What is the point of central taxation power?

[Anarchist420]

The printing money wasn't a problem in a confederation because the States could collect, borrow, and disperse whatever they wanted to. Taxing would've made the currency and the economy less stable. If they borrowed the money they created and didn't try to pay the creditors back full face value, then that would be the most ethical (doesn't rob future generations as much as having the power to tax, borrow, and inflate), the most just, and the least unstable if it is done right and if enough of the people are well informed and if arms are decentralized enough which they weren't because of Washington and Adams (Adams is probably more culpable than Washington since the former was educated, probably had a higher IQ, and was probably warned not to promote Washington).

In other words, only no govt or a Confederation allows competing currencies to work. The more currencies the merrier because they keep each other in check. Since there is no world currency, not every country suffers from. However, govts with weaker currency benefit and I think Obama knew that when he placed the sanctions on Iran... he did that to make sure that the war wasn't the U.S. govt's fault. Ahmadinejad took advantage of the sanctions to make sure that his people (including at least one Tribe of Israel which includes many Palestinians as well as less than half of self-identifying Jews) were saved.

Lex Hamilton's farts that became the Constitution sent shockwaves throughout the country that America could not understand considering that his ideas and the Constitution were not of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Constitution binded future generations and became of the people, by the people, and for the people because the Hamiltonians were the master of propaganda. To illustrate my point, the first purely Hamiltonian President didn't even get 2/5 of the popular vote and then he had the mind to trick the hell out of his own people in his Gettysburg Address. He was worse, more destructive, and more heartless than Hitler. If Lincoln said to do something, most people did it. Hitler, OTOH, at least kindly provided for his old doctor's escape. Lincoln, in contrast to Hitler, only sent the Leader of the Peace Democrats into exhile because the former knew the latter couldn't be murdered.

Lincoln just paid his soldiers too many worthless greenbacks that the soldiers didn't even realize were worthless and then got reelected with 55% of the vote which was fraudulent (but not only because he didn't consider the CSA sovereign).

Vallandigham called Lincoln "King Lincoln" for a reason. He called him that because he realized the Evil Ghost of King Lincoln would rule the world longer after he was gone. Lincoln's General Grant even said the nation was punished by predestination (for the Mexican American war) and I believe him... it makes me hate the state and it makes me feel guilty to a degree. The problem in 1844 was that you had the Progressive/National Socialist Henry Clay and Modern Liberal Mister Polk to pick from. Divinity told John Tyler not to run for President again because the people had sinned by becoming a nationally democratic union when the mob elected Andrew Jackson.

This is the last session of Congress in which a few Representatives aren't condemned so don't ever for public office because you will be eternally damned if you win the election in the state of corruption or if you become an emperor. I won't become an emperor, they can kill me first and then I can say that Paulites were right all along. I'd love for Obama to be re-elected, but it's not really logical to think he'll continue to be ruler... Figure it out for yourself and take what I've said about the matter into account if you believe you can change the world for the good. Metaphors are prophecies... General Washington and Capitol DC are the sword (about to be melted by Romney) and he can only stay hard for so long.

Anyway, I want to discuss this because that's part of why I posted it. Know that it is as infallible as Pope Benedict XVI[1] because I use my infallible sources well.

[1] Benedict XVI IS infallible because he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt in his mind that he would be the last modern pope. Read some of his writings (particularly when he mentionined future relationships between Catholics and Jews) from before he became pope and listen to how much he has lied since taking the Pontifical office. He's a sick genius who's even trickier and more dishonest than Tricky Dick. He probably sits there farting all over the Vatican because he realized that Santorum will take over as the anti-Christ and the True Pope (the black Pope) and that's why I've decided not to get confirmed. Perhaps it will make my soul good. Christ educated people to be saved, but he did not save them and many "Roman Catholics" realized that. The Enlightenment couldn't last because of men like Lex Hamilton.

 

[DominionSeraph]

*sigh*

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is a need for common taxation for items that are common for all the states and delivered by the Union of the states, not the states themselves.

Please give some logical thought before you pose a question.

Walls of text just because you have the time to write them are not productive to the argument.

 

[bfdd]

to steal. there is no such thing as "common good" there's only "what good you're able to convince others of letting you steal from them for". taxation, especially income taxation, is only justifiable to thieves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Stop.
Focus.
Think.
Question your premise and assumptions. Make sure they are logically consistent and match the reality of the world as it is with as little personal bias as possible.
Get outside the Box. Turn the subject around and look at it from different angles.
Don't wander.

With that in mind I'll twist the subject a bit. Knowing what the Constitution says the powers of the Federal government are, how would you execute the responsibilities without a reliable source of income? If the states can blackmail the Federal government or refuse to contribute then the Federal gov, which is a created entity under the Constitution cannot exist. Remember, your dislike of the Constitution is irrelevant. It is what exists and you are constrained by it in this thought experiment. People of the US are in a sense dual citizens. As the Constitution is constructed (and remember don't think about any alternatives, focus) we are citizens of a state AND the federal government. One does not prevent the taxation by the other and if one government entity falls, so do they all and we have fifty nations, not one.

Now given this context and you are a leader charged with following the mandates of the Constitution, what alternatives to taxation by the federal government which provides an unbroken and unimpeded revenue can exist in the reality of our world?

Remember, your personal preferences are not to be considered. You have a job, and these are the constraints. You cannot change them. You must carry them out.

I'm trying to help you reason this out by taking rational steps in order. I am not mocking you.

 

[Nintendesert]

I think Anarchist is living in the wrong century in a non-existent country somewhere on a different planet.

 

[Jaskalas]

What is the point of central taxation power?

In a word, subjugation.

Take money from the states, and then hand it back to them with strings attached. Their citizens expect services only that money can provide, so they are forced to accept whatever terms the federal government dictates.

This is simply a matter of dependance, and it was imperative to make the states dependent so they wouldn't get any wild ideas about the right of self determination or individual liberty. This money keeps them in line. Without it they could start making their own decisions again.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I think Anarchist is living in the wrong century in a non-existent country somewhere on a different planet.

Yes, he lives in a century and no-longer-existent country where people used to think critically, ask questions, and challenge authority. This isn't familiar territory for you because you've been trained, since birth, to do the exact opposite.

 

[Anarchist420]

There is a need for common taxation for items that are common for all the states and delivered by the Union of the states, not the states themselves.

Common revenue collection is not necessary and never was. Even some nationalists admit that and that tariffs don't work. Confederations are the most stable, it just didn't work out here because it was never given a chance. After wars, creditors always contract credit and the revolution hadn't even been over for 3 years before the current US constitution was already being planned.

That said, the Articles of Confederation started working before they were replaced by people who had limited respect for the rule of law as well as what the people then wanted. The Constitution only become We the People because of lies and deceit.

As for the concept of union... The Declaration of independence treated the Original 13 Colonies as separate countries and they were meant to be until Washington seriously expressed his dislike for state militias (see Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty). Union is a most artificial construct. Am I binded to anyone but myself? No. There is no such real thing as the "body of the people". It may exist logically, but not physically and due to that, I want no parts of it. I'd just wind up making myself and those naturally superior to me miserable. Egalitarianism is one of the biggest revolts against nature and it is about to fail just as forced inequality is. Republics and monarchies have ruling classes. In "pure democracy", individuals will eventually just go their own way.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, he lives in a century and no-longer-existent country where people used to think critically, ask questions, and challenge authority. This isn't familiar territory for you because you've been trained, since birth, to do the exact opposite.

Yep. He's still probably spoonfed Super FX microchips.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, he lives in a century and no-longer-existent country where people used to think critically, ask questions, and challenge authority. This isn't familiar territory for you because you've been trained, since birth, to do the exact opposite.

Really? Which century did people "think critically" or "challenge authority" more so than they do now?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Common revenue collection is not necessary and never was. Even some nationalists admit that and that tariffs don't work. Confederations are the most stable, it just didn't work out here because it was never given a chance. After wars, creditors always contract credit and the revolution hadn't even been over for 3 years before the current US constitution was already being planned.

That said, the Articles of Confederation started working before they were replaced by people who had limited respect for the rule of law as well as what the people then wanted. The Constitution only become We the People because of lies and deceit.

As for the concept of union... The Declaration of independence treated the Original 13 Colonies as separate countries and they were meant to be until Washington seriously expressed his dislike for state militias (see Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty). Union is a most artificial construct. Am I binded to anyone but myself? No. There is no such real thing as the "body of the people". It may exist logically, but not physically and due to that, I want no parts of it. I'd just wind up making myself and those naturally superior to me miserable. Egalitarianism is one of the biggest revolts against nature and it is about to fail just as forced inequality is. Republics and monarchies have ruling classes. In "pure democracy", individuals will eventually just go their own way.

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,"

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,"

Nowhere does anything state separate countries.

 

[Jaskalas]

Really? Which century did people "think critically" or "challenge authority" more so than they do now?

We have a permanent two party incumbency, as an example of how bad it is now.

 

[woolfe9999]

We have a permanent two party incumbency, as an example of how bad it is now.

Did you read the question you replied to? I can't imagine you did or you wouldn't have given this answer. I asked him when it was we supposedly challenged authority or thought critically, more so than we do now. Giving an example of something - a 2 party incumbency - which has been a constant since the founding of this republic, is hardly an adequate response.

 

[Moonbeam]

Stop.
Focus.
Think.
Question your premise and assumptions. Make sure they are logically consistent and match the reality of the world as it is with as little personal bias as possible.
Get outside the Box. Turn the subject around and look at it from different angles.
Don't wander.

With that in mind I'll twist the subject a bit. Knowing what the Constitution says the powers of the Federal government are, how would you execute the responsibilities without a reliable source of income? If the states can blackmail the Federal government or refuse to contribute then the Federal gov, which is a created entity under the Constitution cannot exist. Remember, your dislike of the Constitution is irrelevant. It is what exists and you are constrained by it in this thought experiment. People of the US are in a sense dual citizens. As the Constitution is constructed (and remember don't think about any alternatives, focus) we are citizens of a state AND the federal government. One does not prevent the taxation by the other and if one government entity falls, so do they all and we have fifty nations, not one.

Now given this context and you are a leader charged with following the mandates of the Constitution, what alternatives to taxation by the federal government which provides an unbroken and unimpeded revenue can exist in the reality of our world?

Remember, your personal preferences are not to be considered. You have a job, and these are the constraints. You cannot change them. You must carry them out.

I'm trying to help you reason this out by taking rational steps in order. I am not mocking you.

This is the way probably most all threads in P & N should be dealt with.

 

[Moonbeam]

We have a permanent two party incumbency, as an example of how bad it is now.

We have exactly what we have. Stay real. We have door number one and door number two, and you off in fantasy land. Show me something that can get 30%.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Really? Which century did people "think critically" or "challenge authority" more so than they do now?

Both the Enlightenment-fueled 18th and 19th centuries, and it isn't even close.

 

[Juror No. 8]

This is the way probably most all threads in P & N should be dealt with.

Yes, it was a fantastic attempt at obfuscation and subject avoidance.

"But, but, but... just imagine you're the leader and this is the system in place! What would you do?"

LOL.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, it was a fantastic attempt at obfuscation and subject avoidance.

"But, but, but... just imagine you're the leader and this is the system in place! What would you do?"

LOL.

Examination, organized thought, and rationality are not your strong suit my little arthropod?

No, never look behind the curtain. Never analyze, never challenge with thought or idea. Just hiss and stink.

How's that working for the rest of the world?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Examination, organized thought, and rationality are not your strong suit my little arthropod?

No, never look behind the curtain. Never analyze, never challenge with thought or idea. Just hiss and stink.

How's that working for the rest of the world?

I don't know. Perhaps you should be the one to tell me.

Here again is the question that represents the subject of the thread:

What is the point of central taxation power?

And your response essentially was:

With that in mind I'll twist the subject a bit.

Your response was nothing but a wormy exercise in subject avoidance. It was a nonsensical waste of time. Where's your "examination" of the subject as it was presented? Where's your "organized thought" and "rationality" in twisting the subject to fit your slimy agenda?

I know the answer to these questions. Do you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your response was nothing but a wormy exercise in subject avoidance. It was a nonsensical waste of time. Where's your "examination" of the subject as it was presented? Where's your "organized thought" and "rationality" in twisting the subject to fit your slimy agenda?

I know the answer to these questions. Do you?

Last question first, I have a passing understanding of central taxation.

What you failed to do which Moonbeam did not was understand why I posted what I did. Have you noticed that 420 gets a crapload of grief? That mostly it's because he tends to ramble and not focus on the point he's trying to make, but brings in things like Pope Benedict?

Unlike purposeful trolls, he is disorganized and ends up being ridiculed for things which I do not believe he means to do. I framed an outline as to how to go about not getting beat up on and being able to contribute in a way which might help him approach a topic. What has it to do with central taxation? Not a damn thing, nor was it ever meant to be. What does your post to me have to do with it?

While it's clearly hard for you to grasp this obvious point, sometimes things are done and said with helpful intent. Now since I haven't made any comment whatsoever about central taxation other than state a very basic premise, and that has to do with the needs of various levels of government and inherent competition for resources beyond the economics, I presented him a methodology with which can be generally applied to the examination of things in general. I did not insult him. I did not divert from the topic with clever abstractions intended to subvert whatever point he was trying to make, but to help him to clarify his thoughts and position. That was my "agenda". What do you find "slimy" about it?

 

[zephyrprime]

Get off the computer and seek psychological help. Socialize in real life and fuck the internet.

 

[Jaskalas]

Did you read the question you replied to? I can't imagine you did or you wouldn't have given this answer. I asked him when it was we supposedly challenged authority or thought critically, more so than we do now. Giving an example of something - a 2 party incumbency - which has been a constant since the founding of this republic, is hardly an adequate response.

It is worse today than ever. Hence it was better before the world became so small. With radio, TV, and then internet, the dogma of the two parties has never been more unified throughout a nation so large.

Localities are subjugated, individual liberties squashed, differing ideas stomped out. Their reach has never been further, their hold never tighter. They are a permanent two party incumbency which effectively eliminates the act of voting. We'll go through the motions, but the act itself is hollow. Will not change anything.

Voting itself is not without power. It is our critical thinking and challenge to authority that is missing. We are lemmings now more than ever. We once had a civil war to ensure self determination. Just try and imagine such free thought, such a challenge to authority today.

It is very topical to speak of the dire situation today. Which century was better? Take your pick.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Both the Enlightenment-fueled 18th and 19th centuries, and it isn't even close.

What's the 18th and 19th century equivalents of this?
http://youtu.be/Awyxcs6RgiQ

 

[woolfe9999]

It is worse today than ever. Hence it was better before the world became so small. With radio, TV, and then internet, the dogma of the two parties has never been more unified throughout a nation so large.

I don't know about the "dogma." I do know that there has never been a third party which has had a good chance of being elected to POTUS. Teddy Roosevelt with his "Bull Moose" party came closest, but he had already been a popular POTUS and was really a republican. He still lost. We've had a "2 party incumbency" right from the beginning. It's amusing to listen to people marvel at it now like it's a characteristic of our modern politics.

Localities are subjugated, individual liberties squashed, differing ideas stomped out. Their reach has never been further, their hold never tighter. They are a permanent two party incumbency which effectively eliminates the act of voting. We'll go through the motions, but the act itself is hollow. Will not change anything.

There's plenty to complain about, then and now. I'm not so sure that liberties were all that much greater at the founding of the republic. You might want to look up the Alien & Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, which made it a crime to criticize the then sitting POTUS, John Adams. I can't recall anything so blatantly anti-Fist Amendment having been passed by Congress since.

Voting itself is not without power. It is our critical thinking and challenge to authority that is missing. We are lemmings now more than ever. We once had a civil war to ensure self determination. Just try and imagine such free thought, such a challenge to authority today.

No doubt that as a nation we are greatly in need of higher order critical thinking skills. I'm not really sure we had that in greater abundance in the past than we do now.

It is very topical to speak of the dire situation today. Which century was better? Take your pick.

Agreed.