Flat tax is as bad as fair tax and both are theft no matter how flat or fair.
Explain.
Flat tax is as bad as fair tax and both are theft no matter how flat or fair.
Explain.
Explain.
I think he just did.
I'm fine with some government, though they do always tend to creep don't they?
My biggest problem with our current tax system isn't how much we pay, it's that not one of us has any idea what we're actually paying and it facilitates corruption. If you think you know what you pay in taxes, tell me how much tax is in a loaf of bread. Don't forget to count the farmers property taxes, fuel taxes, employment taxes, all of his suppliers taxes, all of the taxes paid by everyone else from farm to shelf....
Food, such as a loaf of bread, is tax exempt in Indiana.
Indeed, I do.You operate under the premise that government is necessary and has the moral authority to enact social control.
Indeed, I do.
The opposite assertion is anarchy and no social order whatsoever.
In an Hegelian dialectic kind of way, by combining the 2 premises, we end up with the government we deserve.
Well, if you count "might makes right" as social order, then you're right.Anarchy neither implies nor requires 'no social order'.
Explain.
How is what we have now not "might makes right"?Well, if you count "might makes right" as social order, then you're right.
IMHO, anarchy is a political vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum and some sort of governance evolves (regardless of moral authority) that imposes or codifies some sort of social order.
My avatar should clear up your confusion. Taxation is theft by another name.
I am against any form of tax reform that is revenue neutral. I am for any tax reform that reduces revenue.
Food, such as a loaf of bread, is tax exempt in Indiana.
And I know plenty about taxes. I have operated a small business in this state for over 20 years. I employ multiple people currently with an annual payroll expense of well over a million dollars.
with a 10 or 12 percent flat tax across the board we would most likely have more money....considering companies like GE made billions and paid millions to accountants to avoid paying any taxes.
How can I prove a negative?How is what we have now not "might makes right"?
Maybe it was poorly worded. All I was doing was pointing out your assumption that what we have now is not 'might makes right'. What happens when the government violates the constitution? Since the government gets to be the sole interpreter of the constitution it interprets whatever violations it is guilty of as being constitutional. That is at least the historical answer. Sure there are some few examples of rollback but two steps forward one step back is still going forward.How can I prove a negative?
What evidence do you have that our social order reflects a "might makes right" sense of authority?
I do still believe that, in a representative democracy like ours, it is elections that are more important that arms ("arms" as in firearms). Sure, my party didn't win "the big one" but it remains a marketplace of ideas, IMHO.
I've run into the voluntaryists before. As unrealistic and ignorant (as in ignoring, not unknowing) of reality as the socialists and their version of utopia.
EDIT: I'd argue you already have voluntary anyway. You are here voluntarily, and as such have agreed to abide by the norms and mores and laws of the society. If you are free to leave, it is voluntary.
Well, if you look narrowly at gun rights issues (which I think is probably in the forefront for many of us), there was a time when guns were registered, ammunition was rationed and tracked, and people were perfectly content with it. Even here in Indiana, there was a time when people were legally forbidden from carrying firearms when traveling (although that was basically a prohibition on people who "weren't from around here").Maybe it was poorly worded. All I was doing was pointing out your assumption that what we have now is not 'might makes right'. What happens when the government violates the constitution? Since the government gets to be the sole interpreter of the constitution it interprets whatever violations it is guilty of as being constitutional. That is at least the historical answer. Sure there are some few examples of rollback but two steps forward one step back is still going forward.
I dont imagine many around here would agree that obamacare is 'good stuff'.Well, if you look narrowly at gun rights issues (which I think is probably in the forefront for many of us), there was a time when guns were registered, ammunition was rationed and tracked, and people were perfectly content with it. Even here in Indiana, there was a time when people were legally forbidden from carrying firearms when traveling (although that was basically a prohibition on people who "weren't from around here").
We are far more "free" now than we were then, on that issue.
I do understand what you are getting at. But, the basic system that was set up (back when there were significantly more restrictions on firearms ownership) still basically work. The US Supreme Court is now establishing the personal right to bear arms, and more good stuff is coming from that branch of the gov't.
So, I think we remain in good shape. But, to be sure, we must be ever vigilant. (Not necessarily vigilant(e).)