Ok, Alfonso. I have to admit I have no better understanding of your position then before. Why don't you list what you feel are the 5 most important things government can do to provide this so-called equality. You can list however many you want I just figure 5 should suffice. Then we can debate them one by one and see if these things would really be bringing equality to society or just oppressing a different group of people, the rich instead of the poor.
CAPITALISM: I used to think the Republican side was clearly better...
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
alfonso:Oh, so now "more rational government" means "in line with what our founders created".
alfonso:Well, since you brought it up, can you PROVE that what your founders created is the MOST rational form of government? Can you deduce it? Without requiring me to accept axioms?
THAT is what I was getting at.
Sorry alfonso... not gong to take your bait.
As I said earlier:
I'm not here to argue for objectivism, but I will be happy
to show that your position is irrational.
I'm here to argue for a more rational government, in line
with what our founders created
Also, asking anyone to prove anything without relying on
axioms (such as "I exist") is simply idiotic. It's impossible
to prove ANYTHING without relying on some axioms.
Why would you ask such a foolish question?
alfonso:So, while you may be correct in a constitutional sense, that is not what I was asking from you.
Red Herring... we are discussing the USA on this thread.
I could care less about your socialistic nonsense.
axe:"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."[/b]
alfonso:Hmm, "without due process of law" huh? So if high estate taxes become legal, where is the constitutional hangup?
It's still there. Are you making the false assumption
that ALL laws in the united states are constitutional?
Don't think so.
alfonso:So as not to get sidetracked too much, remember that you called my high estate tax proposal "irrational". Now, please, do as I asked you, and deduce for me what is "rational" government or deduce for me what is the "rational" purpose for government.
axe: As stated before, it's clearly written in our constitution.
You may throw as many Red Herrings at me as you wish, but
you will not derail this thread.
Within our constitutional context, high estate taxes are
acquiring individuals property without just compensation.
alfonso:If you will not or cannot do so, then please be willing to withdraw your statement about my proposal being irrational, and admit that it is valid competitor in the marketplace of ideas, albeit one that you yourself do not much care for.
I will not withdraw it.
Your proposal is irrational within the context of this thread
which you are attempting to change.
alfonso:Actually, you called me a "diehard" socialist.
Now, I can't stop you from calling me anything. But please be aware that what I stand for is quite different from what "socialist" has traditionally, as according to (important) people like Marx and Lenin, actually meant.
According to hyperdictionary:
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's
theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those
also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however,
is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by
economists and learned critics.
So obviously you hold no monopoly on the definition.
You are hard core when it comes to wealth distribution.
This is the central theme to socialism.
Call yourself whatever you want, but your end goal is the
same end goal as socialism.
alfonso:Being pro business and pro property rights (as I define them) is in no way "contradictory" to capitalism.
As YOU define them. That is correct. However, as most people
define them, you cannot claim property rights when the wealthy
have the MAJORITY of their income re-distributed.
Pro-business people also do not believe in high taxation.
alfonso:"Capitalism" is not some sharply defined system which can only function with all its (alleged) parts intact, so that if you removed one the whole thing would come crashing down. My vision is a different form of capitalism (as is yours compared to Switzerland, for eg), but it's not in anyway "contradictory", that is quite absurd.
Well then... give us YOUR precise definition of capitalism, and
we will see just how capitalistic it really is.
alfonso:Yes, the same as before. You bring in the constitution.
But what I am asking you to do is to prove, deductively, that a man has a right -- an undeniable, inalienable right -- to his personal property. Can you do this? Or wouldn't it be much more correct to simply say that humans have learnt, or invented, the concept of personal property? And as such, what it means is alterable, to suit our tastes?
Another Red Herring.
If you wish to debate the nature of property rights, start
another thread and I will respond there.
It is a GIVEN that we have property rights by law in the USA.
alfonso:What is the difference between "real high" and the current estate tax levels you already have? If mine are unconstitutional then so are the current ones. (But good luck arguing that in court.)
I agree. People are trying to repeal them.
They need to be challenged.
alfonso:And no, I do believe in property rights, but limited property rights. Is that too much for you to accept?
Is that sorta like a limited right to vote? Sorta like being
a black man a long time ago?
What exactly do "limited property rights" mean?
Define it.
If they mean that the government has the right to violate
the 5th amendment and steal my property without just
compensation, then YES, its too much for me to accept.
alfonso:Of course, you didn't show why it was irrational, you merely referred me to your constitution and claimed I was in violation of it.
The constitution is all I need, since we are discussing the USA
system of government and it DEFINES our system of government.
Again... if you wish to discuss the nature of property rights
and rights in general, start a different thread.
alfonso:And again, that definition of socialist you use is yours alone. It is not what people -- people that know -- mean by the word socialist, in a political context.
And as hyperdictionary made clear, your definition, is yours alone
as well. One thing everyone can agree upon, is that your
ideas ARE socialistic.
alfonso:"Absurd" and "irrational" howls axeman. And why? Because he doesn't like it. That's about as subjective as you can get.
No. Because the constitution guarantees this explicitly.
Nothing subjective about that at all.
alfonso:And again, you are referring to your law. So I remind you that it is your law that I am suggesting needs to be changed.
You haven't given a single logical reason why this should happen.
alfonso:So the current progressive tax rate scheme you currently have is "illegal" then, is it?
Of course not. So there would be no problem at all applying higher estate taxes to some than others.
I'm all for a flat tax
WHY should a high wage earner pay 50% and a low wage
earner pay 10%? Aren't percentages enough so that the
more you make the more you pay?
Seems fair enough. But NO. We must have a bracketed system,
where the more you make, the higher percentage you pay as well.
This is unfair, and although our government historically
takes and takes, it was not always this way, the bracketed
tax system did not always exist.
I would love to see it ruled illegal. But it won't happen,
we are already too socialistic as it is now.
alfonso:No, not "magically". Legally. And not just because alfonso said so either; I do believe in democracy, after all.
This is a republic. Screw democracy. Our founders
rejected democracy for good reason.
axe:I see.... so here you admit that your world view is simply
based on EMOTIONS instead of logic and reason!
Wonderful... I think you just fully conceded the debate.
alfonso:Lmao!
So is yours. Hahaha! Axe, for a smart guy, I can't believe that you don't recognise this!
You have not proven my argument is based on emotions.
Nothing but an empty assertion.
However, we have proven, through your OWN admission
thats yours is!
peace
axeman
alfonso:Well, since you brought it up, can you PROVE that what your founders created is the MOST rational form of government? Can you deduce it? Without requiring me to accept axioms?
THAT is what I was getting at.
Sorry alfonso... not gong to take your bait.
As I said earlier:
I'm not here to argue for objectivism, but I will be happy
to show that your position is irrational.
I'm here to argue for a more rational government, in line
with what our founders created
Also, asking anyone to prove anything without relying on
axioms (such as "I exist") is simply idiotic. It's impossible
to prove ANYTHING without relying on some axioms.
Why would you ask such a foolish question?
alfonso:So, while you may be correct in a constitutional sense, that is not what I was asking from you.
Red Herring... we are discussing the USA on this thread.
I could care less about your socialistic nonsense.
axe:"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."[/b]
alfonso:Hmm, "without due process of law" huh? So if high estate taxes become legal, where is the constitutional hangup?
It's still there. Are you making the false assumption
that ALL laws in the united states are constitutional?
Don't think so.
alfonso:So as not to get sidetracked too much, remember that you called my high estate tax proposal "irrational". Now, please, do as I asked you, and deduce for me what is "rational" government or deduce for me what is the "rational" purpose for government.
axe: As stated before, it's clearly written in our constitution.
You may throw as many Red Herrings at me as you wish, but
you will not derail this thread.
Within our constitutional context, high estate taxes are
acquiring individuals property without just compensation.
alfonso:If you will not or cannot do so, then please be willing to withdraw your statement about my proposal being irrational, and admit that it is valid competitor in the marketplace of ideas, albeit one that you yourself do not much care for.
I will not withdraw it.
Your proposal is irrational within the context of this thread
which you are attempting to change.
alfonso:Actually, you called me a "diehard" socialist.
Now, I can't stop you from calling me anything. But please be aware that what I stand for is quite different from what "socialist" has traditionally, as according to (important) people like Marx and Lenin, actually meant.
According to hyperdictionary:
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's
theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those
also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however,
is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by
economists and learned critics.
So obviously you hold no monopoly on the definition.
You are hard core when it comes to wealth distribution.
This is the central theme to socialism.
Call yourself whatever you want, but your end goal is the
same end goal as socialism.
alfonso:Being pro business and pro property rights (as I define them) is in no way "contradictory" to capitalism.
As YOU define them. That is correct. However, as most people
define them, you cannot claim property rights when the wealthy
have the MAJORITY of their income re-distributed.
Pro-business people also do not believe in high taxation.
alfonso:"Capitalism" is not some sharply defined system which can only function with all its (alleged) parts intact, so that if you removed one the whole thing would come crashing down. My vision is a different form of capitalism (as is yours compared to Switzerland, for eg), but it's not in anyway "contradictory", that is quite absurd.
Well then... give us YOUR precise definition of capitalism, and
we will see just how capitalistic it really is.
alfonso:Yes, the same as before. You bring in the constitution.
But what I am asking you to do is to prove, deductively, that a man has a right -- an undeniable, inalienable right -- to his personal property. Can you do this? Or wouldn't it be much more correct to simply say that humans have learnt, or invented, the concept of personal property? And as such, what it means is alterable, to suit our tastes?
Another Red Herring.
If you wish to debate the nature of property rights, start
another thread and I will respond there.
It is a GIVEN that we have property rights by law in the USA.
alfonso:What is the difference between "real high" and the current estate tax levels you already have? If mine are unconstitutional then so are the current ones. (But good luck arguing that in court.)
I agree. People are trying to repeal them.
They need to be challenged.
alfonso:And no, I do believe in property rights, but limited property rights. Is that too much for you to accept?
Is that sorta like a limited right to vote? Sorta like being
a black man a long time ago?
What exactly do "limited property rights" mean?
Define it.
If they mean that the government has the right to violate
the 5th amendment and steal my property without just
compensation, then YES, its too much for me to accept.
alfonso:Of course, you didn't show why it was irrational, you merely referred me to your constitution and claimed I was in violation of it.
The constitution is all I need, since we are discussing the USA
system of government and it DEFINES our system of government.
Again... if you wish to discuss the nature of property rights
and rights in general, start a different thread.
alfonso:And again, that definition of socialist you use is yours alone. It is not what people -- people that know -- mean by the word socialist, in a political context.
And as hyperdictionary made clear, your definition, is yours alone
as well. One thing everyone can agree upon, is that your
ideas ARE socialistic.
alfonso:"Absurd" and "irrational" howls axeman. And why? Because he doesn't like it. That's about as subjective as you can get.
No. Because the constitution guarantees this explicitly.
Nothing subjective about that at all.
alfonso:And again, you are referring to your law. So I remind you that it is your law that I am suggesting needs to be changed.
You haven't given a single logical reason why this should happen.
alfonso:So the current progressive tax rate scheme you currently have is "illegal" then, is it?
Of course not. So there would be no problem at all applying higher estate taxes to some than others.
I'm all for a flat tax
WHY should a high wage earner pay 50% and a low wage
earner pay 10%? Aren't percentages enough so that the
more you make the more you pay?
Seems fair enough. But NO. We must have a bracketed system,
where the more you make, the higher percentage you pay as well.
This is unfair, and although our government historically
takes and takes, it was not always this way, the bracketed
tax system did not always exist.
I would love to see it ruled illegal. But it won't happen,
we are already too socialistic as it is now.
alfonso:No, not "magically". Legally. And not just because alfonso said so either; I do believe in democracy, after all.
This is a republic. Screw democracy. Our founders
rejected democracy for good reason.
axe:I see.... so here you admit that your world view is simply
based on EMOTIONS instead of logic and reason!
Wonderful... I think you just fully conceded the debate.
alfonso:Lmao!
So is yours. Hahaha! Axe, for a smart guy, I can't believe that you don't recognise this!
You have not proven my argument is based on emotions.
Nothing but an empty assertion.
However, we have proven, through your OWN admission
thats yours is!
peace
axeman
Don't worry... I already have the government taking
half of everything I earn, the last thing I need is
MORE leeches taking an unearned portion of my
trading profits
Don't fear... your perfectly safe from me raising your trading income. LOL!
peace
axeman
half of everything I earn, the last thing I need is
MORE leeches taking an unearned portion of my
trading profits
Don't fear... your perfectly safe from me raising your trading income.
LOL!peace
axeman
Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:
Throw in the viper, we are moving in tomorrow
Promise to keep axeman away and we'll bring the dogs over
Quote from axeman:
Don't worry... I already have the government taking
half of everything I earn, the last thing I need is
MORE leeches taking an unearned portion of my
trading profits
Don't fear... your perfectly safe from me raising your trading income.
peace
axeman
all bullshit aside, I honestly hate paying taxes only to see my $$$ getting misappropriated I'm with you on this bro
screw the *&#$% bloodsucking leachesresinate,
a rational objectivist governing body would champion achievement, creativity, and the individual. there would be no more FORCED taxation.
the Church or religious organizations would care for the less fortunate and those unable to make it without government help. this is the ONLY proper function for the Church and it has been sorely neglected over the years, since the government has WRONGLY taken its place.
best,
surfer
if you don't mind sharing, exactly what is your political, economic philosophy ??
thanks,
surfer
thanks,
surfer
Quote from marketsurfer:
if you don't mind sharing, exactly what is your political, economic philosophy ??
thanks,
surfer
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, perhaps?