What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Chanak
I'm back from my sabbatical...and I see I have some catching up to do.

@CE, Aegis: As I'm feeling pretty vacant right now, I think I'll wait 'till this weekend to respond.

Welcome back Chan..*HUG*...I've needed your insight in this debate.....

[Chanak]

Originally posted by Scayde
Welcome back Chan..*HUG*...I've needed your insight in this debate.....

*hug* Thanks, Scayde. It looks to me like you've made your points very well... In addition, Lazarus and Yshania have had some wonderful input. LOL, I won't be good for anything until this weekend...well, at least as far as this thread is concerned.

[The Z]

Yay! Another one of my somewhat uneducated posts! (I need the SPAM)

RE: Democracies

What my teacher has taught me (whether it's correct or incorrect remains to be seen):

Eventually all governmental systems slip into either communism or facism. If you take the left/right wing continuum (spelling?) and step back and see where each country is at and where they are going, you will notice that eventually they end up at either far left or right. Normally after awhile the populace will resent this and a revolution could occur. So in truth it's a circle. Take New Zealand (if I'm wrong, please correct me) for example. Before, it was much more left of center, a socialism I believe. But now that it has become somewhat Americanized, the government parties (National, and ?Labour?) want industry and are pushing the country closer to the middle, which is neither good or bad. Now you see where I'm going. Another example might be Bush (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm not exactly up on politics). Because he wishes to go to war, he is pushing the country more right wing (far right/left wingers are known for military to keep population in check). The army now has much more power/liberty, and can keep not only the enemy, but the populace in check (wasn't there a martial law thread?). I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no way any system will ever be able to stay stable forever. Just that some are able to hold pace longer than others. If one wanted to 'create' a 'better' system, he/she would have to somehow stall the need to compete with other countries. Ask yourself though, are our democracies really democratic? In Canada, how many parties are actually in the running?

RE: Taxes
Taxes are necessary if you want to stay in the middle. Socialism kind of works because the degredation of the poor's wealth is stalled by things like welfare. But they still lose money and the rich gain wealth. It's delicate. Take away taxes and certain services are withdrawn. Boost it, and watch the people suffer. This is because the leaders want more money too. They're human. They strive to be better than their neighbor, and if that involves taxing for their salary, so be it.



In all, I believe that all the problems are stemmed from time and the fact that humans desire service in exchange for another service. We hate to lose out in dealings, so we try and best the other. Couple that with time (got to finish this by then, got to do this now), and we create things like law so we are enabled to complete tasks. I'm not saying anarchy is good. All I'm saying is that the clock has screwed us over along with our own competitive nature (though it can be good to push technology, etc.).

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Some fragmented things:

Then we agree on this much, perhaps it is in our definitions of rights that we differ. I do not feel one person has the right to impose their will or needs on another. I do not feel one person has the right to another persons mind, body or property. It seems you do. I think this is henous.

No, not mind, body and property. Only property, if one person don’t need it in order to survive, and the other person needs it to survive. Our property is not a fundamental part of ourselves, of you and me as human beings. Our mind and body is. To me there is a difference.

But if my earnings wages and manpower is expropriated for use by others without my consent, that is the use of my body and mind also, without my consent, as it is by the strength and energy that my mind and body expends that my time is turned into my income.

I am sorry to drag this up again, but please believe me, I genuinely don’t understand. You said:

My comments are a harsh reflection of the basic survival instinct present in all animals. Capitalism is a reflection of nature. Survival of the fittest. I make no apologies for my belief system.

So, what do you mean then with the “survival of the fittest” in polical or economical terms? To me, the "fittest" in socioeconomical terms, are the richest and most resourceful...those have much better opportunites to surive.

In a free enterprise system, inferior quality goods, and unfair prices cannot exist, as they are driven out by the competition and replaced by better quality, and more more efficient means of production. Companies whoare not willing to pay their labor fair market wages are driven out of business by the ones who are, because the workers go where they can earn the most money. Busnesses build their factories in the areas where the labor is willing to work for less money, insuring that workers will not demand too outragous a wage, for fear of the plant relocating elsewhere. Countries which have a large cheap labor pool often court businesses in by promissing cheap labor, this leads to imbalance, where as if these same governments were to take a free market aproach and go to the bargaining table with say 20 large corperations at a time and say to them..."We will allow 3 of you to build factories , These are our consessions. Protection of your patents, favorable tarriffs, freedome to conduct your business without undue government involvement....but these are our demands...You will pay X amount in taxes to go for community improvement, you must pay our people at least this x-much money,They will have x days off per year, they will not be required to workmore than x hours per week, they will be entitled to overtime. They will be entitled to advancement, there will be no discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic persuasion, sex, marital status, physical or mental disability, as long as they are capable of performing the job, the company will provide suitable accomodation for any non essential handicaps, and essential ones if an employee can be retrained after an injury. The company will assume liability for workers injured on the job. We expect health care benifits, a modern clinic, an on site daycare, a community school, an adult learning program, public sanitation acording to international standards in the communuity you choose to build in and a 10 year contract not to move or relocate the plant for anyreasons other than catastrophic loss." You would see the companies scrambling to compete with each other for the "priveledge" of opening their factories. The people would benifit, the companies would benifit, the surrounding communities would benitfit." ..This is not more than what these companies are already doing here in the states, but it is not required by law. It is market driven...

And finally...do you sympathise with Ayn Rand’s philosophy?

Yes...

[C Elegans]

@Scayde: Since all my main points were in the other post, I wait with responding to you until you have addressed them too.

I will also post some comments to other posts...hopefully during the weekend.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Scaydes previous post to Frogus stated that she doesn’t think people in the developing countries are entitled anyting just because they are dying of poverty. I have stated I think they are, since I believe everybody should have the right to survive and equal opportunities. [/b]

My position has been that I do not owe them anything by virtue of their want. My position is, and has always been that the people in developing countries must take as much responsibility for themselves as possible. You mentioned Somalia, that the US should have never been there in the first place. That it was a civil war, and the people there were not interested in having the war lord in power removed. IMHO, The fact that this war lord was stealing millions of dollars in aid from his own people and selling it to them on the black market yet they did not want him removed from power tells me that it is not a problem of the Western world depriving them of opportunity, but they are impeding their own opportunity. There are many people who believe that these people deserve assistance regardless of the part they play in their own impoverishment. I feel the desire to help those who help themselves. I do not feel an obligation to try to pull someone kicking and screaming against their will into a better way of life.

I talk about millions of people who were born without any possibility whatsoever to develop traits like creative, intelligent and risk-taking, people who are severly disabled or ill and can’t work, or people who live in poor developing countries where they can’t apply for a job to earn an income because there are no jobs.
So what about them, why don’t they have the right to the same opportunities that we were born into?

There is a difference in "opportunity" and "right"
First you must secure the opportunity. You can easily do this through a free market economy. If you look at the world as a study, the most prosperity, the highest standard of living, the best health care, sanitation, food supply, technology, etc. occurs in a free market economy. THe governments of developing nations which have embraced this platform have rocketted out of poverty, while their nieghbors lanquish in sub standard existance. The Pacific rim is virtually exploding with opportunities that did not exist in 1950. The USA is a mere 227 years old. Western Eaurope, most exemplified in the dual standard of living in Berlin prior to its reunification, The UK, all free market economies, all prosperous. It works. Not because we have "plundered" our way to success, but because inovation adn growth are fostered in this kind of environment. Once the "oppertunity" exists, then yiou may say the people have "rights' to excercise that opportunity. The declaration of "rights' in absence of opportunity is IMO a mute point. And the way I see it, the most effective way to provide that opportunity, is through a free and open trade economy with the local governments protecting the rights and interests of its citizens.

Look, I know I am not going to changfe anyones mind here, but as vehemently as one person might oppose the free market system, I will support it, because in my opinion, it is the only proven ticket to a better way of life for anybody.

I certainly do not agree with those statements Dr Walter Williams have made. I don’t agree with him in general I think, he is a conservative economist and IIRC he has also suggested that black people in South Africa might have been better off during apartheid.

IIRC the statement Dr. Williams made was that the South African people are worse off 'financially' now than they were during apartheid due the the fact that the country is now in economic shambles. I do not think he ever implied that the people should have remained segregated and politically oppressed the way they were.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Scayde: Since all my main points were in the other post, I wait with responding to you until you have addressed them too.

I will also post some comments to other posts...hopefully during the weekend.

LOL...I apreciate you patients CE..My work has me so distracted, I am even having a hard time keeping up with my SPAM,
much less the serious stuff

Anyway.I am outa here for tonight.

See you guys tomorrow....*HUGS*

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde

But if my earnings wages and manpower is expropriated for use by others without my consent, that is the use of my body and mind also, without my consent, as it is by the strength and energy that my mind and body expends that my time is turned into my income.
[/b][/color] [/b]

But isn't that exactly what happens now, when you pay taxes? Without your voluntary consent, your income is garnished to pay federal and state taxes. When you buy goods, you pay additional taxes. You have no choice in the matter. Capitalism and communism are no different in this particular respect. They both allow for governments. Neither speaks to the issue of control of government, because capitalism and communism are economic theories, rather than political ones.

[Lazarus]

@fable: you are correct (regarding taxes). But if you have read Reisman and Rand (and I know you have), then you know what they, and I (and possibly Scayde) think of taxes. They are expropriation, and we don't like 'em.

However, I am not certain that the current topic (Communism) is one we want to widen to include the very narrow topic of taxes - it would really deserve a new thread (and we just had a thread on taxes, didn't we?).

I can only speak for myself, but my belief is before we can make any progress on the issue of taxes, we must first try to help people understand the very nature of them. That does indeed have a tengential relation to the topic at hand (redistribution, egalitarianism, etc), but I don't think that we want to open up a whole new subject within the subject.

[frogus]

Hurrah - excellent discussion here - good (if completely wrong ) posts @Scayde

Well, I was going to make Fable's point about taxes - @Scayde, you seem to feel very strongly that taking money from you is a serious violation of your rights (although it is not really a violation of Human Rights)...but I am curious, does being taxed a quarter of your income every month provoke as passionate a reaction as you have posted here?

Anyway - here are my thoughts on the matter:

'Trickle-down' economics does not work - and I think that this is immediately evident to anyone who looks at the world at the moment. Scayde, you must realise that the countries in which 'trickle-down' economics are present are the worst off countries in the world. The countries in which capital is injected via foreign corporate presence are the countries, not only in which people are hungriest and most needy of public services, but they are also the countries which have no hope for the future.

Argentinian people will certainly not benefit from selling their country's governnence (possibly made up word) away to the IMF, and here is my argument:
To provide unprofitable public services for the people, the people have to be taxed. AIDS treatments and infrastructure never ever make money.
When Big Business, the IMF and WB etc move into a country, it is because the country is desperate for something to base their economy on, and need help.
However, when this happens, the competition is reverse to how you described it when you said: We will allow 3 of you to build factories , These are our consessions. Protection of your patents, favorable tarriffs, freedome to conduct your business without undue government involvement....but these are our demands...You will pay X amount in taxes to go for community improvement, you must pay our people at least this x-much money,They will have x days off per year, they will not be required to workmore than x hours per week, they will be entitled to overtime. They will be entitled to advancement, there will be no discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic persuasion, sex, marital status, physical or mental disability, as long as they are capable of performing the job, the company will provide suitable accomodation for any non essential handicaps, and essential ones if an employee can be retrained after an injury. The company will assume liability for workers injured on the job. We expect health care benifits, a modern clinic, an on site daycare, a community school, an adult learning program, public sanitation acording to international standards in the communuity you choose to build in and a 10 year contract not to move or relocate the plant for anyreasons other than catastrophic loss..

Competition takes place when somebody has something that somebody else wants - But you think that the competition is among big business, whereas actually, it is among the desperate countries. The capital is 'the thing that somebody wants', and the governments of Argentina, Venezuala etc are the people who want it. So the competition is among who can debase themselves and allow business to make the most profit.
AIDS treatments and infrastructure never ever make money.
This is why governments sign contracts with the IMF which, rather than looking like -

'You must spend a certain ammount on public services each year, and pay us taxes'

actually look like -

'We will reduce taxes and public spending a certain ammount each year, and allow you unlimited political freedoms'

Hence, countries who allow corporate capitalism in through death's door are not ensuring anything for the future, other than their hopes for democracy and freedom being sacrificed to profit.

