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

[dblack]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

I encourage you and all your friends to vote third party.

Does that imply the the remaining cowards will be voting for the majors?

 

[bripat9643]

I have yet to see how Jill Stein or Gary Johnson deserve anyone's vote. Neither one of them has been vetted and it appears the only reason to vote for them is because they are 3rd party.

Jill Stein seems nutty, Gary Johnson the libertarian was the governor of a welfare state.

Does "vetted" mean the media has covered up or ignored all your crimes?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Not really.

The point here was a part of tax. There are those people who believe that govt is always bad and nothing can ever be good therefore tax is bad, and there are those people who believe that govt can do good and it can do bad, but it's a matter of selecting the right people to be representatives and taking a pro-active stance towards government. Tax isn't necessarily bad, it's just a matter of whether those spending the tax money are honest or not.

I'm the latter. If someone is the former then they're going to see things in a different way.

Personally seeing the 3% of US GDP go on corruption within the health industry, and seeing other countries spend far less for an effective health service based around taxes, I see that both capitalism and socialism can be good or bad depending on how they're treated.

 

[dblack]

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.

Approval voting is a much simpler solution.

 

[Onyx]

The point here was a part of tax. There are those people who believe that govt is always bad and nothing can ever be good therefore tax is bad, and there are those people who believe that govt can do good and it can do bad, but it's a matter of selecting the right people to be representatives and taking a pro-active stance towards government. Tax isn't necessarily bad, it's just a matter of whether those spending the tax money are honest or not.

That was not the question I asked.

Is at least one individual coerced with the threat of punishment for not paying or enforcing taxation?

According to most legitimate and popular definitions, an action taken under coercion is not voluntary.

If you disagree that all taxation is paid or enforced under threat of punishment, then feel free to provide a tax that you feel is an exemption to this rule.

 

[dblack]

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?

This may be important from a philosophical standpoint, and in the long run, it really does matter. But at this juncture, it's a counter-productive distraction to the cause of limiting intrusive government.

 

[Onyx]

This may be important from a philosophical standpoint, and in the long run, it really does matter. But at this juncture, it's a counter-productive distraction to the cause of limiting intrusive government.

It is the only thing of relevance in politics.

The existence of the state degrades humanity and produces a cycle of destructive wars and civil violence.

If you are not striking at the root of the problem, then you are just fighting an uphill battle.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point here was a part of tax. There are those people who believe that govt is always bad and nothing can ever be good therefore tax is bad, and there are those people who believe that govt can do good and it can do bad, but it's a matter of selecting the right people to be representatives and taking a pro-active stance towards government. Tax isn't necessarily bad, it's just a matter of whether those spending the tax money are honest or not.

That was not the question I asked.

Is at least one individual coerced with the threat of punishment for not paying or enforcing taxation?

According to most legitimate and popular definitions, an action taken under coercion is not voluntary.

If you disagree that all taxation is paid or enforced under threat of punishment, then feel free to provide a tax that you feel is an exemption to this rule.

Many things people are threatened when the do what they have chosen to do. If I go to a theme park and don't pay, will I be threatened? Sure I will, if I get found out.

However, like I said, you choose to buy something, the tax is part of what you pay in order to get that thing.

Are you expecting people to get something for nothing, sort of thing?

What is coercion here? When is a person forced to pay tax?

If I work, I've chosen to work. To I have to pay that tax. No one forced me to work, no one forced me to make the choice there. You have to pay the tax if you work. So you've made that choice to pay tax. If you then don't pay that tax, then you've gone back on your word. Like walking into the shop, "hey, I'll buy this" then eating it and walking out.

You don't pay for what you've got, then you get punished for it.

I choose to live in the society, I accept the government, I accept the rules of that government, therefore I accept the tax.

I could choose to not live in that society, or I could choose not to accept the govt and fight against the government. Some people have done so, Timothy McVeigh, for example.

If you boss tells you to do something you don't want to do, is this coercion or is it choice? You'd see it as coercion, I'd see it as choice. Again, going around in circles. I say it's choice because you're looking at the wider picture, "if I do this horrible thing I'll get paid at the end of the month" therefore I made this choice, you seem to be saying "I don't want to do this thing" therefore it's coercion.

 

[dblack]

This may be important from a philosophical standpoint, and in the long run, it really does matter. But at this juncture, it's a counter-productive distraction to the cause of limiting intrusive government.

It is the only thing of relevance in politics.

The existence of the state degrades humanity and produces a cycle of destructive wars and civil violence.

If you are not striking at the root of the problem, then you are just fighting an uphill battle.

Yes. It's an uphill battle. But it's better than sitting in the valley pipe-dreaming (striking at the root?).

 

[Onyx]

What is coercion here? When is a person forced to pay tax?

Anytime you own property, sell goods, purchase goods, have a family, get married, ect.

All these things are conditional by the state with taxation. Failure to pay leads to punishment and seizure of self earned property.

If I work, I've chosen to work. To I have to pay that tax. No one forced me to work, no one forced me to make the choice there. You have to pay the tax if you work. So you've made that choice to pay tax. If you then don't pay that tax, then you've gone back on your word. Like walking into the shop, "hey, I'll buy this" then eating it and walking out.

You are still continuing to conflate choice with voluntary action.

For the last time. Having the option to do something does not mean that act is voluntary.

Your argument applies equally to someone being raped and someone being mugged. Your logic says that those acts are voluntary, because they can run off into the woods.

You don't pay for what you've got, then you get punished for it.

False equivalency.

The state has not produced a single substantive item in my possession. Never has and never will.

I could choose to not live in that society, or I could choose not to accept the govt and fight against the government. Some people have done so, Timothy McVeigh, for example.

Enough with this fallacy.

Compliance does not equal consent. You are the worlds worst rape apologist.

If you boss tells you to do something you don't want to do, is this coercion or is it choice?

It is reasonably involuntary.

If my choice is being fired or doing something I disapprove of, and I comply, then I am committing an involuntary act.

This act is reasonable where taxation is not. The employer is producing money that is provided to me in a business transaction. The state is a protection racket that produces nothing yet demands everything.

You'd see it as coercion, I'd see it as choice.

False.

I see choices made under the threat of coercicion as being involuntary.

Again, I am using legitimite and popularized definitions. You are not.

Voluntary definition: done or given because you want to and not because you are forced to (merriam webster)

This discussion is about one thing. Is taxation voluntary? You have trouble accepting that it is indeed involuntary.

 

[Onyx]

Yes. It's an uphill battle. But it's better than sitting in the valley pipe-dreaming (striking at the root?).

Asinine.

The pipe dream is fighting the uphill battle. The very nature of an uphill battle is that you never win.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Not really.

The point here was a part of tax. There are those people who believe that govt is always bad and nothing can ever be good therefore tax is bad, and there are those people who believe that govt can do good and it can do bad, but it's a matter of selecting the right people to be representatives and taking a pro-active stance towards government. Tax isn't necessarily bad, it's just a matter of whether those spending the tax money are honest or not.

I'm the latter. If someone is the former then they're going to see things in a different way.

Personally seeing the 3% of US GDP go on corruption within the health industry, and seeing other countries spend far less for an effective health service based around taxes, I see that both capitalism and socialism can be good or bad depending on how they're treated.

Taxation is bad because it's based on force. It doesn't matter what the government does with the proceeds. Robbery isn't good even if the perp gives all the money to charity.

The point here was a part of tax. There are those people who believe that govt is always bad and nothing can ever be good therefore tax is bad, and there are those people who believe that govt can do good and it can do bad, but it's a matter of selecting the right people to be representatives and taking a pro-active stance towards government. Tax isn't necessarily bad, it's just a matter of whether those spending the tax money are honest or not.

That was not the question I asked.

Is at least one individual coerced with the threat of punishment for not paying or enforcing taxation?

According to most legitimate and popular definitions, an action taken under coercion is not voluntary.

If you disagree that all taxation is paid or enforced under threat of punishment, then feel free to provide a tax that you feel is an exemption to this rule.

Many things people are threatened when the do what they have chosen to do. If I go to a theme park and don't pay, will I be threatened? Sure I will, if I get found out.

However, like I said, you choose to buy something, the tax is part of what you pay in order to get that thing.

