Basspig's Blog

Political and Scientific Opinions from a Rational Person

Why Taxes are Organized Crime (A Response to a Reader)

with 17 comments

,,

 

In response to my “Feudal Land Title: A Commonlaw Fraud” article, a reader, “Dogma” responded with what I consider to be the typical “best” Marxist argument defending the quashing of property rights in America and in other countries that do not respect no recognize the right to private property.

Let’s begin with his opening remark:

You seem to have developed a victim mentality with an entitlement attitude. You realize you are rationalizing a self-absorbed position in light of facts not in evidence. Your positions have zero basis in reality, they simply serve to help you justify your lot in life, whatever that is.

The reader’s comment starts out with a contradiction: no one but the individual can defend property rights. The government can’t do it, since it’s motivation is to increase the reach of its powers through ever-increasing taxes, regulations and encroachment into individual’s lives. So instead of having unorganized and poorly-funded roving bandits attacking your private property, now you have a single, well-funded, heavily-armed, military or para-military force that is bound by law to take your property, using practically-unlimited resources, funded by mass extortion. You see, in most countries, including America, your Constitutional rights are only recognized (poorly at that) when your taxes are paid. So when you have property taxes, the government grows in power at an alarming rate and is soon out of control and interfering with every aspect of your life. And they have more mite than any roving bandits. And if you kill a “law enforcement” officer who’s about to take your property that you’ve worked your entire life to earn, many more well-funded para-military will be on your property in short order, with orders to murder you. Kill a roving bandit and that would likely be the last you’d be dealing with that particular pack of bandits.

In a moral society, the government’s job is limited to securing individual rights, not subverting them. The current system in America is immoral. What a fine example it is: stealing is how to run a government. Theft is socially acceptable. Even if you have to murder the creator of a certain wealth or value in order to obtain it by force.

In the free market, some people provide services and products. Those that are a real value to other men, prosper–there is no need to point a gun at the consumer and say “buy, or else!” But that’s exactly how the government works. Since few, if any of the “services” it offers are what people with a rational self-interest would want (who want’s their children indoctrinated with Marxist ideaology? Who want’s to be burdened with a thousand different forms and fees just to build a tool shed on one’s own property?) the government, in order to remain in “business” has to seize its income by force, or threat thereof.

 

You are not entitled to own property to do what you please, without compensating the rest of society [AKA: the government] for the expense of securing YOUR property rights, which are relative. See, in your world you would own some property, and then you would attempt to defend that property from others that wish to take it away by force. This is a battle you would lose. And very quickly. Somebody, or some group would easily over run you, and take your property for themselves. They then would have to defend it from other would-be predators.

To wit, here are two illuminating arguments from fellow Objectivists:

That is an arbitrary assertion defensible in neither political philosophy nor the historical record in America. If someone is opposed to private property rights because he is a collectivist who thinks you owe “compensation to society” in order to live, then the dispute is a lot deeper than the nature of land rights.

Rights are a moral concept. The concept of rights of the individual means a moral sanction of the freedom of action of the individual in a social context. Rights subordinate society to moral law because the individual, not society, is the fundamental unit. Rights do not have to be bought from the collective. That would invert the process. This pertains to all of our rights, not just land rights. Our political rights under law are a recognition and legal formulation of our natural rights as human beings. The whole purpose of the government is to protect our rights as individuals, not dispense them by permission in exchange for extortion payments on behalf of the mob.

~and~

Does man not own his effort which he trades for values (or money) which can then be traded for another value(s), land? Whether people recognize it or not a moral government is created by the people to protect their individual rights (the right to take action) and all the values they accumulate from that action which includes land/property. In other words a moral government outlaws force and only takes action against those that use or state they will use force against others. So, the government (and it’s citizens that agree) that act to take one’s property/land are acting in an immoral manner when they take someone’s land for non-defense based reasons. …

A right is a moral concept that subordinates the will of the majority to the rights of the individual within a social context. And to protect those rights man creates a government which does so by creating laws to protect man’s right to take action and accumulate values (to include land). Once again whether people recognize it or not, the U.S. Constitution was created to defend man’s rights (which comes from his very nature of being a man) not to give him rights nor limit his rights. In other words the U.S. Constitution was created to limit the power of the government so that it’s sole purpose would be to outlaw any usage of immoral force.

