• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?


  • Total voters
    126
Status
Not open for further replies.
The concept of taxation, in which some people forcibly take money from other people strikes me as completely immoral. I don't see what gives one person or one group of people the moral authority to declare that they are going to rule over others and take their property. I mean, we're all supposed to be equals, so we ought to work out our social arrangements through voluntary cooperation, not the law of the jungle.

That being said, if people want services from a government, such as policing, dispute resolution, and defense, well then they ought to pay for those services. One can't expect people to just give these services away for nothing. So I think I have to say that a government should be able to charge its subscribers for its services, just like anyone can charge for services people buy. If you want the services, you pay the fee, otherwise you get nothing.

Thanks for the libertarian point of view, which represents about 2% of the population on a good election year for them.
 
You confuse the relationship of a citizen and his or her government via taxation with the retail shopping experience. They are apples and cinderblocks. When you shop at Costco you have the luxury of selecting only what you want and placing it in your cart and paying for that at the checkout. Government does not work that way and even a tax hater like my friend Turtle has admitted such a scheme would not work.
Yes, currently they are very different sorts of interactions. The relationship between a regular person and a person in the government is one of slave to master, while the relationship between two regular people is that of equals. The notion that some people (the "government") are somehow above the regular people just doesn't sit well with me. To me, all people are equal, there is not a set of rulers and a set of peons. So I will always advocate relationships that are based upon mutual, voluntary cooperation, rather than the law of the jungle.
 
Thanks for the libertarian point of view, which represents about 2% of the population on a good election year for them.
You are quite welcome. And I don't disagree that my particular point of view isn't very popular. The law of the jungle is much more popular. I don't know why. It must have something to do with man's fallen nature.
 
you miss the entire point-you claim the poor have problems because the GOVERNMENT doesn't do enough for them

that is the problem-they rely on the government too much
Well, it's a sure bet they can't force business to pay them more and business sure as hell isn't going to do it on their own, either. As for all the crap about "bettering oneself" or "becoming a more productive member of society" I've got friends who had college degrees who worked hard to get them and ended up tending a hotel desk at 3AM making barely enough to pay back their student loans and afford a studio apt. And that's not an isolated incident. "You're over-qualified" became the rally cry of American business in the 80's, so much so that many quit college and started flipping burgers. At least in 2-3 years they might make manager, which paid more than the night desk clerk job.

Bottom line is, if every single American worked hard in HS and went in hock to their eyeballs for college a large part of them would still be flipping burgers and running a cash register because somebody has to do those jobs. A country filled with grads in engineering and medicine wouldn't change the average wage scale in America by more than a couple of a percent and that would only be from a decline in foreign specialists. Most of America would still be living in the slums and lower income neighborhoods making crap for wages except they'd have a diploma on their wall. Whooppee!
 
if money could buy happiness, some of the posters here wouldn't be here, whining.....
 
Yes, currently they are very different sorts of interactions. The relationship between a regular person and a person in the government is one of slave to master, while the relationship between two regular people is that of equals. The notion that some people (the "government") are somehow above the regular people just doesn't sit well with me. To me, all people are equal, there is not a set of rulers and a set of peons. So I will always advocate relationships that are based upon mutual, voluntary cooperation, rather than the law of the jungle.

Actually, we and our fellow American citizens are the masters in this relationship.

You operate from a seriously flawed premise.
 
Yes, currently they are very different sorts of interactions. The relationship between a regular person and a person in the government is one of slave to master, while the relationship between two regular people is that of equals. The notion that some people (the "government") are somehow above the regular people just doesn't sit well with me. To me, all people are equal, there is not a set of rulers and a set of peons. So I will always advocate relationships that are based upon mutual, voluntary cooperation, rather than the law of the jungle.
I don't know what you mean by "a person in the government" but I don't think that applies to most of them. Like any business there are those who let what little power they have go to their heads but overall civil servants are just that and, given the chance, act like that. The public is the employer, the head of the company if you will, and most civil servants treat them with respect and provide whatever help they can. Of course, if you abuse civil servants by yelling and screaming at them, well, that's not giving them a chance, is it? In that situation they'll do what they've been instructed to do and instead of your problem being the #1 priority your behavior is now the #1 priority.

If you were talking about elected officials then you should say so. My response there would be that we are poor citizens to let people like that represent us in DC. And, indeed, I agree with you. Limiting the Fed isn't going to change that, though, it'll just change the focus. We still need to be responsible voters.

Actually, we and our fellow American citizens are the masters in this relationship.

You operate from a seriously flawed premise.
Unfortunately, we're often too lazy to exercise our power. :(
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean by "a person in the government" but I don't think that applies to most of them. Like any business there are those who let what little power they have go to their heads but overall civil servants are just that and, given the chance, act like that. The public is the employer, the head of the company if you will, and most civil servants treat them with respect and provide whatever help they can. Of course, if you abuse civil servants by yelling and screaming at them, well, that's not giving them a chance, is it? In that situation they'll do what they've been instructed to do and instead of your problem being the #1 priority your behavior is now the #1 priority.

If you were talking about elected officials then you should say so. My response there would be that we are poor citizens to let people like that represent us in DC. And, indeed, I agree with you. Limiting the Fed isn't going to change that, though, it'll just change the focus. We still need to be responsible voters.
Haymarket was pointing out how our relationship with the government is substantially different than our relationship with other people. They are as different as apples and cinderblocks was the analogy he used, I believe. Obviously, there is no physically real entity called the government. It is a social construct, a name we use for a certain set of people. Just as there is no physical reality to "the mafia". It is simply a name we use for certain people. So, when I use the term "a person in the government", I am merely referring to one of the people who belongs to the organization we call the government.

My personal opinion is that our interpersonal relationships should be based upon a notion of equality and mutual respect and voluntary cooperation. I believe that all people are equal, in that no person has the moral authority to issue orders to his fellow man and enforce those orders through the initiation of violence. I believe that this rule of interpersonal behavior applies to all people, regardless of what sorts of organizations to which he belongs. To me, the fact that a person is a member of the government does not relieve them of the ethical laws that apply to all normal people. Just because a person is a member of the government doesn't mean it is ethically right for him to live by the law of the jungle.
 
You are quite welcome. And I don't disagree that my particular point of view isn't very popular. The law of the jungle is much more popular. I don't know why. It must have something to do with man's fallen nature.

In other words if libertarians, had written the Constitution it would have read, We the Minority of the Rich and Powerful?

Or, if libertarians had written Star Trek, their policy would have been: The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?
 
In other words if libertarians, had written the Constitution it would have read, We the Minority of the Rich and Powerful?

I would love to know how you get there from what he said.

Or, if libertarians had written Star Trek, their policy would have been: The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

Who cares about Star Trek? ****ing trekkers need to stop relating everything to Star Trek.
 
In other words if libertarians, had written the Constitution it would have read, We the Minority of the Rich and Powerful?

Or, if libertarians had written Star Trek, their policy would have been: The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?
I am not saying that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. I do not wish for the few to rule over the many. Nor do I wish for the many to rule over the few. I don't think it is ethically appropriate for any person to rule over any other person, period. We are all equals, and we all ought to treat each other with mutual respect. Our interactions should be voluntary and based on mutual cooperation, not the law of the jungle in which we have rulers initiating aggression against the ruled.
 
In other words if libertarians, had written the Constitution it would have read, We the Minority of the Rich and Powerful?

Libertarians did write the constitution. Libertarianism is about as close to classical liberalism as one can get.

It's the current liberals in this country who don't realize they are not really liberals, but just authoritarians with a few liberal social views.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

That is exactly what you have been saying.


The concept of taxation, in which some people forcibly take money from other people strikes me as completely immoral.


I do not wish for the few to rule over the many. Nor do I wish for the many to rule over the few.

How about a Democratic Republic?


I don't think it is ethically appropriate for any person to rule over any other person, period. We are all equals, and we all ought to treat each other with mutual respect. Our interactions should be voluntary and based on mutual cooperation, not the law of the jungle in which we have rulers initiating aggression against the ruled.

To which country might we look to find an example of this utopia that you envision???
 
Libertarians did write the constitution. Libertarianism is about as close to classical liberalism as one can get.

What turned you against the Constitution?

It's the current liberals in this country who don't realize they are not really liberals, but just authoritarians with a few liberal social views.


You don't believe in the rule of law?
 
I am not saying that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. I do not wish for the few to rule over the many. Nor do I wish for the many to rule over the few. I don't think it is ethically appropriate for any person to rule over any other person, period. We are all equals, and we all ought to treat each other with mutual respect. Our interactions should be voluntary and based on mutual cooperation, not the law of the jungle in which we have rulers initiating aggression against the ruled.

That sounds good. But I see problems that come with extreme inequality. Rich people naturally have more power than poor people, also *over* these poor people. Laws can limit abuse, but not eliminate the power disparity.

I like the libertarian ideal, but I believe it's not realistic. There will always be corruption, and corruption is rich people overriding the law to exert power over the poor. So the point can be made that we need government to correct this disparity at least a little. Of course that requires sensitivity, because it's like fighting fire with fire.
 
What turned you against the Constitution?

You don't believe in the rule of law?

You need to actually start to read or if you are stop making things up.
 
That is exactly what you have been saying.
Then I'm afraid I haven't been communicating effectively. To clarify, I don't believe that needs of anyone should outweigh the needs of anyone else. Down that path leads the law of the jungle, where the use of force is justified by the rationalization that it is being used for good.

How about a Democratic Republic?
How about a free society?

To which country might we look to find an example of this utopia that you envision???
Sadly, nowhere as of now. The world is dominated by those who rule over their fellow man by force. We have to look to the future, just as those who saw slavery as an unjust mode of social organization once had to look to the future. Progress comes slowly.
 
Haymarket was pointing out how our relationship with the government is substantially different than our relationship with other people. They are as different as apples and cinderblocks was the analogy he used, I believe. Obviously, there is no physically real entity called the government. It is a social construct, a name we use for a certain set of people. Just as there is no physical reality to "the mafia". It is simply a name we use for certain people. So, when I use the term "a person in the government", I am merely referring to one of the people who belongs to the organization we call the government.

My personal opinion is that our interpersonal relationships should be based upon a notion of equality and mutual respect and voluntary cooperation. I believe that all people are equal, in that no person has the moral authority to issue orders to his fellow man and enforce those orders through the initiation of violence. I believe that this rule of interpersonal behavior applies to all people, regardless of what sorts of organizations to which he belongs. To me, the fact that a person is a member of the government does not relieve them of the ethical laws that apply to all normal people. Just because a person is a member of the government doesn't mean it is ethically right for him to live by the law of the jungle.
It's sad that you look at everybody in government the same way. As I tried to point out, and you pretty much ignored, most people in government are civil and serve the public, they are nice to us, the citizens, and help us everyday. But the Corp of Engineers that prevents your city from being flooded next spring is an Oppressive Force in your mind. The soldiers and sailors that keep your butt comfy at night are nothing more than mercenaries and pirates ready if given half a chance to bush down your door, empty your house, then rape your wife and daughter on their way out. What a distorted view of the world you have to believe that all these people have some kind of Special Power over you.
 
Last edited:
That sounds good. But I see problems that come with extreme inequality. Rich people naturally have more power than poor people, also *over* these poor people. Laws can limit abuse, but not eliminate the power disparity.

I like the libertarian ideal, but I believe it's not realistic. There will always be corruption, and corruption is rich people overriding the law to exert power over the poor. So the point can be made that we need government to correct this disparity at least a little. Of course that requires sensitivity, because it's like fighting fire with fire.
If rich people initiate aggression against the poor, then the government stop them and punish them. Just because one is rich does not give one the power to attack others. If the rich want something, then they ought to figure out how to get it like everyone else, though mutually agreeable voluntary cooperation. Let them spend some of their money to acquire what they want from others. It will have the added benefit of spreading the wealth around.
 
It's sad that you look at everybody in government the same way. As I tried to point out, and you pretty much ignored, most people in government are civil and serve the public, they are nice to us, the citizens, and help us everyday. But the Corp of Engineers that prevents your city from being flooded next spring is an Oppressive Force in your mind. The soldiers and sailors that keep your butt comfy at night are nothing more than mercenaries and pirates ready if given half a chance to bush down your door, empty your house, then rape your wife and daughter on their way out. What a distorted view of the world you have to believe that all these people have some kind of Special Power over you.
They do have special power of me. They have the power of life or death over me, in fact.
 
If rich people initiate aggression against the poor, then the government stop them and punish them. Just because one is rich does not give one the power to attack others. If the rich want something, then they ought to figure out how to get it like everyone else, though mutually agreeable voluntary cooperation. Let them spend some of their money to acquire what they want from others. It will have the added benefit of spreading the wealth around.
Oh man, and I thought I was a little idealistic! Thanks for that, it reset the bar.
 
They do have special power of me. They have the power of life or death over me, in fact.
We all have that power, that's nothing new. Who lead you to believe it had been taken away from you?
 
Last edited:
Then I'm afraid I haven't been communicating effectively. To clarify, I don't believe that needs of anyone should outweigh the needs of anyone else. Down that path leads the law of the jungle, where the use of force is justified by the rationalization that it is being used for good. How about a free society?
Sadly, nowhere as of now. The world is dominated by those who rule over their fellow man by force. We have to look to the future, just as those who saw slavery as an unjust mode of social organization once had to look to the future. Progress comes slowly.

Only in libertarian utopia does everyone agree without someone not getting their way. It doesn't work like that in the real world.

Somalia is as close to the lack of government you see as ideal, and I would hardly call it utopia. But that's just me........
 
What turned you against the Constitution?




You don't believe in the rule of law?

Nonsensical statements.

Can you respond to the points I was making?

Do you know what the definition of liberalism was at the time of this country's founding (aka classical liberalism)? This was liberal doctrine in the 18th century, and favored individual freedom, liberty, and small government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom