SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[Kuznetzova]

There are a number of human activities that require the massive mobilization afforded by the governmental and legal apparatuses. The prime example is a federal military to wage war. As the two world wars showed us, a nation which does not mobilize its entire economy and society towards the war effort will be defeated by one that does. The historians dubbed this phenomenon, "total war".

It seems reasonable that even the city-states of feudal times also recognized this. They forced tribute (taxes) out of the lands they conquered in order to support their over-growing military.

Outside the military is the legal apparatus itself. Taxes are used to support all the bureaucrats, police, courtroom workers, and prisons required for its function. In particular, its fair function under umbrella laws that apply equally to all.

Another example of the use of taxation to support something -- is a national highway system, along with the office workers and bureaucrats required for its function, and those who maintain repair, and build the highways as needed.

A fourth example of the mobilization of nation-sized projects would be the response to disasters such as floods and epidemic disease outbreaks.

A fifth example would be "big science". CERN, LHC, NASA, mars Rover, military reconnaissance satellites, nuclear weapon research, etc.

A sixth example. Large water dams for electricity, and a grid to distribute that energy.

The op is wrong in saying that socialism is some sort of "theft from one group to give to another" -- as if to say that theft is unmitigated , unrepresented, violent repossession of property. That definition does not even accurately describe the way ancient Assyria wrenched tribute out of conquered lands. In many cases, the taxation is taken from finances directly. Finances that have not even been converted into goods or even invested assets such as boats or homes. In some portions of this thread, OP even claims that food is being stolen from one to feed another. That is completely ridiculous, particularly in the case of income tax.

A definition of Socialism is: the massive mobilization of projects for a society which require more organization and cost than can be maintained by an existing private corporation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So called Socialists are always the most fiscally responsible.

Whilst Republican governments bang-on about over spending Democrats, it has always been the case since ww2 that the Republicans are the big spenders and representatives of Big-Government, whilst the Democrats are the budget balancers, and take more care with those tax dollars..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/



 
 

[bobevenson]

So called Socialists are always the most fiscally responsible.

Socialists believe in forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that anybody else would be thrown in jail for doing. That doesn't sound very fiscally responsible to me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I didn't used to call myself a socialist, then one day I came across the stats for the distribution of wealth in the UK:

Top 01% own 21% of total UK wealth
Top 05% own 40% of total UK wealth
Top 10% own 53% of total UK wealth
Top 25% own 72% of total UK wealth
Top 50% own 93% of total UK wealth

Is half the population so inept or lazy that they can only manage to claim 7% of the wealth?

Can you give the source of your figures?

[Hobbes' Choice]

So called Socialists are always the most fiscally responsible.

Socialists believe in forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that anybody else would be thrown in jail for doing. That doesn't sound very fiscally responsible to me.

I see you are ignoring the facts, as usual.

The government is charged with the duty of taxation for the provision of roads, defence, education etc... As without these things the economy would not work.

Each profiteer exploits the infrastructure provided by taxation to make a profit. He uses the roads, benefits from a healthy educated workforce and enjoys the fruits of defence.
It is completely reasonable the he is expected to pay tax for the maintenance of the infrastructure from which he benefits.

As a teacher I know 6 year olds that know this simple fact better than you.
Are you not ashamed of your stupidity

[bobevenson]

So called Socialists are always the most fiscally responsible.

Socialists believe in forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that anybody else would be thrown in jail for doing. That doesn't sound very fiscally responsible to me.

I see you are ignoring the facts, as usual.

The government is charged with the duty of taxation for the provision of roads, defence, education etc... As without these things the economy would not work.

Each profiteer exploits the infrastructure provided by taxation to make a profit. He uses the roads, benefits from a healthy educated workforce and enjoys the fruits of defence.
It is completely reasonable the he is expected to pay tax for the maintenance of the infrastructure from which he benefits.

As a teacher I know 6 year olds that know this simple fact better than you.
Are you not ashamed of your stupidity

Well, first of all, in defense of people who are stupid, why should they be ashamed of it or anything else they are born with? If you're a teacher of six-year-olds, I pray for their future, my friend. Furthermore, you don't know anything about government or economics, so I won't belabor those points.

[MGL]

Socialists believe in forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that anybody else would be thrown in jail for doing. That doesn't sound very fiscally responsible to me.

The right to property is a freedom that only exists because a state is there to punish those that might violate it. Taxation is the price we pay to enjoy that right. To establish who owns the property, the state also has to lay down rules for its legitimate acquisition. Some taxes may seem to re-distribute property from one person to another, but another way of looking at it is to see such taxes as conditions the state imposes on citizens to ensure property is acquired fairly.

[Kuznetzova]

Socialists believe in forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that anybody else would be thrown in jail for doing. That doesn't sound very fiscally responsible to me.

Go ahead and move to an island in the ocean. Hire your own security force. Grow your own food. Build your own infrastructure. Use your own currency. Create your own laws. Educate your own children in the way you see fit. Abide by your own set of morals. Speak your own language. Call taxation 'theft' all day long. Go ahead. Be my guest.

Of course, if you did all these things, then we would refer to you as a "nation state", and not a "person."

[Kuznetzova]

The government is charged with the duty of taxation for the provision of roads, defence, education etc... As without these things the economy would not work.

There are nations on earth who are simply too impoverished, or too chaotic to support the infrastructure of a government. In particular, they don't even have enough money for an active police force. According to Mr. bobevenson here, these places don't engage in the horrid immoral practice of "forcibly taking from one to give to someone else". Extending this logic, these places should be libertarian utopias, right? Sure. According to his logic they would be. Now lets list those places that have no taxes because there is no government bureaucracy to collect them. Let's do this.

• Somalia
• Armenia
• rural Bangladesh

Nice places, eh? I'm sure these parts of the world are "utopian" compared to where bobevenson currently resides. We should get bobevenson on a plane to one of these places immediately.

[bobevenson]

The only proper function of government is social integration, and the only proper form of taxation is a single ad valorem tax on everything with intrinsic market value.

[Ansiktsburk]

Thing is, bobevenson might just get what he wants. In the globalized world, the individual states are getting less and less control, the market place governs more and more, salaries are adjusted to the bottom line salary countries level, even for high-education advanced tasks, and revenues for the wealthy are going up. So, a lot of hard-working people without any real wealth, and a few capital owner, whose capital no-one will touch. No socialism whatsoever.

[bobevenson]

Thing is, bobevenson might just get what he wants.

It's not a question of what I want or what anybody wants, it's a question of what's needed for a properly-run society. As Mick Jagger says, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need."

[Arising_uk]

It's not a question of what I want or what anybody wants, it's a question of what's needed for a properly-run society. ...

Ayn Rand claimed that in a properly run society the correct function of govt is threefold, police to protect the right to life, courts to protect the right to private property and ensure contractual obligations and the military to protect the nation. Nothing about 'social integration' which could conceal a multitude of sins. Tax as a necessary evil until the utopia of tax by insurance is enacted.

[bobevenson]

It's not a question of what I want or what anybody wants, it's a question of what's needed for a properly-run society. ...

Ayn Rand claimed that in a properly run society the correct function of govt is threefold, police to protect the right to life, courts to protect the right to private property and ensure contractual obligations and the military to protect the nation. Nothing about 'social integration' which could conceal a multitude of sins. Tax as a necessary evil until the utopia of tax by insurance is enacted.

Totally wrong. Again, the only proper function of government is social integration. Government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. All property should be private property, including military equipment, roads, bridges, land, buildings and the White House itself, which the government can rent or lease as needed. The government should not own as much as a single paper clip, and all government workers, including the president of the United States, should be employed and paid by a private agency.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's not a question of what I want or what anybody wants, it's a question of what's needed for a properly-run society. ...

Ayn Rand claimed that in a properly run society the correct function of govt is threefold, police to protect the right to life, courts to protect the right to private property and ensure contractual obligations and the military to protect the nation. Nothing about 'social integration' which could conceal a multitude of sins. Tax as a necessary evil until the utopia of tax by insurance is enacted.

A great recipe for chaos.
Such a government would have to preside over a state that was in an eve decreasing spiral of decline, in which the tax was ramped up to fund the increasing needs of the police who were chasing a population which found itself with lower wages, less education and a downwards spiral of less money in the economy.

Any neighbouring country taking the trouble to offer universal education and a transportation system would out compete it, as Randland burned to the ground with the privatised fire-service arguing over the amount of insurance each home had.