It's a non argument as, we aren't allowed to tax anyone. That's the kinda of statement that makes your statement run aground and verging on non-sensical.markvee said:
Canada - Welcome to Socialism - Suck/tax till we dry
- Thread starter jcuhna
- Start date
MV. 100% agreed. So far all your points were all good . Do you have any answers to help me out here or else I will seriously thinking of burry my head in an SP butt hole and never look at society again
Maybe I should invent an AIG (Artifical Intelligent Group - NOT American International Group or in my world it would be Arrogance, Incompetence & Greed) that can govern and control the laws.
Imagine that somehow legal and govermental functions came to be done, or at least informed, by AIGs that were smart enough to run companies or goverments that way, and that had a genuine concern for the best interests of their customers, employees, and citizens - Good-bye to any human control of anything. That would be something worth looking forward to, and working for.
Imagine machines have ethics, moral, and consciences - Computers do not lie - They know the difference between right and wrong and been programmed to do right.
Damn this would be awsome.
To paraphrase Barnie Frankes, what planet do you spend most of your time on?jcuhna said:MV. 100% agreed. So far all your points were all good . Do you have any answers to help me out here or else I will seriously thinking of burry my head in an SP butt hole and never look at society again
Maybe I should invent an AIG (Artifical Intelligent Group - NOT American International Group or in my world it would be Arrogance, Incompetence & Greed) that can govern and control the laws.
Imagine that somehow legal and govermental functions came to be done, or at least informed, by AIGs that were smart enough to run companies or goverments that way, and that had a genuine concern for the best interests of their customers, employees, and citizens - Good-bye to any human control of anything. That would be something worth looking forward to, and working for.
Imagine machines have ethics, moral, and consciences - Computers do not lie - They know the difference between right and wrong and been programmed to do right.
Damn this would be awsome.
blackrock13 is a f.....face
People thinking in the box like urself is exactly how Galileo being jailed by the Catholic church.
Btw, don't fucking follow some polictican and use their phrase. Don't you have ur own mind? If you don't like to openly discuss about stuff then fuck off.......and go somewhere else. I didnt ask you to jump in this discussion and insult people. Since you are a f... rude asshole. Then I am going to spit it in ur face right now....
If you like socialist so much why don't you move to North Korea? Let me tell you this, I cannot wait till one day they kick your front door down and blindful you and your family. Then they rob everything from you and send you to some re-education camp such as Siberia. Then you wish you would be born again in a different society where socialist/communist never exist.
Don't think that you belong to human race and you are superior. Don't you ever think that somewhere out there in the universe, there will be another planet where silicon base oraganism will be the superior race. Don't think that carbon base is always the only living and intelligent being on the planet system.blackrock13 said:
People thinking in the box like urself is exactly how Galileo being jailed by the Catholic church.
Btw, don't fucking follow some polictican and use their phrase. Don't you have ur own mind? If you don't like to openly discuss about stuff then fuck off.......and go somewhere else. I didnt ask you to jump in this discussion and insult people. Since you are a f... rude asshole. Then I am going to spit it in ur face right now....
If you like socialist so much why don't you move to North Korea? Let me tell you this, I cannot wait till one day they kick your front door down and blindful you and your family. Then they rob everything from you and send you to some re-education camp such as Siberia. Then you wish you would be born again in a different society where socialist/communist never exist.
Can we agree then that the difference between theft and taxation of the involuntary (even if this involuntary group is a small minority) is that taxation is “allowed”?blackrock13 said:
For the ordinary citizen, it is robbery by threat of kidnapping by threat of assault or murder. For government it is taxation by threat of locking up tax cheats (with force used for resisting arrest). In both cases, it can result in an armed person demanding money by threat of force.
But the difference is that, for government, this manner of funds acquisition is allowable, so we use a different term from theft; we use the term taxation. I assume you mean allowable in a democratic country by reason of a majority vote (I will assume for the sake of this argument that elected representatives in a democracy actually carry out the will of the majority). Of course, with a majority vote there is rarely unanimous agreement but rather a minority of dissenting votes.
Does a majority vote make everything allowable? What if the majority race (making up more than 50% of the total population) voted unanimously to execute a minority race? Does a majority vote mean that we must invent a new term for allowable genocide?
I think that there is no need for a new term because a majority vote does not make the immoral become moral.
So the question becomes where do you draw the line of morality that can not be violated even by majority vote? Personally, I think that it is immoral to use force except in defence of one’s property (The extent of one’s property is another discussion, but it certainly extends to one’s own body). Therefore, it is immoral to use force to compel action, which would make taxation as it is currently conducted, immoral. Because I define theft as immoral acquisition (not merely as illegal acquisition), I classify taxation as a form of theft.
Taxation is the price we pay to live in a civilized society, Oliver Wendall Holmes.
Taxation is not a necessary evil is is a positive good. More taxation is fantastic because it means more education, more health care, better environment, safer food, less poverty more equality, more happiness for more people.
Taxation is just great so long as it is heavily progressive so that the more you make the much more you pay.
About 10 years ago I read an economist tell New Internationalist Magazine that it would take about $17 billion dollars annually to feed cloth house and provide fresh water to all those on Earth that presently do not have these things. $17 billion is a lot of money. It is the amount the world spends on arms every two weeks. What a shame.
Taxation is not a necessary evil is is a positive good. More taxation is fantastic because it means more education, more health care, better environment, safer food, less poverty more equality, more happiness for more people.
Taxation is just great so long as it is heavily progressive so that the more you make the much more you pay.
About 10 years ago I read an economist tell New Internationalist Magazine that it would take about $17 billion dollars annually to feed cloth house and provide fresh water to all those on Earth that presently do not have these things. $17 billion is a lot of money. It is the amount the world spends on arms every two weeks. What a shame.
markvee said:
Your initial comment here are fanciful and verge on ludicrous especially when applied to Canada.
In a democracy the majority does have a say, as does traditions, logic and as does basic human rights. Sometimes, democracy does take a back seat, thank goodness not often, such as in the war measures act. sometimes force or the threat of force is the only thing some people understand and thus will respond to. that's one reason we can be good peacekeepers, the sides in conflict know that we are as fair as can be expected and yet we can kick the snot out of you, if required. It's not use making threats if everyone knows you can't or won't deliver.
Your premise of theft as an immoral act is off, as it little to do with morality and it is instead a legal term. Just because you want to call a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. Yes, it's part of the 10 commandments but there are a few people in the world that don't adhere to those rules in their religious context, ie. handed down as the word of god, in whole or in part, so does that mean these rules don't matter or count to them.
For someone with such a few posts under your belt, you sure go off really easily with the accusations and show you newbie status on this BB and I repeat 'on this BB', making statements that have no basis, what so ever, especially with regards to me. Your comments to MB, about your experiences in the school of life or hard knocks, mean less now than before because of your words here today. You still have much to learnjcuhna said:
Others here will give you some idea as to their opinion of my place and profile on this BB and their opinion would carry more weight then your present one.
1)I don't need your permission to join this thread.
2) I can be called many things but a socialist is not one of them.
3) I have had that knock at the door and I'm still here with all my appendages and personal belongings.
4) I have been to Siberia, albeit not for RE-education, and it's big.
5) I don't follow any one politician, although I have some favorites and they wear coats of many colours; again obvious if you'd spent any time on this BB. I tend to be a tad left of centre most days but have gone over way right to defend something that I believe in and not flinched a bit.
6) Whether or not I believe in life elsewhere or not, which I do, is irrelevant to my statement.
I'm hoping this post of your was sent to me in error, as has happened in the past, before your arrival. If not, hey!
You've given me a good Canadian equivalent to my fanciful comment, the War Measures Act, used to imprison peaceful Japanese Canadians on the basis of race. One could argue that it is morality that took a back seat in a functional democracy or that there is no guarantee that a democracy functions in exercising the will of the majority.blackrock13 said:
I have gone my whole adult life without using force (or even the threat of force), except in self defense. Do you use force in your everyday life to get some people to understand and respond? Maybe government can grow up too.blackrock13 said:
"Peacekeepers", another wonderful government word - what would it be called if you or I took guns on patrol in foreign countries on our own initiative, rather than on government initiative?blackrock13 said:
Theft is contrary to the Commandment against stealing; is the Bible a book of legal terms written by a state? I learned from my parents that stealing is wrong before I knew much about laws. It is my understanding of theft having everything to do with morality that allows me to see that the government is hypocritical in using different definitions of theft for itself and for me.blackrock13 said:
Th War measures act was invoked by Canada only twice in this country's 150 year history that I know.
Once against a people who country of origin, not race, we were at war with. Remember we were allied to the Chinese at the time so you can't play the race card. It was harsh, but was an easy solution to a difficult question. Not necessarily the right solution, but the easiest. I was more concern with the government(s) respond after the war that ticked me off. It not uncommon error, but it's more important what you do after the error is discovered and the government(s) response sucked for a very long time.
The second time was when terrorist in the early 70's, who all looked like you and I, were blowing up the city of Montreal on a regular basis and kidnapping politicians.
To lesser degree, we were at war with a foe that was not not so obvious and therefore the WMA was invoked on our own. I've not met many people. French, English, Italian, or Oriental, in Quebec who looked at that application of the WMA as a bad move. it may have given the later some flashbacks but they were very astute in their overview of the events.
I'm glad you've been very fortunate not to have to use force on a regular basis, neither have I, but their many people with whom that 's the only thing they respond to. That was my point. when dealing with them you have have the message or reputation of being willing and skill to back up your words with force. How many police officers go through their entire service never having to fire their gun once on the street. Even today, most are in that group but we all know they can and will if called to. That makes their job easier. I'm the first to look,with great respect, at the French and British police with their skill to operate in their environment without the individual use of firearms, and admire them. The same can be said of our Newfoundland Constabulary, but they are considering a change there.
As to your comment and question on peacekeeping, yes peacekeeping is a government word, but it but it describes the the job very well, just as police work can be described as peacekeeping first and law enforcement second.
As to what our taking firearms on patrol in foreign lands is called, it would depend on what the mandate set by our government says it is; war, peacemaking, peacekeeping or embassy duty (which in the true sense is not foreign land, but that's spitting hairs).
If your original argument was the morality of the golden rule (do onto others ....), which in it's basic form is a part of over 10 major religions, then you may have point but the idea of theft as a moral question is something I've not read or discussed anywhere.
Theft is theft. Did you own it? Did you take it? Did you have permission? Then it's theft. With respect to taxes; They do have permission to take it, therefore it's not theft.
As to the question , is the bible a book of legal terms written by a state? My short answer is no. If your answer is yes, what state?
Once against a people who country of origin, not race, we were at war with. Remember we were allied to the Chinese at the time so you can't play the race card. It was harsh, but was an easy solution to a difficult question. Not necessarily the right solution, but the easiest. I was more concern with the government(s) respond after the war that ticked me off. It not uncommon error, but it's more important what you do after the error is discovered and the government(s) response sucked for a very long time.
The second time was when terrorist in the early 70's, who all looked like you and I, were blowing up the city of Montreal on a regular basis and kidnapping politicians.
To lesser degree, we were at war with a foe that was not not so obvious and therefore the WMA was invoked on our own. I've not met many people. French, English, Italian, or Oriental, in Quebec who looked at that application of the WMA as a bad move. it may have given the later some flashbacks but they were very astute in their overview of the events.
I'm glad you've been very fortunate not to have to use force on a regular basis, neither have I, but their many people with whom that 's the only thing they respond to. That was my point. when dealing with them you have have the message or reputation of being willing and skill to back up your words with force. How many police officers go through their entire service never having to fire their gun once on the street. Even today, most are in that group but we all know they can and will if called to. That makes their job easier. I'm the first to look,with great respect, at the French and British police with their skill to operate in their environment without the individual use of firearms, and admire them. The same can be said of our Newfoundland Constabulary, but they are considering a change there.
As to your comment and question on peacekeeping, yes peacekeeping is a government word, but it but it describes the the job very well, just as police work can be described as peacekeeping first and law enforcement second.
As to what our taking firearms on patrol in foreign lands is called, it would depend on what the mandate set by our government says it is; war, peacemaking, peacekeeping or embassy duty (which in the true sense is not foreign land, but that's spitting hairs).
If your original argument was the morality of the golden rule (do onto others ....), which in it's basic form is a part of over 10 major religions, then you may have point but the idea of theft as a moral question is something I've not read or discussed anywhere.
Theft is theft. Did you own it? Did you take it? Did you have permission? Then it's theft. With respect to taxes; They do have permission to take it, therefore it's not theft.
As to the question , is the bible a book of legal terms written by a state? My short answer is no. If your answer is yes, what state?
The War Measures Act was involked three times, both World Wars and the October Crisis.blackrock13 said:
I stand corrected, the Japanese Canadians were locked up on the basis of former nationality not race, but the government’s discriminatory locking up of innocent Canadians still illustrates my point: Even assuming that government enacts the will of the majority (something that I don’t accept), the government can still act immorally because the majority is not always moral.blackrock13 said:
None of this takes away from my point that it is hypocritical to give the police the power to use violence offensively as well as defensively while ordinary people are prohibited from effectively defending themselves from all violence, state-imposed or otherwise.blackrock13 said:
I was asking what you would call it if we didn’t ask permission of our government but just took some guns to, for example, Spain and positioned ourselves between Basque separatists and other Spaniards, shooting those who initiated violence. This is the smell test for government policies: What would it be called if you did it? For foreign policy, there is a second smell test: What if someone else did it to us? What if Portuguese soldiers went to Oka or Caledonia based on a UN resolution and shot some Canadians to “keep peace”.blackrock13 said:
Theft is forbidden by the 8th Commandment of the Bible. The Bible is not a legal text, but some people use it to guide their morality, which I am using as evidence that theft has a moral definition, not just a legal definition. So when I equate taxation with theft, I am saying that taxation and theft ware equivalent morally, but not legally. The permission to be taxed you refer to comes not from the individual taxed (robbed) but rather from the government (robber). As discussed with the War Measures Act, the government can give itself permission (arguably based on majority vote) to commit immoral acts.blackrock13 said:
Actions like you referred to do happen, as in the Mac PaP's battalion of the Spanish civil war. Our government did not want to get involved but some Canadians did. Your wanting to connect morality with laws on so many levels just weakens the definition of morality. It's not so much a legal idea as an idea held by oneself, through life experience and the teachings of others.
Again your wanting to call a dog a cat and that doesn't carry. It's still a dog.
The bible runs into problems with all the conflicts contained in it pages. Too much if not all of it was written way after the events by people not involved and who had agendas. Even today, when it serves the argument of one side, the bible passages are referred to as the word of God and should be taken literally, yet when the situation changes, the argument put forth is that the passages are just parables and should not be taken literally. You can't have it both ways. People who are far more scholarly than I in the bible can possibly quote scripture and verse of what I speak, but that is it's greatest weakness as a law-giver text; it's many contradictions. Top that with the different versions of it, over 50 at last count, and that just complicates things beyond limits.
Your 'smell tests' don't hold up as there are too many checks and balances in the way.
.... and we can 'what if' until the cows come home and it really won't matter much.
Again your wanting to call a dog a cat and that doesn't carry. It's still a dog.
The bible runs into problems with all the conflicts contained in it pages. Too much if not all of it was written way after the events by people not involved and who had agendas. Even today, when it serves the argument of one side, the bible passages are referred to as the word of God and should be taken literally, yet when the situation changes, the argument put forth is that the passages are just parables and should not be taken literally. You can't have it both ways. People who are far more scholarly than I in the bible can possibly quote scripture and verse of what I speak, but that is it's greatest weakness as a law-giver text; it's many contradictions. Top that with the different versions of it, over 50 at last count, and that just complicates things beyond limits.
Your 'smell tests' don't hold up as there are too many checks and balances in the way.
.... and we can 'what if' until the cows come home and it really won't matter much.
I have to take a break from this post because (to be honest) I don't want to bring up some of the ugliest things that I've seen we as human done to each other. If there is a God on this planet, I am telling you now he would never forgive us for what we've done to each other.
