While this is fine by me, I fail to see how it is any more or less voluntary than income taxation. After all, no one forces you to have income; no income, no income tax.
Actually, it encourages efficiencies in the system. It simplifies accounting for government purposes.
Additionally, we shouldn't be taxing things that are actually "good" for society. Income is "good" for society. I don't have a problem taxing things (cars, gas, tobacco, drugs etc) that are deemed "not good".
Social security exists because historically, charities weren't enough to keep people from dying from hunger.
Social Security is neither. It just a long term ponzi scheme. They just leveraged the present to the future. The day is coming when it will break, and yet nobody is talking about when that happens. The collapse of Social Security is going to be ushered in on the coat tails of the current economic collapse. Just because it has worked for 60 years doesn't mean anything. It is broken at its core.
Then you aren't entitled to property either, since that is neither life, liberty nor pursuit of happiness, so why are you complaining about losing something you weren't entitled in the first place ?
I wasn't complaining. Stating what happened isn't a complaint. And you are right, property is not a right, or entitlement.
Freedom requires you to either have means to support yourself independent on anyone's opinion of you, or not care whether you live or die. If you are poor, and depend on voluntary charity, you are not free.
In a "Free" society, one that values "LIBERTY", a man is free without regard to property. Linking Property (rich/poor) to "freedom" and "Liberty" misses the point of both. By doing so, you've made a leap I haven't. How much "property" (how rich) must one have, to be free?
You see, the moment you open that can of worms, you've already stepped on the slippery slope (is it 5 million or 250,000?). And once on that slope, the definition can slide ANYWHERE along it, at the whim of the populace.
I didn't say "no taxes", so that is a lie and mis characterization of anything I believe.
I also didn't say "no laws" either. Again, a lie and a mis-characterization of anything I believe.
And Somalia is no different than Washington DC now, the Robber Barons and thugs run things.
Paradise for me would be if everyone stayed out of MY business and my pocketbook. The moment you're interested in MY business, you give me permission to check everything about your business. And the moment you think you have rights to my pocketbook (see 5th Amendment), then I have rights to yours.
That is the problem with liberals, they want it applied to everyone ELSE.
Actually, it doesn't come down to two Mutually exclusive choices, those are your limitations.
Taxes, could be completely voluntary. Its just that it doesn't pay for all the entitlements people have come to enjoy.
Example? Transaction tax (not sales, transaction). Corporations are a government created entity, and as such could be required to collect, and submit transaction taxes as part of the corporate charter. This would eliminate the whole "income" tax, problems with "overseas" corporate headquarters and more. AND it would be completely open, free, and voluntary. No transactions, no taxes. Buy something, pay a tax. Sell something, pay a tax. Transfer wealth between shell corporations, pay a tax.
The problem with (D) and (R), is that they think they need to take from one, and give it to another, under the threat of a gun.
And I'm not entitled to anything, other than "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". LIVING in FREEDOM and pursuing happiness doesn't require ANYTHING from anyone else. NOTHING!
The moment you think it does, you've already under tyranny. You just don't realize it. The moment the mob and take what they want, from you, you are not "free".
I bet you protest all the stupid security crap under the guise of "national security", well, guess what, tyranny comes not as a thief, but as a government official saying "Hi, we're from the government, we're here to help".
I don't want the government to help protect me from things that don't exist. When ALL men are free, there is NOTHING to fear. Freedom doesn't require anything, from anyone except yourself.
Oh, and by the way, I know what it is to be "poor" and I know what it is to be "rich". Let me just say, for the record, both are lies. WEALTH doesn't equal freedom, as I've seen poor people who are more at liberty than rich people.
And last time I checked, there were no "serfs". People are slaves to the masters they've chosen for themselves.
"It's like Democrats cabal of wealthy kleptomaniacs."
Fixed that for you.
Two words.... "INCOME REDISTRIBUTION"
There is NO evidence that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise anyone (not that I'm a Republicrat), while there IS plenty of evidence that do-gooder liberals ARE trying to be Kleptomaniacs.
But I really love how you call actually making sure people are eligible to vote is equated with "disenfranchised".
You know what, if people can't bother to pick up an application, fill it out correctly, turn it in, go to the polls and vote, I DON'T FEEL sorry that they feel "disenfranchised", they did it to themselves.
And if people are too stupid to know when or how to vote, then I don't feel sorry for them either, when they don't vote. AND why are all the stupid people who can't figure stuff out, voting for Democrats? That is the real question, isn't it?
It is clear that it doesn't take brains to vote for Democrats, which is why Democrats all look stupid. And the Republicans aren't far behind, so all you beer swilling Nascar idiots better shut up now.
Right, I'm a troll for calling income redistribution "stealing". Armed Robbery is more like it.
Tell me, what do you call taking what doesn't belong to you, under the guise of force, or threat of force?
The BIGGEST problem with Obama's stated goal of income redistribution is that it creates a sense of entitlement, the poor are ENTITLED to money, just because they don't have any.
Please tell me, where am I wrong? Don't just mod me "troll", tell me, what right anyone has to take from anyone else, just because they want something?
Um who are the "dumb" people, and for whom are they voting for ?
Be careful who you define as "dumb".
My guess is most of the uneducated, barely literate people are voting for Obama. It is easy to vote for someone who promises to steal from others to give you stuff you didn't earn for yourself.
Yes, INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is STEALING, and not a "Right". Taking from someone else, under threat, is evil, and that is something that Obama and McCain both don't understand.
"Validity means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true."
Right. And while everyone is checking the validity of the argument, nobody is checking the soundness. Which is why we get into certain messes which can be entirely avoided by asking questions OUTSIDE the box.
"Something has to be done, we're doing something, therefore it has to be done" is a good example of flawed premise.
I'm dealt flawed premises all the time, and am soundly ridiculed for questioning the premise (as I have here).
In the example I gave earlier with the cats, dogs, and horses, the whole premise is flawed AND the right answer is to NOT answer such a silly question. When the "IF" is wrong, there can be NO RIGHT ANSWER!
Part of LOGIC should be learning when a question is flawed in premise, not just deriving the "correct" answer from a flawed premise, which is nothing more than an absurdity.
When I was in my college logic classes, my professor hated me for pointing out false premises. False premises have only one conclusion! False. The professor realized that I was right, even when the whole class was annoyed. I got an A+ for challenging the status quo, and being correct.
The biggest problem in our society today is that nobody is challenging the premises being put forth, and they spend their time arguing over things that are pointless.
"Something has to be done" is a false premise, arguing over which "something" needs to be done is false.
It isn't a valid question because the facts are wrong. That is nothing more than those stupid logic questions we used to get in logic class....
"If all cats are dogs, and all dogs are horses are all cats horses?"
Huh?
That isn't "logical" at all, because it doesn't include common sense or common knowledge. If you want to abstract things out, at least use fictional characters.
"Billy was born in 1973, Johnny died in 1960, was billy alive when Johnny died?"
Teaching people to ignore "truth" isn't logical. You see this all the time in Politics (GAHHHH, hold the election already! and vote for real change, vote third party)
Here's the problem, I wasn't born in 1973 so the question is negated right there, but the answer is still "no" (negated questions are always "no").
Additionally, JFK wasn't shot in 1961, it was 1963, so the question is negated twice.
I was born in 1964, but conceived about the time Kennedy was shot, so was I "alive" or not?
The correct answer to such a question is... The cake is a lie!
Now for the next question, there is again a level of ambiguity that is left to the imagination of the person answering. Is the five liter bottle filled with water already? Is it empty? Somewhere in between? What if the five liter bottle has holes in it?
Okay, I'm being slightly ridiculous, but you get the point. Having played with the Turing Test computers recently, they can't hold a conversation, because they don't hold onto previously answered questions, unless they've been programmed to.
The Turing Machines are very good at mimicking human like responses to questions, which means any form of captcha will eventually be added to a Turing type machine. It will always take a human to ferret out the robots, and even that won't be perfect.
Cue up BladeRunner to see where all this is going to go.
One of the first questions I asked it was to play a game. "Pick a number between one and ten"
the answer was "12"
Okay, I don't know a single "human" that would answer that way. I repeated the question a few different ways, it always answered 12.
Then I asked it to pick a number between one and five, it said "seven". One and three = five. Ah, I found a pattern.
Pick a number between one and one... was answered by a complete non-sequitor.
if you know how to ask several related questions in succession and link the first to the last at the end, it will also "fail", not remembering the chain, and losing context.
Debates would matter more, if they really were "debates" and not staged 1 minute answer, one minute reply. One of the better "debates" this year, was the format by Rick Warren.
It was interesting to see each candidate answer, from Obama's finely tuned nuanced answers to McCain's Straight forward, then explained answers.
I only wish they'd include third party's to show how close the (D) and (R) approaches really are to each other. They are almost indistinguishable which is why they are boring to tears.
The last debate, was horribly boring. I turned it off several times, only to turn it back on to see the slow train wreck which out country is heading towards.
I can't see why ANYONE would vote for EITHER of those two. Both have been in politics so long, that they've had their souls sucked out of them.
All I can say right now is "YUCK" and puke my guts out.
Right, because the SON of a CONGRESSMAN (D) hacking into accounts for POLITICAL GAIN isn't "bad" because it is a (D) CONGRESS person. If this had been flipped around 180 degrees, I bet it still would be (R) bad (D) good.
Partisan HACKS like your are idiots, because all you see is (R) bad (D) good.
I HATE our (USA) politics because it is run by stupid idiots, who think everyone is like them (ie stupid).
There is plenty of oversight and short sighted overlooking.
Oversight is what Board of Directors are for. They are the ones directly responsible for the various companies. THAT is their job. If a corporation is WILLFULLY committing fraud, they should be tossed in jail, and all their assets they have seized.
Look, there is plenty of blame to go around. Both (D) and (R) are to blame, neither side has clean hands. Only those that are blind can't see it. Greed of Wall Street, Greed in DC. There was even plenty of Greed on Main street. How many of you all played in the real estate market when it was hot? You are just as much to blame as anyone else!
Now everyone has to pay for this, including people like me, and I'm PISSED. I play by the rules of common sense, and I get screwed every time for it. I don't go into debt to buy things I cannot afford. I don't have brand new car every 3.5 years. I don't trade up my house every seven years. I don't take out HELOCs to cover my ass when shit hits the fan.
I don't want to pay for everyone elses mistakes anymore!
Slashdot Mirror
While this is fine by me, I fail to see how it is any more or less voluntary than income taxation. After all, no one forces you to have income; no income, no income tax.
Actually, it encourages efficiencies in the system. It simplifies accounting for government purposes.
Additionally, we shouldn't be taxing things that are actually "good" for society. Income is "good" for society. I don't have a problem taxing things (cars, gas, tobacco, drugs etc) that are deemed "not good".
Social security exists because historically, charities weren't enough to keep people from dying from hunger.
Social Security is neither. It just a long term ponzi scheme. They just leveraged the present to the future. The day is coming when it will break, and yet nobody is talking about when that happens. The collapse of Social Security is going to be ushered in on the coat tails of the current economic collapse. Just because it has worked for 60 years doesn't mean anything. It is broken at its core.
Then you aren't entitled to property either, since that is neither life, liberty nor pursuit of happiness, so why are you complaining about losing something you weren't entitled in the first place ?
I wasn't complaining. Stating what happened isn't a complaint. And you are right, property is not a right, or entitlement.
Freedom requires you to either have means to support yourself independent on anyone's opinion of you, or not care whether you live or die. If you are poor, and depend on voluntary charity, you are not free.
In a "Free" society, one that values "LIBERTY", a man is free without regard to property. Linking Property (rich/poor) to "freedom" and "Liberty" misses the point of both. By doing so, you've made a leap I haven't. How much "property" (how rich) must one have, to be free?
You see, the moment you open that can of worms, you've already stepped on the slippery slope (is it 5 million or 250,000?). And once on that slope, the definition can slide ANYWHERE along it, at the whim of the populace.
How is the disenfranchising the vote (check the context e.g. ACORN).
And I'm not a republican.
How about Obama's own words? Haven't you seen it? I'm taking Obama at his word. You saying I shouldn't?
I didn't say "no taxes", so that is a lie and mis characterization of anything I believe.
I also didn't say "no laws" either. Again, a lie and a mis-characterization of anything I believe.
And Somalia is no different than Washington DC now, the Robber Barons and thugs run things.
Paradise for me would be if everyone stayed out of MY business and my pocketbook. The moment you're interested in MY business, you give me permission to check everything about your business. And the moment you think you have rights to my pocketbook (see 5th Amendment), then I have rights to yours.
That is the problem with liberals, they want it applied to everyone ELSE.
Actually, it doesn't come down to two Mutually exclusive choices, those are your limitations.
Taxes, could be completely voluntary. Its just that it doesn't pay for all the entitlements people have come to enjoy.
Example? Transaction tax (not sales, transaction). Corporations are a government created entity, and as such could be required to collect, and submit transaction taxes as part of the corporate charter. This would eliminate the whole "income" tax, problems with "overseas" corporate headquarters and more. AND it would be completely open, free, and voluntary. No transactions, no taxes. Buy something, pay a tax. Sell something, pay a tax. Transfer wealth between shell corporations, pay a tax.
The problem with (D) and (R), is that they think they need to take from one, and give it to another, under the threat of a gun.
And I'm not entitled to anything, other than "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". LIVING in FREEDOM and pursuing happiness doesn't require ANYTHING from anyone else. NOTHING!
The moment you think it does, you've already under tyranny. You just don't realize it. The moment the mob and take what they want, from you, you are not "free".
I bet you protest all the stupid security crap under the guise of "national security", well, guess what, tyranny comes not as a thief, but as a government official saying "Hi, we're from the government, we're here to help".
I don't want the government to help protect me from things that don't exist. When ALL men are free, there is NOTHING to fear. Freedom doesn't require anything, from anyone except yourself.
Oh, and by the way, I know what it is to be "poor" and I know what it is to be "rich". Let me just say, for the record, both are lies. WEALTH doesn't equal freedom, as I've seen poor people who are more at liberty than rich people.
And last time I checked, there were no "serfs". People are slaves to the masters they've chosen for themselves.
"It's like Democrats cabal of wealthy kleptomaniacs."
Fixed that for you.
Two words .... "INCOME REDISTRIBUTION"
There is NO evidence that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise anyone (not that I'm a Republicrat), while there IS plenty of evidence that do-gooder liberals ARE trying to be Kleptomaniacs.
But I really love how you call actually making sure people are eligible to vote is equated with "disenfranchised".
You know what, if people can't bother to pick up an application, fill it out correctly, turn it in, go to the polls and vote, I DON'T FEEL sorry that they feel "disenfranchised", they did it to themselves.
And if people are too stupid to know when or how to vote, then I don't feel sorry for them either, when they don't vote. AND why are all the stupid people who can't figure stuff out, voting for Democrats? That is the real question, isn't it?
It is clear that it doesn't take brains to vote for Democrats, which is why Democrats all look stupid. And the Republicans aren't far behind, so all you beer swilling Nascar idiots better shut up now.
I'm sure glad I'm Libertarian.
Right, I'm a troll for calling income redistribution "stealing". Armed Robbery is more like it.
Tell me, what do you call taking what doesn't belong to you, under the guise of force, or threat of force?
The BIGGEST problem with Obama's stated goal of income redistribution is that it creates a sense of entitlement, the poor are ENTITLED to money, just because they don't have any.
Please tell me, where am I wrong? Don't just mod me "troll", tell me, what right anyone has to take from anyone else, just because they want something?
Tyranny of the mob isn't an excuse!
Um who are the "dumb" people, and for whom are they voting for ?
Be careful who you define as "dumb".
My guess is most of the uneducated, barely literate people are voting for Obama. It is easy to vote for someone who promises to steal from others to give you stuff you didn't earn for yourself.
Yes, INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is STEALING, and not a "Right". Taking from someone else, under threat, is evil, and that is something that Obama and McCain both don't understand.
And why I'm voting libertarian.
.... everything looks like a nail.
I predict a sudden rise in "emergencies"
"Diebold is that company whose name turns up on almost any news item related to voter fraud (and similar corruption) in the US"
You mean Diebold and ACORN are the same people????
"Validity means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true."
Right. And while everyone is checking the validity of the argument, nobody is checking the soundness. Which is why we get into certain messes which can be entirely avoided by asking questions OUTSIDE the box.
"Something has to be done, we're doing something, therefore it has to be done" is a good example of flawed premise.
I'm dealt flawed premises all the time, and am soundly ridiculed for questioning the premise (as I have here).
In the example I gave earlier with the cats, dogs, and horses, the whole premise is flawed AND the right answer is to NOT answer such a silly question. When the "IF" is wrong, there can be NO RIGHT ANSWER!
Part of LOGIC should be learning when a question is flawed in premise, not just deriving the "correct" answer from a flawed premise, which is nothing more than an absurdity.
When I was in my college logic classes, my professor hated me for pointing out false premises. False premises have only one conclusion! False. The professor realized that I was right, even when the whole class was annoyed. I got an A+ for challenging the status quo, and being correct.
The biggest problem in our society today is that nobody is challenging the premises being put forth, and they spend their time arguing over things that are pointless.
"Something has to be done" is a false premise, arguing over which "something" needs to be done is false.
.... I really suck at Halo!
Actually computers can be trained to ignore the truth. It just leads to entirely unstable results.
Just like Humans.
It isn't a valid question because the facts are wrong. That is nothing more than those stupid logic questions we used to get in logic class ....
"If all cats are dogs, and all dogs are horses are all cats horses?"
Huh?
That isn't "logical" at all, because it doesn't include common sense or common knowledge. If you want to abstract things out, at least use fictional characters.
"Billy was born in 1973, Johnny died in 1960, was billy alive when Johnny died?"
Teaching people to ignore "truth" isn't logical. You see this all the time in Politics (GAHHHH, hold the election already! and vote for real change, vote third party)
Here's the problem, I wasn't born in 1973 so the question is negated right there, but the answer is still "no" (negated questions are always "no").
Additionally, JFK wasn't shot in 1961, it was 1963, so the question is negated twice.
I was born in 1964, but conceived about the time Kennedy was shot, so was I "alive" or not?
The correct answer to such a question is ... The cake is a lie!
Now for the next question, there is again a level of ambiguity that is left to the imagination of the person answering. Is the five liter bottle filled with water already? Is it empty? Somewhere in between? What if the five liter bottle has holes in it?
Okay, I'm being slightly ridiculous, but you get the point. Having played with the Turing Test computers recently, they can't hold a conversation, because they don't hold onto previously answered questions, unless they've been programmed to.
The Turing Machines are very good at mimicking human like responses to questions, which means any form of captcha will eventually be added to a Turing type machine. It will always take a human to ferret out the robots, and even that won't be perfect.
Cue up BladeRunner to see where all this is going to go.
One of the first questions I asked it was to play a game. "Pick a number between one and ten"
the answer was "12"
Okay, I don't know a single "human" that would answer that way. I repeated the question a few different ways, it always answered 12.
Then I asked it to pick a number between one and five, it said "seven". One and three = five. Ah, I found a pattern.
Pick a number between one and one ... was answered by a complete non-sequitor.
if you know how to ask several related questions in succession and link the first to the last at the end, it will also "fail", not remembering the chain, and losing context.
Wooosh (n) Sound made when something flies over your head.
Dang, I wish I got mod points.
"And can we somehow take away their right vote?"
No. I'll bet that primarily they vote (D) and not (R). You must be an (R) to try to restrict voting like that.
Debates would matter more, if they really were "debates" and not staged 1 minute answer, one minute reply. One of the better "debates" this year, was the format by Rick Warren.
It was interesting to see each candidate answer, from Obama's finely tuned nuanced answers to McCain's Straight forward, then explained answers.
I only wish they'd include third party's to show how close the (D) and (R) approaches really are to each other. They are almost indistinguishable which is why they are boring to tears.
The last debate, was horribly boring. I turned it off several times, only to turn it back on to see the slow train wreck which out country is heading towards.
I can't see why ANYONE would vote for EITHER of those two. Both have been in politics so long, that they've had their souls sucked out of them.
All I can say right now is "YUCK" and puke my guts out.
Right, because the SON of a CONGRESSMAN (D) hacking into accounts for POLITICAL GAIN isn't "bad" because it is a (D) CONGRESS person. If this had been flipped around 180 degrees, I bet it still would be (R) bad (D) good.
Partisan HACKS like your are idiots, because all you see is (R) bad (D) good.
I HATE our (USA) politics because it is run by stupid idiots, who think everyone is like them (ie stupid).
Now we'll see the vim vs emacs flame war. GREAT! THANKS!
Forget that, I'm much rather play Mario Cow
AGGGHHHHH MY EYES!!!!!!
There is plenty of oversight and short sighted overlooking.
Oversight is what Board of Directors are for. They are the ones directly responsible for the various companies. THAT is their job. If a corporation is WILLFULLY committing fraud, they should be tossed in jail, and all their assets they have seized.
Look, there is plenty of blame to go around. Both (D) and (R) are to blame, neither side has clean hands. Only those that are blind can't see it. Greed of Wall Street, Greed in DC. There was even plenty of Greed on Main street. How many of you all played in the real estate market when it was hot? You are just as much to blame as anyone else!
Now everyone has to pay for this, including people like me, and I'm PISSED. I play by the rules of common sense, and I get screwed every time for it. I don't go into debt to buy things I cannot afford. I don't have brand new car every 3.5 years. I don't trade up my house every seven years. I don't take out HELOCs to cover my ass when shit hits the fan.
I don't want to pay for everyone elses mistakes anymore!