Tax cuts are theft

[loosecannon]

Because you still fail the basic threshold of reading comprehension.

The whole presumption of this stupid thread is that people keeping what is theirs to begin with is somehow tantamount to "theft".

That's just BS. The title of the lead article was a throw away comment. The balance of the commentary was very good and real. You are just stuck on stupid. And you are begging me to believe that you have a lowly IQ like 115.

Likewise, your historical knowledge as to what the framers set forth as lawful taxes (think fuel taxes to pay for roads and bridges) didn't include unapportioned expropriations from the productive activities of the citizenry.

Come back when you have at least vague understandings of semantics and American history.

You are just stuck on partisan stupid. The hallmark of Rouseau and Locke was the social contract which is integrally imbedded in the constitution and the declaration of independence.

You adhere to the most stupid pov imaginable which is that citizens have some "right" to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed by the constitution and social contract without surrendering their sovereignty.

You ARE a vassal of the state. Once you signed your social security application it became contractually binding. The USA owns you.

A vassal, in the terminology that preceded and accompanied the feudalism of medieval Europe, is one who enters into mutual obligations with a monarch, usually of military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain guarantees, which came to include the terrain held as a fief.

And they have always owned the money in your wallet.

Go back to high school, chump. You can't even make it in the minor leagues.

 

[loosecannon]

Society does not have a right to tax an individual's labour. We recognize that taxation is necessary for the functioning of a civil society and to act as an insurer of last resort, but nobody has a right to the labour of others.

Then you don't have a right to live in society or to anything society provides. At all. No rights whatsoever. None.

If that works for you, great.

But when YOU choose to partake of the benefits and blessings of society you sacrifice some of your sovereignty to the society at large and the governments installed as agencies of the people.

That's the social contract, if you don't like it, leave.

Strawman.

I never said that there was no social contract. What I said is that society has no inherent right to take your labour.

The individual is not subservient to society. Society is subservient to the individual. Society is a collection of individuals, nothing more. That doesn't mean individuals do not work together towards a common good. What it means is that we recognize individuals have inalienable rights, not societies. Societies don't have rights. Society doesn't have a right to life or free speech. Instead, individuals act with others in a manner to advance the interests of all. But when society wants to subjugate the inherent rights of the individual, we as a society (usually) reject that.

Society has every right that exists over your money. They print it, they own it, they can tax it. Since society has never tried to take your labor you are erecting a strawman.

But they can take your labor and they do it when the draft is in effect.

ALL of your rights are subject to you surrendering your sovereignty to the state. In exchange for your sovereignty the state guarantees you rights. Or guarantees to protect and defend your rights.

THAT IS the definition of the social contract.

The constitution is merely another kind of feudal contract.

feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs.

But once you sign your name on your social security application you have formally contracted into an agreement which gives the Treasury unfettered RIGHTS to your income.

Those are the facts Ma'am. There are only semantic and procedural differences between representative democracy and feudalism, to which you have willingly sworn your allegiance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then you don't have a right to live in society or to anything society provides. At all. No rights whatsoever. None.

If that works for you, great.

But when YOU choose to partake of the benefits and blessings of society you sacrifice some of your sovereignty to the society at large and the governments installed as agencies of the people.

That's the social contract, if you don't like it, leave.

Strawman.

I never said that there was no social contract. What I said is that society has no inherent right to take your labour.

The individual is not subservient to society. Society is subservient to the individual. Society is a collection of individuals, nothing more. That doesn't mean individuals do not work together towards a common good. What it means is that we recognize individuals have inalienable rights, not societies. Societies don't have rights. Society doesn't have a right to life or free speech. Instead, individuals act with others in a manner to advance the interests of all. But when society wants to subjugate the inherent rights of the individual, we as a society (usually) reject that.

Society has every right that exists over your money. They print it, they own it, they can tax it. Since society has never tried to take your labor you are erecting a strawman.

But they can take your labor and they do it when the draft is in effect.

ALL of your rights are subject to you surrendering your sovereignty to the state. In exchange for your sovereignty the state guarantees you rights. Or guarantees to protect and defend your rights.

THAT IS the definition of the social contract.

The constitution is merely another kind of feudal contract.

feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs.

But once you sign your name on your social security application you have formally contracted into an agreement which gives the Treasury unfettered RIGHTS to your income.

Those are the facts Ma'am. There are only semantic and procedural differences between representative democracy and feudalism, to which you have willingly sworn your allegiance.

Hmmm. There's a social security application? I'm unaware of it. It has been taken out of my paycheck now for decades--I don't recall EVER giving anyone permission to take it out of my paycheck. And once I became self employed, I pay both my mandatory share and the employer's mandatory share before I have any money left over to spend for me.

You seem to be one of those statists in the political class who see the government as Daddy, Mommy, Head Poobah, and you as its dutiful servant.

Some of us still cling tenaciously to the uniquely American concept of a people who govern themselves rather than be subject to a king or totalitarian government or dictator or feudal lord.

 

[loosecannon]

Hmmm. There's a social security application? I'm unaware of it. It has been taken out of my paycheck now for decades--I don't recall EVER giving anyone permission to take it out of my paycheck.

You seem to be blissfully blind and full of shit:

http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

 

[loosecannon]

You seem to be one of those statists in the political class who see the government as Daddy, Mommy, Head Poobah, and you as its dutiful servant.

you seem to be delusional beyond repair.

Some of us still cling tenaciously to the uniquely American concept of a people who govern themselves rather than be subject to a king or totalitarian government or dictator or feudal lord.

Cling all you want, slave. But our constitution and the social contract it describes is only another kind of feudalism. Why else would it promote slavery while prohibiting everybody except white(1) men(2) of property(3) from full citizenship in it's first draft?

That is as feudal as it gets. Besides, once the states signed on they were no longer permitted to be sovereign and emancipate themselves from the Union.

And our military and elected reps take oaths based on feudal oaths. And the backbone of our legal system is British Common Law. Even the SCOTUS still cites British Common Law as precedent. And our attorneys are still subjects of the British Crown.

Just research the original 13th amendment to get a clue.

 

[Oddball]

Because you still fail the basic threshold of reading comprehension.

The whole presumption of this stupid thread is that people keeping what is theirs to begin with is somehow tantamount to "theft".

That's just BS. The title of the lead article was a throw away comment. The balance of the commentary was very good and real. You are just stuck on stupid. And you are begging me to believe that you have a lowly IQ like 115.

It's only a "throwaway comment" because you need to divert from the semantic repercussions of the statement....The word "theft" presumes clearly defined owners and thieves...That's how language works, dude.

You are just stuck on partisan stupid. The hallmark of Rouseau (sic) and Locke was the social contract which is integrally imbedded in the constitution and the declaration of independence.

You adhere to the most stupid pov imaginable which is that citizens have some "right" to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed by the constitution and social contract without surrendering their sovereignty.

You ARE a vassal of the state. Once you signed your social security application it became contractually binding. The USA owns you.

A vassal, in the terminology that preceded and accompanied the feudalism of medieval Europe, is one who enters into mutual obligations with a monarch, usually of military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain guarantees, which came to include the terrain held as a fief.

And they have always owned the money in your wallet.

Go back to high school, chump. You can't even make it in the minor leagues.

You sure you want to cite Rousseau, the antagonist to my Bastiat, as your alleged "proof" that the individual is a mere meat puppet tool of the state?

Somebody definitely needs to go back to school here, and it sure ain't me, plebeian.

 

[loosecannon]

Oddball farted a non post.

The title was a throw away. That you are obsessed with it only speaks to your partisan brainwashing and shallow intellect.

Try growing up.

And stop trying to scroll the thread past the meaty posts.

And fix the formatting on your own post you fool.

 

[Oddball]

What you define as "meaty posts" are stale old collectivist authoritarian bilge, that a froshy philosophy minor could refute.

But don't let that get in the way of your self-declared victory...The locals are always amused by them.

 

[daveman]

daveman: king of the 4th grade.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know you have the exclusive franchise for immature butthurt, Skippy.

 

[daveman]

Cling all you want, slave. But our constitution and the social contract it describes is only another kind of feudalism.

So you want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Pssst! We had a revolution a while back so we wouldn't have to be subjects anymore. Maybe you heard about it.

 

[loosecannon]

Cling all you want, slave. But our constitution and the social contract it describes is only another kind of feudalism.

So you want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Pssst! We had a revolution a while back so we wouldn't have to be subjects anymore. Maybe you heard about it.

absolutely priceless!

My discussion has nothing to do with what I want. I am discussing how IT IS!

You have betrayed the fact that your discussion is indeed nothing but mumblings about how you wish things were, but aren't.

"Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics, or medicine — the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible."
-Henry Hazlitt

That describes your argument and those of Boedicca and Oddball to a T!

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem to be one of those statists in the political class who see the government as Daddy, Mommy, Head Poobah, and you as its dutiful servant.

you seem to be delusional beyond repair.

Some of us still cling tenaciously to the uniquely American concept of a people who govern themselves rather than be subject to a king or totalitarian government or dictator or feudal lord.

Cling all you want, slave. But our constitution and the social contract it describes is only another kind of feudalism. Why else would it promote slavery while prohibiting everybody except white(1) men(2) of property(3) from full citizenship in it's first draft?

That is as feudal as it gets. Besides, once the states signed on they were no longer permitted to be sovereign and emancipate themselves from the Union.

And our military and elected reps take oaths based on feudal oaths. And the backbone of our legal system is British Common Law. Even the SCOTUS still cites British Common Law as precedent. And our attorneys are still subjects of the British Crown.

Just research the original 13th amendment to get a clue.

All your posts are showing friend is that you are woefully misinformed on what social contract is as well as the historical basis for the Constitution and its provisions. Any chance you can get your money back for whatever Government 101 course you took?

 

[loosecannon]

snore.....

 

[daveman]

Cling all you want, slave. But our constitution and the social contract it describes is only another kind of feudalism.

So you want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Pssst! We had a revolution a while back so we wouldn't have to be subjects anymore. Maybe you heard about it.

absolutely priceless!

My discussion has nothing to do with what I want. I am discussing how IT IS!

Not really. You're not a subject -- yet. With conservatives back in government, though, you will remain a citizen.

Sorry.

You have betrayed the fact that your discussion is indeed nothing but mumblings about how you wish things were, but aren't.

Ummm...it's not me that wants an overarching, all-powerful government, Skippy.

"Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics, or medicine — the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible."
-Henry Hazlitt

That describes your argument and those of Boedicca and Oddball to a T!

I suppose now you'll tell me it's in my best interests to vote Democrat.

Oddly enough, liberals think it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[Intense]

TAX CUTS ARE THEFT

We, the People built our democracy and the empowerment and protections it bestows. We built the infrastructure, schools and all of the public structures, laws, courts, monetary system, etc. that enable enterprise to prosper. That prosperity is the bounty of our democracy and by contract it is supposed to be shared and reinvested. That is the contract. Our system enables some people to become wealthy but all of us are supposed to benefit from this system. Why else would We, the People have set up this system, if not for the benefit of We, the People?

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/201 ... lification

 

[daveman]

TAX CUTS ARE THEFT

We, the People built our democracy and the empowerment and protections it bestows. We built the infrastructure, schools and all of the public structures, laws, courts, monetary system, etc. that enable enterprise to prosper. That prosperity is the bounty of our democracy and by contract it is supposed to be shared and reinvested. That is the contract. Our system enables some people to become wealthy but all of us are supposed to benefit from this system. Why else would We, the People have set up this system, if not for the benefit of We, the People?

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/201 ... lification

Uh oh.

 

[loosecannon]

So you want to be a subject, not a citizen.

Pssst! We had a revolution a while back so we wouldn't have to be subjects anymore. Maybe you heard about it.

absolutely priceless!

My discussion has nothing to do with what I want. I am discussing how IT IS!

Not really. You're not a subject -- yet. With conservatives back in government, though, you will remain a citizen.

Sorry.

Ummm...it's not me that wants an overarching, all-powerful government, Skippy.

"Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics, or medicine — the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible."
-Henry Hazlitt

That describes your argument and those of Boedicca and Oddball to a T!

I suppose now you'll tell me it's in my best interests to vote Democrat.

Oddly enough, liberals think it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

You don't speak english do you? Come back when you can remotely follow the bouncing ball.

Meanwhile only a complete fool would try to argue with not one, or two but three completely scrambled non sequitur diversions.

 

[loosecannon]

TAX CUTS ARE THEFT

We, the People built our democracy and the empowerment and protections it bestows. We built the infrastructure, schools and all of the public structures, laws, courts, monetary system, etc. that enable enterprise to prosper. That prosperity is the bounty of our democracy and by contract it is supposed to be shared and reinvested. That is the contract. Our system enables some people to become wealthy but all of us are supposed to benefit from this system. Why else would We, the People have set up this system, if not for the benefit of We, the People?

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/201 ... lification

Uh oh.

finally caveman found somebody he can actually speak to on his level!

You two have fun!

 

[daveman]

absolutely priceless!

My discussion has nothing to do with what I want. I am discussing how IT IS!

Not really. You're not a subject -- yet. With conservatives back in government, though, you will remain a citizen.

Sorry.

Ummm...it's not me that wants an overarching, all-powerful government, Skippy.

That describes your argument and those of Boedicca and Oddball to a T!

I suppose now you'll tell me it's in my best interests to vote Democrat.

Oddly enough, liberals think it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

You don't speak english do you? Come back when you can remotely follow the bouncing ball.

Petulant child. Stamp your feet and insist others do what you tell them some more.

Meanwhile only a complete fool would try to argue with not one, or two but three completely scrambled non sequitur diversions.

Only a complete fool would try to argue with you. You have more experience.

 

[daveman]

finally caveman found somebody he can actually speak to on his level!

You two have fun!

"Caveman". I've NEVER heard that before. Let me guess...you're one of those witty, urbane, independent-thinking intellectuals.