Socialism = Capitalism plus

[BWK]

We already do. We've had it ever since FDR. The fact that you do not know the definition of Socialism is on you. Why move somewhere else when we already have it?

I could say, if we already do then STFU. But I know you loons feel this country is not socialist enough. We do have socialist type programs and you want more. If you want more, buy a one way ticket.

"Want more?" Such as? Did I ever say that? No! You invented that in your head. I only want the Socialism we have always had since FDR, and get rid of the Socialism that does me no good, like sports Socialism.

I see, so you're against the free healthcare, free college and free income?

Nothing is free, whether it is private or government. So your question has no relationship with making any sense?

Republicans have this attraction for creating these make believe scenarios in their minds, that have nothing to do with reality.

Free HC/college/freeincome, if those things existed, would not be free. We would still pay for them. So stop pretending the free stuff exists, when it never has.

Wow, nice attempt to duck the question. Many of us are quite aware that nothing is for free, yet you wacko liberals push it as free...go figure.

How? What "wacko liberals push it as free?" Quote one? You aren't making any sense.

 

[Thinker101]

I could say, if we already do then STFU. But I know you loons feel this country is not socialist enough. We do have socialist type programs and you want more. If you want more, buy a one way ticket.

"Want more?" Such as? Did I ever say that? No! You invented that in your head. I only want the Socialism we have always had since FDR, and get rid of the Socialism that does me no good, like sports Socialism.

I see, so you're against the free healthcare, free college and free income?

Nothing is free, whether it is private or government. So your question has no relationship with making any sense?

Republicans have this attraction for creating these make believe scenarios in their minds, that have nothing to do with reality.

Free HC/college/freeincome, if those things existed, would not be free. We would still pay for them. So stop pretending the free stuff exists, when it never has.

Wow, nice attempt to duck the question. Many of us are quite aware that nothing is for free, yet you wacko liberals push it as free...go figure.

How? What "wacko liberals push it as free?" Quote one? You aren't making any sense.

WTF, you don't have a television, or a newspaper, live in Antarctica, can't read?
The College-Affordability Crisis Is Uniting the 2020 Democratic Candidates

 

[dblack]

Taxation is coercive in nature - there's no way around it. That's why we should minimize the practice, and only use it when it's truly necessary.

When I am taxed for roads, bridges, police, fire departments, clean water, safe food, etc. how is that coercive?

If you don't pay them the government will either take the money from you by force or put you in jail for refusing. Did you really not know that?

If I don't pay them, they won't be putting me in jail, because there was no money paid out to have the jail or the road to take me there.

LOL - that's some serious logical deduction right there.

We pay these things from a need, not because we are forced. Without these services, everything comes to a hault. Are you telling us you do not understand that?

I understand why we might want to pay taxes. But that doesn't change the basic coercive nature of tax laws. Taxes aren't voluntary.

Call it what you want. Without taxes, the country stops moving. That's reality. Your hang up is your own. I just happen to be a realist who knows what it takes for the wheels of civilization to keep moving.

You can complain about taxes being coercive 24/7 if that's your bag, but reality is going to tell you that you'll just have to keep complaining.

That's not really defending your position as much as gloating. Recognizing that taxes are coercive helps us to keep them contained, so that we're not just taxing people so we can take their stuff.

 

[Oddball]

Any taxation that keeps the country "moving" is appropriate.

Any taxation that transfers (steals) money from one to another is violent theft.

.

Since all taxation involves the threat of violence in the end, all taxation is theft.

In the world of utter nonsense, you just made a great case. If by paying taxes to fund roads and bridges is "theft", you just created a new definition for "theft." Lol!

 

[bripat9643]

Any taxation that keeps the country "moving" is appropriate.

Any taxation that transfers (steals) money from one to another is violent theft.

.

Since all taxation involves the threat of violence in the end, all taxation is theft.

In the world of utter nonsense, you just made a great case. If by paying taxes to fund roads and bridges is "theft", you just created a new definition for "theft." Lol!

Theft is taking money from people without their consent, isn't it? How does taxation differ from theft?

 

[Staidhup]

I guess for myself I just want to enjoy the fruits of my labor, freedom to chose from products derived from a free and open competitive market. Freedom of speech, to live as I so choose. I simply do not wish to have the government dictating how I live.

 

[Oddball]

Taxation is coercive in nature - there's no way around it. That's why we should minimize the practice, and only use it when it's truly necessary.

It might also help in minimizing costs. Imagine, for example, paying a toll for every street that you use.

Coercion and bureaucracy are never ever cost effective.


Imagine buying an annual pass (i.e. your license plate) to pay for the streets.

 

[BWK]

When I am taxed for roads, bridges, police, fire departments, clean water, safe food, etc. how is that coercive?

If you don't pay them the government will either take the money from you by force or put you in jail for refusing. Did you really not know that?

If I don't pay them, they won't be putting me in jail, because there was no money paid out to have the jail or the road to take me there.

LOL - that's some serious logical deduction right there.

We pay these things from a need, not because we are forced. Without these services, everything comes to a hault. Are you telling us you do not understand that?

I understand why we might want to pay taxes. But that doesn't change the basic coercive nature of tax laws. Taxes aren't voluntary.

Call it what you want. Without taxes, the country stops moving. That's reality. Your hang up is your own. I just happen to be a realist who knows what it takes for the wheels of civilization to keep moving.

You can complain about taxes being coercive 24/7 if that's your bag, but reality is going to tell you that you'll just have to keep complaining.

That's not really defending your position as much as gloating.

It's reality, not gloating.

Recognizing that taxes are coercive helps us to keep them contained, so that we're not just taxing people so we can take their stuff.

That is a ridiculous analogy. How can something be coercive if it is a necessary must, in order to function in civilized society? Coercive is a verb that automatically cancels itself out, based on a necessity to function. Lol! I'm not sure why you insist on using that descriptive verb for a necessary means? It doesn't make sense?

 

[BWK]

Any taxation that keeps the country "moving" is appropriate.

Any taxation that transfers (steals) money from one to another is violent theft.

.

Since all taxation involves the threat of violence in the end, all taxation is theft.

In the world of utter nonsense, you just made a great case. If by paying taxes to fund roads and bridges is "theft", you just created a new definition for "theft." Lol!

Theft is taking money from people without their consent, isn't it? How does taxation differ from theft?

If it were taken without their consent, then why are people using roads, bridges, police, and fire departments then? If they tought they were being ripped off, they wouldn't be using the utilities given to them to begin with. Your question is beyond idiotic. You can't do better than that? I just answered your silly question.

 

[BWK]

Taxation is coercive in nature - there's no way around it. That's why we should minimize the practice, and only use it when it's truly necessary.

It might also help in minimizing costs. Imagine, for example, paying a toll for every street that you use.

Coercion and bureaucracy are never ever cost effective.


Imagine buying an annual pass (i.e. your license plate) to pay for the streets.

If they weren't cost effective, we wouldn't be using them, and yet we do.

 

[BWK]

"Want more?" Such as? Did I ever say that? No! You invented that in your head. I only want the Socialism we have always had since FDR, and get rid of the Socialism that does me no good, like sports Socialism.

I see, so you're against the free healthcare, free college and free income?

Nothing is free, whether it is private or government. So your question has no relationship with making any sense?

Republicans have this attraction for creating these make believe scenarios in their minds, that have nothing to do with reality.

Free HC/college/freeincome, if those things existed, would not be free. We would still pay for them. So stop pretending the free stuff exists, when it never has.

Wow, nice attempt to duck the question. Many of us are quite aware that nothing is for free, yet you wacko liberals push it as free...go figure.

How? What "wacko liberals push it as free?" Quote one? You aren't making any sense.

WTF, you don't have a television, or a newspaper, live in Antarctica, can't read?
The College-Affordability Crisis Is Uniting the 2020 Democratic Candidates

And? That doesn't mean it will be totally free.

 

[dblack]

Recognizing that taxes are coercive helps us to keep them contained, so that we're not just taxing people so we can take their stuff.

That is a ridiculous analogy.

It's not an analogy.

How can something be coercive if it is a necessary must, in order to function in civilized society? Coercive is a verb that automatically cancels itself out, based on a necessity to function. Lol! I'm not sure why you insist on using that descriptive verb for a necessary means? It doesn't make sense?

It doesn't sound like you have the slightest clue what 'coercive' means. All it means is something that is accomplished via threat of force. Whether we think it 'necessary' or not has no bearing.

 

[bripat9643]

If you don't pay them the government will either take the money from you by force or put you in jail for refusing. Did you really not know that?

If I don't pay them, they won't be putting me in jail, because there was no money paid out to have the jail or the road to take me there.

LOL - that's some serious logical deduction right there.

We pay these things from a need, not because we are forced. Without these services, everything comes to a hault. Are you telling us you do not understand that?

I understand why we might want to pay taxes. But that doesn't change the basic coercive nature of tax laws. Taxes aren't voluntary.

Call it what you want. Without taxes, the country stops moving. That's reality. Your hang up is your own. I just happen to be a realist who knows what it takes for the wheels of civilization to keep moving.

You can complain about taxes being coercive 24/7 if that's your bag, but reality is going to tell you that you'll just have to keep complaining.

That's not really defending your position as much as gloating.

It's reality, not gloating.

Recognizing that taxes are coercive helps us to keep them contained, so that we're not just taxing people so we can take their stuff.

That is a ridiculous analogy. How can something be coercive if it is a necessary must, in order to function in civilized society? Coercive is a verb that automatically cancels itself out, based on a necessity to function. Lol! I'm not sure why you insist on using that descriptive verb for a necessary means? It doesn't make sense?

They use force to collect taxes. How is that not coercive? What do you think will happen if you don't pay the IRS?

 

[bripat9643]

Taxation is coercive in nature - there's no way around it. That's why we should minimize the practice, and only use it when it's truly necessary.

It might also help in minimizing costs. Imagine, for example, paying a toll for every street that you use.

Coercion and bureaucracy are never ever cost effective.


Imagine buying an annual pass (i.e. your license plate) to pay for the streets.

If they weren't cost effective, we wouldn't be using them, and yet we do.

"Cost effective" for whom?

 

[BWK]

I guess for myself I just want to enjoy the fruits of my labor, freedom to chose from products derived from a free and open competitive market. Freedom of speech, to live as I so choose. I simply do not wish to have the government dictating how I live.

And how would you live without paying for roads, bridges, police, and fire departments? How is the access to your labor possible, without these necessary means to exercise that labor? If you lose that, then what freedom do you have to even access products, when the means to get there is gone? Like others on this board, you aren't making any sense.

 

[bripat9643]

Any taxation that keeps the country "moving" is appropriate.

Any taxation that transfers (steals) money from one to another is violent theft.

.

Since all taxation involves the threat of violence in the end, all taxation is theft.

In the world of utter nonsense, you just made a great case. If by paying taxes to fund roads and bridges is "theft", you just created a new definition for "theft." Lol!

Theft is taking money from people without their consent, isn't it? How does taxation differ from theft?

If it were taken without their consent, then why are people using roads, bridges, police, and fire departments then? If they tought they were being ripped off, they wouldn't be using the utilities given to them to begin with. Your question is beyond idiotic. You can't do better than that? I just answered your silly question.

They don't have a choice about being ripped off. They pay up front, so why shouldn't they use what they paid for?

Your response is beyond idiotic.

 

[BWK]

If I don't pay them, they won't be putting me in jail, because there was no money paid out to have the jail or the road to take me there.

LOL - that's some serious logical deduction right there.

We pay these things from a need, not because we are forced. Without these services, everything comes to a hault. Are you telling us you do not understand that?

I understand why we might want to pay taxes. But that doesn't change the basic coercive nature of tax laws. Taxes aren't voluntary.

Call it what you want. Without taxes, the country stops moving. That's reality. Your hang up is your own. I just happen to be a realist who knows what it takes for the wheels of civilization to keep moving.

You can complain about taxes being coercive 24/7 if that's your bag, but reality is going to tell you that you'll just have to keep complaining.

That's not really defending your position as much as gloating.

It's reality, not gloating.

Recognizing that taxes are coercive helps us to keep them contained, so that we're not just taxing people so we can take their stuff.

That is a ridiculous analogy. How can something be coercive if it is a necessary must, in order to function in civilized society? Coercive is a verb that automatically cancels itself out, based on a necessity to function. Lol! I'm not sure why you insist on using that descriptive verb for a necessary means? It doesn't make sense?

They use force to collect taxes. How is that not coercive? What do you think will happen if you don't pay the IRS?

Changing the subject is not an intelligent rebuttal. Which is why you are incapable of debate.

 

[BWK]

Taxation is coercive in nature - there's no way around it. That's why we should minimize the practice, and only use it when it's truly necessary.

It might also help in minimizing costs. Imagine, for example, paying a toll for every street that you use.

Coercion and bureaucracy are never ever cost effective.


Imagine buying an annual pass (i.e. your license plate) to pay for the streets.

If they weren't cost effective, we wouldn't be using them, and yet we do.

"Cost effective" for whom?

Your third grade understanding of this argument is not worth my time.

 

[EGR one]

Scandinavia isn't socialist....They all have market-based economies.

Cool.

Let's do that then.

**** no.

Why? Because it'd elevate the lowest Americans too much and hugely change our society for the better?

People on the right that call themselves nationalists deserve to be laughed at.

Move your ass to Denmark if you think they have it so great.

See how easy it is to win this argument? And it only took you posting about twice to do it. Republicans have no intelligent counter argument to a system that works perfectly, that we no longer have.

The only thing that you have won is the continuation of your ignorance. However you wish to define socialism, it involves turning over decision making to politicians and bureaucrats. They always do such a wonderful job of running things.

Been through an Indian reservation lately? There is very little left in America that the federal government has not managed to screw up. And, you want more of it, just so your lazy ass doesn't have to worry about life?

 

[bripat9643]

I guess for myself I just want to enjoy the fruits of my labor, freedom to chose from products derived from a free and open competitive market. Freedom of speech, to live as I so choose. I simply do not wish to have the government dictating how I live.

And how would you live without paying for roads, bridges, police, and fire departments? How is the access to your labor possible, without these necessary means to exercise that labor? If you lose that, then what freedom do you have to even access products, when the means to get there is gone? Like others on this board, you aren't making any sense.

Private corporations would provide all that stuff. Only ignorance makes you believe they aren't able to do the job. They have all been provided privately at some point at some location. Tempe AZ has private fire protection, for example.