or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Chevy Volt: The Car from Atlas Shrugged aka perspective for regulation folks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chevy Volt: The Car from Atlas Shrugged aka perspective for regulation folks

post #1 of 163
Thread Starter 
Forbes.com

Quote:
The Chevrolet Volt is beginning to look like it was manufactured by Atlas Shrugged Motors, where the government mandates everything politically correct, rewards its cronies and produces junk steel.

This is the discussion that increasingly is harder to make clear to folks when discussions are occurring regarding the effectiveness of business. Once government gets to a certain size or controls a sizable percentage of the market, the markets are no longer effective and thus become something else other than free. We then get complaints about how terrible business happens to be and how they aren't efficient or productive.

The problem isn't business but a corrupt government taxing business to fund crony-capitalism. When people complain about Wall St. or especially lately, about Big Banks, how can any ignore Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Sally Mae, and the supposedly independent Federal Reserve all manipulating the markets. When your government can fight you with your own energies and efforts, by effectively taxing them away, the only real choice becomes to play the game they want or go extinct.

When you look at the fact that we have bubble after bubble in our economy, it is because the government stimulates them. If you want the bubbles and graft to mostly go away, then you need to get the government out of them.

The Chevy Volt is probably the clearest and purest recent example of this. The government engineered a type of pseudo-bankruptcy/not really bankruptcy to deliver the companies to unions. Then they gave them massive loans and subsidies. Partially out of this has come the Chevy Volt, a completely ineffecient and ineffective solution but perhaps a few will sell because on top of all that "assistance" there is a $7500 tax credit attached to it.

Every step of the process has a government stamp on it but who will get the blame if it fails, why big business of course.

Quote:
This is the car that subsidies built. General Motors lobbied for a $7,500 tax refund for all buyers, under the shaky (if not false) promise that it was producing the first all-electric mass-production vehicle.

Why do they need a government tax credit, because union laborers/owners are building half the car at twice the price.

Quote:
In other words, GM was desperate for customers for what they perceived would be an unpopular vehicle before one even hit the road. It had hoped to lure more if buyers subtracted the $7,500 from the $41,000 sticker price. Instead, as Consumer Reports found out, the car was very pricey. The version they tested cost $43,700 plus a $5,000 dealer markup ("Don't worry," I can hear the salesperson saying, "you'll get more than that back in your tax credit!"), or a whopping $48,700 minus the credit.

This is one reason that Volt sales are anemic: 326 in December, 321 in January, and 281 in February. GM announced a production run of 100,000 in the first two years. Who is going to buy all these cars?

The "market" even with government intervention doesn't want these cars. However there are ways to solve that as well. You just engage in some more cronyism.

Quote:
Recently, President Obama selected General Electric ( GE - news - people ) CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Economic Advisory Board. GE is awash in windmills waiting to be subsidized so they can provide unreliable, expensive power.

Consequently, and soon after his appointment, Immelt announced that GE will buy 50,000 Volts in the next two years, or half the total produced. Assuming the corporation qualifies for the same tax credit, we (you and me) just shelled out $375,000,000 to a company to buy cars that no one else wants so that GM will not tank and produce even more cars that no one wants. And this guy is the chair of Obama's Economic Advisory Board?

Forbes recently published their list or richest people in the world. They then noted that the combined assets of every billionaire and their assets on the planet, not just the United States, equaled $7 trillion dollars.

The cumulative wealth of all of them could finance just the deficit financing of the Obama administration for around one term, perhaps a bit more. We are talking about just the deficit, not the actual spending which is $3.8 trillion per year and thus the world's billionaires couldn't even fund the U.S. government for two years.

The problem isn't the rich. The problem isn't capitalism. The problem isn't caring or sharing.

The problem is the looters and the ever growing and ever more expensive "solutions" they are throwing out there to justify their looting.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

he Chevrolet Volt is beginning to look like it was manufactured by Atlas Shrugged Motors.

What? They've made a car that doesn't work, has no engine and is derided by anyone who knows anything about engineering but looks so fucking awful no-one ever takes it out the showroom except adolescent pimply youths who can't get laid and yet it STILL makes wingnuts cream their pants?????

Shit....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #3 of 163
Quote:
The problem isn't the rich. The problem isn't capitalism. The problem isn't caring or sharing.

The problem is the looters and the ever growing and ever more expensive "solutions" they are throwing out there to justify their looting.

This is the way of the globalists.

They have taken away free markets and enslaved virtually all of us with their control grid of evil.

Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma, you get the picture.

Ohh and BIG government which takes the rest of our once held freedoms away from us.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #4 of 163
When will GM recall them all, to be destroyed?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #5 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

This is the way of the globalists.

They have taken away free markets and enslaved virtually all of us with their control grid of evil.

Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma, you get the picture.

Ohh and BIG government which takes the rest of our once held freedoms away from us.

Fellows

Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma IS the real big government.

The thing we call "government" that we "elect" (at the upper echelon especially) is only there for the bidding of the above. We the people may have had a say in the past, but now we're are not in the loop one solitary iota.... apart from on the local level.

The republican vs democrat charade is a big distraction... and many are taken in by it.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 163
This is why I support the government basically staying the hell out of stuff. It's impossible for these jackasses not dole out handouts to labor union, industries, cronies, civic groups, businesses. It's partly why earmarks are such a huge deal. Sure they are a blip on the budget but Congressman Greasemypalm will vote for any bad law or billion dollar economic scheme so long as his pet project gets X million. The systems is horrible broken but I don't have a solution that doesn't more us away from democracy.
post #7 of 163
Thread Starter 
ROUND 2

I seldom copy/paste entire articles but this one is so concise and full of information that I feel I must.

Quote:
Leadership: Obama critics were quick to link U.S. loans for Brazil oil to benefits for his investor pal George Soros. There was no link in this case, but considering how this president operates, it's no wonder suspicions ran high.

The president's announcement that his administration would lend billions of dollars to develop Brazil's offshore oil reserves left many Americans flabbergasted.


After all, he had issued two drilling moratoriums in U.S. waters and then was declared in contempt of court for defying a federal judge who ordered the moratoriums reversed. Some wondered if the president wasn't intentionally acting against U.S. interests.

Others wanted to know if pleasing political campaign contributors was the idea. The name of Soros, the leftist billionaire, came up because he'd held stock in Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company. But he dumped the shares six months ago.

Our disengaged president has said little as the Arab world is engulfed in revolution and has been absent as a huge budget battle plays out in Congress. But some lines can be drawn between his more inexplicable decisions and cronyism.

Indeed, many of Obama's decisions have been all about benefiting special interests and political friends what's been called the Chicago Way. Whatever it's called, it's in the interests of the few at the expense of the whole. Some examples:

Obama's firm support for nuclear energy in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis. We don't fault his position, but it's worth noting that General Electric is a principal constructor of nuclear power plants, and its CEO is a close Obama ally.

Jeffrey Immelt was named to a White House jobs board, where he baffled many by declaring no core inflation in the U.S. and supported the administration's big spending. Was there an exchange of favors?

Obama's praise for Solyndra Inc. as the first recipient of $535 million of stimulus cash in 2009 to hire 1,000 workers for "green jobs." The company had never shown a profit, but that was no obstacle to getting the cash, and in the end the Fremont, Calif.-based solar panel manufacturer never came through.

However, Solyndra's majority owner, billionaire George Kaiser, was a top fundraiser for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign.

During the U.S. auto bailout of 2008 and 2009, Obama's ally, the United Auto Workers, saw its unsecured claims win out over those of secured bondholders, an unprecedented alteration of bankruptcy law that violated bondholders' legal rights. The move was augmented by a politically motivated investigation against rival Toyota, with Transport Secretary Ray LaHood telling Americans not to buy Toyotas.

The Health and Human Services Department gave 1,040 Section 2711 waivers on onerous ObamaCare regulations, which enabled labor unions and businesses to avoid the burdensome costs of the new law.

"Naturally, a disproportionate share of those receiving waivers are unions, some of Obama's biggest political allies," wrote IBD's David Hogberg in a blog post Monday.

The list goes on. If there's any pattern here, it's that of a president who makes a clear decision only if it's to help someone who can help him or who already has.

That's not leadership. That's cronyism, and history is a harsh judge to such leaders.

BINGO!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 163
best place to sell motorcycle online
Quote:
Online shopping stores are also another useful way to buy and sell your cars on good price. As the menace of the internet is prevailing around the world there is an ever increased number of internet users across the globe.



If you are a business personal and bored with your old car model and are interested to buy a new car model of the same company or any other car brand, then first you might have to get rid of the old car
post #9 of 163
Great services and products do not require government subsidies. They sell themselves.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #10 of 163
So you are in favor of ending ALL government subsidies? You do realize government effectively subsidizes religion by not taxing it. If it's such a good product, wouldn't it sell itself?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So you are in favor of ending ALL government subsidies? You do realize government effectively subsidizes religion by not taxing it. If it's such a good product, wouldn't it sell itself?

I've missed ya, BR.

NOT taxing something is subsidizing it?

I'm not breaking into your home, beating you up, and stealing your valuables BR. By your logic, that's the same as me giving you money.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I've missed ya, BR.

NOT taxing something is subsidizing it?

I'm not breaking into your home, beating you up, and stealing your valuables BR. By your logic, that's the same as me giving you money.

My property is subject to property taxes. Churches are not. My salary is subject to taxes which clergy can either take more deductions on or dodge entirely.

That is clearly the government subsidizing religious activity. Giving one group preferred tax status over another IS supporting that first group.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

My property is subject to property taxes. Churches are not. My salary is subject to taxes which clergy can either take more deductions on or dodge entirely.

That is clearly the government subsidizing religious activity. Giving one group preferred tax status over another IS supporting that first group.

Thanks for ignoring my example.

The government does not have the ability to levy taxes without initiating force and coercion. Refraining from stealing someone's money under threat of violence against him or his property is not the same as giving him money (subsidizing him).

Your argument is invalid.

If the government is actually giving money to churches that it has forcibly taken from someone else (tax money), you might have a point.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #14 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Thanks for ignoring my example.

The government does not have the ability to levy taxes without initiating force and coercion. Refraining from stealing someone's money under threat of violence against him or his property is not the same as giving him money (subsidizing him).

Your argument is invalid.

If the government is actually giving money to churches that it has forcibly taken from someone else (tax money), you might have a point.

So you are saying charging one person taxes but not another is NOT favoring the person getting away tax free? You are saying the person not paying taxing is NOT getting a better deal? You are saying the person not paying taxes is NOT being treated favorably?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #15 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So you are saying charging one person taxes but not another is NOT favoring the person getting away tax free? You are saying the person not paying taxing is NOT getting a better deal? You are saying the person not paying taxes is NOT being treated favorably?

You've ignored my example, yet again.

I am talking about government subsidies. You know. The government actually giving money (that it has acquired through initiation of force) to someone to do something or buy a product or service.

The government is not giving tax money to churches.

Apples and oranges.

BTW, 50% of U.S. households don't pay income tax.

Are you honestly suggesting that the government is subsidizing or "favoring" these people because it doesn't tax them?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #16 of 163
Yes. As many of them should, because a majority of those people are economically disadvantaged and need the assistance. I'm not ignoring your example. I take issue with your idea that taxes are theft in the first place. Did you got to MJ's Winter Ultra-Libertarian Training Camp when you were gone?

I understand that you are desperately trying to narrow the parameters of this discussion to taxes only. I am saying there is more than one way to favor a party.

A party can be favored if:

*It is given money directly by the government.
*It has less money taken by the government.

Both count as favoritism. Sorry.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #17 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes. As many of them should, because a majority of those people are economically disadvantaged and need the assistance. I'm not ignoring your example. I take issue with your idea that taxes are theft in the first place. Did you got to MJ's Winter Ultra-Libertarian Training Camp when you were gone?

I understand that you are desperately trying to narrow the parameters of this discussion to taxes only. I am saying there is more than one way to favor a party.

A party can be favored if:

*It is given money directly by the government.
*It has less money taken by the government.

Both count as favoritism. Sorry.

Except that he started by talking about subsidies. You changed the terms of the discussion (which is fine)...but this leads to talking past one another.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes. As many of them should, because a majority of those people are economically disadvantaged and need the assistance. I'm not ignoring your example. I take issue with your idea that taxes are theft in the first place. Did you got to MJ's Winter Ultra-Libertarian Training Camp when you were gone?

I understand that you are desperately trying to narrow the parameters of this discussion to taxes only. I am saying there is more than one way to favor a party.

A party can be favored if:

*It is given money directly by the government.
*It has less money taken by the government.

Both count as favoritism. Sorry.

In all fairness, you are the one who brought taxes into the discussion, not me.

You are equating not stealing money from a party with giving money to a party. I am saying that assertion is not based in reality.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #19 of 163
I'm not talking about stealing. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 163
GM's bigger problem is that the sort of people who would spend 45k on an electric car would never buy a GM, purely due to branding issues. The left-leaning elite despise US carmakers, which is amusingly ironic because even the domestically (or canadian) manufactured Toyota/Lexus vehicles and German brands are not union-built.

That said, I wouldn't buy a chevy either, unless it were a ZR1: not my style. But people who buy Priuses should have a harder time arguing style than I do. I keep waiting for Mazda to release the next RX-7 .
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #21 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not talking about stealing. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

Stop paying your income taxes. See what the government does to you.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Stop paying your income taxes. See what the government does to you.

I'm not following. Are you saying taxes are theft because the government can punish you for not paying them?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #23 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not following. Are you saying taxes are theft because the government can punish you for not paying them?

They are theft because they are taken by force. It's that simple.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

This is the way of the globalists.

They have taken away free markets and enslaved virtually all of us with their control grid of evil.

Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma, you get the picture.

Ohh and BIG government which takes the rest of our once held freedoms away from us.

Fellows

Globalism is starting to change shape, now that the western markets are decaying. Globalism used to mean: do things the way EU bureaucrats would appreciate. Now, there are entities like BRIC that basically operate on their own designs, and they are not warm and fuzzy. The EU itself seems to be at a tipping point, too, with immigration problems at the center of it. If gradual measures are not taken to eliminate failed big government spending, an abrupt reset will occur, sooner or later, when the debt collapses and the global markets are not interested in our non-competitive offerings. Either way, smaller government is inevitable.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #25 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not following. Are you saying taxes are theft because the government can punish you for not paying them?

From For a New Liberty:

Quote:
At first, of course, it is startling for someone to consider taxation as robbery, and therefore government as a band of robbers. But anyone who persists in thinking of taxation as in some sense a "voluntary" payment can see what happens if he chooses not to pay. The great economist Joseph Schumpeter, himself by no means a libertarian, wrote that "the state has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."4 The eminent Viennese "legal positivist" Hans Kelsen attempted, in his treatise, The General Theory of Law and the State, to establish a political theory and justification of the State, on a strictly "scientific" and value-free basis. What happened is that early in the book, he came to the crucial sticking-point, the pons asinorum of political philosophy: What distinguishes the edicts of the State from the commands of a bandit gang? Kelsen's answer was simply to say that the decrees of the State are "valid," and to proceed happily from there, without bothering to define or explain this concept of "validity." Indeed, it would be a useful exercise for nonlibertarians to ponder this question: How can you define taxation in a way which makes it different from robbery?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #26 of 163
Disagree. There are numerous arguments against the idea that taxes are theft. I liked the concision of this one.

Quote:
Libertarians say that taxation is like theft because it takes property from the unwilling. What they ignore, time and time again, is the crucial role of democratic consent. Taxes are not arbitrary impositions decreed by a faceless government. Rather, taxes are the dues we pay in exchange for membership in a society and access to all the services it offers.

The situation can be compared to a private club that charges a membership fee in exchange for providing benefits and amenities to its members. Obviously, the club is within its rights to charge whatever price it believes fair in exchange for this. If you believe the price is too high, you're free to renounce your membership and leave the club. What you're not free to do is to refuse to pay, but demand that you still be allowed to sit in the club and use its facilities. Nor are you free, if the club doesn't offer this option, to decide that you only use some of its services - only the swimming pool, say, but not the sauna or the tennis courts - and should therefore have the right to pay a prorated membership fee. But these options, clearly absurd in this thought experiment, are the same ones libertarians claim they have a right to exercise in the real world.

The analogy of the club can be transferred in a precise way to society as a whole. Society is the club, and taxes are the membership dues we pay in exchange for the services it provides. If you don't want to pay, if you dislike its terms, you can leave that society and seek another one. But you are not free to unilaterally demand that society rewrite its terms to favor your particular preferences.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #27 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Disagree. There are numerous arguments against the idea that taxes are theft. I liked the concision of this one.

Again, from For a New Liberty:

Quote:
To the great nineteenth-century individualist anarchist — and constitutional lawyer — Lysander Spooner, there was no problem in finding the answer. Spooner's analysis of the State as robber group is perhaps the most devastating ever written: [p. 52]

Quote:
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other . . . .

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, say to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.5

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #28 of 163
Again, I see it differently. Taxes are a part of the social contract. They are not theft.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 163
From http://gretachristina.typepad.com/gr...-of-taxes.html

Said rather poignantly.

Quote:
IN PRAISE OF TAXES

I realize that griping about taxes is an ancient tradition. Especially, in America, on or around April 15th. It's an ancient tradition that, this year, has been formalized in the easily and endlessly mockable "teabagging" protests.

No, I'm not going to make cheap jokes about teabagging. Every single cheap joke that could be possibly be made about teabagging has been made on MSNBC in the last few days.

Today, instead, I want to buck this long-standing tradition.

Today, I want to speak in praise of taxes.

Look. I don't passionately love paying taxes, either. (I'm especially cranky about it this year, since there was a miscommunication about my withholding and I had to write a big-ass check today.)

But I drive on the highways that my taxes pay for. I hang out in the parks that my taxes pay for. I go to the libraries that my taxes pay for. I flush my toilet into the sewer pipes that my taxes pay for. When I set fire to my stove that one time, I called the fire department that my taxes paid for.

And there are all the invisible things as well, the things our taxes pay for that we don't notice until they disappear. There's the rat hairs that I'm not eating, because my taxes are paying for health inspectors to see that the restaurants I eat at are clean and safe. There's the filth that isn't piling up in the streets, because my taxes are paying for street sweepers. There's the tuberculosis that I don't have, because my taxes are paying for public health officials to stem the resurgent tide of TB.

I take advantage of the things my taxes pay for. And I'm lucky enough to live in a society that is more or less democratic, where I have something that resembles a voice in how my taxes are spent. If I don't like the way our taxes are being spent, I can vote out the people who decide how to spend them, and vote in people who'll spend them the way I want them to.

So how, exactly, is paying taxes tyrannical, or unfair, or the hand of the government picking our pockets?

As I've written before: The basic idea of democratic government -- what it ought to be, and what much of the time it is -- is a society pooling some of its resources to provide itself with structures and services that make that society function smoothly and promote the common good. And it's the structure a society uses to decide how those pooled resources should be used.

Taxes are, quite literally, the pooling of these resources. To oppose paying taxes is to oppose the idea of society itself. It is to oppose the idea of pooling resources. It is to oppose the idea of working together for the common good... and to support, instead, a social philosophy of "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine." You want to live in a world with no functioning government? Move to Somalia.

(Some people want government and taxes, and the services they provide, replaced with private enterprise and volunteerism. My problem with that is: Where's the accountability? Where's the process by which I can vote for how I want my fire extinguishing money spent... or can get rid of people who I think are spending it corruptly or stupidly? And besides, I don't want my fires put out by people who are primarily concerned with making a profit, and are therefore doing cost-benefit analysis about whether my house fire is really worth extinguishing.)

Reflexive griping about taxes always reminds me of the Simpsons episode, the one where the bear gets into the streets of Springfield and the town goes nuts. They demand an elaborate, 24-hour bear patrol... but when they get their paychecks and see that they're five dollars short because of the bear patrol tax, they're outraged.

I think Americans are all too often exactly like that. We want the bear patrol, but we don't want to pay for it. And all too often, like Mayor Quimby, our elected officials are all too willing to pander to us. Hardly any elected official will ever run for office in the U.S. on a platform of "I'm going to raise taxes, so we can pay for services we all want and need."

It's commonly assumed that this state of affairs is the natural order. Human nature. It's taken as a given that of course nobody wants to pay taxes, that of course political hash will always be made out of griping about them. And in a Springfieldian, bear-patrol way, to some extent it's true. Of course we would all love for there to be roads and parks, fire departments and sewers, clean streets and plague-free cities... all without anyone having to pay for it. Provided by benevolent elves, perhaps.

But I also think that this is a U.S. phenomenon as much as it is human nature. Look at European countries like, say, France. In France, this reflexive anti-tax sentiment just doesn't play. I'm sure people gripe about taxes in France, too... but most people there seem to basically get that taxes are the price you pay for living in a society and providing the things that make a society function.

And I would like to start shifting the way Americans think about it, too.

I think that those of us who care about government -- who think that government is a salvageable idea and one that works more or less right at least a fair amount of the time, those of who think that as sucky as government often is it sure beats the alternative -- need to speak up in praise and defense of taxes. On and around tax day, I'd like to see fewer gripes about the horribleness of taxes, and more commentary and news stories and blog posts and such about why the hell we pay them. On and around tax day, I'd like to see news outlets do a series on "the things your taxes are paying for." I'd like to see people sporting "I Paid My Taxes" buttons on April 15th, the way we sport "I Voted" stickers on Election Day. I'd like to see April 15th get treated as a patriotic day, the way we treat the Fourth of July and Memorial Day.

We need to remind people -- and ourselves -- that, at least in a democracy, "paying taxes" basically just means "society working together to make all of our lives better." It's socially responsible. It's patriotic. And it's no more tyrannical than everyone on the softball team kicking in a few bucks for pizza.

You sometimes see cute little stories in the news, about how on such and such a day of the year, you're no longer working for the government, and from now on for the rest of the year you're working for yourself. It's a story based on the concept that you pay about a fourth to a third of your income in taxes, and if you break that down by year instead of by paycheck, you'll have paid off your year's worth of taxes on such and such a day.

But it's a story that I do not accept.

Because when I'm working to pay taxes, I am still working for myself.

And I'm working for everyone else in the society I live in.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, I see it differently. Taxes are a part of the social contract. They are not theft.

What contract? There is no "social contract" that's a fantasy, a fabrication of the imagination, a pink unicorn that's used as an catch all excuse to do whatever you want to force people to do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 163
The social contract is fantasy but god is real. Got it. And with that, it's time for me to take my leave from your Bizarro world. I've wasted enough time this afternoon on this nonsense.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #32 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The social contract is fantasy but god is real. Got it. And with that, it's time for me to take my leave from your Bizarro world. I've wasted enough time this afternoon on this nonsense.

It's interesting how you cannot go very long without resorting to insults.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's interesting how you cannot go very long without resorting to insults.

I've noticed that, too.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #34 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

From http://gretachristina.typepad.com/gr...-of-taxes.html

Said rather poignantly.

You really think so? Regardless of the position you take on the matter, this should come across like a childish (i.e. naive) set of arguments. It is full of generally ridiculous premises. I would expect better from a good high school student. I get that you like the idea of a social democracy. That's all you really have to say. Citing resources like this doesn't help your cause.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #35 of 163
There's just far too much of this "taxes are theft" nonsense going around here. I'm sorry that we disagree on the validity of the content of the article.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #36 of 163
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Disagree. There are numerous arguments against the idea that taxes are theft. I liked the concision of this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, I see it differently. Taxes are a part of the social contract. They are not theft.

You'll not get any argument from me on your premise here BR. The problem comes in a two-fold manner though. First, it appears that the equal protection clause has been applied in every aspect of our rights except for taxes. I've always thought that a bit strange. To use your analogies, you belong to the social club along with everyone else, but for some reason you notice some people in the club get to pay no dues and others have to pay double or triple dues. You notice that with regard to services the club provides that some services have "_________ only" next to them to keep out certain groups.

It's pretty to see how this would and should be addressed if this were a golf club or military school and the groups were minorities or women. The question becomes why does this protection seem to stop when it is wealth or men?

Title IX is a great example. Colleges are still having to shut down men's sports teams out of fear it discouraging women from attending college when women are almost 60% of the college population. The federal reserve is destroying the ability of the populace to save to reward many consumers who often are spending money redistributed to them by the government in the first place. Crony capitalism is running amok. No contract supports those nor should people that want good social contracts.

The social compact makes sense when applied equally and when services do not go beyond the agreed upon intended agreement. If you own a condo and the board suddenly decreed the roof needed repair but you ought to be assessed triple for it and your neighbor nothing, you'd cry foul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What contract? There is no "social contract" that's a fantasy, a fabrication of the imagination, a pink unicorn that's used as an catch all excuse to do whatever you want to force people to do.

I'd call the original intent of our Constitution a social contract by BR's definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

You really think so? Regardless of the position you take on the matter, this should come across like a childish (i.e. naive) set of arguments. It is full of generally ridiculous premises. I would expect better from a good high school student. I get that you like the idea of a social democracy. That's all you really have to say. Citing resources like this doesn't help your cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There's just far too much of this "taxes are theft" nonsense going around here. I'm sorry that we disagree on the validity of the content of the article.

Taxes aren't necessarily theft but if they are not paying for an agreed upon shared benefit, or don't give a return then that would be considered theft. You certainly would consider this to be true in any other walk of life.

I found an article BR that you may or may not appreciate BR and it deals with the many paradoxes within the environmental movement. From many environmental views, infrastructure is a bad thing. I'm certain that most wealthy people and most Republicans have no real qualms with infrastructure. Yet we know here in California despite massive taxes, the infrastructure is crumbling. Infrastructure brings economic growth and also people, both of which are anathemas to environmental views. Thus we have income transfer payments instead of the items that would help build a sense of community.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 163
Taxes in and of themselves are not necessarily theft. It is the manner in which they are collected that can be theft.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #38 of 163
GM Sold 125 Volts Last Month

Quote:
The July sales numbers are out and the Chevy Volt continues to electrify (get it?) the country. GM sold … 125 Volts last month!

Way back in March I made fun of the Volt for selling 281 units in February. Turns out, February was a good month. But wait, there’s more! GM says they’re going to increase production to 5,000 Volts per month in order to keep up with demand. You see, they claim that the reason the Volt isn’t selling is that they can’t keep enough cars on the lot. A GM spokeswoman recently claimed that they are “virtually sold out.” Which is virtually true. Mark Modica called around his local Chevy dealers and found plenty of Volts waiting for an environmentally conscious driver to bring them home.

All told, GM has sold close to 2,700 Volts. (Funny aside: There’s a Volt in my neighborhood and a Volt that parks in my garage at work. So I see almost 0.1 percent of all the Volts in America on a daily basis.) But hey, the EV future is just around the corner.

Nissan seems to be faring better with their Leaf, which has surpassed the Volt in total sales. They sold 931 Leafs in July, but that number is down 46% from June.

Sell a product people want at a price they want and they will buy it. Bribing people with their own money (tax incentives) doesn't seem to be working.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #39 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

GM Sold 125 Volts Last Month



Nissan seems to be faring better with their Leaf, which has surpassed the Volt in total sales. They sold 931 Leafs in July, but that number is down 46% from June.

Sell a product people want at a price they want and they will buy it. Bribing people with their own money (tax incentives) doesn't seem to be working.

That number really surprises me. I know a person here at work that bought one as well. So I guess I know of .05% of the volts on the road?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #40 of 163
I see nothing's changed in the years I've been gone. Trumptman's unbridled hatred for the electric vehicle still rages strong I see.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Chevy Volt: The Car from Atlas Shrugged aka perspective for regulation folks