Never heard of it, but interesting... Like this?
The spirit of '76 had horns.
I don't get this. I just have assumed you were born in 1976. What am I missing?
How much are getting back from taxes this year?
- Thread starter azurepred
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Never heard of it, but interesting... Like this?
I don't get this. I just have assumed you were born in 1976. What am I missing?
GrueSam
The Queen of Darkness
The wordplay on the Spirit of 1776.I don't get this. I just have assumed you were born in 1976. What am I missing?
And if you still don't get it then...
Interesting. Under Political Influence it says "See also: Libertarianism and Objectivism"
Guess I wasn't too far off.
And from what I can tell "radical capitalists", "Libertarianism", and "Anarcho-capitalism" all seem related. Heh, or at least Wikipedia makes connections.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
Objectivism was her philosophy.
People who don't understand laissez-faire capitalism would have a hard time distinguishing it from anarchism, or libertarianism, which is essentially Rand's politics without the underlying philosophy that it requires to make sense. Libertarian sees 'liberty' to be an axiomatic concept. It isn't, and that explains why the Libertarian party is full of so many disparate species of fool.
During her life, Rand dissociated herself from them as best she could. She considered them right-wing anarchists, significantly worse than the crooked tools dominating the Republican and Democratic parties.
People who don't understand laissez-faire capitalism would have a hard time distinguishing it from anarchism, or libertarianism, which is essentially Rand's politics without the underlying philosophy that it requires to make sense. Libertarian sees 'liberty' to be an axiomatic concept. It isn't, and that explains why the Libertarian party is full of so many disparate species of fool.
During her life, Rand dissociated herself from them as best she could. She considered them right-wing anarchists, significantly worse than the crooked tools dominating the Republican and Democratic parties.
Just came across the term 'Randroid'. 
What do you think is to be gained by this? Just trying to understand the reasoning. I assume you think that society would benefit if everybody stopped paying taxes otherwise your not paying would be only a selfish act, rather than an act of principle.
What do you think is to be gained by this? Just trying to understand the reasoning. I assume you think that society would benefit if everybody stopped paying taxes otherwise your not paying would be only a selfish act, rather than an act of principle.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
What can't be reasoned against will be mocked. What else is new?
Umm do you mean I was mocking you?
If you are referring to "Randroid", I just thought it was funny. Not agreeing or disagreeing with it.
[Edit: Ah, looking at the time stamps, I see that you didn't see my edited post...
Here's what I'm looking at right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal]
devilof76
Super Freak
I didn't think you were mocking me. The term is a smear though. Just saying.
I do assume that everyone not paying their taxes would be a supreme value for myself, and society at large. But that's not why I didn't pay them. Obviously, my taxes not being paid is going to have zero effect. The $5000 they lose (temporarily) is less than a raindrop in the ocean.
The two years I had nothing taken from my check were the two years my father spent dying of cancer. They were the last two years I would ever spend with him, and I'd be damned if the swine in Washington were going to consume a single scrap of what was mine during that time. I see no difference in principle between acting selfishly and not paying taxes, so yes, I was very much acting on principle, and yes, I was acting out of pure self-interest. The added income I had while I endured the loss of my dad over 24 months was more than worth the penalties imposed on me by those who believe selflessness is my duty (and the higher moral principle, which it is not).
I do assume that everyone not paying their taxes would be a supreme value for myself, and society at large. But that's not why I didn't pay them. Obviously, my taxes not being paid is going to have zero effect. The $5000 they lose (temporarily) is less than a raindrop in the ocean.
The two years I had nothing taken from my check were the two years my father spent dying of cancer. They were the last two years I would ever spend with him, and I'd be damned if the swine in Washington were going to consume a single scrap of what was mine during that time. I see no difference in principle between acting selfishly and not paying taxes, so yes, I was very much acting on principle, and yes, I was acting out of pure self-interest. The added income I had while I endured the loss of my dad over 24 months was more than worth the penalties imposed on me by those who believe selflessness is my duty (and the higher moral principle, which it is not).
devilof76
Super Freak
Actually, if you include the 2009 taxes, it's more like $10K. But who's counting?
heh, a lot of what you say just barely skims over my head.
The "drop in the bucket" idea as a way of absolving ones self from responsibility is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. But if you sincerely believe that society should not pay taxes, than I can see that from your point of view your selfish act is also in line with your principles.
Perhaps if all mankind wholeheartedly embraced "Objectivism" at this moment society would flourish without taxes, but that simply isn't going to happen. Therefore, in my opinion, and without passing any judgment on Objectivism itself: if people stopped paying taxes all at once with society running as it does right now, it would be devastating.
So while your reasoning may be sound in principle, it does not seem to favor the greater good.
Setting all of that aside: I am very sorry to hear about your father and those very difficult 2 years.
The "drop in the bucket" idea as a way of absolving ones self from responsibility is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. But if you sincerely believe that society should not pay taxes, than I can see that from your point of view your selfish act is also in line with your principles.
Perhaps if all mankind wholeheartedly embraced "Objectivism" at this moment society would flourish without taxes, but that simply isn't going to happen. Therefore, in my opinion, and without passing any judgment on Objectivism itself: if people stopped paying taxes all at once with society running as it does right now, it would be devastating.
So while your reasoning may be sound in principle, it does not seem to favor the greater good.
Setting all of that aside: I am very sorry to hear about your father and those very difficult 2 years.
GrueSam
The Queen of Darkness
Mike, what do you think of the Fair Tax?
I would love for that to be our system instead... Do you?
I would love for that to be our system instead... Do you?
devilof76
Super Freak
I don't know a lot about it, but from what I do know, it's infinitely better than what we have in place now. I would back it 100% if I thought it had a chance. Unfortunately, the pigs get way too much from the current system, and they will never voluntarily let that go.
