| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Omphalos" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2003 11:11:20 PM |
| Object: |
Slavery is still slavery |
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent. Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong. I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*, and it cannot be justified by any so-called common good that
comes of it. It was tried in Mississippi in the 1850's, and we will
not have it again. Or will we? What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income? You work, but someone else gets
100% of the benefits. Oh, they may give you a shed to live in, and
give you some food! But you are still a slave, because you had no
choice as to the arrangement!
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income, as it constitutes a form of
partial enslavement.
My body, my choice--my income, my choice.
And since I consider everyone ELSE (who is not convicted of a violent
crime) to be FREE PEOPLE, I cannot justify taxing their incomes any
more than I can justifying taxing mine.
Where have I gone wrong? Is 100% slavery absolutely wrong, but 50% or
25% or 17% slavery OK? Where and how do we draw the line?
Who can say that 17% slavery is acceptable, but that 19% is not?
Once it is established that partial slavery is legally and morally
acceptable, politics becomes a battle over how much your group gets to
enslave your neighbor, and how much her group gets to enslave you. (In
the flat-tax debate, this translates directly into a discussion of
which kinds of income will actually be counted as income, and which
kinds won't.)
In THAT political environment, taking personal responsibility becomes
more and more difficult, and less and less likely. In THAT
environment, the only "logical" choice is to play the politics of
envy, which leads to class division, which leads to hatred, which
leads to the destruction of civility.
As partial slaves, we must CATEGORICALLY REJECT the idea that our only
political choice is to gang up and try to enslave others. The only
real choice available to a slave is to escape the clutches of the
master, and to help other slaves escape the clutches of their masters.
Harriet Tubman was right.
We must choose between slavery, envy and dissension--on the one
hand--and freedom, choice, and voluntary association on the other.
Ah, but how do we support minimal govt, and keep it minimal? How do we
guarantee justice and human rights, defense of the nation, and a
system of law, WITHOUT this corrupting institution of partial slavery
known as the INCOME TAX?
I will leave the answer to a future posting, wheren I will
re-introduce the economic thinking of Henry George, a man who
influenced Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, and millions of people, a
century ago.
--
__________
=\ /================================
==\ /==You know how dumb the average==
===\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
=====\/====================================
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
| User: "Krisblake4eva" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
03 Jul 2003 05:47:30 AM |
|
|
Subject: Slavery is still slavery
From: Omphalos
Date: 7/3/03 12:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <I1OMa.239969$4y6.4073817@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent. Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
You're free to leave to go to a place where tax is not required of you -- the
African bushis a good start (it might do you some good.)
Krisblake
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
03 Jul 2003 12:11:07 AM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you benefit
from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police and fire
protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
03 Jul 2003 06:21:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:11:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you benefit
from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police and fire
protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Ray,
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most of
it's existance without an income tax. It is not the only way to fund a
government. It is just one of the worst ways.
Froggy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
04 Jul 2003 12:06:52 AM |
|
|
The Frog <jmatt@ticnet.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you benefit
from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police and fire
protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most of
it's existance without an income tax.
And for that same period the US was a 2nd tier nation, much less
powerful and influential than the great powers.
You could save a lot of money by making the military 1/10th its
current size, eliminating social security, paying off the debt,
selling off the national parks, and eliminating the FDIC and SEC.
But it's usually hypocrites who don't like taxes but still want a
lot of government spending.
It is not the only way to fund a
government. It is just one of the worst ways.
That you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
04 Jul 2003 01:56:32 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be4hi2$fjf$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
The Frog <jmatt@ticnet.com> wrote:
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most
of it's existance without an income tax.
And for that same period the US was a 2nd tier nation, much less
powerful and influential than the great powers.
You could save a lot of money by making the military 1/10th its
current size, eliminating social security, paying off the debt,
selling off the national parks, and eliminating the FDIC and SEC.
But it's usually hypocrites who don't like taxes but still want a
lot of government spending.
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25% of
federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was a
Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and eliminated
the deficit.
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They raised
spending out the roof
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Heishman lying yet again |
04 Jul 2003 02:05:34 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25% of
federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was a
Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and eliminated
the deficit.
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Heishman lying yet again |
04 Jul 2003 03:46:13 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25% of
federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was a
Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and eliminated
the deficit.
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
REAGAN's budget.
REAGAN's budget.
REAGAN's budget.
REAGAN's budget.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Ray Fischer lying yet again |
04 Jul 2003 04:05:39 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be4p2l$prq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25%
of
federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was a
Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and
eliminated
the deficit.
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
REAGAN's budget.
Who passed the budget Raymond?
Who approved and who disapproved?
REAGAN's budget.
Read above moron.
REAGAN's budget.
Read above moron.
REAGAN's budget.
Read above moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bobby Heishman lying yet again |
04 Jul 2003 04:14:53 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
What difference does that make, *****? Do you think it
wasn't Reagan's budget just because congress approved it?
Are you really so stup...
Tsk. Of course you are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Ray Fischer demonstrates his ignorance of U.S. politicis |
04 Jul 2003 04:51:43 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be4qoc$rng$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
What difference does that make, *****?
Makes a lot of difference.
Now answer the question
Who held the majority Raymond?
Do you think it
wasn't Reagan's budget just because congress approved it?
Can you answer the questions or are you afraid you will be exposed for what
I all ready know to be true...that you don't know what you are talking
about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Heishman demonstrates his ignorance of U.S. politicis |
04 Jul 2003 06:37:03 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
What difference does that make, *****?
Makes a lot of difference.
Why? It was still Reagan's budget.
Now answer the question
You first, hypocrite. What difference does it make?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Ray Fischer demonstrates his ignorance of U.S. politicis |
04 Jul 2003 06:41:46 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be532u$4h0$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
What difference does that make, *****?
Makes a lot of difference.
Why? It was still Reagan's budget.
Who held the majority Raymond?
Now answer the question
You first, hypocrite. What difference does it make?
You are the one who is making these claims about Reagan. The only one that
has anything to explain right now is you. Now..
who held the majority Raymond?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Robert Heishman shows that he is a spinless, lying coward |
04 Jul 2003 06:52:40 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
What difference does that make, *****?
Makes a lot of difference.
Why? It was still Reagan's budget.
Who held the majority Raymond?
And so you show everybody again that you're a lying little coward who
runs away every time your lies are exposed.
Now answer the question
You first, hypocrite. What difference does it make?
You are the one who is making these claims about Reagan.
Run away, coward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Ray Fischer shows that he is a spinless, lying coward |
04 Jul 2003 07:33:37 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be5407$5lf$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term.
They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's
term?
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
Who held the majority Raymon?
What difference does that make, *****?
Makes a lot of difference.
Why? It was still Reagan's budget.
Who held the majority Raymond?
And so you show everybody again that you're a lying little coward who
runs away every time your lies are exposed.
Who held the majority Raymond?
Now answer the question
You first, hypocrite. What difference does it make?
You are the one who is making these claims about Reagan.
Run away, coward.
Amazing, and yet you run when ever you are asked questions.
Who held the majority Raymond?
And have you EVER lied?
chirp...chirp..chirp
There go those crickets again
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Robert Heishman shows that he is a spinless, lying coward |
05 Jul 2003 02:11:02 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
What difference does that make, *****?
Makes a lot of difference.
Why? It was still Reagan's budget.
Who held the majority Raymond?
And so you show everybody again that you're a lying little coward who
runs away every time your lies are exposed.
Who held the majority Raymond?
Whose budget was it, coward?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arthur L. Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Heishman lying yet again |
07 Jul 2003 02:28:09 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<be4p2l$prq$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Pay attention, MORON: Congress passed REAGAN'S budget.
For what it's worth -- FALSE, MORON. Congress passed their own budget,
which resembled Reagan's budget.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer lying yet again |
07 Jul 2003 09:09:42 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be4j5t$hg5$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25% of
federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was a
Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and eliminated
the deficit.
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Fischer, doesn't like to look at this part folks.
Answer: Democrats
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Actually Democrats is only partly correct. The Republicans controlled
the Senate for the first 6 years of Regan's presidency. Democrats
controlled the Senate for the last two years and the house for all 8.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fischer lying yet again |
07 Jul 2003 02:36:22 PM |
|
|
"Bert Bishop" <bishop.11@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:3F097F26.65C79BBF@osu.edu...
Osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:be4j5t$hg5$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25%
of
federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was a
Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and
eliminated
the deficit.
Go tell that to the democrats during Reagan's second term. They
raised
spending out the roof
Congress passed Reagan's budget. Heishamn is lying.
Who held the majority of senate and congress during Reagan's term?
Fischer, doesn't like to look at this part folks.
Answer: Democrats
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Actually Democrats is only partly correct. The Republicans controlled
the Senate for the first 6 years of Regan's presidency. Democrats
controlled the Senate for the last two years and the house for all 8.
Thank you
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bye-Bye" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
13 Jul 2003 02:20:40 PM |
|
|
Just because someone thinks the so-called "income" tax is wrong, does
not make them a freeloader. How many taxes does the average American pay
less the "income" tax? You pay sales tax, excise taxes on just about all
consumable goods - gasoline - 45% of the cost is tax,how many gallons a
day are sold?? If you read the IRC you'll see many of the taxes. If the
government cannot run on the taxes it is currently taking in - then we
need to have people in office WHO can do the job........
Sovereign
Omphalos wrote:
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 01:06:52a, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:be321c$eij$1@bolt.sonic.net:
The Frog <jmatt@ticnet.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as
it is zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for
it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have always
thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to think in terms of absolute
morality, but human slavery is just plain *wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic terms, if not a 100% tax on
income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you
benefit from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police
and fire protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most
of it's existance without an income tax.
And for that same period the US was a 2nd tier nation, much less
powerful and influential than the great powers.
You could save a lot of money by making the military 1/10th its
current size, eliminating social security, paying off the debt,
selling off the national parks, and eliminating the FDIC and SEC.
But it's usually hypocrites who don't like taxes but still want a
lot of government spending.
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending. Although, lately
the Republicans have been guilty of it as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H. " |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
13 Jul 2003 02:29:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:20:40 -0500, Bye-Bye <goaway@goaway.com> wrote:
Just because someone thinks the so-called "income" tax is wrong, does
not make them a freeloader. How many taxes does the average American pay
less the "income" tax? You pay sales tax, excise taxes on just about all
consumable goods - gasoline - 45% of the cost is tax,how many gallons a
day are sold?? If you read the IRC you'll see many of the taxes. If the
government cannot run on the taxes it is currently taking in - then we
need to have people in office WHO can do the job........
Sovereign
The idea that paying income taxes is somehow akin to slavery is
fatally flawed in one very important respect:
Nobody is forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not
have that option.
Omphalos wrote:
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 01:06:52a, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:be321c$eij$1@bolt.sonic.net:
The Frog <jmatt@ticnet.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as
it is zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for
it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have always
thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to think in terms of absolute
morality, but human slavery is just plain *wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic terms, if not a 100% tax on
income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you
benefit from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police
and fire protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most
of it's existance without an income tax.
And for that same period the US was a 2nd tier nation, much less
powerful and influential than the great powers.
You could save a lot of money by making the military 1/10th its
current size, eliminating social security, paying off the debt,
selling off the national parks, and eliminating the FDIC and SEC.
But it's usually hypocrites who don't like taxes but still want a
lot of government spending.
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending. Although, lately
the Republicans have been guilty of it as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snabis snabis@plork" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
13 Jul 2003 03:38:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun 13 Jul 2003 03:29:42p, Adam H. < thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote
in news:mnc3hvomr5vvf68q53fer7eh4rouc18v72@4ax.com:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:20:40 -0500, Bye-Bye <goaway@goaway.com> wrote:
Just because someone thinks the so-called "income" tax is wrong, does
not make them a freeloader. How many taxes does the average American pay
less the "income" tax? You pay sales tax, excise taxes on just about all
consumable goods - gasoline - 45% of the cost is tax,how many gallons a
day are sold?? If you read the IRC you'll see many of the taxes. If the
government cannot run on the taxes it is currently taking in - then we
need to have people in office WHO can do the job........
Sovereign
The idea that paying income taxes is somehow akin to slavery is
fatally flawed in one very important respect:
Nobody is forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not
have that option.
Omphalos wrote:
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 01:06:52a, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:be321c$eij$1@bolt.sonic.net:
The Frog <jmatt@ticnet.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as
it is zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for
it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have always
thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to think in terms of absolute
morality, but human slavery is just plain *wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic terms, if not a 100% tax on
income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you
benefit from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police
and fire protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most
of it's existance without an income tax.
And for that same period the US was a 2nd tier nation, much less
powerful and influential than the great powers.
You could save a lot of money by making the military 1/10th its
current size, eliminating social security, paying off the debt,
selling off the national parks, and eliminating the FDIC and SEC.
But it's usually hypocrites who don't like taxes but still want a
lot of government spending.
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending. Although, lately
the Republicans have been guilty of it as well.
Sure he does. He can fucking kill himself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
04 Jul 2003 01:57:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 02:37:55p, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:be4hi2$fjf$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
The Frog <jmatt@ticnet.com> wrote:
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for
most of it's existance without an income tax.
And for that same period the US was a 2nd tier nation, much less
powerful and influential than the great powers.
You could save a lot of money by making the military 1/10th its
current size, eliminating social security, paying off the debt,
selling off the national parks, and eliminating the FDIC and SEC.
But it's usually hypocrites who don't like taxes but still want a
lot of government spending.
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25%
of federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was
a Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and
eliminated the deficit.
You must be living in a dream world.
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
04 Jul 2003 02:08:18 PM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
It's the Democrats who don't want to cut spending.
That's an obvious lie. In the past decades it has been Republicans
who have increased spending and racked up a debt so large that 25%
of federal income taxes just pays the interest on that debt. It was
a Democrat who cut spending, cut the size of government, and
eliminated the deficit.
You must be living in a dream world.
You must be in serious denial. The facts are there and are unambigious.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit went up to $330,000,000,000. When
Clinton took office it started to go down and became a surplus. Now
under Generallisimo Bush it's going to hit a record $400,000,000,000.
Of course you're stupid. You're rather believe in a fairy tale than
accept that your heroes are liars.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil MacRackin" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
03 Jul 2003 08:55:35 AM |
|
|
The Frog wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:11:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you benefit
from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police and fire
protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Ray,
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most of
it's existance without an income tax. It is not the only way to fund a
government. It is just one of the worst ways.
Times change. How does the military budget compare to "the good old
days". And don't forget the service on the debt that Reagan/Bush/Bush
racked up.
Froggy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
03 Jul 2003 11:05:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:55:35 -0400, Phil MacRackin
<pmr@plumberpants.com> wrote:
The Frog wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:11:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you benefit
from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police and fire
protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Ray,
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most of
it's existance without an income tax. It is not the only way to fund a
government. It is just one of the worst ways.
Times change. How does the military budget compare to "the good old
days". And don't forget the service on the debt that Reagan/Bush/Bush
racked up.
Agreed, we have a much larger government and it has a larger
responsibility and requires more cash. However, it doesn't change the
fact that there are other and better ways to finance it in a more
efficient manner.
Froggy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iceberg3k" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
04 Jul 2003 11:40:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:05:14 -0500, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:55:35 -0400, Phil MacRackin
<pmr@plumberpants.com> wrote:
The Frog wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:11:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as it is
zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just plain
*wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency and
money, you live under the protection of the US military, you benefit
from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy police and fire
protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Ray,
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for most of
it's existance without an income tax. It is not the only way to fund a
government. It is just one of the worst ways.
Times change. How does the military budget compare to "the good old
days". And don't forget the service on the debt that Reagan/Bush/Bush
racked up.
Agreed, we have a much larger government and it has a larger
responsibility and requires more cash. However, it doesn't change the
fact that there are other and better ways to finance it in a more
efficient manner.
Name them and give reasons why they are better.
And why the ***** is this crossposted to alt.startrek.vs.starwars?
-- Ice
"Now listen - strange women lying on Moons, distributin' Crystals is
no basis for a system of government! If I went around sayin' I was an
Empress, just because some loony bint had lobbed a diamond at me,
they'd put me away!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: Slavery is still slavery |
04 Jul 2003 12:01:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 12:40:45p, Iceberg3k
<maberger9590@webmail.winona.edu> wrote in
news:rebbgv00f2pn8di2v5863v1fubp17m4nqg@4ax.com:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:05:14 -0500, The Frog
<jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:55:35 -0400, Phil MacRackin
<pmr@plumberpants.com> wrote:
The Frog wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:11:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
As to the flat income tax, I am an ardent supporter, as long as
it is zero percent.
You enjoy the benefits of government but you dont' want to pay
for it.
Perhaps I have a simplistic, moralistic view, but I have
always thought that slavery was wrong.
There is no slavery.
I know it is unfashionable to
think in terms of absolute morality, but human slavery is just
plain *wrong*,
There is no slavery.
What is slavery, in simple economic
terms, if not a 100% tax on income?
Obviously you don't know.
Since I consider myself to be a free person, I can see no
justification for any taxes on my income,
That's because you're a whiny hypocrite. You use US currency
and money, you live under the protection of the US military, you
benefit from US laws, you drive on public roads, you enjoy
police and fire protection.
All that costs money.
If you don't want to pay any taxes then there aere still several
places in the world that do not require you to pay taxes.
Ray,
Please remember that the United States got along just fine for
most of it's existance without an income tax. It is not the only
way to fund a government. It is just one of the worst ways.
Times change. How does the military budget compare to "the good old
days". And don't forget the service on the debt that
Reagan/Bush/Bush racked up.
Agreed, we have a much larger government and it has a larger
responsibility and requires more cash. However, it doesn't change
the fact that there are other and better ways to finance it in a
more efficient manner.
Name them and give reasons why they are better.
And why the ***** is this crossposted to alt.startrek.vs.starwars?
Because they enjoy the attention.
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