The tax is part of what you pay because the government threatens the merchant if he doesn't make you pay it. Pretending taxation is voluntary is a propaganda trick. Its simply a lie, and the people who engage in it are liars.

Are you expecting people to get something for nothing, sort of thing?

What is coercion here? When is a person forced to pay tax?

You have to be a fool or a scum bag to claim taxation isn't coerced. That's pretty much the definition of taxation: coerced payments to the government. The fact that government uses third party to disguise its use of force only fools retards like you.

If I work, I've chosen to work. To I have to pay that tax. No one forced me to work, no one forced me to make the choice there. You have to pay the tax if you work. So you've made that choice to pay tax. If you then don't pay that tax, then you've gone back on your word. Like walking into the shop, "hey, I'll buy this" then eating it and walking out.

This argument is idiotic. Why would you pay the tax unless someone forced you to? Whether you choose to work or not. If you choose to setup your business on Guido "the leg breaker"'s turf, did you choose to pay his protection money? Please explain the difference between that and what government does?

You don't pay for what you've got, then you get punished for it.

That's exactly what Guido says.

I choose to live in the society, I accept the government, I accept the rules of that government, therefore I accept the tax.

I could choose to not live in that society, or I could choose not to accept the govt and fight against the government. Some people have done so, Timothy McVeigh, for example.

Choosing to live where you live doesn't imply any of the following conclusions you make. I choose to go to the beach. Does that mean I chose to be robbed by some thug who plies his trade there?

If you boss tells you to do something you don't want to do, is this coercion or is it choice? You'd see it as coercion, I'd see it as choice. Again, going around in circles. I say it's choice because you're looking at the wider picture, "if I do this horrible thing I'll get paid at the end of the month" therefore I made this choice, you seem to be saying "I don't want to do this thing" therefore it's coercion.

I have agreed to do what my boss tells me to do in exchange for my salary. Government isn't my boss. I never agreed to do anything the government orders me to do.

 

[Rustic]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

What do you mean? Washington is one party rule it's called the progressive party has been for decades

 

[Onyx]

bripat9643

My favorite argument is pointing out how the state is little different than a street gang.

The idea that paying protection money to the mafia is illegitimate while paying taxes to the state is legitimate, is absolutely ludicrous

If it quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The least statists could do is acknowledge that.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643

My favorite argument is pointing out how the state is little different than a street gang.

The idea that paying protection money to the mafia is illegitimate while paying taxes to the state is legitimate, is absolutely ludicrous

If it quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The least statists could do is acknowledge that.

I've always said that government is indistinguishable from an organized criminal gang. If you want to understand government, simply look at the Mafia.

 

[Onyx]

What do you mean? Washington is one party rule it's called the progressive party has been for decades

Left or right, all bow down to Trotsky...

The only difference between modern "tax and spend" politicians and Trotskyists, is that Trotskyists had the balls to call themselves socialists.

 

[Onyx]

I've always said that government is indistinguishable from an organized criminal gang. If you want to understand government, simply look at the Mafia.

At least the mafia is honest,

The state will brainwash you into believing it represents your interests.

 

[Tehon]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

What do you mean? Washington is one party rule it's called the progressive party has been for decades

The corporate party that controls Washington politics has been undermining the progressive movement for decades. You really need to find a new perspective, the right wing world that you travel in has distorted your perception of reality.

 

[Rustic]

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

What do you mean? Washington is one party rule it's called the progressive party has been for decades

The corporate party that controls Washington politics has been undermining the progressive movement for decades. You really need to find a new perspective, the right wing world that you travel in has distorted your reality.

All career politicians are progressives… Dumbass

 

[Onyx]

The corporate party that controls Washington politics has been undermining the progressive movement for decades. You really need to find a new perspective, the right wing world that you travel in has distorted your reality.

On the contrary, the progressive movement was hijacked by socialists.

Progressivism dates back to the early 1900's, as a trans-atlantic philosophical movement promoted by famous figures such as Sun Yat Sen and Theodore Roosevelt.

The movement advocated capitalist freedom, nationalism, and a government that provides for the public welfare.

Modern progressives got part of it right, although providing for the public welfare is unachievable without capitalist freedom.