Man, by his very nature has the right to take all the actions required to sustain his life. And any man that takes the action(s) to produce an effort, but does not own his effort’s reward(s) is just a slave. In other words, man does not need a government to tell him what actions to take to sustain his life, but he does need a government to protect him from those that want to enslave his actions (and hence any property that is earned from those actions) to their whimsical desires. …

The Founding Fathers were fighting against a feudal or nonsovereign land ownership because they recognized that man has a right to the property (all property) that he has earned or been given. And once man has earned the property (or it has been given by someone that has earned it) he has the right to keep, use or dispose of the property as he sees fit.

~end quotes~

 

That is anarchy, where almost everyone dies a violent death, or is actually enslaved. That is the logical and absolute progression of your argument. That is what you want.

This reader has a malevolent view of mankind. He seems to believe that man is inherently evil, and that he will go about murdering everyone in sight, just to satisfy his lust for conquest.

No, this is not anarchy. This is moral and proper to man, to live in a free society, where individual rights are priority number one, and anyone can do what they please, at their own expense, so long as their actions do not harm others.

 

The rest of us want a manageable society where our children aren’t hunters or the hunted. This requires some sacrifice. SOME sacrifice. So we collectively agree to form a “government”. It is not some monarchy or brutal dictatorship, because by definition if it were, we would not be allowed to discuss this publicly or privately. We, the people, have agreed to hire and employ persons to provide enforcement of the laws we agree on. One of the many laws is indeed enforcement of property rights. So indeed one can own a home/property WITHOUT immediately being slain by some more powerful entity out to take the property.

There is a cost for this. It’s called taxes. So the deal is, for some cost (variable by state), the majority of citizens have agreed to pay some monetary fee into the collective we call the government. Part of what our government employees do is enforce the laws. We also put some penalty into the laws. If someone attempts to take your property by force, they are subject to losing their personal freedom. Also, if someone doesn’t pay their share of taxes, they to are at risk of penalty. Otherwise, many people, such as yourself, wouldn’t pay taxes, yet would want the protection of the law. In other words, these people would want something for nothing.

All Socialism leads to Marxism, which leads to Communism. Look at how our freedoms have eroded in America, at an exponentially-increasing rate in these last few decades. There can be no civility in a nation where the government is run by stealing. It sets one fine example for others to follow. A nation of thieves, starting with the government and working its way through to the inhabitants. Eventually all citizens of this type of government become the Hunted, and the government becomes the ultimate Predator.

If the government offered something we valued, we would gladly pay for it. The fact that the money has to be extorted is a clear sign that something is terribly wrong with what the government is “selling”.

 

We are not ENTITLED to these protections without some sacrifice. You are not a victim of the “evil government”. You have nobody to blame but yourself. You are a victim of yourself. You deserve what you get. Sorry.

I know I am sounding harsh, but I too thought like you for 20+ years. I too lost a property because I couldn’t afford both the payment on the property and the taxes on the property. I too blamed everyone else but myself. I lied to myself, I knew the rules before I committed to the binding contract. Property taxes, and the potential that they could rise were not hidden at all. I chose to ignore those cost because I felt I was entitled, I was owed the lifestyle I wanted … not the lifestyle I earned and thus deserved.

After the Sheriff physically removed me from “my house”, I realized that I had the equation all wrong. I too thought I was forced to, as you say, “make an un-coerced choice as to whether we want to participate in the Socialist income-redistribution system or not.” I could have “chosen” to move to another State, or even another country. I could have chosen to continue to bitch and moan about how “the man” is keeping me down.

What I realized was that I COULDN’T AFFORD the lifestyle I wanted (which INCLUDED paying the taxes that enforced property rights), therefore I DIDN’T DESERVE it. In order for me to afford what i wanted, I was going to have to devise and execute a plan that would allow me to earn more, therefore I could pay more, and AFFORD it.

