Does America Still Fear Communism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2012, 04:09 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(30-09-2012 03:51 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  There is more reasons to want to remain private other than me having things to hide. This is why search warrants are necessary. Just because I don't want the police to break into my home and rummage through my belongings doesn't mean that I am committing crimes, it just means I value my privacy. You question is typical of Statists. If you want information regarding statistics, then you could easily collect that data voluntarily, and extrapolate from the incomplete date, and have that information collected anonymously. I would wonder what decision the government needed that data for anyhow. I am not requesting anything from them, I don't need universal healthcare, or social security, or anything of the sort. I am responsible for myself, and my family. I don't need a Nanny State to provide for me. Simply wanting the data is not a justification for taking it by force.

I'd just like to point out that it is not so simple when acquiring statistics for millions of people.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
30-09-2012, 04:49 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
Quote:Because slavery can cause the loss of life, and warfare, does not not mean it can't also be profitable. The American Civil War was an avoidable war. How many civilizations profited from slavery in which is didn't cause a war? Virtually all of them. Furthermore, you have failed to show that even in America that the cost of the Civil War outweighed the profits of slavery. If you don't think it is profitable (which is a crazy notion) than you will have to show me otherwise. You think people have been enslaved century after century because other people are evil enough to make others suffer at their own expense for the sake of making other suffer. No, the answer is profits. Cheap labor=more product at less expense=more profit. The product is not sold soley to their fellow countrymen, but also abroad, bringing more treasure into a nation. It is a good idea, economical, to own slaves. The problem with slavery is its morality.

I was referring to the civil war being costly in the sense that a lot of people died.
The human cost.
Just like the human cost of WW2 was over 60million people.

Sure slavery was profitable in the early days. In America for example the process of actually extracting the cotton was extremely labor intensive. But as technology progressed and things such as extracting the cotton came to a point where one person could do the work of previously 50 people, like Logica says, it became more hassle then it was worth. You had to provide homes, you had to cloth/feed, you had to put up with their children, you had the risk they would run away, they were initially expensive to buy. It would have been only a matter of time.

Quote: INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT PAID FOR BY DIRECT TAXES IN AMERICA.

Look, I'm going to give a quick example, try to follow along best you can and if you have any questions please raise your hand.

Johnny has two jobs, Job A and Job B.
Johnny earns $50 at Job A and $50 at Job B. Are you with me so far? you may need to quickly run and get a piece of paper so you can follow along easier.
Johnny's weekly expenses are $75.
Now pay attention closely, this is where it gets tricky.
Johnny's total earnings for the week are $100, that's Job A and Job B combined in case you were wondering how I got to that number, use a calculator if you like to make sure that number is correct if you don't believe me.
This $75 expenses are then deducted from the $100. Ok take a break I know that it's probably a lot for you to take in right now. Go get a drink, watch some TV, then when you are ready come back and keep reading.
This is where it gets really tricky for your little brain (I'll put it in quotations in case you got lost half way through this sentence), "it doesn't matter what Job money he uses to pay for the bills". Ok, pause, let that sink in, stop, have a think about it.
Once you have let that sink into your brain we shall continue.
Don't worry, almost at the end.
Furthermore, "if Johnny was to lose Job B then not only would he not be able to pay the $75 expenses BUT he would not be able to buy that brand new pair of $25 shoes he wants."
Thus two jobs.

I'll leave you to ponder over that and how it relates to tax.

Quote:The budget of our military is larger that the next 20 largest combined.

Considering your military budget is 5% of GDP I'd say it's really not that much more compared to other countries. Most other countries spend around 2.5% of their GDP on military spending, so 5% considering what the US does is really not that much more then you think.
Also to compare actual figures (dollars and cents) of one country spending to another is foolish. Obviously America is going to be spending the most of military, it's the single largest GDP country by a mile.
For a good comparison you need to look at percentages.

Quote:That far exceeds what is necessary to defend our country

Considering where your troops are stationed I'd say you're doing rather well for only using 5% of your GDP. My country uses 2.5% of our GDP on military spending and we have maybe 10 guys in Afghanistan, we're not even in Iraq and don't have half the shit you guys do (tanks, decent sized ships etc...)

Quote:Why should I have to pay for that?

America is todays largest if not only superpower. We happen to live in a time of relative peace and stability (sure there is the Middle east/Africa, but I mean it's not like the the beginning of time until 1945 where all of Europe was at each others throats. And so America has alliances with Japan and New Zealand and the UK etc.. etc.. It just so happens America has the largest military forces because of the Cold War, so it's only natural that the US has the largest role to play in things like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Plus, it is in your best interest to keep alliances and such in places like Japan so you can gain political control of places like the Pacific where places like China are becoming a economical threat.
In fact, your head of military guy (second to the President) was out here talking to our PM, talking about how they're looking to "strengthen relations". Noooo, you just see us dealing more with China (because that's where the money is in this part of the world) and you're shit scared and so are looking to retain China.
Anyway, went a little OT, what was I going on about? Oh yea, so yeah America has the largest military etc.. because of the Cold War and hence it's only natural you play the largest role in military operations.
Plus, the only likely wars to happen are in the middle east (which effects you because they hate you) anyway. Can't see any of the countries going to war any time soon anyway. Maybe Kuwait but that wouldn't be just Kuwait that would be an attack on America in the form of attacking Kuwait (they attack Kuwait because they want to attack America). "Oh but Muffs North Korea blah blah", son, North Korea is a shit hole. The country is falling apart within and their leader just wants to play Starcraft all day (literally). If it ever came to war (which it wont) NK would hardly be the next USSR. Plus, what allies do they have? none. China?? China wont go to war.

Quote:LESS MONEY FOR OUR MILITARY IS A GOOD THING

Like I said, 5% of GDP. If you were to reduce that to say the average of 2.5% you'd still need income tax (because I assure you the revenue on income tax is greater then 2.5%).
Income tax is massive massive massive massive amount of revenue for the country, if not the largest source of income for the country.
In fact here it is the largest (around 40% I believe) largest source of income for my government, GST being third after corporate tax.

Quote:There is more reasons to want to remain private other than me having things to hide.

You wanted for murder or something? Wouldn't say I'd be surprised.

Quote:Just because I don't want the police to break into my home and rummage through my belongings doesn't mean that I am committing crimes, it just means I value my privacy.

Yea but the government isn't turning over all your things. They're simply collecting basic data from you for the purposes I mentioned.

Quote:If you want information regarding statistics, then you could easily collect that data voluntarily

Which wouldn't give you exact data. The other problem with data collection is that it is extremely expensive and so if you can collect data while people pay their taxes then cost is greatly reduced.
If anything you should be thanking the government for being efficient in that respect.

Quote:I would wonder what decision the government needed that data for anyhow.

XXX neighbor hood has XX% of people who are below the poverty line, we should be concentrating on building whatever.
So and So suburb has a large amount of 2year old children who in 3 years will be in primary school and there wont be enough primary schools we need to expand.
XX% of the population is 40 so in 25 years XX% of the population is going to need to pay for pensioned for XX% of the country.

To name a few.

Quote:Simply wanting the data is not a justification for taking it by force.

Oh yes because they just collect it for the lolz. "Hey wanna know what would be funny, if we made everyone give us their personal information so that we can do nothing with it!"
God damn, use your brain.

Quote:I said I had a better understanding of the economy than you, and I stand by my statement.

You're standing by a false statement.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(30-09-2012 04:49 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I was referring to the civil war being costly in the sense that a lot of people died.
The human cost.
Just like the human cost of WW2 was over 60million people.

Sure slavery was profitable in the early days. In America for example the process of actually extracting the cotton was extremely labor intensive. But as technology progressed and things such as extracting the cotton came to a point where one person could do the work of previously 50 people, like Logica says, it became more hassle then it was worth. You had to provide homes, you had to cloth/feed, you had to put up with their children, you had the risk they would run away, they were initially expensive to buy. It would have been only a matter of time.

I'm still not sure why were are debating this as it has nothing to do with the fact that direct taxation is theft, because consent was not given, and indirect taxation is easily doable solution to a problem that should never have existed.

Since we are still arguing this I will reiterate once again. Slavery still exists, because it is profitable. It would be profitable now in America, or any industrialized nation if it was allowed to continue. If a person can make a living, that is own or rent a room, and feed himself, and clothe himself, and still have some money left over then it would be profitable for it to be done by slavery. Not only do you not have to pay for the slaves cost to travel to work, maintain a vehicle, you could also cut out the money he would have profited, plus all of the optional expenses like television, television, eating out, entertainment, buying stylish clothing, all of the wasteful spending us free folks do. The cost of having a slave do you manual labor would certainly be less than paying someone even minimum wage even if you include the cost of runaways, and other things you do not have to worry about with a free individual.

Quote: INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT PAID FOR BY DIRECT TAXES IN AMERICA.

earmuffs Wrote:Look, I'm going to give a quick example, try to follow along best you can and if you have any questions please raise your hand.

Johnny has two jobs, Job A and Job B.
Johnny earns $50 at Job A and $50 at Job B. Are you with me so far? you may need to quickly run and get a piece of paper so you can follow along easier.
Johnny's weekly expenses are $75.
Now pay attention closely, this is where it gets tricky.
Johnny's total earnings for the week are $100, that's Job A and Job B combined in case you were wondering how I got to that number, use a calculator if you like to make sure that number is correct if you don't believe me.
This $75 expenses are then deducted from the $100. Ok take a break I know that it's probably a lot for you to take in right now. Go get a drink, watch some TV, then when you are ready come back and keep reading.
This is where it gets really tricky for your little brain (I'll put it in quotations in case you got lost half way through this sentence), "it doesn't matter what Job money he uses to pay for the bills". Ok, pause, let that sink in, stop, have a think about it.
Once you have let that sink into your brain we shall continue.
Don't worry, almost at the end.
Furthermore, "if Johnny was to lose Job B then not only would he not be able to pay the $75 expenses BUT he would not be able to buy that brand new pair of $25 shoes he wants."
Thus two jobs.

I'll leave you to ponder over that and how it relates to tax.

Talking down to me as if I cannot understand simple concepts does not strengthen your position, it only makes you look like an ass. Your little story of Johnny does not help you position because you presuppose things that I have not said and is not my position.

Quote:The budget of our military is larger that the next 20 largest combined.

earmuffs Wrote:Considering your military budget is 5% of GDP I'd say it's really not that much more compared to other countries. Most other countries spend around 2.5% of their GDP on military spending, so 5% considering what the US does is really not that much more then you think.
Also to compare actual figures (dollars and cents) of one country spending to another is foolish. Obviously America is going to be spending the most of military, it's the single largest GDP country by a mile.
For a good comparison you need to look at percentages.

Wrong again. Percentages of GDP doesn't tell you much. You have to look at how big the economy of a state is. Let's say we leave in identical countries with one exception, our economy. In your country the military can adequately defend itself with a billion dollar defense budget. My country has a 30% larger economy. How much money does my defense budget need? The answer is a billion dollars. It is not the same percentage that your country used. Now I will presume (fore the sake of saving time) that your figures are correct though they are not ("Look" at our BLACK BUDGET). Even if our budget it TWICE that of "similar" countries, that is out of control spending. TWICE is an awful lot.

Quote:That far exceeds what is necessary to defend our country

earmuffs Wrote:Considering where your troops are stationed I'd say you're doing rather well for only using 5% of your GDP. My country uses 2.5% of our GDP on military spending and we have maybe 10 guys in Afghanistan, we're not even in Iraq and don't have half the shit you guys do (tanks, decent sized ships etc...)

I spent enough time in the military to see the massive amounts of financial waste on a daily basis. I have seen millions upon millions of dollars rotting in Con-ex boxes, I have seen billions being wasted on personnel who do nothing but turn food into shit for months or a year at a time. I have seen us enter wars based on lies, and appealing to the emotions of the public, entering wars illegally. Hell, I have went to a military shindig that costs millions where celebrities were paid to entertain (Jay Leno). What about that seems efficient to you. Again you should not use percentages.

Quote:Why should I have to pay for that?

earmuffs Wrote:America is todays largest if not only superpower. We happen to live in a time of relative peace and stability (sure there is the Middle east/Africa, but I mean it's not like the the beginning of time until 1945 where all of Europe was at each others throats. And so America has alliances with Japan and New Zealand and the UK etc.. etc.. It just so happens America has the largest military forces because of the Cold War, so it's only natural that the US has the largest role to play in things like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Plus, it is in your best interest to keep alliances and such in places like Japan so you can gain political control of places like the Pacific where places like China are becoming a economical threat.
In fact, your head of military guy (second to the President) was out here talking to our PM, talking about how they're looking to "strengthen relations". Noooo, you just see us dealing more with China (because that's where the money is in this part of the world) and you're shit scared and so are looking to retain China.
Anyway, went a little OT, what was I going on about? Oh yea, so yeah America has the largest military etc.. because of the Cold War and hence it's only natural you play the largest role in military operations.
Plus, the only likely wars to happen are in the middle east (which effects you because they hate you) anyway. Can't see any of the countries going to war any time soon anyway. Maybe Kuwait but that wouldn't be just Kuwait that would be an attack on America in the form of attacking Kuwait (they attack Kuwait because they want to attack America). "Oh but Muffs North Korea blah blah", son, North Korea is a shit hole. The country is falling apart within and their leader just wants to play Starcraft all day (literally). If it ever came to war (which it wont) NK would hardly be the next USSR. Plus, what allies do they have? none. China?? China wont go to war.

You have to be weary of entangling alliances, that is how WW1 got out of hand. Your argument still didn't answer my question. I realize we are the most powerful country militarily, that is not a reason for it. It's circular reasoning. We should have the largest military and policemen of the world because we have the largest military and police the world. Do you honestly think if we did not defend Japan that Japan would not defend themselves? They would, but even if they didn't that is no reason for us to be their primary means of defense. If Australia and the U.S. were not allies, what would change? Australia, may or may not choose to beef up their military. That is it. If we reduce the size of our forces we may not be so ready to engage in this immoral, no win wars, without the permission of our Congress, which is supposed to be required by our constitution.

Quote:LESS MONEY FOR OUR MILITARY IS A GOOD THING

earmuffs Wrote:Like I said, 5% of GDP. If you were to reduce that to say the average of 2.5% you'd still need income tax (because I assure you the revenue on income tax is greater then 2.5%).
Income tax is massive massive massive massive amount of revenue for the country, if not the largest source of income for the country.
In fact here it is the largest (around 40% I believe) largest source of income for my government, GST being third after corporate tax.

Like I've stated MANY MANY times before, the abolishment of our income tax could easily be supplemented by a higher sales tax, and a reduction in wasteful federal government spending.

Quote:There is more reasons to want to remain private other than me having things to hide.

earmuffs Wrote:You wanted for murder or something? Wouldn't say I'd be surprised.

I'm not even going to bother to explain why this comment makes no sense. Read it again.

