If you do not believe in taxes......

[bonfire]

If the majority are irrelevant then what are you fighting against if not the tyranny of the majority? So will you fight the majority with or without violence?

I'm saying the majority is, or should be, irrelevant in creating laws because they can be tyrannical about it. We should enact laws based on the non-aggresion principle, but thats a seperate debate.

I won't fight anyone or anything unless I absolutely have to. If my life, or my families life, is in danger, I'll protect them no matter what. Even if that involves fighting against the government or the majority.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

God, I hate these stupid arguments. They are based on two faulty premises. The first is that I paid nothing into the system. I pay taxes that go to schools, roads, and entitlement programs that will almost certainly be drastically cut before I can benefit from them. The system might be messed up, but that does not make it unethical to adapt to the different conditions of society. Paying for these things myself is one thing. Paying for them after my wealth has been decreased by taxes is another entirely.

The second thing these arguments presume is that government is necessary to carry all of them out. I'm not against the state altogether. I think a stateless society could "work" on a basic level. However, it would quickly evolve into one anyone, and government can maximize liberty better if constrained enough. However, many of the things you list, like roads, can and have been done in the private sector. Just because government funding crowds out private investment in these fields, that does not mean that it is indispensable.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

About roads, it occured to me that there weren't any paved roads per se before the automobile..

Actually, there have been paved roads for thousands of years. The Roman Empire had paved roads.

 

[Moot]

Actually, there have been paved roads for thousands of years. The Roman Empire had paved roads.

You're right but I was mostly referring to roads in this country. It's kinda funny because in my state there is a long standing debate over what actually constitutes a road. lol

Utah Wilderness Coalition: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[lpast]

I think living in America is worth it at twice the price.

certain kinds of people have and always will whine about taxes. You would be surprised how many of them are actually living off the government or getting some kind of monthly check with a government stamp on it.

I gladly pay my taxes. It's my duty as a good citizen to support my country.

Well said...on another forum there is a guy who rails endlessly about unions and the left and anything democrat...claiming the govt and unions are stealing from him and everyone else...I mean the guy RAGES and yells and curses....he cant spell not typos but geniunely mispells the simplest words...hes very passionate and relentless on his attacks especially directed at ALL public workers and democrats...after having listened to him for months....Someone asked him what he does for a living...and the MORON says...Ive been on disablitly social security for 11 yrs hes 43 when asked WHY he said...I had problems...

 

[Captain America]

Well said...on another forum there is a guy who rails endlessly about unions and the left and anything democrat...claiming the govt and unions are stealing from him and everyone else...I mean the guy RAGES and yells and curses....he cant spell not typos but geniunely mispells the simplest words...hes very passionate and relentless on his attacks especially directed at ALL public workers and democrats...after having listened to him for months....Someone asked him what he does for a living...and the MORON says...Ive been on disablitly social security for 11 yrs hes 43 when asked WHY he said...I had problems...

Exactly. I know a half-dozen people just like him.

 

[hazlnut]

Actually, there have been paved roads for thousands of years. The Roman Empire had paved roads.

There were no paved roads in the U.S. during the roman empire.

We all pitched in paid for them.

We continue to pitch in an pay for their upkeep and expansion when needed.

The Tea Party wants to hang out on the PUBLIC SPACE NATIONAL MALL -- use all kinds of public resource, (many of them Vets getting benefits) and then complain about having to all pay into a general fund to support our way of life.

The same middle class teabrains are now going to bat for the super-wealthy. Why? Because the super-wealthy run the astro-turf fake TP.

 

[Sparkles]

About roads, it occured to me that there weren't any paved roads per se before the automobile. So it stands to reason that one of the main reasons for building paved roads was to sell more cars. "See the USA in your Cheverolet" inspired millions of Americans to buy a family car and use the new federally funded national highway system to go see the national parks which in turn helped thousands of small communities thrive. The auto companies couldn't have afforded to build interstate highways on that scale. That is something only a government can do.

Which again is more leftist idiocy. There were built roads prior to automobiles. People got tired of their horse drawn caridges having broken wheels. So roads were made out of brick, before their were automobiles. Paving came along as the natural next step up from brick roads, which cost more to make. Prior to brick roads, they paved roads with wooden planks.

Again, all of this before the modern automobile existed.

No, no. Ditch the idiotic conspiracy crap that somehow people we're building roads in some grand scheme that years later someone would invent an automobile to use the roads.

That's on the level of stupidity that the moon landing were faked, and Elvis is alive.