However, it sounds like the perfect solution for transitioning out of a progressive tax to voluntary government financing.
I don't believe I have a responsibility to pay. If other's are dependent on tax receipts to support their lives, maybe they should have thought twice about living by that kind of extortion. The only responsibility to society that I acknowledge is that I not assault or defraud anyone, i.e. that I not initiate force against another human being. Taxation violates that obligation wholesale.
I would not advocate cutting taxes off all at once. A great many people have been suckered into programs where they thought they were investing in their retirements, or healthcare, etc. I'm not sure how they could ever have understood that these are nothing but pyramid schemes, as the only people who work (or can work, for the most part) in those fields which were supposed to educate people on such things are of the same deceitful mentality as those who push the programs in the first place. I would never tell an old woman that she has no right to her Social Security checks when she has been swindled into paying for it all her life. How was she supposed to know the magnitude of the lie she had been compelled to participate in?
It wouldn't in the short term. Objectivism is a philosophy that belives in living by the rules reality imposes. So many people in this world live by cheating reality that if it suddenly came crashing in all at once, the result would be catastrophic. That said, I can't say I'd have a lot of sympathy for most of the victims. The ones who would lose the most are the ones who are most responsible for the fraud, and they would be getting what they richly deserve.
Thanks.
However, it sounds like the perfect solution for transitioning out of a progressive tax to voluntary government financing.
I don't believe I have a responsibility to pay. If other's are dependent on tax receipts to support their lives, maybe they should have thought twice about living by that kind of extortion. The only responsibility to society that I acknowledge is that I not assault or defraud anyone, i.e. that I not initiate force against another human being. Taxation violates that obligation wholesale.
Maglor said:
I would not advocate cutting taxes off all at once. A great many people have been suckered into programs where they thought they were investing in their retirements, or healthcare, etc. I'm not sure how they could ever have understood that these are nothing but pyramid schemes, as the only people who work (or can work, for the most part) in those fields which were supposed to educate people on such things are of the same deceitful mentality as those who push the programs in the first place. I would never tell an old woman that she has no right to her Social Security checks when she has been swindled into paying for it all her life. How was she supposed to know the magnitude of the lie she had been compelled to participate in?
Maglor said:
It wouldn't in the short term. Objectivism is a philosophy that belives in living by the rules reality imposes. So many people in this world live by cheating reality that if it suddenly came crashing in all at once, the result would be catastrophic. That said, I can't say I'd have a lot of sympathy for most of the victims. The ones who would lose the most are the ones who are most responsible for the fraud, and they would be getting what they richly deserve.
Maglor said:
Thanks.
I don't know, if everyone quit paying their taxes, the country would be a mess. No one to pay for police, firemen, teachers, etc. Sewer guys, you name it. Alot of places are barely scraping by as it is. I guess if you want to live in a cave and fend for yourself then I can see it.
Is that the same as the flat tax? I'm all for them coming up with something like that. Work it like sales tax and the money saved in paperwork alone would make it worth while. Automatically take it from your check and you never file taxes.
devilof76
Super Freak
I think flat tax is part of the Fair Tax, but not the only element.
Police are something that the goverment needs to provide (as well as courts and military) so they would have to be financed. I'm saying that it's not necessary to finance them compulsorily. If there have to be compulsory taxes, then those three things are the only thing the government should be taking money for.
Fire departments, schools, infrastructure, charity, are all services that can be provided privately, and would be infinitely better for it. They would be no different than any other service (food, water, housing, clothing, transportation, healthcare, entertainment, etc.) and would likely make the same kinds of profit that any industry does when it's driven by profit.
None of those things (and so many others) would need to be paid for in taxes and the tax burden from each citizen would be so insanely low, people would be more than happy to pay it, without having to be forced to, as they are now.
Police are something that the goverment needs to provide (as well as courts and military) so they would have to be financed. I'm saying that it's not necessary to finance them compulsorily. If there have to be compulsory taxes, then those three things are the only thing the government should be taking money for.
Fire departments, schools, infrastructure, charity, are all services that can be provided privately, and would be infinitely better for it. They would be no different than any other service (food, water, housing, clothing, transportation, healthcare, entertainment, etc.) and would likely make the same kinds of profit that any industry does when it's driven by profit.
None of those things (and so many others) would need to be paid for in taxes and the tax burden from each citizen would be so insanely low, people would be more than happy to pay it, without having to be forced to, as they are now.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
I think if fire departments were paid with insurance, the money invested by the largest property owners would take care of the majority of the cost. The people with the most to lose will pay to protect it. An insurance system would make fire protection readily available around the clock. If people want to partake in that protection, they can buy it. Since fire is rare, the more people that bought in, the cheaper it would get. Every policy above cost would be profit and it would impinge on that gain if the price was more than people could afford.
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
The problem with privatizing fire departments is the same problem with healthcare, unfortunately. The uninsured or uncovered would still receive the services they don't pay for.
I support the theory, but in practice it doesn't happen. Everyone knows that if a fire was blazing through a home, the fire will be put (or attempted to be put) out whether they are insured or not. 1)because the government would perceive it as cruel and unfair to not put out a fire and 2)not putting out the fire would allow it to spread to other homes.
This then increases premiums for everyone that responsibly pays for the insurance. So now we're to the point where if your home and safety is protected anyway, why pay the premiums at all?
I support the theory, but in practice it doesn't happen. Everyone knows that if a fire was blazing through a home, the fire will be put (or attempted to be put) out whether they are insured or not. 1)because the government would perceive it as cruel and unfair to not put out a fire and 2)not putting out the fire would allow it to spread to other homes.
This then increases premiums for everyone that responsibly pays for the insurance. So now we're to the point where if your home and safety is protected anyway, why pay the premiums at all?
Similar threads