Base on my last profession. I have had the opportunities to go be in these regions during the conflict.
The First Gulf War
Sarajevo
and Angola
In the end it is not Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, Christian, Muslim, etc that we are fighting or killing for. It is who get what in the end. Let it be diamonds, oil, gold, or anything that worth to kill for just to be on top of the food chain.
When I was in these regions. One question I always asked to myself - How come I don't see family or children of those leaders that we seen on TVs everyday here. Where the hell are these fuckers? Maybe they are laughing at us dying at this moment, because their bank accounts getting bigger base on the body bags that we collect from the bloody soil that we are are standing on.
So I rest my case from here because this is the last thing I would want to dig my head in again. Life is too short anyway
“War mongering assholes fight to the last of your children.” At the behest of government, your children can be sent to risk their lives and to murder defenseless women and children in order to continue enslavement by said government. Of course, such acts must be properly obscured with government bullshit-speak by which the murdered women and children are called collateral damage in the fight for freedom.
In wars of aggression, including those approved by UN resolution, I don’t think that the elected representatives are carrying out the will of the majority, and so democracy is a sham to cover the immoral deeds of war mongers.
But assuming that the majority really does want war, it is only the young and able-bodied who do the fighting. The young and able bodied may in fact vote in the majority against war, but they can still be sent to war on behalf of the total voting population.
Similarly, the net tax payers may in fact vote in the majority against taxation, but they still get to pay taxes on behalf of the total voting population, and government bullshit-speak spares the many voters from knowing that they support theft.
In wars of aggression, including those approved by UN resolution, I don’t think that the elected representatives are carrying out the will of the majority, and so democracy is a sham to cover the immoral deeds of war mongers.
But assuming that the majority really does want war, it is only the young and able-bodied who do the fighting. The young and able bodied may in fact vote in the majority against war, but they can still be sent to war on behalf of the total voting population.
Similarly, the net tax payers may in fact vote in the majority against taxation, but they still get to pay taxes on behalf of the total voting population, and government bullshit-speak spares the many voters from knowing that they support theft.
markvee said:
I'm going to guess here that you don't like war. In short I don't either, but some of your observations are a little too over the top.
Yes, it's been said many times many ways, old men start wars and young men fight them. It's been that way thousands of years. young men fight them because they are the part of our kind who have the strength, stamina, and the sense of immortality that is needed to fight wars.
Civilian deaths are nothing new. The term collateral damage has been coined in this modern age of instant reporting, sound bits, and military speak, but to refer to all civilian deaths as murder is too simple. These types of casualties don't make war any less wasteful and destructive. Civilian deaths are horrendous when one side or both decide that tactics like sieges, carpet bombing, and scorch earth can be used; again not all new.
It wasn't that long ago when conflicts were fought on the field of battle by standing armies with civilians sitting on adjacent hills under trees with picnic baskets; the American Civil War and The South African conflicts come to mind. Those days are gone and when you've got combatants using women and children as human shields, rockets being fired in ones and twos at civilian targets claiming to be used as self-defense weapons and car bombs being use in heavily populated areas then these civilian numbers rise to unthinkable levels. Don't be too quick to put all this on the government's shoulder. It's factors like this that make fighting wars a last result and so horrific.
We live in a parliamentary democracy and as such we elect people to make decisions on our behalf, so a few making decisions for the many is not a sham. That's how it works and why our vote is so important and so is our making our dissatisfaction known to our representatives.
I hope you vote. With your feelings being what they are, when was the last time you told your representative how you felt. If the answer is never then your just on the sidelines venting with little affect.
Your 'what if' of maybe the young are part of the of the majority vote against war is hard to grab as plausible, but in this county we have a volunteer army whose ranks joined up, offering themselves to be put in harms way in times of conflict and need, be it Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Oka, or the Haiti.
I can't come up with one name in our government that I could call a war monger, sorry.
jcuhna said:
JC;
It's unfortunate that you feel you must back away from this thread as your first hand insight from these parts of the world would be interesting to hear.
As many religious people , even some on this BB, God will always forgive, but first you have to believe. For me, the jury is still out on that one.