People wanted to buy cars, because people like having the ability to get around. That's all there is to it. Roads are built as a response to the general public owning cars. Not the other way around.

 

[Moot]

Which again is more leftist idiocy. There were built roads prior to automobiles. People got tired of their horse drawn caridges having broken wheels. So roads were made out of brick, before their were automobiles. Paving came along as the natural next step up from brick roads, which cost more to make. Prior to brick roads, they paved roads with wooden planks.

Again, all of this before the modern automobile existed.

When I said paved roads I meant aspahlt paved roads like this...

No, no. Ditch the idiotic conspiracy crap that somehow people we're building roads in some grand scheme that years later someone would invent an automobile to use the roads.

That's on the level of stupidity that the moon landing were faked, and Elvis is alive.

People wanted to buy cars, because people like having the ability to get around. That's all there is to it. Roads are built as a response to the general public owning cars. Not the other way around.

Thank you for arguing my point, the auto inspired the government to build paved roads...

"...In much the same fashion, he [Henry Ford] worked on making sure that an automotive infrastructure developed along with the cars. Just like horses, cars had to be fed--so Ford pushed for gas stations everywhere. And as his tin lizzies bounced over the rutted tracks of the horse age, he campaigned for better roads, which eventually led to an interstate-highway system that is still the envy of the world...."Read more: Driving Force: Henry Ford - TIME

In 1908, Henry Ford introduced his low-priced, highly efficient Model T. Its widespread popularity created pressure for the federal government to become more directly involved in road development. With rural interests adding to the battle cry of "Get the farmers out of the mud!" Congress passed the Federal- Aid Road Act of 1916. It created the Federal-Aid Highway Program under which funds were made available on a continuous basis to state highway agencies to assist in road improvements.
History of American Roads and the First Federal Highway


The Federal Aid Road Act, as the first federal highway funding law, was instrumental in extending and improving the county's road system. Prior to its passage (and for several decades afterward), the condition of many roads was deplorable; "They were often little more than trails that were muddy in the rain and dusty the rest of the time. Any long trip by automobile required not only time, patience, and ingenuity, but tire-patching equipment, tools, spare parts, and emergency food and fuel."
Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LizardofOz]

Taxes are like razors; I hate paying for them but if I don't in a few weeks I look like a psycho.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The same middle class teabrains are now going to bat for the super-wealthy. Why? Because the super-wealthy run the astro-turf fake TP.

It works better if you put the shiny side outward.

 

[Centinel]

Government is nothing more than a massive coordination machine, synchronizing our efforts so that we produce a greater result.

Did you say coordination or coercion?

 

[Sparkles]

When I said paved roads I meant aspahlt paved roads like this...
View attachment 67126809

Thank you for arguing my point, the auto inspired the government to build paved roads...

Again, there were paved roads before automobiles. That fact alone, discredits the rest of your argument. Nothing else you add to the discussion changes this basic fact.

Again, paving with asphalt was simply the next logical step to other paving materials, and would have happened with, or without the automobile.

 

[Sparkles]

Taxes are like razors; I hate paying for them but if I don't in a few weeks I look like a psycho.

No one is suggestion we don't need enough money to fund a national defense, and a basic system of law.

The problem is, the left has demanded enough razors to commit mass suicide by taxation.

We could EASILY fund everything needed at the Federal level with a tiny fraction of the taxation we have now.

 

[hazlnut]

We could EASILY fund everything needed at the Federal level with a tiny fraction of the taxation we have now.

Um, perhaps in the future... but right now, we're in debt. And we need to pay down that debt.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Um, perhaps in the future... but right now, we're in debt. And we need to pay down that debt.

And we got into that debt by demanding too much of the federal government, where responsibility ought to have been taken at a much more local level. And that is how we continue to go deeper and deeper into this hole.

 

[Moot]

And we got into that debt by demanding too much of the federal government, where responsibility ought to have been taken at a much more local level. And that is how we continue to go deeper and deeper into this hole.

I don't remember the country demanding to go to war on Iraq and paying for it by borrowing from the Chinese so the wealthy could have their tax cuts. I really don't know what folks at the local level could have done to stop it without being accused of being unpatriotic.


Heaven forbid we should have to go to war with China because we'd have to borrow from them to do it. LOL

 

[Centinel]

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. .
5. .
6. .

If the government taxes us to pay for the services listed above, then, as paying customers, we are entitled to use said services, no?

 

[Sparkles]

Um, perhaps in the future... but right now, we're in debt. And we need to pay down that debt.

Again, this is easy. Just cut spending drastically, until the debt is paid off.

It's the same as your personal budget. If at the end of the month, you don't have enough money to cover your expenses.... you cut expenses. Sorry, can't afford cable TV. Sorry, can't afford high speed internet. Or whatever it is you need to cut, but you must cut something.

Same thing with the government. You have a deficit and a huge debt, you cut spending. Not increase it, and call it a "stimulus", when in reality its simply political kick backs to political supporters.

This is budget 101 here.

 

[Sparkles]

If the government taxes us to pay for the services listed above, then, as paying customers, we are entitled to use said services, no?

Legally perhaps, but I would suggest no. Tyranny is tyranny, by the majority or otherwise. Forced confiscation is not a "service". It's just tyranny.

 

[Moot]

Again, this is easy. Just cut spending drastically, until the debt is paid off.

It's the same as your personal budget. If at the end of the month, you don't have enough money to cover your expenses.... you cut expenses. Sorry, can't afford cable TV. Sorry, can't afford high speed internet. Or whatever it is you need to cut, but you must cut something.

Same thing with the government. You have a deficit and a huge debt, you cut spending. Not increase it, and call it a "stimulus", when in reality its simply political kick backs to political supporters.

This is budget 101 here.

It doesn't matter how much you cut spending if you don't have revenue coming in to pay down the debt. Just ask the unemployed.

 

[Centinel]

Legally perhaps, but I would suggest no. Tyranny is tyranny, by the majority or otherwise. Forced confiscation is not a "service". It's just tyranny.

I agree. However, for the victim to then be denied the use of the services for which he has been robbed to fund simply adds insult to injury.

It's my opinion, that any system of governance that relies upon coercion and enslavement is morally wrong. I would much prefer that the services listed by provided through non-violent means.

 

[Sparkles]

I don't remember the country demanding to go to war on Iraq and paying for it by borrowing from the Chinese so the wealthy could have their tax cuts. I really don't know what folks at the local level could have done to stop it without being accused of being unpatriotic.


Heaven forbid we should have to go to war with China because we'd have to borrow from them to do it. LOL

I got a tax cut. I earn $20K. In your book am I the "wealthy", or are you just spewing leftist BS again?

Further, China isn't lending us money anymore. It's everyone else. Does it matter who is borrowing the money? If not, then what difference does it make if China is lending us money?

As for the country demanding we go to war, I don't care. The job of the president is to determine what is in the best interest of the nation. The information at the time said Iraq was a threat. Whether you like it or not, that is the reality of the situation. If *YOU* had been president, you would have done the same thing, unless you were as spineless as Clinton.

This absolute stupidity that we should only deal with potential threats to the country when the majority of ignorant Americans who generally know nothing about international threats, is exactly the reason we had 9/11. In the 90s, Clinton said leave the terrorist alone. When Iraq was trying to establish a working relationship with Al Qeada, the America people said not to do anything.

This is the natural result of following your ideological idiocy. No thank you.

 

[Centinel]

It doesn't matter how much you cut spending if you don't have revenue coming in to pay down the debt. Just ask the unemployed.

You are correct. It is difficult to pay down one's debts when one has been fired and lacks a source of income.

The government, however, has not been fired. It still has essentially the same steady stream of revenue it has always had. Thus, if it cut its spending to be significantly below its outlays, as Sparkles suggests, its debt would immediately begin to shrink.

 

[Sparkles]

I agree. However, for the victim to then be denied the use of the services for which he has been robbed to fund simply adds insult to injury.

It's my opinion, that any system of governance that relies upon coercion and enslavement is morally wrong. I would much prefer that the services listed by provided through non-violent means.

Generally I would agree. However, the fact is these people choose to trust POLITICIANS with their retirement.

If you have a broke drunk brother-in-law, and he says he's got a great investment, and you are stupid enough to "invest" in your broke drunk brother-in-laws plans........ you are going to go broke.... AND YOU SHOULD. There are consequences for stupidity. If you are dumb enough to invest in an obviously bad investment, you should lose your money.

Well...... Politicians? Really? That's your *brilliant* retirement plan is to give your money to politicians? File that under "dumb as hell".

The bottom line is, Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes. *all* Ponzi Schemes will fail at some point. The question is, is it going to tank the entire country the like the Soviet Union, or just the people who are in the system?

I personally choose for it to just wipe out the people who foolishly depend on government, and not the entire country.

The problem is, Americans are completely arrogant and ignorant, that they really don't believe it will wipe out the country, even though a mere 22 years ago, the Soviets had their arrogance smashed to bits. But no no.... we are America... we're invincible.