Why not a flat tax?

[Conquer or Die]

It seems like a flat tax is a more egalitarian way of accumulating money than either the sales tax or progressive income tax.

Commonly, this is put forth by libertarians and other anti-socialism type people, however, the ideas behind the flat tax are sound. It is easier, allows more transparency in both the government and the economy, and will provide a boost to the economy from the lower and middle class.

I could foresee a flat tax rate at about 30% for all income earners. This would increase the tax base from both the lower and the middle classes while decreasing the tax rate from the upper class.

Why I see the benefit:

1. Ending the sales tax: discriminatory specifically against the lower class and putting imminent domain in its proper role for public service. This is a hit against government and business exploitation.

2. Ends possible: by decreasing the tax rate for the rich it would hold support in those quarters without much of a fight.

3. Transparency: people would take a hit on their paychecks but any time a local, state, or federal government increases the tax base

4. End the false division between middle and lower class: There will be two classes, worker and owner.

5. End the poor bashing that occurs as a result of "not paying their fair share."

I see a socialistic society evolving from a flat tax rate that increases as services are more readily provided. In a couple hundred years a tax rate of 85% to 90% will be used to fund all basic services such as shelter, healthcare, basic transportation, education, research, food, water, police, fire, and all other services. The remaining income will essentially be used to provide for a choice of luxuries. I also see the major juxtaposition in such a society simply the difference between a government worker or an artisan/entertainer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I support reforms toward a more progressive tax system, but it wouldn't produce a socialist society or even a more egalitarian society - it would just make things a little easier for workers. In fact it wouldn't even ease the main problems workers face. Frankly what I am taxed is not my main difficulty in life economically, but it would be a reform in the right direction to get rid of all the tax shelters and tax-cuts for the rich and be able to use funds for education and so on.

All the budget cuts going on in California right now are basically making working class people pay more for services - it's a "backdoor tax". While lawmakers wanted to grant 1 billion in tax breaks for industry in CA, they were telling students and government workers "oops, we have no revenue, so we're going to have to raise fees and cut services". So by not raising taxes across the board (or better yet on the rich) workers have to make up for the tax shortfall through increased in public transportation fees, higher bridge tolls, more parking violation tickets, higher tuition (an increase of 32% in the UC system), less hours (and therefore less income) for state workers, and so on.

[Raightning]

There are several problems with your proposal. The most glaring of these is that you still accept capitalism as a system on which to base society; you are rejecting the idea that we can fundamentally change society instead of adapting it to some sort of socialist purpose. I suppose that's why we're in OI though, eh?

Let's start with the idea of taxation changing society. The entire idea of taxation is based on the idea that we can use it to justify the private ownership of the means of production. As with most things in a capitalist society, it is fundamentally unsound - the support for progressive taxation among radicals is based on the knowledge that we cannot simultaneously maintain capitalism and its trappings and build an equitable society, but at the least progressive taxation mildly reduces the burden on the working classes compared to a flat tax.

In the short term, your idea will lead to a worse deal for workers. They will pay significantly more for the same level of service from the capitalist state. In the long term, there are two main points to be made with regards to progressing to your endpoint - the first is that you are assuming the flat tax rate will just go on increasing, and the second is that you are assuming that your idealised situation cannot be reached by a steady change based on progressive taxation. Why would a flat tax be required in this circumstance?

The biggest issue, though, is quite simply you are portraying an unrealistic turn of events with your depiction of this future society as being possibly anything close to the socialist ideal. If the means of production are not owned collectively, and the bourgeoise as a class with economic power thus destroyed, the bourgeoise will remain in control. If the bourgeoise remain in control, they will enforce their interests. They will protect themselves from what you want to do. Either they will destroy your system, or they will turn it into a mockery of itself.

Let's say you have a 90% flat tax, and 10% for the purchase of luxuries by individuals. Let's also say you maintain the current order otherwise (and there is no way you will fundamentally change the order in your gradualist proposal). What do we have? The population are provided for in basic needs; yet, the millionaire capitalists take home as huge a share of luxuries proportionally as they would under any flat tax rate, because their proportionate income is unaltered. That is not socialism or communism; it is mere welfare capitalism.

What you suggest is in no way leftist. It is idealist liberalism.

[Comrade Anarchist]

How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force. The whole idea that taxes are "dues" is just plain stupid. Why should i have to pay dues to live in a society that im force to live in. I don't won't to live in a society with government so why should i have to pay dues to belong to that society.

[RGacky3]

How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force. The whole idea that taxes are "dues" is just plain stupid. Why should i have to pay dues to live in a society that im force to live in. I don't won't to live in a society with government so why should i have to pay dues to belong to that society.


Well the rest of us do, if you don't like it ... move, get a flight to somalia.

[RGacky3]

As far as taxing goes, to be honest the better way to go about it is to slowly cut taxes for the lowest bracket, for hte working class, while at the same time building up the public sector.

I am an Anarchist, but I would support something like that. A flat tax is rediculous. 30% from a guy that makes $15 an hour is a HUGE burdon, compared to someone that is making millions a year. Anyway, the rich can find ways to avoid taxes, the poor cannot.

[Comrade B]

30% of my family's income is 100% of some of my friend's incomes. I know a guy who's family makes $250,000 annually. A flat tax would either not produce enough tax money to give any government benefits, or it would take everything that some people have and leave them worse off than before.


How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force.
Ugh... I hate Friedman... it abandons all morals for the sake of "freedom", which is only fiscal. His writings are entirely based on the freedom-o-meter he keeps hidden up his ass. Apparently Fascist Spain or Italy were more free than Cuba.

The whole idea that taxes are "dues" is just plain stupid.
You are paying for your roads, schools, and everything else publicly owned. You benefit from them, someone has to

Why should i have to pay dues to live in a society that im force to live in.
Well... all fairness, you don't have to be living in that society.... or living...

I don't won't to live in a society with government so why should i have to pay dues to belong to that society.
Because you benefit from that government. If you live in a fascist government which works entirely against the peoples' interests, go for it, but here... I am pretty sure you have done one of the following in your life

1. Walked/ridden a bike/driven a car, on a road
2. Gone to a public school (probably)
3. If you have gone to university, had some financial aid
4. Needed some form of law enforcement to protect you from someone very angry at you
and a lot more

[Havet]

Because you benefit from that government. If you live in a fascist government which works entirely against the peoples' interests, go for it, but here... I am pretty sure you have done one of the following in your life

1. Walked/ridden a bike/driven a car, on a road
2. Gone to a public school (probably)
3. If you have gone to university, had some financial aid
4. Needed some form of law enforcement to protect you from someone very angry at you
and a lot more

That's the equivalent of saying workers should continue to remain exploited because they have benefited from some aspects of private businesses, of which they had no choice upon.

[Dr Mindbender]

How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force.

Do you like having fire engines and ambulances?

[Comrade B]

That's the equivalent of saying workers should continue to remain exploited because they have benefited from some aspects of private businesses, of which they had no choice upon.
Taxes are not the direct source of the people's exploitation, private businesses are. Also, the purpose of taxes is to provide for the people (at least under socialism), whereas businesses exist only to make a profit for themselves.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Well the rest of us do, if you don't like it ... move, get a flight to somalia.

Wow your must be thinking of statism when you say anarchism b/c you say you want to live in a world with governments and yet you call yourself an anarchist, now you know that your a statist and knowledge is power. And also somalia is not anarcho capitalist, it has no industry nor anybody trying to invest and create industry, and it isn't really anarchy considering that the warring militias take control of the country every other week creating horrific regimes.


Do you like having fire engines and ambulances?

Yes but only if i need them. Why should i have to pay for joe shmoo up the street to get an ambulance ride, he should get an insurer that covers that or he should be able to cover it himself. I'm not my brothers keeper and i wouldn't expect my brothers to be mine.


Now back to taxes, as i said before they are nothing more than a legal form of stealing. If you are mugged on the street and the mugger takes your money that is stealing, even if he gives you a a stick of gum in return. Governments using force to steal from workers and free market capitalists is evil even if they use that money to build shitty schools and shitty roads. You have earned the money you worked for, no one has the right to take it. You have the right to exchange that money for goods and services, but the government earns no money it only gets money by taxing and it in turn uses that money to nanny us and strengthen itself. A flat tax would never work b/c the percentage of income would have to be so low that the poorest worker could pay for it, and the progressive tax is nothing more than a punishment for doing well, whether your a worker with a good job or free market capitalist when the government takes from them it takes money away from the people who invest and create jobs.

[Havet]

Taxes are not the direct source of the people's exploitation, private businesses are.

So what? the analogy is still sound. If you like to use one-drop arguments, then either go all-in with them or fold.


Also, the purpose of taxes is to provide for the people (at least under socialism), whereas businesses exist only to make a profit for themselves.

How would businesses make profits if they did not (at least partially) provide for the people as well?

[Morgenstern]

Are we talking in a post-revolution society or in our current society? In my ideal society taxes would be impossible since currency as we know it will be changed. You can't tax labor credits.

[Comrade B]

Governments using force to steal from workers and free market capitalists is evil even if they use that money to build shitty schools and shitty roads.I prefer shitty ones to none.


Yes but only if i need them. Why should i have to pay for joe shmoo up the street to get an ambulance ride, he should get an insurer that covers that or he should be able to cover it himself. I'm not my brothers keeper and i wouldn't expect my brothers to be mine.Wow, you are a douche bag. I am not going to argue with you because you just sound like a greedy sociopathic douche there, and I don't think you can really argue with that kind of selfish disgusting mindset.


You seem to be under this wierd impression that tax is like a punishment... or that governments use it to floss their teeth or something... I would like to see you try to live in your anarcho-capitalist world. Without a government or community to protect one another, do you not see people at some point reforming the society we already have? Starting at slave states?




So what? the analogy is still sound. If you like to use one-drop arguments, then either go all-in with them or fold.I used a two drop argument. Businesses serve themselves, and the people as little as possible. Socialist governments serve the people as much as possible.


How would businesses make profits if they did not (at least partially) provide for the people as well? Their goal is to provide as little assistance (which is always a cost) to people as possible while making the largest profit possible.

[Morgenstern]

Wow your must be thinking of statism when you say anarchism b/c you say you want to live in a world with governments and yet you call yourself an anarchist, now you know that your a statist and knowledge is power. And also somalia is not anarcho capitalist, it has no industry nor anybody trying to invest and create industry, and it isn't really anarchy considering that the warring militias take control of the country every other week creating horrific regimes.



Yes but only if i need them. Why should i have to pay for joe shmoo up the street to get an ambulance ride, he should get an insurer that covers that or he should be able to cover it himself. I'm not my brothers keeper and i wouldn't expect my brothers to be mine.


Now back to taxes, as i said before they are nothing more than a legal form of stealing. If you are mugged on the street and the mugger takes your money that is stealing, even if he gives you a a stick of gum in return. Governments using force to steal from workers and free market capitalists is evil even if they use that money to build shitty schools and shitty roads. You have earned the money you worked for, no one has the right to take it. You have the right to exchange that money for goods and services, but the government earns no money it only gets money by taxing and it in turn uses that money to nanny us and strengthen itself. A flat tax would never work b/c the percentage of income would have to be so low that the poorest worker could pay for it, and the progressive tax is nothing more than a punishment for doing well, whether your a worker with a good job or free market capitalist when the government takes from them it takes money away from the people who invest and create jobs.

Your anarcho-capitalist idea will never work. A system built purely on self interest will destroy itself as everyone's interests will interfere with the good of the community.

[IcarusAngel]

The government and the people have every right to tax property owners since they are the ones allowing private property to exist and they are the ones protecting the private property.

[Bob George]

Hey! Flat tax is our idea, you can't steal it.

The best tax system would be one of no taxes. But as far as a tax system that is political feasible, I really like the Negative Income Tax. It appeases both sides well (that is, both sides of the mainstream. Not the fringe elements of the left and right like communists and fascists). It's a flat tax on all levels on income, supplemented by a guaranteed minimum income. So say the flat tax rate is 25% and the guaranteed minimum income is $10,000. Each year you would receive $10,000 from the government less 25% of your yearly income. So really, only those whose taxable income is more than $10,000 would pay taxes. Everybody under that threshold would receive some level of payment from the government. But only someone earning $0 a year, someone totally unemployed, would receive the full $10,000 minimum income.

It's a simple system. It's the same system for everybody. It doesn't really punish you for earning more money, because you will always pay the same tax rate no matter what. And it provides a reasonable and fair level of welfare for lower income earners and the unemployed. The only problem I can see would be those earning around about the amount where if you were to earn just few dollars less you could be paying no taxes and instead receiving a little bit of money from the government. But then again, it's still a sliding scale so even if you work a few hours less so that you are just under the threshold, it's not like you suddenly receive $10,000 when before you weren't receiving anything. You'd receive something like $100 a year (just $2 a week almost) if you came in just under the threshold. So to get anything substantial out of the system, you'd have to be earning a fair bit under the threshold. Working and getting paid that way is still more beneficial than not working and receiving a small payment from the govt even with a negative income tax in place.

[RGacky3]

Wow your must be thinking of statism when you say anarchism b/c you say you want to live in a world with governments and yet you call yourself an anarchist, now you know that your a statist and knowledge is power. And also somalia is not anarcho capitalist, it has no industry nor anybody trying to invest and create industry, and it isn't really anarchy considering that the warring militias take control of the country every other week creating horrific regimes.


I want to live in a world without unjustified power, that includes the state and Capitalists, and right now the Capitalists are the big unjustified power. I want the least amount of power possible over me, and right now Capitalists wield more than the state, much more, and the state is more accountable to the people than Capitalists are, so I'd prefer public ownership rather than Capitalist ownership.

As far as Somalia, the fact that it has no industry or anybody trying to invest has nothing to do iwth the system, as far as the warring militias? THATS WHAT TOTAL CAPITALISM IS!!!


Their goal is to provide as little assistance (which is always a cost) to people as possible while making the largest profit possible.

Not only that, but remember their goal is to get money, so obviously the needs and wants of those with lots of money take huge priority. INfact in todays world, the only reason the needs of the poor are mett is because of government intervention, in a free market not one would care about the poors needs at all, because they don't have market power.

[Dean]

How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force. The whole idea that taxes are "dues" is just plain stupid. Why should i have to pay dues to live in a society that im force to live in. I don't won't to live in a society with government so why should i have to pay dues to belong to that society.

Why should I have to work to live in a society with corporations?

Oh wait, the threat of starvation isn't coercion :laugh:

[Comrade Anarchist]

Your anarcho-capitalist idea will never work. A system built purely on self interest will destroy itself as everyone's interests will interfere with the good of the community.

So how does your collectivist society work? Everybody is a minority of one and holds an opinion that is generally different from others, so you say that anarcho-capitalism, which acknowledges that people are different and that they must voluntarily work together, won't work b/c our seperate interests will destroy us. Alright so in your world everyone thinks and acts the same? Has anybody here read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, he clearly points out early in the book that collectivism must be forced by totalitarian governments b/c not everybody will except it. So going by your logic your society won't function without a giant tyrannical government.


I want to live in a world without unjustified power, that includes the state and Capitalists, and right now the Capitalists are the big unjustified power. I want the least amount of power possible over me, and right now Capitalists wield more than the state, much more, and the state is more accountable to the people than Capitalists are, so I'd prefer public ownership rather than Capitalist ownership.

You won't to live in a world without unjustified power. That means anarchism so lets think this out here b/c your obviously confused. You don't want a government but your fine with tyrannical regimes forcefully taking away peoples property b/c you think it will help people. And guess what capitalists don't rule your lives, state capitalists do for the billionth time. They use the state to do away with competition and thus creating monopolies that compete with other monopolies aka corporations. You would rather have a panel or something telling you how many eggs you can have for breakfast, but you like to think that that is freedom, which is not freedom. You no longer have the freedom to own property and work according to how and what you want. So i guess it is freedom if you think freedom means being told what to do your whole life by oppressive regimes as long as your equal to me, and that these regimes overuse the phrase "common good".


As far as Somalia, the fact that it has no industry or anybody trying to invest has nothing to do iwth the system, as far as the warring militias? THATS WHAT TOTAL CAPITALISM IS!!!

Your retarded. Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit is distributed to the owners or invested in technologies and industries. Somalia is on the other hand a country where nobody works except for fighters for militias. There is no such thing as individualism in Somalia b/c they have despotic, oppressive, tyrannical rulers that rape, murder, and pillage the people. That sounds like a government of sorts not an economic system.


Why should I have to work to live in a society with corporations?

Wow you and me agree on something. I hate corporations they are state capitalists and modern day trusts. I don't like them at all and i see them as one of the biggest perverting ideas to free market capitalism. So maybe you should bash corporatism not capitalism.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Another thing how can you call yourselves friends of the workers when you sit here and want to tax them. Ill explain the glory of no taxes in something that even you all can understand,

No more taxes means the workers have more money at the end of the day, if you don't agree on that your really bad at math. Another thing, businesses have to raise prices to take into effect taxes, without taxes businesses would be able to lower prices.

So here is where it gets really simply good. Workers have more money, goods and services are now cheaper, so workers can afford more and better goods and services. TAADAA just rocked you'lls world.

[#FF0000]

Wow you and me agree on something. I hate corporations they are state capitalists and modern day trusts. I don't like them at all and i see them as one of the biggest perverting ideas to free market capitalism. So maybe you should bash corporatism not capitalism.

So, guy, this is something that has always bugged me with the whole anarcho-capitalism bit.

The state is bad, because it interferes with the free market, yeah? And when it does that, it gives certain other businesses a leg up, usually, leading to things like corporations, monopolies...etc.

But, uh, if the state is so good for the bourgeoisie, then why on earth would they want to get rid of it? And why wouldn't a bunch of companies just, you know, form a cartel, and how is that different from a state?

[Bud Struggle]

So, guy, this is something that has always bugged me with the whole anarcho-capitalism bit.

The state is bad, because it interferes with the free market, yeah? And when it does that, it gives certain other businesses a leg up, usually, leading to things like corporations, monopolies...etc.

But, uh, if the state is so good for the bourgeoisie, then why on earth would they want to get rid of it? And why wouldn't a bunch of companies just, you know, form a cartel, and how is that different from a state?

I'm a businessman and the state is good for me. Occasionally we may differ--BUT THE STATE WORKS FOR ME.

Just thought I might mention that fact.

[Dean]

Wow you and me agree on something. I hate corporations they are state capitalists and modern day trusts. I don't like them at all and i see them as one of the biggest perverting ideas to free market capitalism. So maybe you should bash corporatism not capitalism.

Well, the problem is that you have some fantasy that, without a state, coercion wouldn't come about.

That's incredibly absurd and it strikes me as the most naive pacifism I've ever heard. As far as companies are concerned, I could care less if they coerce people with the state or their own market shares.

Capitalism is precisely the reason why the state is being used against working class interests. So I will gladly bash capitalism.

[Conquer or Die]

No taxes means no coercion which means proletarian revolution. The ants will topple the "queen" and that will be that.

Libertarians favor taxes. The Reason magazine libertarian favors (of course) military spending, public roads, and large dams to be the result of their tax money. They will waffle on other things (such as being able to build a nuclear bomb in your backyard if you so choose and corporate welfare) but for the most part they understand the necessity of taxes. (Lockean propertarians need a government to protect property)

Please don't respond to comrade anarchist. He is a trool.

I think the flat tax will devalue many social norms associated with progressive income tax capitalism. I think these social norms will help to push back against many negative features in society.

[RGacky3]

You don't want a government but your fine with tyrannical regimes forcefully taking away peoples property b/c you think it will help people. And guess what capitalists don't rule your lives, state capitalists do for the billionth time.

THeres no difference bertween a State Capitalist and a Capitalist, essencially every Capitalist is a state Capitalist because they require State protection on their property.

I don't think in a socialist anarchist soceity you need a regime to take away Capitalist property, you just need to stop protecting it, the people will take what they need and control whats nessesary to their lives.


They use the state to do away with competition and thus creating monopolies that compete with other monopolies aka corporations.

Competition does away with competition, thats teh nature of competition, people win, the state is just one tool they might use, in my opinion the state is just as much a part of the market, an entity you can buy.


You would rather have a panel or something telling you how many eggs you can have for breakfast, but you like to think that that is freedom, which is not freedom.

What are you talking about? A panel telling my how many eggs I have for breakfast? Where in hell are you getting that?


You no longer have the freedom to own property and work according to how and what you want. So i guess it is freedom if you think freedom means being told what to do your whole life by oppressive regimes as long as your equal to me, and that these regimes overuse the phrase "common good".


Who said I won't be albe to work what I want? Who said I would'nt be able to enjoy the fuits of my labor, that rediculous. What communism means, is that when a desicion effects many people, all those people have equal say over it. Over what you want, which is the rich have the say.

also you forgot to respond to this

"Not only that, but remember their goal is to get money, so obviously the needs and wants of those with lots of money take huge priority. INfact in todays world, the only reason the needs of the poor are mett is because of government intervention, in a free market not one would care about the poors needs at all, because they don't have market power. "

[Dr Mindbender]

A,

No more taxes means the workers have more money at the end of the day, if you don't agree on that your really bad at math.

That would be true if workers were immune to illness but in reality it not agreeing to your above statement just means you've worked out the inevitability that they will have to pay exorbitant fees to private health care providers rather than paying a manageable tax so they know they'll be able to get treatment at point of demand regardless of the nature of the illness or injury.

What private health does it gives with one hand by not taxing and takes with the other when you get sick. Also god help you if are on minimum wage or unemployed when you get seriously sick because thats when they start demanding thousands, isn't it?

[Argument]

But, uh, if the state is so good for the bourgeoisie, then why on earth would they want to get rid of it?They won't. How many capitalists do you know that are anarchists or anarcho-capitalists? Anarchism would be very bad for the bourgeoisie. Anarcho-capitalism has one big, fatal flaw, though. It accepts land monopoly, absentee landlords. The absentee landlords might grow into new states, or they'll just exploit the farmers and people living on the lands.

As for flat tax, well... Taxes should of course be abolished. At the moment, a large portion of the taxes go to finance state monopoly capitalism. We pay taxes to the government can give subsidies to capitalists, privileges, so that they can regulate the market and prevent socialists alternatives, such as workers' cooperatives. As long as the state exist and is able to tax us, it will most likely be able to oppress us. To abolish capitalism, we need to abolish the state and intellectual property* and the land monopoly.

Now, flat tax would be a reform. Is it a good reform? Or not? Well... I'm not sure. If it turns out that flat taxes help workers, it's good. If it turns out that it doesn't, it's bad. Say that x is a unit that measures monetary gain by a flat tax. If the capitalists gain 5x and the workers 2x, then it's still good, because the workers benefit. If the capitalists gain 5x and the workers lose 2x, then it's bad. If the capitalists lose 5x and the workers gain 1x, it's good. As long as the workers (and the poor, the farmers, and, well, the people) gain from it, it's good. I'm not sure whether that's the case or not.

*I cannot say that I'm 100% sure that abolishing intellectual property is fully necessary to create a truly free society, but it needs at least to be reformed.

[Havet]

I used a two drop argument. Businesses serve themselves, and the people as little as possible. Socialist governments serve the people as much as possible.
Their goal is to provide as little assistance (which is always a cost) to people as possible while making the largest profit possible.

Ok, since you don't seem to be understanding my point, i'll make it clearer. Here's your initial post:


Because you benefit from that government. If you live in a fascist government which works entirely against the peoples' interests, go for it, but here... I am pretty sure you have done one of the following in your life

1. Walked/ridden a bike/driven a car, on a road
2. Gone to a public school (probably)
3. If you have gone to university, had some financial aid
4. Needed some form of law enforcement to protect you from someone very angry at you
and a lot more

I'm sorry to inform you that you also benefit from businesses. I am pretty sure you have done one of the following in your live (if not, then the majority of people surely will have):

1. Buy food from a private business
2. Buy clothing from a private business
3. Buy a service from a business (whether internet service, tv service or just transportation service, like a taxi)
4. Had some financial aid through means of a private credit loan
5. Buy insurance

Do you see the point i'm making? It is just as inevitable for people to use a public service as to use a private service. In capitalism we see a mixture of both, and we can't just point and shout that someone is being inconsistent, because alternatives are very rare and/or expensive.

You can't claim governments are legitimate simply because people use government services just as you can't claim businesses are legitimate because people use businesses services. There are good and bad arguments. Make sure you choose the good ones when arguing.

[Left-Reasoning]

They won't. How many capitalists do you know that are anarchists or anarcho-capitalists? Anarchism would be very bad for the bourgeoisie. Anarcho-capitalism has one big, fatal flaw, though. It accepts land monopoly, absentee landlords. The absentee landlords might grow into new states, or they'll just exploit the farmers and people living on the lands.

As for flat tax, well... Taxes should of course be abolished. At the moment, a large portion of the taxes go to finance state monopoly capitalism. We pay taxes to the government can give subsidies to capitalists, privileges, so that they can regulate the market and prevent socialists alternatives, such as workers' cooperatives. As long as the state exist and is able to tax us, it will most likely be able to oppress us. To abolish capitalism, we need to abolish the state and intellectual property* and the land monopoly.

Now, flat tax would be a reform. Is it a good reform? Or not? Well... I'm not sure. If it turns out that flat taxes help workers, it's good. If it turns out that it doesn't, it's bad. Say that x is a unit that measures monetary gain by a flat tax. If the capitalists gain 5x and the workers 2x, then it's still good, because the workers benefit. If the capitalists gain 5x and the workers lose 2x, then it's bad. If the capitalists lose 5x and the workers gain 1x, it's good. As long as the workers (and the poor, the farmers, and, well, the people) gain from it, it's good. I'm not sure whether that's the case or not.

*I cannot say that I'm 100% sure that abolishing intellectual property is fully necessary to create a truly free society, but it needs at least to be reformed.

The above is a most wonderful post.

Except Intellectual Property absolutely must be abolished, not merely reformed. Just as all physical property that gives rise to exploitation should be abolished.

[AerodynamicOwl]

Do you like having fire engines and ambulances?


Imagine that every tax dollar that came from the rich simply vanished into thin air. What would fund the basic things that make a community grow. Water, Power, Sewers, Police, Firemen. without the basic things like roads and airports, an economy would be strangled, capitalist or socialist. you cant leave things like this to the free market. They'd do what the state did, but it would be for their benefit.

[Argument]

Except Intellectual Property absolutely must be abolished, not merely reformed. Just as all physical property that gives rise to exploitation should be abolished.I think it should be, but I'm not sure it has to be fully abolished for a society to be free. Say you have an anarchist society with a copyright of three years, that might still work, although I'd prefer no copyright whatsoever.

[A.R.Amistad]

A flat tax is a regressive tax, so really there is no such thing because the poorer classes need all that they can get, whilst the upper class has so much at its disposal.

[The Ben G]

How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force. The whole idea that taxes are "dues" is just plain stupid. Why should i have to pay dues to live in a society that im force to live in. I don't won't to live in a society with government so why should i have to pay dues to belong to that society.

Because, Taxes are money that keep the Police, School System, Fire Department, etc. running. I think that there should be less police, but the other things are a necessity. Of course, you are to ignorant to understand such a thing.

[The Ben G]

A flat tax is a terrible idea. The poor would be to highly taxed and the rich would be taxed to little.

[Left-Reasoning]

We should raise taxes on the capitalists and lower taxes on the working class until such a time as we can abolish capitalism.

[LeftSideDown]

We should raise taxes on the capitalists and lower taxes on the working class until such a time as we can abolish capitalism.

If you were a real communist you'd advocate the opposite. You must bring about the productive forces so that the workers must band together against their mutual oppression and raise up against their capitalist overlords!

[Left-Reasoning]

If you were a real communist you'd advocate the opposite.

Some communists support growing the inner contradictions of capitalism so as to speed up the inevitable revolution. I am not one of them. Nor am I a communist.

"Communism is the ideal of the past; mutualism, of the future." - William Greene

[Rusty Shackleford]

How bout no taxes. Taxes are legal stealing. They are taken from people by means of threat of force and use of force. The whole idea that taxes are "dues" is just plain stupid. Why should i have to pay dues to live in a society that im force to live in. I don't won't to live in a society with government so why should i have to pay dues to belong to that society.


