Nader to Ryan: Time to Debate

[Uncensored2008]

The courts overstep boundaries on behalf of the richest 1% of (rugged) individuals.

Quite the opposite, if you read your own link you saw that Santa Clara didn't convey "personhood" initially, that it was in 1916 when the Wilson administration wanted to TAX corporations as individuals, that the ruling was cited as creating a corporate person.

The FACT is, that greed by the government is the the motive for this. This is all based on the desire of looters to take what doesn't belong to them.

All federal governments yet created serve the interests of their richest individuals.

Foolish nonsense not worth discussing. Start a thread in the rubber room for that.

Unless you see a way to construct human societies without private wealth, only government has the power to control the greediest of the money grubbing bastards.

Government is invariably the greediest of money grubbing bastards.

Competition controls private companies - until government steps in to provide favoritism and monopolies, that is.

Except for natural monopolies, Every monopoly that has ever existed, was created and enforced by government. This includes Standard Oil, the Railroads, AT&T, et al.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unless you see a way to construct human societies without private wealth, only government has the power to control the greediest of the money grubbing bastards.

Government is invariably the greediest of money grubbing bastards.

Competition controls private companies - until government steps in to provide favoritism and monopolies, that is.

Except for natural monopolies, Every monopoly that has ever existed, was created and enforced by government. This includes Standard Oil, the Railroads, AT&T, et al.

This bears repeating. I find it sad that so many people believe that government needs to interveine to combat the power of corporate or rich people and their interests. What they are failing to understand is that power exists BECAUSE the government in the first place. More and more government does not keep the power of a few overgrown corporations and people in check, it INCREASES it.

Look at the bailouts. After all that money, all that new regulation and the creation of an entirely new bureaucratic oversight entity, what did we end up with? That’s right, LARGER and MORE POWERFUL banks. The great cover up is that the banks actually don’t want all this new regulation and government intrusion. They actually do, it only works to enrich them.

 

[georgephillip]

The courts overstep boundaries on behalf of the richest 1% of (rugged) individuals.

Quite the opposite, if you read your own link you saw that Santa Clara didn't convey "personhood" initially, that it was in 1916 when the Wilson administration wanted to TAX corporations as individuals, that the ruling was cited as creating a corporate person.

The FACT is, that greed by the government is the the motive for this. This is all based on the desire of looters to take what doesn't belong to them.

All federal governments yet created serve the interests of their richest individuals.

Foolish nonsense not worth discussing. Start a thread in the rubber room for that.

Unless you see a way to construct human societies without private wealth, only government has the power to control the greediest of the money grubbing bastards.

Government is invariably the greediest of money grubbing bastards.

Competition controls private companies - until government steps in to provide favoritism and monopolies, that is.

Except for natural monopolies, Every monopoly that has ever existed, was created and enforced by government. This includes Standard Oil, the Railroads, AT&T, et al.

Was Adam Smith spouting "foolish nonsense" when he pointed out how the "principle architects of policy" in his day, the 'merchants and manufacturers", used the most democratic government of its time to ensure their interests were "most peculiarly attended to" in spite of the devastating consequences those interests imposed on India and the vast majority of British citizens?

When Smith describes the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people," do you believe he meant Government or the rich individuals who controlled his government?

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

 

[georgephillip]

Unless you see a way to construct human societies without private wealth, only government has the power to control the greediest of the money grubbing bastards.

Government is invariably the greediest of money grubbing bastards.

Competition controls private companies - until government steps in to provide favoritism and monopolies, that is.

Except for natural monopolies, Every monopoly that has ever existed, was created and enforced by government. This includes Standard Oil, the Railroads, AT&T, et al.

This bears repeating. I find it sad that so many people believe that government needs to interveine to combat the power of corporate or rich people and their interests. What they are failing to understand is that power exists BECAUSE the government in the first place. More and more government does not keep the power of a few overgrown corporations and people in check, it INCREASES it.

Look at the bailouts. After all that money, all that new regulation and the creation of an entirely new bureaucratic oversight entity, what did we end up with? That’s right, LARGER and MORE POWERFUL banks. The great cover up is that the banks actually don’t want all this new regulation and government intrusion. They actually do, it only works to enrich them.

Since the corporation (and money itself) are created or guaranteed by government, what other institution has the power to regulate either entity?

The richest individuals within a society have controlled every government yet created.
The US rich used government to create corporations, largely through the judiciary and not the legislature.
The solution would appear to require building a wall of separation between private wealth and government, not dissolving or weakening already fragile democratic institutions.

Big banks have even more influence over government today precisely because they bribe elected Republicans AND Democrats for regulations which stifle competition from smaller competitors. The solution doesn't require less government as much as it requires less private money influencing governmental policies.

If millions of US voters decided to FLUSH 100-200 Republicans AND Democrats from DC next November, the big issues like corporate person hood or a Second Constitutional Convention would have a much better chance of being publicly discussed.

Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to this republic, imho.

 

[FA_Q2]

Government is invariably the greediest of money grubbing bastards.

Competition controls private companies - until government steps in to provide favoritism and monopolies, that is.

Except for natural monopolies, Every monopoly that has ever existed, was created and enforced by government. This includes Standard Oil, the Railroads, AT&T, et al.

This bears repeating. I find it sad that so many people believe that government needs to interveine to combat the power of corporate or rich people and their interests. What they are failing to understand is that power exists BECAUSE the government in the first place. More and more government does not keep the power of a few overgrown corporations and people in check, it INCREASES it.

Look at the bailouts. After all that money, all that new regulation and the creation of an entirely new bureaucratic oversight entity, what did we end up with? That’s right, LARGER and MORE POWERFUL banks. The great cover up is that the banks actually don’t want all this new regulation and government intrusion. They actually do, it only works to enrich them.

Since the corporation (and money itself) are created or guaranteed by government, what other institution has the power to regulate either entity?

The richest individuals within a society have controlled every government yet created.
The US rich used government to create corporations, largely through the judiciary and not the legislature.
The solution would appear to require building a wall of separation between private wealth and government, not dissolving or weakening already fragile democratic institutions.

Big banks have even more influence over government today precisely because they bribe elected Republicans AND Democrats for regulations which stifle competition from smaller competitors. The solution doesn't require less government as much as it requires less private money influencing governmental policies.

If millions of US voters decided to FLUSH 100-200 Republicans AND Democrats from DC next November, the big issues like corporate person hood or a Second Constitutional Convention would have a much better chance of being publicly discussed.

Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to this republic, imho.

No, no no. You can’t get the money out of politics as long as the government has created the vested interest for the companies to invest that capitol. No matter what you do with the finance reform, how closely you regulate their interactions or any other fantastical scheme they will find a way around it. If you take away any method of interference, they will simply purchase the legislators with promises. Do you really think that Gingrich was paid to be a ‘historian?’ Of course not. That position and the paycheck that came with it was earned through political favors most likely earned both before and after service in office.

While I agree the parties are a waste, flushing the current crop of people is not going to solve anything either. The only way to separate the two powers is to get the government out of the way and reestablish at least the vestiges of a free market. The most important part of that is taking away the power to selectively tax and give kickbacks through the tax code. That is the number one reason that cooperation’s are in the business of politics to begin with. If you want to lessen big money interests (you can’t get rid of it nor should you) then you need to eliminate the REASONS that the big money interests are in there in the first place; special favors and government money. Take care of that and most of the problems with the unholy alliance will simply cease to exist.

 

[georgephillip]

This bears repeating. I find it sad that so many people believe that government needs to interveine to combat the power of corporate or rich people and their interests. What they are failing to understand is that power exists BECAUSE the government in the first place. More and more government does not keep the power of a few overgrown corporations and people in check, it INCREASES it.

Look at the bailouts. After all that money, all that new regulation and the creation of an entirely new bureaucratic oversight entity, what did we end up with? That’s right, LARGER and MORE POWERFUL banks. The great cover up is that the banks actually don’t want all this new regulation and government intrusion. They actually do, it only works to enrich them.

Since the corporation (and money itself) are created or guaranteed by government, what other institution has the power to regulate either entity?

