The Gray Days are Over.

[Anonymouse]

Why should I pay taxes? Why should anyone?

Who is the federal government to tell you to pay taxes? The IRS isn't even part of the federal government, which is the collection agency of the Federal Reserve. Neither entities are part of the "government". Don't be fooled by the term "Federal".

I don't see why some entity such as the IRS, which surely hasn't been elected by anyone - if we are to assume all the mumbo jumbo premises a democracy is based on -should have to collect my money?

Get this, all "central" banks from America, to Germany, to England, are not part of the government, but are instead private entities that loan money to the governments they occupy. That is how the World Bank and IMF operate as well. Essentially they loan money to governments with interest, that is the whole credit system of the world. It's a nice racket but don't hold your breath for the masses to know all this.

[anileve]

I found this very interesting...

HAPPINESS AROUND THE WORLD

The happiest
Nigeria
Mexico
Venezuela
El Salvador
Puerto Rico

The least happy
Russia
Armenia
Romania

PATH TO HAPPINESS
Genetic propensity to happiness
Marriage
Make friends and value them
Desire less
Do someone a good turn
Have faith (religious or not)
Stop comparing your looks with others
Earn more money
Grow old gracefully
Don't worry if you're not a genius

New Zealand ranked 15 for overall satisfaction, the US 16th, Australia 20th and Britain 24th - although Australia beats the other three for day-to-day happiness.

I always thought that I am going to settle in Australia one day. It seems so Utopian.

[anileve]

I agree with most of what you said, except for the parts I've quoted. Germany's unemployment rate is 10.5% which is very high. And on top of that they have a heavy handed income tax system. Coupled with the overly generous benefits they are given, there is not much incentive to work. And these "students" that recieve this aid have to be german. Good luck collecting benefits if you're from somewhere else.

Also although I don't think the whole tax cuts to stimulate the economy approach is correct, eliminating federal debt completly is not a good idea at all. Most of that debt takes the form of federal bonds, which are the safe stable part of any portfolio.

Actually Germany's unemployment rate is 9.8% which is agreeably high and pretty much everywhere in the world unemployment rate surpasses US's. The only one that comes close is Netherlands 3%, however I have a friend there who claims that is incredibly difficult to find work. So I would say that in economics there is always a margin of error and Census is not 100% accurate.

It is true that in Germany it is very difficult to become a citizen and the benefits are allocated to citizens, however I do know of some people from Armenia that were able to make a very good living and are very happy with their lifestyle. Now in terms of their income tax, like I said that is essential to have an outstanding "maintenance" of your country and it is a sure "Bank" for the states to turn to, sort of like financial deposits that would be applied should the necessity arrive. Without federal tax, states would not have anything to turn to. And although I agree with Anonymouse, I wouldn't completely renounce the system of the government since it has been established, not without flaws, to provide a beneficial system. I just think that there are so many people that try to manipulate the system solely for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the majority. And that is where a lot of countries fail, concentrating mainly on the upper class that is always my fear when this country is concerned. I just always feel that the Republicans armed with many of their other prudish and obscene ideas will drive this country into the ground. I feel like no party should monopolize the government, checks and balances should always be enforced.

Actually (mainly US) banks do go to many countries which have large reserves of natural resources and lend them sums that are beyond the expected value of the resources. Those countries get money happy and agree. When their resources are depleted they get stuck with a huge debt and are forced to repay with interest, so they turn to an illegal form of repayment, such as drugs and other aspects. (As previously mentioned by Anon)

As I see it Bush is slowly establishing an army of republicans in the house which can result in a complete monopoly. And what is really scary is that he's also placing his Republican Judges into the Supreme Court.

It's true that you shouldn't eliminate the entire federal debt, and that my dear is quite impossible on its own, however adding to it is not a good idea as well.

By the way I always found it so peculiar that you won't find many Western European immigrants in the US. Any idea why?

[Anonymouse]

And although I agree with Anonymouse, I wouldn't completely renounce the system of the government since it has been established, not without flaws, to provide a beneficial system. I just think that there are so many people that try to manipulate the system solely for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the majority. And that is where a lot of countries fail, concentrating mainly on the upper class that is always my fear when this country is concerned. I just always feel that the Republicans armed with many of their other prudish and obscene ideas will drive this country into the ground. I feel like no party should monopolize the government, checks and balances should always be enforced.

My dear, we meet again. What I don't understand about your answer, and anyone elses for that matter, on why you love government, is what is so beneficial about government? How does government benefit anyone? I haven't heard of one argument that would give reason to allow for government to exist, other than the "it provides order" or "it provides security", but these answers are usually given without challenging the thought process that went into these answers. The mere idea of politics implies power, and power corrupts, no matter what form of political system we choose.

As I have argued previously, the State is an artificial construct, that has created class systems. Class systems are not inherent in capitalism, as Marx contended, as Emile Durkheim has so eloquently argued in his book "The Division of Labor in Society". Instead he argues the unchecked growth of the State will make one lose individuality, and submerge into collectivism.

Contrary to Locke's "Social Contract" myth, the government doesn't serve the people and there has been no working model of John Locke's Social Contract myth. In fact all governments have come into existence through violence, even the United States. I do not vote because I do not believe in the concept of voting someone to make choices for me. Basically this delves into the whole idea of politics. Politics is based on collective thinking and in any political system you believe in, you lose your individualism, because political systems in their nature rely and operate on the collective mass mindedness in order to be successful. Politics thrives on dividing people into groups, whether by ideology, race, religion, culture, etc., ( this is partly how are genocide has turned into political whorring ) and we choose a group and it makes us believe that it can alleviate our pains. Once we align ourselves with a certain political group, then it pits us against another group. We all too often acknowledge that politicians lie, they cheat, they do the dirtiest things that we in our everyday lives will not do, yet we unconsciously vote for these morally depraved xxxxs to make choices for us. Another contradiction lies in the fact that the government can lie, cheat, steal, and go across to distant lands, bomb and maim and kill people, and wehave voted for these people and support them, yet when individuals commit crimes, cheat or steal or behave like politicians, we look down upon them as "society's ills" and criminalize them, and for what? For doing what politicians do? Why do such contradictions exist? The jury is still out on this one.

Take the democracy that we have in this country, or so we believe to have. It is premised on voting, which is the building block of democracy. From the beginning of political systems and what we know today as the State, in order to maintain social control, the State engages in violence and coercion to maintain social order. For example, the recent work we covered in class, "Parliament of xxxxxs: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke. To quote Mr. O'Rourke:

"Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of xxxxxs. The trouble is, in a democracy the xxxxxs are us. "


I believe the author makes a very good point. Politics is a game of telling people what to do. That is why we vote, to have an authority figure tell us what to do, to tell our neighbor what to do and make choices for us. While we acknowledge that communist, socialist, or fascist dictatorships are brutal and use illegitimate means of brute force and coercion to gain power, democracy is worse, and a far scarier concept. It gives leaders an excuse to do what they do. If a leader is elected and is a tyrant, all he has to do is show that it was the will of the people. And while there are indeed those of us who would like to vote our lives away into the hands of tyrants in a democracy, it throws everyone else into the hands of the tyrant as well. So when you vote you are not only voting for yourself, but you are voting for everyone, essentially giving your free will to someone else.

And once annually, almost like a holiday, the masses all go to the boothes to vote ( except me MUAHAHAHAHA), to give themselves the illusion that for one day they get to make important political decisions. Could anything be further from the truth? So this would imply that by voting that one day, these fools wield more power than special interest groups or corporate lobbyists who don't need to vote but just bribe their way to get what they want done? This is why the Western governments have been so obssessed with spreading "democracy" around to the other world, not to decentralize political authority, but to make people believe they are the state. Such bullxxxx! Only here do we believe that we have a "choice" between a Republigogue and a Demorat. The absurdity of this is proved by the fact that after 911 virtually all politicians supported Bush's policies and even signed the odious "Patriot Bill" without even reading it, which essentially destroyed many of the civil liberties that were stil remaining. No matter what, the government always gets elected. To quote Jello Biafra "If Voting could change anything, it would be illegal".

[TJ]

who the hell in their right minds would leave beautiful sophisticated western europe to come to the US. The US is dirty and i just dont know how else to describe my impression of the US. boring dirty controlled by jews full of blacks and mexicans and rednecks no culture no heritige. the only people that come here come from countries where the economy is bad or they are persecuted in some way . obviously neither of these apply to western europe

[anileve]

I don't see any americans moving to western europe either, what's your point? There are certainly more western europeans coming here than the opposite way around.
Also as a side note U.S. immigration quotas favor underdeveloped countries heavily over developed ones, such as those in western europe, or Canada for example.

Objection! First of all I know many that wish they can go to Europe, but they are just scared to venture out. Second of most of American's don't even know which countries are located in Europe. Third of all, most of the Americans can't even pronounce Spanish words without a strong American slur, let alone speak any other language. And last but not least most of the Americans are not welcomed in any other parts of the world, due to their ignorance and arrogance; they wouldn't survive one day in Europe for the lack of junk food and fraternities!

[anileve]

Anonymouse, very profoundly and intelligently written. However, John Locke and Aristotale aside, when it comes to the reality of life, your philosophy amounts to zilch. What you are suggesting is complete anarchy and idealism that just wouldn’t last like Soviet Communism didn’t. Nothing too extreme can survive. Government was developed from the beginning of life to keep order among people that are so different yet so the same. We all want to be loved, recognized and always right if you let everyone take authority not only would it create complete chaos but the human race will perish in self distraction. Everything in life revolves around this theory of a pyramid, without the base there would be no structure, without the any order or a design it would be just a pile of bricks. Even comparing computers, one PC is ok on it’s own, two are ok as well, now what if you have about 3,000 of them in the same facility do you think it would even be comprehensible to maintain them without a centralized system such as a server? Anon everything is relative in life and the truth is that in order for a civilization to survive you need some centralized system, so humanity has 2 options: Religion or Government. I’ll take Government any time and make my best out of it (notice not perfect, because Plato’s Utopia never made it into reality) to work for me.

So you can opt for standing alone in the world not abiding by any laws and not believing into the system of government, but the reality still stands…. Whether you do or you don’t the world still keeps revolving and Governments are still in existence so you can stand their and denounce everything or you can attempt to make it work to your advantage. That is an individual choice.

[sSsflamesSs]

Anonymouse, very profoundly and intelligently written. However, John Locke and Aristotale aside, when it comes to the reality of life, your philosophy amounts to zilch. What you are suggesting is complete anarchy and idealism that just wouldn’t last like Soviet Communism didn’t. Nothing too extreme can survive. Government was developed from the beginning of life to keep order among people that are so different yet so the same. We all want to be loved, recognized and always right if you let everyone take authority not only would it create complete chaos but the human race will perish in self distraction. Everything in life revolves around this theory of a pyramid, without the base there would be no structure, without the any order or a design it would be just a pile of bricks. Even comparing computers, one PC is ok on it’s own, two are ok as well, now what if you have about 3,000 of them in the same facility do you think it would even be comprehensible to maintain them without a centralized system such as a server? Anon everything is relative in life and the truth is that in order for a civilization to survive you need some centralized system, so humanity has 2 options: Religion or Government. I’ll take Government any time and make my best out of it (notice not perfect, because Plato’s Utopia never made it into reality) to work for me.

So you can opt for standing alone in the world not abiding by any laws and not believing into the system of government, but the reality still stands…. Whether you do or you don’t the world still keeps revolving and Governments are still in existence so you can stand their and denounce everything or you can attempt to make it work to your advantage. That is an individual choice.

Anileve (I'll call you Ani for short from now on if you don't mind),
I've had this discussion with Amouse before. I kept on saying that people need some type of government, which would provide some order that will prevent people from turning against each other. Face it, human nature makes this inevitable. They will step on each other just to ensure their own survival. I used the analogy of parents to children, comparing it to government and the people. Anyway, moving on...

Amouse seems to be very fond of anarchism, for he advocates it without really providing any reasoning as to why. He claims that anarchism is a lot more than just chaos, that it's something more peaceful and unifying. When I asked him to clarify, he simply said that it's too complex to put into simple paragraphs. My question remains unanswered.

[Anonymouse]

Obviously neither of you have read about anarchism, or about economics to see how it works. Patlajan, then you two, all have used the same argument of "we need government for order". But is it really providing order? Government cannot provide "order". There is this thing called chaos theory, and if you study it you will see that the more complex systems get, they will eventually decay, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. The probability of chaos is greatly increased, contrary to the notion that the more complex societies get, the more need for "government" or "order". A study in chaos and complexities easily reveals this. And this explains the failures of all government plannings. Since no one can predict the future, complex systems are vulnerable to too many variables to allow anyone to make predictions. All these government "measures" and "legislations" and "funding" and "think tanks" and "experts" all make predictions and it never goes according to their plan. The most obvious, lucid and visible example of the powerlessness of us making predictions is the market place. It revolves around nothing but chaos. The unanticipated consequences hit us from both the private and government sectors.

Unlike you folks, I don't believe in the need for government to maintain social order. I believe order in any society is not rooted in any form of authority, or govenrment or state, but rather is rooted in economics, or rather the market place and politics seems to contradict this. It's almost as if the political authority wants to meddle in the social order that exists between people with regards to economics. The most obvious example of this is during the Great Depression. In fact it was the "Great Depression" that was caused precisely by government meddling. Then Americans were obssessed with "security" and thus began and undaunted campaign of the states continued interference into the market place and is continuing on right until now. A study in economics would reveal how we respond to fluctuations that are generated by our self seeking interests and pursuits, and in order to gain we cooperate with one another in the market place. I believe that "rder" in any society is the product of unseen, spontaneous influences of which most of us are not consciously aware, such as economics and the self interest of each of us, as individuals. I am not arguing for any form of communism or anarchy, those are idealisms, and anarchism is not anarchy mind you, I've already made the distinction before in endless posts.

Why do you folks support the idea of a government? You want to be ruled? Are you not able to lead self directed lives? Do any of you vote? I sure as well don't. When you vote, you are declaring that you supoprt the idea of some people ruling over others via coercive means. You are being ruled coercively. Don't believe me? Try to not pay your taxes and insist that the IRS has no right to audit your income, see what happens to you. Try refusing to serve in the states war machine if you are drafted and see what happens to you. Try doing the same things the state does, namely, stealing, lying, killing, etc., and see what happens to you. So if I am of the persuasion that politics and political systems as we know it is destroying our modern world, I would be putting my energies in support of this by voting. Remember in the 20th cent., to use Murray Rothbard's analysis, close to 200,000,000 people have died because of political systems. How many have individuals killed? If the argument is for safety, security, and control, then surely it is better to have no central ruling political authority. The alternative is not in my opinion any "anarchy" but if one takes a closer look at economics and the free market system, one will see a social order that exists, purely outside of politics, dealing exactly with economics.

[Anonymouse]

By the way anileve, Armenians are a prime example of a culture and people that have survived without a "centralized system".