The Gray Days are Over.

[surferarmo]

Hell yes it does. Arnold will restore fiscal accountability, and hopefully lower taxes...like a good Republican.

Let’s have a little bit of an economic and a political lesson now. How is it that people rejoice at the thought of lower taxes if they don’t understand the theory behind that?

First of all let us start with Bush and his brilliant plan of lowering federal taxes and what are the effects.

So ... people pay less federal taxes, he allots an $80 billion federal budget for the troops and some more for the foreign aid. So the cities are experiencing an economic recession and they turn to the states which are suffering as well and turn to the federal gov. for aid, but federal government just cut taxes and spend an obscene amount of money on foreign interests and military and they say (sipping martinis in the White House) “Sorry buddy no will do. We’re a little short”.

Now the states are in despair so they start enforcing cuts and the cities follow, by cutting spending on text books, city jobs, street cleaning, fire houses and so on. So they decide to raise city and state taxes instead and our checks experience a raise in barely $4!!! Ha ha, yeah baby cut taxes, while more people are out of jobs and Bush and his Halliburton buddies are sipping Crystal champagne.

And cutting state taxes will result in the surplus of debts with the federal government’s tax cut plan as well! They conflict, simple economics! Somehow people never logically analyze, maybe they are hypnotized by the word “LOWER” so they fail to rationalize beyond that.

Germany has very high taxes and guess what? Students go to school for free, health care is provided for everyone for free, and students are given a certain allowance so that they can concentrate on school, lower income families are provided with financial support. Employees also receive money to go on 1 month vacations.

But some of us still keep screaming “lower taxes”! That is all I have to say.

Ohh lord. I dont need a lesson on political economy. If you would like to debate, be my guest.

Lowering taxes provides incentive for businesses to borrow, and buy more capital. When the supply curve for capital shifts right so does the demand curve for labor. I do not only mean labor as in factory labor. Labor consists of computer programming, a surgeon, a lawyer, a businesss man or women, or any job. This will provide more employment opportunities which will in turn provide more real income for families. Households are then able to spend more, and the circle continues.

I would like to point out though that I am dissapointed with the economic policy implemented by the present adminstration. I love lower taxes, BUT, that means that spending also has to drop. The present administration has lowered taxes, and increased spending. I do not know what the rationale is behind that, but that is what is happening.

Just a quick fact. Not all states are in a deficit by the way. New Mexico is in a surplus, and Nevada is higher new teachers and bringing in new businesses every day.

And most states are in a deficit, not mainly because of the federal government. We both agree that the taxes were only cut for federal purposes. The states have been spending like wild, and California has the highest tax rate in the US. Not to mention, our deficit is larger than all the states deficit's combined! That was caused by gross mismanagement of the budget. I can go into detail if you would like, but if you already know how the budget was mishandled, I wont need to.

[Anonymouse]

It's strange how I have consistently and constantly explained my position and few have bothered to read what I have posted because why bother bringing your views into question, when it is much more comfortable to live with an illusion?

I have not seen anyone give any rationale for the existence of the State, other than the "they provide parks" and "firemen" argument, or the "your neighbor will kill you". In the haze of emotions, they fail to see that such things are the product of individuals cooperating together for satisfying their self seeking ends. Individualism is exactly that. The state has, in order to control us, introduced division into our thinking, so that we come to distrust others and look to the state for protection. That is the way it goes. That is why Tigran is bitterly defending the state now, even going so far as to start to insult me, in an effort to desperately hold on to his views, but seeping from his words is the obvious frustration and the crack of his world view.

Collectivism is a dehumanizing philosophy because it is founded on division, and the forced repression of our individual interests in favor of a sham "common" interest which, on close examination, is only a state interest. I only wonder what books Tigran has read to qualify him for this debate. Have the works of Ayn Rand, gone completely unnoticed? She was the first to put out an all out assault on collectivism. While I do not agree with her view of the individualism which was nothing more than egoism, I do agree on her rejection of collectivism, becauseit forces us into a conflict between the pursuit of our interests and obedience to state authority.

Yea while Tigran and others fear terrorists gaining control of nuclear weapons and unleashing it upon us anytime they wish, and insist that the government is there to protect them from that they fail in asking the real questions, as to whose money it was that went into funding these weapons that is able to destroy life as we know it. certainly not individuals.