Hopefully one day soon, you to will come to that same conclusion.

Been there, done that. I empathize with your pain. Really, I do. The first time I was removed from my property, I was too ignorant to stand up and say, “Hey! This is stealing!” It was a sewer assessment that put me into foreclosure. I had 30 days to come up with a year’s salary to pay it. Plus the town condemned my septic and well, which were only four years old. I spent the next 44 years recovering, financially, from that devastation. The next time it happens, the uniformed men will be dealing with a man with “nothing left to lose.” Beware!

In America, we were founded on the ideal of the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires us to slave at jobs to pay a randsom just to be left alone (and even then we are frequently invaded, threatened and dislocated for other government demands). To pursue happiness, doing what we please, even if it means raising a garden and living off the land and not partaking in the IRS’ game of social security numbers and fiat money commerce. Since the only way to legally avoid paying income taxes is not to have any income, a homeowner is stuck with an inability to protest or “vote with his wallet” against the federal government.

This is America, a nation founded on the principal that no man should be forced to move somewhere else, to enjoy the lifestyle of his choosing. And no one should be forced to move, just because of government greed. You see, you’re property is YOURS, if you earned it and properly compensated the previous owner. You owe no other party anything. Society has no claim on your private property, nor on your person, as long as your use of your property does not put another’s in harm’s way.

Freedom means that no man is a slave to any other, or to any society. Property taxes are, in essense, the most quintessential form of slavery there is.

Advertisements

Written by basspig

August 4, 2010 at 3:29 pm

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. From my understanding you believe taxes are immoral.
    I agree with you from looking at the perspective of individual property rights.
    What I can’t entirely explain is how a government is to exist without taxes.
    Do you see it existing on donations?
    If so I doubt everyone will pay, not everyone votes in a non-compulsory voting system either.
    You’re trusting the citizens to be rational enough to pay, and perhaps pay more to cover the people who aren’t voting.

    However I do see the merit for paying for things you actually use rather than having government subsides, or the headache of what government should be paying and what they shouldn’t.
    (I am assuming the government will strictly only function to enforce law, and keep order with police and military)

    Matthew

    August 11, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    • This is a very common question that comes to mind for a lot of folks when presented with the shocking concept of a nation without extortion to fund its government.
      It should be noted that America, for the first 150 years, was such a nation. What little taxes there were, they were miniscule when compared with evolved burocratic messes like Europe and the US today.
      The cost of running a morally-proper government (a government whose only duty is to protect individual rights through: a) military defense, b) police, and c) a court system) would be microscopic when compared with the all-powerful, ubiquitous and encroaching burocratic nightmare that it has evolved into, solely because of its ability to tax.
      Funding a smaller government would be a far less daunting task. When one tries to contemplate raising trillions of dollar to fund our present form of government, this becomes an exercise in futility. However, a proper, moral government won’t cost but a tiny fraction of that. Probably less than 1% of what it does today. And there are many voluntary ways to fund a smaller government: Lotteries have no shortage of participants. Another concept would be insurance policies. Several types of financial instruments, such as savings bonds would be another.
      If we had to accept a tax, probably the least immoral would be a consumption tax. Once you get to property taxes, it’s an oxymoron, because all property, by definition, would belong to the government, and property ownership by the individual would not be possible. The property tax is by far the most vial of all taxes, because it is a tax on a non-income producing asset, one which is tantamount to food and clothing—shelter. Not only bare sustenance shelter, but a home also provides psychological stability. A human being cannot be truly happy as a nomadic wanderer, unless he is on some sort of narcotic, or stupid. We humans are selfish by our genetic nature. We require that we benefit from the product of our toils/efforts. Denying ownership of our homes denies us safety and security of our persons and possessions.
      In summation, when the government is reduced to its proper and moral functions, it will be small enough and efficient enough to fund by means that don’t violate anyone’s rights. Consider the irony of this statement: The government, to protect property rights, must steal property from you. So in reality, there are no property rights, since if a government can violate one person’s rights, so it can violate all of our rights. Once you grant government the power to tax, you grant it the sanction of the victim, and you open the door to exponential expansion of government. And remember, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Taxes are the only path to Absolute Power.

      basspig

      August 12, 2010 at 12:19 am

  2. I have read quite a lot about Marxism. And from my point of view, Marxism is really Satanism! Karl Marx was Satan the Devil himself—in the flesh!!!

    Change is needed

    August 28, 2010 at 6:30 pm

  3. Interesting blog and comment. I just disagree about your view (not quiet detailed I have to say) about Marxism. You seem somehow to be sit on the top of the wall, not in favor of capitalism but also against Marxism. The last which is by the way different than the communism and socialism implemented in certain countries now and before.

    About the satanic comment above, I just have to remind that the initial church, formed by the Apostles was a communist community. And I don’t have to say that communism derives from community.

    I am not a communist nor Marxist, I am Christian. And definitely against any form of enforced egotism and social separatism and discrimination. But governments and society nowadays are evil, and they do enslave and brainwash people to accept the most absurd things like if it were FREEDOM and their RIGHTS!

    They guy who said, “I don’t have a property because I don’t deserve” has become the ultimate zombie!

    Luiz R

    November 26, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    • I think you might be confusing the quotes I included from the reader “Dogma” and myself. I am 100% in support of Capitalism, because it is the only economic system that respects individual rights.
      In modern society, we are presented with two main systems, one proposed by the secular progressives, and one proposed by the religious right. These alternatives are: A) Obedience to the State, and B) Obedience to some imaginary ghost, but more realistically, obedience to a religious theocracy. I agree that religion shares many common attributes with Communism.
      Governments only become abusive shortly after the institution of a tax system, or a system of theft by legalized extortion. Every society that collects taxes, eventually becomes a full tyranny in its final days.
      My main issue is that government, when permitted to tax, violates individual rights and property rights.

      basspig

      November 28, 2010 at 10:32 pm

  4. I think it is time to read this interesting article, located at http://www.topix.net/forum/us/T6E7SOK2H92TJNLRV

    Observer

    December 13, 2010 at 2:04 am

    • What this guy said about the New World Order is utter insanity!!! Communist Manifesto was nothing more than an university flyer, and to say that this is the cause of both World Wars is nothing more than serious alienation. I am amazed how people get so fanatical about a system they can’t even see the evil they live in. Why don’t you read your 1 dollar bill and check when the NWO started, and if you didn’t notice, it was a capitalist SYSTEM!

      Tell me something, what is capitalism and communism to you? I can’t believe people went so blind that not only they like and worship having to pay taxes they want to force others to do the same and still PREACH that this is GOOD talking nonsense about communism or whatever which is completely irrelevant.

      Whatever the economical and social system, taxes are enslaving and this is the point here I believe.

      Luiz R

      December 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm

      • Capitalism, in it’s true form, (not the mixed Marxist with a little hint of Capitalist-like patina that we have now), is the only economic system that respects individual rights. In Laissez-faire Capitalism, the only barrier to entry is one’s ambition, not a government regulatory agency. There is no ‘old boy’s club’ with corporations forming a dirty allegiance with government officials to offset some of the ridiculous regulatory burdens, or the shape legislation so it’s less destructive to a particular corporation. This, unfortunately, skews the market through Fascist-like governing principals. It is no longer Capitalism. It is corporate welfare.

        basspig

        December 14, 2010 at 1:32 am

  5. I believe in this case basspig there is a confusion about the pseudo-democracy we live in today and the Capitalism you are talking about. It seems your comment above is more related to the political system instead of the economical one. That is one main difference between communism and capitalism, the first is a political-social economical system, the later – in its ideal form – is just an economical system.

    When you say that “In Laissez-faire Capitalism” the only barrier is ambition you are assuming people living in the same society are perfect and they won’t keep – or try to – you from entry. You are assuming that there is no risk of competition and that nobody will ever feel threatened by another strong rivalry that is emerging. I find this beyond Utopia.

    BUT i completely agree with you that a system like the communism we see won’t ever be ideal, since corruption and personal interests of the government officials will always work against the interests of the general population.

    But don’t you think a beggar in the Central Park has ambition?

    Luiz R

    December 14, 2010 at 1:48 am

    • Since the only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights, then the government should only intervene when there’s one individual or group threatening physical force against another as a barrier to entry. Otherwise, build a better mousetrap. The market is the ultimage judge of efficacy of a business plan.
      Where Communism failed is in the fact that it assumed we are insects with a collective consciousness, not individuals, with individual ambitions and goals.
      Big government that is outside it’s moral sphere, is always on a path to corruption. It cannot be avoided without limiting it to the three moral purposes: protection of individual rights, providing police, and courts.
      Because a person lacked ambition, or mental health, or had some sort of illness, he has become that beggar. If by misfortune of a genetic accident, this is a worthy case for charity, which is well served when individuals have smaller government burdens.

      basspig

      December 14, 2010 at 2:25 am

      • Because a person lacked ambition or health it became a beggar??

        Please basspig, ambition is the main cause of murder, corruption, theft, anxiety, depression, drug addiction, etc. Try to watch a documentary or two about beggars, this lack of ambition excuse is nothing more than a way to close your eyes and feel good about this disgraceful reality (and just one of them) of this system.

        Although I am far from a defender of communism, you say Communism assumed we are insects with a collective consciousness, but what you are implying to this capitalist reality is that people all SHOULD OR HAVE to strive for ambition and therefore becoming one common robotic replication of behaviour. Be ambitious or miserable. This is homogenization, an even worse one.

        Now lets take an example of a poor person, from a poor family, without much initial culture. All this person has is public education and since he comes from a poor neighborhood the chance that he will end up in the worst public high school is high, even more if you consider that the best schools can’t possibly accommodate everybody, even everybody who deserves to be there. So, first this person is obliged to study, because he can’t start or begin anything by himself, he doesn’t have any money. He is obliged to follow the doctrines of the system. To follow the same path that is standardized and again homogenizing.

        He will then, have to go to college, pay tuition, get one of those jobs just to sustain his education and be luck he won’t have any debts in the end. He will have to pay to get books and so he is able to start to work, because every company now demands a degree. This has then, become a required technique, and again an homogenizing agent.

        And after all this you may get a job that you will fight with all your might to keep, even by sacrificing well being and maybe something else. This is part of the intent of this whole, desperation for a good job. In the end you are owned by companies, you are an insect, a well trained one, like every one else that managed to get there. And what is is recompense? You can consume…

        This brings us back to the most elemental problem with property taxes. The fact that you can’t just have your house and property and plant things, create animals for your own subsistence and leave in peace. You have to pay taxes, therefore you have to work and produce to sell… something that will be hardly possible in a small property.

        Luiz R

        December 14, 2010 at 3:44 am

      • No ambition is no more a cause of murder than handguns are. Ambition is a tool. Philosophy determines whether ambition (or handguns) are used for good or evil.
        Being human, people are naturally prone to ambition. It is natural to desire to improve one’s situation in life. Anyone who doesn’t, is either mentally ill, or has a brain that is abnormal. Ambition, within the realm of objective reason, is the reason we have modern skyscrapers, space exploration and longer lifespans. Ambition without objective reason results in what we see in much of Africa–people living like animals, not humans.
        Poverty is largely caused by government despotism. In the nations with the worst government, we have the most rampant poverty. In the nations that have at least some respect for property rights, we have a great deal more prosperity. Every nation that has tried even a small measure of Capitalism, has seen a tremendous rise in quality of life. Look at China: just a drop of Capitalism and suddenly the Chinese are transitioning from feudal dirt farmers to modern industrialists with access to modern technology and a better lifestyle.
        I don’t buy the excuse “well he came from a poor family”. I came from a poor family–we grew up without running water, flush toilets, etc,. when other people had them. I came out of public school and got a job. I worked 80-90 hours a week and saved what money I could. I never knew what it was like to have a Sunday off. I lived at my place of employment for many years, except going home to sleep. And when I retired, I started my own business. I failed three times at that, but realized that sitting around doing nothing was worse than trying again.
        If you can’t find a job because of age, or because of social status, make your own job. Start a business. Yeah, it’s tough out there, but it’s worse if you sit around and whine about how bad Capitalism is because you come from a poor family.

        Yes, the elemental problem of property taxes is that you often can’t earn enough to pay the tax man his demands. Taxes are not even reasonable. If they were $15 instead of $15,000 a year, then a lot more people could afford to live the American dream on lesser employment. Certainly working at home, raising your own food and subsisting off the land would work if you could keep your land.

        basspig

        December 14, 2010 at 7:57 pm

  6. You never really own your property even when you have no mortgage. You’ll always owe property taxes, therefore you never really own your property, it’s rather leased from the government. Good thing there are property tax loans when you need help.

    Texas Tax Lender

    December 14, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    • Property tax loans won’t do any good if a person cannot earn enough to pay the property taxes of today. The problem is that government greed and unions have made it impossible to rein in cost of municipal services. The real underlying problem is that the citizen is now a slave, working for the government slavemaster.

      basspig

      January 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm

  7. ->”No ambition is no more a cause of murder than handguns are. Ambition is a tool. Philosophy determines whether ambition (or handguns) are used for good or evil.
    Being human, people are naturally prone to ambition. It is natural to desire to improve one’s situation in life. Anyone who doesn’t, is either mentally ill, or has a brain that is abnormal.””Ambition without objective reason results in what we see in much of Africa–people living like animals, not humans.””Poverty is largely caused by government despotism. In the nations with the worst government, we have the most rampant poverty. In the nations that have at least some respect for property rights, we have a great deal more prosperity.””Every nation that has tried even a small measure of Capitalism, has seen a tremendous rise in quality of life. Look at China: just a drop of Capitalism and suddenly the Chinese are transitioning from feudal dirt farmers to modern industrialists with access to modern technology and a better lifestyle.””I don’t buy the excuse “well he came from a poor family”. I came from a poor family–we grew up without running water, flush toilets, etc,. when other people had them.””If you can’t find a job because of age, or because of social status, make your own job. Start a business. Yeah, it’s tough out there, but it’s worse if you sit around and whine about how bad Capitalism is because you come from a poor family.””Yes, the elemental problem of property taxes is that you often can’t earn enough to pay the tax man his demands. Taxes are not even reasonable. If they were $15 instead of $15,000 a year, then a lot more people could afford to live the American dream on lesser employment. Certainly working at home, raising your own food and subsisting off the land would work if you could keep your land.”<-

    China didn't have any property taxes and only now is considering them, they are actually aiming at the same taxation used in the USA. The goods of capitalism… And I don't get something, if you say people have to be ambitious, property taxes are nothing more than forcing people to be ambitious and struggle to pay them. What is the burden then? Do you just want to live like a poor dirty farmer without having to compete in the market and get so much money that will make your taxes look ridicule?

    Luiz R

    December 18, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    • I want to live without the worry of losing my home. In 1966, my taxes were equivalent to one weekly paycheck. Today, they are equivalent to 48 weekly paychecks.
      America was founded on freedom and individual rights, which includes respect for private property. We have been losing that since 1913. Now we have lost nearly all of it. Kelo vs. New London shows that a city can steal your home and give it to big pharma, who can then abandon the project and leave the land a wasteland of demolished homes that were one home to productive people.
      The problem now is that people are not willing to fight, and many people earn enough to pay the taxes and are still willing to give in than fight at this point. Fighting only happens when the pain level becomes excessive–when you have nothing left to lose. That’s when Civil War breaks out, and it will be one homeowner at a time.

      basspig

      January 25, 2011 at 10:12 pm

  8. Please delete the comment above, I don’t know why but it wasn’t posted properly.

    “No ambition is no more a cause of murder than handguns are. Ambition is a tool. Philosophy determines whether ambition (or handguns) are used for good or evil.
    Being human, people are naturally prone to ambition. It is natural to desire to improve one’s situation in life. Anyone who doesn’t, is either mentally ill, or has a brain that is abnormal.”

    Scientifically speaking, the only “feeling” that characterizes us as Human is Empathy, and nothing else. It is the sole condition of being human and even laws are based on that. Please read about empathy here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

    There is no scientific basis for your so called “ambition”. Ambition is abstract and chaotic as it is intangible. For instance, In Africa the Masai’s ambition is to fight with a lion by themselves when they are 16 years old. If they win they are respected as warriors, that is one of their ambitions. By disrespecting their ambition you are FORCING people to behave the way you want and fin adequate, therefore, homogenizing PEOPLE.

    “Ambition without objective reason results in what we see in much of Africa–people living like animals, not humans.”

    I have never been to Africa, but it is a very large continent and I hardly see the basis for such a stereotypical judgement and I would like to see by myself what you call “living like animals”, but Objective reason seems like another abstract expression without scientific basis, I would please ask you to define that. Define living like animals also. I see murder, rape, lies, corruption, torture… in the so called developed society every day, all committed by white people also, so we avoid getting into the racial debate.

    I also invite you to watch this short movie:

    http://mubi.com/films/34809

    Please make the sacrifice and watch, didn’t look like pejorative implied by “animal life” to me.

    “Poverty is largely caused by government despotism. In the nations with the worst government, we have the most rampant poverty. In the nations that have at least some respect for property rights, we have a great deal more prosperity.”

    In the USA 17% of the population is always living on poverty and more than 58% of all its population have spent at least one year living bellow the line of poverty. USA is also one of the most unequal countries in the world, money is highly concentrated in the hands of ridicule amount of people. In China, 15% of the population live in poverty but this rate is declining fast but inequality is also increasing.

    Based on what you said above , USA has a very poor government and economy, even though it is a Capitalist country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

    “Every nation that has tried even a small measure of Capitalism, has seen a tremendous rise in quality of life. Look at China: just a drop of Capitalism and suddenly the Chinese are transitioning from feudal dirt farmers to modern industrialists with access to modern technology and a better lifestyle.”

    Capitalism is not defined by implementation of trading or commerce, please read the definition here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

    Talking about China, that in my opinion is full of evils, what you call “capitalism” there is not a full free-market and has never been, it is highly controlled and limited to certain areas.

    About the dirt farmers, I don’t see the point of using so many insults against people that have a different lifestyle than yours, and by this I ask, what do you judge as a better lifestyle? USA ranks like Cuba in Life Expectancy. In Hangzhou, China, the life expectancy is above 80 years, way beyond USA, and is based on one of the most solid agriculture backgrounds in China. For more than 1000 years there “dirty farmers” have been prosperous. The rest of “capitalist” China have a life expectancy of about 70 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangzhou

    “I don’t buy the excuse “well he came from a poor family”. I came from a poor family–we grew up without running water, flush toilets, etc,. when other people had them.”

    My example in my last comment was talking about a poor guy who ended up very successful, so I don’t get at all why you came with this talk. My point was, If you want to succeed – the way the your capitalist ideal preaches – you you have to be homogenized, just like you say communist system do to people.

    I think it is so silly to raise a flag for a system be it anyone. It not only forces us to keep the status-quo in which we live it also keeps us from even proposing a new and better system. It is dumb as hell!

    “If you can’t find a job because of age, or because of social status, make your own job. Start a business. Yeah, it’s tough out there, but it’s worse if you sit around and whine about how bad Capitalism is because you come from a poor family.”

    I think you have a great audience, try explaining it to the few millions of desperate poor we have in America nowadays.

    “Yes, the elemental problem of property taxes is that you often can’t earn enough to pay the tax man his demands. Taxes are not even reasonable. If they were $15 instead of $15,000 a year, then a lot more people could afford to live the American dream on lesser employment. Certainly working at home, raising your own food and subsisting off the land would work if you could keep your land.”

    China didn’t have any property taxes and only now is considering them, they are actually aiming at the same taxation used in the USA. The goods of capitalism… And I don’t get something, if you say people have to be ambitious, property taxes are nothing more than forcing people to be ambitious and struggle to pay them. What is the burden then? Do you just want to live like a poor dirty farmer without having to compete in the market and get so much money that will make your taxes look ridicule?

    Luiz R

    December 18, 2010 at 3:22 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: