NationStates Jolt Archive

If there's one thing that unites American liberals, conservatives and libertarians, it is the above statement. Their underlying loyalty to the doctrine of individualism is revealed in their speech. They are afraid to say that they do not support this or that freedom, or that freedom is conditional. This doctrine also leads to oversimplification of "freedom" as if it were an indivisible absolute, or an end in itself.

But is this just lip service, a token "belief"?

For a liberal who says the above statement may support nationalised healthcare or child labour laws. A conservative may say this, but think that abortion and same-sex marriage should not be permitted. In both these cases, the ideologue supports restricting freedom for the protection of other individuals or the welfare of society in general. These are both legitimate reasons for the restriction of freedom, so why can't they admit it?

Now, the libertarians may say, "yes, and we're the party of principle!" Now, you people support the existence of the military, right? Those both require taxes to be levied in order to fund them. It is another example of restricting freedom for the benefit (in this case security) of society.

If there's one thing that unites American liberals, conservatives and libertarians, it is the above statement. Their underlying loyalty to the doctrine of individualism is revealed in their speech. They are afraid to say that they do not support this or that freedom, or that freedom is conditional. This doctrine also leads to oversimplification of "freedom" as if it were an indivisible absolute, or an end in itself.

But is this just lip service, a token "belief"?

For a liberal who says the above statement may support nationalised healthcare or child labour laws. A conservative may say this, but think that abortion and same-sex marriage should not be permitted. In both these cases, the ideologue supports restricting freedom for the protection of other individuals or the welfare of society in general. These are both legitimate reasons for the restriction of freedom, so why can't they admit it?

Now, the libertarians may say, "yes, and we're the party of principle!" Now, you people support the existence of the military, right? Those both require taxes to be levied in order to fund them. It is another example of restricting freedom for the benefit (in this case security) of society.
Society must constantly strike an uneasy balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of society. Almost all politics is about where you draw the line. This is one of the major reasons why I much prefer a non-ideological approach to political decision-making.

<snip>Now, the libertarians may say, "yes, and we're the party of principle!" Now, you people support the existence of the military, right? Those both require taxes to be levied in order to fund them. It is another example of restricting freedom for the benefit (in this case security) of society.Firstly, not all taxation is the same. Most libertarians have little qualm with Use taxation (VAT/sales/Tariffs, etc) but do NOT support the current forms of "gressive" (re or pro) double taxation.

Actually, if the government is small enough, the Military can be supported quite handily by taxation that does not limit the Freedom to use one's earnings. Without an income tax, should I want to not purchase things that are taxed, I do not have to - and my tax rate is zero.

Society must constantly strike an uneasy balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of society.
I agree, but most Americans seem unwilling to admit this.

Actually, if the government is small enough, the Military can be supported quite handily by taxation that does not limit the Freedom to use one's earnings. Without an income tax, should I want to not purchase things that are taxed, I do not have to - and my tax rate is zero.
Is not VAT a tax on the income of a retailer? How is that any more acceptable than other taxes?

Is not VAT a tax on the income of a retailer? How is that any more acceptable than other taxes?
Possibly. I am not certain how the VAT works, but I assumed it is basically another form of sales tax - i.e. a tax not on the profit made per sale, but in addition to the listed price of the sale.

A tax upon levied upon and addition to the listed price of a product reduces a merchant's income only to the extent that the overall price of a price-inflated product at Store A will not sell as well as the same product at Store B. This encourages both compitition and lower prices. The merchant who sells more at a lower margin will make more than the merchant that sells fewer at higher margins. This is the one case where taxation is a benefit to consumers.

At first I read the "Maximum" part of the title as Marxism. I was overjoyed.

Society must constantly strike an uneasy balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of society. Almost all politics is about where you draw the line. This is one of the major reasons why I much prefer a non-ideological approach to political decision-making.

Except that the individual is real and society is a construct. I always perk up my ears when someone starts talking about being a good member of society. I'm not a member of society, never have been one &mdash; good or bad &mdash; and hope never to be accused of being one. I am me, and a component part of nothing of which I did not freely choose to be a part.

