Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

You are the one who demands that others be forced to pay for the privileges that benefit you.

 

You are the one who demands to be entitled to take without paying for what you take.

 

So...taking people's money by force?

The price we pay for civilization. Just like slavery.

 

That made me laugh.

You get the same services as me.

Go ask your mommy for free stuff

 

You don't know what I take.
But you have clearly stated what you want to take.
Go ask your mommy to support you

 

No, requiring them to pay for what they are taking or do without it, just as we require a customer to pay the baker for the loaf of bread he takes home. That is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction.

You made that up.

 

Well, at least you avoided thinking.

GARBAGE.

You are the one demanding the free stuff, and I will thank you to remember it.

 

Great, my neighbor can voluntarily choose not to pay? Well that's nice to hear. I thought you guys were all about the vig. I'm glad to hear you say that it's all voluntary.

 

Should that apply to just the US or be a worldwide standard?

 

Is that what your professor told you?

 

Free stuff? What is even being discussed here?

I thought we were discussing whether it's right for some people to point guns at others and take their stuff.

 

One can voluntarily choose to pay for the loaf of bread and take it. That's not the same as choosing not to pay for the loaf of bread just to then take it anyways. That would be theft and not fair to the baker.

 

No, I've gone far beyond my professors, none of whom ever understood any of this, AFAIK. But thank you for again disgracing yourself. It renews my confidence that I am right, and the opposition dishonest, evasive, wrong, dishonest, despicable, ignorant, stupid, and dishonest.

 

That is a kindergarten reading of the issue.

 

Yes; and so can you, by not taking anything from others.

It IS all voluntary, and that is why you fear and hate it. You want to take by force, and not pay for what you take. The voluntary system we advocate does not permit you to take by force and not pay for what you take. Simple.

 

I know you are a taker. Your every post reeks of it. What form your taking takes -- land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights and/or shares in companies that own any of those things -- is not really relevant.

Oh, really? What? Can you provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support your claims?

Thought not.

You're really going full schoolyard, here, aren't you?

 

It's neither ugly, nor beautiful. Think about the fuller implications of it ..... every man, for himself.

Every man can determine his own path, for himself. More importantly .. if every man is for himself (perhaps because he doesn't care to make himself a burden on his neighbour, who already has own self to support), fewer of us will fall through the cracks.

The only justification for calling it 'ugly' is a preference for making yourself a burden.

 

Who is forcing you to give him your money?

It's entirely possible to live on next to nothing, so let's not pretend someone is forcing you to live your profligate First World lifestyle.

 

O.M.G

 

Land can be owned.

Ownership of land is not a determined by government fiat. No ownership of anything is determined by government fiat.

George was wrong.

 

You still banging on about that?

1. If there is more than 1 individual in the world, then contract enforcement, aka rule of law established by government, is necessary to avoid anarchy.

2. Since an individual's 'earnings' are related to the efforts of others (ie, related to existing and developing community infrastructure and knowledge), taxation is a necessary part of ensuring economic justice in the community.

3. Hence - while indeed "taking stuff at gunpoint" is wrong, acknowledging the responsibility of individuals to the community in which they reside is another thing altogether.

Needless to say, you still haven't explained what you mean by "societal prohibition of violence at gun-point".

 

Everyman for himself? It's the definition of anarchy...it ain't pretty.

Refuted above. Anarchy means there is no security at all, certainly not a condition for "determining one's own path".

(I was going to say "nice try, but no cigar'.... but on reflection, your thinking above doesn't qualify for 'nice try').

I see you are at least attempting to grapple with the ugliness of 'every man for himself'; but your attempt to change individual responsibility to the community into a "burden on others" is totally incompatible with economic justice.

Remember, I support universal participation in, and contribution to the nation's prosperity.

 

What a despicable removal of context to falsify meaning.

To restore the meaning you removed: A VOLUNTARY system DOES NOT PERMIT GREEDY, PRIVILEGED TAKERS to impose their will on others by FORCE.

A VOLUNTARY system does NOT and by definition CANNOT PERMIT NON-VOLUNTARY interactions.

GET IT????

 

Government, and he with government's help.

Yes; so, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," that means he can take all of my rightly earned money in excess of what I need to survive, and somehow it doesn't count as taking???

Give your head a shake.

No; let's not pretend FORCIBLY DEPRIVING me of my LIBERTY and RIGHTFUL PROPERTY needed to live the lifestyle I CHOOSE is anything but TAKING.

 

The Diggers would be spinning in their anarchist graves...