[TJ]

Political systems and nation states came around only during the enlightenment.

wow you must be on crack or something. What do you call the roman republic? thats just the most famous example there were countless others during that time.

When I say "government" I am referring to Government, our government, or any other government that is premised on some form of political system.

That line right there makes no sense. Do you even look at what you are writing. Every government is premised on some form of political system. what government is not premised on some form of political system? it wouldnt be a government if it wasnt.

If my "theories" are annoying, simply offer decent rebuttals. The mere fact that you post innane statements that make no sense, without having read any history, proves to me you are unworthy of a debate.

my post was all rebuttals. i tried to show you that your argumants make no sense and are impracticle. Only in the end did i resurt to insulting you simply because it felt good. but i should apoligize because it was uncalled for. Honestly this is not sarcasm i apoligize for insulting you.

Mediocre minds that can't critically think shouldn't waste disk space, nor should I waste time on them. After all youre the same person who wished to committ genocide on the Turks. Your thinking skills are dangerous and shouldn't be trusted. Until you improve your critical thinking abilities I won't take youre posts seriously.

i didnt wish to commit genocide all i said was the world would be a better place without them but this isnt the place to get into that now. I dont know what you mean by saying that my thinking skills are dangerous and that i shouldnt be trusted. shouldnt be trusted in what ? making an argument that makes sense.

Like I said, if you paid attention you would see that everything we do comes from cooperation whether in the factory or the marketplace and the Austrian school of economics has answered this. Did you bother to read any of my posts? Did you see I mentioned names and books that would help clear the cloud of ignorance in your brain?

it doesnt come from cooperation. It comes from self interest if you want to know about that go and read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Are you happy i mentioned a book. I agree somewhat the the government should loosen the reins on the economy but the topic was not economics-which is what you are trying to talk about now- it was about the government, and how we need government. So please dont bring up irrelevant matters, i know what im talking about.

[Anonymouse]

wow you must be on crack or something. What do you call the roman republic? thats just the most famous example there were countless others during that time.

You are obviously ignorant. Every political system, be it liberalism, marxism, fascism, nationalism, came out of the Enlightenment. Until you study history don't post here. Not only that, you tell me that I am on crack for what is essentially youre ignorance. You can't even construct a decent sentence without errors.

That line right there makes no sense. Do you even look at what you are writing. Every government is premised on some form of political system. what government is not premised on some form of political system? it wouldnt be a government if it wasnt.

Check up top.

my post was all rebuttals. i tried to show you that your argumants make no sense and are impracticle. Only in the end did i resurt to insulting you simply because it felt good. but i should apoligize because it was uncalled for. Honestly this is not sarcasm i apoligize for insulting you.

You post wasn't a rebuttal, it was a desperate emotional attempt to smear me and validate your viewpoint. If it were a rebuttal, you would answer each of the points I raise, from the economics and freemarket system, why Spain during its civil war was able to have large factories controlled entirely by the workers, the contradiction I raised between politicians and the individual, why political systems in the 20th century have killed 200 million people and compare that to individuals, why all political systems are premised on collectivism and stifling individualism, why all politics is based on morally depraved people interfering in your property rights, why all contribution to mankind has been from the individual and not the government or institution. In fact I even raised the issue of why you even pay taxes to the fraudulent institution known as the IRS, which is the collection agency of the Federal Reserve, another odious entity. These are both illegal institutions, if you want to defend the Constitution for the sake of argument.

i didnt wish to commit genocide all i said was the world would be a better place without them but this isnt the place to get into that now. I dont know what you mean by saying that my thinking skills are dangerous and that i shouldnt be trusted. shouldnt be trusted in what ? making an argument that makes sense. .

An appeal to hatred is an appeal to hatred. Your statement, if not directly advocating genocide, is thus an indirect way of admitting so. I am saying youre thinking skills are dangerous because you do not think critically and instead appeal to emotions and your ignorance in maintaining the illusion in your mind. Thus it is dangerous. If you were say a politician, you just might make youre way to the throne and become dictator, wouldn't you? Or would you be two faced like politicians in a democracy, meaning, take bribes, be a control freak, sign away peoples' liberties and tell them how to live, which is what politicians do, but all the meanwhile you tell them "I serve you".

it doesnt come from cooperation. It comes from self interest if you want to know about that go and read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Are you happy i mentioned a book. I agree somewhat the the government should loosen the reins on the economy but the topic was not economics-which is what you are trying to talk about now- it was about the government, and how we need government. So please dont bring up irrelevant matters, i know what im talking about.

This is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements ever uttered on your behalf. We cooperate in the marketplace because of our self seeking interests. If I want to make business with someone else, we cooperate in order for each of us to benefit and gain because of our self seekends pursuits. If we didn't cooperate we couldn't do business. You seem to contradict your self in the above statement. You deny the basic tenet of cooperation between two people, yet you admit to peoples' self seeking ends and the idea of business since you refer to Adam Smith. How can one exist without the other if man is to interact with man? Like I said, the world operated on this system for thousands of years under the barter system, and now under the free market system. The topic was not just economics, it was politics, as well as how politics contradicts economics. What part of this are you having a hard time comprehending?

You obviously know nothing about what Adam Smith wrote, nor anything about the basics of economics. You are in essence resulting to personal attacks to defend your argument with your constant insults. In the process what happens is a failure on your behalf to defend your argument, which is what GOOD has the government done. Government contribution to mankind has been nothing but wars, genocide, confiscation, persecution, taxation, inflation ( this exists because of government meddling in economics, when the government is the distributor of the worthless paper money that you have now ). Every other contribution, has been because of the individual. After you cut through all the double think, rhetoric and altruism of what government is, all it is, is force. It is a monopoly of force. There is no voluntarism about obeying laws. Now a rebuttal on your behalf would be to counter this and prove to me how government contributed to mankind, and it wasn't individuals who have written history.

Political beliefs reflect how someone thinks men should relate to one another and they offer a practical insight into how one views humanity at large and himself in particular. Thus this speaks volumes about how you think and react and how you think your fellow men should react. Any given person, if alligned with any political belief, believes in a certain ideology and how it should be applied to everyone, in essence telling your neighbors how to live, after all that is what politics is about, telling people what to do. In any given situation humans react in two different ways, either voluntarily or coercively. It is widely believed that a group has certain rights that individuals do not, a mistaken belief might I add. So this thinking implies that any group from the KKK, to lynch mobs, to the mafia, to the local gang, the IRA, or even a government, all have rights that individuals don't. They all believe that they can use force if necessary and when they see fit and like governments get away with it. When individuals do so, they are criminalized. Nevermind that the group, any collective group from the KKK, to lynch mobs, to the IRA, or government, all have caused more damage and killed more people that individuals could have any other day working by themselves and not aligned with any group.

Do you see how we think differently when we think about collective groups and about individuals? You might think of this as an unworthy example because the IRA or KKK are not like the government in that they aren't "legal" but aside from the law, all it boils down to is the use of force the group can exert. So, with that said, one can see that force is the essence of government, and even worse, having a monopoly on force, they need a territory, and maintaining control of it is considered a successful government. One wonders if any terrorist organization would be legitimate if it had its own territory.

In any event, I have yet to see the benefits of this wonderful thing that called the State.

[TJ]

your posts are redundant and you overlook basic facts and choose to ignore other people's arguments and simply put in cliche arguments instead of reading what the other person says and its frustrating to argue over this especially when it has no significance in the real world.

[Anonymouse]

your posts are redundant and you overlook basic facts and choose to ignore other people's arguments and simply put in cliche arguments instead of reading what the other person says and its frustrating to argue over this especially when it has no significance in the real world.

I haven't ignored anything. Au contraire it is you who has ignored alot of the points I raised. Compare the length of my posts with yours and see who has more content.

You do not deny that the government is a monopoly on force, and that it comes into existence via violence and coercive means. You do not deny that politicians, lie, cheat, steal, and do what normal individuals do. Government can kill people, yet it criminalizes individuals for doing the same thing. You haven't addressed that contradiction either. If I am redundant it is only because none of you have grasped the essence and basics of what I said, and in fact, because you have ignored what I have continuously raised. Perhaps if you answer the points raised, maybe we can indeed stop being redundant.

What I have raised has every bit of significance in the real world because it precisely how the real world operates, in the manner I have mentioned. The government operates on violence, and it is because of collective thinking, namely allegiance to a political systems, that we have wars. You don't want to bring your views into question, as I did, and instead call me for my lack of appeal to the "real world". What is this "real world" that you speak of?

If you can tell me how political systems and government benefit mankind aside from the silly "they provide public works, and parks" argument, I would be happy to get into a serious discussion with you. The essence, and what is at the crux of this matter is economics, and politics, as I have mentioned, contradicts this. Now if you even knew how the system which you are protecting worked, you might be able to discuss the issue, but since I am guessing you do not know about the inner workings of the system, nor about the Austrian school of economics, you wouldn't know what I am talking about, and it would be a waste of time and diskspace to sit here and explain to you what it is, unless you are willing to have a rational and cordial discourse. But since I see you are incapable of holding a discussion, and right at the start, you type in a condescending manner, as if to suggest that scrutiny of your views is nonsense horsepucky, and I am the crack head that is redundant and cliche, I believe it'll be a waste of time. I think at closer examination you might find the roles reversed.

[surferarmo]

It's strange how I have consistently and constantly explained my position and few have bothered to read what I have posted because why bother bringing your views into question, when it is much more comfortable to live with an illusion?

I have not seen anyone give any rationale for the existence of the State, other than the "they provide parks" and "firemen" argument, or the "your neighbor will kill you". In the haze of emotions, they fail to see that such things are the product of individuals cooperating together for satisfying their self seeking ends. Individualism is exactly that. The state has, in order to control us, introduced division into our thinking, so that we come to distrust others and look to the state for protection. That is the way it goes. That is why Tigran is bitterly defending the state now, even going so far as to start to insult me, in an effort to desperately hold on to his views, but seeping from his words is the obvious frustration and the crack of his world view.

Collectivism is a dehumanizing philosophy because it is founded on division, and the forced repression of our individual interests in favor of a sham "common" interest which, on close examination, is only a state interest. I only wonder what books Tigran has read to qualify him for this debate. Have the works of Ayn Rand, gone completely unnoticed? She was the first to put out an all out assault on collectivism. While I do not agree with her view of the individualism which was nothing more than egoism, I do agree on her rejection of collectivism, becauseit forces us into a conflict between the pursuit of our interests and obedience to state authority.

Yea while Tigran and others fear terrorists gaining control of nuclear weapons and unleashing it upon us anytime they wish, and insist that the government is there to protect them from that they fail in asking the real questions, as to whose money it was that went into funding these weapons that is able to destroy life as we know it. certainly not individuals.

Its called ORGANIZATION.

[Anonymouse]

Political systems are an artificial order imposed upon man. There is a difference between natural and artificial order.

"A hundred, five hundred, ten thousand men, fighting each other, make at most a riot. Only a Government can make war." - Rose Wilder Lane


"The keeping up, the teaching and exercising of armies with which kings and emperors are always much occupied, and of which they are the organizers, what is it but preparation for murder?" - Lyoff N. Tolstoy


That "organization" leads you to war, as only collectivism can.

[anileve]

I think we should just end this thread; it seems to me that we are all trying to convince Anon to sway to our side of ideas. We are here to share not to convince so when you see the person is firm in his, I must say intelligent, opinion we should back off. He is just as stubborn and full of pride as we are. Nor is he able to influence the world to believe in his ideas therefore endangering the humanity to perish. He is just boycotting everyone’s idea of collectivism and trying to be so eccentric. So be it!

The truth is Governments are here to stay, sorry mouse, and that is the way it goes. No need to insult or convince anyone otherwise that is their world let them hold on to the image they hold so dear to themselves. And by the way just a little side note: Afghanistan has no government, look what is going on there murder, theft and war lords, that is what is bound to happen to everyone unless they have Gov. It takes blood shed and decades of evolution if even so little, for people to adopt your way of thinking. But then again I know you will object, so you might be right and this might be a great idea. Good thing that in your Mouseopolis you can establish any system you please and will work like a charm!

By the way who ever said that Japan has lower rate than US is highly mistaken, check statistics again, it's close but not close enough. Thank you.

[Anonymouse]

I think we should just end this thread; it seems to me that we are all trying to convince Anon to sway to our side of ideas. We are here to share not to convince so when you see the person is firm in his, I must say intelligent, opinion we should back off. He is just as stubborn and full of pride as we are. Nor is he able to influence the world to believe in his ideas therefore endangering the humanity to perish. He is just boycotting everyone’s idea of collectivism and trying to be so eccentric. So be it!

Personally I think we should continue this discussion. Remember anileve, I am not trying to convince you to adopt my views, or ideas. I am merely asking for a cordial discussion, which your side seems to not want, and in fact, it was people like Tigran who resorted to insults, and you for writing in a condescending manner. If I am making a case, that the government is evil, and that political systems in the 20th century alone have killed close to 200 million people, and I go on making a case by giving examples of how government interferes with the natural order of things, how it stifles individualism and makes a slave to the state, am asking for a discussion. It seem that no one addressed the issues, points, and contradictions I raised, and instead of wanting to question your views, you folks simply jammered about "the great need" for "order" or "firemen" or what have you. Nevermind that from order comes chaos, per the study of chaos theory.

The truth is Governments are here to stay, sorry mouse, and that is the way it goes. No need to insult or convince anyone otherwise that is their world let them hold on to the image they hold so dear to themselves. And by the way just a little side note: Afghanistan has no government, look what is going on there murder, theft and war lords, that is what is bound to happen to everyone unless they have Gov. It takes blood shed and decades of evolution if even so little, for people to adopt your way of thinking. But then again I know you will object, so you might be right and this might be a great idea. Good thing that in your Mouseopolis you can establish any system you please and will work like a charm!.

Afghanistan has a government. The only reason it is in shambles is because of the U.S. for bombing and attacking a sovereign country, as well as Iraq. I don't see what point you have to make here. Instead of looking at Afghanistan in total chaos and trying to use that to help your crumbling defense of the need for the State, instead look at the reason why such things happened, because of OF the STATE, which causes war, and when does war happen? Only when there is the State. Thus war is a product of the State that it can unleash at any moment because of its backing by the collective mob mentality. Alas, your example doesn't prove to be a defense of need for government, but rather shows that it is precisely government that creates these situations of destruction and chaos. Would war exist without political systems? Maybe some feuds, some riots, but WAR or GENOCIDE?

I think that people in general, including you folks, are comfortable with your dearly held views about how every problem on earth can only be solved via political action and through government. That is how we are raised and trained to think and that is how people continue to do so. Government is not here to stay, contrary to what you think. It is our thinking that has stayed with us for too long. In fact history proves this. All centralized governments or systems eventually move towards chaos and disorder and crumble, per chaos theory. It's just we never learn from our mistakes. We cling to this idea that only through collective response through statist policies is anything effective. In other words those other people must change or be forced to change, if we are going to live well. As Einstein once said, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." In other words if we made a mistake with govenrment, it crumbled, why should we go back to the same flawed formula. With this in mind, we need to move beyond our assumptions and presently held warm illusions and realize that political systems feed on our collective thinking, and our willingness to stifle our individualism for mob mentality and we think in majoritarian terms of "opinion polls" and "percents". How dare that 51% of the people don't approve of us! We didn't get the majority! DAMNIT! If political action brought any change, then referendum movements, third parties, amendements, or reformers would have long ago made great changes of leaps and bounds. But that is not so. Who is the State to search and question me at airports? If someone wears a T-Shirt that says "Suspected Terrorist" at an airport, why is he to be arrested? After all the reason why the government searches and checks you is because we are all suspected terrorists. And after having been violated of your personal freedom, do you feel any safer? Of course, such jokes aren't taken kindly by statists, or by tyrants, or by those that subscribe to mass mindedness, or others that have a vested interest int he state.

In any event, I was hoping to foster serious intellectual discussion, instead of epithets and anti-intellectual Berlin Walls. If I was able to change my way of thinking and bringing my views to scrutiny, anyone can, it's just a matter of willing to question and think critically. Change can only begin with individuals, but it is scary and a hard thing to imagine, thus I do not expect such a discussion to be welcomed by anyone or even reach the point of a discussion, from the point of "trying to convince whatever side is right". Instead of trying to discuss, most of you thought in political terms, "both sides are trying to convince each side". Democrats want to be your mother, Republicans your father ( maybe surfer wont like this hehe), but both agree that you are to be treated as a child, that you aren't able enough to rule your own life. Of course, when SssflamessS brought up the example of comparing parents to government, I didn't think of at the time, but eventually we grow up and leave home. So too must we do with political systems and government.