The involuntary contraction of obligation is in direct opposition to ideas of individual liberty, sovereignty, and autonomy. Membership in society implies an obligation that exists between any two members of the society, and not because of any voluntary assumption of such obligation, but simply by virtue (vice?) of their mutual membership in the said society. Those who profess membership in society do so for a variety of reasons, but always at the price of their own individual sovereignty.

The only obligations which can be considered rightful are those which were undertaken voluntarily by all involved parties, with full understanding of the implications.

I know you said that you prefer non-ideological politics, but when it comes down to it, politics is always about who defines right and wrong (even if they define right and wrong as undefined), and thus cannot help being an ideological field. Might I (respectfully) suggest that your political ideology is probably along a classical utilitarian line, since you refer to "striking an uneasy balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of society."

I look forward to your reply, as my own political ideology (if you couldn't tell, it's somewhat individualistic, eh? ;) ) is what initiated my own involvement in NS and these forums.

Cheers!
Keia (and Thnjchnvch, and Farbank, and Mhann)

Except that the individual is real and society is a construct.
Actually the concept of an individual is a relatively modern one. What we know as an individual is created (not just biologically) by other people in their society.

Individualism is just as much a construct as society.

I'm not a member of society, never have been one &mdash; good or bad &mdash; and hope never to be accused of being one. I am me, and a component part of nothing of which I did not freely choose to be a part.


But I presume you exchange labor for funds that are garaunteed by a government, travel on roads, are defended by a military and a police force, was educated, pay for goods and services, interact with other people who do similar things for similar reasons, expect fires to be put out, trash to be picked up, speak a shared language, don't go around hiting people to take their stuff with expectation that they will not do the same to you, etc.?

If there's one thing that unites American liberals, conservatives and libertarians, it is the above statement. Their underlying loyalty to the doctrine of individualism is revealed in their speech. They are afraid to say that they do not support this or that freedom, or that freedom is conditional. This doctrine also leads to oversimplification of "freedom" as if it were an indivisible absolute, or an end in itself.
Freedom isn't an end in itself, man is. Freedom is, of course, a Right, and thus requres that certain means be enacted in oder to ensure its existence, and so on and so forth.

Freedom is, however, an absolute. Anything that you can define, name, or point to is an absolute: every tangible object or concept in existence is an absolute, and freedom can be measured by this standard every bit as much as hatred or corruption can. The people who claim that freedom is 'not an absolute' are the same people that try to change its definition to suit their ends, and this practice is doomed to failure in any variant, whether you decide that 'freedom' means economic freedom or equality or what have you. There is only one valid measure of freedom in a moral sense: individual freedom.

But is this just lip service, a token "belief"?

For a liberal who says the above statement may support nationalised healthcare or child labour laws. A conservative may say this, but think that abortion and same-sex marriage should not be permitted. In both these cases, the ideologue supports restricting freedom for the protection of other individuals or the welfare of society in general. These are both legitimate reasons for the restriction of freedom, so why can't they admit it?

Now, the libertarians may say, "yes, and we're the party of principle!" Now, you people support the existence of the military, right? Those both require taxes to be levied in order to fund them. It is another example of restricting freedom for the benefit (in this case security) of society.
Here we go again with taxes. For all the animosity the Left has for Conservatives and Reactionaries, it is curious to see you refuse to deviate from accepted political or philosophical conventions. No one wants to actually take the time to think about just how much easier it would be to maintain a military if it were, say, half the size of our present one and geared towards actually defending our goddamn country which is sort of its purpose.

The military, in its current state, does require a large portion of tax to fund; there's no question about that. However, with the attendant elimination of worthless government programs [the other side of this coin, which you've chosen to leave out of this equation; either out of ignorance or spite], this would probably not be the case within 25 or 30 years. Somehow, we managed to build the Army that won World War I without a goddamn income tax. Not a permanent one, anyway. It can be done, and history has proven it.

If there's one thing that unites American liberals, conservatives and libertarians, it is the above statement. Their underlying loyalty to the doctrine of individualism is revealed in their speech. They are afraid to say that they do not support this or that freedom, or that freedom is conditional. This doctrine also leads to oversimplification of "freedom" as if it were an indivisible absolute, or an end in itself.
I think that's inaccurate on a number of levels. I don't have the time to debate the uselessness of labels like "liberal" or "conservative", nor do I have the time or space to express the obvious distinctions/discrepancies between libertarianism as a philosophy/ideology and the Libertarian Party in practice.

I'd say a safer statement would be: Americans as individuals all desire maximum freedom for themselves, though they often have no compunction whatsoever about restricting the freedoms of others.

Society must constantly strike an uneasy balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of society. Almost all politics is about where you draw the line. This is one of the major reasons why I much prefer a non-ideological approach to political decision-making.
If all individuals in society are in unanimous agreement, no uneasy balance must be struck. Though practically very difficult, it's theoretically possible ... Thank you, Robert Nozick.

Actually the concept of an individual is a relatively modern one. What we know as an individual is created (not just biologically) by other people in their society.

Individualism is just as much a construct as society.

I'm with Keia on this one. Society is the construct, not the individual, even though individualism didn't receive much attention until relatively modern times.

On the other hand, Keia, you may reject the notion of an implied social contract ... but you're part of one whether you like it or not.

Society must constantly strike an uneasy balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of society. Almost all politics is about where you draw the line. This is one of the major reasons why I much prefer a non-ideological approach to political decision-making.
Bingo! There's always a tradeoff to be made between personal freedom and an advanced society.

There's another angle to this discussion, however--the definition of the word "freedom." It's not a concrete, easily definable word, and individuals have different priorities when it comes to their individual freedoms. For instance, there have been times in my life when I would have felt more free to attempt to start my own business if I'd had affordable insurance for my family that wasn't provided by my employer at the time. I don't like it when other people think that they ought to be free to drive after tying one on at Tommy's Beach bar. Those are a couple of odd examples, I know, but I think it illustrates the difficulty with this kind of debate over abstract ideals like "freedom."

Freedom isn't an end in itself, man is. Freedom is, of course, a Right, and thus requres that certain means be enacted in oder to ensure its existence, and so on and so forth.

Freedom is, however, an absolute. Anything that you can define, name, or point to is an absolute: every tangible object or concept in existence is an absolute, and freedom can be measured by this standard every bit as much as hatred or corruption can. The people who claim that freedom is 'not an absolute' are the same people that try to change its definition to suit their ends, and this practice is doomed to failure in any variant, whether you decide that 'freedom' means economic freedom or equality or what have you. There is only one valid measure of freedom in a moral sense: individual freedom.[/QUOTE]

I have trouble understanding your insistence on the value of individual rights. In an individual situation - let's say, a man on a desert island - that individual cannot really be said to have any rights. Given that you claim that such a right is in part defined by its need for some method or structure for upholding that right, it can't really be said to exist in this individual capacity, as clearly there is no such framework. The man, you would argue, has the right to freedom, and given that this is an absolute, that might include freedom from hunger. But when the pineapple tree dies, then he has no more food. He has the right to be free from hunger...but he is hungry. That isn't a situation where blame can be apportioned and, try as he might to replant the tree, he has no real way of upholding this right.

Within a society, then - even if it's only two men on a desert island - these rightscan be said to exist. But they're not on an individual level: given that freedom is an absolute right, there can be no distinction between the rights of one and another. In fact, these are rights that are granted to the members of a society on account of their membership of that society. Although we may choose to designate them on an individual level, that's really just the most convenient way of doing so. The rights are afforded to the society.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that freedom is an absolute right, but I do find your insistence on the importance of the individual curious. I know you would probably justify it on the basis of selfishness, a - and to the minds of some, the only - wholly merit-worthy idea, but that seems to fly in face of your idea that such a right requires a mechanism through which it is upheld in order to qualify as such.

But I presume you exchange labor for funds that are garaunteed by a government, travel on roads, are defended by a military and a police force, was educated, pay for goods and services, interact with other people who do similar things for similar reasons, expect fires to be put out, trash to be picked up, speak a shared language, don't go around hiting people to take their stuff with expectation that they will not do the same to you, etc.?

Hehe . . . I'm not an anarchist (though :sniper: has gotta be one of my favourite smilies!). I do believe in government: I'm just in favour of a much smaller government than we have (the "we" could be any country in the world, as far as I know . . . I'm not aware of any with a small enough government) right now.

. . exchange labor for funds that are garaunteed by a government, travel on roads, are defended by a military and a police force
And that I do. One of the functions which is legitimate for government to carry out is the creation and maintenance of infrastructure beyond the capabilities of the private sector. Which, incidentally, means the US Postal Service is obsolete, since, without its enforced monopolistic competition, the private sector could deliver letters at a much better cost. (I'd take a while for the private sector to be able to get "every house, every day" routes, since the USPS is currently taking most of the customer base needed to support such an operation, though.)

In another semi-philosophical thread on firearms (and generally, weapons) possession and use, I've stated my belief that individual protection is a good deal more efficient that police protection, however. Police are generally after-the-fact enforcers, rather than a preventative force. But I digress . . .

As far as funds being guaranteed by the government, that's kind of a standing joke, isn't it? I know of no government (except perhaps Switzerland and a few other extremely small nations) which can truly guarantee their banknotes. All they can do is attempt to control the amount of little green pieces of paper in existence. Quite a while back, if you remember your history, there was a large private currency movement in the United States, which was working rather well until the government shut it down. Seems they don't like competition . . .

was educated, pay for goods and services, interact with other people who do similar things for similar reasons
I financed 100% of my education with hard work and merit-based scholarship money. I interact with other people (such as yourself) voluntarily. That interaction imposes no obligation upon either of us except an obligation (which I have no problem accepting, and so choose to interact) to observe a mutually-respectful modicum of conduct.

I have no problem with "society" in the classical sense of the term, which is simply "association." I am not anti-social in that I don't want to associate with people. I am anti-collective, meaning I am opposed to the precedence of the group over the individual.

speak a shared language
Again, this is only an element of association. There is no "social obligation" implied in the speaking of a shared language, and the existence of a shared language is not an artifact or provision of a collective society.

don't go around hiting people to take their stuff with expectation that they will not do the same to you
See my thoughts on government. Thoreau thought that government was utterly unnecessary, and if everyone were self-governing like he was, that would work admirable. However, the vast majority of people are not self-governing, and so other people formed governments, and voluntarily began using subjection to a government as a criterion for association. (i.e. They wouldn't associate with barbarians because they couldn't trust them; but they would associate with city-dwellers, because the fact that they lived in a city meant they had subjected themselves to a governing body.)

I associate with those I trust, and government makes it slightly-more-possible to trust others, because it provides an accepted set of playing rules. I have no problem with someone relenquishing their citizenship in any country and proclaiming themselves self-governing. However, I'd have to know them personally before I would trust them, since they weren't living by any shared set of rules.

Some aspects of my philosophy in a nutshell . . . eh?

Cheers!

The problem is, people don't want absolute freedom. Freedom essentially is the ability to choose from all the possibilities. However, in order to choose one possibility, one has to eliminate all the others, so it's more along the lines of people want to create their own personal totalitarian regime.

As far as rights go, the implication is that one is permitted to do something, regardless of how much someone else doesn't want you to do it. Essentially, people want rights so they can cause harm to others. If one wasn't harming anyone, there'd be no point in worrying about it being a right.

I'd say a safer statement would be: Americans as individuals all desire maximum freedom for themselves, though they often have no compunction whatsoever about restricting the freedoms of others.
And that's the state of affairs exactly. The same people who will say "It's a free country!" when called on the carpet for a faux pas are the ones who will turn around and say "There oughtta be a law . . . " ten seconds later.

If all individuals in society are in unanimous agreement, no uneasy balance must be struck. Though practically very difficult, it's theoretically possible.
The only thing that makes this difficult today is the national dominion of every square inch of dry land. In the past, unused land was left alone by governments, and new "societies" (in a mutual, classical sense of the term, of course! :)) could spring up. (Such as in M. Knight Shyamalin's "The Village" -- great movie!)

. . . even though individualism didn't receive much attention until relatively modern times.
And might I go a step further and say that individualism has largely been assumed until the present. Even the famous autocrats of the Old World looked at themselves as conquering individuals, rather than building a collective society. The idea of recent idea of "group rights" has by contrast produced the idea of individualism where no such discrete idea was necessary before.

On the other hand, Keia, you may reject the notion of an implied social contract ... but you're part of one whether you like it or not.
That I am, but the social contract I ratify in my day-to-day life (since there is no place for me to go to form a legitimate society of like-minded compatriots . . . unless I wanted to go with the really-far-out ideas of the Principality of Hutt River Province . . . of which our Aussie friends may know more than I :)) is somewhat different. For instance, it doesn't include the United Nations, it doesn't include any obligation on me to give of my own to those with less, unless I want to (though I do want to quite often, as long as they really, legitimately can't or shouldn't have to work . . . like single mothers and orphans . . . not like able-bodied beggars making a living panhandling), and it doesn't include my "rights" to anything I need, simply because I need it.

Cheers!

I have trouble understanding your insistence on the value of individual rights. In an individual situation - let's say, a man on a desert island - that individual cannot really be said to have any rights.
Sure he can; there just doesn't happen to be anyone around to infringe or otherwise compromise them. Rights don't go away in certain environments, be they social environments or physical ones.

Given that you claim that such a right is in part defined by its need for some method or structure for upholding that right, it can't really be said to exist in this individual capacity, as clearly there is no such framework.
I think you misunderstand. Rights exist regardless of whether or not the government or $ARMED_MOB chooses to accept them: this point is illustrated nicely in the War Room scene in Doctor Strangelove when Abassador deSadesky is explaining the Doomsday device in regards to domestic policy:

"There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines."

The last line here, while it's more or less a throwaway as far as the movie is concerned [not to mention being designed primarily for comedic effect], points out that said framework can be monstrously deformed and unworkable, but that doesn't defeat the Rights themselves .

Rights do not require that framework in order to exist, they require that framework to see to it that they are properly delimited and enforced.

The man, you would argue, has the right to freedom, and given that this is an absolute, that might include freedom from hunger. But when the pineapple tree dies, then he has no more food. He has the right to be free from hunger...but he is hungry. That isn't a situation where blame can be apportioned and, try as he might to replant the tree, he has no real way of upholding this right.
This is a common mistake when discussing ethics, to treat the emergency as the normal state of man . The situation you describe is a [i]risk of existence, it is not the normal state of things, at least not in this country.

The psychological results of altrusim may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: "Should one risk one's life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?"
Consider the implications of that approach. If a man accepts the ethics of altrusim, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):
1. Lack of self esteem--since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.
2. Lack of respect for others--since he regards mankind as herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help.
3. A nightmare view of existence--since he belives that men are trapped in a "malevolent universe" where disasters are the constant and primary concer of their lives.
...
It is important to differentiate between rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal state of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of moarlity: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions.
An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible--such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. [Or, in your case, the pineapple tree example--M]...

Or to take an example that can occur in everyday life: suppose one hears that the man next door is ill and penniless. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine [i]if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out. But that does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one's life looking for starving men to help...

Now, this is the important part:

"Observe also that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men's naormal existence and that they always offer "lifeboat" situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. ("What should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one" etc.)
The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats [or on desert islands with one pineapple tree--M]--and that a lifeboat [or your island] is not the place on which to base one's metaphysics."
--Ayn Rand, Feb. 1963. Bracketted additions are mine, those contained in parentheses existed in the original text.

I'd say a safer statement would be: Americans as individuals all desire maximum freedom for themselves, though they often have no compunction whatsoever about restricting the freedoms of others.

Yes, the ultimate contradiction that results when you try to build society on pure individualism.

I support the maximum freedom possible. I admit that it is impossible to maintain society and have unlimited freedoms. I also admit that I may not know what exactly is the highest level of freedom attainable, as it is hard to define and is constantly changing.

For military use, it is naturally monopolistic. A single society cannot have competing military forces for obvious reasons. Because of that, freedom would be limited were the government not to monopolize it itself.

Sure he can; there just doesn't happen to be anyone around to infringe or otherwise compromise them. Rights don't go away in certain environments, be they social environments or physical ones.

I think you misunderstand. Rights exist regardless of whether or not the government or $ARMED_MOB chooses to accept them: this point is illustrated nicely in the War Room scene in Doctor Strangelove when Abassador deSadesky is explaining the Doomsday device in regards to domestic policy:

"There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines."

The last line here, while it's more or less a throwaway as far as the movie is concerned [not to mention being designed primarily for comedic effect], points out that said framework can be monstrously deformed and unworkable, but that doesn't defeat the Rights themselves .

I think you in turn have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that just because, for example, a communistic dictatorship does not recognise the right to freedom of speech, that right is in any way diminished. But I am saying that there is a fundamental level on which rights are something that are recognised between humans, and acted on through human interaction. There can, in isolation, be no infringement on rights, as you suggest, which renders them meaningless on an individual level. It is only within the context of a community that they take on any import.

Rights do not require that framework in order to [i]exist, they require that framework to see to it that they are properly delimited and enforced.

But then they do require that framework to exist. PJ O'Rourke once argued that there is no such thing as international law, because there is no means of enforcing it, and that every system or definition of law assumed some means of enforcement. I'm not sure whether I agree with him about the role of the UN, but I think he has a point that a law - and I'm possibly tenuously extending this to include the idea of a 'law of rights' - has no meaning or value without a mechanism for it to be enforced.

This is a common mistake when discussing ethics, to treat the emergency as the normal state of man . The situation you describe is a [i]risk of existence, it is not the normal state of things, at least not in this country.

-snip-

Ok, yes. On an aside, that's actually a very good point: it does annoy me that so many ethical questions are framed in terms of ridiculous situations (even though I've just done so). That said, most things involving the discussion of infringement of rights will necessarily invoke a risk example. Given that the right to freedom is an absolute, any impact on that is an attack - whether physical or otherwise - and as such will lead to a crisis. I wasn't suggesting that my example was the norm...but was taking it as a simple example of the fact that shit happens.

Nonetheless, the pineapple tree was probably mistaken. The man on the desert island was however getting at something: the state of an individual existing independently. I suppose actually more mainstream examples are equally possible.

I suppose my fundamental disagreement is probably not much of a disagreement then. I simply don't see the value of rights in a vacuum. Without a societal structure in which these rights unfold - regardless of whether that structure recognises those rights - they are pointless. They may well exist, but they mean nothing. I appreciate that tagging a purpose to a right probably sits uncomfortably with some, but it seems...vague...to try to attach meaning to a right that can have no meaning in its own right.

Yeesh, okay, I'm being hopelessly vague. I haven't read anywhere near enough Rand - or philosophy for that matter - to take her or Objectivism on. But I do find the idea of the rights of the isolated individual difficult to understand, so this is probably more a 'written thought process' than an argument.

Firstly, not all taxation is the same. Most libertarians have little qualm with Use taxation (VAT/sales/Tariffs, etc) but do NOT support the current forms of "gressive" (re or pro) double taxation.

