The Official Barack Obama Thread (country, Queen, American, French)

[someonecompletelyrandom]

Glenn Beck is a prick.

[Akira]

I've had enough of Obama already

[sleepy jack]

Yeah you're going to have to suck it up and get use to it.

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Fox News has gone completely insane. O'Reilly actually said we were going to be killed in our beds (or something to that effect.) They've also argued that FDR made the Great Depression worse and that liberalism comes fascism (even though liberalism is older than fascism and fascism is actually a far right politically philosophy. I mean AT LEAST the socialism/communism comments make sense because they're left-wing philosophies and the democrats are a moderate party with left leanings but come on you can't go from Marxism to Fascism; they're nothing alike.) They're becoming very entertaining to watch; in a "wow they've gone fucking insane" way.

I hope you understand that FDR didn't really make this country better for what he did during the depression...

[swim]

wow.

[sleepy jack]

lol...

[sleepy jack]

No, it is actually true. I'm not saying it's actually reflective of the Republican party (in the same way I wouldn't say Communism is reflective of the Democratic party) but on the political spectrum Fascism is considered a right-wing philosophy because of what it branched out of (Italian Nationalism of the mid 1800s.) This sort of classification dates back to the seating arrangements of the French National Assembly in the late 1700s and it basically comes from how they were seated. Conservatives who were for the continuation of monarchy sat on the right and on the left sat radicals who were for getting rid of that system for a new system which would be based on equality etc and then in the middle you had moderates who only wanted some change. We've been labeling parties like that ever since.

I'll shut up the polisci nerd in me now ):

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

it's not where the money is going that i disagree with, it's that it's being taken at all. theft shouldn't only be illegal if it's not the government doing it.

I don't like this argument. You are not actually being forced to pay taxes. If you choose to live in a country where they have a form of taxation then yes you're going to be expected to pay them because you're choosing by living there to be a citizen of that country. Nothing is stopping you from immigrating or living in the woods somewhere.

Taxation is necessary, especially with the increase of population. You can call it evil and theft all you want but without taxes there would be no protection (civic or nationally) and there would also be no education, roads, etc. I don't want to get into this argument again over "well the rich people would donate because its in their best interests and they got rich because they're rational!" because it shows economic retardation and no grip on reality.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

not true at all, though i guess i should make it clear that i'm not completely against taxation. i'm definitely not opposed to Friedman's idea of a temporary negative income tax replacing all other taxes as well as the welfare state. i mean, it's not just that i see taxation as theft and thus immoral, it's that i sincerely believe society would be better off without it - and i hate to sound like an elitist prick but anyone who honestly thinks that without taxation there would be no police or roads has a good bit of reading to do.

Let me rephrase that: taxation is necessary if you're governing a millions of people. There is no possible way a total laissez-faire system could provide all the things that are publicly funded by the state. Here's the ultimate problem (this isn't necessarily your argument at all) I have with this "taxation is immoral! people can donate to the government if they want those things" kind of argument or the argument that capitalism could provide it all. I think it's a completely hypocritical argument. They believe that the government, by taking money from you via taxes, is being immoral and coercing you. Instead they propose a system where you freely give money to the government or pay a company to take care of all publicly funded things because it is "in your best interests." When it comes to the matters of protection (police, army) they state that if the rich people (this is another thing I could go into but won't) don't donate then they'll probably end up getting attacked or robbed so that is why funding police (which seems silly to me. If I was going to fund something for my protection I'd fund a security team.) Isn't that far worse coercion? It's a threat of violence as opposed to the IRS knocking on your door. I can't speak for everyone but the latter sounds better to me.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

it's still not necessarily true.

How isn't it true?

also not necessarily true.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to fund a military?

a privatized police system doesn't need to rely on donations from rich people to function properly. do you honestly think that if the government stopped paying for police services, everyone would just settle for no police and live in some horrible chaotic lawless society?

It would have to rely on a method of donation of some form which would basically be a round about form of taxation and if not and it was only a few select people who funded it guess who'd they'd be protecting? Not communities but individuals. Which isn't a police force; it's a bodyguard firm.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

i'm not saying i'm for or against privatization of police services, i just don't see why people seem to think that without a government providing all of these things for us, society would just fall apart and we'd all be raped and pillaged by biker gangs.

I'm not saying it would I just think some jobs require a steady stream of tax pay dollars as opposed to erratic donations. I don't think privatizing certain things would work.