Anarchy Means Only No Rule, No Rulers; In Other Words -- Freedom

[Krugminator2]

It is a Shield from Liability.. an escape from Responsibility.

Long considered Immoral they were eventually Legalized,, (like Abortion)

Most still act immorally.

If you didn't have limited liability, there would be no investment. There would be no society. It would be too big of a risk to raise outside capital.

I have never heard of even one person with a fully functioning brain say setting up a corporation is immoral. Not even one. Do you know who thinks corporations are immoral? People with purple and/or pink hair. Do you have purple or pink hair?

 

[pcosmar]

Keep in mind if you're going to remove the liability protection offered to corporations you'd also have to remove the liability protection offered to individuals, which is filing for bankruptcy.

People being responsible for themselves.
Held Liable when they are Liable.

Equal protection under the Law..

Corporations skirt LIABILITY.

 

[pcosmar]

If you didn't have limited liability, there would be no investment. There would be no society. It would be too big of a risk to raise outside capital.

I have never heard of even one person with a fully functioning brain say setting up a corporation is immoral. Not even one. Do you know who thinks corporations are immoral? People with purple and/or pink hair. Do you have purple or pink hair?

They are especially abhorrent in Churches.
and my beard is silver white.

https://goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/the_organized_church/501c3.htm

 

[acptulsa]

Cerveza?

I don't like the difference in sentencing crack vs powder if that makes you feel any better.

Do you at least agree that progressive taxation hurts the poor and violates equal protection under the law?

Since you're talking about income tax, quite possibly so.

And beer is a drug.

 

[Madison320]

People being responsible for themselves.
Held Liable when they are Liable.

Equal protection under the Law..

Corporations skirt LIABILITY.

So you would eliminate the ability to file for bankruptcy for everyone, correct?

That's consistent and I used to think that way, but I've changed my mind over the years. Now I'm in favor of bankruptcy laws for individuals and corporations. Mostly for practical reasons. I don't think anyone would start a business, especially a large one, in a country without bankruptcy protection.

 

[Madison320]

Since you're talking about income tax, quite possibly so.

And beer is a drug.

I was referring to the progressive part of the income tax, not the income tax itself, that hurts the poor. A flat tax or sales tax would not hurt the poor nearly as much because a progressive income tax punishes success and allows govt to grow much bigger.

I said I thought all drugs should be legal, not sure what you meant there.

 

[acptulsa]

I said I thought all drugs should be legal, not sure what you meant there.

You also said you don't think people should take them. Are you a hypocrite, or do you just not think of alcohol as a drug, because the conventional thinking draws a line between them, and talks about "drugs and alcohol" as if the one isn't a subset of the other?

I don't see any circumstance where income tax could be any less harmful. I have no interest in dicking with it; I think it should go. Would you prefer a truly flat tax, where everyone who ever earns anything pays the same dollar amount? Would that encourage the poor to do what you see as the right thing?

Did it ever occur to you that the basis of all tyranny is people being more concerned with making other people, whose circumstances they don't understand, do what they consider the right thing, than with figuring out what the right thing is for they themselves to do?

 

[Madison320]

You also said you don't think people should take them. Are you a hypocrite, or do you just not think of alcohol as a drug, because the conventional thinking draws a line between them, and talks about "drugs and alcohol" as if the one isn't a subset of the other?

I don't see any circumstance where income tax could be any less harmful. I have no interest in dicking with it; I think it should go. Would you prefer a truly flat tax, where everyone who ever earns anything pays the same dollar amount? Would that encourage the poor to do what you see as the right thing?

Did it ever occur to you that the basis of all tyranny is people being more concerned with making other people, whose circumstances they don't understand, do what they consider the right thing, than with figuring out what the right thing is for they themselves to do?

Where did I say people shouldn't take drugs?

It's interesting that you get extremely upset at the difference in sentencing between crack and powder, but the fact that the most successful people have half their income stolen while others are actually receiving money doesn't bother you. As I said before envy is a powerful emotion.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx

"A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax" - 2nk plank of the Communist Manifesto

 

[acptulsa]

Where did I say people shouldn't take drugs?

It's interesting that you get extremely upset at the difference in sentencing between crack and powder, but the fact that the most successful people have half their income stolen while others are actually receiving money doesn't bother you. As I said before envy is a powerful emotion.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx

"A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax" - 2nk plank of the Communist Manifesto

Where did I say people should either get their money stolen or receive stolen property?

 

[Madison320]

Where did I say people should either get their money stolen or receive stolen property?

Let me rephrase:

Given the fact that drugs are illegal, I agree that it's wrong to punish crack more than powder.

Given the fact that we have an income tax, can you admit it's wrong for it to be at different percentages for different individuals?

 

[acptulsa]

I can admit it's wrong. I can't imagine a way to keep it, but make it less wrong. When we're already at the point where people can work full time and qualify for food stamps, what you suggest will dissuade even more people from working, so you might be more careful what you wish for.

When you claim that poor people pay a smaller percentage, are you factoring in the fact that they pay a higher percentage of their income in FICA taxes than high earners do, as they have no floor, but do have a ceiling? Got a hot take on that?

Why are you hijacking yet another thread to talk about this pet peeves of yours? A flat income tax is no kind of happy medium between anarchy and tyranny. Seems to me these details are way past meaning anything. We've pretty much reached the point where we need to choose between having a government and having an economy. Put your "given that we have an income tax" in that pipe and smoke it. We can't afford any more givens. We gave way too much already.

 

[Madison320]

I can admit it's wrong. I can't imagine a way to keep it, but make it less wrong.

Make it the same percentage for everyone.

When you claim that poor people pay a smaller percentage, are you factoring in the fact that they pay a higher percentage of their income in FICA taxes than high earners do, as they have no floor, but do have a ceiling? Got a hot take on that?

The benefits are capped as well. Did you not know that? I haven't done the math but how much do you want to bet the benefits/tax ratio is much higher for the poor?

Why are you hijacking yet another thread to talk about this pet peeves of yours? A flat income tax is no kind of happy medium between anarchy and tyranny. Seems to me these details are way past meaning anything. We've pretty much reached the point where we need to choose between having a government and having an economy. Put your "given that we have an income tax" in that pipe and smoke it. We can't afford any more givens. We gave way too much already.

Yup. Communism and class warfare is a pet peeve of mine, what can I say?

 

[TheCount]

Most of that is not unequal protection under the law. The laws are the same for everyone it's just that some people can afford better attorneys.

Today I learned that attorneys prevent arrest and indictment.

 

[Anti Federalist]

[MENTION=982]pcosmar[/MENTION]

Pete will remember this:

Many years ago, when Easyriders was an actual underground "outlaw" motorcycle rag, before they morphed into a monthly sales flyer for wanna-bees, they used to run a monthly segment called "Locked Down" if I recall correctly.

It was a page dedicated to convict's letters to the mag.

The segment ran with a quote from Anatole France at the header:

"The Law, in all its Majestic Equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets".

Thus it has always been.

 

[Madison320]

Today I learned that attorneys prevent arrest and indictment.

Do you have any facts or logic or do you just make snarky nonsensical comments?

Here's another actual law that favors the less productive, I found it in 2 minutes:

"To smooth the transition back to repayment and help borrowers at highest risk of delinquencies or default once payments resume, the U.S. Department of Education will provide up to $20,000 in debt relief to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education and up to $10,000 in debt relief to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 or $250,000 for households"

 

[acptulsa]

I can find hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where the laws specifically favor people who earn less. Can you even find one that favors the rich?

But can you find one that isn't invalidated by the courts, as they knew "student loan forgiveness" would be, just as they knew Democrat midterm voters wouldn't notice the other shoe dropping?

And I assume you mean besides the Biden crime bill I pointed out earlier?

Come on, man. The whole of the EPA is about protecting corporations from lawsuits, while putting taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up their messes, and shafting the victims who have to move out of their Superfund Site homes. Yes, yes, shareholders in those corporations aren't all one percenters. But more of them are that than homeless.

Why are you so uptight about the class war? You're winning it hands down. If you want to rail against the poor that bad, go start a thread for the purpose, and stop jacking this one.

 

[Snowball]

Anarchy has never and shall never exist, as long as men walk the Earth.

 

[Madison320]

But can you find one that isn't invalidated by the courts, as they knew "student loan forgiveness" would be, just as they knew Democrat midterm voters wouldn't notice the other shoe dropping?

And I assume you mean besides the Biden crime bill I pointed out earlier?

Come on, man. The whole of the EPA is about protecting corporations from lawsuits, while putting taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up their messes, and shafting the victims who have to move out of their Superfund Site homes. Yes, yes, shareholders in those corporations aren't all one percenters. But more of them are that than homeless.

Why are you so uptight about the class war? You're winning it hands down. If you want to rail against the poor that bad, go start a thread for the purpose, and stop jacking this one.

This thread is about anarchy. Progressive taxation is one of the main reasons government is so big. People vote for bigger government because they are told that it will be paid for by "taxing the rich". How many people would vote for a new government program if they were told their taxes would go up to support that program? I would say progressive taxation and the ability to print money are the top 2 reasons government is so big.

Why do you think government is so big? Isn't that a concern if you're an anarchist?