The richest individuals within a society have controlled every government yet created.
The US rich used government to create corporations, largely through the judiciary and not the legislature.
The solution would appear to require building a wall of separation between private wealth and government, not dissolving or weakening already fragile democratic institutions.

Big banks have even more influence over government today precisely because they bribe elected Republicans AND Democrats for regulations which stifle competition from smaller competitors. The solution doesn't require less government as much as it requires less private money influencing governmental policies.

If millions of US voters decided to FLUSH 100-200 Republicans AND Democrats from DC next November, the big issues like corporate person hood or a Second Constitutional Convention would have a much better chance of being publicly discussed.

Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to this republic, imho.

No, no no. You can’t get the money out of politics as long as the government has created the vested interest for the companies to invest that capitol. No matter what you do with the finance reform, how closely you regulate their interactions or any other fantastical scheme they will find a way around it. If you take away any method of interference, they will simply purchase the legislators with promises. Do you really think that Gingrich was paid to be a ‘historian?’ Of course not. That position and the paycheck that came with it was earned through political favors most likely earned both before and after service in office.

While I agree the parties are a waste, flushing the current crop of people is not going to solve anything either. The only way to separate the two powers is to get the government out of the way and reestablish at least the vestiges of a free market. The most important part of that is taking away the power to selectively tax and give kickbacks through the tax code. That is the number one reason that cooperation’s are in the business of politics to begin with. If you want to lessen big money interests (you can’t get rid of it nor should you) then you need to eliminate the REASONS that the big money interests are in there in the first place; special favors and government money. Take care of that and most of the problems with the unholy alliance will simply cease to exist.

Are you arguing for the elimination of government's authority to tax?

It seems more logical to reform government by separating its authority from the influence of ALL private wealth, both collective and individual.

 

[FA_Q2]

Since the corporation (and money itself) are created or guaranteed by government, what other institution has the power to regulate either entity?

The richest individuals within a society have controlled every government yet created.
The US rich used government to create corporations, largely through the judiciary and not the legislature.
The solution would appear to require building a wall of separation between private wealth and government, not dissolving or weakening already fragile democratic institutions.

Big banks have even more influence over government today precisely because they bribe elected Republicans AND Democrats for regulations which stifle competition from smaller competitors. The solution doesn't require less government as much as it requires less private money influencing governmental policies.

If millions of US voters decided to FLUSH 100-200 Republicans AND Democrats from DC next November, the big issues like corporate person hood or a Second Constitutional Convention would have a much better chance of being publicly discussed.

Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to this republic, imho.

No, no no. You can’t get the money out of politics as long as the government has created the vested interest for the companies to invest that capitol. No matter what you do with the finance reform, how closely you regulate their interactions or any other fantastical scheme they will find a way around it. If you take away any method of interference, they will simply purchase the legislators with promises. Do you really think that Gingrich was paid to be a ‘historian?’ Of course not. That position and the paycheck that came with it was earned through political favors most likely earned both before and after service in office.

While I agree the parties are a waste, flushing the current crop of people is not going to solve anything either. The only way to separate the two powers is to get the government out of the way and reestablish at least the vestiges of a free market. The most important part of that is taking away the power to selectively tax and give kickbacks through the tax code. That is the number one reason that cooperation’s are in the business of politics to begin with. If you want to lessen big money interests (you can’t get rid of it nor should you) then you need to eliminate the REASONS that the big money interests are in there in the first place; special favors and government money. Take care of that and most of the problems with the unholy alliance will simply cease to exist.

Are you arguing for the elimination of government's authority to tax?

It seems more logical to reform government by separating its authority from the influence of ALL private wealth, both collective and individual.

Absolutely not. The government needs taxes to run. Taxes are just that, the source of government funding. What I was saying is that taxes are no longer filling that purpose. Instead, they are used as a social engineering tool and a way to pay back supporters. I think the government should be able to tax but I also believe that those taxes should be even across ALL people or across ALL business. Not one tax for green, another for oil, another for whatever company they decide is good/bad. Nor should we be using our money to bail out specific entities. As long as the government is butting billions into companies, companies will invest the millions it takes to get that money.

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

 

[Intense]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

It was Government Social Engineering that made Tobacco big in the first place. Monopolies and Subsidies need to stop.

 

[FA_Q2]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

No, I would not nor would it have ended slavery. Instead, it would have mad that practice less prevalent yet kept it around longer. That is without even getting onto all the side problems that it would have caused.

As far as socialized cost, I actually have no problem with the concept of a sin tax that is targeted at cleaning up the SPECIFIC problems caused by a product. The interesting thing about the point you cite is that the extra taxes do NOTHING to address the problems that are caused by the cancer sticks in the first place. Those extra taxes are not going to treat the ‘socialized’ costs that you refer to. Instead, they are jammed into the general fund where they are spending on whatever pet project that the government want to squander it on. Then they hide behind the bullshit excuse that they are taxing the company to pay for the vice. It is all utter bullshit.

If you are going to have a targeted tax due to socialized costs, then those taxes should be mandated to be spent on said costs. Not one dime should go to anything else. Then, you can make the case that they are covering that particular problem. As they exist now, the only purpose is to wring some portion of cash out of one segment of the populous without losing votes. We had that happen recently here in Washington. When a budget deficit was not possible to close without tax increases that would be hugely unpopular, they passed a sugar tax on specific goods. Those taxes had nothing to do with any particular problem though they immediately started citing ‘obesity’ to justify the tax. In reality, Gregoire wanted to pass a tax that she could claim was not a tax raise and lose minimal votes in the process. It is a dishonest twisting of our political process.



What you are advocating is giving the government the right to intervene in YOUR personal decision making based on what the government feels is best. That is NOT freedom. It is the opposite and the real sickening part is that the average American does not even notice the sapping of their free will all in the name of ‘the greater good.’ How can you not see the obvious here…

 

[antagon]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

No, I would not nor would it have ended slavery. Instead, it would have mad that practice less prevalent yet kept it around longer. That is without even getting onto all the side problems that it would have caused.

As far as socialized cost, I actually have no problem with the concept of a sin tax that is targeted at cleaning up the SPECIFIC problems caused by a product. The interesting thing about the point you cite is that the extra taxes do NOTHING to address the problems that are caused by the cancer sticks in the first place. Those extra taxes are not going to treat the ‘socialized’ costs that you refer to. Instead, they are jammed into the general fund where they are spending on whatever pet project that the government want to squander it on. Then they hide behind the bullshit excuse that they are taxing the company to pay for the vice. It is all utter bullshit.

If you are going to have a targeted tax due to socialized costs, then those taxes should be mandated to be spent on said costs. Not one dime should go to anything else. Then, you can make the case that they are covering that particular problem. As they exist now, the only purpose is to wring some portion of cash out of one segment of the populous without losing votes. We had that happen recently here in Washington. When a budget deficit was not possible to close without tax increases that would be hugely unpopular, they passed a sugar tax on specific goods. Those taxes had nothing to do with any particular problem though they immediately started citing ‘obesity’ to justify the tax. In reality, Gregoire wanted to pass a tax that she could claim was not a tax raise and lose minimal votes in the process. It is a dishonest twisting of our political process.



What you are advocating is giving the government the right to intervene in YOUR personal decision making based on what the government feels is best. That is NOT freedom. It is the opposite and the real sickening part is that the average American does not even notice the sapping of their free will all in the name of ‘the greater good.’ How can you not see the obvious here…

Can't agree. We can't have a bunch of tax funds set up for all of these sin taxes. You know government would make a mess of that shit. The ATF would have a medical grant budget and social workers to help cancer victims, and people would want to smoke because there's a new teat set up for their suicidal habit.

 

[Katzndogz]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

Tobacco is not a narcotic.
narcotic - definition of narcotic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You are also wrong about slavery. If it were possible to shift the costs of maintaining a slave to the general public and paid for out of collected tax funds, we would have chattel slavery to this very day. After all, that's what supports illegal immigration.

 

[FA_Q2]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

No, I would not nor would it have ended slavery. Instead, it would have mad that practice less prevalent yet kept it around longer. That is without even getting onto all the side problems that it would have caused.

As far as socialized cost, I actually have no problem with the concept of a sin tax that is targeted at cleaning up the SPECIFIC problems caused by a product. The interesting thing about the point you cite is that the extra taxes do NOTHING to address the problems that are caused by the cancer sticks in the first place. Those extra taxes are not going to treat the ‘socialized’ costs that you refer to. Instead, they are jammed into the general fund where they are spending on whatever pet project that the government want to squander it on. Then they hide behind the bullshit excuse that they are taxing the company to pay for the vice. It is all utter bullshit.

If you are going to have a targeted tax due to socialized costs, then those taxes should be mandated to be spent on said costs. Not one dime should go to anything else. Then, you can make the case that they are covering that particular problem. As they exist now, the only purpose is to wring some portion of cash out of one segment of the populous without losing votes. We had that happen recently here in Washington. When a budget deficit was not possible to close without tax increases that would be hugely unpopular, they passed a sugar tax on specific goods. Those taxes had nothing to do with any particular problem though they immediately started citing ‘obesity’ to justify the tax. In reality, Gregoire wanted to pass a tax that she could claim was not a tax raise and lose minimal votes in the process. It is a dishonest twisting of our political process.



What you are advocating is giving the government the right to intervene in YOUR personal decision making based on what the government feels is best. That is NOT freedom. It is the opposite and the real sickening part is that the average American does not even notice the sapping of their free will all in the name of ‘the greater good.’ How can you not see the obvious here…

Can't agree. We can't have a bunch of tax funds set up for all of these sin taxes. You know government would make a mess of that shit. The ATF would have a medical grant budget and social workers to help cancer victims, and people would want to smoke because there's a new teat set up for their suicidal habit.

How, then, do you purpose that we deal with such problems as this when a company produces a product that the populous must unwillingly pay for?

 

[antagon]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

Tobacco is not a narcotic.
narcotic - definition of narcotic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You are also wrong about slavery. If it were possible to shift the costs of maintaining a slave to the general public and paid for out of collected tax funds, we would have chattel slavery to this very day. After all, that's what supports illegal immigration.

Illegal wages support illegal immigration. I don't think they'll be chattel slavery in the US in the 20th century under any circumstance. Some tax concession or public assistance to the south during antebellum could only happen in another dimension.

 

[antagon]

No, I would not nor would it have ended slavery. Instead, it would have mad that practice less prevalent yet kept it around longer. That is without even getting onto all the side problems that it would have caused.

As far as socialized cost, I actually have no problem with the concept of a sin tax that is targeted at cleaning up the SPECIFIC problems caused by a product. The interesting thing about the point you cite is that the extra taxes do NOTHING to address the problems that are caused by the cancer sticks in the first place. Those extra taxes are not going to treat the ‘socialized’ costs that you refer to. Instead, they are jammed into the general fund where they are spending on whatever pet project that the government want to squander it on. Then they hide behind the bullshit excuse that they are taxing the company to pay for the vice. It is all utter bullshit.

If you are going to have a targeted tax due to socialized costs, then those taxes should be mandated to be spent on said costs. Not one dime should go to anything else. Then, you can make the case that they are covering that particular problem. As they exist now, the only purpose is to wring some portion of cash out of one segment of the populous without losing votes. We had that happen recently here in Washington. When a budget deficit was not possible to close without tax increases that would be hugely unpopular, they passed a sugar tax on specific goods. Those taxes had nothing to do with any particular problem though they immediately started citing ‘obesity’ to justify the tax. In reality, Gregoire wanted to pass a tax that she could claim was not a tax raise and lose minimal votes in the process. It is a dishonest twisting of our political process.



What you are advocating is giving the government the right to intervene in YOUR personal decision making based on what the government feels is best. That is NOT freedom. It is the opposite and the real sickening part is that the average American does not even notice the sapping of their free will all in the name of ‘the greater good.’ How can you not see the obvious here…

Can't agree. We can't have a bunch of tax funds set up for all of these sin taxes. You know government would make a mess of that shit. The ATF would have a medical grant budget and social workers to help cancer victims, and people would want to smoke because there's a new teat set up for their suicidal habit.

How, then, do you purpose that we deal with such problems as this when a company produces a product that the populous must unwillingly pay for?

Sin taxes are okay. I advocate that sort of thing. Those revenues should be general-funded. The tax is enough. There's no need for some taskforce attached to every sin tax.

 

[FA_Q2]

I believe that is the worst thing you can do though. As I pointed out, the idea becomes completely lost in political hackery in an effort to draw more money out of people through hidden means. Those taxes as they stand today have nothing to do with ‘socialized’ costs. Instead, politicians see fat pockets they can rob without paying the political price.

Our tax system is a complete mess.

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

Tobacco is not a narcotic.
narcotic - definition of narcotic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You are also wrong about slavery. If it were possible to shift the costs of maintaining a slave to the general public and paid for out of collected tax funds, we would have chattel slavery to this very day. After all, that's what supports illegal immigration.

Illegal wages support illegal immigration. I don't think they'll be chattel slavery in the US in the 20th century under any circumstance. Some tax concession or public assistance to the south during antebellum could only happen in another dimension.

I was thinking a 100% tariff on all slave produced cotton would have bankrupted the antebellum South?

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

It was Government Social Engineering that made Tobacco big in the first place. Monopolies and Subsidies need to stop.

I would argue that government engineered monopolies like Big Tobacco in the interests of the richest 1% of the population. Are we confronting a choice between government and private wealth?

 

[Katzndogz]

Tobacco is not a narcotic.
narcotic - definition of narcotic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You are also wrong about slavery. If it were possible to shift the costs of maintaining a slave to the general public and paid for out of collected tax funds, we would have chattel slavery to this very day. After all, that's what supports illegal immigration.

Illegal wages support illegal immigration. I don't think they'll be chattel slavery in the US in the 20th century under any circumstance. Some tax concession or public assistance to the south during antebellum could only happen in another dimension.

I was thinking a 100% tariff on all slave produced cotton would have bankrupted the antebellum South?

Tariffs were the reason for the Civil War, not slavery. The confiscatory tariffs didn't bankrupt the South. The war did. Confiscatory taxes normally result in civil war, and it will again.

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

No, I would not nor would it have ended slavery. Instead, it would have mad that practice less prevalent yet kept it around longer. That is without even getting onto all the side problems that it would have caused.

As far as socialized cost, I actually have no problem with the concept of a sin tax that is targeted at cleaning up the SPECIFIC problems caused by a product. The interesting thing about the point you cite is that the extra taxes do NOTHING to address the problems that are caused by the cancer sticks in the first place. Those extra taxes are not going to treat the ‘socialized’ costs that you refer to. Instead, they are jammed into the general fund where they are spending on whatever pet project that the government want to squander it on. Then they hide behind the bullshit excuse that they are taxing the company to pay for the vice. It is all utter bullshit.

If you are going to have a targeted tax due to socialized costs, then those taxes should be mandated to be spent on said costs. Not one dime should go to anything else. Then, you can make the case that they are covering that particular problem. As they exist now, the only purpose is to wring some portion of cash out of one segment of the populous without losing votes. We had that happen recently here in Washington. When a budget deficit was not possible to close without tax increases that would be hugely unpopular, they passed a sugar tax on specific goods. Those taxes had nothing to do with any particular problem though they immediately started citing ‘obesity’ to justify the tax. In reality, Gregoire wanted to pass a tax that she could claim was not a tax raise and lose minimal votes in the process. It is a dishonest twisting of our political process.



What you are advocating is giving the government the right to intervene in YOUR personal decision making based on what the government feels is best. That is NOT freedom. It is the opposite and the real sickening part is that the average American does not even notice the sapping of their free will all in the name of ‘the greater good.’ How can you not see the obvious here…

I suspect that sugar tax you rightly object to will look pretty tame compared to the fees and tolls that are slated to replace taxpayer funded roads, schools, and bridges across this country. I understand why you object to government intervening in your personal decision making; however, I'm wondering if you understand the coming corporate/military axis presents an even more obvious threat to human rights?