You didn't build that, and now, you didn't earn that

[jc456]

<-- Quit HS as a Junior because they /weren't/ teaching me anything.
Immediately went to college for 4yr computerized bookkeeping associates - taught idiot teachers how to format their hard drives and program calculators. Graduated a year early.
Started first job /while/ in college, assistant manager with no bookkeeping at all.
Ultimately became an Interim Executive - a position/field based on management and quickly learning a businesses business and very little bookkeeping.

Nope, my learned skills are all my own thanks.

You taught yourself to read? Who fed and clothed you before you went to college? Sorry but I call bullshit.

who taught you, are you saying it wasn't your parents?

Doesnt matter who taught me. The point is that you didnt teach yourself so you didnt do it on your own. Arent you tired of me cerebrally disemboweling you whenever you try to deflect?

sure I did. I taught myself many things in my lifetime. I observe and I learn. it is a concept many people do. Lazy people not so much. They demand special privilege, it is what separates us all. I don't expect anything from anyone. You?

You taught yourself nothing without someones help. You would have died as an infant if someone had not helped you.

Beethoven didn't write his own music? is that what you're saying? He didn't work at his skills, someone taught him? LOL What about Tommie Edison? who told him how to make an incandescent light? the phone, e=mc2?

How about Benjamin Franklin? dude you crack me up.

 

[Asclepias]

You taught yourself to read? Who fed and clothed you before you went to college? Sorry but I call bullshit.

who taught you, are you saying it wasn't your parents?

Doesnt matter who taught me. The point is that you didnt teach yourself so you didnt do it on your own. Arent you tired of me cerebrally disemboweling you whenever you try to deflect?

sure I did. I taught myself many things in my lifetime. I observe and I learn. it is a concept many people do. Lazy people not so much. They demand special privilege, it is what separates us all. I don't expect anything from anyone. You?

You taught yourself nothing without someones help. You would have died as an infant if someone had not helped you.

Beethoven didn't write his own music? is that what you're saying? He didn't work at his skills, someone taught him? LOL What about Tommie Edison? who told him how to make an incandescent light? the phone, e=mc2

You know youre trying too hard when you reply to the same post more than 1 time trying to save face.

 

[Correll]

1. I stated that the money I have is my money. YOu twisted it into a strawman of me being against the very concept of taxes. I will not defend your made up point that has no connection to my position.

I was providing a contrasting pair of statements. Your next statement exemplifies why.

2. Your belief that m per-tax income is "truly 'not all yours' until the government has taken out its due" is NOT an obvious and plain truth. It is your position and your position to defend, if you can.

Simple assertion, no matter how strongly you assert it, is not making a case.

So, are you now stating that your pre-tax money is all yours and the government does not have a right to a share or not?

If you are, what example from history of a successful nation that did not collect taxes of any kind can you point to?

3. ONly the most petty and jealous and selfish of people would deny others the full credit for their accomplishments because of the benefit/support/resources they received from society.

A successful businessman deserves full credit WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF BEING PART OF A LARGER ECONOMY AND PUBLIC.

The goal of public education, for one example is not to create a class of people who are totally and completely indebted to society. At least not in America. The goal of public education is to assist children into growing into productive members of society who will take care of themselves and their children and contribute though their individual efforts to society.

Tearing them down by telling them that they are not personal responsible for their personal accomplishments is counter productive to that.

I agree, whether it is actually completely 100% the case or not.

Well, at least Obama was telling the truth when he said he wanted to radically transform America.

What nation was the same when a President first entered on day one as it was when they left it on the last day of the administration?

Obama has left his mark like all Presidents do, and he has accomplished good and bad.

It is only the opinion of the individual voters in the following election that gives the final verdict.

1. The government has no rights at all. The whole point of modern Western Liberalism is that Sovereignty rests with the people, and that government has NOTHING that the people do not willing give them.

2. THe modern Leftist view of the State being the END of the process instead of the MEANS, with rights and powers of it's own, and the role of GRANTING rights to the lowly citizens, is a reactionary school of thought that harkens back to the Medieval Period of Divine Right of Kings.

3. I already told you that I was not responsible for YOUR strawman. It is your creation and has nothing to do with me.

4. The President's statement, which you libs are simultaneously denying and defending, is part of this ideological divide, with conservatives being in favor of the Enlightenment Era view of the People and Civil Rights, and the reactionary "liberals" being in favor of all power to the State.

 

[jc456]

who taught you, are you saying it wasn't your parents?

Doesnt matter who taught me. The point is that you didnt teach yourself so you didnt do it on your own. Arent you tired of me cerebrally disemboweling you whenever you try to deflect?

sure I did. I taught myself many things in my lifetime. I observe and I learn. it is a concept many people do. Lazy people not so much. They demand special privilege, it is what separates us all. I don't expect anything from anyone. You?

You taught yourself nothing without someones help. You would have died as an infant if someone had not helped you.

Beethoven didn't write his own music? is that what you're saying? He didn't work at his skills, someone taught him? LOL What about Tommie Edison? who told him how to make an incandescent light? the phone, e=mc2

You know youre trying too hard when you reply to the same post more than 1 time trying to save face.

no, I post multiple times to avoid quoted responses being messed up. dude, you still haven't answered any question as usual. But again, thanks for playing.

 

[my2¢]

The quotes bring to mind the Book of Romans. And they say he's not a Christian.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then it is a deeply flawed response.

OK, so I now rebut each of your points thusly; No, it is not deeply flawed.

sure it is. it's a voluntary system that one can't voluntarily do. That's flawed.

I think we are talking about different things.

Correll was speaking of my response to his previous post. You sound like you are talking about taxation again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The quotes bring to mind the Book of Romans. And they say he's not a Christian.

which quotes from who?

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. The government has no rights at all. The whole point of modern Western Liberalism is that Sovereignty rests with the people, and that government has NOTHING that the people do not willing give them.

And yet EVERYONE of them administered taxes, especially in the 20th century.

2. THe modern Leftist view of the State being the END of the process instead of the MEANS, with rights and powers of it's own, and the role of GRANTING rights to the lowly citizens, is a reactionary school of thought that harkens back to the Medieval Period of Divine Right of Kings.

True, and still EVERONE of the modern western states did exact taxes from its people usually with their consent.

3. I already told you that I was not responsible for YOUR strawman. It is your creation and has nothing to do with me.

Lol, but it is nonetheless true. All assertions have a context that gives them meaning and exceptions both. So does the statement that a businessman deserves credit for what he builds.

4. The President's statement, which you libs are simultaneously denying and defending, is part of this ideological divide, with conservatives being in favor of the Enlightenment Era view of the People and Civil Rights, and the reactionary "liberals" being in favor of all power to the State.

Yeah, the Good Ole Enlightenment which started with the French people rising up to claim rights, transitioned to mass executions in the Reign of Terror and wound up with just another tin horn dictator.

Paint me as entirely unimpressed with any appeal to the Enlightenment era.

Still after all that the fact remains; all governments collect taxes, your amount of your income that is truly yours is only AFTER the state takes its cut, and I am not a liberal, just ask them lol.

 

[georgephillip]

I can't remember if it was on this site, but I have had to research and post the printing of money and the route it takes to get to your wallet because a lib claimed the money in my wallet belongs to the government.

Does the money in your wallet exist without government? Hopefully we agree the money in your wallet doesn't exist without an amoral market which seldom distributes money on a just and equitable basis. For example, a Wall Street banker "earns" many times the pre-tax income of a scientist seeking a cure for cancer, and that is simply an accident of the way our market is structured, not a reflection of what the banker and scientist are worth to society.

 

[georgephillip]

So your pre-tax income is truly 'not all yours' until the government has taken out its due, then it is all yours. This is an obvious and plain Truth.