Actually, if the government is small enough, the Military can be supported quite handily by taxation that does not limit the Freedom to use one's earnings. Without an income tax, should I want to not purchase things that are taxed, I do not have to - and my tax rate is zero.

ive been arguing the same theory for 15 years...i am a big believer in vat taxes.

as a side benefit,the pols would actually have to work within a budget(like every single person does...loan payments,etc.

as it stands,basically the gov. has a goldcard with no limit....that we pay!

i wish i could just write checks with no money in my account..or better yet..have you pay my bills..lol

there obviously needs to be certain gov. services,a safety net for people,a military to protect the country as a whole.

if i dont want to pay taxes..then i dont buy the yacht or sports car.

the only thing i would exemt would be essential things...food..clothing..utilities.

i never remember reading in the constitution how we are supppose to be the wolds policeman,exporter of democracy or the million other things we do in the world.

if people want that..then they will vote for it on refer. or elect a person that thinks we should attack so and so country or go help this or that country.

just my humble opinoun.. :)

also..all that extra income i get from not being raped by the government in taxes...will be pouring back into the economy creating job's....which will create more economic growth..and not just me...and people will still buy things so the gov. will still get there money...just not by stealing it from my paycheck..i decide what i buy and the gov. will get there money from me and the millions of consumers...they will just have to actually do there job and not waste it..or they get voted out when there is a mess...and someone else gets a shot.
in my opinion it will force them to be fiscally responsible....(no more bridges to nowhere in alaska,"fact finding trips too tahitii and hawaii,enormous pork projects to get votes in their home area..i could go on and on)

it is high time too say out with the both whore parties and try something new. :mp5:

But I presume you exchange labor for funds that are garaunteed by a government, travel on roads, are defended by a military and a police force, was educated, pay for goods and services, interact with other people who do similar things for similar reasons, expect fires to be put out, trash to be picked up, speak a shared language, don't go around hiting people to take their stuff with expectation that they will not do the same to you, etc.?

well,not to take issue with your opinion...but in pa. where i devide my time....trash removal is on you to hire a service,whereas in nj it is free but you pay taxes for said removal.
in nj...the taxes are beyond the pale..because we all know how efficient government is.
a similar valued house in pa. where i go and in nj where i live is absolutely absurd as far as tax rates go...
that is were the waste comes in.
in pa. you have multible companies to chooose from for said trash removal,which makes for some competition,which in turns creates options for a lower cost service for me..or a higher cost with more options...
in nj,you pay your taxes and that is that....forget the ghost employees,the top loaded management,the ludicrous amount of patronage(vote buying)jobs that has 4 doing the job of 2...
but the simple fact is that i have lost a choice of how MY money is spent...wastefully or not...different services customized for my needs or 1 size fits all.

and that is 1 simple example

i abhor the nanny state...carefull what you wish for is my motto on things of big government..

most people are either sheeple that just goes with everyday bs ...thats how it is,or people that are spoiled and are afraid of new ideas,or college kids that aint got a clue on how the world works,or people that simply don't care,or the worst of the bunch...i know what is better for you..because...either your ego is too big or because your a power hungry tyrant and control freak trying to control me.

no thanks..i'm a big boy..i can decide what to do with my trash,my life...i dont need some holier then thou..control freak telling me what and how i can spend my money..or worse..how i should live my life.
:mp5:

I agree, but most Americans seem unwilling to admit this.


Is not VAT a tax on the income of a retailer? How is that any more acceptable than other taxes?

Actually, no... VAT ends up apportioning (eventually) upon the non-VAT registered business alone... Effectively, anyone registered in a VAT system ends up with a net levy of 0, and the tax funds end up in supply from those "outside" of the system.... You can think of it as a tax that ends up being payed by foreigners. This happens because registered VAT business pay back excess income earned from VAT, and can bill customs for net-loss from VAT... The pull comes from business' with net-loss VAT income, but cannot bill customs (being unregistered) for the loss. You can think of it as an import tariff that is built to penalize the over-seas business only (while leaving on-shore alone) [or ultimately individuals, who cannot register for VAT]... It's effectively an "import" sales tax on goods; and much like it, pulls from the end-purchaser (or unregistered) as opposed to hitting the retailer.