That arguement doesn't fly. Because the federal government could say the same thing to you about listening in on your phone calls. They could say "We listen to ensure our collective safety, well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want those protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out."
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
They could say that.. and I would disagree because I don't see how it advances my safety in any way. What is my agenda? I'm not saying that the government should interfere. I am saying that our society has progressed to a point where we are capable of supporting an elevated standard of living. I am also saying that the best way to increase the value of money is to make it move -- and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
Well we have the right to disagree that taxes don't advance my safety in any way either. Your rights are no more important or valid than ours.
I thought you worked for the police force. I had no idea that was privately funded. Or are you saying you don't work to advance my safety?
Are you kidding? All we do is sit around and eat donuts! Haven't you ever watched the Simpsons? Haha, There is a difference between permenant jobs and hand outs to non productive people that will never help grow wealth.
That arguement doesn't fly. Because the federal government could say the same thing to you about listening in on your phone calls. They could say "We listen to ensure our collective safety, well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want those protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out."
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
They could say that.. and I would disagree because I don't see how it advances my safety in any way. What is my agenda? I'm not saying that the government should interfere. I am saying that our society has progressed to a point where we are capable of supporting an elevated standard of living. I am also saying that the best way to increase the value of money is to make it move -- and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
Well we have the right to disagree that taxes don't advance my safety in any way either. Your rights are no more important or valid than ours.
I thought you worked for the police force. I had no idea that was privately funded. Or are you saying you don't work to advance my safety?
Are you kidding? All we do is sit around and eat donuts! Haven't you ever watched the Simpsons? Haha, There is a difference between permenant jobs and hand outs to non productive people that will never help grow wealth.
But you don't want to pay taxes... so you're out of a job.
It isn't that I don't want to pay any taxes, because that isn't realistic at all. I've never said I wanted to pay no taxes at all. Don't misquote. I have been arguing for tax breaks for everyone. To pay LESS taxes. There is a huge difference.
and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
yeah... the people.
who spend
responsibly.
Wait.. are you saying that you are going to judge another individual's ability to spend responsibly? Wouldn't that be interfering with his rights?
no. i am judging the GOVERNMENTS ability to spend responsibly. people will make the decisions on what they spend themselves. they will spend what is best for THEM not the government. the way it should be
ohhh.. I see... so now we've decided that the government does need to manage some thing.. I thought we were saying that the government couldn't manage anything. Why wouldn't we privatize the police force? If you want some protection, buy it. No more laws and all that silly crap. If you've got the money, hire a mercenary force to protect yourself. Laws are just another way of restricting an individual's rights.
These lousy speed limits are just restricting my right to drive at whatever speed I see as safe. All these damn laws about bribery are restricting my right to privately motivate somebody to do what I want. All these laws about slander are just out there to protect sissies from having their feelings hurt.
if the activities of some people harm others, such as harmfully pollute their water or air, and if the harm can be objectively proven (a concept foreign to environmentalists), then it's the government's failure to protect individual rightsnot "market failure." And a tax on emissions is not a valid solution, because it implies that it's okay to violate rights as long as you pay government for the privilege.
The allegation of "market failure" is used by leftists and other power-lusters to justify government interference in the free market, such as price controls, coercive union legislation, massive regulations, taxation schemes, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, etc. The net effect of such policies is to suppress innovation and productivity, punish ambition and ability, fuel inflation, and destroy wealth on a massive scale.
Such destructive consequences are not a "market failure" but a barbaric sabotage of the market by the government. If I pour muck into my Mercedes fuel tank and the engine dies, it's not an "engine failure" but a mindless sabotage of a wonderful machineand the free market is the most wonderful "machine" of all.
OK.. rather than tax it and use that money to research less destructive alternatives, just ban the activity outright. Outlaw gasoline-powered vehicles, coal-fired power plants, all smoking, wood stoves, outdoor burning, fireworks, candles, farting, gas heat, etc...
you are missing hte point here. the government is not the soulution. the government is the problem. banning everything is still a violation of individual rights.
how about giving serious tax cuts to people that come up with a solution, not seriously taxing people that cause the problems. (and we still cant PROVE 100% that global warming is man made, no matter how many times Al gore says it is)
and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
yeah... the people.
who spend
responsibly.
Wait.. are you saying that you are going to judge another individual's ability to spend responsibly? Wouldn't that be interfering with his rights?
no. i am judging the GOVERNMENTS ability to spend responsibly. people will make the decisions on what they spend themselves. they will spend what is best for THEM not the government. the way it should be
So who's gonna build and maintain the road that you drive on to get to work? Should that be privately funded? If Applebees wants to hire somebody else to run the restaurant, do they need to include the cost of building a road from that guy's house? What if that guy decides to move? Does he have to include the cost of building a road from his new house to his employer?
if the activities of some people harm others, such as harmfully pollute their water or air, and if the harm can be objectively proven (a concept foreign to environmentalists), then it's the government's failure to protect individual rightsnot "market failure." And a tax on emissions is not a valid solution, because it implies that it's okay to violate rights as long as you pay government for the privilege.
The allegation of "market failure" is used by leftists and other power-lusters to justify government interference in the free market, such as price controls, coercive union legislation, massive regulations, taxation schemes, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, etc. The net effect of such policies is to suppress innovation and productivity, punish ambition and ability, fuel inflation, and destroy wealth on a massive scale.
Such destructive consequences are not a "market failure" but a barbaric sabotage of the market by the government. If I pour muck into my Mercedes fuel tank and the engine dies, it's not an "engine failure" but a mindless sabotage of a wonderful machineand the free market is the most wonderful "machine" of all.
OK.. rather than tax it and use that money to research less destructive alternatives, just ban the activity outright. Outlaw gasoline-powered vehicles, coal-fired power plants, all smoking, wood stoves, outdoor burning, fireworks, candles, farting, gas heat, etc...
you are missing hte point here. the government is not the soulution. the government is the problem. banning everything is still a violation of individual rights.
So don't tax it and don't ban it and hope that people do the right thing to protect the environment. Like littering... we don't need laws against that. We just have to ask people politely to not discard their waste on the streets. If they do, well, that's their right. Don't crap on the sidewalks, please... especially with hundreds of people around... but if you do, well, darn.
(and we still cant PROVE 100% that global warming is man made, no matter how many times Al gore says it is)
OK, so in one thread, you now proclaim to know more about the economy than the economists, and more about the environment than the scientists. Proven? No. But the majority believe it exists and is man-made. Until I hear otherwise, I'll rely on their judgment.
and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
yeah... the people.
who spend
responsibly.
Wait.. are you saying that you are going to judge another individual's ability to spend responsibly? Wouldn't that be interfering with his rights?
no. i am judging the GOVERNMENTS ability to spend responsibly. people will make the decisions on what they spend themselves. they will spend what is best for THEM not the government. the way it should be
So who's gonna build and maintain the road that you drive on to get to work? Should that be privately funded? If Applebees wants to hire somebody else to run the restaurant, do they need to include the cost of building a road from that guy's house? What if that guy decides to move? Does he have to include the cost of building a road from his new house to his employer?
you have been taking us to our logical extreme, how about i do the same to you.
let the government take all of what everyone makes and distribute it as they see fit. you have no right to say where it goes. you have no money that is you own. you are communist. that is the logical extreme of what you are saying. Puro and I are not suggesting that we have no taxes or government, much like yo are not suggesting communism. these extreme cases are not proving any point. they are just showing that somewhere in the middle is where we need to be. both extremes will fail. we just feel that the more liberties we have and less taxes we have the better off we will be, with the understanding that there will still be SOME taxes. you are saying that you feel that the government should have higher taxes and more regulation on our lives with the understanding that we are not communist.
(and we still cant PROVE 100% that global warming is man made, no matter how many times Al gore says it is)
OK, so in one thread, you now proclaim to know more about the economy than the economists, and more about the environment than the scientists. Proven? No. But the majority believe it exists and is man-made. Until I hear otherwise, I'll rely on their judgment.
but im right that it isnt 100% proven.
therefore it is irresponsible to make policy based on something that isnt 100% understood. i know that i dont know enough to make policy based off of it.
especially a policy that will impact the monitary well being of millions in a difficult economy.
(and we still cant PROVE 100% that global warming is man made, no matter how many times Al gore says it is)
OK, so in one thread, you now proclaim to know more about the economy than the economists, and more about the environment than the scientists. Proven? No. But the majority believe it exists and is man-made. Until I hear otherwise, I'll rely on their judgment.
but im right that it isnt 100% proven.
therefore it is irresponsible to make policy based on something that isnt 100% understood. i know that i dont know enough to make policy based off of it.
That's like a doctor shouldn't take any action until he can say with 100% certainty that a patient will die if he goes untreated. You don't know this until he dies.
There are many scientists who have interpreted the data as 100% conclusive that global warming exists and is man-made. There are a bunch of scientists who are funded by special interests on both sides of the issue, whose beliefs are in line with their constituents.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
IOW, arguments composed entirely of extremes will always fail?
... not always
Obviously... because that would be an extreme argument in itself... by succeeding, it would be invalid... so it could never be true.. now there's an extreme argument that does not fail
BRILLIANT! exactly what im talking aobut. its not just macro or micro econ. its individual liberties!
You guys are both confusing individual liberties with taxes.
there are no differences between the two. you tax more you take away the right of the individual to keep what they earn
if i want control your smoking, all i have to do is tax cigars so much that you cant afford them. that is taking away your right to smoke a cigar.
i dont think this point i made was seen due to the swiftness of posts being posted. I would like to revisit this point.
thoughts?
You tax more to fund the protection of that individual's rights, as well as contribute to the overall value/health of the society. By creating a better overall society, you make this a better place to live. By making it a better place to live, you increase the demand for property. By increasing the value of property, you have increased wealth.
It's the same concept behind a Homeowners Association. An HOA collects dues (just like a tax!) from the homeowners, and enforces rules and pays for amenities. These rules and amenities are designed to ensure that the neighborhood retains its value. By retaining this value, you protect the equity of the homeowners, and increase their wealth. Maybe not everybody uses the private clubhouse and pool, or goes to the neighborhood-funded parties, but you've created a social atmosphere that raises the value of living in that community, which in turn raises the value of the home. Likewise, by ensuring that somebody can't built a 6-story steel-framework addition to their house, you ensure that the neighborhood is aesthetically pleasing.
Alll of this could be seen as an infringement on an individual's rights, or a government entity deciding how it would best spend my money. But in the end, the result is that we've created more wealth for ourselves by contributing our dues to the community. If we do not wish to pay those dues, we can choose to find another community without an HOA.
BRILLIANT! exactly what im talking aobut. its not just macro or micro econ. its individual liberties!
You guys are both confusing individual liberties with taxes.
there are no differences between the two. you tax more you take away the right of the individual to keep what they earn
if i want control your smoking, all i have to do is tax cigars so much that you cant afford them. that is taking away your right to smoke a cigar.
i dont think this point i made was seen due to the swiftness of posts being posted. I would like to revisit this point.
thoughts?
My number one thought is that they are trying to do exactly that. They don't think anyone should smoke and that the government is better to make that choice than we are.
BRILLIANT! exactly what im talking aobut. its not just macro or micro econ. its individual liberties!
You guys are both confusing individual liberties with taxes.
there are no differences between the two. you tax more you take away the right of the individual to keep what they earn
if i want control your smoking, all i have to do is tax cigars so much that you cant afford them. that is taking away your right to smoke a cigar.
i dont think this point i made was seen due to the swiftness of posts being posted. I would like to revisit this point.
thoughts?
You tax more to fund the protection of that individual's rights, as well as contribute to the overall value/health of the society. By creating a better overall society, you make this a better place to live. By making it a better place to live, you increase the demand for property. By increasing the value of property, you have increased wealth.
It's the same concept behind a Homeowners Association. An HOA collects dues (just like a tax!) from the homeowners, and enforces rules and pays for amenities. These rules and amenities are designed to ensure that the neighborhood retains its value. By retaining this value, you protect the equity of the homeowners, and increase their wealth. Maybe not everybody uses the private clubhouse and pool, or goes to the neighborhood-funded parties, but you've created a social atmosphere that raises the value of living in that community, which in turn raises the value of the home. Likewise, by ensuring that somebody can't built a 6-story steel-framework addition to their house, you ensure that the neighborhood is aesthetically pleasing.
Alll of this could be seen as an infringement on an individual's rights, or a government entity deciding how it would best spend my money. But in the end, the result is that we've created more wealth for ourselves by contributing our dues to the community. If we do not wish to pay those dues, we can choose to find another community without an HOA.
that all depends on if all of your values are the same. this very discussion proves that not everyone has the same values. How can you force your values on another person like that? you are forcing a tax on me to support a program that i dont have any value or faith in. how is that fair to me? in the HOA you can not buy in that neighborhood if you dont want to. just avoid being in that group. I cannot avoid a tax. i have no choice in the matter.
and lets just say we do happen to create wealth with higher taxes and more government control (even though it has never happened in the past). does that justify the infringement of rights of the people of the nation? they have money but no rights. that is also not living. I do not want to give up any more rights for the "good of the people" Ive given up enough rights. i cant do ANYTHING without the governmet being involved. Im sick of that. I want to live my life. it is unacceptable that i have to bend over backwards to give to people that arent as productive as me. they want more? then work harder.
and how much should taxes be? cos it seems that every time someone asks the government how much should they give the only answer is "more"
THIS is why we need to lower corporate tax rates in the US...
Nah.. just boost their tariffs.. if they want to get the oil to the biggest consumer base, they're gonna have to pay for the priviledge, one way or another
THIS is why we need to lower corporate tax rates in the US...
Nah.. just boost their tariffs.. if they want to get the oil to the biggest consumer base, they're gonna have to pay for the priviledge, one way or another
As we have said on here before, Corporations don't pay those fees, tariffs, or taxes. They pass them on to the consumer. So all that is going to do is push more of our money over seas. It would in the end hurt us and just incease the amount of exports we consume.
The Prez makes a speech about reforming earmarks 24 hours after signing a bill that had 8000+ earmarks in it. *sigh* I put too much faith in this guy. Figures.
THIS is why we need to lower corporate tax rates in the US...
Nah.. just boost their tariffs.. if they want to get the oil to the biggest consumer base, they're gonna have to pay for the priviledge, one way or another
As we have said on here before, Corporations don't pay those fees, tariffs, or taxes. They pass them on to the consumer. So all that is going to do is push more of our money over seas. It would in the end hurt us and just incease the amount of exports we consume.
But a smart competitor could come back and be able to offer a lower price without being subjected to those tariffs
Comments
These lousy speed limits are just restricting my right to drive at whatever speed I see as safe. All these damn laws about bribery are restricting my right to privately motivate somebody to do what I want. All these laws about slander are just out there to protect sissies from having their feelings hurt.
how about giving serious tax cuts to people that come up with a solution, not seriously taxing people that cause the problems. (and we still cant PROVE 100% that global warming is man made, no matter how many times Al gore says it is)
let the government take all of what everyone makes and distribute it as they see fit. you have no right to say where it goes. you have no money that is you own. you are communist. that is the logical extreme of what you are saying.
Puro and I are not suggesting that we have no taxes or government, much like yo are not suggesting communism. these extreme cases are not proving any point. they are just showing that somewhere in the middle is where we need to be. both extremes will fail. we just feel that the more liberties we have and less taxes we have the better off we will be, with the understanding that there will still be SOME taxes. you are saying that you feel that the government should have higher taxes and more regulation on our lives with the understanding that we are not communist.
speaking in extremes is an exercise in futility.
therefore it is irresponsible to make policy based on something that isnt 100% understood. i know that i dont know enough to make policy based off of it.
especially a policy that will impact the monitary well being of millions in a difficult economy.
There are many scientists who have interpreted the data as 100% conclusive that global warming exists and is man-made. There are a bunch of scientists who are funded by special interests on both sides of the issue, whose beliefs are in line with their constituents.
The clincher for me is the question "what if we're wrong?" If I assume that there is no global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong? If I assume that there is global warming, what is the consequence if I'm wrong. Do I want to gamble the future of my descendants in order to line my pockets today? Or do I want to stop for a second, do more research, and allow that to help me make a better decision?
thoughts?
It's the same concept behind a Homeowners Association. An HOA collects dues (just like a tax!) from the homeowners, and enforces rules and pays for amenities. These rules and amenities are designed to ensure that the neighborhood retains its value. By retaining this value, you protect the equity of the homeowners, and increase their wealth. Maybe not everybody uses the private clubhouse and pool, or goes to the neighborhood-funded parties, but you've created a social atmosphere that raises the value of living in that community, which in turn raises the value of the home. Likewise, by ensuring that somebody can't built a 6-story steel-framework addition to their house, you ensure that the neighborhood is aesthetically pleasing.
Alll of this could be seen as an infringement on an individual's rights, or a government entity deciding how it would best spend my money. But in the end, the result is that we've created more wealth for ourselves by contributing our dues to the community. If we do not wish to pay those dues, we can choose to find another community without an HOA.
and lets just say we do happen to create wealth with higher taxes and more government control (even though it has never happened in the past). does that justify the infringement of rights of the people of the nation? they have money but no rights. that is also not living. I do not want to give up any more rights for the "good of the people" Ive given up enough rights. i cant do ANYTHING without the governmet being involved. Im sick of that. I want to live my life. it is unacceptable that i have to bend over backwards to give to people that arent as productive as me. they want more? then work harder.
and how much should taxes be? cos it seems that every time someone asks the government how much should they give the only answer is "more"
this makes no sense. the only answer to any problem for you is more taxes.
the only problem here is taxes are the problem.