Continuing the tax discussions from this topic which should be about the taxation of Safecoin.https://safenetforum.org/t/safecoin-and-taxes/3502/163?source_topic_id=5570
@fergish back in 96 or 97 I would have agreed 100% with you.
But you’re not going to force a false choice you can always move out there is no need to join or even stay on the planet. What you’re not seeing is you won’t amass disprortionate wealth in the first place under such a system and if you’re born with it, it will attrit out. As Fuller said we could have six billion billionaires living in perfect eccology. We have poverty l instead to preserve power for an elite through economic slavery.
Really, “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” There is no issue if your gain roughly matches your contribution. If society grants you a surplus its on the condition that you can generate more of it for mutual benefit.
Simple headed notion is that people seek inequitable wealth for wealth’s sake. No its a fear guided pursuit of power. They want it for power over other’s, and they want it to signify that power. The only kind of societies that can be called free are those where money doesn’t translate into political power and that would include anarchies. This stuff isn’t new but its frusterating for some because it undermines the total lies they’ve been fed through puppet education and puppet media.
You’ll have to cope with the patadoxes of a win win society. When everyone has enough money there isn’t too much need for taxes. In a total free market sector as in the banking system Scottlandconce had the rich whine and want government intervention, want regulation. Total free market system vice sector would quickly implode.
How many billionaires did you ask to come to that conclusion?
Lots of hot air. None of it with an ounce of substance.
Conscious or not of the choice its completely obvious. Wealthy will say stuff like: when everyone is getting poor, I am doing it at a slower rated with bonds.
Of course, and also a fan of Eugenics, together with other statist psychopaths such as Mr. Keynes, which shouldn’t come as surprise. Read here about Russel’s ideas for state-issued breeding licenses for the feeble minded:
Not really. Correlation is not causality…
So you have interviewed zero. You are just making stuff up.
You have it entirely backwards.
People have money because they have power. Without power you don’t accumulate money. If you are doing something worthwhile that is profitable, that can put bread on a lot of families tables, you will have a lot of people following your vision and working towards your cause. That gives you power.
People do not accumulate wealth to have power, because that is simply impossible. They need power to gain wealth. It’s like the clip above says. You can do nothing for free - You don’t need a million bucks for that.
We’re talking about taxes here dude not murder. And if you fundamentally believe taxes = theft then ALL taxation is unfair, there is no such thing as a “fair” tax as all taxation is based on cerercion.
But once the oligopoly cancer sets in its all about converting money to raw power in the most efficient effective means possible. Its just bankers in charge again. People don’t like lawyers and lawyers don’t like bankers. Abusing people with words is bad but abusing people with numbers is worse.
There reallly isn’t much disagreement between us. If I could snap my fingers and give every American a self syfficient homestead with no debt and no bills and all the coords cut with strong community I would and so would you.
Let me tell you what is going to happen next. We are going to elect Sanders and he is going to revive the new deal and finish what FDR started. Full fairness doctrine again with revival of free speech doctrine to empty money from politics. Pack the piece if sht SC. Vacation of trade deals. Indexed Social Security and single payer from cradle to grave. Free school for life. End of pushing debt with complete re-regulation of finance, green decentralized energy and replacing the corporation with cooperative models. Thats the only way forward and that is what is going to happen along with New Deal style progressive taxes and possibly wealth ceilings.
Oligopolies are a different beast. They are an extension of goverment or regulatory capture. But that is a defect of government, not industry. Government is what builds the oligarchs – And government is exactly what you continuously and repetitively advocate the growth of.
Unlike you I believe in scarcity. Gifts from the government have to be paid for by someone. Usually it is the working class via inflation - because quashing businesses tend to lead to loss of employment and that leads to loss of votes.
I was doing the Math today, and president Obama’s wonderful affordable care act requires me to pay 7k per year in insurance. We have had a very bad year, and the insurance company has paid 4k and my debt is about 8k. on top of the 7k in premiums. When government acts, the oligarchs benefit.
You have it entirely backwards. Government is the theif. They may put the money in the mobster oligarch’s pocket , but if you eliminate the government, the oligarchs will not be able to maintain their monopolies. The government also serves as their thug against the competition.
Taxes are evil because they build a bigger mafia.
Dude stop fillibustering and just answer the bloody question. @fergish has a point. If you believe in taxation then would YOU be willing to use force to take money from another, in this case HIM, in order to fulfill your ideals? It’s not rocket science. Yes or no? I will repeat the question myself. Would you be willing to use force to take money from another to enforce your ideals on another.
Yes there is an issue and that is: Are you using coercion to carry out your vision? The question isn’t inequality vs equality or compensation for one’s labour. The question is that of consent for having one’s property appropriated and redistributed. Back a couple years ago I might have been right with you @Warren. I used to be way way way on the left side of the political spectrum. But the whole goal was and still is freedom. Communism ultimately requires an authority figure to work. Even if you built a DAO the choice to participate or not still would need to rest with the user and they would still need a way to opt out. Thus your little commune would only govern those who selected to join. Which is fine and great but is hardly all of society. The point is as long as you respect consent you aren’t “All of society.” And as soon as you start laying claims to governing “all of society,” or how society should conform to this or that vision then you aren’t respecting freedom. This is why I say I don’t want any government at all. Let people form their own organizations and pick whatever ideology they choose. Let them freely associate and express. All that’s good, just don’t try to govern or control them.
That’s well put. All of us in this thread start with non coercion. Which means no state upfront or at some point as soon as possible thereafter, but more than that it probably means a way to deal with those who remain statist and are hostile to our freedom. I tend to focus on the coercive nature of money or capital. Most in the threads I start counter with the coercion that tries to separate people from money thatc s earned fair and square. Both are coercion and both are unacceptable. Its a bit chicken and egg, but to answer @fergish finally, as long as he doesn’t take all the resources on the planet and leaves us with enough to survive in poverty then I am probably not personally interested in using gun point force against him. But no way I’d be happy and likely there would be no way for him to feel secure. The problem with violence or trickery is they over rule consent. Ultimately I don’t see how I am free if other people aren’t hence the hypocracy of having to resort to violence against @fergish seems totally unacceptable. Which is why I’ve stated elsewhere we can never earn the right to coerce others. I also can’t stand the idea of the death penalty because no state will ever be qualified. And no state can ever really lay claim to us- they are fictions and they certainly don’t have rights even when they try to stand in for the people.
As for why states arise, Aristotle gave the best example I know of. He said that we develop only in the state of conversation. That this is the mirror in which we find ourselves. In its absence we remain animalistic- think of a person without language. So states suck but they arise out of the natural developmental school of society. But today we can get that forum of development maybe without some of the formality through tech even if a Rennaissance type human would still requires a lot of face to face to develop. So I hold out hope that we can get that developmental scaffolding we need but without the hierarchical coerrcive element that we call state or corporate or corporate state.
But lets talk about that Communist Karl Marx again. How much freedom can you take? He didn’t like democracy, he wanted to eliminate the state first and foremost but also eliminate money, markets and contract. He felt the means of production or its process and culture was the key. He did not deny a certain amount of private property (who wants to replace their private bathroom with Walmart’s public latrine) but he said our capitalist materialism would lead to a alienation wherby the value of human life and the value placed upon it would fall as the value of idolistic things rose. His Hegelian material dialectic with its spirit of the age ever fusing together and overcoming sets of antithetical ideas was a bit like Taoism. He was born rich but decided to be poor because he was mainly concerned with the plight of the poor. He’s been dead for a good while and was quite a visionary. He saw capitalism as a necessary stage. His end point was not communism, but rather what he called socialism. Seems like with Sanders as an Askenazi Jew like Marx we’ve come full circle. I think I’d rather have Putin than any of the Republican ignorami puppets. But we don’t need any of to work on freedom first.
So MaidSAFE could become a cooperative as easily it would go from GPL 1.0 to 3.0. But how to do it with Jack in the Box.
I think Donald Trump will make a good compromise. He will actually lower the taxes and provide universal healthcare.
Obamacare is a disaster that benefits insurance companies, not the people. It’s a special interest crony capitalism deal. Trump will replace the crony capitalism with something much better. Will the U.S. debt increase? Most likely yes, but believe me, technological progress will be so great your head will spin. Enough to take care of those petty details. That I can tell you.
So what exactly will he replace it with?
Why? And how?
Trump is a Plutocrat that got rich off other’s labor ultimatly aimed at pampering the rich. He’s not people first and money and power last like SAFE, no not even Aristocracy he is pure plutocrat despite his protectionist overtures. He just doesn’t want to be rich among the destitute, which is the only difference.
And pink unicorn fairy blessings for all the children, too!!
Wealth isn’t the problem. It never is. It is force which is the problem.
If you had all the gold and pretty bank notes in the world, I would just use something else as money, if I am not forced to pay people in said money.
If you had 100s of sports cars, it would not bother me. I would be thankful that you gave others something to make the pointless things. Then I would buy a car I needed too.
Ofc, if you drew an imaginary line in some mud, then demanded I paid you for being on the wrong side of it, you would be threatening me. Telling me I can go to the other side of the line doesn’t make this right. You may as well blame a rape victim for wearing a short skirt - the former is the aggressor, not the latter.
Massive concentrations of private wealth are not only politically destabilizing and a therefore a very real problem, they also rote capital an undemine oppirtunity. So wealth is very often the heart of the problem as it gets to centralized- its a blood clot.
What is political power without force? Force is always the problem underpinning all others.
If Bill Gates has 100 billion dollars, how exactly does that hurt me?