NHS: The best reason to dump Obamacare!

[Seth]

None of you socialists have ever been able to morally or ethically justify socialism. Not ever. Most of you don't even try because you know that Marxism cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, so you engage Alinskyism to dodge and evade the fundamental question, which is "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

Care to give it a bash?

Well I'm not a socialist, but I'll give it a bash.

They don't. You live in a society in which people don't arrive at your door with machine guns and force you into involuntary servitude or seize the fruits of your labours. That just doesn't happen.

Oh yea? Then why do IRS agents carry guns, and why do they have federal tactical teams to back them up when they raid someone's house to arrest them for tax evasion?

Resist paying taxes long enough and vigorously enough and the IRS will have you executed without a trial. That's a fact all over the world, including the UK and NZ.

And the force is always there as a threat to coerce me into involuntary servitude and surrender the fruits of my labor to pay for some socialist fuckwitted dependent class leech who wants to smoke crack and make babies on someone else's dime.

Just ask Wesley Snipes what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes. You can reach him C/O the federal prison system. And you can bet your ass that if he'd resisted arrest vigorously enough the guys with machine guns would have killed him.

So, you're wrong. Try again.

[Jason]

I do hope he refrains from using the roads and highways others have built when he goes to purchase his bullets.

Well I meant pay for the bullets that kill him, since he doesn't like being a dependent class leech.

My mistake.

..it must have seemed I was expecting him to be the one who bought and fired the bullets that killed him.

[Seth]

I do hope he refrains from using the roads and highways others have built when he goes to purchase his bullets.

Taxes aren't theft when he gets to use them.

Taxes to pay for what I use by way of public amenities and resources are not theft, they are merely the cost of using such public infrastructure, and I pay for what I use and always have, which includes never taking a dime of government money in my entire life by way of grants, subsidies or assistance payments. Every dime I've ever gotten from government has been earned.

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever. It's pure socialist redistribution of the fruits of one man's labor to the needs of another person whom the laborer has no moral, ethical or legal duty to support.

That's a distinction that I always make and you always ignore, which makes your comments mendacious pettifoggery and dissimulation.

[pErvinalia]

None of you socialists have ever been able to morally or ethically justify socialism. Not ever. Most of you don't even try because you know that Marxism cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, so you engage Alinskyism to dodge and evade the fundamental question, which is "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

Care to give it a bash?

Well I'm not a socialist, but I'll give it a bash.

They don't. You live in a society in which people don't arrive at your door with machine guns and force you into involuntary servitude or seize the fruits of your labours. That just doesn't happen.

Oh yea? Then why do IRS agents carry guns, and why do they have federal tactical teams to back them up when they raid someone's house to arrest them for tax evasion?

Because you are a gun obsessed and gun-owning population. That's what you get. In the sane world, like the UK, Australia, NZ etc, they don't carry guns and have no need to carry guns.

Resist paying taxes long enough and vigorously enough and the IRS will have you executed without a trial. That's a fact all over the world, including the UK and NZ.

And the force is always there as a threat to coerce me into involuntary servitude and surrender the fruits of my labor to pay for some socialist fuckwitted dependent class leech who wants to smoke crack and make babies on someone else's dime.

Yeah, and there's so many people who actually dole bludge aren't there? As usual, you frothing conservatives focus all your whining outrage on the poorest in society and barely bother with the real leaches of society, the corporate welfare recipients and tax dodgers. It's all old testament morals down to the bottom with conservatives. We should ship you all off to a religious theocracy where you can all be happy.

[Seth]

I've done it a million times before, Seth. You don't listen to a word that is said. You are an ideologue with your mind made up, and nothing is going to change it. You think you are surrounded by Marxists, yet have absolutely no idea what a Marxist actually is.

Liar. You've never done it even once. You've studiously evaded the core issue for years now. And I know what a Marxist is, and what a Marxist useful idiot is, and you're one.

[pErvinalia]

I do hope he refrains from using the roads and highways others have built when he goes to purchase his bullets.

Taxes aren't theft when he gets to use them.

Taxes to pay for what I use by way of public amenities and resources are not theft, they are merely the cost of using such public infrastructure, and I pay for what I use and always have, which includes never taking a dime of government money in my entire life by way of grants, subsidies or assistance payments. Every dime I've ever gotten from government has been earned.

Oh really. And how do you pay for the roads you use in other government localities? (fuck, I don't know why I am bothering doing this. I know exactly what your answer is going to be (and I've just pm'd Fuku with the answer), and we've had this stupid debate a million times before).

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever. It's pure socialist redistribution of the fruits of one man's labor to the needs of another person whom the laborer has no moral, ethical or legal duty to support.

That's a distinction that I always make and you always ignore, which makes your comments mendacious pettifoggery and dissimulation.

I don't ignore it. I point out to you that there is a thing called a "social contract". At which point you disingenuously ask to see it, or show you where your signature has been applied. I then call that argument shit, like it is, and you then bleat on about teh Marxists.

[Seth]

None of you socialists have ever been able to morally or ethically justify socialism. Not ever. Most of you don't even try because you know that Marxism cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, so you engage Alinskyism to dodge and evade the fundamental question, which is "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

Care to give it a bash?

Well I'm not a socialist, but I'll give it a bash.

They don't. You live in a society in which people don't arrive at your door with machine guns and force you into involuntary servitude or seize the fruits of your labours. That just doesn't happen.

Oh yea? Then why do IRS agents carry guns, and why do they have federal tactical teams to back them up when they raid someone's house to arrest them for tax evasion?

Because you are a gun obsessed and gun-owning population. That's what you get. In the sane world, like the UK, Australia, NZ etc, they don't carry guns and have no need to carry guns.

Betcha they do when they are going out to arrest a "tax protester." I betcha they have highly trained tactical squads dedicated to such raids. If they don't they are bigger idiots than I thought they were.

Resist paying taxes long enough and vigorously enough and the IRS will have you executed without a trial. That's a fact all over the world, including the UK and NZ.

Yup, that's what happens when the machine-gun bullets hit you in the diaphram.

And the force is always there as a threat to coerce me into involuntary servitude and surrender the fruits of my labor to pay for some socialist fuckwitted dependent class leech who wants to smoke crack and make babies on someone else's dime.

Yeah, and there's so many people who actually dole bludge aren't there?

EVERYBODY on the dole "bludges." The "dole" is compulsory, force-backed and intimidation-facilitated enslavement and redistribution of property and from one person to another by the government. That's immoral and unethical.

As usual, you frothing conservatives focus all your whining outrage on the poorest in society and barely bother with the real leaches of society, the corporate welfare recipients and tax dodgers. It's all old testament morals down to the bottom with conservatives. We should ship you all off to a religious theocracy where you can all be happy.

I have no quibble with "corporate welfare recipients" being cut off, it's as much income redistribution as individual welfare, and as for tax dodgers, it depends on which taxes and why they dodge them.

And it has nothing whatever to do with the poor. I contribute far more to the poor than the government does on my "behalf", and I do it voluntarily, and put it where it counts, which doesn't include the pockets of federal bureaucrats and minions who skim half right off the top.

This is about the use of the Mace of State and the naked force of government to steal and enslave people to the political will of whomever is in charge in Washington. Sorry, I don't work for them and I'm not going to give them a dime more than I actually owe for what I actually use.

[pErvinalia]

I've done it a million times before, Seth. You don't listen to a word that is said. You are an ideologue with your mind made up, and nothing is going to change it. You think you are surrounded by Marxists, yet have absolutely no idea what a Marxist actually is.

Liar. You've never done it even once. You've studiously evaded the core issue for years now. And I know what a Marxist is, and what a Marxist useful idiot is, and you're one.

Seth, half the rd.net political forums are filled up with me and 914 and Aunty (PaulG), 95Theses, Snow leopard (Alnilam), fact-man, mr Jonno (before he became unhinged) and others addressing this very point.

[Jason]

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever.

Your phrasing is pretty vague, but I think you do have a point here. Paying taxes toward something which is obviously to the benefit of the community, such as roads, is not obviously comparable to paying taxes which are directed to other persons in your community. In the case of the latter, it is indeed a transfer of property without the explicit consent of the person property is being transferred from which is unethical at best. The representative and publicly elected government is presuming consent on the part of the electorate when they develop the taxation system of America and everytime they enforce it.

It could be argued that this transfer of wealth is to the benefit of society as a whole, including yourself, which is what you'd call "Marxist". A simple cost-benefit analysis will prove this, given present statistics. So you are, in fact, recieving back more than you pay. It's hard to see when all you're presented with are taxes with no visible return, but analysis shows you'd be spending/losing more income if this policy was not enacted.

This is why they really ought to make economics its own subject in all levels of education.

[Seth]

I do hope he refrains from using the roads and highways others have built when he goes to purchase his bullets.

Taxes aren't theft when he gets to use them.

Taxes to pay for what I use by way of public amenities and resources are not theft, they are merely the cost of using such public infrastructure, and I pay for what I use and always have, which includes never taking a dime of government money in my entire life by way of grants, subsidies or assistance payments. Every dime I've ever gotten from government has been earned.

Oh really. And how do you pay for the roads you use in other government localities? (fuck, I don't know why I am bothering doing this. I know exactly what your answer is going to be (and I've just pm'd Fuku with the answer), and we've had this stupid debate a million times before).

And you never, ever pay attention to the answers I give, which is why you go on acting like an idiot. How do I pay for the roads I use? Through taxes. I pay gasoline taxes in "other government localities" and I pay highway tolls when and where I choose to do so if they are sought.

I deliberately choose the Kansas Turnpike for example because it is a well-maintained highway that gets me where I'm going for about seven bux maximum. I even sometimes use the E-470 toll road around Denver, which is PRIVATELY OWNED, even though it costs about $18 bux for the whole route, which is less than half the length of the Kansas Turnpike. But if I don't feel like using it, I suck it up and fight the traffic on I-25, which I pay for in various ways.

If the government of another state wants me to pay for my use of their roads, then they can collect a toll from me, and I won't even complain...so long as they tell me up front how much I have to pay so I can decide if I want to avoid that state. But if they don't, then I'm entitled to use the highway without further charge. And if its a federally-subsidized highway, I pay for that use through various vehicle-related ownership, use and commodity taxes like gas tax, tire tax, etc..

And since I DO NOT use the highways in many states, including federal highways, why should I be compelled to pay for them? I'm fine with paying for them if and when I use them, but not otherwise.

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever. It's pure socialist redistribution of the fruits of one man's labor to the needs of another person whom the laborer has no moral, ethical or legal duty to support.

That's a distinction that I always make and you always ignore, which makes your comments mendacious pettifoggery and dissimulation.

I don't ignore it.

Yes you do.

I point out to you that there is a thing called a "social contract". At which point you disingenuously ask to see it, or show you where your signature has been applied.

Indeed, and you've never once been able to show it to me.

And, the rebuttal you make is nothing more than a fallacious resort to common practice. "Why is it okay to do it that way? Well, it's because that's the way we do it." Intellectually juvenile evasion of the fundamental question that I asked, which is, once again, "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

Your answer is the equivalent of the might-makes-right claim "because we can."

That's not a thoughtful and erudite logical or rational defense of socialism, it's an evasion and you use it every single time because you know you cannot ethically or morally defend your socialist dogma.

[Seth]

I've done it a million times before, Seth. You don't listen to a word that is said. You are an ideologue with your mind made up, and nothing is going to change it. You think you are surrounded by Marxists, yet have absolutely no idea what a Marxist actually is.

Liar. You've never done it even once. You've studiously evaded the core issue for years now. And I know what a Marxist is, and what a Marxist useful idiot is, and you're one.

Seth, half the rd.net political forums are filled up with me and 914 and Aunty (PaulG), 95Theses, Snow leopard (Alnilam), fact-man, mr Jonno (before he became unhinged) and others addressing this very point.

Evading the point, actually. But that's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Do it here and now if you can. I don't think you can because you never, ever have. You just resort to dogmatic proclamations and specious assumptions and blithe dismissals of both fact and logic, and then when challenged you resort to Alinsky ad hom tactics to derail the thread. I've seen YOU do it a hundred times, and all the rest of the fuckwits you mention do it hundreds of times themselves.

Never ONCE has one of you socialists been able or willing to put up a rational and well-thought-out logical defense of socialism. Not once. Ever. In all my 30 years of debating the subject. Never.

[Seth]

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever.

Your phrasing is pretty vague, but I think you do have a point here. Paying taxes toward something which is obviously to the benefit of the community, such as roads, is not obviously comparable to paying taxes which are directed to other persons in your community. In the case of the latter, it is indeed a transfer of property without the explicit consent of the person property is being transferred from which is unethical at best. The representative and publicly elected government is presuming consent on the part of the electorate when they develop the taxation system of America and everytime they enforce it.

Correct. Well, I don't consent any longer.

It could be argued that this transfer of wealth is to the benefit of society as a whole, including yourself, which is what you'd call "Marxist". A simple cost-benefit analysis will prove this, given present statistics. So you are, in fact, recieving back more than you pay. It's hard to see when all you're presented with are taxes with no visible return, but analysis shows you'd be spending/losing more income if this policy was not enacted.

Prove it. And even if you can prove that I would be paying more, let's say hypothetically for armed security to keep the starving Marxist hordes from stealing my property, there is no excuse for coercing that money from me. If you have a valid and convincing argument as to why I should contribute to the "common defense" or the care of the sick and indigent, then make it to me directly and give me the option to voluntarily contribute if I see the need is legitimate.

I'd like to see an "income tax referendum" each year consisting of a tax form with a number of categories of government spending, broken down to whatever level of detail the taxpayer wishes, that allows the taxpayer to "earmark" his taxes and demand that they be used only for those specific government programs and services that he or she specifies on the form.

In this way, an involuntary tax will at least be used in a manner consistent with the will of the taxpayer. The added benefit is that no program can be funded EXCEPT from those earmarked taxes, and the taxes MUST be used only for earmarked purposes, and so if the public decides en masse that a particular program or service is not wanted or needed, they just leave the box blank and the program or service is defunded...or must operate within whatever can actually be collected in the previous year.

Congress still has the power to create programs and services, but now it must be a booster for the program and it must convince the public that it's a worthy cause and cajole them into voluntarily allocating their tax money to the program. And if they fail, then the public doesn't have to pay for that program and the money is spent on something that the taxpayer DOES think is worthwhile.

For example, in Boulder County they often put an open-space acquisition tax on the ballot that must be approved by the residents under Colorado's TABOR law. The County (and the City of Boulder) spend a lot of time convincing people of the worth and value of the Open Space program and they have never, ever been turned down for a tax hike, in large part because TABOR mandates that the money they collect MUST be used for the Open Space program and nothing else. And I myself voted to tax myself for the Open Space program each and every time because I acknowledge that I do receive a direct and palpable benefit from it.

I'd make TABOR a national law and force Congress to put ALL taxes before the people at every federal election. That would return some measure of reason and fairness to the system.

[Jason]

When the taxes are taken and transferred more or less directly to another person in the form of welfare or direct government assistance to people the government thinks needs it IS theft and slavery, without any question whatsoever.

Your phrasing is pretty vague, but I think you do have a point here. Paying taxes toward something which is obviously to the benefit of the community, such as roads, is not obviously comparable to paying taxes which are directed to other persons in your community. In the case of the latter, it is indeed a transfer of property without the explicit consent of the person property is being transferred from which is unethical at best. The representative and publicly elected government is presuming consent on the part of the electorate when they develop the taxation system of America and everytime they enforce it.

Correct. Well, I don't consent any longer.

It could be argued that this transfer of wealth is to the benefit of society as a whole, including yourself, which is what you'd call "Marxist". A simple cost-benefit analysis will prove this, given present statistics. So you are, in fact, recieving back more than you pay. It's hard to see when all you're presented with are taxes with no visible return, but analysis shows you'd be spending/losing more income if this policy was not enacted.

Prove it. And even if you can prove that I would be paying more, let's say hypothetically for armed security to keep the starving Marxist hordes from stealing my property, there is no excuse for coercing that money from me. If you have a valid and convincing argument as to why I should contribute to the "common defense" or the care of the sick and indigent, then make it to me directly and give me the option to voluntarily contribute if I see the need is legitimate.

The issue of consent is down to your type of government. Representative government (a government in which you do not directly make decisions on policy, but instead there is a representative [elected or otherwise] who presumes your consent in making policy) must presume consent to function. It could not be a representative government otherwise. Do you have issue with your type of government then?

Your scenario is missing a few things. There would be no new supplies manufactured - at best you can hope to starve out Marxist hordes. It would be hugely expensive to prepare to mount such an extensive defense as would be required to repel a siege of hungry Marxists. You would necessarily have to cooperate with some people - pooling resources to the common benefit of those involved - you'd be a Marxist.

I'm afraid you're a Marxist either way. Shall we discuss determinism next?

[Seth]

The issue of consent is down to your type of government. Representative government (a government in which you do not directly make decisions on policy, but instead there is a representative [elected or otherwise] who presumes your consent in making policy) must presume consent to function. It could not be a representative government otherwise. Do you have issue with your type of government then?

Fallacious appeal to authority and common practice and an evasion of the moral and ethical question "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

Your scenario is missing a few things. There would be no new supplies manufactured - at best you can hope to starve out Marxist hordes. It would be hugely expensive to prepare to mount such an extensive defense as would be required to repel a siege of hungry Marxists. You would necessarily have to cooperate with some people - pooling resources to the common benefit of those involved - you'd be a Marxist.

Or not. In any event it would be MY CHOICE rather than one imposed upon me by the mob. Choosing to cooperate socially and voluntarily redistribute wealth is not Marxism. Marxism is by it's definition and nature an involuntary coercion of the individual against his will in the interests of the collective.

Voluntary social cooperation and redistribution of wealth to achieve social harmony, welfare and goals is called "Libertarianism."

I'm afraid you're a Marxist either way. Shall we discuss determinism next?

[/quote]

We're hardly started here. Again, "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

ATFQ.

[Jason]

The issue of consent is down to your type of government. Representative government (a government in which you do not directly make decisions on policy, but instead there is a representative [elected or otherwise] who presumes your consent in making policy) must presume consent to function. It could not be a representative government otherwise. Do you have issue with your type of government then?

Fallacious appeal to authority and common practice and an evasion of the moral and ethical question "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

I made no appeal to authority or common practice even if it had been an argument; it was simply an explication of the system in place followed by a question. I was attempting justifying nothing at this point. So... that'd be a red herring on your part.

Voluntary social cooperation and redistribution of wealth to achieve social harmony, welfare and goals is called "Libertarianism."

I'm sure that's what you think that's where it leads, but it's not unique. You are volunteering your taxes by being a citizen of a state with a representative government (see my explication in the previous post on this point).

I'm afraid you're a Marxist either way. Shall we discuss determinism next?

We're hardly started here. Again, "Why the fuck do you think that you are entitled to seize the fruits of my labor and force me into involuntary servitude against my will and to my detriment in order to satisfy your needs and desires?"

ATFQ.

First, I am seizing nothing. Presuming we're both US citizens, I have no more say in who represents you or I in government anymore than you. The government is collecting the taxes. Representative government. It's a contract you sign by being a citizen. There is no entitlement, there is implicit consent.

If you want to debate that particular about our two type of governments, we could try that instead. It is clearly what you're actually objecting to, and not the first time you've voice such antiestablishmentarian opinions. Or are you afraid you'll catch the attention of Homeland Security?