removed

Post has been edited 11 time(s), last time on Jan 25 2009, 7:24 pm by Viii_iiiV.

I don't live in the UK, but what you propose is fascist. It would lead to the collapse of your economy within 1 year, probably incite rioting too.

I have a problem with this. "Drug taking" is done by probably 99% of humans in America. The other 1% has drugs that are exhibited throughout their body naturally at all times in the day. Sex is addicting, tell me its not, and you haven't had it enough.
However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You meant NARCOTICS. In which case, I'll answer: Any war on drugs is never going to be won. A black market will always exist. People who get drugs illegally who lose their dealer, will find another. This is stupid. Instead, LEGALIZE, REGULATE, and EDUCATE. If you disagree with what I said, you don't know enough on this topic or you are just incredibly naive and have way too much faith in the power.

Very interesting. I'll have to talk to my gov teacher and my civics/activism teacher about this to see what they think. If I understand this view correctly, then only people who dissent against certain acts or people are violating their speech because they may be putting the government in trouble. But, if the government really is doing something wrong, you can dissent to their policy instead, to change it.
I have a problem with this: Some horrible legislation comes out of some policy that the country should probably keep. What then? Take away the policy in which they passed the legislation? Or attack the legislation itself? I think freedom of speech (without "") should be ABSOLUTE.



What's up with the ratings?? Thats messed up.

removed

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Jan 25 2009, 7:25 pm by Viii_iiiV.

You impose a regressive tax, and export or incarcerate everyone that cannot pay it? Half your workforce would disappear overnight.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if everyone started with the same resources. It would be far more effective and fair to remove sales, income, property taxes for individuals, and replace those taxes with an estate / gift tax(with some exemptions). Your debt to society is settled when you die. Economies work when money gets spent, this is a fact, and taxing the (dead)rich means the money that would sit stagnant, gets spent (because the poor are going to spend a greater proportion of the margin). Also, corporations should not exist. They are imaginary people that unacceptably limit accountability, any services that need an investment in infrastructure are better managed by NPO. This way you reduce debts, and increase the efficiency and standard of living of the entire country.

The only fair way to tax, is to tax based on marginal utility for standard of living.

rem

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 25 2009, 7:26 pm by Viii_iiiV.

Nobody has justifiable entitlements. If you want to be rich, you should have to get there on your own merit, without inheriting it from your parents. Skin color is of course a de-facto entitlement, ideally one of negligible utility, but just because you are white or black, does not mean you 'deserve' to be white, or black. Monetary wealth is different, because people that work harder and smarter, do deserve it more.

Marginal utility is the additional use you get out of an additional unit resource, If you are stuck on an island with 1 sandwich to last you a week, a second sandwich is of extremely high utility. If you have 100 sandwiches to last you a week, even another 10,000 sandwiches is of little to no additional utility, they just go to waste. With money, there are different types of utility, but the idea is the same. If you want to tax the living, you should take the same utility with respect to standard of living and power. When you are dead, you have no more utility for the money, so it should go where it will be used most efficiently.

For the Marginal utility, my point still stands.

And as for the inheritance argument - surely the people have a right to give money to their children? It's not like I could stop it anyway.


Come on Wuza, post!

/me agrees
It smells of communism as well.

Nobody has rights, except those granted by force(law is a manifestation of force). Those with power grant themselves the right to keep and control it. The inheritance of property is in principle is no different than the divine 'right' of kings, it is something people accept because they are used to it, not because it is the most effective way to run a civilization(it isn't). What entitles you to be born with more money and power than someone else, instead of earning it?

rem

Post has been edited 7 time(s), last time on Jan 25 2009, 7:27 pm by Viii_iiiV.

It would require a revolution of no greater magnitude than the system you originally posted. A blog would be a good first step, perhaps I should start one.

Not really. It wouldn't go against biological things that are part of human nature, like loving your children.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 25 2007, 5:09 pm by Viii_iiiV.

loving your children has less to do with it than the sentiment of tradition, poor people love their children just as much as rich people. Most of the issue is trust and fear of change, convincing the people abused by the status quo to lend you their power to work for their interests.

Didn't get a word of that.
You're still saying my original post is correct, right?

Let me explain what you actually just said:



Loving your children has less to do with it (as it refers to the last mentioned thing, it means "Loving your children") than the sentiment of traditions, poor people love their children as much as rich people (no sh*t, sherlock?). Most of the issue (of rich people loving their children as much as the poor, may I add) is trust and fear of change (Man, we all fear the day when rich people love their kids more than poor people), most of the people abused (it's not abuse, it's simply stopping the poor stealing off the rich) by the superior status (of the rich) to lend you their power (Wtf? Poor people don't have power) to work for their interests (Their Communist interests??? MUST KILLL!!!!!)

Please clarify.
You have confused me.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 25 2007, 6:02 pm by Viii_iiiV.

No.

If you acknowledge that people hold unjustified power, why do you want to give them more power?

It is the poor who hold unjust power, and it is I who wants to take it away from them!
It is I who wants everyone to pay equal tax.
It is I who want to get rid of all leftism.
It is I who believes that the rich>the poor.
It is I who believes that if you are poor you shouldn't have the insane right to stay in a country if someone who is better than you wants in.

You seem to really like deporting people. The problem is, who is going to take all your criminals? And is there no difference between not being able to pay a $1,000 fine and not being able to pay a $50,000 fine? Also, how much of a fine is killing someone? How can you put a price on something like this?


Once again, putting a price on things is not as easy as you seem to think. Your police will spend an awful lot of time counting money, instead of getting things done.


Lie detectors ARE NOT as reliable as you think they are. Failing a lie detector test or passing one is not considered enough evidence to prove someone guilty or innocent, not even close.


This is complete bullshit. It cannot, and will not work. Everyone will hate you.


Allowing so few people to decide how much someone is worth an hour is completely unfair. Making striking illegal is equally unfair. The workers can't stand up for themselves. Also, didn't you just make a post where you tried to justify one of your points by saying discrimination is bad? And here you would completely allow for discrimination as reason for firing. It is, in fact, being encouraged by this system.