How about no profit. Extracting surplus value is legal stealing. Profit is taken from workers by means of threat of force/job loss and use of force/firing. The whole idea that the profit motive is "just" is just plain stupid. Why should i willingly get exploited just to stay alive in a society that im forced to live in. I dont want to live in a society with exploitation so why should i have to be exploited for the benefit of the few in that society?


FIXED.

[LeftSideDown]

How about no profit. Extracting surplus value is legal stealing. Profit is taken from workers by means of threat of force/job loss and use of force/firing. The whole idea that the profit motive is "just" is just plain stupid. Why should i willingly get exploited just to stay alive in a society that im forced to live in. I dont want to live in a society with exploitation so why should i have to be exploited for the benefit of the few in that society?


FIXED.

You don't have to work in a factory or a store any place. If you think you can be more productive by not working in these places you are free to. If you recognize, however, that because of wise investments brought about by real savings into capital that produces goods that consumers demand you can be more productive and have a higher standard of living then the choice to remain within society is clear.

If I have an axe that I crafted, but I'm paraplegic so I can't use it to cut down trees, and I rent it to you so that you can cut down trees (previously you had no axe and could cut down no trees), is it wrong for me to demand part of the proceeds of your increased productivity (i.e. part of the tree)? Without me you wouldn't be productive, and without you I couldn't employ the axe. But its wrong to say you deserve 100% of the tree you knocked down, just like its wrong for me to say that I deserve 100%. The market determines what percentage of your productivity is due to you and due to the capitalists whose machinery has increased your productivity. There is no arbitrary way of deciding that the axe cut down 3/5ths of the tree and your labor 2/5th's, or whatever. It can only be determined by a market of free individuals, each with their individual interests at heart, trying to get the best value for their labor as possible and by a market of individuals, each with their individual interests at heart, trying to get the best value for their capital as possible.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You don't have to work in a factory or a store any place. If you think you can be more productive by not working in these places you are free to. If you recognize, however, that because of wise investments brought about by real savings into capital that produces goods that consumers demand you can be more productive and have a higher standard of living then the choice to remain within society is clear.

If I have an axe that I crafted, but I'm paraplegic so I can't use it to cut down trees, and I rent it to you so that you can cut down trees (previously you had no axe and could cut down no trees), is it wrong for me to demand part of the proceeds of your increased productivity (i.e. part of the tree)? Without me you wouldn't be productive, and without you I couldn't employ the axe. But its wrong to say you deserve 100% of the tree you knocked down, just like its wrong for me to say that I deserve 100%. The market determines what percentage of your productivity is due to you and due to the capitalists whose machinery has increased your productivity. There is no arbitrary way of deciding that the axe cut down 3/5ths of the tree and your labor 2/5th's, or whatever. It can only be determined by a market of free individuals, each with their individual interests at heart, trying to get the best value for their labor as possible and by a market of individuals, each with their individual interests at heart, trying to get the best value for their capital as possible.

you missed my point. im not saying i dont want to work, i say i dont want to be exploited, meaning i dont want to work on someone elses peoperty for their benefit. now, if i and all my fellow co-workers controlled the capital(or any sort) collectively, there is no real exploitation for a minority.

just because property/capital is not privately controlled does not mean that an economy cant function.

[LeftSideDown]

you missed my point. im not saying i dont want to work, i say i dont want to be exploited, meaning i dont want to work on someone elses peoperty for their benefit. now, if i and all my fellow co-workers controlled the capital(or any sort) collectively, there is no real exploitation for a minority.

just because property/capital is not privately controlled does not mean that an economy cant function.

You cannot be exploited in any voluntary transaction, you can in involuntary ones. Having to provide for yourself to live doesn't not make the transaction of labor involuntary, only preferable to others. You missed my point that you can't know what is your due in a situation where the productivity that capital provides is such that you can't know your productivity without capital or that your productivity is so low as to be negligible. Is the lumberjack being exploited by the person who lends him the axe, or are they in a mutually beneficial relationship (assuming that at least some of the proceeds of the interaction go to both parties)?

[Conquer or Die]

You don't have to work in a factory or a store any place. If you think you can be more productive by not working in these places you are free to. If you recognize, however, that because of wise investments brought about by real savings into capital that produces goods that consumers demand you can be more productive and have a higher standard of living then the choice to remain within society is clear.

If I have an axe that I crafted, but I'm paraplegic so I can't use it to cut down trees, and I rent it to you so that you can cut down trees (previously you had no axe and could cut down no trees), is it wrong for me to demand part of the proceeds of your increased productivity (i.e. part of the tree)? Without me you wouldn't be productive, and without you I couldn't employ the axe. But its wrong to say you deserve 100% of the tree you knocked down, just like its wrong for me to say that I deserve 100%. The market determines what percentage of your productivity is due to you and due to the capitalists whose machinery has increased your productivity. There is no arbitrary way of deciding that the axe cut down 3/5ths of the tree and your labor 2/5th's, or whatever. It can only be determined by a market of free individuals, each with their individual interests at heart, trying to get the best value for their labor as possible and by a market of individuals, each with their individual interests at heart, trying to get the best value for their capital as possible.

This is incredibly flawed. For one, your need to have property to rent out in order to survive is based on you being disabled in a certain way. I'd assume this would mean that certain people can't do certain tasks while others can do those tasks (otherwise known as specialization) but you're assuming that the disabled person can't do anything else productive besides simply own property beforehand. The crippled person can do other work, and if not, then he can be on welfare. His owning property and selling it can be an example of an administrative task, however, this task is not equivalent to increased proceeds or special benefits.

The reality of the property system is that a majority of the hard labor goes unrewarded. Most socioeconomic situations are limiting to people. The American system is especially meritocratic, but it's moreso nepotistic and at times conniving. For most people in most industries, the "top tier" is littered with people with a combination of these traits. For the rest of us, there is a very simple path that confines us in our entertainment, work-related, and spiritual options. The desire to reach a higher stage of pleasure and recognition is the apple that motivates and demotivates one in a life of mediocrity.

Your private means of production are nothing without a labor force. The labor force will always be there. Why shouldn't the labor force be given the dictatorial powers?

[RGacky3]

You missed my point that you can't know what is your due in a situation where the productivity that capital provides is such that you can't know your productivity without capital or that your productivity is so low as to be negligible. Is the lumberjack being exploited by the person who lends him the axe, or are they in a mutually beneficial relationship (assuming that at least some of the proceeds of the interaction go to both parties)?

If the lumber jack has to pay rent to cut in a forest that is owned by a guy that just claims to own it, than yeah, if the ax was built by someone who could'nt afford the tools to build it and thus had to work for a guy who had'nt built an as in his life but could afford the tools, and then that ax was rented to the lumberjack, who could have just used it from the actual ax maker, but because of capitalism could not, then yeah, they are both being exploited.

[LeftSideDown]

This is incredibly flawed. For one, your need to have property to rent out in order to survive is based on you being disabled in a certain way. I'd assume this would mean that certain people can't do certain tasks while others can do those tasks (otherwise known as specialization) but you're assuming that the disabled person can't do anything else productive besides simply own property beforehand. The crippled person can do other work, and if not, then he can be on welfare. His owning property and selling it can be an example of an administrative task, however, this task is not equivalent to increased proceeds or special benefits.

If you read my quote I said that "I crafted". So he has something productive, i.e. he can make axes. He made an axe, but he can't chop down trees, so he rents out an axe to a lumberjack who can cut down trees but lacks the axe that would allow him to do this. Doesn't the axe crafter deserve part of the benefits? According to you, since the lumberjack did the work (chopping down the tree) LTV says he should get all the tree. Don't worry about the fact he couldn't have done this (or been as productive as the axe allows him) without the axe maker. The axe maker is a filthy exploiter capitalist and more than likely should be shot.


The reality of the property system is that a majority of the hard labor goes unrewarded. Most socioeconomic situations are limiting to people. The American system is especially meritocratic, but it's moreso nepotistic and at times conniving. For most people in most industries, the "top tier" is littered with people with a combination of these traits. For the rest of us, there is a very simple path that confines us in our entertainment, work-related, and spiritual options. The desire to reach a higher stage of pleasure and recognition is the apple that motivates and demotivates one in a life of mediocrity.

The majority of "hard" labor is also unskilled labor. It must follow the laws of supply and demand like anything else.


Your private means of production are nothing without a labor force. The labor force will always be there. Why shouldn't the labor force be given the dictatorial powers?

The labor force is essentially nothing without means of production. Oh sure you can go back to subsistence farming, but I'm sure even you can recognize that recognition of private property and protections given to this institution were a substantial factor in the coming about of the industrial revolution.

[LeftSideDown]

If the lumber jack has to pay rent to cut in a forest that is owned by a guy that just claims to own it, than yeah, if the ax was built by someone who could'nt afford the tools to build it and thus had to work for a guy who had'nt built an as in his life but could afford the tools, and then that ax was rented to the lumberjack, who could have just used it from the actual ax maker, but because of capitalism could not, then yeah, they are both being exploited.

I didn't mention any of this. I said I crafted the axe, but I'm paraplegic and thus cannot cut trees. You are a lumberjack without an axe thus you cannot cut trees. I lend you my axe (lets say the forest is not owned by anyone, it will be a "tragedy of the commons" in the future, but for now its lush and green) in return for some percentage of the lumber for the tree to use for my own benefit. Is there any exploitation? Or just mutual gain?

[anticap]

Why not a flat tax?

Because profit is theft (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm).

Ideally, the victims of the theft (workers) ought not be taxed at all (any amount of taxation on exploited workers amounts to a double theft); whereas the thieves (capitalists) ought to be taxed at a rate of 100% and all their stolen loot be returned in the form of social services for the working class.

But since this would effectively abolish capitalism (because capitalists would no longer find reason to act as such), and since we're taking capitalism for granted here, the most attractive alternative to the above ideal would be a progressive tax system that extracts only a token amount from the working class (just enough to silence any possible claims that they're not contributing), while hammering the exploiting class at a punishingly steep rate (the maximum at which they will still find life in their present country -- which was so kindly built for them by the working class -- more appealing than in, say, Somalia).

The least attractive alternative is the so-called "flat tax" [sic], which is actually a regressive tax, since the poorer you are the more you'll feel the pinch.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't mention any of this. I said I crafted the axe, but I'm paraplegic and thus cannot cut trees. You are a lumberjack without an axe thus you cannot cut trees. I lend you my axe (lets say the forest is not owned by anyone, it will be a "tragedy of the commons" in the future, but for now its lush and green) in return for some percentage of the lumber for the tree to use for my own benefit. Is there any exploitation? Or just mutual gain?

Wow, you just tried to justify the existing social and economic relations on the basis of a hypothetical axe crafter, a lumberjack, and a forest which is NOT owned by anyone.
If I should entertain your analogy further, let me make some adjustments to it.
Let's say that the axe-maker also own the forest (which is in fact in correlation with the existing conditions - entrepreneurs own the enterprise, as well as the materials which are being processed into a commodity which is afterwards sold on the market). The lumberjack "owns" (if we talk about capitalism, we talk about a model of ownership and decision-making power) only his skill and his two hands. Now, why would the axe-maker be entitled to a recompense for lending the axe, as well as a recompense in wood since he owns the forest? (this amounts to the extraction of surplus value).

In other words, your analogy is completely useless in a discussion regarding capitalism.

[LeftSideDown]

Wow, you just tried to justify the existing social and economic relations on the basis of a hypothetical axe crafter, a lumberjack, and a forest which is NOT owned by anyone.
If I should entertain your analogy further, let me make some adjustments to it.
Let's say that the axe-maker also own the forest (which is in fact in correlation with the existing conditions - entrepreneurs own the enterprise, as well as the materials which are being processed into a commodity which is afterwards sold on the market). The lumberjack "owns" (if we talk about capitalism, we talk about a model of ownership and decision-making power) only his skill and his two hands. Now, why would the axe-maker be entitled to a recompense for lending the axe, as well as a recompense in wood since he owns the forest? (this amounts to the extraction of surplus value).

In other words, your analogy is completely useless in a discussion regarding capitalism.

Okay, lets pretend I'm not describing capitalism. Does the axe-maker have the right to renumeration from the lumberjack in the situation I described?

[Thirsty Crow]

He does indeed, but we don't need to pretend that you're not describing capitalism since you are CLEARLY not, at least through this analogy.

[RGacky3]

I didn't mention any of this. I said I crafted the axe, but I'm paraplegic and thus cannot cut trees. You are a lumberjack without an axe thus you cannot cut trees. I lend you my axe (lets say the forest is not owned by anyone, it will be a "tragedy of the commons" in the future, but for now its lush and green) in return for some percentage of the lumber for the tree to use for my own benefit. Is there any exploitation? Or just mutual gain?

In that situation I would'nt consider that exploitation, now then, whats your point, because in a situation with enforced property rights and a market, that is'nt the way things work.

[Rusty Shackleford]

there is this argument a teabagger once used to explain and justify profit. a lemonade stand. i must have had a brain fart to realize what the teabagger was explaining was NOT capitalism but more like artisanry. one cannot exploit themself

[LeftSideDown]

In that situation I would'nt consider that exploitation, now then, whats your point, because in a situation with enforced property rights and a market, that is'nt the way things work.

Alright. Lets make the situation more capitalistic, shall we? Lets say the paraplegic used to chop trees and a tree fell on him (this is what caused him to be a paraplegic). Luckily he had savings and, because he didn't want to die, he looked for something to invest in. He found someone who was selling an axe and he "invested" in this means of production. Is it still okay for him to rent it out to laborers.

[RGacky3]

Alright. Lets make the situation more capitalistic, shall we? Lets say the paraplegic used to chop trees and a tree fell on him (this is what caused him to be a paraplegic). Luckily he had savings and, because he didn't want to die, he looked for something to invest in. He found someone who was selling an axe and he "invested" in this means of production. Is it still okay for him to rent it out to laborers.

Do you really want to have this conversation? You are getting in ot the absurd here.

Capitalist society: He could'nt invest because he would need his savings to live off until he died

Socialist society: He's be taken care of by the society, and there would be no property, so if he had no use for his ax so other people could use it for free, but also he would be taken care off for free, from each according to his ability to each according to his need.

Your just becomming absurd here, this has nothing to do with the real world.

[LeftSideDown]

Do you really want to have this conversation? You are getting in ot the absurd here.

Capitalist society: He could'nt invest because he would need his savings to live off until he died

Nooo, his savings were under his mattress but he wanted to invest in something so he could live off the dividends. It was not enough to live off for the rest of his life, but enough so that he could invest in something that would give him sufficient returns to live.

[Endomorphian]

I'd prefer no tax.

[Dermezel]

Cuz it's fucked up to poor people.

[Dermezel]

I'd prefer no tax.

Then leave. You ever go to a public school? Use the fire department? Use a public library? Use food stamps? Social Security? Medicare? Greenbacks? Police or military to keep you safe? Go to a public park, use public roads, use public subsidized energy and waste disposal?

Then STFU.

[LeftSideDown]

Then leave. You ever go to a public school? Use the fire department? Use a public library? Use food stamps? Social Security? Medicare? Greenbacks? Police or military to keep you safe? Go to a public park, use public roads, use public subsidized energy and waste disposal?

Then STFU.

Would you think it okay if a bread company forced you to pay for its bread and then gave you bread that was shitty and you could've bought a lot better bread for less money? Would you tell this person to STFU if they stated they'd rather not be forced to pay for bread, or at least not this particular bread?

[Dermezel]

Would you think it okay if a bread company forced you to pay for its bread and then gave you bread that was shitty

What kind of question is that? Why do you even ask that? You know you are being biased. That is like asking "Would you sleep with a Prostitute who had AIDS?" and then argue against legalizing prostitution.

No, I want to vote on and debate about how the bread company works and want free speech so we can analyze it's production. So we [i]don't[i] get shitty bread. Just like I want a Prostitute funded by the State (like Babylon's ) to be clean by law.

[LeftSideDown]

What kind of question is that? Why do you even ask that? You know you are being biased. That is like asking "Would you sleep with a Prostitute who had AIDS?" and then argue against legalizing prostitution.

No, I want to vote on and debate about how the bread company works and want free speech so we can analyze it's production. So we [i]don't[i] get shitty bread. Just like I want a Prostitute funded by the State (like Babylon's ) to be clean by law.

How about this. Would it be okay if a bread company forced you to pay for its bread, and the bread was pretty amazing? Would you tell someone who didn't want to eat bread to "STFU"?

[Dermezel]

How about this. Would it be okay if a bread company forced you to pay for its bread, and the bread was pretty amazing? Would you tell someone who didn't want to eat bread to "STFU"?

Yeah. You used to be able to live off bread, and you can't now because companies put so many chemicals in it, the bread turns into "sugar" as soon as it enters your mouth. It isn't even technically bread anymore. They do this because of economic deformity inherit in the capitalist system. The capitalist system is based on the Labor Theory of Value (a deformed economy that makes sick people work harder for medicine) and so they put in more chemicals in food to raise the cost of production and charge more. Is it rational? No, it makes the food more expensive and less healthy. But it raises cost of production, and they can claim it as intellectual property.

That is why experts suggest when you buy groceries, you buy cheaper items and shop at the edge areas of stores. Cheaper items = less chemicals (usually) and they are usually sold at the edge of stores because the stores put more items in areas you are more likely to walk through.

I wouldn't force them to eat the bread. I wouldn't tie them up and hold their nose and shove bread in their mouth. That's retarded. Like I wouldn't force someone to eat good Sushi, even though Dragon Rolls are my favorite food.

But someone complaining about everyone being able to eat Sushi-- plz, oh plz, just STFU.

[LeftSideDown]

Yeah. You used to be able to live off bread, and you can't now because companies put so many chemicals in it, the bread turns into "sugar" as soon as it enters your mouth. It isn't even technically bread anymore. They do this because of economic deformity inherit in the capitalist system. The capitalist system is based on the Labor Theory of Value (a deformed economy that makes sick people work harder for medicine) and so they put in more chemicals in food to raise the cost of production and charge more. Is it rational? No, it makes the food more expensive and less healthy. But it raises cost of production, and they can claim it as intellectual property.

That is why experts suggest when you buy groceries, you buy cheaper items and shop at the edge areas of stores. Cheaper items = less chemicals (usually) and they are usually sold at the edge of stores because the stores put more items in areas you are more likely to walk through.

I wouldn't force them to eat the bread. I wouldn't tie them up and hold their nose and shove bread in their mouth. That's retarded. Like I wouldn't force someone to eat good Sushi, even though Dragon Rolls are my favorite food.

But someone complaining about everyone being able to eat Sushi-- plz, oh plz, just STFU.

You're ignoring my point completely. It is wrong to force anyone to pay for anything. Taxes pay for those things, yes. But it is wrong to force people to pay for them, especially if they don't want them.

[Dermezel]

You're ignoring my point completely. It is wrong to force anyone to pay for anything.

Army? CDC? Public Parks?

No matter what it is "wrong" to force someone to pay for things? Child Support?

[LeftSideDown]

Army? CDC? Public Parks?

No matter what it is "wrong" to force someone to pay for things? Child Support?

Yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to make you buy cars, buy clothes, or buy security. If you do not want these things and do not use them, why should you have to pay?

Child support is different, since those who have to pay for child support are those that have contributed to the creation of the child, and as such have an obligation to give financial aid (in our society) to the cause of raising it even if they do not have a parental role.

[Dermezel]

Yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to make you buy cars, buy clothes, or buy security.

Always wrong? No matter what?

If the whole world was in danger, and by making 1 person take a vaccine, because otherwise a deadly disease would spread, would it be wrong to do it?


Child support is different,

You just said it was always wrong.

Also, why is it wrong for society to force something but not Nature?

[LeftSideDown]

Always wrong? No matter what?

If the whole world was in danger, and by making 1 person take a vaccine, because otherwise a deadly disease would spread, would it be wrong to do it?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.


You just said it was always wrong.

Also, why is it wrong for society to force something but not Nature?

It is not the same. One is contractual (there is an agreement to pay) the other is not.

[Dermezel]

It is not the same. One is contractual (there is an agreement to pay) the other is not.

So someone born deformed and cannot support his or her self- he or she should just be left to the elements?

[Endomorphian]

Then leave. You ever go to a public school? Use the fire department? Use a public library? Use food stamps? Social Security? Medicare? Greenbacks? Police or military to keep you safe? Go to a public park, use public roads, use public subsidized energy and waste disposal?

Then STFU.

That's akin to arguing that workers should simply leave their site of employment and get over their ordeals. If I could be excluded from the tax lists and only pay into those systems I supported or used, I would.

Mutual aid societies began sprouting up en masse at the end of the 19th century in the US to combat the ill effects of poverty while promoting the act of self-ownership. These organizations were, in fact, instrumental in empowering the newly liberated black community by poviding relief to the elderly and a basic education to the youth. I'm a little perplexed by the fact some socialists here fantasize about authoritarian manifestations of the state.

[Jazzratt]

You're ignoring my point completely. It is wrong to force anyone to pay for anything.

Only in your demented mind where having loads of dosh means more than anything else.

[RGacky3]

Child support is different, since those who have to pay for child support are those that have contributed to the creation of the child, and as such have an obligation to give financial aid (in our society) to the cause of raising it even if they do not have a parental role.

That makes no sense, they had sex, they did'nt agree to make a child, why should they have to pay? They have no responsiblity unless they want it.


Yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to make you buy cars, buy clothes, or buy security. If you do not want these things and do not use them, why should you have to pay?

Because the Market leaves out tons and tons of stuff that society needs.

[Endomorphian]

That makes no sense, they had sex, they did'nt agree to make a child, why should they have to pay? They have no responsiblity unless they want it.



Do you not find it strange that you are excusing the mother and father of financial burdens while simultaneously arguing that people who were never involved in the process should pay? If you shift the burden of responcibility away from those who make the decision to act, it just encourages said action.

If the woman was raped, it should be the responcibility of the rapist to provide the money required for an abortion. If he can't afford the procedure, he should be 'forced' to work until the sum of his payment is completed.

[RGacky3]

Do you not find it strange that you are excusing the mother and father of financial burdens while simultaneously arguing that people who were never involved in the process should pay?

Thats not what I'm arguing at all. I'm taking leftsidesdown argument and applying it to parenthood.

That being said, I am against abortion, however, with abortion as an option, there is no logical reason for child support, whether or not a baby is born is entirely the womans option and thus her responsibility, whether the father wants to be a part of it is also HIS option.

[Endomorphian]

I'm of a different opinion, but I think this entire debate has been muddled down thanks to how we dissociate money from one's labor by the use of fiat, subsidies, taxes, etc. It would be more appropriate to ask whether or not someone should be forced to be accountable for the weflare of another person, and in what situations - because ultimately it's impossible for someone to be the caregiver to everyone in need. A real estate agent in Peru, for example, can't have a direct legal obligation to a disabled child in New York. That's inefficient, unfair, and exhausting.

For example the RL guidelines explicitly argue that unrestricted users should support "free abortion." What does this mean? If money is symbolic of what one person values of another's contributions, we need to develop a reasonable justification for taking money as an incentive for rights rather than an actual guarantee. I don't think anyone here would argue that you be legally obligated to help a woman directly (in office) with her abortion, but "free abortion" doesn't clarify. If no one is willing to perform an abortion surgery, it ceases to be "free." Rather "free abortion" is an opinion that enough incentive should be provided.

I think Georgists probably have the best answer to this dilemma: valuation of commodities begins with resources. Since humans don't create land, taxing it to help others who would be financially better off if they possessed that portion of land is sanctionable. The LVT and ecotaxes seem to me to be the most justified expression of "free services."

[LeftSideDown]

That makes no sense, they had sex, they did'nt agree to make a child, why should they have to pay? They have no responsiblity unless they want it.

I'm assuming they did agree or else they would've worn protection.


Because the Market leaves out tons and tons of stuff that society needs.

So stealing is okay if you think it will go towards "societal needs"? Yeah, this war in the Middle East is meeting so many needs.

[LeftSideDown]

Only in your demented mind where having loads of dosh means more than anything else.

Only in your demented mind where you think that you know who needs how much money can you justify theft.

[LeftSideDown]

So someone born deformed and cannot support his or her self- he or she should just be left to the elements?

Essentially. However, more than likely he has a family (he was born...) who will pay for his existence. If they (the family) die there are almost 1 million charities (and these exist even though taxation reduces ones inducement to give to charity), and some that exist for the sole purpose of providing for the infirm.

[Endomorphian]

The belief mandates must be made to encourage people to help one another is rather pessimistic. Fraternal/mutual societies marshaled tremendous amounts of resources for the betterment of minorities, women, children, and men on a variety of issues until the New Deal. Yes, the welfare stated has alloted more resources, but it does so with more liabilities and mutual aid societies were operating a time that the states were literally using their services to support corporations. Party bosses stuffed the ballot box and then contracted with their buddies over who got prime real estate.

A tax on income when we want to immaculate labor is counterintuitive.

[RGacky3]

I'm assuming they did agree or else they would've worn protection.

People have sex not wearing protection without wanting a child. If a mother can have an abortion, its entirely her responsibility if the child is born.


So stealing is okay if you think it will go towards "societal needs"? Yeah, this war in the Middle East is meeting so many needs.

Yes it is. But that aside, property IS theft.

Also who said anything about the war in the middle east, leftists are almost entirely against that war.

But blackwater and haliburton are not, and if it was'nt for the US government, they would find a way to get that oil anyway.

[LeftSideDown]

People have sex not wearing protection without wanting a child. If a mother can have an abortion, its entirely her responsibility if the child is born.

Child support laws are different for every single state, so I'm not sure if this is true. It is definitely not true if they were married, but I believe some states require child support even if there was only a relationship and sometimes even if there was no child support.


Yes it is. But that aside, property IS theft.

I don't think me controlling my body is theft (who am I denying?), but you are allowed to believe what you like. I would just submit that unless you want to be guilty of performative contradiction you should, perhaps, turn all your stuff over to the police since it has been stolen.


Also who said anything about the war in the middle east, leftists are almost entirely against that war.

You said taxes go to meet societal needs, and I attempted to refute this by bringing up the war on Terror. Whose need is the meeting? The need of imperialists? Come now, your taxes go to support this so one can oppose taxes and be for societal improvements. If you had all your money YOU could choose whether you gave money to a soup kitchen or a military industrial complex.

[RGacky3]

Child support laws are different for every single state, so I'm not sure if this is true. It is definitely not true if they were married, but I believe some states require child support even if there was only a relationship and sometimes even if there was no child support.

So what?


I don't think me controlling my body is theft (who am I denying?), but you are allowed to believe what you like. I would just submit that unless you want to be guilty of performative contradiction you should, perhaps, turn all your stuff over to the police since it has been stolen.


Your body is'nt property.
As for your second point, thats cute, I suggest you stop paying taxes as you are contributing to the death of thousands.


You said taxes go to meet societal needs, and I attempted to refute this by bringing up the war on Terror. Whose need is the meeting? The need of imperialists? Come now, your taxes go to support this so one can oppose taxes and be for societal improvements. If you had all your money YOU could choose whether you gave money to a soup kitchen or a military industrial complex.

I'm saying when the government is a funtioning democracy they follow societal needs, more so than the market does. You seem to froget that the war in Iraq was essencially a corporate endevour contracted out to the US government.

As far as if I had all my money? I'm not really that rich, so I don't think I could contribute that much to either, but the people that COULD choose have absolutely no accountability to the public, the government does. I have a say over the government (slightly), I have no say over the richest people.

[Endomorphian]

You seem to froget that the war in Iraq was essencially a corporate endevour contracted out to the US government.Blaming the Iraq War on markets makes as much sense as blaming democracy for the current mess in Washington. I don't think there's anyone here who believes a collusion between business and the state is beneficial, so let's put this straw man aside lest we we want counterfeit assertions of the Soviet Union demonstrating "evil communism" to be false. Both sides are guilty of these stupid shenanigans where they debate semantics instead of substance.


I'm saying when the government is a funtioning democracy they follow societal needs, more so than the market does. Markets appeal to the same population in segmented bits. Instead of a one size fits all solution, it allows room for more diverse representation. This is not an anti-leftist postulation: the Black Panthers were a security force that competed directly with corrupt police agencies around the country.