|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
Do you really think that Nietzsche's message applies to the great unwashed, or that Nietzsche intended that passage to be read as political philosophy? Ridiculous. Anyway, I'm citing classical philosophers, who existed long before the modern welfare state; St. Thomas's treatise is called On Kingship, not On Fascist Corporatism or On Social Democracy.
edit: you're confusion will dissipate when you realize that Nietzsche was talking about the modern state, and I'm talking about the pre-modern state.
edit: basically, you don't understand Nietzsche or my post. |
I've read just about everything Nietzsche has written multiple times, studied him both in uni and on my own for years. I think I understand him quite well thanks (but feel free to try me if you want)....
Anyway, you are free to take from it what you will... I find the whole quote very relevant to this thread. |
ROFL, you think Nietzsche was a libertarian. Maybe you think he was an 'individualist' too? Anyway, I maintain that he was deprecating the *modern* state, not the pre-modern one. Apparently you don't know of the differences between the two. For instance, Nietzsche contrasts 'states' with 'peoples'. But that is precisely the (metaphorical) difference between the modern and pre-modern state: the first is mechanical and bureaucratic, the second organic and filial. Reread the paragraph on the 'swift monkeys' - his use of the word 'throne' is ironic; it's clear he has in mind the modern liberal ideal of social mobility, with its latent idea that state power is accessible to anyone who wants it (which it was not in the pre-modern state). That and the preceding mockery of "gathering riches" are quite analogous to what I said on vocational social structure. His criticism of education is obviously of mass education (recall what N. said about the noble education), what you call brainwashing, which I agree destroys culture, and which obviously did not occur in the pre-modern state. Finally, the mention of 'newspapers' is telling: he's referring to the (then) bourgeois state with its bourgeois ideals.
In sum, Nietzsche and I take a similar view of things, but when it comes down to it, I don't give a damn what he said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://mises.org/story/3637
| Quote: |
The Proper Sphere of Government
In order to enjoy the full pleasures of prosperity, it is necessary for peaceful people to be protected from all robbers, thieves and fraudulent schemers who seek something for nothing at the expense of their fellow men.
For this protective purpose, men have instituted governments. Governments, like all valuable assets, have a price. This price is collected in some form of taxes. Reasonable taxes are a legitimate expense for all protected persons, property and production. Taxes are like insurance premiums. In fact, a good government might be called a form of life, fraud and robbery insurance. It is as necessary for modern society as accident insurance is for every car driver of moderate means. Without it, the risk of living, owning property and driving might well involve financial risks that only a few could afford.
Good governments permit people to pursue their pleasures and production while protected from the rascals who would infringe on their rights by force or fraud. Taxes paid for this protection are an investment which permits men to pursue their personal satisfaction and prosperity as each one sees fit.
When governments spend money for other than protective purposes, they must first get that additional money. They can only get such funds by one or more of three different methods. They can amass such funds by collecting more ordinary taxes, borrowing from private savers, or simply printing the extra money they want to spend. Most modern governments use all three methods.
Can such government spending increase the transactions and satisfactions of individuals and, thus, the happiness and prosperity of the people as a whole? A most common economic error is the failure to see or realize the complete price of what one buys.
People are too apt to reach for something they want now, without weighing the costs they cannot visualize at the moment. Many fail to realize that more beer and merriment today may well mean no bread or meat tomorrow. So it is with government spending. We see the results of government spending all around us.
Government services are sold at bargain rates below cost. The bureaucrats are good steady customers, and the subsidy receivers spend money more freely than those who earn it. But many do not see the complete price.
They do not see the schools, homes, hospitals and factories that could have been erected if the same funds had been left in private hands. They do not see that present bureaucrats could be private citizens producing goods not now available, and that such an increase in marketable goods would tend to reduce all prices and thus increase the satisfactions and living standards of every buyer. They do not see the taxes that creep into the prices of every loaf of bread and pair of shoes, placing the prices of such necessities beyond the reach of the most needy.
When the government raises the money it spends by borrowing savings or taxing its citizens, it merely transfers spending power from private owners and earners of the money to the political spenders in power. This creates no new wealth. It reduces the amount private citizens can spend while increasing the amount government can spend.