It is difficult for the "rugged individualists" to accept that simple Truth, however:
"Traditional analyses of tax justice demand that the distribution of tax burdens satisfy criteria of vertical and horizontal equity–like cases should be treated alike and relevantly different cases should be treated differently. Various criteria for relevant differences have been proposed, drawing on ideas such as ability to pay and taxation in proportion to benefit. All these analyses suffer from the fundamental flaw of treating pretax income as a morally significant baseline."
Traditional Criteria of Tax Equity - Oxford Scholarship

 

[Correll]

1. The government has no rights at all. The whole point of modern Western Liberalism is that Sovereignty rests with the people, and that government has NOTHING that the people do not willing give them.

And yet EVERYONE of them administered taxes, especially in the 20th century.

Which in no way supports your claim of the government having a right to my money, nor addresses my point about the Sovereignty resting with the people, not the government.

2. THe modern Leftist view of the State being the END of the process instead of the MEANS, with rights and powers of it's own, and the role of GRANTING rights to the lowly citizens, is a reactionary school of thought that harkens back to the Medieval Period of Divine Right of Kings.

True, and still EVERONE of the modern western states did exact taxes from its people usually with their consent.

Consent? What is with this "consent", if the government has a RIGHT to IT'S money?

"Their consent" assumes the money belongs to the citizens, which is MY position, not yours.

3. I already told you that I was not responsible for YOUR strawman. It is your creation and has nothing to do with me.

Lol, but it is nonetheless true. All assertions have a context that gives them meaning and exceptions both. So does the statement that a businessman deserves credit for what he builds.

And the context of this discussion is in a time of unsustainable growth of government spending, not one in which some hypothetical Anarchistic Presidential Candidate who plans to stop all taxes and shut down all government is a serious contender for the Oval Office.

4. The President's statement, which you libs are simultaneously denying and defending, is part of this ideological divide, with conservatives being in favor of the Enlightenment Era view of the People and Civil Rights, and the reactionary "liberals" being in favor of all power to the State.

Yeah, the Good Ole Enlightenment which started with the French people rising up to claim rights, transitioned to mass executions in the Reign of Terror and wound up with just another tin horn dictator.

Paint me as entirely unimpressed with any appeal to the Enlightenment era.

Still after all that the fact remains; all governments collect taxes, your amount of your income that is truly yours is only AFTER the state takes its cut, and I am not a liberal, just ask them lol.

Actually the Enlightenment began well before that, and was the major foundation for the ideas of the American Revolution, and the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, the very idea of Human Rights.

Your worship of the State, like I said, harkens back to the Dark Ages, and has more in common with the Divine Right of Kings, or Soviet Communism.

 

[Correll]

I can't remember if it was on this site, but I have had to research and post the printing of money and the route it takes to get to your wallet because a lib claimed the money in my wallet belongs to the government.

Does the money in your wallet exist without government? Hopefully we agree the money in your wallet doesn't exist without an amoral market which seldom distributes money on a just and equitable basis. For example, a Wall Street banker "earns" many times the pre-tax income of a scientist seeking a cure for cancer, and that is simply an accident of the way our market is structured, not a reflection of what the banker and scientist are worth to society.

Does the food in your refrigerator exist without farmers? Hopefully we agree the food in your refrigerator doesn't exist without an amoral market which seldom distributes food on a just and equitable basis.

Yet if some farmer wandered into your house and started eating your food, you would call the cops to arrest the THIEF.


If the money in our wallets, the units of measurement that represent all our work and which we use to buy all that we own (thus making them also the government's", then we are nothing but slaves.

And any supposed Freedom we may possess is nothing but an irrelevant intellectual exercise.


The reason that conservatives were so outraged by the President's statement was because we recognize that his statement reflects his belief, obviously widely shared by liberals, in an absolute subservient role for the Citizen in relation to the Government,


Which is heresy to conservatives.

 

[Correll]

So your pre-tax income is truly 'not all yours' until the government has taken out its due, then it is all yours. This is an obvious and plain Truth.

It is difficult for the "rugged individualists" to accept that simple Truth, however:
"Traditional analyses of tax justice demand that the distribution of tax burdens satisfy criteria of vertical and horizontal equity–like cases should be treated alike and relevantly different cases should be treated differently. Various criteria for relevant differences have been proposed, drawing on ideas such as ability to pay and taxation in proportion to benefit. All these analyses suffer from the fundamental flaw of treating pretax income as a morally significant baseline."
Traditional Criteria of Tax Equity - Oxford Scholarship

It is telling that you claim your position is a "simple truth", but do absolutely nothing to support your assertion.

This reflects the normal inability of liberals or leftists to understand that other people think differently than them or for them to respect those differences.

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. The government has no rights at all. The whole point of modern Western Liberalism is that Sovereignty rests with the people, and that government has NOTHING that the people do not willing give them.

And yet EVERYONE of them administered taxes, especially in the 20th century.

Which in no way supports your claim of the government having a right to my money, nor addresses my point about the Sovereignty resting with the people, not the government.

Of course it does. And it is the state that is sovereign if it represents the will of the people. The people are no more sovereign over themselves than a snake can swallow itself, and this modern construction is one meant to distinguish democratic republics and democracies from monarchies and totalitarian regimes.

2. THe modern Leftist view of the State being the END of the process instead of the MEANS, with rights and powers of it's own, and the role of GRANTING rights to the lowly citizens, is a reactionary school of thought that harkens back to the Medieval Period of Divine Right of Kings.

True, and still EVERONE of the modern western states did exact taxes from its people usually with their consent.

Consent? What is with this "consent", if the government has a RIGHT to IT'S money?

It is a fig leaf that shows a responsible citizenry supports its governments policies on taxation and spending.

"Their consent" assumes the money belongs to the citizens, which is MY position, not yours.

No, the consent simply shows their agreement to the process, not whose money it is without exception.

3. I already told you that I was not responsible for YOUR strawman. It is your creation and has nothing to do with me.

Lol, but it is nonetheless true. All assertions have a context that gives them meaning and exceptions both. So does the statement that a businessman deserves credit for what he builds.

And the context of this discussion is in a time of unsustainable growth of government spending, not one in which some hypothetical Anarchistic Presidential Candidate who plans to stop all taxes and shut down all government is a serious contender for the Oval Office.

True that is the context of the thread, but I am speaking of the broader context in which businessmen build their businesses. They do get help, even if they dont realize it, from the broader society.

4. The President's statement, which you libs are simultaneously denying and defending, is part of this ideological divide, with conservatives being in favor of the Enlightenment Era view of the People and Civil Rights, and the reactionary "liberals" being in favor of all power to the State.

Yeah, the Good Ole Enlightenment which started with the French people rising up to claim rights, transitioned to mass executions in the Reign of Terror and wound up with just another tin horn dictator.

Paint me as entirely unimpressed with any appeal to the Enlightenment era.

Still after all that the fact remains; all governments collect taxes, your amount of your income that is truly yours is only AFTER the state takes its cut, and I am not a liberal, just ask them lol.

Actually the Enlightenment began well before that, and was the major foundation for the ideas of the American Revolution, and the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, the very idea of Human Rights.

True, the Enlightenment came to its final conclusions with the French Revolution, but the whole thing was twisted.

There are limits to the use of Reason to understand the universe in which we live. For example every system of thought begins with axioms, or assumptions, that everything else is built on, and so using reason we all can come to quite distinct and hostile systems of thought, and that is what the 19th and 20th centuries gave us, all using Reason in various permutations.

But not only are there axiomatic problems with the Age of Enlightenment, but there are humanistic and ecological problems also. The age of Enlightenment had no problem with putting millions of people into shit holes called cities. (You do know why the Three Musketeers have those broad brimmed hats, right? lol) The Age of Enlightenment had no problem with trying to toss ALL religion into the trash bin of history and also had no problem with killing the millions who wouldnt just move on from religion.

The Age of 'Enlightenment' was foolishness on top of idiocy piled on ignorance and arrogance as it swept aside humanity, experience, institutional wisdom and any shred of humility.

Your worship of the State, like I said, harkens back to the Dark Ages, and has more in common with the Divine Right of Kings, or Soviet Communism.

Lol, I do not worship the state, dude.

I have read many of your posts in the past, and I am very surprised at the presumption and stereotyping you retreat to when your world view is challenged. You are better than that.

 

[Correll]

1. The government has no rights at all. The whole point of modern Western Liberalism is that Sovereignty rests with the people, and that government has NOTHING that the people do not willing give them.

And yet EVERYONE of them administered taxes, especially in the 20th century.

Which in no way supports your claim of the government having a right to my money, nor addresses my point about the Sovereignty resting with the people, not the government.

Of course it does. And it is the state that is sovereign if it represents the will of the people. The people are no more sovereign over themselves than a snake can swallow itself, and this modern construction is one meant to distinguish democratic republics and democracies from monarchies and totalitarian regimes.

2. THe modern Leftist view of the State being the END of the process instead of the MEANS, with rights and powers of it's own, and the role of GRANTING rights to the lowly citizens, is a reactionary school of thought that harkens back to the Medieval Period of Divine Right of Kings.

True, and still EVERONE of the modern western states did exact taxes from its people usually with their consent.

Consent? What is with this "consent", if the government has a RIGHT to IT'S money?

It is a fig leaf that shows a responsible citizenry supports its governments policies on taxation and spending.

"Their consent" assumes the money belongs to the citizens, which is MY position, not yours.

No, the consent simply shows their agreement to the process, not whose money it is without exception.

3. I already told you that I was not responsible for YOUR strawman. It is your creation and has nothing to do with me.

Lol, but it is nonetheless true. All assertions have a context that gives them meaning and exceptions both. So does the statement that a businessman deserves credit for what he builds.

And the context of this discussion is in a time of unsustainable growth of government spending, not one in which some hypothetical Anarchistic Presidential Candidate who plans to stop all taxes and shut down all government is a serious contender for the Oval Office.

True that is the context of the thread, but I am speaking of the broader context in which businessmen build their businesses. They do get help, even if they dont realize it, from the broader society.

4. The President's statement, which you libs are simultaneously denying and defending, is part of this ideological divide, with conservatives being in favor of the Enlightenment Era view of the People and Civil Rights, and the reactionary "liberals" being in favor of all power to the State.

Yeah, the Good Ole Enlightenment which started with the French people rising up to claim rights, transitioned to mass executions in the Reign of Terror and wound up with just another tin horn dictator.

Paint me as entirely unimpressed with any appeal to the Enlightenment era.

Still after all that the fact remains; all governments collect taxes, your amount of your income that is truly yours is only AFTER the state takes its cut, and I am not a liberal, just ask them lol.

Actually the Enlightenment began well before that, and was the major foundation for the ideas of the American Revolution, and the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, the very idea of Human Rights.

True, the Enlightenment came to its final conclusions with the French Revolution, but the whole thing was twisted.

There are limits to the use of Reason to understand the universe in which we live. For example every system of thought begins with axioms, or assumptions, that everything else is built on, and so using reason we all can come to quite distinct and hostile systems of thought, and that is what the 19th and 20th centuries gave us, all using Reason in various permutations.

But not only are there axiomatic problems with the Age of Enlightenment, but there are humanistic and ecological problems also. The age of Enlightenment had no problem with putting millions of people into shit holes called cities. (You do know why the Three Musketeers have those broad brimmed hats, right? lol) The Age of Enlightenment had no problem with trying to toss ALL religion into the trash bin of history and also had no problem with killing the millions who wouldnt just move on from religion.

The Age of 'Enlightenment' was foolishness on top of idiocy piled on ignorance and arrogance as it swept aside humanity, experience, institutional wisdom and any shred of humility.

Your worship of the State, like I said, harkens back to the Dark Ages, and has more in common with the Divine Right of Kings, or Soviet Communism.

Lol, I do not worship the state, dude.

I have read many of your posts in the past, and I am very surprised at the presumption and stereotyping you retreat to when your world view is challenged. You are better than that.

