As you know I’m against taxation. You are for it. I don’t want the state to dictate anything. You do. So what’s the problem with the state doing just what you want it to?

You realize everything you do is only possible because of taxes right? Roads, infrastructure, etc. A lot of what keeps this society running and your ability to post on the internet is due to taxes.

People who call taxation theft are IMO idiots who don't understand how societies function.

The stupidest thing anyone has ever believed is that only taxes can pay for roads and infrastructure. Private companies build the vast majority of roads and infrastructure, and they don’t collect taxes.

Private companies build the vast majority of roads and infrastructure, and they don’t collect taxes. — NOS4A2

Those are toll roads. They do collect funds, they just don't call it taxes.

I meant construction companies do not collect taxes.

I meant construction companies do not collect taxes. — NOS4A2

It's not their job to collect taxes. They do receive public funds for public works, though.

They receive contracts from governments and private people. The point is, governments do not build roads.

The point is, governments do not build roads. — NOS4A2

They could if they wanted to.

I still don’t think race and gender ideology ought to be taught in public schools. — NOS4A2

Way to legislate your own feelings. So you’re fine with restricting the rights of others if it suits your fascist agenda. Got it.

So you’re fine with restricting the rights of others if it suits your fascist agenda. — Mikie

There's absolutely nothing fascist about his agenda.

Pretty sure roads and stuff are maintained through state funds. Also private companies suck at maintaining infrastructure, just look what happen in Europe when the railways were privatized, it was a disaster.

Once again you avoid answering the question. It is not a matter of whether or not you are against taxes. Taxes are paid.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent? It can't be the tax-payers if there are tax-payers on both sided of the issue. This is the same problem you refuse to face with "we". For you it really means "you". — Fooloso4

Eh, at this point it’s like whack-a-mole. Almost random snippets, but no consistency and no logic. Perhaps leave the man and his fascist agenda to his dreamworld and let him be happy with that.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent?

They same people who you want to decide how your money is spent get to decide how your money is spent. How is this so difficult?

Yeah I figured that a bit ago, dude just seems like a troll.

it’s possible. Look at civil rights, women’s rights, gay marriage, even attitudes towards marijuana. — Mikie

Yeah, sure we do make progress. What matter, I think, is how. Did those campaigns succeed just by continually banging the drum, or was it something else? Or... did some succeed just by attrition where others needed something more. Let's not forget, the authorities were, at one point, terrified of the civil rights movement. It was not sufficient for them to merely point out the law needed changing. and yet with gay marriage (not that I'd want to undermine the excellent campaigning done toward that end, but...) it was pretty easily won, by comparison. All that was required really was to keep pointing out how unfair it was and eventually there was enough political will to act.

If you look at the trajectory of progressive success over the last 100 years, I don't think it's random. we've seen an unrelenting concentration of power and wealth in the hands of an increasingly small number of people, but alongside that an increasing amount of freedom regarding the expression of individual identity. Lifestyle choices, sexuality, family etc all seem very much on the cards for progressive change. Economics very much a battle fought tooth and nail for every millimetre of ground.

Hence my pessimism. It's not that I don't see progress, it's that I see that progress being very specific. I think a movement to restrict gun ownership to those with a licence (if easily obtained) might work, and would certainly help - because it's not an economic change, it doesn't really change the fundamental sociao0economic structure of the country. But it also won't help (not much anyway). The country is so suffuse with gun that a psycho is going to have little trouble getting hold of one, licence or no.

What's needed to have an impact, is a change in culture (so that there's actually fewer guns around), and that removes a huge economic tranche from the system (not to mention changing a culture which makes good compliant little consumers out of the now terrified population). That's an economic change, and if history is anything to go by, those in power are going to have to be terrified of those pushing for change before anything will happen... At the moment, they're not even missing a step over it. they have a totally compliant population who treat the word of authority as if it were gospel, why on earth would they change?

Eh, at this point it’s like whack-a-mole. Almost random snippets, but no consistency and no logic. Perhaps leave the man and his fascist agenda to his dreamworld and let him be happy with that. — Mikie

There's nothing random about his posts. They're very consistent and logical. If you familiarize yourself with fascism, you'll see that his view is exactly the opposite of it.

There's nothing random about his posts. They're very consistent and logical. If you familiarize yourself with fascism, you'll see that his view is exactly the opposite of it. — frank

It's not the foundation that's inconsistent and illogical, it's the manifestation. One can reasonably hold an ideological position that we ought maximise individual freedom, that we ought not impose on others, that we ought let people say what they want and manage the consequences... These are perhaps not positions I agree with, but they are valid foundational principles and (as you say) not fascist.

But the issue is how to get there from here. It's in that issue that the inconsistency is manifest, as is the fascism. Taking what we currently have, for example, and just ditching government regulation is fascism (it would be a fascism of corporate rule).

It is inconsistent to argue, for example, for current wage and property practices (predicated entirely on the assumption of taxation) and then argue also for the removal of those taxes.

Positions which hold individual freedom as paramount are not, in themselves, the problem. It's position which want to take all the benefits accrued from not have done so for millennia and then keep the wealth whilst ditching the responsibility. That's the inconsistency.

Taking what we currently have, for example, and just ditching government regulation is fascism (it would be a fascism of corporate rule). — Isaac

Fascism is specifically about nationalism and an aggressive military. The ills of corporate rule are not correctly called "fascism ". It's just the dark side of liberalism.

I think a movement to restrict gun ownership to those with a licence (if easily obtained) might work, and would certainly help - because it's not an economic change, it doesn't really change the fundamental sociao0economic structure of the country. But it also won't help (not much anyway). — Isaac

It would have helped in this case. And at least it’s a sensible start. Gotta start with the low hanging fruit.

But I don’t disagree: for significant changes to happen, you need to tackle issues like power — wealth inequality, etc., and that is certainly harder and will receive more pushback.

As long as pessimism isn’t a preventative for action, I’ve no problem with it.

They same people — NOS4A2

According to what you have said:

People = human beings = we

I don’t get it.

I don’t get it. — NOS4A2

Yes. That is the point. You are unable to think through what you say. Go back, starting with your rejection of the general or common good and go step by step to your acceptance of "we the people" to the tangled mess you are in now.

Oh dear. My rejecting of the “common good” and “we the people” does not prohibit me from using first-person plurals. What an odd little angle you’ve taken.

Like you said, you don't get it.

Only for you would the use of a first-person plural lead you nowhere.

It is talking to you that leads nowhere.

I can’t blame someone for getting on the tax-payer gravy chain, vying for state contracts, and becoming ultra-wealthy thereby. But it is stolen money. Anyone can do any of the above without stealing someone’s money and without forced cooperation.

I can’t blame someone for getting on the tax-payer gravy chain — NOS4A2

Or gravy train. It's excellent gravy.

Hah. Thanks.