or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by MJ1970

  Perhaps the real problems are that we live in world where people assume that:   a) the amount in your bank account (or on your pay stub) don't reflect what you have brought or are bringing to society, and, b) that taxes (money taken by force and spent by the government) does reflect your contribution to society, and, c) that wealth you have earned (through voluntary exchanges) is "our common pool of wealth", and, d) that wealth exists simply because because we're a...
  So kind of you to share and pass your opinion off as it is were fact.  
  It will be a while (if ever). What question do you think I have that you think this book will answer? Because the main question I have right now is how this is in any way a response to my post.
  What ever you are trying to imply is lost on me. Why don't you just come right out and say what you're thinking?   In the mean time it is unclear how any of that is in any way a logical reply to what you quoted here:     If you believe those are not fallacies, that's fine. Shifting gears (and subject) to the writings of Ayn Rand smells like a red herring to me.
  Would have to read it first. No time (or interest) right now. As general rule though, I wouldn't consider selfishness virtuous. That said, I try to avoid judging a book by its title. 
  I have no problem (and strongly believe people should) be generous out of their personal wealth and help people in need. I disagree that this needs to be done through the government at all.       I know.       Thanks for sharing your opinion, however mis-informed it may be...at least regarding libertarians. The fallacy is thinking that advocating for liberty and against state provision of things implies taking a position against those things. The fallacy is thinking...
  You've done nothing whatsoever to clarify.       I know.       I know. It's called socialism and communism and Marxism.       If you don't understand, just admit it. I've not advocated us vs. them or me vs. the rest. That's just an ignorant assertion on your part.       I know.       Are you using this analogy because you don't understand the fundamental differences between the state and a sports team?       I understand looking out for others and even helping out those...
  That's part of it, but not all of it. The welfare start is another huge part. Bigger than the empire part. The amount of spending that goes to the basics government ought to be doing is probably only about 10-15% of what the total spending is now. The level of taxation to support that would be acceptable.       If you think the government has ever been about "leveling the playing field" you're wrong. It depends on the laws and what "protect the environment" means...
  Possibly. But, they'd probably pay about the same amount, possibly a bit less.   The real enemies of such a plan are politicians in general for whom the real level of taxation would now be exposed and become a liability, and Democrats/leftists/liberals in particular who would have a harder time trying to pit one class against another, punishing success, hard work and productivity, and trying to force the rich to pay for all of their spendy ways.   If we must tax, a...
  Or...just lower tax rates, streamline or eliminate deductions.   Or...even better...eliminate the (corporate and personal) income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.   Or...best...reduce the fucking spending by getting government (federal, state and local) out of doing the 90% of the crap it really has no business doing....and eliminate the (corporate and personal) income tax altogether and go with a national sales tax.
New Posts  All Forums: