Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
'Work' as in any meaningful and sustainable way.
What is meaningful? (Seriously, that's a contested concept.)
The good thing is that membership is voluntary so there should be no complaints.
Tell that to Turkish people. They cannot give up their Turkish nationality. So no, nationality is not always voluntarily.
What is meaningful? (Seriously, that's a contested concept.)
The good thing is that membership is voluntary so there should be no complaints.
Tell that to Turkish people. They cannot give up their Turkish nationality. So no, nationality is not always voluntarily.
Why should Americans who live abroad and never ask anything from the American government be taxed by the American government?
1- at any time they could renounce their citizenship. So I guess they have made a rational decision that their US Citizenship in worth the taxes they pay.
2- at any time these expats could decide to come back to the US and one would think that they would like a country with decent infrastructure to come back to.
3- should they get caught in some straights and need the advise or protection at a US Embassy only tax dollars can keep these Embassies open
your argument is that they "NEVER ask anything from the American government"? this really is a false argument. having citizenship IMPLIES that ones country will look out for your best interests, when possible, in the instance of political upheaval, natural disasters, or personal injury or illness.
1- at any time they could renounce their citizenship. So I guess they have made a rational decision that their US Citizenship in worth the taxes they pay.
2- at any time these expats could decide to come back to the US and one would think that they would like a country with decent infrastructure to come back to.
3- should they get caught in some straights and need the advise or protection at a US Embassy only tax dollars can keep these Embassies open
your argument is that they "NEVER ask anything from the American government"? this really is a false argument. having citizenship IMPLIES that ones country will look out for your best interests, when possible, in the instance of political upheaval, natural disasters, or personal injury or illness.
1- at any time they could renounce their citizenship. So I guess they have made a rational decision that their US Citizenship in worth the taxes they pay.
Because there is an inhumane situation in which you cannot travel without legal documents of a country.
2- at any time these expats could decide to come back to the US and one would think that they would like a country with decent infrastructure to come back to.
Not necessarily.
3- should they get caught in some straights and need the advise or protection at a US Embassy only tax dollars can keep these Embassies open
Embassies can be held open by the contributions of citizens living there. If they don't pay, no embassy.
your argument is that they "NEVER ask anything from the American government"? this really is a false argument. having citizenship IMPLIES that ones country will look out for your best interests, when possible, in the instance of political upheaval, natural disasters, or personal injury or illness.
But what if somebody doesn't want that help? You force them to pay for help they might not want. Why is it wrong to let people chose what services they want?
Because there is an inhumane situation in which you cannot travel without legal documents of a country.
2- at any time these expats could decide to come back to the US and one would think that they would like a country with decent infrastructure to come back to.
Not necessarily.
3- should they get caught in some straights and need the advise or protection at a US Embassy only tax dollars can keep these Embassies open
Embassies can be held open by the contributions of citizens living there. If they don't pay, no embassy.
your argument is that they "NEVER ask anything from the American government"? this really is a false argument. having citizenship IMPLIES that ones country will look out for your best interests, when possible, in the instance of political upheaval, natural disasters, or personal injury or illness.
But what if somebody doesn't want that help? You force them to pay for help they might not want. Why is it wrong to let people chose what services they want?
no, you're wrong, taxation is not stealing because both are what state want them to be.
No, you're wrong. The people that don't want to belong to any country may have a point that the government is actually stealing from them. Their problem is that they don't understand that the majority has a valid right to enforce the need for some forms of public/state property as well and the necessary taxing to support it. And also, the fact that they are relatively free to go to another country completely disqualifies taxation as form of slavery. North Koreans are slaves.
No, you're wrong. The people that don't want to belong to any country may have a point that the government is actually stealing from them. Their problem is that they don't understand that the majority has a valid right to enforce the need for some forms of public/state property as well and the necessary taxing to support it. And also, the fact that they are relatively free to go to another country completely disqualifies taxation as form of slavery. North Koreans are slaves.
What is meaningful? (Seriously, that's a contested concept.)
Yes, it is contested. Some people contested that communism won't work and that they don't need to try it to know that. It didn't help. Unfortunately, there was enough people who contested differently. The strangest part is that this is still a contested concept.
Tell that to Turkish people. They cannot give up their Turkish nationality. So no, nationality is not always voluntarily.
Well, I agree that this is wrong. But bad examples don't prove anything. They're just bad examples.
Why is it wrong to let people chose what services they want? [/i]
In principle it is not wrong. It is the right thing to do in most cases. However, there are also economic situations (e.g. natural monopolies) where leaving the economic actions to the sum of individual economic choices in the long run turns out as much less efficient than a single choice made by the government. It's not nearly as black and white as you claim it to be.
Yes, it is contested. Some people contested that communism won't work and that they don't need to try it to know that. It didn't help. Unfortunately, there was enough people who contested differently. The strangest part is that this is still a contested concept.
Tell that to Turkish people. They cannot give up their Turkish nationality. So no, nationality is not always voluntarily.
Well, I agree that this is wrong. But bad examples don't prove anything. They're just bad examples.
Why is it wrong to let people chose what services they want? [/i]
In principle it is not wrong. It is the right thing to do in most cases. However, there are also economic situations (e.g. natural monopolies) where leaving the economic actions to the sum of individual economic choices in the long run turns out as much less efficient than a single choice made by the government. It's not nearly as black and white as you claim it to be.
Their problem is that they don't understand that the majority has a valid right to enforce the need for some forms of public/state property as well and the necessary taxing to support it.
So theft is wrong, unless the majority votes for it? Talking about relative interpretation of good and evil.
North Koreans are slaves.
Yes. Of the government.
So theft is wrong, unless the majority votes for it? Talking about relative interpretation of good and evil.
North Koreans are slaves.
Yes. Of the government.
No really. I think my 10 year old would have much less problems with understanding this. If the majority would vote taxes that relates to someone else, that would be stealing. How can the majority steal from itself? If I force my son to wash the dishes the same as I do, is he my slave or just a member of my family? You should be thankful that you have your legal ability and your voting right with your reasoning ability.
The strangest part is that this is still a contested concept.
That is because according to libertarians, a meaningful society is a free society. According to you, a meaningful society is a society in which basic conditions are guaranteed by the state. I'm not saying yours is wrong. I'm just saying I have a different view on society. So you cannot argue against libertarians that their proposed society is not meaningful, using your definition of meaningful. You can say that, but it's not an argument.
However, there are also economic situations (e.g. natural monopolies) where leaving the economic actions to the sum of individual economic choices in the long run turns out as much less efficient than a single choice made by the government.
Libertarians in principle don't care about efficiency. They care about liberty.
That is because according to libertarians, a meaningful society is a free society. According to you, a meaningful society is a society in which basic conditions are guaranteed by the state. I'm not saying yours is wrong. I'm just saying I have a different view on society. So you cannot argue against libertarians that their proposed society is not meaningful, using your definition of meaningful. You can say that, but it's not an argument.
However, there are also economic situations (e.g. natural monopolies) where leaving the economic actions to the sum of individual economic choices in the long run turns out as much less efficient than a single choice made by the government.
Libertarians in principle don't care about efficiency. They care about liberty.
If the majority would vote taxes that relates to someone else, that would be stealing. How can the majority steal from itself?
Because they vote for laws they know won't affect them as much as it will affect others. It's easy to give money to the poor people if it isn't your money.
Because they vote for laws they know won't affect them as much as it will affect others. It's easy to give money to the poor people if it isn't your money.
So you cannot argue against libertarians that their proposed society is not meaningful, using your definition of meaningful. You can say that, but it's not an argument.
It's meaningless and it won't work. It's an idea similar to communism where ideology is more important than how things actually work.
Libertarians in principle don't care about efficiency. They care about liberty.
So you give me another argument for the communism analogy. The commies also didn't give a shit about economic efficiency. The only difference is that you libertarians cry about liberté while the communists cry about égalité and fraternité. The both agree that if the economy does not obey, there will be none.
Because they vote for laws they know won't affect them as much as it will affect others. It's easy to give money to the poor people if it isn't your money.
Ah yes, the internal and the external enemy also never sleeps so we have to be prepared. Those who are not with us are always plotting about how to get rid of us. Sorry, dude, but I will have to disappoint you. I vote for taxes (lowest possible but still) and I want them to affect me the same way as they affect you. No evil intentions here I swear. I give you my gentlemen's word. Or comrade's word or libertarian's word for better understanding. ;)
It's meaningless and it won't work. It's an idea similar to communism where ideology is more important than how things actually work.
Libertarians in principle don't care about efficiency. They care about liberty.
So you give me another argument for the communism analogy. The commies also didn't give a shit about economic efficiency. The only difference is that you libertarians cry about liberté while the communists cry about égalité and fraternité. The both agree that if the economy does not obey, there will be none.
Because they vote for laws they know won't affect them as much as it will affect others. It's easy to give money to the poor people if it isn't your money.
Ah yes, the internal and the external enemy also never sleeps so we have to be prepared. Those who are not with us are always plotting about how to get rid of us. Sorry, dude, but I will have to disappoint you. I vote for taxes (lowest possible but still) and I want them to affect me the same way as they affect you. No evil intentions here I swear. I give you my gentlemen's word. Or comrade's word or libertarian's word for better understanding. ;)
Why is it wrong to let people chose what services they want?
I can not say this with enough emphasis- If 'pay as you need' services were offered, then primarily this would be services for the rich.
Second, ALL governments (that collect taxes) are socialist in that they redistribute wealth. That is the nature of government. The government taxes your income is not 'slavery' or stealing.
Government is formed by a union of peoples that agreed on how to be governed, taxed and on how that revenue should be spent. If you do not like that, then blame your forefathers.
I can not say this with enough emphasis- If 'pay as you need' services were offered, then primarily this would be services for the rich.
Second, ALL governments (that collect taxes) are socialist in that they redistribute wealth. That is the nature of government. The government taxes your income is not 'slavery' or stealing.
Government is formed by a union of peoples that agreed on how to be governed, taxed and on how that revenue should be spent. If you do not like that, then blame your forefathers.
Because they vote for laws they know won't affect them as much as it will affect others. It's easy to give money to the poor people if it isn't your money.
this is a BUNCH OF CRAP. you are just typing words with no basis of fact or truth.
this is a BUNCH OF CRAP. you are just typing words with no basis of fact or truth.
Actually, the richest are already ok with the combination democracy-government because llike that they can see bunch of people got mind-controlled to obey, to consume their money. This is why they use so well all the governments with their money. If there will be no more money they will have to spend xso much money to possess an army and a vast land to protect themselves against bunch of people-sheeps.
Stef, nobody can control your mind. You just need to focus better and say "yes, I can!". ;)
it is more insidious than that... Look around you... Look at TV, at internet, everything is turned to give to most people what they want : minimum level of average goods (TV, smartphone, tablets...), everything to give very simple info, to entertain very quickly (superficial news : shocking images to provoke insecurity to people, to allow them to keep them of what they want : security and entertainment). I have 30 collegues in the headquarters of my company : almost all only talk about these bad news from yesterday, about the last TV series, about all the richest are bad and steal them while they do nothing to chenge themselves). Almost only want minimum work to be able to have the last smartphone ot tablet and be able to entertain a little after work... Only that ;-)... Then it is easy to control those people with information and entertaining goods.
That's the best way to go to the "Brave New World"... Read again this book, look at your people around, how the world turn and see :-)
That's the best way to go to the "Brave New World"... Read again this book, look at your people around, how the world turn and see :-)
I agree with everything you say and I share the sense of annoyance with that. Only, I don't agree that somebody else is doing that to those people. They are "obeying" by their own free will so it's more of a chicken and egg situation. If nobody would "obey", there would not be anyone to be obeyed. Most conspiracy theories are just pure attempts of rationalization of human imperfections. People are stupid by themselves. There is no mastermind that has people hypnotized. Well, there is actually. But he's not a human. ;)