Tax Season Poll

I think Americans, to truly be Americans, are at least obligated to hate paying taxes personally (maybe this is even a qualification for being human).

As to how taxes are raised and used, I suppose that's a little more open season.

Any contribution I can make to this country to make it better and more free, I'm all about. But I don't confuse the country with its government.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think Americans, to truly be Americans, are at least obligated to hate paying taxes personally (maybe this is even a qualification for being human).

As to how taxes are raised and used, I suppose that's a little more open season.

Any contribution I can make to this country to make it better and more free, I'm all about. But I don't confuse the country with its government.
Click to expand...

without any government, what country is there?
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think Americans, to truly be Americans, are at least obligated to hate paying taxes personally (maybe this is even a qualification for being human).
Click to expand...
No, that's a qualification for being French. Why do you think they are so non-chalant about their outrageously high taxes? Cause aint a Frenchman born who's ever claimed to make more money then an Oklahoma dirt farmer.

As to how taxes are raised and used, I suppose that's a little more open season.
Click to expand...
ah yes and this is where the beauty lies! :)

Any contribution I can make to this country to make it better and more free, I'm all about. But I don't confuse the country with its government.
Click to expand...
Oh you were doing so well up until this little gem of a cliche. A government is a reflection of the will of the people or, if you would prefer a quid pro quo cliche, ya'll get the government you deserve. That includes you to Adam. Ass, gas or grass Adam.....no one rides for free!
 
Yurt said:
without any government, what country is there?
Click to expand...

That's a great question.

Countries are still there without governments, though. Just like the planet would still be here without people.

I'm not saying that's a preferable state on either counts It just is what it is. You can't develop a government independent of a people and a land. They're prerequisites.

Governments come about as a consequence of people over an area trying to manage affairs. And then when that doesn't work out, sometimes new governments come about for a new people within the people. Sometimes for good and sometimes for ill.

The United States is a mostly a government (though many states could be considered lands and people in their own right) and this part of America (the whole landmass) is the country. Without government here, of course, this part of America would become part of Mexico or Canada. And in the face of other governments, obviously a government for this place for common defense, in addition to the internal order, makes a great deal of sense.

Doesn't mean I should have to pay income taxes to these fools, of course.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
A government is a reflection of the will of the people or, if you would prefer a quid pro quo cliche, ya'll get the government you deserve.
Click to expand...

I don't question the second point, or even potentially the first. But I think it's from a position of convenience that we talk about the first like it's a law rather than a fact on some occasions.

We think governments represent our will because ultimately, though we complain when we're on the outside, the government will do enough of what the majority wants at some point, and at some point, you'll have been a part of that majority. But not even this is true for everyone in a relatively free country.

Do all governments represent the will of the people? Maybe only the weakened will of a hopeless people in some circumstances.
 
E=Adam Weinberg;593580]That's a great question.

Countries are still there without governments, though. Just like the planet would still be here without people.
Click to expand...

what person(s) created the planet?

I'm not saying that's a preferable state on either counts. It just is what it is. You can't develop a government independent of a people and a land. They're prerequisites.
Click to expand...

yet, the planet can exist without governments or people. your analogy is flawed. i agree that you need the people and land to have government, that is why i do not understand your earlier comment.

Governments come about as a consequence of people over an area trying to manage affairs. And then when that doesn't work out, sometimes new governments come about for a new people within the people. Sometimes for good and sometimes for ill.

The United States is a mostly a government (though many states could be considered lands and people in their own right) and this part of America (the whole landmass) is the country. Without government here, of course, this part of America would become part of Mexico or Canada. And in the face of other governments, obviously a government for this place for common defense, in addition to the internal order, makes a great deal of sense.

Doesn't mean I should have to pay income taxes to these fools, of course.
Click to expand...

who sustains a government? how does a government sustain itself? as i disagree with your planet analogy, a government, unlike the earth, cannot simply sustain itself just because its the earth. a government, by its very nature, seeks dominion over the earth and seeks to carve out boundries in the earth that do not exist upon the face of the earth. governments are artifical boundries.
 
Yurt said:
governments are artifical boundries.
Click to expand...

But countries are not specifically artificial. They might have limits, but they're not about political boundaries. They're about organic things. Indigenous people and land. And over time those things might change or solidify as politics changes.

Countries come first, in my view, anyway. Then they adopt governments around what is commonly viewed as the country by the founders of the system of government. And that's where those political, artificial boundaries come from.

Edit: Although I will concede this to you, that government itself does come before the concept of nationalism. And after nationalism comes national government. Look at Afghanistan or Somalia. Without our intervention, eventually one of those warlords (or collective thereof) is going to get the idea of centralizing some kind of authority for all the people of the land they recognize as their own.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
I don't question the second point, or even potentially the first. But I think it's from a position of convenience that we talk about the first like it's a law rather than a fact on some occasions.

We think governments represent our will because ultimately, though we complain when we're on the outside, the government will do enough of what the majority wants at some point, and at some point, you'll have been a part of that majority. But not even this is true for everyone in a relatively free country.

Do all governments represent the will of the people? Maybe only the weakened will of a hopeless people in some circumstances.
Click to expand...
Oh Adam, when will you grow up about this "Governments are useless" Libertarian nonsense? Yes. All governments ....I repeat... ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE COERCIVE but what are we with out government? Sound affective government that provide the rule of law around which a society can build itself?

I'll tell you what it would be, it's rule of the sword, law of the jungle, might makes right, regardless of what your best intentions are.
 
Yurt said:
obviously you have no come back except the stutter....uh, uh, thats, uh, all you, uh, have

sit down small time
Click to expand...
Oh great. Thirty thousand comedians out of work and here comes Pee Wee Yurt with is "I know you are but what am I?"

Arrrggghhh


Where's Grind when you need him? Say what you want about the kid he knows how to do a burn. Just ask Damo!
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I don't question the second point, or even potentially the first. But I think it's from a position of convenience that we talk about the first like it's a law rather than a fact on some occasions.

We think governments represent our will because ultimately, though we complain when we're on the outside, the government will do enough of what the majority wants at some point, and at some point, you'll have been a part of that majority. But not even this is true for everyone in a relatively free country.

Do all governments represent the will of the people? Maybe only the weakened will of a hopeless people in some circumstances.
Click to expand...

If it were really that simple, then there'd just be some guy running each time promising to transfer all the wealth in the nation to the person who votes for him. People vote mostly based on what they think will be best for the nation at large. That's why you have all of these rich liberals.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh great. Thirty thousand comedians out of work and here comes Pee Wee Yurt with is "I know you are but what am I?"

Arrrggghhh


Where's Grind when you need him? Say what you want about the kid he knows how to do a burn. Just ask Damo!
Click to expand...

seriously, sit down, you're more pathetic than last time, the Rock is funnier than you
 
Adam Weinberg said:
But countries are not specifically artificial. They might have limits, but they're not about political boundaries. They're about organic things. Indigenous people and land. And over time those things might change or solidify as politics changes.

Countries come first, in my view, anyway. Then they adopt governments around what is commonly viewed as the country by the founders of the system of government. And that's where those political, artificial boundaries come from.

Edit: Although I will concede this to you, that government itself does come before the concept of nationalism. And after nationalism comes national government. Look at Afghanistan or Somalia. Without our intervention, eventually one of those warlords (or collective thereof) is going to get the idea of centralizing some kind of authority for all the people of the land they recognize as their own.
Click to expand...

countries are artificial, in that, the earth itself does not create countries. now, if you're trying to say that countries are like animal terrorities, you might have a point.

indigenous people and land: is there any other....in the grand scheme of things? we are all indigenous and all our governments seek land and boundries. i fail to see why you made this comment.

you're labeling boundries and land that people claim with artificial labels. what a tribe or so called indigenous people may call ""home"", could be considered a country, just a very small country. you're putting artificial labels on the line man draws in the sand.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh Adam, when will you grow up about this "Governments are useless" Libertarian nonsense? Yes. All governments ....I repeat... ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE COERCIVE but what are we with out government? Sound affective government that provide the rule of law around which a society can build itself?

I'll tell you what it would be, it's rule of the sword, law of the jungle, might makes right, regardless of what your best intentions are.
Click to expand...

I have never, ever said governments are useless, and I don't know how you got that from what I said in the quote. Government is simply the dangerous servant and the fearsome master and that's all I've ever said.

About the latter part of your own quote, the same can be said of rule by government.

Governments are authorized, or can conceivably be authorized, to do things that would otherwise be criminal or called things worse than criminal. And even if they aren't authorized, they might just do it for the hell of it, or for bizarre ideological goals. That doesn't make them useless or evil, by the way.

So, we're between a place of public criminals and private criminals and how to protect ourselves from both. You say the rule of law. That's a great answer. But the extent to which the law shall rule and not men is the disagreement.

Just as you object to my use of language about government, I object to your use of language about libertarians. I almost take it personally, especially since I consider myself one of the least ideologically rigid libertarians I know. I don't believe in ideal worlds. I don't even believe in enacting some kind of Libertarianism, really.

I'm willing to cut deals, and there's a lot I'm willing to tolerate as long as it's understood what the general direction and purpose of government ought to be. This is libertarian enough for me: following the constitution genuinely as well as we can. And that kind of fight never lets up.

And like me, most libertarians in this country are political libertarians. They are not trying to abolish government, they are trying to reform it to it constitutional limitations.

Sure, I'm confident many would enjoy a cultural shift toward thinking and acting on liberty as an idea and institution to live by (this is sort of an objectivist idea, but not as extreme), but they would gladly take the result of incrementally less government and more liberty in their lives, consistent with the law...and the consequences that may come with it as well.

Freedom does have responsibilities and consequences that not everyone is willing to deal with. I think the libertarians of this country (and the world) are trying to ask people to look to their government for what it is authorized to do, but to otherwise find ways to deal with problems that won't ultimately require a great sacrifice of liberty by unwilling people.

If you violate the principles of the rule of law for too many conveniences and securities, you ultimately undermine some very fundamental institutions of security.
 
Atheistmark said:
If it were really that simple, then there'd just be some guy running each time promising to transfer all the wealth in the nation to the person who votes for him. People vote mostly based on what they think will be best for the nation at large. That's why you have all of these rich liberals.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure my own writing was very clear, but I'm also not sure if your response fits what I wrote. I'm going to change the subject to respond to your response, though.

I think too that people have a greater good impulse, but I don't think that's all there is to it. People do want to know what's in it for them.

Do you think rich liberals don't consider how corporate welfare programs will benefit their companies, or bailouts will help their stock portfolio? Also, rich liberals wrongly think other people can afford their pet projects because they can. And they are their pet projects.

It's one thing for rich people to waste money on stupid things out of their own pocket that actually create jobs and wealth, but another thing entirely to use their influence to propagate the idea that everyone can afford the same amount of government that they can.

Social Democratic ideas themselves are dependent on a wealthy society. You can't redistribute wealth unless wealth is abundant. As your secret crush Thatcher said, eventually you run out of other people's money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top