Your view of the Government possessing Sovereignty instead of the people, ESPECIALLY your imagery with sovereignty as a snake eating the people, runs counter to the last couple of centuries of Western Civilization and Human Rights.

Which document would you prefer that I use to demonstrate this? THe US Declaration of Independence, or the UN declaration on decolonization?

 

[georgephillip]

Does the food in your refrigerator exist without farmers? Hopefully we agree the food in your refrigerator doesn't exist without an amoral market which seldom distributes food on a just and equitable basis

Money is to government as food is to farmers?
I have a legal right to grow my own food, but I don't have the same right to print my own money. And that amoral market we appear to agree on has rules devised by those with the most money (and food) so it really has little in common with a free market, right?

If you think you have some moral entitlement to your pre-tax income, you need to convince me government was not responsible for creating the stable social conditions that allowed you to earn the money in the first place.

Or maybe you're still looking for the conservative's moral justification for selfishness?

 

[georgephillip]

This reflects the normal inability of liberals or leftists to understand that other people think differently than them or for them to respect those differences

Liberals recognize we are not responsible for the incoherence of conservatives:
"All these analyses suffer from the fundamental flaw of treating pretax income as a morally significant baseline. This mistake can partly be traced to a prevailing 'everyday libertarianism' according to which our legal property rights simply protect what we are independently morally entitled to; this view is incoherent.
Traditional Criteria of Tax Equity - Oxford Scholarship

 

[Correll]

Does the food in your refrigerator exist without farmers? Hopefully we agree the food in your refrigerator doesn't exist without an amoral market which seldom distributes food on a just and equitable basis

Money is to government as food is to farmers?
I have a legal right to grow my own food, but I don't have the same right to print my own money. And that amoral market we appear to agree on has rules devised by those with the most money (and food) so it really has little in common with a free market, right?

If you think you have some moral entitlement to your pre-tax income, you need to convince me government was not responsible for creating the stable social conditions that allowed you to earn the money in the first place.

Or maybe you're still looking for the conservative's moral justification for selfishness?

All analogies have their limits. My point stands. The farmer made the food, but it is now yours, The government made the dollars, but they are now yours.


Your complaints about the market is irrelevant to this issue.

The government, as a tool of the sovereign people, enforces the laws and policies enacted by the democratically elected representatives of the Sovereign People, to " insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Nothing in that process gives the Government claim to the wealth of the People.

Sovereign People don't sacrifice their sovereignty when they give the government limited powers in order to fulfill the tasks chosen for it BY THE PEOPLE.

Nor do they sacrifice their Right to their Property.

It is you who are trying to justify your Liberal Greed.

 

[Correll]

This reflects the normal inability of liberals or leftists to understand that other people think differently than them or for them to respect those differences

Liberals recognize we are not responsible for the incoherence of conservatives:
"All these analyses suffer from the fundamental flaw of treating pretax income as a morally significant baseline. This mistake can partly be traced to a prevailing 'everyday libertarianism' according to which our legal property rights simply protect what we are independently morally entitled to; this view is incoherent.
Traditional Criteria of Tax Equity - Oxford Scholarship

Yeah, you said that already.

What you have NOT done is support your claim.

Just because you say it, does not make it so.

I believe that Human Beings have certain Inalienable Rights, such as the Right of Property.

You believe that that Right is limited to what is left over AFTER the government takes what it wants.

This is contrary to everything this nations stands for, and indeed, article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.


(full disclosure i don't give a damn about what the un says, but i've found you lefties care about it more than you do the us founding documents)



And my point stands.

This reflects the normal inability of liberals or leftists to understand that other people think differently than them or for them to respect those differences

 

[georgephillip]

All analogies have their limits. My point stands. The farmer made the food, but it is now yours, The government made the dollars, but they are now yours.

Those dollars are not yours until after you pay taxes on them. Wealth is not created in isolation; it is as much the product of society as it is the individual, since society, acting through the government, provides the enabling conditions for the individual to labor safely.