And the logic is this - as a country is taken over by Free Trade, the process which is going on is not 'trickle down', it is 'leech up'. Because the money is what is needed, the wielder of the money is the wielder of the power, and, as the wielder of the money is the one with the power, the wielder of the money is the one who decides upon what conditions the money will be granted. .
Now, if the wielder of the money is motivated by profit, they will stipulate circumstances of maximum profitability, which invariably means less democracy (as democracy leads to the masses' needs being provided for, which costs money. AIDS treatments and infrastructure never ever make money.), and less taxes and public spending. I hope that this is undeniable, given the first premise.
But if the wielder of the money is motivated by love for common people, they will stipulate circumstances in which the people are best provided for, which would mean higher taxes, better working rights, and more democracy.

What this boils down to is this:

Are Multinational Corporations motivated by profit, or love for common people?

[InfiniteNature]

While I am probably repeating several people's points, lets just say I am too lazy to go through all 10 posts, so I'll just give my two scents.

In this post I have seen a lot about survival of the fittest as being the model behind capitalism as of this being somehow more natural, while it is true that nature works according to the survival of the fittest model i.e. competive it also works at the same time according to cooperative methods i.e. symbiosis, in which each contributes something. For example the Zooanthalae coral symbiosis, these two organisms have learned over time that it is better to cooperate rather then compete, each contributes nutrients and produce something very close to a self sustaining ecosystem, which in the nutrient poor high sunlight world of the tropics is essential. The human body is another great example of cooperative networks, you look at yourself as one distincitive organism, looked at another way it can be seen that what you are is a collection of many different cells which have agreed to work together and thus increase survival chances for the greater whole, the mitochondria in your cells for example is a relatively recent newcomer(by recent I mean millions and millions of years) which was once a cell of its own but agreed to work with your primitive cellular ancestors in order to produce more energy. Another example would be the bacteria in your gut, these bacteria allow you to catalyze Vitamin C, doing it purely for their own ends, but without which your life would be much harder.

So while nature can on the one hand be characterized as survival of the fittest, it is also at the same time in equal sometimes superior parts to be cooperative.

Now back to the communism idea, as to it never working, untrue communalistic societies have worked throughout many different parts of the world, and were quite successful, and not all of them were 'primitive'(most of you were thinking that weren't you), there have been many different African kingdoms and empires which were based on the communal sharing of resources, these kingdoms were quite successful, as have been many different Native American errrm American Indian (so hard to be poltically correct these days), you know what I mean, but anway many different Indian tribes have used the commmunal sharing of resources and have been quite successful.

Its not humanitarian to expouse the communistic or communalistic governmental system, it like any other natural system is simply about survival(you know for the human race), what do you care about Starving Ethiopians or those people in Rwanda, or in Haiti, I mean as long as I got mine all those primitive lazy Africans and poor people can just starve right???, self interest above all that it, now what happens in one example if for example a nation like Haiti is starving and has destroyed its land, do the people just decide to be good little savages and stay where they are at, no as is becoming a increasing problem they move over here in droves and become a burden on the society which you say we got ours which means less for you got yours and increased taxes to keep those damn dastardly starving people from wanting a better life for themselves. You may not think so but problems around the world have a way of creating ripples which make it worse of for everyone else, for example starving Africans means more diseases such as antiobiotic resistant diseases popped out, it means that those lovely safaris you have are gone because Africans in a attempt to survive have killed of all those lovely animals, or in a more direct link without enough cheap labor the heavy resource deposits which those lazy Africans were mining can no longer be exploited which means that once cheap prices and materials which were once abundant are no longer there for the average Westerner.

Now the capitalistic system presumes there is a infinite amount of resources on this planet and a infinite amount of room to grow, so eventually everyone will be better off, sorry to say there isn't a infinite amount of resources nor even enough for everyone, now if there is not a infinite amount of resources this means capitalism as it is expoused right now is not sustainable, which means what right?, this means in the very near future little things like resource depletion will begin cropping up, wars will crop up as the 'rich' nations use their militaries to fence up steadily more depeleted resources until eventually the whole sodden system collapses for lack of room and resources to expand. Communism has worked perhaps not as expressed by Marx, but it has worked, without communal action without communal sharing of resources, the human race will die.

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by frogus
...Now, if the wielder of the money is motivated by profit, they will stipulate circumstances of maximum profitability, which invariably means less democracy (as democracy leads to the masses' needs being provided for, which costs money. AIDS treatments and infrastructure never ever make money.), and less taxes and public spending. I hope that this is undeniable, given the first premise...

@frogus: I know this post of yours was directed at Scayde (I did reply to your post to me, above, btw), but I just can't help it ... where in the world did you come up with this set of "logical" arguments? You need to do a whole lot more explaining how the profit motive smashes democracy (to use good ol' mediev's terms) than to simply say it is so. If I have a product, and I sell it, how - how! - does that lessen the possibility of democracy? Good grief! Selling products is all about democracy: it's giving the people what they want. They ask for it, we provide it. It's like, like ... economic democracy!

(Please note that I myself do not desire a pure democracy in the political sense - I like my republic just the way it is, thank you - but that is another debate entirely.)

And would you PLEASE stop telling people that they are "completely wrong." I don't care if you put a winking face after it - it just ain't nice.

[fable]

Originally posted by Lazarus
@fable: you are correct (regarding taxes). But if you have read Reisman and Rand (and I know you have), then you know what they, and I (and possibly Scayde) think of taxes. They are expropriation, and we don't like 'em.

I have no idea whether Scayde shares your abhorence of taxes. Possibly I missed this. Does she?

However, I am not certain that the current topic (Communism) is one we want to widen to include the very narrow topic of taxes - it would really deserve a new thread (and we just had a thread on taxes, didn't we?).

It's pertinent in that one of Scayde's main objections to Communism, which she has stated at least twice, is that taxes under Communism are involuntary. As that's the case under any government (since goverments cannot exist without taxation of some sort), I think bringing the issue up is certainly applicable to the discussion.

[fable]

Bump!

[Chanak]

My apologies for my absenteism from this thread. Things have been busy lately, and I now find the time to sit down and respond. I'll take it easy, so as not to commit a filibuster...

I certainly do not agree with those statements Dr Walter Williams have made. I don’t agree with him in general I think, he is a conservative economist and IIRC he has also suggested that black people in South Africa might have been better off during apartheid. That’s beside the point of course, but I think this guy has a lot of strange ideas that I do not agree with. There are many economic theories around and I certainly don’t believe his to be correct. I think he is confusion cause and effect. Do you agree with him? And even if poverty was self inflicted, is that a reason not to help? Should I not help a patient who has tried to committ suicide? Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people in the rich world. Should we stop all research, all treatment, all work towards preventing suicide, because it is a self-inflicted harm?

I certainly agree with Dr. Williams, and in general as well. He is a brilliant analyst whom you happen to disagree with, which is fine, really. However, it does not make his ideas strange...for I have seen the basis of his premises myself. In my experience, most poverty is indeed self-inflicted. Facts stand behind the sad truth that the most talented in the poorest nations are driven to leave by the structures and institutions of their own countries, fleeing to nations which feature the very things Dr. Williams notes are earmarks of prosperity...greater personal freedom, property rights, and a market-oriented economy, to name some. An example of such a nation is the United States of America. For over 200 years, people from virtually every nation and culture have emigrated to the US to share in the prosperity enjoyed by Americans. The result? The enormous cultural diversity and endless success stories you will find here in my country. Just down the street, a family of Pakistanis own and operate a very successful gas station/convenience store...in fact, I frequent their store quite often. It is conveniently located, and their prices are reasonable and very competitive.

Although I have used the US as an example, other nations which support a market-oriented economy experience similar things. Take Hong Kong, for example. Many people target overpopulation in India, or China, as a source of their crushing poverty. In Hong Kong, there are over 240,000 people per square mile. Compare this to China, which has roughly 409 people per square mile...Hong Kong is a brilliant financial success, while experiencing overcrowding on a scale that boggles the mind. It has everything to do with the system, not with "conditions," "population," or even "resources." The late economist Lord Peter Bauer said, "Economic achievement and progress depend on people's conduct, not on their numbers."

