s just like them putting the gun in their own hands and killing hundreds or thousands of people, including innocents.
But they don’t care because they PROFIT from war, and I’d imagine just about everything else they do, with lobbiests sucking up to them to get them to do what they want them to do. Why do lobiests get to meet with the top gov’t officials all the time but if you or I try to meet with a state senator it would be difficult, to say the least?
Could it have anything to do with money? I think it most certainly does. If I were some oil tycoon and wanted to take a meeting with a senator, would I have any difficulty getting the meeting? Doubt it.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
There are a lot of smart people in the world. I certainly would not consider myself in the group of the smartest. But I’m pretty sure if people started thinking about answers to your question, rather than following the latest person put on tv running for this or that office as any type of solution to the problems we face, we could come up with some ideas.But if not for taxes, what then? Every man for himself?
In fact I believe that some people have already done that, or are in the process of doing that.
As it stands at present it pretty much feels to me like it’s every man for himself as it is. There are exceptions of course. Some men have hundreds or thousands either paid to do their bidding (or forced to do their bidding in some countries I think). Others have become dependent on handouts. The funny thing with handouts is that that system was all started to be a temporary assistance, be it cash, housing, etc… it was all started and intended to be temporary.
But it has become a way of life for tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of familes, generation after generation, after generation.
It saddens me when I hear of high school females talking about all they have to do is get pregant and then they will get their own apartment and food stamps and money and this and that and see this as a great thing, a way to get out of their parents house and a way to get independence. Of course any child raised by someone of that mindset is more or less… well…not in a good place and likely to live a life filled with struggling… if not in prison or something like that.
But to have a system where getting on the dole is something people speak of proudly is shameful. Back when welfare was first created people who got on it I think felt sort of ashamed they needed to be on it. And there were checks on them to make sure they were not abusing the system (as in checking to see if a man’s clothes were in the apt as they didn’t want to be giving a woman with a child money and then having a guy living there too, expecially one bringing in a paycheck). The system now, there is no checking like that at all. As long as the tennant isn’t raising hell, or their guests are not raisng hell, the landlords don’t care so long as they are getting their rent paid and the neighbors are not complaining a lot about the tennant. It’s quite common for people who get apartments through the government to move someone in with them and no one says anything about it even though it’s against the rules on paper.
In addition to it being against the lease, it’s against the rules of the housing program that subsidizes them. And some of these people have ‘workers’ of one sort or another, sometimes as a condition of them getting the apartment. But none of the workers or the agencies they work for ever report people living with them. It’s accepted as the norm. The only case someone would make an issue about it (in addtion to the reasons stated above) would be if the person living there were significantly interfering with the person’s treatment or life- like somoene moving in and totally taking advantage of the person, eating all their food, taking all their money, using them to a very high degree. Most all other cases it’s don’t ask don’t tell. Most who move in are not high income earners (as they don’t want to be in a relationship with a person with that level of problems) but it’s an abuse of the system. One of many.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I don’t vote.Did you vote for them, Bill?
If you do the math, the actual chance that YOUR or MY vote will actually make a difference at all is like 20 trillion to one or some ridiculous number like that.
I don’t support, believe in, or recognize the authority of government. What I recognize is that there are men who control the behavior of other men who carry guns and will go kidnap or shoot people they are told to kidnap (arrest) or shoot.
And please refrain from asking about ‘should murderers be allowed to roam free’ or other such wild questions. I am a sane and (generally) law abiding citizen. But I do it because of my moral beliefs and my belief in God and to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Not because some nitwits in washington d.c. say it’s ‘the law’ or argue that it’s correct. I’m able to reason myself what is moral and correct and what is not. I dont need nitwits in wash dc to tell me, and I certainly don’t need to have my money robbed so they can be my mommy and daddy.
Maybe others do. For those that do, they all have my blessing to pay the nitwits all the money they want to to tell them how to live their lives. I’m not trying to stand in the way of a relationship between consenting adults.
But make not mistake about this. Believing in Government is believing that some products and services should be sold at the barrel of a gun. Everyone who believes in government believes this. People don’t pay taxes because they like it. And businesses don’t take taxes out of people’s paychecks because they like it.
There are men with guns who will be called in if necessary to make sure those things happen. So if you believe in government you believe that even people who don’t hurt others, people who generously donate to charities, etc should have guns pointed at them to make them do things like pay taxes to support things like abortion and other things they may have strong moral objections to (as well as the things they support).
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I don’t believe in government. Feel free to make me ‘eat my words’.A notion that sounds nice to some people until they actually have to eat their words.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Which leads to one of my arguments against government. If government were so good, if it provided services and goods that the people wanted, why is it necessary for them to do so by forcing poeple to pay?Take this example. The government informs the population that an extra 1% income tax will be assessed to fund abortions. In one scenario, if the government were REALLY a provider of services, we would have the opportunity to “opt out” of this abortion tax. In our current system, however, we would have absolutely no option. We have to pay the abortion tax. Of course, we are actually paying for things we disagree with every day.
There are millions of businesses that get people to gladly hand over their money to them for a good or service and feel very satisfied receiving the good or service.
government is like a mafia…except there is no competing mafia to come in and take over with the support of the people in the area if the first mafia is bleeding everyone to death and doing nothing to help the community.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
JIB,If not taxes, then what?
Well, I pay for my internet myself. I pay for my car too. I pay for lots of things. I don’t know of anything that taxes pay for that wouldn’t be better provided by a market system.
Please don’t post an ignorant retort based on the idea I haven’t thought out the idea of a free society. We’ll have to agree to disagree that people are capable of organizing society based on voluntary interaction.
Kudos to you my friend! Someone else who actually has faith in people. I immagine it’s much nicer to live with faith in people like that than it is to fear that everyone would turn into the devil of they didn’t have the gov’t to keep them in line, isn’t it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.