With less money in their pockets and bank accounts, private individuals and corporations must reduce the amounts they spend or invest. Assuming prices and wages remain the same, they must buy fewer goods and employ fewer workers on private payrolls producing what people want most.
Money spent by governments cannot create any more jobs or produce any more wealth than it can when spent by private persons. In fact, it creates less, because both the tax collectors and tax spenders must be paid a commission. Their labors add nothing to the wealth of society. The shift of the money from private citizens to political spenders must result in fewer productive jobs, and thus a smaller amount of goods and higher prices than if the money had been left in private hands. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
To Fox, Gopher and others on here who love their government and think everything will be okay (because your government will always take care of you  )... |
Visitorq: I will not respond to this childish nonsense. Strawmen and misrepresented, maximalist false choices.
We face more options than those you would force upon us: your harshly negative position or our, allegedly, "loving our govt and thinking everything will be okay (because our govt will always take care of us)," etc.
Yours is a stupid, stupid position.
So if you want to understand why I feel I have more or less pigeonholed you as someone completely lacking in intellectual sophistication and consequently feel no further need to exchange with you here, or make any further contribution to this thread, this is it.
You specifically called me out to answer you. This is my answer, Visitorq. |
Yeah, you come off really clever calling me childish while merely sidestepping the points and providing no actual answer. Funny how you claim there are so many other options, while not stating any at all.
In short, yours is just that lazy kind of 'intellectualism' (if you even want to call it that), where playing it safe (substituting pretension for actual substance) is more important than establishing an actual argument and facts. Oh well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
Do you really think that Nietzsche's message applies to the great unwashed, or that Nietzsche intended that passage to be read as political philosophy? Ridiculous. Anyway, I'm citing classical philosophers, who existed long before the modern welfare state; St. Thomas's treatise is called On Kingship, not On Fascist Corporatism or On Social Democracy.
edit: you're confusion will dissipate when you realize that Nietzsche was talking about the modern state, and I'm talking about the pre-modern state.
edit: basically, you don't understand Nietzsche or my post. |
I've read just about everything Nietzsche has written multiple times, studied him both in uni and on my own for years. I think I understand him quite well thanks (but feel free to try me if you want)....
Anyway, you are free to take from it what you will... I find the whole quote very relevant to this thread. |
ROFL, you think Nietzsche was a libertarian. Maybe you think he was an 'individualist' too? |
Yeah, basically.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I maintain that he was deprecating the *modern* state, not the pre-modern one. Apparently you don't know of the differences between the two. For instance, Nietzsche contrasts 'states' with 'peoples'. But that is precisely the (metaphorical) difference between the modern and pre-modern state: the first is mechanical and bureaucratic, the second organic and filial. Reread the paragraph on the 'swift monkeys' - his use of the word 'throne' is ironic; it's clear he has in mind the modern liberal ideal of social mobility, with its latent idea that state power is accessible to anyone who wants it (which it was not in the pre-modern state). That and the preceding mockery of "gathering riches" are quite analogous to what I said on vocational social structure. His criticism of education is obviously of mass education (recall what N. said about the noble education), what you call brainwashing, which I agree destroys culture, and which obviously did not occur in the pre-modern state. Finally, the mention of 'newspapers' is telling: he's referring to the (then) bourgeois state with its bourgeois ideals. |
Not bad - that's actually pretty much how I see it too.
| Quote: |
| In sum, Nietzsche and I take a similar view of things, but when it comes down to it, I don't give a damn what he said. |
Yeah, but let's not pretend Nietzsche's just that simple... there are many layers. Interpretation is key.
Now why exactly you think my quoting him was an attack against you (or why you're so defensive), I'm still not really sure... As I said, I just found the quote relevant to this thread in general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| I've heard of Glen Beck, but never watched anything of him. I doubt I'm anything like him though (I'm altogether chilled out, I'm just having fun with you). |
Visitor, listening to you talk is literally like listening to his show. I recommend you give watching him a try. |
Not interested.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, you really can't blame me for calling you out on your BS... I haven't been misrepresenting you. It's just that your claims are mostly bunk (as I've shown)... |
All you've shown is that you are out of touch with reality, don't even fully grasp the contents of the Constititution you love so much (which is why you think income tax is unconstitutional), and further lack a grasp of what a number of English terms mean. In this thread, we'll add a new term to the list of terms you don't understand: logical fallacy. See below! |
You're dead wrong about it being Constitutional. I don't know how else to put it other than that... If you're correct, then what is the law? If you can quote the law (based on the Constitution) for me, then I'll admit I was wrong. But I know you can't (because I've checked it, I know I'm right for a FACT) so, I'm just letting you know you are mistaken. There is nothing more I can add.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Logical fallacy: pretending you know what any of those millions of people think. Debunked. Next.
...
Logical fallacy: same as above. Debunked. Next.
...
Logical fallacy: same as first two. Debunked. Next
...
Logical fallacy: same as first 3 (you seem to like this one). Debunked. Next. |
Asserting that millions of people believe a certain thing is not a logical fallacy. You might claim that it's a lie (it's not, as polls generally show), but it's not a logical fallacy, because it's not an argument, just an assertion about what people believe. And it's a good thing it isn't a fallacy, because you've made statements about what people believe as well, such as when you say: |
Asserting that millions of people believe something, without providing a shred of proof or evidence, and using it as the premise of your argument is a fallacy. Simple.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| The majority of people already consider the government corrupt ... |
True or false, this statement isn't a logical fallacy, because it's not an argument, just an assertion. The same goes for my such statements. |
Wrong. I was basing my statement on an actual poll. You were just pulling yours out of your ass. Admit you have no idea whatsoever how many people believe what you're saying. You just hope it's true, but really have no evidence at all.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Strawman. Next. |
A straw man is constructing an argument for your opponent and then attacking that argument. I've done no such thing: pointing out that unlike you most people aren't Libertarians isn't a straw man argument, it's an assertion about the world. |
You don't know how many are libertarians or not. Moreover, you presuppose I consider myself to be one (which I don't, I believe a Constitutional government is useful).
| Quote: |
| So, in addition to not understanding what a conspiracy theory is (and highlighting that lack of understanding quite handily by falsely claiming that I feel the government loves me, and as a result I'm a conspiracy theorist), you don't understand what a logical fallacy is. |
See above. I've shown you to be wrong for the umpteenth time.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Whereas in your case you actually did avoid the question, you are merely misrepresenting my position here. Debunked. Next. |
No, I didn't avoid your question. You asked for information, I told you where you could find it. You seem to be under the entirely false conception that engaging in discussion means I have to jump through any hoop you throw out there. If you had a genuine interest in my feelings on this matter, you'd have looked up those posts. Because you've opted not to, you are just highlighting the truth: that you just wanted more things to angrily scream, "Unconstitutional and stupid!" at. |
I'm not angry at all. I just say what I mean. You haven't given the information I requested.
| Quote: |
| If you ask me for information, and I tell you where you can find it, I'm not avoiding your question. If you choose not to go get it where I told you you can find it, though, you assuredly prove you never cared about the answer in the first place. That's what I mean when I say you're disingenous. Which brings me to something else: |
You are avoiding it if the answer requested is nowhere to be found elsewhere as you claim.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| See how inflexible you are? You're literally just plain wrong. It's not by interpretation, it's a fact - one that you are now saying you are too lazy and disingenuous to verify. Seems you care more about trying maintain your credibility (impossible at this point) than learning the truth. That's too bad... |
Anyone accusing me of inflexibility and disingenuity is a total fool. I've demonstrated my intellectual honesty many times on this board; I think most people here realize that. Even in this thread I've put it handily on display; despite disagreeing quite thoroughly with ontheway's overall philosophy, every time he's said something I feel has merit, I've agreed with him. I can grant my opponents the points they're correct on, and that's the exact opposite of being disingenous. |
I don't think most people on here care. You are just being self-righteous, when in fact I've proven you wrong on most facts. I understand an opinion is just an opinion, but you deliberately use misinformation as the premise for so much of your arguments. Like saying personal income tax on wages is in the 16th Amendment, when it simply isn't. You won't even look it up, because you're being disingenuous.
| Quote: |
| You, on the other hand, have comported yourself in a completely opposite fashion: it took you a number of posts to even admit to the dictionary definition of a conspiracy, because you didn't like how the word sounded! Hell, the only reason you're even using the term disingenous is because I have a habit of using the term myself; it's essentially an, "I know you are but what am I," response. |
Yawn. No point here.
| Quote: |
[quote="visitorq"]
| Quote: |
| [quote="visitorq"] Uh, yes it is. Look it up. You don't get a single penny of your income tax. Fact. |
So all those people who get 100% of their Federal Income Tax refunded plus government services aren't getting anything? |
No. As I already said - NONE of the income tax from anybody goes towards government services. It is all used to pay off debt to the Fed. That is why income tax was created (in 1913, a few months after the Federal Reserve Act was passed). What part of this don't you get? Do you even read what I write?
| Quote: |
Except you missed the point. People who get 100% of their Federal Income Tax back not only get all their money back, they still get governmental services. To say those people aren't getting anything is silly.
|
Income tax does not pay for government services at all. See above.
| Quote: |
| Another example of you not understanding basic English terminology. Firstly another example of you misunderstanding what a logical fallacy is (I didn't make a false premises logical fallacy here), and second a misunderstanding of the term opinon. People often falsely believe that opinions don't have truth values, but they do, just like any other statement. More importantly, in a situation like this, the only thing that can lessen the value of someone's opinion is if said opinion is wrong. We're having an academic discussion after all, not some town hall meeting. Truth is what matters. So, when you say my opinion has less value because I'm "un-American", you're saying I'm wrong because I'm "un-American" (or you're just babbling in an incoherent fashion and have no real basis for your statement, in which case you're not committing a logical fallacy, you're just talking pointlessly). |
Blah blah blah. All this writing just to try and spin your way out of your mistake. I clearly wrote, "your opinion", and you went on to blab about my saying "the facts", when that's not what I wrote. You may as well just admit it, since it's clearly written there for all to see.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh well, beyond saying the Constitution is irrelevant and admitting you're un-American, it's not like you've gotten any point across anyway. Next. |
Others disagree, and I have to admit I value their estimation on the matter more than yours, for obvious reasons. |
Right back at you.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anything is hypothetically possible. |
No, anything is not hypothetically possible. A square triangle is not hypothetically possible, for instance. |
Another magical dimension where triangles are square is hypothetical possible. And probably more likely than government ever behaving the way you'd like us to believe they can.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| I'd be happy to substitute the word conspiracy for delusion if it makes you feel better... |
It would certainly make your points more coherent. I know to the angry Glen Beck mindset, speaking coherently is a weakness rather than a strength, but perhaps you could cut us a break on this one and use words according to their actual definitions? |
I don't care if you want to treat every word literally when it suits you. I could do the same back to you, but I can't be bothered. Because you're just not that clever. I'm not either, but I don't pretend to be either. For every fallacy of yours that I point out, you can point out the literal misuse of a word (while still catching my drift) and call it a fair trade if you want. I don't really care.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Yeah well, next time you go back and find yourself jobless, living under what is fast becoming a police state, maybe you'll ponder the points I've raised more carefully. Anyway, I actually care about my country and plan on returning there relatively soon. |
So we're slaves in the present because of how you suspect the future might be. Interesting tactic, and not the first time you've used it in this discussion. The greatest strength of the anti-government advocate is trying to scare people about how things will be, because it's very hard to prove unsubstantiated claims about the future wrong. I may be rational and composed enough to be able to shrug off your talk of death pannels and police states, but some people are unfortunately more receptive to scare tactics. |
Yawn. More of your spin and disingenuity. I don't 'suspect' it out of paranoia, as you are implying, but rather based on ample evidence and history. The evidence that the government lies regularly, is corrupt, and has eugenicists in high places is overwhelming.
| Quote: |
Visitor, I don't think our quote-nesting is very constructive at this point. I feel you're just show-casing your lack of understanding of the English language, lack of reading comprehension, and tendency to insult, and you've said exactly what you feel about my case. As such, I'd like to invite you to make a non-quote based closing statement to sum up your case, preferably in a civil fashion related to the topic of this thread. I'm generally reticent to make such suggestions, but I really don't feel this is going anywhere, and that says a lot given I was willing to persist against Julius' brick-wall-of-faith. |
Feel free to quit anytime. I'm quite satisfied with having laid out the facts and debunked most of your non-points. You're still entitled to your un-American opinion though. Just don't expect me to be impressed. I see right through your spin, it's just so obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, visitor's latest post contains quotes, so I assume he didn't take my suggestion about a closing statement. I think understandably, rather than wasting my time reading his angry insults, misrepresentations of reality, confused misunderstandings of my own statements, and lies, I'll sum up my own case and leave it at that.
The value of our goverment extends beyond what is strictly ennumerated in the Constitution. Pollution and environmental regulations, food and drug safety regulations, automotive safety regulations, infrastructure creation and maintenance, health care, the list goes on. These are things the majority of people in society want their government to handle, and these are things that are well within the capability of our government to handle. Libertarians might not be happy with this, but that's unfortunately too bad for them.
Is there corruption in our government? There certainly is, and it's a problem. Just as one would be stupid to suggest abandoning farming just because a crop turned out poorly due to the farmer being negligent, though, one would be stupid to suggest abandoning government regulation that increases citizen well being just because our crop of elected representatives turned out poorly due to the citizen base being negligent. Citizens being more politically aware, and less willing to believe the lies of heavily biased parties is the only true cure to this problem. Blaming politicans who give in to corruption -- or the industry representatives who successfully buy them -- is pointless; it's addressing the symptom, not the real problem.
And in closing, yes, income tax is Constitutional. The fact that certain people can't accept that just proves that their Libertarian ideals have nothing to do with the Constitution itself, but rather simply what they want to be the case. They use the Constitution as an attempt to legitimize their hate of government, rather than out of any true affection for that document. It's a shame, but as I said, extremists are almost always disingenous and hypocritical. In this case, unfortunately so hypocritical an disingenous that even I -- who am pretty resilient in such matters -- just can't stomache it anymore. Constant, petty verbal attacks, accusations of logical fallacy based on a total misunderstanding of what logical fallacies are, smug stupidity, it's like being in the audience of one of Glen Beck's broadcasts. I don't want that rubbish for a reason.
If anyone else cares to discuss this topic, I'm more than interested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, you really can't blame me for calling you out on your BS... I haven't been misrepresenting you. It's just that your claims are mostly bunk (as I've shown)... |
All you've shown is that you are out of touch with reality, don't even fully grasp the contents of the Constititution you love so much (which is why you think income tax is unconstitutional), and further lack a grasp of what a number of English terms mean. In this thread, we'll add a new term to the list of terms you don't understand: logical fallacy. See below! |
You're dead wrong about it being Constitutional. I don't know how else to put it other than that... If you're correct, then what is the law? If you can quote the law (based on the Constitution) for me, then I'll admit I was wrong. But I know you can't (because I've checked it, I know I'm right for a FACT) so, I'm just letting you know you are mistaken. There is nothing more I can add. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
| The People wrote: |
| The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
I don't like the question. It's too timid. Instead of the ambiguous word 'role' (role in what?) I would choose 'purpose'. And, the government being merely the actual people in power - as opposed to the State which is, briefly, the vehicle of that power - the question is limited in scope.
A better question would be "What is the purpose of the State?" |
Eh, go start your own thread, then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Hey, let's do that. Let's keep things very real. We can start by stopping the fiction about Americans being slaves. |
Ever hear of "wage slaves?"
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
It is easy enough to show that is not true.
The US hasn't returned to how it was before its Revolution. How come? |
I think you missed the point I was trying to articulate; perhaps I didn't do so clearly enough. I'm not asserting that a given form of government will naturally revert (i.e. that a newly formed democracy will revert to monarchy), but rather that over time the level of governmental control will always increase to at least a certain level.
So, if his Libertarian revolution were to occur, it's only a matter of time -- and probably not much time at that -- before governmental controls and regulations begin to creep back in. Most people want some measure of governmental regulation, and to try to deny them it is tyranny. |
I disagree. If we abolished the present system and started over, I think it would be done differently, but since there is no way to know, it is a moot point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| And the real conspiracy theorist here is you: believing the government actually cares about (or even loves) you. |
I've always qualified such statements, saying things like, "At least a government can hypothetically have its citizens best interests at heart." I don't think the current administration does.
That said, I taught you what conspiracy meant the last time we discussed the term. Why are you misusing the word again? Even if I did believe the current administration loved me (which I don't), it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would just be a delusion. |
Sorry, Fox, I missed your definition. Care to repeat it on the "What is a conspiracy theorist?" thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Hey, let's do that. Let's keep things very real. We can start by stopping the fiction about Americans being slaves. |
Ever hear of "wage slaves?" |
Certainly have. I'd point out there's a reason we call them "wage slaves" instead of simply calling them "slaves." There's an important distinction to be made between the two.
| bacasper wrote: |
| I disagree. If we abolished the present system and started over, I think it would be done differently, but since there is no way to know, it is a moot point. |
That's fine.
Done. It's awfully brief, but then, I don't think it's a particularly complicated term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Hey, let's do that. Let's keep things very real. We can start by stopping the fiction about Americans being slaves. |
Ever hear of "wage slaves?" |
Certainly have. I'd point out there's a reason we call them "wage slaves" instead of simply calling them "slaves." There's an important distinction to be made between the two. |
Now apply the principle of definition of "conspiracy theorist" to "wage slave," i.e., someone forced by circumstances to work for a (usually meager) salary, and I think yisitorq's statement may become palatable to you.
| Quote: |
Done. It's awfully brief, but then, I don't think it's a particularly complicated term. |
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Hey, let's do that. Let's keep things very real. We can start by stopping the fiction about Americans being slaves. |
Ever hear of "wage slaves?" |
Certainly have. I'd point out there's a reason we call them "wage slaves" instead of simply calling them "slaves." There's an important distinction to be made between the two. |
Now apply the principle of definition of "conspiracy theorist" to "wage slave," i.e., someone forced by circumstances to work for a (usually meager) salary, and I think yisitorq's statement may become palatable to you. |
None the less, slaves are the property of another person. Wage slave is a very nice metaphoric term which conjures up images of hardship, but it's not the same as actual being a slave.
Mind you, I suppose it's not impossible to actually be a "wage slave" in a literal sense. If you were someone's property, but they opted to pay you a wage, I suppose you could be called a literal wage slave. I don't think the vast majority of American citizens fall into this category, if any. When we use the term in America, we're generally being metaphoric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| And in closing, yes, income tax is Constitutional. |
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, you really can't blame me for calling you out on your BS... I haven't been misrepresenting you. It's just that your claims are mostly bunk (as I've shown)... |
All you've shown is that you are out of touch with reality, don't even fully grasp the contents of the Constititution you love so much (which is why you think income tax is unconstitutional), and further lack a grasp of what a number of English terms mean. In this thread, we'll add a new term to the list of terms you don't understand: logical fallacy. See below! |
You're dead wrong about it being Constitutional. I don't know how else to put it other than that... If you're correct, then what is the law? If you can quote the law (based on the Constitution) for me, then I'll admit I was wrong. But I know you can't (because I've checked it, I know I'm right for a FACT) so, I'm just letting you know you are mistaken. There is nothing more I can add. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
| The People wrote: |
| The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
|
For a Constitutional amendment to take effect, it has to be properly ratified. Instead of Wikipedia, let's look to see what a credible, high-ranking legal scholar has to say:
| US District Court Judge James C Fox in 2003 wrote: |
| If you examine [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
42 of the then-48 states ratified the 16th Amendment. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida were the 6 that did not. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states at the time.
Only 36 states needed to ratify the Amendment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
