• 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.
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........
No, Somalia is not my ideal at all. It is riddled with violence. The people in their society do not respect the life, liberty, and property of their neighbor.
 
Nonsensical statements.

Can you respond to the points I was making?

What points?

I happen to believe in the WE the People concept and proud that it has been upheld by the rule of law in this country under both political parties.
 
Only in libertarian utopia does everyone agree without someone not getting their way. It doesn't work like that in the real world.
I don't envision everyone agreeing. I'm not sure why you believe I do, as I have never made such a claim.
 
We all have that power, that's nothing new. Who lead you to believe it had been taken away from you?
The fact that the government can kidnap your or me, without due processes, and hold me indefinitely without charges. That was the tip off.
 
No, Somalia is not my ideal at all. It is riddled with violence.

Ah, but protection requires people taking your money from you to pay for that protection, and you said you were against people taking money from you.

The people in their society do not respect the life, liberty, and property of their neighbor.

They didn't respect life, liberty, and property in our country either, that's why we have a government. You want your cake and want to eat it too.
 
I don't envision everyone agreeing. I'm not sure why you believe I do, as I have never made such a claim.

From just above:


To clarify, I don't believe that needs of anyone should outweigh the needs of anyone else.


How about a free society?


The world is dominated by those who rule over their fellow man by force.


..........................
 
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.

Was that an episode on season two or three of the TWILIGHT ZONE series or was that an OUTER LIMITS?
 
The fact that the government can kidnap your or me, without due processes, and hold me indefinitely without charges. That was the tip off.

I read that same novel... I think. Kafka or King?
 
Ah, but protection requires people taking your money from you to pay for that protection, and you said you were against people taking money from you.
You are right in that I don't think it is ethical for one person to take the property of another. However, you may have missed earlier where I said that if someone wanted to be protected then they obviously must pay those who they wish to protect them. People don't work for free. So, yes, I would be happy to pay for the protective services I require.

They didn't respect life, liberty, and property in our country either, that's why we have a government. You want your cake and want to eat it too.
I think you're wrong on that score. The respect for the rights of others comes first. A society has it, or it doesn't. If it has it, and it creates a government, then it will charge that government with protecting life and property. If the people in a society don't respect the the life, liberty, and property of others, then you can be sure that the government won't either.

Also, you might be interested in a book called The Not So Wild West, by Terry Anderson and Peter Hill. It discusses how a peaceful society was maintained prior to any official government in California. Given the right societal norms, people are able to establish an orderly free society in the absence of government. It can be done, given the right societal values.
 
The fact that the government can kidnap your or me, without due processes, and hold me indefinitely without charges. That was the tip off.
Anybody with power can do that. You mentioned the Mafia earlier, does what they do (or are purported to do) escape you? They have nothing more than money backing them up just like any other rich guy. The local Militia group could pull it off. A lunch mob could easily kill you, too, it's been done thousands of times in history and more times than I care to think of right here in the USA. Violence exists and most of it doesn't come from the government (unless you count warfare), it comes from your follow citizens. You just don't realize how much that's true because LEO's (another group of "bad o' buweaucrats") are there keeping the violence to a low roar so you can sleep at night.
 
You are right in that I don't think it is ethical for one person to take the property of another. However, you may have missed earlier where I said that if someone wanted to be protected then they obviously must pay those who they wish to protect them. People don't work for free. So, yes, I would be happy to pay for the protective services I require.

So you want each individual to have their own government that reflects just their own personal wants and desires?

Its not all about you personally you know???
 
Anybody with power can do that. You mentioned the Mafia earlier, does what they do (or are purported to do) escape you? They have nothing more than money backing them up just like any other rich guy. The local Militia group could pull it off. A lunch mob could easily kill you, too, it's been done thousands of times in history and more times than I care to think of right here in the USA. Violence exists and most of it doesn't come from the government (unless you count warfare), it comes from your follow citizens. You just don't realize how much that's true because LEO's (another group of "bad o' buweaucrats") are there keeping the violence to a low roar so you can sleep at night.
As I have said several times, I do not expect to receive defense services for free. I will happily pay for that valued service.
 
So you want each individual to have their own government that reflects just their own personal wants and desires?
I want people to be able to enter into any mutually agreeable voluntary arrangement they wish. So, yes. To forbid them from doing so would be to set myself up as the ruler over them, something I am not willing to do.

Its not all about you personally you know???
You are absolutely right. It's not about me at all. EVERYONE has the right to be free from coercion by his fellow man.
 
I want people to be able to enter into any mutually agreeable voluntary arrangement they wish. So, yes. To forbid them from doing so would be to set myself up as the ruler over them, something I am not willing to do.

I know that's what you want. However, what most people want is a community that looks out for the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly, the disabled, the poor, and the working class.
 
As I have said several times, I do not expect to receive defense services for free. I will happily pay for that valued service.
Money is power, are you going to eliminate money as well? If not, what will you do to stop the accumulation of power/money? You can't take it from them and I'm sure they won't be giving it all away, either, so it WILL accumulate. You think their own altruistic world view will stop them from using that power? All I need do is look at Enron and any of several corporations from the Great Recession to see that they won't control themselves. Ever hear the phrase "power corrupts"? Do you think that's some kind of urban myth? In your idealistic world if Bill Gates wanted you dead, who do you think would outspend the other? Do you think your common rent-a-cops could defeat his well-funded hit squad? Get real.


The world isn't balanced and people aren't equal. The best government would allow everyone an equal opportunity to float to their own level but those levels won't be the same. Some will have power over others and only collectively can those with power be kept in check.
 
Last edited:
I know that's what you want. However, what most people want is a community that looks out for the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly, the disabled, the poor, and the working class.

Will you still admire yourself for your benevolence after we collapse economically from the weight of our social indebtedness? There is only one possible outcome of our current policies.
 
Will you still admire yourself for your benevolence after we collapse economically from the weight of our social indebtedness? There is only one possible outcome of our current policies.

Our social needs did not cause our economic problems. Banking deregulation and supply side economics for the last 30 years is the cause of our economic problems. The majority of the country has learned this, the hard way.
 
Last edited:
Who cares about Star Trek? ****ing trekkers need to stop relating everything to Star Trek.
The thing is, most of what Libertarians are espousing IS the Star Trek universe. No money to represent power or oppression; relatively small government - a Federation (of Planets); individual responsibility; equal rights for all regardless of race/creed/color/sex/ethnicity/etc; basically a society where people are given plenty of opportunity to pursue their interests, contribute to society, and live together without fear. No homelessness, no starvation, and no welfare. Can't think of anything more Libertarian than that and I'd love to see it happen some day. But Roddenberry only gave us ~300 years to get there. I don't think we're going to make it.
 
The thing is, most of what Libertarians are espousing IS the Star Trek universe. No money to represent power or oppression; relatively small government - a Federation (of Planets); individual responsibility; equal rights for all regardless of race/creed/color/sex/ethnicity/etc; basically a society where people are given plenty of opportunity to pursue their interests, contribute to society, and live together without fear. No homelessness, no starvation, and no welfare. Can't think of anything more Libertarian than that and I'd love to see it happen some day. But Roddenberry only gave us ~300 years to get there. I don't think we're going to make it.

WTF? Why don't you do some research in the future on what Libertarianism is actually about? Almost none of that is true. You people are as bad as the people that always talk negatively of socialism but don't have the first clue what it is.
 
I do not know enough about Star Trek to make a judgment. I do know that the American Gilded Age resulted in social and political conditions that bear a striking resemblance to libertarian beliefs and objectives.
 
from Centinel

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.

Equality in what way?

Are you referring to equality before the law? Are you referring to having equal rights?

In point of fact, people are not equal in reality. Never have been. Probably never will be. People differ in size, strength, health, intelligence, quickness, talent, skill, and all sorts of things which makes them unequal.

Your bit about
"no person has the moral authority to issue orders to his fellow man and enforce those orders through the initiation of violence"
sounds nice and all in a rather naive and idealistic sort of way but it is a denial of the way the world has always worked since man came out of the cave and brushed shoulders with others. We the people have created government and have empowered government with the ability to make laws and enforce those laws with the use of force if necessary to preserve the peace and the greater good. We certainly do give the moral authority to others to do this unless you believe that there is no moral authority in our Constitution and the government it creates.

Lincoln talked about this moral authority in his famous phrase "a government of the people, by the people and for the people".
 
Throughout this thread, not only has the inheritance tax been discussed, but the capital gains tax also since the wealthy are the main beneficiaries of it and use it to thwart the progressive nature of the federal income tax. When I and others urge that this $$$ be taxed as normal income, we are attacked as radical leftists who hate the rich.

Check out this

Bogle Wants Capital Gains Taxed at Ordinary Income - Video - Bloomberg

Radical leftist and fellow member of the Leon Trotsky Bomb Throwers Society Marching Band John Bogle urging that we tax capital gains the same as wages and salary. He is better knows as the founder and retired CEO of the Vanguard Group Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom