Time for change, time for third party voting...

[frigidweirdo]

"Time for change, time for third party voting..."

Disagree.

Actual, substantive change can occur only at the very local level, not from the top-down, including top-down ‘third party’ voting.

And how do you get that change at a local level? At present the Reps and Dems control everything. If you want to be in politics you go for one or the other of the parties, this then controls local politics.

The power of the two national parties is so great, that without that change, nothing changes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If we had more than two parties that were real contenders, too many elections would be decided in the House of Representatives. We had plenty of candidates to choose among in the primaries and third party would add nothing to the process at this point.

Not at all. You really need to see how other systems work. Primaries wouldn't be necessary at all because you'd have so many parties who'd just choose their own people and you'd have loads of choice on the actual election day to have the need for primaries.

You think a 3rd party would add nothing right now. Well, I've seen other systems at work and know you're wrong here. I really suggest you take a look at the German system, it works quite well, but other systems in Europe also work differently.

Your view seems to be what you've been told by the main two parties. It's clear they try and stop any talk of a change in system, they simply don't want it because they're happy with the set up right now.

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

What advantage do you imagine there is?

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

 

[oreo]

The biggest problem is getting Americans to agree on what they consider positive change. Someone like Bernie Sanders in a third party bid would certainly bring about some very positive changes for lower and middle class Americans, but very few Republicans would agree with his brand of change, even though it would benefit most of them.

There's no way people in this country would vote for a freaking communist--LOL

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do we not live in a society? We always have done. Just now people are getting more individualistic.

False.

Humanity in the modern age is more collectivist and dependent than any other era in history.

The funny thing is that the right want to be individualistic when it suits them, lower taxes, oh I'm being forced to pay taxes, then when it comes to morals they want to force them on people.

I agree. Conservatives have little consistency in their rhetoric.

They use the rule of law argument, which means the exact same thing as the social contract argument, but is argued a little differently.

The funny thing is that liberals will argue against rule of law, and conservatives will argue against social contracts. They fail to recognize how they are no different at all.

Maybe it is still dependent on the collective, but maybe that's why the US is going to hell because it's become so individualistic. China is rising because it is a collective where people don't have the choice.

Yes, there are people on both sides who are inconsistent with their views. Forums like these are full of such people. However there does need to be a balance between collective and individual, but taxes aren't going anywhere.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The biggest problem is getting Americans to agree on what they consider positive change. Someone like Bernie Sanders in a third party bid would certainly bring about some very positive changes for lower and middle class Americans, but very few Republicans would agree with his brand of change, even though it would benefit most of them.

If it were a three way contest, Clinton, Trump and Sanders, the likelihood is none of them would get 270 electoral votes, the election would go to the House of Representatives, which has a Republican majority and Trump would become president.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A rape victim doesn't seek out being raped.

I do not seek out taxation.

A person buying something or working seeks out the work. That's the difference.

More of this straw man argument? I am not arguing that those acts are involuntary.

My position is pretty clear. If you are forced to do something under duress, then the act is not voluntary. Hence, taxation.

You're trying to claim that the choice of fighting back is the choice of being raped. It is not.

False. That is what your own position is implying.

There is little difference between being forced to get fucked against ones will, and being forced to pay taxes against ones will.

I am noticing the contradictions in your position, but you fail to see them even when they are pointed out.

You don't seek out taxation, but you make the choice to pay tax. When you guy goods you know you're playing tax on them, yet you choose to buy them anyway. When you buy a house you know you'll pay tax and yet you still choose to go ahead with it.

You think there's little difference, you're allowed to be wrong.

You're noticing contradictions in my position because you're deciding to see things from a strange point of view. Again, you make this choice. If I force a position on you, you don't have a choice. See the difference?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not at all. You really need to see how other systems work. Primaries wouldn't be necessary at all because you'd have so many parties who'd just choose their own people and you'd have loads of choice on the actual election day to have the need for primaries.

You think a 3rd party would add nothing right now. Well, I've seen other systems at work and know you're wrong here. I really suggest you take a look at the German system, it works quite well, but other systems in Europe also work differently.

Your view seems to be what you've been told by the main two parties. It's clear they try and stop any talk of a change in system, they simply don't want it because they're happy with the set up right now.

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

What advantage do you imagine there is?

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You're talking about parliamentary systems, but in our system, the winning candidate must win 270 electoral college votes or the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. Three strong parties would mean many of our presidential elections would be decided by the House.

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

What advantage do you imagine there is?

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand the US system. And I understand that if you change the system, the system is different.

You're acting like the US chances the way people vote, and yet it'd remain the same. That makes no sense.

Imagine if the US used the German system for choosing Congressmen and women instead of the present system. This is what we're talking about here.

What advantage do you imagine there is?

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What advantage do you imagine there is?

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.

In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.

Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.

Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.

In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

I think it would be good for the US because US politics is trashy.
It doesn't work. You have two sides who are massively partisan.

If you changed from two parties to five or six parties then this partisanship would be weakened. It'd also force Congress to work together. It'd change the presidential election from a two horse race into a much larger race with five or six viable candidates.

No, there's nothing stopping Americans making new parties. Except for the fact that they know they don't stand a chance. Every 2 years they get beaten. People's mentality when it comes to voting is that there is no point in voting for smaller parties. In Germany people's mentality is that there IS A POINT when it comes to voting. If I vote for the Libertarian Party in the US I know that my vote won't decide who is going to get elected. In Germany it's different. If you vote FPD you have a large chance they'll form a coalition with the CDU/CSU.

This mentality when voting is the most important thing, and won't change with FPTP.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Gary Johnson is a fruitbat who supports Open Borders.. he's not 3rd party.. he's a fucking liberal who likes to get stoned out of his stupid mind.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

I think it would be good for the US because US politics is trashy.
It doesn't work. You have two sides who are massively partisan.

If you changed from two parties to five or six parties then this partisanship would be weakened. It'd also force Congress to work together. It'd change the presidential election from a two horse race into a much larger race with five or six viable candidates.

No, there's nothing stopping Americans making new parties. Except for the fact that they know they don't stand a chance. Every 2 years they get beaten. People's mentality when it comes to voting is that there is no point in voting for smaller parties. In Germany people's mentality is that there IS A POINT when it comes to voting. If I vote for the Libertarian Party in the US I know that my vote won't decide who is going to get elected. In Germany it's different. If you vote FPD you have a large chance they'll form a coalition with the CDU/CSU.

This mentality when voting is the most important thing, and won't change with FPTP.

Again, you are recommending the US change to a parliamentary system, and that would not be suitable for the US.

Five or six candidate for president would probably mean no candidate would get 270 votes and under the Constitution that would mean the House of Representatives would vote to decide who becomes president. I don't think anyone wants to see that happen too often.

The incentive to form coalitions in Germany and other parliamentary governments is that whichever coalition controls the majority of parliament forms the government, but with separate presidential elections, there would be no incentive to form coalitions, so if a small party candidate were elected, he would have no more influence than he would under our present system.

I don't think you've thought this through.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.

Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?

At present it's First Past the Post.

In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.

This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.

So, take the 2009 German election.

The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.

Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.

The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.

So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.

The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.

I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.

I think it would be good for the US because US politics is trashy.
It doesn't work. You have two sides who are massively partisan.

If you changed from two parties to five or six parties then this partisanship would be weakened. It'd also force Congress to work together. It'd change the presidential election from a two horse race into a much larger race with five or six viable candidates.

No, there's nothing stopping Americans making new parties. Except for the fact that they know they don't stand a chance. Every 2 years they get beaten. People's mentality when it comes to voting is that there is no point in voting for smaller parties. In Germany people's mentality is that there IS A POINT when it comes to voting. If I vote for the Libertarian Party in the US I know that my vote won't decide who is going to get elected. In Germany it's different. If you vote FPD you have a large chance they'll form a coalition with the CDU/CSU.

This mentality when voting is the most important thing, and won't change with FPTP.

Again, you are recommending the US change to a parliamentary system, and that would not be suitable for the US.

Five or six candidate for president would probably mean no candidate would get 270 votes and under the Constitution that would mean the House of Representatives would vote to decide who becomes president. I don't think anyone wants to see that happen too often.

The incentive to form coalitions in Germany and other parliamentary governments is that whichever coalition controls the majority of parliament forms the government, but with separate presidential elections, there would be no incentive to form coalitions, so if a small party candidate were elected, he would have no more influence than he would under our present system.

I don't think you've thought this through.

I get the feeling you're not reading what I'm writing. No where have I suggested a change to the make up or powers of Congress.

However I also suggest a change to the presidential vote, similar to the French system, where they have two votes, the first to find the top two, and then a vote for the main two a couple of weeks later.

There might not be any incentive to form coalitions, but also there might be. It would depend on how things are structured. But even so, it would mean more voices, more opinions in Congress, which would be beneficial and groups would end up working together and trying to gain power through coalitions on things.

 

[Onyx]

You don't seek out taxation

Which makes it no different than rape.

Rape is a natural consequence of living in society. By your logic, if someone does not like rape, they have the choice of running out into the woods and becoming a subsistence farmer.

Tell me again how rape is involuntary while taxation is voluntary...

but you make the choice to pay tax.

Sure, but that does not make it a voluntary interaction.

Voluntary acts are absent of coercion

You are conflating having choice with an action being voluntary. That completely voids force as a concept.
.

When you guy goods you know you're playing tax on them, yet you choose to buy them anyway.

In that case, the businesses are the ones that are being coerced to sell with taxation.

I am not being coerced to buy goods, which therefore makes my act voluntary.

You think there's little difference, you're allowed to be wrong.

Yes, and I distinguished the difference earlier.

Your logic is backwards. It can be spinned around to support several ridicolous arguments.

You're noticing contradictions in my position because you're deciding to see things from a strange point of view.

Actually your redefining of terms is what is strange.

The government did not build human life, consumer goods, or property. Yet, it taxes all those things, no different than a criminal protection racket.

If we decide to ignore the dictionary and follow your definition of voluntary, then that makes the concept of force nonexistent, and legitimizes all acts of unjust aggression by the state.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't seek out taxation

Which makes it no different than rape.

but you make the choice to pay tax.

Sure, but that does not make it a voluntary interaction.

Voluntary acts are absent of coercion

You are conflating having choice with an action being voluntary. That completely voids force as a concept.
.

When you guy goods you know you're playing tax on them, yet you choose to buy them anyway.

In that case, the businesses are the ones who are being coerced to sell with taxation.

I am not being coerced to buy goods, which therefore makes my act voluntary.

You think there's little difference, you're allowed to be wrong.

Yes, and I distinguished the difference earlier.

Your logic is backwards. It can be spinned around to support several ridicolous arguments.

You're noticing contradictions in my position because you're deciding to see things from a strange point of view.

Actually your redefining of terms is what is strange.

The government did not build human life, consumer goods, or property. Yet, it taxes all those things, no different than a criminal protection racket.

If we decide to ignore the dictionary and follow your definition of voluntary, then that makes the concept of force nonexistent, and legitimizes all acts of unjust aggression by the state.

The fact that you can't see the difference between paying tax and rape is rather ridiculous here.

The point is, again, that sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do in order to achieve what you do want to do.

I want to have a nice house, therefore I must work. I don't want to work, but without working I don't get the nice house. Do I therefore choose to work? Sure I do. I just don't like it.

Same with tax. I want that chocolate bar, I don't want to steal it, therefore I have to buy it and pay tax on it. Do I choose to pay the tax on it? Sure, because the only other choice is to steal it. I achieved my higher goal of getting the chocolate bar, but in this process I had to make the decision to pay tax on it. I chose to do that.

With rape there isn't any choice. If I fight the person off then I haven't been raped, so it's not rape.

If you want to live in the society that exists, the high level society, then you choose to do the things you don't like, like paying taxes, because it's better to pay those taxes than to not pay those taxes. It's better to have to pay taxes than having to pay for each of the individual services on offer because the govt can do them more cheaply than profit making companies.

 

[Onyx]

The fact that you can't see the difference between paying tax and rape is rather ridiculous here.

There is no difference. They are absolutely the same thing.

You view it as ridicolous because your narrative cannot support it. Sorry to break it to you, but the truth does not pick favorites.

I want to have a nice house, therefore I must work. I don't want to work, but without working I don't get the nice house.Do I therefore choose to work? Sure I do. I just don't like it.

Yes, and that is voluntary.

You are not coerced with the threat of substantive punishment for not working hard or buying a house.

Same with tax. I want that chocolate bar, I don't want to steal it, therefore I have to buy it and pay tax on it. Do I choose to pay the tax on it? Sure, because the only other choice is to steal it. I achieved my higher goal of getting the chocolate bar, but in this process I had to make the decision to pay tax on it. I chose to do that.

*My bad, I glimpsed this

This action is voluntary for the consumer. It is involuntary for the seller.

If the seller refuses to enforce the tax, then the state will punish them. They are operating under threat of coercion.

I explained this last post. Your false definitions of voluntary interaction are legitimizing a criminal protection racket.

With rape there isn't any choice. If I fight the person off then I haven't been raped, so it's not rape.

But it is still voluntary by your logic.

A potential rape victim has the option of running off into the woods far from society. Therefore they are consenting to rape by not doing that.

Again, no difference whatsoever between your two inconsistent positions.

If you want to live in the society that exists, the high level society, then you choose to do the things you don't like, like paying taxes, because it's better to pay those taxes than to not pay those taxes. It's better to have to pay taxes than having to pay for each of the individual services on offer because the govt can do them more cheaply than profit making companies.

Reiterating.

Having choice is not the same as voluntary interaction.

I must of said this at least a half dozen times now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The fact that you can't see the difference between paying tax and rape is rather ridiculous here.

There is no difference. They are absolutely the same thing.

You view it as ridicolous because your narrative cannot support it. Sorry to break it to you, but the truth does not pick favorites.

I want to have a nice house, therefore I must work. I don't want to work, but without working I don't get the nice house.Do I therefore choose to work? Sure I do. I just don't like it.

Yes, and that is voluntary.

You are not coerced with the threat of substantive punishment for not working hard or buying a house.

Same with tax. I want that chocolate bar, I don't want to steal it, therefore I have to buy it and pay tax on it. Do I choose to pay the tax on it? Sure, because the only other choice is to steal it. I achieved my higher goal of getting the chocolate bar, but in this process I had to make the decision to pay tax on it. I chose to do that.

*My bad, I glimpsed this

This action is voluntary for the consumer. It is involuntary for the seller.

If the seller refuses to enforce the tax, then the state will punish them. They are operating under threat of coercion.

I explained this last post. Your false definitions of voluntary interaction are legitimizing a criminal protection racket.

With rape there isn't any choice. If I fight the person off then I haven't been raped, so it's not rape.

But it is still voluntary by your logic.

A potential rape victim has the option of running off into the woods far from society. Therefore they are consenting to rape by not doing that.

Again, no difference whatsoever between your two inconsistent positions.

If you want to live in the society that exists, the high level society, then you choose to do the things you don't like, like paying taxes, because it's better to pay those taxes than to not pay those taxes. It's better to have to pay taxes than having to pay for each of the individual services on offer because the govt can do them more cheaply than profit making companies.

Reiterating.

Having choice is not the same as voluntary interaction.

I must of said this at least a half dozen times now.

This is just going around in circles. There's not much point in continuing.

 

[Onyx]

This is just going around in circles. There's not much point in continuing.

Then let us reign it in.

Do you acknowledge that voluntary interaction is free of coercion, based on many of the legitimate and popular definitions?

If so, then do you acknowledge that all taxation coerces at least one party with the threat of punishment?

 

[bripat9643]

If people would stop seeing politics as a team sport then yes. Unfortunately, most people want to 'win' rather than elect a leader that will actually change anything.

Winning is a prerequisite for electing someone.