• 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!

Why We Need a Wealth Tax

Bollocks again. You need a dictionary!

Look up the difference between democracy and republic. In concept there is none! They are are just flavors of the same political ice-cream!

To wit (from the online dictionary here):


Pray tell us the difference, because none are apparent. It's all in your tiny, tiny mind ...
The US is a representative republic, not a democracy or republic and the other poster stated that. But instead of reading what was written, you somehow felt the need to shove your foot in your mouth and down your own throat?
 
Isn't there already a "wealth tax" because the top 10% pay 60% of the Government revenue?
 
So are you saying that only the government can build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and charities? Those can't be done by anyone other than the government?

As with policing, courts and armies, they can be and sometimes are privately operated but a public system or public option increases fairness, effectiveness and competitiveness. A society in which the poorest people recieve little or no education because they and their area can't afford quality schooling is obviously unfair, for example, and on a macro scale a weaker economy for the country itself. Similarly policing could easily be left to private organizations, hiring and assigning officers to neighbourhoods based on how much the folk there are willing to pay, but such an approach would be as unfair and ineffective as a system without public education would be. Your ideology seems both arbitrary and contrary to all real world experience.
 
The US is a representative republic, not a democracy or republic and the other poster stated that. But instead of reading what was written, you somehow felt the need to shove your foot in your mouth and down your own throat?

I have put both definitions of republic and democracy on this forum at least 20 or 30 times. There is no fundamental difference between them!

But people like you need absolutely to insist there is a difference where none exist. Perhaps it soothes your soul to think that "We are different!" We aren't.

You have already forbidden me to start threads. What more is it that you want of me?

State it clearly! You want me out of this forum because you don't like what I have posted here!

Since when were you elected Final Arbiter in an Internet Forum? Never hear of the freedom-of-speech article in the First Amendment ... !?!
 
I have put both definitions of republic and democracy on this forum at least 20 or 30 times. There is no fundamental difference between them!

But people like you need absolutely to insist there is a difference where none exist. Perhaps it soothes your soul to think that "We are different!" We aren't.

You have already forbidden me to start threads. What more is it that you want of me?

State it clearly! You want me out of this forum because you don't like what I have posted here!

Since when were you elected Final Arbiter in an Internet Forum? Never hear of the freedom-of-speech article in the First Amendment ... !?!

The US is not a pure democracy nor is it a pure republic. If it's too hard to Google "representative republic" then maybe this topic is entirely too far over your head.

No one has forbidden you from starting threads and it's clear that you don't have the faintest idea what "free speech" is either. If I were you, I'd do a little more research on the topics you decide to participate in going forward so that you don't look so damn uninformed.
 
Bollocks again. You need a dictionary!

Look up the difference between democracy and republic. In concept there is none! They are are just flavors of the same political ice-cream!

To wit (from the online dictionary here):


Pray tell us the difference, because none are apparent. It's all in your tiny, tiny mind ...

Thank you for taking the time from protesting over-regulation, heavy taxation, and Big Government corruption in your own country to come advise us.





One can certainly appreciate the theory and if one is curious enough, can find the parallel failures of history that have bearing on reality.

"The constitution of the Roman Republic was designed as a corrective to democracy. Specifically, it was hoping to protect against the excesses of Athenian-style direct democracy. About twice a month in Athens, citizens voted into law almost anything they wished. About six to seven thousand citizens would squeeze into a hillside amphitheater known as the Pnyx and were swayed by demagogues (“people leaders”) into voting for or against whatever the cause de jour was. Our term “democracy” comes from the Greek dêmos-kratos, which means “people-power.”

In furor at a rebellion, for example, Athenians once voted to kill all of the adult male subjects of the island of Lesbos—only to repent the next day and vote again to execute just some, hoping that their second messenger ship rowed fast enough across the Aegean to catch the first bearing the original death sentence. In a fit of pique, the popular court voted to execute the philosopher Socrates, fine the statesman Pericles, and ostracize the general Aristides. Being successful, popular, rich, or controversial always proved to be a career liability in a democracy like the one that ruled Athens.

The Romans knew enough about mercurial ancient Athens to appreciate that they did not want a radical democracy. Instead, they sought to take away absolute power from the people and redistribute it within a “mixed” government. In Rome, power was divided constitutionally between executives (two consuls), legislators (the Senate and assemblies), and judges (Roman magistrates).

The half-millennia success of the stable Roman republican system inspired later French and British Enlightenment thinkers. Their abstract tripartite system of constitutional government stirred the Founding Fathers to concrete action. Americans originally were terrified of what 51 percent of the people in an unchecked democracy might do on any given day—and knew that ancient democracies had always become more not less radical and thus more unstable. For all the squabbles between Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, they agreed that a republic, not a direct democracy, was a far safer and stable choice of governance.

The result was a potpourri of ways to curb the predictable excesses and fits of the people. An Electoral College reserved commensurate power to rural states rather than passing off the presidential vote into the hands of the huge urban majorities. States could decide their own rules of voter participation—with the original understanding that owning a modicum of property might make a citizen more rooted and engaged. Senators were appointed by state legislatures to balance the popular election of House members.

Many of these checks on popular expression were later overturned by plebiscites or the courts, but they reflected the original eighteenth-century worries over a supposedly unchecked mob. We often think that a Bill of Rights was designed to protect Americans from monarchs and dictators. It certainly was. But the Founders were just as terrified of what that the majority of elected representatives without restraint might legally do on any given day to an individual citizen."
The Mob Is Coming For You-Hoover Institute-VDH

Reality is quite different from theory and we can follow the failures directly from proof of concept throughout history until modern times.


A small cluster of population centers (Wile E.) does not get to eat the roadrunner (The rest of the USA and everyone in it.) despite whatever acme scheme they come up with no matter how advantageous the newest fad may be.

The long standing institution survives to the betterment of all whether or not they appreciate or even realize the fact.

 
What your question is actually asking:

"Do you consider taxes as theft?".


No, perhaps you don't think so, but that is what the question is asking, yours is just more verbose.

Not really. I asked whether you consider it just to take one person's property and give it to another. Not all taxation does that.
 
As with policing, courts and armies, they can be and sometimes are privately operated but a public system or public option increases fairness, effectiveness and competitiveness. A society in which the poorest people recieve little or no education because they and their area can't afford quality schooling is obviously unfair, for example, and on a macro scale a weaker economy for the country itself. Similarly policing could easily be left to private organizations, hiring and assigning officers to neighbourhoods based on how much the folk there are willing to pay, but such an approach would be as unfair and ineffective as a system without public education would be. Your ideology seems both arbitrary and contrary to all real world experience.

Do you think that private police would be a viable option? Personally, I don't see that happening.

As far as education, what are you saying people need to know and can't learn essentially for free?
 
Not really. I asked whether you consider it just to take one person's property and give it to another. Not all taxation does that.


Your question lacks context & specificity, and therefore, cannot be answered.

Let's go here:


Do you consider taxes used for entitlements theft?
 
Your question lacks context & specificity, and therefore, cannot be answered.

Let's go here:


Do you consider taxes used for entitlements theft?

No, I don't. But it's not just to take one person's property merely to turn around and give it to another person.
 
The US is not a pure democracy nor is it a pure republic. If it's too hard to Google "representative republic" then maybe this topic is entirely too far over your head.

No one has forbidden you from starting threads and it's clear that you don't have the faintest idea what "free speech" is either. If I were you, I'd do a little more research on the topics you decide to participate in going forward so that you don't look so damn uninformed.


As usual, wrong!

There is no such thing as a "pure democracy". But any country that has a political system by which political leadership is elected by an public electorate directly, then it is indeed a "democracy". However imperfect it may be.

And, in the US, that "imperfection" is blatant - especially when a measure concocted at the beginning of the 19th century created the Electoral College. Which has, ever since, elected as PotUS five times the loser of the popular vote. No other developed country on earth has yet replicated such an erroneous electoral system.

That mistake is blatant, and even more so given the present context of a PotUS who was indeed "elected" in such a manner ...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom