Announcement

**Goingonit** · February 13, 2003, 01:07

The governments that put down the 1848 revolutions were autocratic. We're not. Regardless of any perceived bias in the electoral process, the existence of our government is supported by the people.

**Ramo** · February 13, 2003, 01:10

Private armies suppressed the poor in 1399.

Any reason for that date in particular?

**Goingonit** · February 13, 2003, 01:10

And you get a "few social benefits" like a police force, fire department, education, here in Canada free healthcare, pension plan, unemployment insurance, welfare, not to mention fundamental things like security, stability, rights to privacy and life, civil rights, all the while supporting only a very small fraction of the cost it takes to pay for these things.

**DuncanK** · February 13, 2003, 01:13

Originally posted by Goingonit
The governments that put down the 1848 revolutions were autocratic. We're not. Regardless of any perceived bias in the electoral process, the existence of our government is supported by the people.

And what happens if the government is no longer supported by the people. Then my friend, the police beat some heads. And those will be the heads of the poor.

**Goingonit** · February 13, 2003, 01:14

And meanwhile what do the rich take away from you? NOTHING! If you didn't want to work for rich people, you wouldn't have to, nobody's forcing you. Since you have freedoms of movement, assembly, speech, and property, all guaranteed by the government, you could move elsewhere to find better work, or even organize a group of people and set up shop by yourselves.

**DuncanK** · February 13, 2003, 01:15

Originally posted by Goingonit
And you get a "few social benefits" like a police force, fire department, education, here in Canada free healthcare, pension plan, unemployment insurance, welfare, not to mention fundamental things like security, stability, rights to privacy and life, civil rights, all the while supporting only a very small fraction of the cost it takes to pay for these things.

But still the primary goal of the police is to defend property and the existance of the state.

**David Floyd** · February 13, 2003, 01:16

Because it makes us feel good to beat him down.

Erm, no one beat anyone down. We simply have different views on what "equality" and "fairness" mean. And I still don't agree that everyone paying 23% is anything other than equal. That just doesn't make any sense.

**Goingonit** · February 13, 2003, 01:16

Originally posted by DuncanK
And what happens if the government is no longer supported by the people. Then my friend, the police beat some heads. And those will be the heads of the poor.

Then the police quit en masse. They're people too. You get general strikes, rallies, violence, civil disobedience. You get voter nonparticipation and a lack of co-operation with the government. You get, in otherwords, a general opt-out from the governmental and economic system.

If the people find that life is better with governent than without, which they generally do, then they come back and support for the existence of government returns.

**DuncanK** · February 13, 2003, 01:17

Originally posted by Goingonit
And meanwhile what do the rich take away from you? NOTHING! If you didn't want to work for rich people, you wouldn't have to, nobody's forcing you. Since you have freedoms of movement, assembly, speech, and property, all guaranteed by the government, you could move elsewhere to find better work, or even organize a group of people and set up shop by yourselves.

my point is that the government was created by them and it functions in their interest so they should pay the bulk of taxes.

**Berzerker** · February 13, 2003, 01:19

Frogger -

You have the idea that classical property law is fair. I disagree with that assumption.

Again, I reject the term "fair", it's a subjective word with little meaning and this thread proves it. I said people should be treated equally under the law.

Duncan -

The rich need the government to protect their property. Why the hell should we pay to protect their property? I don't want to protect their property. I want to take their property.

Do you want the rich to take your property too? How about other people who aren't rich? Yeah, so much for treating people equally, you want to take their property but complain if they take yours.

LoA -

I dont think that taxation is stealing because the government is providing you a service. Of course, it has a monopoly, but you need a government to keep market failure from occuring.

Was the Great Depression a market failure or a failure of government? When your plumber asks to provide you with a service, does he threaten your life if you don't want his service? Nope, your analogy is askew, government is violence and the threat of violence and therefore is only morally allowed to confront others who are initiating violence (or threats thereof) or fraud. Telling the person who will be killed or caged if they don't hand over their money that you aren't really stealing from them works only on those conditioned to accept the theft as "legal". The rest of us know what it is and don't want to be killed, that's why the Mafia got away with stealing from people.

**David Floyd** · February 13, 2003, 01:20

Wait a second, Duncan. If you say that the government functions in the interest of the rich, and to counteract that the rich should fund the government, then why do you support measures that would make the government function in favor of the poor (such as social welfare, labor laws, things of that nature), without also supporting measures to make the poor pay for those benefits?

**DuncanK** · February 13, 2003, 01:20

Originally posted by Goingonit

Then the police quit en masse. They're people too. You get general strikes, rallies, violence, civil disobedience. You get voter nonparticipation and a lack of co-operation with the government. You get, in otherwords, a general opt-out from the governmental and economic system.

If the people find that life is better with governent than without, which they generally do, then they come back and support for the existence of government returns.

There is something to what you are saying, but the fact is that there are unjust laws and when we stand up against those laws the police beat us. When it gets real bad some of them switch sides, but usually they don't.

**Goingonit** · February 13, 2003, 01:20

My point is that they should pay the bulk of the taxes because they can afford it, and I'd rather have annoyed rich people than starving poor people.

But if you don't believe that government functions in the interests of the whole population, try to imagine what life would be like without power, water, sewage, police protection, fire protection, education, or any rights or freedoms at all.

The divide doesn't become one between rich and poor, it's between rich and dead.

**Ramo** · February 13, 2003, 01:22

No one wants to take a bite at my trolls?

**Goingonit** · February 13, 2003, 01:23

Statement withdrawn by reason of insanity.

Announcement

Fair Taxation

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment