It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CanuckCoder
reply to post by jontap
In my country if you don't pay your taxes, your returns are confiscated until your paid up and your also garnished from your paycheck. Them getting the money from you is more important then imprisoning you. The USA is strange in this way, they make you pay and also label you a criminal instead of just being someone in debt.
Its ridiculous. He could make millions for 3 years doing movies and pay more taxes then a prison will afford. Matter of fact, the American Taxpayers will be paying for his stay there while he makes nothing for 3 years. Doesn't sound very smart too me...
No. The vast majority of people who could pay would not.
Our system is not perfect but it ensures a certain level of service at the federal, state and local levels.
Without regulations, there would be no quality control and very little consumer protection. That's why.
Anything that is enforced whether it be a regulation, law, ordinance, etc.. may need to be enforced with violence ONLY if there is non-compliance.
Maybe. Maybe not.
And what about the poor, sick or infirm who simply could not afford to pay their protection fee? Do they simply not deserve to be safe?
only the powerful would have the necessities and everyone else would be at best, indentured servants.
Sounds like you'd like to live in a completely lawless world where you keep what you can hold on to.
Keep in mind that someone else is always better armed, stronger, faster, more violent and WILL take what you have.
Originally posted by jfj123
Companies don't buy and resell from their own company stores.
Where do you suppose corporations get their money? A magical money tree? No, they get their money from rich people and poor people the same. If Wal-Mart is levied a heavy tax that cost will certainly be offset by increased product prices paid by the mostly poor people who shop there. So unless you favor a flat tax system, you should despise the idea of corporate taxation. What will be the obvious effect of high corporate taxes in your locality? Corporations are going to be put at a disadvantage to ones located in other places with lower taxes. So you are basically "shipping jobs overseas". Is that what you want? A flat tax on the poor while shipping jobs overseas? Because thats what you get, do you see that now?
First, many big corporations don't even pay taxes.
Wow REALLY???? Because it's so easy to find another job. I'm sure we all know people who have been out of work for months right now. It was worse during the depression.
Or, they could try to find another job.
Yet your preferred solution seems to be to force your way into company headquarters at gun point if necessary in violation of their property rights and force them against their will to hand over what YOU think is fair to the workers as if your opinion on fairness is the end-all that be all that should be forced upon others.
WOW ! You just don't get it. Second, you're making it sound like I am the one who decides who pays what. Obviously that's just an insane and pointless statement.
Corporations should not get any money from the government. But the fact that they do get money from the government doesn't mean they should have to be the victim of crimes, such as trespassing, extortion, or property theft. Taking a corporation's money without asking causes financial damage to the shareholders of the company. Two wrongs don't make a right but you very clearly believe two wrongs do make a right... can you see that?
And remember, those same corporations get money and many other things from the government so it's not just a give take relationship.
Please explain how they could sue without using a single law? Please be detailed and within the context as described above.
You mean like the current form of government?
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by jfj123
No. The vast majority of people who could pay would not.
Our system is not perfect but it ensures a certain level of service at the federal, state and local levels.
So if the majority of people wouldn't voluntarily pay for a government I guess that means the majority of people don't think they can get as much happiness for their money by giving it to someone else to spend for them than if they spent it themselves or saved it. If most people would be more happy not paying taxes then it is really only the minority getting more happiness from having someone else decide how to spend their money. I'm not really sure how you morally justify a minority organizing itself and stealing money from the rest of the population using the threat of violence if anyone resists the theft.
If the majority don't want to voluntarily give to federal, state and local governments then they also don't want the services those governments are forcing them to pay for. They would rather have the private sector provide these services at more efficient prices.
Without regulations, there would be no quality control and very little consumer protection. That's why.
So in your opinion the only thing the government should be enforcing is quality control? IMO it is up to the consumer to research his purchases.
If people want quality and safe products the free market will provide that.
This is the information age. Information and consumer reviews about nearly every type of product are readily available (more-so if there were less regulations).
I already do this, I really don't want the government deciding what I want and thinking for me. I don't want their fluoride for instance, so I distill my water. In a free market any quality or safety incidents would be hugely damaging to the reputation of a company,
so it would be in their best interests to provide a safe and quality product anyway. If there is a market for a cheaper, inferior product neither the party demanding nor the party supplying should be persecuted because there is no victim, the exchange has made both parties better off.
Anything that is enforced whether it be a regulation, law, ordinance, etc.. may need to be enforced with violence ONLY if there is non-compliance.
Sorry, I'll rephrase my question. Why are you compelled to use threats of violence (which you intend to carry out) to enforce a certain way of life on others?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And what about the poor, sick or infirm who simply could not afford to pay their protection fee? Do they simply not deserve to be safe?
What most of the poor are currently paying in taxes would more than cover it.
Private security would be much more cost efficient than the current policing system. The sick could protect themselves with insurance.
If insurance is not a priority for you you shouldn't then be able to threaten me with violence to pay for your insurance.
For people that genuinely can't afford it I am certain there would be numerous charities to help such people with all their basic needs.
We are not a rare breed. The only difference between us is that I would leave it at just personally giving and encouraging others to do the same, whereas you prefer it being taken further to you personally giving then having goons threaten violence against those who don't give or don't give enough.
A state of political anarchy wouldn't suddenly cause its inhabitants to become brutal savages with no human compassion or emotions.
Not only would the poor in America be looked after but starving children in third world countries would no doubt get a portion of the billions of dollars of military spending which is instead being used to make bombs to drop on villages and other weapons of war.
only the powerful would have the necessities and everyone else would be at best, indentured servants.
hmm that sounds more like today's system. The free market doesn't screw anyone who is intelligent enough to consider his transaction.
Sounds like you'd like to live in a completely lawless world where you keep what you can hold on to.
Lawlessness wouldn't mean everybody suddenly turns into a wild animal and loses all sense of morality and compassion. There would not be constant attempts by people to steal your television as soon as you look the other way. Peoples morality is what stops everyone from going around murdering other people, not some document written by a politician.
Keep in mind that someone else is always better armed, stronger, faster, more violent and WILL take what you have.
You mean like the current form of government?
Any other groups or individuals matching this description probably already have no respect for the law. The law is not preventing any of the people who currently make a habit of violence and theft. This is why there would be a market for private security. If I don't want to pay for private security because I can protect myself and have a German Shepard and insurance protecting my property then that should be my decision, and I shouldn't be forced to pay for yours to.
edit on 13-12-2010 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by civilchallenger
Originally posted by jfj123
Companies don't buy and resell from their own company stores.
The format people are paid in isn't really relevant at all. They can get paid in raisins and sell what they don't eat on Ebay. You imply its wrongful to pay employees in scrip which is not true. The fact workers are paid in scrip is just fine and hopefully you can admit that.
Wow REALLY???? Because it's so easy to find another job. I'm sure we all know people who have been out of work for months right now. It was worse during the depression.
Or, they could try to find another job.
There are quite a few people I know who have landed jobs during this depression. Its difficult but possible.
Please explain how they could sue without using a single law? Please be detailed and within the context as described above.
If you cause wrongful financial harm to another person, you must compensate that person in the amount necessary to compensate for the damage. I suppose you could consider that a law.
Well to start, I'm so tired of hearing about this threat of violence crap.
Now lets use your logic and apply it elsewhere. Since many people would also be more happy not following laws, should we also remove all laws?
Not true. People don't want to pay anyone let it be government or private sector.
Not reasonable. If you want to buy a toy for your child, are you going to call the manufacturer of each toy, find out how the toy is made and with which materials to determine it is safe? Now apply that for EVERYTHING you buy. Simply won't happen and you know it.
No it won't. That's why regulations starting appearing. For example, the paint industries in the United States had been using lead based paint into the 70's even while knowing that lead paint was dangerous in the late 1800's.
The problem is that consumer reports, many time are not accurate. There are simply too many products to research so they simply can't do it.
Not really. There are plenty of examples of companies not being permanently financially damaged by big incidents.
So bp shouldn't be bothered with cleanup, reperations, etc... for damages they caused?
That's simply insane !
Laws enforce a certain way of life on others. Are you suggesting we should elimate all laws ?
Many of the poor, sick or infirm can't even afford to pay taxes. And there is no way the small amount they are paying assuming they have a job, would cover privatization costs.
And for those who can't afford but want insurance? Remember the insurance industry is privatized and there has not been much regulation until recently.
And what if health insurance is a priority for someone but they can't afford it? Or they get sick and their insurance carrier drops them? What then? Anyone going to another carrier with a pre-existing condition would pay enormous fees they wouldn't be able to afford.
Really? Where would these magically pop up from and pay $1000.00 per month for a family of 4's health insurance x 35% of the country? And what about the children with autism? Insurance won't cover the cost of their treatment at all so any parent with an autistic child must pay for treatment out of pocket.
To have a functioning government, we need to put money into it. If you know we must put money into a private business to make it run, you also know we need to put money into a public business (the government) to make it run.
So you'd also get rid of our military????
So what about those who aren't as intelligent as you? Not all people are born with a high IQ. Are they just screwed too?
People break the law all the time now even with laws. Without laws, there would be complete anarchy.
Yep. And if you don't like the current government, vote them out.
We'll probably need to get rid of many more for similar things.
Interesting so what happens if you can't afford to pay for private security? Who then do you call when someone kidnaps your child? Takes your child across state lines? etc...? You can't afford to pay for one private security, let alone pay for all the ones the kidnapper could have driven through.
You're just not thinking this through.
Think of all the things you'd directly have to pay for
private security
Emergency and fire
road maintenance
snow plowing
schools
libraries
etc...
etc...
etc...
and again, what about those who can't afford to pay? Will you help them pay? If so, that's what you're doing now by paying taxes.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Azp420
You mean like the current form of government?
Now you nailed it. There will ALWAYS be some most wealthy, most powerful and best armed entity in the society, unless everyone is exactly equal. Now it is the government, controlled by all or majority (more or less). Who will it be in anarchy? Will he answer to wide public, or a few private owners?edit on 14/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
It would be impossible to control the masses on large scale
and on small scale you are able to hire private security to keep you safe.
Just like powerful government controled by minority can control people on a large scale even when majority disagree (we have many examples of such situation in the history - the whole communistic bloc did it for 40 years), powerful private entity could do the same.
If your opponent has more money than you, they simply wont keep you safe. Either he will offer them more than you can to join his side, or he will easily crush them with better private army than you can afford.
There will ALWAYS be those with more power and those with less power (and some entity would be the most powerful). There will be rulers and those who obey. The point is only who will be who.