welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:49:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: which do you oppose most
#1
individual welfare
 
#2
corporate welfare
 
#3
political welfare
 
#4
NOTA-I like it when people steal my money
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)  (Read 5833 times)
NewFederalist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,143
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2006, 05:02:56 PM »

We can have differences of opinion and still be friends.

Nice going, Dave. Now they BOTH hate you!
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2006, 07:21:44 PM »

What ever the LP does policywise won't change until it changes its public image.

Well, I think the two are at least slightly correlated.  The Libertarian Party's public image is likely to improve if it stops talking about wanting to implement policies that 99% of voters think are insane.

That's what drives me insane. What Libertarians support is Individual freedom, personal responsibility and government limited to its constitutional duties. Boy thats really insane isn't it? More specifically we believe in free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy rights, property rights, due process rights, habeas  corpus and all other rights identified in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the constitution. Wow that's really far out there isn't it? We also believe that taxes could be dramatically lower if the federal government stuck to its constitutional duties, as mandated by the 10th amendment. Holy cow! Call out the men in white coats!

The things that probably get us labeled as whackos are believing that people's sexual preference is their own business, not the governments and that people should be free to decide what to eat, drink, smoke, inhale or otherwise ingest. And if I'm not mistaken, Gabu those are things that you support as well,... wacko.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2006, 10:08:37 PM »
« Edited: November 28, 2006, 10:18:04 PM by MaC »

Dibble I have to ask you-how far do we need to go?  To the point we're not even libertarians?  The public hears the same crap from Democrats and Republicans every year, so we at least have to say a few things to stick out.  And David S is right-we really aren't hardcore.  Many of the fundamental things that people know is constitutional are things we defend.  The fact is that most people don't realize the severity of the problems enough so that it would get them to vote for another party. 
Still, the 'wasted vote syndrome' is the worst part of it all.  Badnarik gave a great example to counter it:  "If you were on a sinking ship like the Titanic, would you wait around on that ship until a majority of the people started fleeing or would you be the first to find a lifepreserver and an escape boat?"
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2006, 10:41:34 PM »

David - don't you think stuff like, oh, I don't know, ending all taxes and eliminating all public schools might scare a few people? The idea of smaller, fiscally responsible government that respects our freedoms isn't what people find insane. Rather they find the implementation to get that insane in some cases, as well as the idea that it must be instantaneous rather than incremental(not univeral to big L's, but common enough). Keep in mind that as much people bitch about certain things they get comfortable in the status quo, so if you shake things up too much they're not going to be comfortable with it.

Take the ACLU for example - their mission is protecting civil rights of citizens. People dig the basic idea. But when the ACLU defends people like NAMBLA or the Westboro Baptist Church you're gonna make people nervous(I'm not saying they shouldn't, even though I detest those groups, just making an example).

Since we're a political party(unlike the ACLU) and thusly to get anywhere we must get elected, we need to avoid things that freak out too many voters.

MaC - you can say you aren't hardcore all you like, but if people think you're hardcore then it doesn't make much difference, now does it? What I want is solutions that incorporate libertarian ideas that are politically palatable to enough people so that we are an effective political force that can actually get libertarians into office. For example rather than advocating the total abolishment of public schools we might advocate a return to federalism, virtually eliminating the feds role and increasing that of the individual states, thus respecting the 10th amendment and libertarian principles of smaller government. People can better swallow that idea, and we don't have to stop being libertarians to advocate it. Even if you prefer abolishing public schools altogether, I'd find it hard to argue that you would prefer the current system, right?

As far as wasted vote syndrome, while Badnarik has a point that I agree with personally it does not help us in political reality. It doesn't matter if they dislike the two major parties when they don't agree with us enough to vote. Not being the Democrats or Republicans won't get us very far - at most it'll snag a few votes here and there, but it'll never be significant enough to effect change. While the main solution to WVS is changing the voting system, we still need to get people to agree with our solutions in order to get their votes.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2006, 10:53:07 PM »

now, you accuse me of being extreme, but I think the voting system would probably change after the schools are all privatised.  People like 'one candidate, one vote' and I couldn't see libertarians still getting elected with that kinda system because we don't have as much money to advertise as the two parties-the reason: political welfare.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2006, 10:54:48 PM »

When I was in highschool Clinton was doing his welfare reform and I strongly supported it and thought it didn't go far enough.  I thought "unemployment works and can provide transition between jobs and that is all that is ever needed."

Very few lower working class people are eligable for unemployment benefits.

(of course now very few of them are eligable for welfare either)
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2006, 11:21:25 PM »
« Edited: November 28, 2006, 11:23:47 PM by Gabu »

That's what drives me insane. What Libertarians support is Individual freedom, personal responsibility and government limited to its constitutional duties. Boy thats really insane isn't it? More specifically we believe in free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy rights, property rights, due process rights, habeas  corpus and all other rights identified in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the constitution. Wow that's really far out there isn't it? We also believe that taxes could be dramatically lower if the federal government stuck to its constitutional duties, as mandated by the 10th amendment. Holy cow! Call out the men in white coats!

The things that probably get us labeled as whackos are believing that people's sexual preference is their own business, not the governments and that people should be free to decide what to eat, drink, smoke, inhale or otherwise ingest. And if I'm not mistaken, Gabu those are things that you support as well,... wacko.

If I tell you the truth, which is that 99% of voters think the Libertarian Party is insane, and then you retort by trying to convince me that it's not, I think this quite fairly underscores the Libertarian Party's problems, really.

And sure, the stuff above isn't crazy.  But I recall the time that the Libertarian Party tried to argue that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was slavery.  That's the sort of stuff people find crazy.  The Libertarian Party seems to be in total denial that it supports or has supported anything that the general public would be unable to stomach, which is I think its major problem.  Far too many Libertarians think that they just need people to know who they are and then they'll get elected everywhere.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2006, 12:08:01 AM »

Dibble I have to ask you-how far do we need to go?  To the point we're not even libertarians?  The public hears the same crap from Democrats and Republicans every year, so we at least have to say a few things to stick out.  And David S is right-we really aren't hardcore.  Many of the fundamental things that people know is constitutional are things we defend.  The fact is that most people don't realize the severity of the problems enough so that it would get them to vote for another party. 
Still, the 'wasted vote syndrome' is the worst part of it all.  Badnarik gave a great example to counter it:  "If you were on a sinking ship like the Titanic, would you wait around on that ship until a majority of the people started fleeing or would you be the first to find a lifepreserver and an escape boat?"

While ending political welfare may make it a little harder for the Republicrats, for third parties to become viable, they need money to get their message out. Most people believe:
1. Voting third party is a wasted vote.
2. The Green Party is for environmental whackos.
3. The Libertarian Party is for anti-tax whackos.
4. The Constitution Party is for theocratic whackos.

Us political junkies who spend our time on forums like these know that these aren't true, but as much as I would love to see a third party succeed, this is what we are up against.

I can't speak for the LP and the GP, only the CP. I also like David's post where he explains the LP isn't that crazy, similar to what I am about to do with the CP.

Yes, a year ago we had nut cases in the party. Now a lot of nut cases left because a majority of the party were not nut cases and did not want to kick out those who did not share their beliefs. Frankly, I'm glad they left.

Are our positions extreme? The party takes pride in being 100% Pro-Life. Indeed a majority of the population supports an exception for rape. Fair enough at first glance. But I compare slavery to abortion as both are refusing to call someone a person while others feel they are. If you oppose slavery, would you support an except to freeing a slave if a slave owner paid over a million dollars for that slave? Of course not. Today, if anyone believes it is ok to own a slave, that is crazy. One day, the belief that it is ok to kill an unborn child will also be considered crazy.

The CP supports securing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants. Although I don't think building a wall is the best way to go about this, what is wrong with stopping people from entering out country with out permission. Would you let a stranger in your house without permission? Now I do believe that an instant no-questions-asked-deportation policy has some problems and somethings need to change with that. With open borders being a 0 and the CP / Minuteman / Tancredo position being a 10, I am a 7.5.

The CP, like the GP and the LP, opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, the draft, and restrictions on the right to bear arms as they believe they are unconstitutional. Is this extreme?

That's what drives me insane. What Libertarians support is Individual freedom, personal responsibility and government limited to its constitutional duties. Boy thats really insane isn't it? More specifically we believe in free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy rights, property rights, due process rights, habeas  corpus and all other rights identified in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the constitution. Wow that's really far out there isn't it? We also believe that taxes could be dramatically lower if the federal government stuck to its constitutional duties, as mandated by the 10th amendment. Holy cow! Call out the men in white coats!

The things that probably get us labeled as whackos are believing that people's sexual preference is their own business, not the governments and that people should be free to decide what to eat, drink, smoke, inhale or otherwise ingest. And if I'm not mistaken, Gabu those are things that you support as well,... wacko.

The first paragraph could apply nearly word for word to the CP while the second paragraph is probably almost the exact opposite.

---

So
1. Let me people know who we {CP, LP, GP} are.
2. Convince the people we are not nuts.
3. Convince the people that we {CP, LP, GP} are better for the country than the Republicrats.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2006, 12:17:59 AM »

And sure, the stuff above isn't crazy.  But I recall the time that the Libertarian Party tried to argue that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was slavery.  That's the sort of stuff people find crazy.  The Libertarian Party seems to be in total denial that it supports or has supported anything that the general public would be unable to stomach, which is I think its major problem.  Far too many Libertarians think that they just need people to know who they are and then they'll get elected everywhere.

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.  However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified.  On that basis alone we should protest it.
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2006, 12:38:03 AM »

And sure, the stuff above isn't crazy.  But I recall the time that the Libertarian Party tried to argue that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was slavery.  That's the sort of stuff people find crazy.  The Libertarian Party seems to be in total denial that it supports or has supported anything that the general public would be unable to stomach, which is I think its major problem.  Far too many Libertarians think that they just need people to know who they are and then they'll get elected everywhere.

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.
Don't worry, we already do.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2006, 01:03:18 AM »

I only post relevant things on the internet like Latoya Jackson and "getting three feet of air"

well, ok if you say so.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2006, 02:02:02 AM »

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.  However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified.  On that basis alone we should protest it.

The only arguments that I could find against the 16th amendment being properly ratified are ones that contend punctuation, spelling, and capitalization was not consistent among the various ratified versions and one that contends that Ohio was not a state until 1953 because it never officially proclaim such.

All of these seem like ridiculously weak arguments that reek of deciding on a conclusion and then looking for evidence.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2006, 03:43:35 AM »

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.  However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified.  On that basis alone we should protest it.

The only arguments that I could find against the 16th amendment being properly ratified are ones that contend punctuation, spelling, and capitalization was not consistent among the various ratified versions and one that contends that Ohio was not a state until 1953 because it never officially proclaim such.

All of these seem like ridiculously weak arguments that reek of deciding on a conclusion and then looking for evidence.

Punctuation, spelling and capitalization are important.  Such a minor detail can totally change the meaning of a statute, and it's a legitimate complaint that if the amendement passed in one state and is not worded exactly how it is in congress, then it shouldn't be passed because the state didn't pass the same thing.

"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument.  I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.

"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.

I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker.  Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2006, 03:58:46 AM »

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.  However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified.  On that basis alone we should protest it.

The only arguments that I could find against the 16th amendment being properly ratified are ones that contend punctuation, spelling, and capitalization was not consistent among the various ratified versions and one that contends that Ohio was not a state until 1953 because it never officially proclaim such.

All of these seem like ridiculously weak arguments that reek of deciding on a conclusion and then looking for evidence.

Punctuation, spelling and capitalization are important.  Such a minor detail can totally change the meaning of a statute, and it's a legitimate complaint that if the amendement passed in one state and is not worded exactly how it is in congress, then it shouldn't be passed because the state didn't pass the same thing.

"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument.  I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.

"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.

I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker.  Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?

As much as I would like to see the 16th amendment repealed, the arguments against it being properly ratified are just silly.

Oh, and your point regarding the 13th amendment would be valid if the 16th amendment hadn't made it irrelevant.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2006, 04:03:21 AM »
« Edited: November 29, 2006, 04:20:56 AM by Gabu »

Punctuation, spelling and capitalization are important.  Such a minor detail can totally change the meaning of a statute, and it's a legitimate complaint that if the amendement passed in one state and is not worded exactly how it is in congress, then it shouldn't be passed because the state didn't pass the same thing.

What exactly was changed?  This is an honest question, because I don't know.  If "income" was changed to "inn come" then you'd have a case.  If "income" was changed to "Income", then... no.

Also, did similar things happen in amendments that came around the same time period?  I can't imagine why they wouldn't, if it happened to the sixteenth amendment.

"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument.  I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.

in‧come
–noun
   1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

...how is money made through a job not income?  You provide an employer services.  They give you money for it.  That's income by the most fundamental definition of the word.

"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.

This is the same argument as above regarding spelling and whatnot, as far as I can tell.

I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker.  Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?

That argument is fine until you realize that the sixteenth amendment is part of the Constitution.  The Constitution cannot be unconstitutional by definition.  It's the Constitution.  Whatever is in the Constitution defines what is constitutional.  It's up to the interpreter to make an interpretation of the Constitution that renders it consistent, and the only such interpretation is one in which an income tax is not considered involuntary servitude.  There is no clause in the Constitution that states "whenever two amendments conflict, the one ratified at a later date is void" (which is a damn good thing in my opinion, given how much the courts would probably go to town throwing out amendments left and right if it did).
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2006, 08:15:52 AM »

now, you accuse me of being extreme, but I think the voting system would probably change after the schools are all privatised.  People like 'one candidate, one vote' and I couldn't see libertarians still getting elected with that kinda system because we don't have as much money to advertise as the two parties-the reason: political welfare.

Here's the first problem with that little theory - the schools won't be privatized. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a loser issue. Too many people like the idea of public schools to get rid of them. So the whole argument you're making is kind of pointless.

Second, even if you managed to privatise all the schools you are making a very big assumption. What are you basing this hypothesis on? There's no indication that private schools would teach alternative voting systems such as approval voting or preferential voting, much less get people to advocate them. I find it unlikely that you would, and you certainly couldn't force them to.

Third and final - as I've already mentioned eliminating political welfare won't cripple the Reps or Dems. Sure, they'll have less money to advertise with in some races, but they'll still be beating us hands down in terms of funding. Also do keep in mind that we are handicapping ourselves further by refusing to take matching funds and other political welfare. (not saying we should mind you, but it's the truth) But when it comes down to it the ultimate reason that we have less money than the major parties is because we don't have as many people donating. Eliminating political welfare would eliminate at most half of the major parties' funds, but even with half they'd still beat us.
Logged
NewFederalist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,143
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2006, 08:21:50 AM »


Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party. 


Why? I think most "moderate" libertarians (read those like John Dibble) will eventually tire of losing election after election and move on to a new affiliation (hopefully a new party with decent financing sans the baggage the LP brings to the table) leaving the current LP to ideologues. That is not intended to be a nasty remark. For some people it is more important to be philosophically consistent while others are willing to make compromises to get in the game. I prefer the latter but I do not choose to be super critical of the former. I just hope the two sides can coexist and not torpedo each others efforts.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2006, 08:23:45 AM »

I think most "moderate" libertarians (read those like John Dibble) will eventually tire of losing election after election and move on to a new affiliation (hopefully a new party with decent financing sans the baggage the LP brings to the table) leaving the current LP to ideologues.

It ultimately might depend on how much progress the Libertarian Reform Caucus makes. We've made some, but it's still gonna take a lot of work.
Logged
NewFederalist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,143
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2006, 08:26:13 AM »

I think most "moderate" libertarians (read those like John Dibble) will eventually tire of losing election after election and move on to a new affiliation (hopefully a new party with decent financing sans the baggage the LP brings to the table) leaving the current LP to ideologues.

It ultimately might depend on how much progress the Libertarian Reform Caucus makes. We've made some, but it's still gonna take a lot of work.

I sense that Carl is getting burned out. The most recent election results were not good so I guess we'll have to wait and see who takes the blame. Lots of chatter about looking eleswhere.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2006, 01:40:07 PM »


"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument.  I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.

in‧come
–noun
   1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

...how is money made through a job not income?  You provide an employer services.  They give you money for it.  That's income by the most fundamental definition of the word.

wage
n.

   1. Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

It's called an income tax and not a wage tax.  If they wanted to keep taking money from my labor like they do every week, it should be called a wage tax.  An income tax by definition would be one where they tax any properties I own and investments I make.  Otherwise they should have named it a 'wage tax'.


"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.

This is the same argument as above regarding spelling and whatnot, as far as I can tell.

Not isn't not, you just can't think of any argument against the fact only four states ratified it, so you pass it off as 'obviously silly'.

I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker.  Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?



That argument is fine until you realize that the sixteenth amendment is part of the Constitution.  The Constitution cannot be unconstitutional by definition.  It's the Constitution.  Whatever is in the Constitution defines what is constitutional.  It's up to the interpreter to make an interpretation of the Constitution that renders it consistent, and the only such interpretation is one in which an income tax is not considered involuntary servitude.  There is no clause in the Constitution that states "whenever two amendments conflict, the one ratified at a later date is void" (which is a damn good thing in my opinion, given how much the courts would probably go to town throwing out amendments left and right if it did).

Sadly, you are right that it is constitutional as the constitution cannot be unconstitutional.  However it is contradictory in it's nature and should be thrown out as a result.  Some amendments do need throwing out.  The Bill of Rights was the biggest safeguard to our freedoms in guaranteeing negative rights.  However I don't approve many of the later amendments that give positive rights nor give government explicit permission.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 29, 2006, 03:04:09 PM »

wage
n.

   1. Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

It's called an income tax and not a wage tax.  If they wanted to keep taking money from my labor like they do every week, it should be called a wage tax.  An income tax by definition would be one where they tax any properties I own and investments I make.  Otherwise they should have named it a 'wage tax'.

How are the terms "wage" and "income" mutually exclusive?  I don't see anything that says that a wage paid to workers cannot be income for that worker.  Read the definition of income and tell me how money paid for an employee's services cannot be taken as income.

Not isn't not, you just can't think of any argument against the fact only four states ratified it, so you pass it off as 'obviously silly'.

Okay, what is the evidence that only four states ratified it, then?  I thought that this argument was saying that only four states ratified the "official version" (i.e., the one without alterations in punctuation and whatnot).

Sadly, you are right that it is constitutional as the constitution cannot be unconstitutional.  However it is contradictory in it's nature and should be thrown out as a result.  Some amendments do need throwing out.  The Bill of Rights was the biggest safeguard to our freedoms in guaranteeing negative rights.  However I don't approve many of the later amendments that give positive rights nor give government explicit permission.

It's contradictory only if you take taxes to be involuntary servitude.  Many don't.
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2006, 04:05:07 PM »
« Edited: November 29, 2006, 04:16:31 PM by Senator Everett »

Complain all you want, but as long as you and the other Libertarians have that elitist attitude that John Dibble has consistently spoken out against, moderate libertarians aren't going to be terribly interested in joining some batsh**t crazy party. Given that neither major party is currently perceived as being particularly conservative on economic issues, right now would be the optimal time for the Libertarian Party to moderate its stances somewhat and start appealing to disgruntled voters whose conservative fiscal views aren't being satsified by either major party. I don't see how such a move would be spineless.

But if you want to continue blaming the general population for not being sufficiently extremist and deliberately excluding everyone who isn't a hardcore fiscal conservative, then go ahead. Continue being an insignificant third party.

To answer the original poll question, though - corporate welfare irritates me the most.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2006, 06:33:58 PM »

Political welfare
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2006, 08:15:24 PM »

That's what drives me insane. What Libertarians support is Individual freedom, personal responsibility and government limited to its constitutional duties. Boy thats really insane isn't it? More specifically we believe in free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy rights, property rights, due process rights, habeas  corpus and all other rights identified in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the constitution. Wow that's really far out there isn't it? We also believe that taxes could be dramatically lower if the federal government stuck to its constitutional duties, as mandated by the 10th amendment. Holy cow! Call out the men in white coats!

The things that probably get us labeled as whackos are believing that people's sexual preference is their own business, not the governments and that people should be free to decide what to eat, drink, smoke, inhale or otherwise ingest. And if I'm not mistaken, Gabu those are things that you support as well,... wacko.

If I tell you the truth, which is that 99% of voters think the Libertarian Party is insane, and then you retort by trying to convince me that it's not, I think this quite fairly underscores the Libertarian Party's problems, really.

And sure, the stuff above isn't crazy.  But I recall the time that the Libertarian Party tried to argue that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was slavery.  That's the sort of stuff people find crazy.  The Libertarian Party seems to be in total denial that it supports or has supported anything that the general public would be unable to stomach, which is I think its major problem.  Far too many Libertarians think that they just need people to know who they are and then they'll get elected everywhere.

Are you saying we are insane or that the public perception of us is that we are? Sounds like you're saying we are nutz. But from our perspective the R's and D's  are crazy.  Lets see didn't one of your guys recently write a bill to draft everyone from age 18 to 42, male and female? (1/3 of the population) That sounds a little nutzy to me. And didn't John Kerry say he wanted national service to be an "obligation of full citizenship", (as if there were some sort of partial citizenship today) That sounds pretty crazy too. And aren't the D's the ones who have proposed one anti-gun proposal after another? And as for the R's well they got us into a war that has nothing to do with our security and at the same time have  managed to not capture the guy they say is responsible for 911. Plus the R's in concert with the D's have raised the national debt to $8 trillion and the unfunded future liabilities to $60 trillion.  Call me silly but that seems kinda crazy too.

The bigger problem is that most of the American people wouldn't know the constitution if it bit them on the ass. And many people subscribe to the Opeboan philosophy that government should provide everything for everyone and tax the hell out of someone else to pay for it.  We don't believe in that and we refuse to vote for people who do. Does that make us "batsh**t" crazy?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2006, 10:51:26 AM »

Saying that income tax should not be paid on wages is definitely crazy. Smiley

The kind of reduction of the government advocated by libertarians as well as the belief that there are no positive rights, i.e. there is nothing morally wrong with ignoring people in peril will always strike a lot of people as out there.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 14 queries.