Average income in Hong Kong is astronomically higher than it is in China. This holds true for every nation which supports a market-oriented economy, where resources are moved by the demands of the market, and not dictated by the State. The prosperity of market-driven economies bear witness to this; and history itself bears witness to this.

As a sidenote, Dr. Williams' comments concerning Aparteid should not be taken out of context. He was speaking purely from a standpoint which focused on economic conditions in South Africa, not one in support of a discriminatory system. That is probably why that seemed strange to you. By contrast, a number of individuals have commented in the past that Russia was better off under Communism...did they make that statement in support of the Siberian prison camps, or were they making a detatched economic observation? I would say the latter, and I am not a supporter of Communism at all, for I understand their position as they intended it to be received.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable
But isn't that exactly what happens now, when you pay taxes? Without your voluntary consent, your income is garnished to pay federal and state taxes. When you buy goods, you pay additional taxes. You have no choice in the matter. Capitalism and communism are no different in this particular respect. They both allow for governments. Neither speaks to the issue of control of government, because capitalism and communism are economic theories, rather than political ones.

First of all, I think the current tax system is unfair. it is weighted against those who are more prosperous, and favors those who are not. I feel at lower income levels this can incourage mediocrety. The system can also discourage growth at the higher end.

In Texas, we have no state income tax. The taxes we have are inacted by referendum. ie: The taxpayers vote on, and approve any tax laws that are passed. Our taxes differ from county to county, as each county decides what services it requires, and taxes itself accordingly. There is a base minimum sales tax that is sent to Austin to pay for state services. Additional ammounts may be added on by each county to pay for other services and projects. Nowhere may it be more than 8.5% as this was the aount set by the voters in referendum. There are also usage fees and Property taxes, which are voted on and set in each district.

My point being, these taxes are not perfect, but at least the taxpayer has a voice, and representation in the matter. After all, on of the founding cries that led to American independance was:

"No taxation without representation."

@Lazarus: You were right. Under the current system, I disagree with the income tax. It is not fair. It punishes the achievers and rewards the underachievers. This encourages mediocrety, and discourages growth.

@fable: you are right also. It takes money to run a government. Taxes are how a government draws its income. They are a necessity.

While it may be easier for the wealthy to afford to pay higher taxes, so that the poor won't have to, if this is done with out their consent, it is expropriation. It often is not the rich who actually mind this, but the middle class, who feel it harder. Regardless, no one should take a man's money without his consent.

Idea: I think it would be great if countries decided to charge a fee for its citizenry to live there. If the people did not like it, they could go else where. Where ever they went, they would have to pay, but borders would be open, and people could live where ever they wanted to. Countries would have to stretch their dollar, keep services up, and fees as low as possible. They would have to compete in the world for the population and work force by offering the best services, for the best prices, the governments would have to compete with other ideologies, the infrastructure would also have to be competative. everything from roads to education, to healthcare, to defence would be dsigned to be the most effective, most cost effficient possible.

No more pork in the budget

Now that is taking free enterprise all the way

[Scayde]

@Chanak.......LOL..looks like we posted at the same time ...I love your post and couldn't agree with it more

[Chanak]

Originally posted by Scayde
First of all, I think the current tax system is unfair. it is weighted against those who are more prosperous, and favors those who are not. I feel at lower income levels this can incourage mediocrety. The system can also discourage growth at the higher end.

In Texas, we have no state income tax. The taxes we have are inacted by referendum. ie: The taxpayers vote on, and approve any tax laws that are passed. Our taxes differ from county to county, as each county decides what services it requires, and taxes itself accordingly. There is a base minimum sales tax that is sent to Austin to pay for state services. Additional ammounts may be added on by each county to pay for other services and projects. Nowhere may it be more than 8.5% as this was the aount set by the voters in referendum. There are also usage fees and Property taxes, which are voted on and set in each district.

My point being, these taxes are not perfect, but at least the taxpayer has a voice, and representation in the matter. After all, on of the founding cries that led to American independance was:

"No taxation without representation."

@Lazarus: You were right. Under the current system, I disagree with the income tax. It is not fair. It punishes the achievers and rewards the underachievers. This encourages mediocrety, and discourages growth.

@fable: you are right also. It takes money to run a government. Taxes are how a government draws its income. They are a necessity.

While it may be easier for the wealthy to afford to pay higher taxes, so that the poor won't have to, if this is done with out their consent, it is expropriation. It often is not the rich who actually mind this, but the middle class, who feel it harder. Regardless, no one should take a man's money without his consent.

Idea: I think it would be great if countries decided to charge a fee for its citizenry to live there. If the people did not like it, they could go else where. Where ever they went, they would have to pay, but borders would be open, and people could live where ever they wanted to. Countries would have to stretch their dollar, keep services up, and fees as low as possible. They would have to compete in the world for the population and work force by offering the best services, for the best prices, the governments would have to compete with other ideologies, the infrastructure would also have to be competative. everything from roads to education, to healthcare, to defence would be dsigned to be the most effective, most cost effficient possible.

No more pork in the budget

Now that is taking free enterprise all the way

I agree with you, Scayde. The current tax system in the United States is indeed unfair, for 95% of taxes are paid for by 5% of the population. The idea behind this is "redistribution of wealth," whereby people with higher incomes are taxed more oppressively in order to fund payments to lower income people, and fund welfare programs for people who don't work. Many lower income earners pay no taxes at all...in fact, they are paid by the government each year during tax season!

EDIT - Novel idea, btw. I loved your post, too. *hug*

[Chanak]

Originally posted by Aegis
Just a quick note that I jusr discovered. this is just directed towards Scayde and Chanak.

You argue about being born into a country with your on rights and choices available to you. Those rights include things like being able to vote for whoever you want, work how you want so forth. I'm just curious if you know that, after the American Revolution when Washington came to power, for 13 years after his inaugrination, there was a period where free election was removed from the US. What your doing, is defending a system, now, that was built on the exact same princilples as Soviet Communism. Just thought I'd throw that out.

In regard to the government of the United States...

The Constitution of the United States of America includes a very unique document called the "Bill of Rights." This document guaranteed all citizens certain inalienable rights, the likes of which you did not find at that time elsewhere in the world. Citizens were guaranteed the right to assemble, bear arms, and indulge in free speech, amongst other things. Freedom of the press from Governmental censorship was also guaranteed. Just as well, citizens were allowed to own property privately, apart from State control. These were not features found in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I beg to differ with you.

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde
While it may be easier for the wealthy to afford to pay higher taxes, so that the poor won't have to, if this is done with out their consent, it is expropriation. It often is not the rich who actually mind this, but the middle class, who feel it harder. Regardless, no one should take a man's money without his consent.

Historically, nearly all the challenges to income tax in the US have come from the top 10% of the wage bracket, not the middle class, and nearly all the benefit of adjustments over the last twenty years have gone to that top 10%. You're welcome to check this in pages devoted to both the Reagan tax reform and the Dubya tax "give-back."

As for taking money without consent: again, that's how governments run. The alternative was tried in the US before it became the US--for six years, during the 1780s. Under a series of Articles of Confederation, the US had virtually no government, save for an overseer congress. It was a monumental failure, an attempt to turn into practice what was at best an interesting theory.

Governments have run very successfully with the consent of the governed, but never without more than just a hearty handshake. Public school systems, library systems, health care for the elderly and handicapped, public buildings, the rule of law and the defense of the nation, are just a very few of the activities that a federal government must assume if the nation is to survive. I can't think examples of nations that have managed without performing these tasks, and without the taxes levied to perform them.

Idea: I think it would be great if countries decided to charge a fee for its citizenry to live there. If the people did not like it, they could go else where. Where ever they went, they would have to pay, but borders would be open, and people could live where ever they wanted to. Countries would have to stretch their dollar, keep services up, and fees as low as possible.

How do you propose to keep services and fees as low as possible, if the private sector pays considerably more for the same services? If your fellow citizens refuse to pay teachers an adequate wage and the good ones go elsewhere, aren't they saving money by taking it out of their kids' pockets?

I'm afraid I must disagree with you heartily on this. I feel that tax referendums are a bad idea, but that government should be held more accountable to the public by making it a better instrument of reflective values: creating legislative bodies based on proportional support, instead of winner-take-all.