Topic: Done something nice today? Sorry, someone else did that! - page 2. (Read 4300 times)

I'd like to point out that I believe you contradicted yourself.  Specifically, you said that taxes don't support the infrastructure but that they support the government, and then you go on to say that the government doesn't let anyone else provide the infrastructure.  So...then who is providing the infrastructure?

Yes, taxes absolutely support the infrastructure.

Could there exist a societal structure in which taxes are not needed.  Yes.  Does that structure exist currently?  No.

Asking to not pay taxes because you'd prefer a society in which infrastructure is supported by private ventures is like asking for an honorary Ph.D because you think you have more knowledge in a particular field than someone who has paid the time and money to obtain a post-graduate degree.  Sure, you may actually be more knowledgeable, and it might be a better idea to judge credentials based upon actual knowledge and merit rather than a piece of paper -- but too bad, that's not the reality we live in right now.  Suck it up and deal with it. 

When a large enough percentage of the people realizes that a certain type of society can exist that does not require taxes nor pieces of paper certifying academic credentials, then that society will take shape.  But, the truth of the matter is that people either simply do not know how to make such a society a reality yet (it's a very, very complex problem), or they're pretty darn happy with the way things currently are.

Taxes support the government. Not the infrastructure. Roads, sewage, everything that is actually needed can, by that very feature (necessity) be paid for privately.

Telling me that I have to support them because they provide something I need is much less impressive when they don't let anyone else provide it.

I don't think it's necessarily aggressive, but let's assume it is.  Do you know why?  Without taxes, there goes infrastructure.  There goes roads, bridges, sewer and septic systems, the electric grid, food and agriculture, etc.  Taxes are there so that everyone can contribute to the communal pot to keep shit working.  This is exactly what Obama is trying to convey and you can't seem to understand it.  If we don't have that overarching infrastructure, then no, you won't get to have your precious business.  Try maintaining the electricity, the septic system, the roads for your customers to get to your business, etc. without that overarching infrastructure.  Shit would collapse in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the government.  The electric grid, transportation, food and agriculture, etc...all of this would collapse without infrastructure.  Taxes support that infrastructure.

Bottom line, if you don't contribute a fair share to society, you're going to get burnt.  Don't contribute by getting a job?  Then you get to be poor and live in shitty conditions.  Don't contribute by paying taxes?  Then you get the IRS on your back. 

If you don't pay taxes I hope they come after you because I pay my taxes, and my share is holding your ass up and keeping you afloat.

Asked...


And answered.

Nobody is forcing you to pay taxes.  What aggression?  It's coercion.  They are saying to you, "Hey, pay taxes or else we're going to come after you."  Well, why do they get to do that?  Actually, it's because of their abilities, as you pointed out.

Lot's of people don't pay taxes.  If they don't do it, apparently nobody was forcing them to do so.

But I do. Because I do not have the option of not paying, that is aggression.

I have no problem paying taxes. 

I guess satoshi didnt build bitcoin either. Id like to know which government program created it....

 


The social contract is not to agress against others. This includes not letting the government agress against us via taxes.

Perhaps "opportunity" was the wrong word to use. "Rights" would have been better. That one society or another does not respect some of these rights does not remove them.


I agree, the individual does have to recognize and appreciate the group that they are a part of. But that needs to go both ways, or the individual will decide not to be a part of that group any more.


Uhm....

Do you have any idea what you're saying?

Where to begin...

First of all, I don't think opportunity means what you think it means if you're isolating it from ability.  Equal opportunity = inequal non-opportunity, or, essentially, equal circumstance.  Guess what, if you're born different, then your opportunities will be different.

If you're born inequal, your opportunities will be inequal.   Moreover, who is to say that rights are equal if people are born inequal?  Why should they be equal?  You're confusing what you think should be the case (i.e. people should have equal opportunities) with reality (i.e. people have inequal abilities).  Stay congruent.

Now, let's just assume that what you're saying is true.  Alright, so if people are born with inequal abilities (or, inequal socioeconomic status), then some people will rise to the top and have power over you.  Or, some groups of people will.  Right now, the government is one such group of people.  It wields an inequal amount of power and they can exercise it however they choose because you can't stop them.  Naturally, the end result of this will be inequal opportunities because those that are more closely connected to those in power will have the opportunistic advantages of the powerful.

Ugh, it really bothers me when people say cliche shit that does not make any sense whatsoever.  You know what happens when we get people questioning things like "all men are created equal?"  We get people that breach social contracts and become selfish assholes.  Guess what -- when you're a part of a group, you can hurt yourself by hurting the group (a la metagame theory).  

Are people individuals?  Yes.  I'm all for individual accomplishments and achievements, and there is a time and place for individual recognition since individual recognition of accomplishments facilitates motivation and positive self-esteem.  But it is absolutely impossible to isolate an individual event from the collective.  It's logically absurd.

I even disagree that all people are created with equal opportunity.

Because we are not. Unless you can do math in your head like Stephen Hawking, and also run as fast as Usain Bolt.

All men are created with equal opportunity. Not equal ability.

You're the type of person that would have a problem with the phrase "all men are created equal" too, wouldn't you?  And for the same reasons.

I don't disagree with what I think his intended sentiment was, either, but what he meant, "We should recognize the advantages working together has given us," versus what he said, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen," is what really gets me.

Bitcoin without users is still a great piece of cryptographic math. Bitcoin without Satoshi is Paypal.

Yes. Society is made of of interdependent actors trading voluntarily. Well done Obama!

The government just stole my wealth to pay for services that we either don't want or that it won't allow others to provide.

I agree with everything you just said, and I agree President Obama's intended sentiment (although that speech writer should be fired) even though I am not a statist.

No man is an island. I recognize that. And yes, you cannot build a business without customers. Yes, Bitcoin wouldn't be worth anything without all the users. But only one user put together the initial protocol. Only one user wrote the original white paper. The user who we know as Satoshi. As I said earlier: Yes, I stand upon the shoulders of giants, but I climbed up here.

Yep, we just need to remember the Founding Fathers.

This country (or any country for that matter) isn't about living and doing things alone. A country is not comprised of any single individual, it is a collection of individuals that are deeply interconnected. You either recognize that, or you don't.

Even Bitcoin is the result of a collection of individuals working together. Yes, Satoshi made the initial program, but what is that worth if it wasn't for us that continue to give it some value?

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention that Bitcoin was also made possible by all the advancements in technology before that.

A group cannot function without individuals to make up the group.
One individual, alone, in a "state of nature" type setting, is not very useful.

Sounds socialist. He's denying the power of great individuals to change society. Denying the very basis the country he sits at the steering wheel of is based on.