20 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignIt is proportionate and fixed and isn't retroactive (it's an asset tax like a property tax) but that is besides the point. Try to concentrate:
Your example is neither proportionate, fixed, but it may be retroactive. When you rob the people in the mall, are you going to take $5 a piece, or 10% of what they have, and refrain from taking their Rolex or diamond jewelry?
If I knew before hand, that on entering the mall, I'd pass through a turnstile and be assessed 10% of my cash to enter, that wou ...[text shortened]... mall or authority would consider whether the fee was high enough, too high, or not high enough.
YOU stated "taxes are theft". Period. Of what possible difference does it make if theft is "proportionate"? or "proportionate AND fixed"? Or "proportionate AND fixed AND non-retroactive"? In any cases, theft is morally wrong and thus shouldn't be allowed. So you have no way to fund your government except by begging.
26 Mar 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe Property is theft. Yeh, I still read a little French, mostly on the labels of Canadian products.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch04.htm
Do you wish to argue the legitimacy of property?
"http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/frog.html"
Another French philosopher's ideas, one of my favorites is, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignIt's ironic to argue for the legitimacy of property and the illegitimacy of government since the former could not and did not exist without the latter.
The Property is theft. Yeh, I still read a little French, mostly on the labels of Canadian products.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch04.htm
Do you wish to argue the legitimacy of property?
"http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/frog. ...[text shortened]... great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by infomastIt seems to me like an anarchy test... lets turn off the atms and see what happens. maybe they will turn the mobile phones off in portugal next. I'm glad not to be in the euro
It's a subject study of a pure robbery, but explained away as a fair and deserved transaction.
26 Mar 13
1 edit
Apparently, the EU Commission isn't happy about the controls over capital Cyrpus is imposing and are saying they must be temporary.
What?????
Just in case that wasn't clear enough.....
What!?!?!?"
So let me get this straight:
1 The EU does not want a run on the banks in Cyprus.
2 It imposes a condition on a bail-out which will guarantee a run on the banks in Cyprus.
3 It then warns Cyprus about imposing a condition which it has to in order to stop a run on the banks in Cyprus.
If it wasn't for the fact that people growing up in Cyprus are going to be facing a decades long depression, there would be a sort of comic tragedy about this.
26 Mar 13
Oh, and I saw an interview with a Cypriot MP. She was asked how long she thought it would take the Cypriot economy to recover from the economic consequences of this deal.
She said about 5 years.
There are few times in my life when I have felt so sympathetic to a politician telling a bare faced lie.
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterGermanics have been picking on the rest of Europe ever since Rome taught them how 1500 years ago.
Of course the single EUROPEAN currency will bring fiscal stability to all members. It is such a wonderful idea to harness economies of unequal strength and allow the lesser ones to transact far more than their base GDP will cover, stand back and watch the carnage unfold with Germany* waiting in the wings to pull it all together under one benevolent arm. ...[text shortened]... ment meant as a swipe at the Germans for inventing Nazis...and still trying to control Europe...
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by no1marauderI've never argued the illegitimacy of government. Government has legitimate, and illegitimate roles, moral and immoral roles.
It's ironic to argue for the legitimacy of property and the illegitimacy of government since the former could not and did not exist without the latter.
27 Mar 13
Originally posted by quackquackDo people really have a choice, though? I mean, how much money can you really keep in a safe or safety deposit box? And as the world does more and more business online, and less and less places take cash, it becomes more unfeasible not to have money in a bank.
I cannot imagine how this would not lead to bank runs. In fact, if this actually occurs I would imagine people would be more reluctant to put money in banks and new products that would not be subject to such a tax would become more attractive.
Not that I like banks, mind you; it's just a sad reality, like death and taxes.