The inheritance tax

[Henrin]

It's no one's wealth.

We're a nation of individuals. That individual is dead.

People can gift their property much like they trade their property. These aren't new concepts. Sorry, but you support stealing peoples wealth.

 

[Unrepresented]

Yes, I know. That is why you decide to become the tyrant. The power theory basically says everything is about power, so it's best to be in power. It's a caveman philosophy really.

We're all part of the tyrant. That's how power works. We each have some. We pool it together as a group an apply it as we see fit.

 

[Henrin]

We're all part of the tyrant. That's how power works. We each have some. We pool it together as a group an apply it as we see fit.

No, don't include me in whatever you think I'm doing.

 

[Unrepresented]

No, don't include me in whatever you think I'm doing.

You use your power to assist in every tyranny committed. We're all culpable. It's how power is distributed and redistributed.

 

[Henrin]

You use your power to assist in every tyranny committed. We're all culpable. It's how power is distributed and redistributed.

No, I don't.

 

[Unrepresented]

People can gift their property much like they trade their property. These aren't new concepts. Sorry, but you support stealing peoples wealth.

There are limits on gifts, both on who and what can be given. Rightfully so. I'm advocating continuing on in that logical progression.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

We're all part of the tyrant. That's how power works. We each have some. We pool it together as a group an apply it as we see fit.

We need you and those like you to keep talking you are doing us so many favors by just running your mouth.

 

[US Conservative]

The only thing "competing" for an inheritance is the sperm that hit the mother's egg first.

That's an objectively terrible way to choose to distribute assets.

Still better than your weak idea that its govts. Keep it up with the fail.

 

[Unrepresented]

We need you and those like you to keep talking you are doing us so many favors by just running your mouth.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when the guy from Stormfront provides me with feedback on how to sound less extremist.

 

[Unrepresented]

Still better than your weak idea that its govts. Keep it up with the fail.

The government isn't an end receiver. The government simply allocates goods and services to the population as determined by their elected representatives.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I'm always pleasantly surprised when the guy from Stormfront provides me with feedback on how to sound less extremist.

Funny that you leftist talk so much about "Nazis" and "White supremacy" and "Storefront" all the time..Its like you guys think about it all the time...Very telling.

 

[Unrepresented]

Funny that you leftist talk so much about "Nazis" and "White supremacy" and "Storefront" all the time..Its like you guys think about it all the time...Very telling.

It's funny how often I think about race baiting threads when I read all your race baiting threads.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

It's funny how often I think about race baiting threads when I read all your race baiting threads.

To you anyone talking and using facts about crime and the groups that cause it that are not white is "race baiting" which is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Mithrae]

The greatest thing about the idea of tacit consent is that it only came up when Locke was challenged with the obvious reality that his entire premise of consent was flawed. All of a sudden when he was faced with the reality that people exist that don't consent to government he found the idea of tacit consent. For some reason I'm not supposed to think it's just convenient that when his entire theory was about to fall to pieces he discovered the idea that if someone uses the benefits of a government, they have tacitly consented to the burdens that government imposes on them.

Tacit Consent is really just a tool of the incompetent tyrant.

Anyone who actively chooses to use, or keep using, the services of a society - its public infrastructure, its government-backed currency, its property laws and protections - is obviously and unequivocally obliged to abide by the conditions expected for use of those services. If there's any error here, it is merely in the fact that some people call it 'tacit' consent, when it is just as obviously an active engagement as crossing a toll bridge or going to a restaurant and ordering a meal is. It's called 'tacit' only to distinguish it from the sign-on-the-dotted-line kind of agreement... which you generally don't do when you go to a restaurant either :lol:

Of course this doesn't cover the rare few who actually do attempt to withdraw from society, and I'd agree that in those cases the 'tacit consent' of merely existing within the region a government has claimed could be considered a weak cop-out argument: That raises rather more profound questions about the ethics and rights of national sovereignty, but obviously isn't an issue when it comes to inheritance taxes on multi-million dollar estates.

 

[Henrin]

Anyone who actively chooses to use, or keep using, the services of a society - its public infrastructure, its government-backed currency, its property laws and protections - is obviously and unequivocally obliged to abide by the conditions expected for use of those services. If there's any error here, it is merely in the fact that some people call it 'tacit' consent, when it is just as obviously an active engagement as crossing a toll bridge or going to a restaurant and ordering a meal is. It's called 'tacit' only to distinguish it from the sign-on-the-dotted-line kind of agreement... which you generally don't do when you go to a restaurant either :lol:

Of course this doesn't cover the rare few who actually do attempt to withdraw from society, and I'd agree that in those cases the 'tacit consent' of merely existing within the region a government has claimed could be considered a weak cop-out argument: That raises rather more profound questions about the ethics and rights of national sovereignty, but obviously isn't an issue when it comes to inheritance taxes on multi-million dollar estates.

Can I print my own currency? Is it perhaps possible that the government banned all other alternatives? And is it possible that if I don't take your roads either for driving or walking that I pretty much have no way to get around? How do I avoid ever stepping foot on a road when everything is right next to them? The whole idea that I can avoid at least crossing the road is absolutely insane.

 

[Mithrae]

Can I print my own currency? Is it perhaps possible that the government banned all other alternatives?

Certainly no-one is stopping you from bartering your goods for what you need. And has your government banned alternative currencies? I can surely imagine it happening as a general concept - and I can see the potentials for deception and fraud which might be used to legitimise such a ban - but how would that work in reality? IOUs are illegal in the United States? I'm interested in learning more.

And is it possible that if I don't take your roads either for driving or walking that I pretty much have no way to get around?

Get around where? Are you talking about rural Idaho here, or New York City? If you choose to live in a region which is densely populated with people whose votes uphold their government's public services and taxation then yeah, you pretty much have to accept the consequences of your choice. It is not incumbent on everyone else in the world to provide for your personal idiosyncracies.

How do I avoid ever stepping foot on a road when everything is right next to them? The whole idea that I can avoid at least crossing the road is absolutely insane.

With modern population levels, yes it is virtually impossible that a majority of people should take an isolationist approach. Have you actually bothered to consider the consequences of that fact? It means that if you claim to own something you are, almost inevitably, telling other people something that they cannot do. You are restricting their freedom. That is what private property is.

Do you think that people's freedom can be unilaterally and/or unconditionally restricted?

Personally, I think that the only ethical basis for restricting folks' freedom is the general democratic consent of the governed. Private property is necessary for the advance of civilization, but it is a social construct, not a unilateral right. Public property is important too. Your objections to the latter serve only to highlight the limitations which should be recognised regarding the former. And this is an entirely different issue than 'tacit consent' by using public property: It is the more fundamental fact that property cannot exist at all without societal agreement. I'm surprised you don't yet understand that - it's in the signature of all my posts, after all.

 

[blaxshep]

We're all part of the tyrant. That's how power works. We each have some. We pool it together as a group an apply it as we see fit.

The vast majority have no power to pool. Although the wealthy do pool theirs, it's called an Oligarchy.

 

[Unrepresented]

The vast majority have no power to pool. Although the wealthy do pool theirs, it's called an Oligarchy.

We give them the power to be oligarchs.

 

[blaxshep]

We give them the power to be oligarchs.

Unlimited wealth of individuals should not be tolerated. It is the last bastion of the unevolved savages. In the days of the Spartain civilization anyone with too much wealth or power could be voted out into exile.

 

[Henrin]

The vast majority have no power to pool. Although the wealthy do pool theirs, it's called an Oligarchy.

Unlimited wealth of individuals should not be tolerated. It is the last bastion of the unevolved savages. In the days of the Spartain civilization anyone with too much wealth or power could be voted out into exile.

:roll:

 

[Unrepresented]

To you anyone talking and using facts about crime and the groups that cause it that are not white is "race baiting" which is the height of hypocrisy.

No, I think you starting regular threads highlighting the race of the antagonists and protagonists is race baiting.

 

[Unrepresented]

Unlimited wealth of individuals should not be tolerated. It is the last bastion of the unevolved savages. In the days of the Spartain civilization anyone with too much wealth or power could be voted out into exile.

We still can. Their power is entirely dependent on society accepting it. As soon as we reject claims of entitlement or authority, they have none.

The majority will always rule, sometimes it just forgets it's the majority.

 

[Neomalthusian]

We still can. Their power is entirely dependent on society accepting it. As soon as we reject claims of entitlement or authority, they have none.

The majority will always rule, sometimes it just forgets it's the majority.

Some people's ideas for dealing with this fail to even accomplish their own goals. A cutting off of the nose to spite the face.

 

[Unrepresented]

Some people's ideas for dealing with this fail to even accomplish their own goals. A cutting off of the nose to spite the face.

And some people don't know when to amputate a toe to avoid dying of sepsis.

 

[Neomalthusian]

And some people don't know when to amputate a toe to avoid dying of sepsis.

Just make sure it's clear to yourself and others that you're advocating capital flight and protectionism and that you know it will reduce our living standards, but don't care and think it's worth it anyway.