I hate to say it but...(Newt/RP)

can i just say i don't get why people quote or draw inspiration from movies. it's fucking fake god dammit.
There is some great philosophy in fiction out there, but movies generally do not approach the depth of books due to format constraints.

I am very tired of hearing people apply relativism to everything, in an absolute (non-relativist) argument. The problem isn't Super, it's that most people are not taught or encouraged to critically think.

Whether it is religious or social democratic, most of our values, opinions and understanding are handed to us in finished form. Because people are not encouraged to embrace principles or to develop their own understandings, they become repeaters of whatever the majority believes.

That's why the news media functions this way...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEAY445h7uw"]Conan O'brian Maybe about to push the Envelope on latenight televison.(KILL THE TV AND FAST) - YouTube[/ame]


Most people will never question what they hear from any authoritative source (that's why Oprah on landers increases conversions), and their masters make sure they all hear the same thing. Those of us who are older, and pre-internet can remember a time when there was only one side to every story courtesy of the MSM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrey


1260455707052.jpg
 
Doesn't most of the income tax go to pay back the debt to Federal Reserve?

All money that "Federal" Reserve prints, it loans to government. Government pays back the loans with money it gets from income taxe, or by taking out more loans from Federal Reserve. The debt is impossible to pay back as there is not enough money in circulation to every pay back the loans + interest.

So, if you get rid of private Federal Reserve, you do not need income tax.

Maybe guerilla can chime in on this one in more detail.
 
Ron Paul opposes the income tax for several reasons, the key one being a matter of morality.

For ethical reasons, it is theft.

For economic reasons, it is irrational.

For political reasons, it leads to corruption.

The income tax is the collateral on government borrowing. Governments could not issue bonds if they didn't have a way to repay those bonds with interest. To do that, they need a steady and persistent source of revenue.

That is the income tax.

The income tax also allows the government to control behavior, by taxing something more or less than others.

Could the FED print money without an income tax? It could, but there would be much tighter monetary policy as any loose printing would lead to hyperinflation.
 
Didn't read anything up to this point.

But what politicians say to get elected vs. what they actually do once they get elected have nothing to do with each other.

Obama preached change and a new era of politics. Bush preached isolationism and small gov't. Do you really trust what a politician fighting to win the Republican nomination (or any type of election) says? He's saying whatever he think will get him elected.
 
But what politicians say to get elected vs. what they actually do once they get elected have nothing to do with each other.

Obama preached change and a new era of politics. Bush preached isolationism and small gov't. Do you really trust what a politician fighting to win the Republican nomination (or any type of election) says? He's saying whatever he think will get him elected.
Nuh-uh no you didn't!

Paul is the exception and we know this from his 30-year voting record. No one else on the hill has even ONE year of voting for the unpopular-but-neccessary things that he does but this old hermit in in his 11th term doing just that.

Further, he does not even SPEAK TO LOBBYISTS and no one has seen him do so in decades of watching. He clearly places the libertarian cause above any personal agenda, and now that he's in his 70s I don't see anyone bribing him enough to do so soon.

Heck, he's said on many, many occasions that he "doesn't even see himself in the Oval office." He's running each time to raise awareness... Does that sound like someone who will get in and backstab all his peeps?
 
Going back to the original discussion, Paul doesn't want a 0% tax. He rejects the idea of tax altogether. No one is close to that, even if they endorse a low tax because the fundamental premise is different.

Well he still believes the government has a responsibility to protect our life and liberty, and that comes at a cost. There has to be some tax, how else would the government function?

Can they make the earth flat? Can they make the sun orbit the earth?

Majorities are abstractions, nothing more.

They can't make the earth flat, but they can influence political processes. That's supposed to be the point of voting. Are there any major world governments that are based on libertarianism? If it is the absolute best way to run a country, why are none run that way?

What is the principle of which you speak?

To a very small degree, socialism. Pure libertarianism is much like darwinism, what would happen to the weak? Would they die on the streets because they can't find a job and have no source of income? Is it a scenario where you'd have millions of Americans donating money and shelter to families that are actually in need? Is the governments responsibility not to protect life?

I do not have a problem with welfare as long as it is unflinchingly rigid and cannot be abused. Unfortunately our current welfare state is nothing like that, and I don't want my ideals to be associated with that. The real question: is it possible to have welfare without the potential to abuse it? I'd like to think there's a way, but I don't know.

No one expects them to. America is going to eat itself, along with much of the west. It's damn near inevitable at this point.

Whether people vote for, or believe or care about Ron Paul and his ideas are largely irrelevant. That they act in their own short run self interest at the detriment of their long term self interest, doesn't change the facts or consequences of what is happening.

There is no election that cures the world. Libertarians are not utopians. People who think you can vote change are utopians. (See Obama)

It will certainly be interesting to see how America pans out in the next 10 years.


Make money

Check.

minimize your tax footprint

Check.

avoid confrontations with state bureaucrats and agents whenever you can

I wish I could. I was slapped with a similar fine for not paying workers comp ($40/year) for 1 employee who worked about 35 hours in 6 months. And I had no idea that I stopped paying it (because ADP automatically took it from my payroll). Still dealing with it.

New York Workers' Compensation Board dishes out avalanche of unpayable fines | syracuse.com

get a second citizenship

Unless it's easy for you to sum up the benefits in a sentence, I'll stop being lazy and look it up on my own.
 
Well he still believes the government has a responsibility to protect our life and liberty, and that comes at a cost. There has to be some tax, how else would the government function?

The federal income tax started in the early 1900s; so even the civil war was funded without it. Paul is a Constitutionalist and the Constitution does authorize the forced collection of excise taxes and tariffs.

To a very small degree, socialism. Pure libertarianism is much like darwinism, what would happen to the weak? Would they die on the streets because they can't find a job and have no source of income? Is it a scenario where you'd have millions of Americans donating money and shelter to families that are actually in need? Is the governments responsibility not to protect life?

$1.3 billion donated for Haiti relief – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Paul's proposal for this year's budget was an across the board 10% cut. He doesn't want an immediate change where the elderly and such that depend on the government would be thrown out onto the streets overnight.
 
The federal income tax started in the early 1900s; so even the civil war was funded without it. Paul is a Constitutionalist and the Constitution does authorize the forced collection of excise taxes and tariffs.

I may have misinterpreted guerilla, but I was referring to all taxes, not just income tax.

Also, Paul is a Constitutional fundamentalist. Even the founders knew that the Constitution and it's morality were flexible and up for interpretation.
 
But I can kind of see where this will go. If we have a purely capitalistic society and free market, unemployment won't be an issue and there will be no need for welfare.

There's still a problem in the "lump" of tens of millions of people that are being bred for socialism. These people don't even want to work, and yeah I agree with Darwin here and say off with their heads. But they won't go quietly, and therein lies part of the problem.

Or is that not in the right direction?
 
if you can convince those millions that eat healthy + exercise > eat shit + acai, you'll get a rp in office.
 
Quoting out of context, nice.
Your sentence only went on to give conditions, but my response (calling you a socialist) was meant for anyone that could utter any support for welfare under any conditions... Therefore it was not out of context for you.

In what world could wealth redistribution ever be the correct answer?

There's still a problem in the "lump" of tens of millions of people that are being bred for socialism. These people don't even want to work, and yeah I agree with Darwin here and say off with their heads. But they won't go quietly, and therein lies part of the problem.

Or is that not in the right direction?
The right direction is always the one that pushes more education. Killing stupid people is evil. Tempting, I admit, but wrong. No one is really talking about it because it seems technically impossible, but the ideal solution would be to force a certain amount of education upon such fools. (And all socialists ;))

These tens of millions need to be forced to learn why it's bad to expect others to take care of them financially. The best way I know is to force them to take care of others financially, of course a few difficult details will have to be ironed out first. :thumbsup:

In short, we need to START talking about how to educate them. It's a huge discussion that has only been avoided to date.

if you can convince those millions that eat healthy + exercise > eat shit + acai, you'll get a rp in office.
I would agree but they could still retain some of their welfare-state mentality that way, assuming they were raised in it. These fuckers need something to happen to them that forces them to take responsibility of some kind so they'll see how the other end of the spectrum pays for them... As it is they just think "teh govermint" is footing the bill and that's why they pay tax on food, booze, and cigarettes... No remorse whatsoever.

Remorse must be taught, or the cycle will always perpetuate.
 
guerilla and lukep.

Can you recommend any reading material (online articles, books, etc) about libertarianism?

You probably know a couple. Would be nice if you could share.