Quote:Just because I don't want the police to break into my home and rummage through my belongings doesn't mean that I am committing crimes, it just means I value my privacy.

earmuffs Wrote:Yea but the government isn't turning over all your things. They're simply collecting basic data from you for the purposes I mentioned.

If they give themselves the authority to invade my privacy it doesn't matter what the good intentions were. It will always go south eventually.

Quote:If you want information regarding statistics, then you could easily collect that data voluntarily

earmuffs Wrote:Which wouldn't give you exact data. The other problem with data collection is that it is extremely expensive and so if you can collect data while people pay their taxes then cost is greatly reduced.
If anything you should be thanking the government for being efficient in that respect.

Maybe, but they shouldn't be collecting either without consent.

Quote:I would wonder what decision the government needed that data for anyhow.

earmuffs Wrote:XXX neighbor hood has XX% of people who are below the poverty line, we should be concentrating on building whatever.
So and So suburb has a large amount of 2year old children who in 3 years will be in primary school and there wont be enough primary schools we need to expand.
XX% of the population is 40 so in 25 years XX% of the population is going to need to pay for pensioned for XX% of the country.

To name a few.

The federal government shouldn't be concerned with any of the things you mentioned. The first two items are local or state government issues, the last should be a private issue, or no issue at all.

Quote:Simply wanting the data is not a justification for taking it by force.

earmuffs Wrote:Oh yes because they just collect it for the lolz. "Hey wanna know what would be funny, if we made everyone give us their personal information so that we can do nothing with it!"
God damn, use your brain.

Yes, but I don't want them to do with it what they are doing with it. If we followed the libertarians ideas like I advocate their would be no legitimate use for them to have it.

Quote:I said I had a better understanding of the economy than you, and I stand by my statement.

You're standing by a false statement.
[/quote]

Nope.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 11:02 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
Quote:Talking down to me as if I cannot understand simple concepts does not strengthen your position, it only makes you look like an ass.

Well it seems to be the only way for you to understand. If anyone is looking like an ass here it's the person that needs things explained to them the same way I'd explain it to a mentally handicapped 5 year old.

Quote:Your little story of Johnny does not help you position because you presuppose things that I have not said and is not my position.

And you still don't get it. You really shouldn't be anywhere near a forum like this if you can't even comprehend basic concepts of pooling money.

Quote:Wrong again. Percentages of GDP doesn't tell you much.

Right actually. You were comparing countries, I said you should look at percentages.
This is because America could spend 1% of it's GDP on military and New Zealand could spend 50% of it's GDP on military. The numbers would show America spends a shit load more, but the percentages would show you the true nature of how governments are spending their dosh.

Quote: Let's say we leave in identical countries

But we don't. That's the thing. You live in America, I live in New Zealand. You live in the worlds biggest superpower (for now) and I live in a shitty Oceanic country.
This inherently means you have greater threats. We are never gonna get attacked by terrorists for example, but you are. And so you must allocate more resources to this. Much the same as Japan, they don't need a massive military because they are never going to be attacked by anyone other then North Korea and with North Korea it's in Americas interest to side with Japan on that one obviously.
With power comes responsibly but with power also comes hostility/threats.

Quote: In your country the military can adequately defend itself with a billion dollar defense budget. My country has a 30% larger economy. How much money does my defense budget need? The answer is a billion dollars.

Yea for that case I'd agree, but like I just said, we don't live in exact same countries.

Quote:I spent enough time in the military

Typical Jarhead then, explains these shit opinions of yours.
Keep following orders DK, no doubt I'm actually arguing with the opinions of your Staff Sargent and not actually your own.
"Listen boys, this is how the world works blah blah"
"YES STAFF SARGENT HOORAY!"

Quote:You have to be weary of entangling alliances, that is how WW1 got out of hand.

WW1 was a shit storm waiting to happen. It wont happen today on that scale. Like I said, today's threats are the Middle East, North Korea and perhaps certain South America countries (perhaps). None of which are on the scale of either WW, for starters none are even close to being a world power.
BRIC countries people think are a threat and are where the next WW is at. Well, people are idiots.

Quote:We should have the largest military and policemen of the world because we have the largest military and police the world.

You should have the largest military strength in the world because you have the greatest number of threats in relation to greatest amount to lose.

Americans can't stand their lives being slightly interrupted let alone a war on their doorstep. Imagine if China actually invaded/had troops on American soil, in NY for example. People would be fucking pissed, not because China was invading US but because their bus had to go through 5 Chinese military checkpoints and they were 20minutes late for work.

Quote:Do you honestly think if we did not defend Japan that Japan would not defend themselves?

Well they already spend 55billion on military spending a year so I'd say they already do.
But also again, they have far less threats then you. Their old enemies are no longer enemies, they don't seem to be hell bent on world domination, they're happy with their current situation all in all. The only threat to Japan is North Korea.

Quote:If Australia and the U.S. were not allies, what would change?

Australia would trade and do business etc.. even more with China. Especially considering China is expanding rapidly (business wise) and is where the money is. Nobody comes to us or Australia from America with business ventures, the Chinese do.
And so what does that mean? Well if America wants to compete and be viable in the Pacific market then it is going to be hugely beneficial to have significant allies like Australia and New Zealand in the region.
As for will Australia beef up it's military? Nope. Why? Because the US is not our (Australasia) primary form of defense. The "British Empire" is.
So I'm sorry but you're not that special to be our primary source of defense.

Oh and answer to the no doubt future question, because the UK has no interest in the pacific market. They made it very clear in 1985 that they are going to shift their focus to the EU and US markets.

Quote:Like I've stated MANY MANY times before, the abolishment of our income tax could easily be supplemented by a higher sales tax, and a reduction in wasteful federal government spending.

And like I have said MANY MANY MANY (that's one more "many" then you) times, post 68 and 69.
And like Chas says, it would simply shift it.

Quote:If they give themselves the authority

See you don't even recognize the validity of the courts, how do you expect people to take you serious on topics like income tax?

Quote:Maybe, but they shouldn't be collecting either without consent.

It doesn't harm you, it doesn't effect you in any way shape or form, and in fact it provides a much needed service for the government.

Quote:The federal government shouldn't be concerned with any of the things you mentioned.

wow you are dumb.
No wonder you joined the military. Bet you were a layman, can't imagine you doing much more then loading tank shells honestly.

Like seriously, how are you that dumb that you can't even think to connect the dots of "if the federal government has this data, then local government will have access to this information".
And you wonder why I talk to you like you're an idiot, it's because you are.

Quote:Yes, but I don't want them to do with it what they are doing with it.

I'm sorry but what? Just when I thought you couldn't get even more dumb you throw this spanner into the works.
So you don't want them to use this data so that government and other facilities can make informed decisions? You'd rather them just... guess?

And you talk about efficiency...

Quote:If we followed the libertarians ideas like I advocate their would be no legitimate use for them to have it.

which is exactly why we don't.

Quote:Nope.

Yip.


Look, you're obviously mentally incapable of thinking, anyone can see that, so how about we just agree that I am right and you are horrifically wrong and stupid.
Yes? Good. Glad that is over.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 07:23 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 07:47 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
Quote:It is our meddling in the affairs of others that have earned us all of the enemies that we have. Al Quida would not have attackd it if we hadn't spent the 80's, and 90's sticking our noses where they didn't belong. It's called 'Blowback', and it will only be greater the more we interfere.

Sure, but then Kuwait would be in a pretty shit place under Iraqi rule.
Just like with Gaddafi, if America hadn't sent in it's Jets to give the rebels a hand then they likely would have lost which would cause problems. Sure the UK or whoever else could have done it but then what you are saying for America ("it's not our problem") could apply for those countries too. And so where does that leaves those hundreds of thousands of hundred thousands of people who suffer at the hands of their cunt dictatorships?

It's part of the age we live in. The world has never seen anything like it. Today we can have countries like America "policing" other countries, sticking up for the little guy. 200 years ago that would not have been logistically possible.

So considering this whole thing is about morals, would it not make sense then that if you can do something you should?
Or does that only only apply to Americans?

Quote:Considering that I want to shrink our military, and the amount of power the militay has, this is a poor argument. If I were a Jarhead, them my supperiors would not share the same beleifs that I do, they would have gotten out before they could have promoted beyond my pay-grade. Read my "Hero Worship" thread in his section.

I disagree, if the money's good, the people are good then why not stay.
I am sure there are plenty of a servicemen in Iraq/Afghanistan right now who oppose the war.

Quote:It will happen again. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." This is applicable for this argument. The next one will likley be worse becuase you don't need to be a superpower to have massive firepower anymore. I am not saying that this will happen within our lifetime, or our childrens lifetime but it will happen again, and for the same underlying reasons.

No it wont.

Quote:This doesn't explain why I need to defend other coountries that are capable of defending themselves.

What, Japan? Like I said, they spend 55billion and their only threat is North Korea which is imploding right now.

Quote:Okay then, I have said MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY times, and now in bold.

To late I already beat you to it.

Quote:So your argument here is that because they are the law they cannot overstep their authority? Think about that and then get back to me.

Did I say that? No..

Quote:It has the potential to harm me, but even if it didn't it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't harm me if the decided to search my property without a warrant either but that doesn't make it okay.

It has zero potential to harm you. Like I said, you're not that special.

Quote:The local government can get it's data at the local level, and it will be more accurate.

It would collect it in the exact same way so your point is moot.

Quote:The Federeal government has not legitimate use for the data....

I just mentioned a few. As well as trying to explain to you that it can then pass that information onto local government.

Quote:Then what is all the bickering and namecalling about then?

Your lack of a brain that has developed past second grade.

Quote:When your arguments rely on trying to make your opponet seems stupid by name-calling then you know you have a weak argument.

Quite the opposite. My argument has countered yours so strongly and you constantly miss the memo or fail to read and understand this that and the other that I really don't know what to do but be surprised by shit a chimpanzee would understand before you ever manage to comprehend it.

Seriously, is there a reason for why you are so dumb?? Serious question. Like you honestly may need to get checked because it's actually worrisome.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 08:01 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(30-09-2012 09:24 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(30-09-2012 04:49 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I was referring to the civil war being costly in the sense that a lot of people died.
The human cost.
Just like the human cost of WW2 was over 60million people.

Sure slavery was profitable in the early days. In America for example the process of actually extracting the cotton was extremely labor intensive. But as technology progressed and things such as extracting the cotton came to a point where one person could do the work of previously 50 people, like Logica says, it became more hassle then it was worth. You had to provide homes, you had to cloth/feed, you had to put up with their children, you had the risk they would run away, they were initially expensive to buy. It would have been only a matter of time.

I'm still not sure why were are debating this as it has nothing to do with the fact that direct taxation is theft, because consent was not given, and indirect taxation is easily doable solution to a problem that should never have existed.

Since we are still arguing this I will reiterate once again. Slavery still exists, because it is profitable. It would be profitable now in America, or any industrialized nation if it was allowed to continue. If a person can make a living, that is own or rent a room, and feed himself, and clothe himself, and still have some money left over then it would be profitable for it to be done by slavery. Not only do you not have to pay for the slaves cost to travel to work, maintain a vehicle, you could also cut out the money he would have profited, plus all of the optional expenses like television, television, eating out, entertainment, buying stylish clothing, all of the wasteful spending us free folks do. The cost of having a slave do you manual labor would certainly be less than paying someone even minimum wage even if you include the cost of runaways, and other things you do not have to worry about with a free individual.

Quote: INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT PAID FOR BY DIRECT TAXES IN AMERICA.

earmuffs Wrote:Look, I'm going to give a quick example, try to follow along best you can and if you have any questions please raise your hand.

Johnny has two jobs, Job A and Job B.
Johnny earns $50 at Job A and $50 at Job B. Are you with me so far? you may need to quickly run and get a piece of paper so you can follow along easier.
Johnny's weekly expenses are $75.
Now pay attention closely, this is where it gets tricky.
Johnny's total earnings for the week are $100, that's Job A and Job B combined in case you were wondering how I got to that number, use a calculator if you like to make sure that number is correct if you don't believe me.
This $75 expenses are then deducted from the $100. Ok take a break I know that it's probably a lot for you to take in right now. Go get a drink, watch some TV, then when you are ready come back and keep reading.
This is where it gets really tricky for your little brain (I'll put it in quotations in case you got lost half way through this sentence), "it doesn't matter what Job money he uses to pay for the bills". Ok, pause, let that sink in, stop, have a think about it.
Once you have let that sink into your brain we shall continue.
Don't worry, almost at the end.
Furthermore, "if Johnny was to lose Job B then not only would he not be able to pay the $75 expenses BUT he would not be able to buy that brand new pair of $25 shoes he wants."
Thus two jobs.

I'll leave you to ponder over that and how it relates to tax.

Talking down to me as if I cannot understand simple concepts does not strengthen your position, it only makes you look like an ass. Your little story of Johnny does not help you position because you presuppose things that I have not said and is not my position.

Quote:The budget of our military is larger that the next 20 largest combined.

earmuffs Wrote:Considering your military budget is 5% of GDP I'd say it's really not that much more compared to other countries. Most other countries spend around 2.5% of their GDP on military spending, so 5% considering what the US does is really not that much more then you think.
Also to compare actual figures (dollars and cents) of one country spending to another is foolish. Obviously America is going to be spending the most of military, it's the single largest GDP country by a mile.
For a good comparison you need to look at percentages.

Wrong again. Percentages of GDP doesn't tell you much. You have to look at how big the economy of a state is. Let's say we leave in identical countries with one exception, our economy. In your country the military can adequately defend itself with a billion dollar defense budget. My country has a 30% larger economy. How much money does my defense budget need? The answer is a billion dollars. It is not the same percentage that your country used. Now I will presume (fore the sake of saving time) that your figures are correct though they are not ("Look" at our BLACK BUDGET). Even if our budget it TWICE that of "similar" countries, that is out of control spending. TWICE is an awful lot.

Quote:That far exceeds what is necessary to defend our country

earmuffs Wrote:Considering where your troops are stationed I'd say you're doing rather well for only using 5% of your GDP. My country uses 2.5% of our GDP on military spending and we have maybe 10 guys in Afghanistan, we're not even in Iraq and don't have half the shit you guys do (tanks, decent sized ships etc...)

I spent enough time in the military to see the massive amounts of financial waste on a daily basis. I have seen millions upon millions of dollars rotting in Con-ex boxes, I have seen billions being wasted on personnel who do nothing but turn food into shit for months or a year at a time. I have seen us enter wars based on lies, and appealing to the emotions of the public, entering wars illegally. Hell, I have went to a military shindig that costs millions where celebrities were paid to entertain (Jay Leno). What about that seems efficient to you. Again you should not use percentages.

Quote:Why should I have to pay for that?

earmuffs Wrote:America is todays largest if not only superpower. We happen to live in a time of relative peace and stability (sure there is the Middle east/Africa, but I mean it's not like the the beginning of time until 1945 where all of Europe was at each others throats. And so America has alliances with Japan and New Zealand and the UK etc.. etc.. It just so happens America has the largest military forces because of the Cold War, so it's only natural that the US has the largest role to play in things like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Plus, it is in your best interest to keep alliances and such in places like Japan so you can gain political control of places like the Pacific where places like China are becoming a economical threat.
In fact, your head of military guy (second to the President) was out here talking to our PM, talking about how they're looking to "strengthen relations". Noooo, you just see us dealing more with China (because that's where the money is in this part of the world) and you're shit scared and so are looking to retain China.
Anyway, went a little OT, what was I going on about? Oh yea, so yeah America has the largest military etc.. because of the Cold War and hence it's only natural you play the largest role in military operations.
Plus, the only likely wars to happen are in the middle east (which effects you because they hate you) anyway. Can't see any of the countries going to war any time soon anyway. Maybe Kuwait but that wouldn't be just Kuwait that would be an attack on America in the form of attacking Kuwait (they attack Kuwait because they want to attack America). "Oh but Muffs North Korea blah blah", son, North Korea is a shit hole. The country is falling apart within and their leader just wants to play Starcraft all day (literally). If it ever came to war (which it wont) NK would hardly be the next USSR. Plus, what allies do they have? none. China?? China wont go to war.

You have to be weary of entangling alliances, that is how WW1 got out of hand. Your argument still didn't answer my question. I realize we are the most powerful country militarily, that is not a reason for it. It's circular reasoning. We should have the largest military and policemen of the world because we have the largest military and police the world. Do you honestly think if we did not defend Japan that Japan would not defend themselves? They would, but even if they didn't that is no reason for us to be their primary means of defense. If Australia and the U.S. were not allies, what would change? Australia, may or may not choose to beef up their military. That is it. If we reduce the size of our forces we may not be so ready to engage in this immoral, no win wars, without the permission of our Congress, which is supposed to be required by our constitution.

Quote:LESS MONEY FOR OUR MILITARY IS A GOOD THING

earmuffs Wrote:Like I said, 5% of GDP. If you were to reduce that to say the average of 2.5% you'd still need income tax (because I assure you the revenue on income tax is greater then 2.5%).
Income tax is massive massive massive massive amount of revenue for the country, if not the largest source of income for the country.
In fact here it is the largest (around 40% I believe) largest source of income for my government, GST being third after corporate tax.

Like I've stated MANY MANY times before, the abolishment of our income tax could easily be supplemented by a higher sales tax, and a reduction in wasteful federal government spending.

Quote:There is more reasons to want to remain private other than me having things to hide.

earmuffs Wrote:You wanted for murder or something? Wouldn't say I'd be surprised.

I'm not even going to bother to explain why this comment makes no sense. Read it again.

Quote:Just because I don't want the police to break into my home and rummage through my belongings doesn't mean that I am committing crimes, it just means I value my privacy.

earmuffs Wrote:Yea but the government isn't turning over all your things. They're simply collecting basic data from you for the purposes I mentioned.

If they give themselves the authority to invade my privacy it doesn't matter what the good intentions were. It will always go south eventually.

Quote:If you want information regarding statistics, then you could easily collect that data voluntarily

earmuffs Wrote:Which wouldn't give you exact data. The other problem with data collection is that it is extremely expensive and so if you can collect data while people pay their taxes then cost is greatly reduced.
If anything you should be thanking the government for being efficient in that respect.

Maybe, but they shouldn't be collecting either without consent.

Quote:I would wonder what decision the government needed that data for anyhow.

earmuffs Wrote:XXX neighbor hood has XX% of people who are below the poverty line, we should be concentrating on building whatever.
So and So suburb has a large amount of 2year old children who in 3 years will be in primary school and there wont be enough primary schools we need to expand.
XX% of the population is 40 so in 25 years XX% of the population is going to need to pay for pensioned for XX% of the country.

To name a few.

The federal government shouldn't be concerned with any of the things you mentioned. The first two items are local or state government issues, the last should be a private issue, or no issue at all.

Quote:Simply wanting the data is not a justification for taking it by force.

earmuffs Wrote:Oh yes because they just collect it for the lolz. "Hey wanna know what would be funny, if we made everyone give us their personal information so that we can do nothing with it!"
God damn, use your brain.

Yes, but I don't want them to do with it what they are doing with it. If we followed the libertarians ideas like I advocate their would be no legitimate use for them to have it.

Quote:I said I had a better understanding of the economy than you, and I stand by my statement.

You're standing by a false statement.

Nope.
[/quote]

What fine hair are you splitting that leads you to say that direct taxation is immoral but indirect taxation is not?

I would argue the opposite. Direct taxation is open and transparent, indirect taxation is sneaky and dishonest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-10-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(01-10-2012 08:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-09-2012 09:24 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm still not sure why were are debating this as it has nothing to do with the fact that direct taxation is theft, because consent was not given, and indirect taxation is easily doable solution to a problem that should never have existed.

Since we are still arguing this I will reiterate once again. Slavery still exists, because it is profitable. It would be profitable now in America, or any industrialized nation if it was allowed to continue. If a person can make a living, that is own or rent a room, and feed himself, and clothe himself, and still have some money left over then it would be profitable for it to be done by slavery. Not only do you not have to pay for the slaves cost to travel to work, maintain a vehicle, you could also cut out the money he would have profited, plus all of the optional expenses like television, television, eating out, entertainment, buying stylish clothing, all of the wasteful spending us free folks do. The cost of having a slave do you manual labor would certainly be less than paying someone even minimum wage even if you include the cost of runaways, and other things you do not have to worry about with a free individual.



Talking down to me as if I cannot understand simple concepts does not strengthen your position, it only makes you look like an ass. Your little story of Johnny does not help you position because you presuppose things that I have not said and is not my position.



Wrong again. Percentages of GDP doesn't tell you much. You have to look at how big the economy of a state is. Let's say we leave in identical countries with one exception, our economy. In your country the military can adequately defend itself with a billion dollar defense budget. My country has a 30% larger economy. How much money does my defense budget need? The answer is a billion dollars. It is not the same percentage that your country used. Now I will presume (fore the sake of saving time) that your figures are correct though they are not ("Look" at our BLACK BUDGET). Even if our budget it TWICE that of "similar" countries, that is out of control spending. TWICE is an awful lot.



I spent enough time in the military to see the massive amounts of financial waste on a daily basis. I have seen millions upon millions of dollars rotting in Con-ex boxes, I have seen billions being wasted on personnel who do nothing but turn food into shit for months or a year at a time. I have seen us enter wars based on lies, and appealing to the emotions of the public, entering wars illegally. Hell, I have went to a military shindig that costs millions where celebrities were paid to entertain (Jay Leno). What about that seems efficient to you. Again you should not use percentages.



You have to be weary of entangling alliances, that is how WW1 got out of hand. Your argument still didn't answer my question. I realize we are the most powerful country militarily, that is not a reason for it. It's circular reasoning. We should have the largest military and policemen of the world because we have the largest military and police the world. Do you honestly think if we did not defend Japan that Japan would not defend themselves? They would, but even if they didn't that is no reason for us to be their primary means of defense. If Australia and the U.S. were not allies, what would change? Australia, may or may not choose to beef up their military. That is it. If we reduce the size of our forces we may not be so ready to engage in this immoral, no win wars, without the permission of our Congress, which is supposed to be required by our constitution.



Like I've stated MANY MANY times before, the abolishment of our income tax could easily be supplemented by a higher sales tax, and a reduction in wasteful federal government spending.



I'm not even going to bother to explain why this comment makes no sense. Read it again.



If they give themselves the authority to invade my privacy it doesn't matter what the good intentions were. It will always go south eventually.



Maybe, but they shouldn't be collecting either without consent.



The federal government shouldn't be concerned with any of the things you mentioned. The first two items are local or state government issues, the last should be a private issue, or no issue at all.



Yes, but I don't want them to do with it what they are doing with it. If we followed the libertarians ideas like I advocate their would be no legitimate use for them to have it.


You're standing by a false statement.

Nope.

What fine hair are you splitting that leads you to say that direct taxation is immoral but indirect taxation is not?

I would argue the opposite. Direct taxation is open and transparent, indirect taxation is sneaky and dishonest.
[/quote]

He wont have the slightest clue as to what you just said Chas, you need to speak slower and in simple simple English.

edit: what's up with the quote thing not working properly, what a pain.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
Being Canadian I don't really know, but since the US was build in capitalistic ideas, I would assume they really fear communism. People are greedy and with businesses controlled by the government in a communist country, everyone would have equal economic opportunity and profits, which is not a system any capitalist minded people would agree upon. I believe communism is a really good idea, even though it has never been achieved on this planet. Just thinking about it though, governments in places like the Star Trek universe are communist in nature, so hopefully in the distant future we might manage to overcome our more basic instincts and create an actual communist government.

"Understanding is a three edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth." Kosh Naranek
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 07:16 AM
RE: Does America Still Fear Communism?
(01-10-2012 10:21 PM)Vorlon Wrote:  Being Canadian I don't really know, but since the US was build in capitalistic ideas, I would assume they really fear communism. People are greedy and with businesses controlled by the government in a communist country, everyone would have equal economic opportunity and profits, which is not a system any capitalist minded people would agree upon. I believe communism is a really good idea, even though it has never been achieved on this planet. Just thinking about it though, governments in places like the Star Trek universe are communist in nature, so hopefully in the distant future we might manage to overcome our more basic instincts and create an actual communist government.

Canada, largely built by Scots, was also built on capitalist ideas. The problem with communism is that it goes against human nature; while that does not make it impossible, it makes it improbable. There have been no successful Communist states.

Unfettered capitalism also doesn't work as it causes too much damage. As the old joke goes:
Capitalism is a dog-eat-dog system. Communism is the reverse.

What appears to be successful is a moderately socialist society that honors capitalist principles, like those of many European nations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: