Marxist Exploiters

[DeistPaladin]

Are you for real? You want to turn this joke of a thread into a serious discussion? Fine.

I've been in the habit all my life of over-thinking things. Why stop now?

Suppose tomorrow George Bush perpetrates a coup against the current government with the military and achieves his life-long dream of suspending all civil liberties and making your country a "Christian Nation". Suspend you disbelief for the moment and assume this happens and - as a result - a lot of advantages of living in a civilized society get taken away. Do you think you can make a legal argument that your taxes should be reduced accordingly?

A good point. In such a scenario, more of my tax money would be spent on funding the Christian agenda and meanwhile much of my liberty, which civilization is supposed to protect, would be taken away. This is why a representative system is so important. A government, to be legitimate, must balance following the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority (the latter usually done in the courts, prompting conservatives to whine about "judicial activism" but that's another topic). A government that doesn't do so loses some of it's legitimacy. Lately, simple-minded conservatives have been putting on tri-corner hats and pretending they are the successors to the "Tea Party", forgetting that it's not taxes that we rebelled against but taxation without representation.

[example of someone living in the wild] - do you think he'd be exempt from paying taxes?

He probably wouldn't end up paying taxes just from being "under the radar". He wouldn't have an income nor would he, living off the land in the wild, have any recorded property. Unfortunately for him, he'd have no recourse if a developer came along to the land he was living on and purchased it.

...beyond the necessary provision of those advantages, the money can be spent on anything else such as large scale social development.

I'm not against having a discussion on what we should or shouldn't be doing with our tax money and, sooner or later, our government's financial problems may force that discussion to happen. America maintains a costly empire that I think we could do without and the rest of the world might be happy to see recede. We're still running in the "arms race" as if the Cold War were still going on because corruption in DC and the military-industrial complex won't allow it to end. Corruption is so much a part of American politics that it's done out in the open (it's called "lobbying") with rules in place for what constitutes good corruption from bad corruption. I didn't mean to suggest a rose-colored view of our current arrangement. Far from it. But what Koolaid would replace it with would only create a power-vacuum that already overpowered corporations would fill.

Secondly, your view of Libertarianism seems limited to the American understanding of it.

I'll buy that. Our political discourse in my country, particularly from our right wing, has gotten so shrill that we're redefining a lot of labels. "Socialism" to some here means any government regulation or safety net at all. "Libertarian" may also be an abused term for those here who are in fact promoting the corporate agenda. The Koch brothers describe themselves as "libertarian" if that tells you anything.

[Tonus]

"Libertarian" in the USA seems to mean "republicans who are even more 'anti-tax' than the other republicans."

[DeistPaladin]

"Libertarian" in the USA seems to mean "republicans who are even more 'anti-tax' than the other republicans."

Almost.

"Libertarian" in the USA means "Republicans who want to get the W Bush stink off of them."

[genkaus]

A good point. In such a scenario, more of my tax money would be spent on funding the Christian agenda and meanwhile much of my liberty, which civilization is supposed to protect, would be taken away. This is why a representative system is so important. A government, to be legitimate, must balance following the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority (the latter usually done in the courts, prompting conservatives to whine about "judicial activism" but that's another topic). A government that doesn't do so loses some of it's legitimacy. Lately, simple-minded conservatives have been putting on tri-corner hats and pretending they are the successors to the "Tea Party", forgetting that it's not taxes that we rebelled against but taxation without representation.

[example of someone living in the wild] - do you think he'd be exempt from paying taxes?

He probably wouldn't end up paying taxes just from being "under the radar". He wouldn't have an income nor would he, living off the land in the wild, have any recorded property. Unfortunately for him, he'd have no recourse if a developer came along to the land he was living on and purchased it.

You are missing the point here. These examples were given to highlight the principle behind taxation. Consider whatever assumptions that need to be made for the question of taxation to even arise as given.

In principle, only the legitimate government has the right to levy taxes. Therefore, let's assume that after his coup, Bush took whatever legal, political or judicial means necessary to have his government declared as legitimate. Because without it, his government wouldn't be in a position to impose taxes. Also, remember that representative democracy is only one form of legitimacy. So, if it makes it easier for you to imagine, consider the case of a Somalian warlord who gets enough gun-power to eliminate his rivals and establishes a tyrannical government. Given no challenges to his authority, even that government would be regarded as the legitimate government with the right to impose taxation without any representation.

Similarly, in the second example, assume that the authorities are aware of the recluse - given that he has legally purchased the parcel of land, signed an affidavit legally relinquishing the benefits of civilized society and is willing to stipulate that the equivalent monetary value of the produce of his land and farm animals may be regarded as his income.

In both cases we have a legitimate government imposing taxes and the tax-payees who don't receive much in the way of benefit of living in civilized society. And my point here is that if your view of taxation - that it is the quid pro quo in return for governmental services provided - was correct, then these people would have a legal justification for not paying taxes, given that they are not availing themselves of those services. However, currently, that is not the case. But it should be.

I'm not against having a discussion on what we should or shouldn't be doing with our tax money and, sooner or later, our government's financial problems may force that discussion to happen. America maintains a costly empire that I think we could do without and the rest of the world might be happy to see recede. We're still running in the "arms race" as if the Cold War were still going on because corruption in DC and the military-industrial complex won't allow it to end. Corruption is so much a part of American politics that it's done out in the open (it's called "lobbying") with rules in place for what constitutes good corruption from bad corruption. I didn't mean to suggest a rose-colored view of our current arrangement. Far from it. But what Koolaid would replace it with would only create a power-vacuum that already overpowered corporations would fill.

I think we both agree that the only way Koolay's "vision" would end is in a hundred year gang-war between the remnants of old military, various criminal organizations and whichever corporations have enough security forces to survive the initial chaos. And the only people willing to live in such a society would be extreme right-wing gun-nuts who think they already live in such a society.

However, my argument was not specific to the US. I was arguing that government - any government - should be run more like a corporation with the country's population as its stockholders - albeit, one with monopoly in specific areas. The primary function of this "corporation" would be ensuring basic civil rights, maintaining law and order, providing basic civic amenities etc. and here it should have monopoly and for which it is being paid in taxes. Any profits from these and other ventures may be disposed of as the government sees fit - such as investing in social security or healthcare or rural development.

I'll buy that. Our political discourse in my country, particularly from our right wing, has gotten so shrill that we're redefining a lot of labels. "Socialism" to some here means any government regulation or safety net at all. "Libertarian" may also be an abused term for those here who are in fact promoting the corporate agenda. The Koch brothers describe themselves as "libertarian" if that tells you anything.

Yeah, I'm getting that. Which is why, keep in mind, when in future I refer to myself as a Libertarian, I'm in no way agreeing with people like Paul Ryan.

[Angrboda]

I think your conclusions are largely an artifact of the way you've chosen to frame your analysis. There is no particular reason for chunking the exchange on a per service basis as opposed to a per sector basis, or for that matter considering the totality of services provided by government as one indivisible block that you either take it or leave it. Since your analysis depends on adopting a specific granularity in your analysis, your argument becomes nothing more than an example of special pleading.

And that's about all I care to say. I find politics and economics entertaining, but the bulk of arguments, even those from professionals, are overwhelmingly more informed by what people pull from their back sides than they are by anything real. So, in other words, carry on.

[Faith No More]

Almost.

"Libertarian" in the USA means "Republicans who want to get the W Bush stink off of them."

And "free market" means "the freedom to fuck everyone over for profit."

[Koolay]

I'm an MBA (Master of Business Administration) and have successfully run a business for the last 20 years, successful even in this lackluster economy of the last dozen years, so I think I have as much authority to speak on economic matters as Koolaid with his dubious resume.

Some might point out that the study of business is peripheral to the study of economics, which is true as we deal with reality and practical application instead of the highly abstract universe of hypotheticals that economists live in. They were the butt of our jokes in business school.

I might add that I have also been a right winger without being a sociopath and a left winger without being an intellectual exploiter. I was even a libertarian for a while, as I made the shift from right to left, and then I grew up. I have since realized that taxation is not theft, as Koolaid and others like to melodramatically whine. It reflects the dues we pay to live in a civilized society and enjoy its benefits. If you don't want to pay the piper, go live in the wild and I wish you luck.

Now there is some controversy about how the dues of living in a civilized society might be fairly assessed and what the money should be spent on. That's why we live in a representative system so these decisions are made by the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, these decisions can't be made by unanimous consent. Personally, I don't like how my tax dollars paid for W's private war of aggression in Iraq and would rather my dumb ass fellow Americans who voted for him in 2004 exclusively shoulder that burden but our system doesn't work that way. Deal with it. It's the price of civilization.

Now there was a time when we did create the Libertarian's dream world, when private enterprise did as it pleased and the markets went unregulated. It was called the Gilded Age. We're rapidly moving back to that time now. We learned then as we should have learned during the last 30 years that concentrating wealth at the very top does not create prosperity for all and markets do not self-regulate. Corporations are soulless machines that generate wealth and maximize share-holder value. That's all they do. They will not care about worker safety or the environment or any other costs they can shirk. That's where regulation comes in.

Life is a balance. Our own government is based on three branches that check and balance each other. So too, our economy and a well-regulated system of capitalism should be balanced between business management, labor unions and government regulation.

I'm not running down business and private enterprise, being a member of that body myself. However, the backbone of the American economy and frankly what distinguishes any country's economy from a 3rd world nation is a vibrant middle class. We are losing that here in America and I fear if nothing is done to reign in corporate power, our future will resemble other 3rd world countries where a very few live in gated communities while the masses struggle to survive in squalor.

This is all rhetoric. With no actual discussion on principles.

Government works to prop up the rich, all the time. As the welfare state increases, the gap between rich and poor has increased. You may be rich, and trying to feed deluded people statist propaganda to fill your own pocket.

Government does not work in principle or in reality, the bigger the government the poorer everyone is. See North Korea, USSR where the ruling class live like kings, where the average man lives in dilapidation. This is inevitable when you use violence, in particular the violence of the state to solve social problems. You are an intellectual exploiter.

Btw, no actual succusful business man would ever talk about owning a degree. I think you are just another state worshipping academic.

[Faith No More]

Jesus fucking Christ, you just keep getting dumber and dumber. You spew bullshit without even accidentally crapping out one tiny nugget of substance and then go on to accuse someone else of using rhetoric?

I'd facepalm right now if not for the fear that my hand would go right through my face and out the back of my skull.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

ATTENTION KOOLAY

Since I last replied in this thread, I have committed four separate and distinct crimes:

1. I drove 45kph in a speed zone clearly marked for 35.

2. I did maliciously and with malice aforethought, ride my motorcycle without wearing my helmet.

3. With a callous, nay, almost a brutal disregard for the safety and welfare of my fellow citizens, I began the construction of a small, ornamental pond in my front garden BEFORE getting planning permission.

4. Like the flagrant scoff-law that I am, I skirted the tax laws of my country by buying an item from a friend, and NOT reporting the sale.

On none of the above occasions was I murdered.

Boru

[gilbertc06]

Why all the Marxist hate? I thought this forum wouldn't be blinded by ideology.

1. You cannot lump totalitarianism/communism with Marxism or Karl Marx.

2. Totalitarianism/communism is not any more "evil" than Capitalism/Democracy. They are simply forms of human government and some are just more appealing than others. In fact the U.S. government forced religious ideology in order to get people to blindly fight against communism without them even knowing anything about it. That is when "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance.

3. Marx wrote Das Kapital and got most of his ideas because he saw the brutal working conditions that children had to go through in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Children literally were eaten up by machines in the name of productivity.

4. Marx, Althusser, and others were simply saying that societies are made up of ideologies in order for their systems to work. Thus they opened up the conversations of things like religion, schools, media etc as being "social ideology apparatus" so that people wouldn't just accept those things as a fact of life.