Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Priests don't need taxes, they need tithes.Kings don't need taxes, they need tribute....there is a difference.Craftsmen don't need taxes, they need to produce a product.Soldiers do need taxes to get paid, but they produce a product....security.Now as to the man as independent and free. Man has been given inalienable rights (well our governmental philosophy says so anyway), that boils down to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now having established this, man's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can and often is, threatened by tyranny. What greater form of tyranny is there than to forcefully extract wealth from someone? Taxation is a forceful extraction of wealth from an individual, however, in our nation's case, the people are the extractors since the people are the government. So we are extracting taxes from ourselves for our mutual benefit. This is fine, but when our elected representatives begin to arbitrarily raise our tax burden to offset budgetary blunders, prop up reckless entitlement programs, and bail out irresponsible businesses and banks because of cronyism and good ole boy networks, we have tyranny of the most pernicious kind. The ability to tax is the ability to enslave, and this is precisely the message we sent to King George III when Parliament began to levy excise taxes and other taxes without our direct representation. Okay, so I submit to you WillyD that our current Congress is beginning to go in the same direction as Parliament did in the 18th century. It is burdening the people with an ever increasing tax yoke because of utterly irresponsible spending practices due to the ever increasing size of government and the ever growing costs of being a global superpower. Finally, our taxes are collected by a bureaucracy that has little to no oversight by the people themselves, and this too is a vile form of tyranny. Once this form of tyranny is established, it is not easily removed, and I daresay it cannot be reformed without a serious contest of wills, which may ultimately end in bloodshed, or even worse, the destruction of this nation altogether.We are playing word games.Craftsmen who forge weapons for the ruler or build his walls or decorate his home are paid out of tax revenue.Priests-- if supported by the state--and many were--are paid out of tax revenue--still are in England.Soldiers salaries are drawn from the treasury--tax revenuesKings get both taxes and tribute--different--but both bring in revenueYes--it is ironic:We did not like taxes without representation and 1/3 of us were willing to go to war over it--a minority!Now we screech because we still pay taxes with representation.Who elected these dolts--we did. I say the problem is us. Vote them out they do not have sinecures!If the government is too big--elect people who will make it smaller or ala Ronnie--starve the beast.As to the Bureaucracy--I take umbrage at your comments. You must understand that Bureaucrats donot make policy--they carry out the orders of their political masters. If the head of the IRS is told toaudit a particular income group with fierce diligence then that is what his hordes of subordinates will do.It is not that they are evil, it is merely following orders and putting bread on the table for their kids ..People who get upset with the burrocrats (sic) are directing their anger in the wrong direction.One final point: You may believe that man has inalienable rights, I do not. The fate of most menthroughout recorded time is to be ruled by Chiefs, Kings, Despots, Emperors etc. who cared no more about the rights of the common man than we care about the price of puppies in Manilla.You are speaking as a child of the Enlightenment and that is a very good thing in my opinion. To mychagrin it is a minority view as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and many other leaders havedemonstrated time and time again.Sleep well:WillyD
? Reply #15 on: Today at 08:25:03 PM ?QuoteQuoteI think it has outlived its usefulness and a new Constitutional Convention could come up with something better. The founding fathers were not guided by the hand of a deity and there are major flaws inthe document that have to be constantly worked around in order to get things done. It is like an oldFord--it was great in its day, but it is time to turn it in for a new model. That is my opinion.What could we come up with that is better? Our Constitution is the oldest in the world and is still functioning (or trying to despite the best efforts of the Republicrat two party dictatorship to subvert it).Here is a list of things our government ignores:Congressional supremacy in the three branches of government. How? The President can now declare war (with executive orders), declare martial law (executive order again), suspend habeas corpus (see martial law), and virtually sign treaties via the State Dept. The Supreme Court overturns and nullifies laws based on political ideology (handpicked by the President see FDR's Court Packing attempts etc...).Posse Comitatus is now dead. The President can federalize national guard troops, and has established the Northcom division that deploys domestically. The Constitution says states may have militias (and were never to be federalized hence defeating the purpose of having militias). The 2nd Amendment is being nullified in places like Washington D.C. and New York City even when the Supreme Court has ruled they couldn't outlaw handguns...yet they still do.I could go on and on, but it's obvious that the Constitution is not broke; it's the government that has defecated on the Constitution over and over again that is the real culprit. We have careerist politicians and bureaucrats who have become distant mini tyrants who have pillaged the people and stuffed their coffers with our blood, sweat, and tears. Thomas Jefferson said that the liberty tree must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots. It doesn't have to be actual blood necessarily, but liberty will fade if we the people allow the government, our partner, to renege on its obligations as explained in the contract we signed in actual blood over two hundred years ago.
At one point all ships were driven by sails. Who could imagine anything better? Under the original Constitution Senators were elected by the State legislators--what could be better than that? The IBM selectric was the best--who could imagine anything better? The 1955 Chevrolet was mechanical perfection. NOTSomething can always be improved either by adding or removing features--think of a race car--less weight plus more power=greater speed.I am fully aware of the excellence of our hoary Constitution, but I believe we could make it better.Use your own examples. I can think of 10 things that spring to mind that would improve the responseof the government to the people and 10 more that would permit the people to immediately sanction government officials. We have bettered it many times--the amendments! (exclude 18th)My modest suggestion is that we might well be able to improve upon the document. To say that we are unable to do so is to denigrate our abilities and lead one to conclude that you desire to preserve the document in amber.TAXES!!!!! UGHThere is a good deal here in New York--No State Taxes on pensions!!!HR Block does my Federal--takes about 15 minutes and cost about 60 dollars--I am fret free!WillyD
I can feel that, but you should be sharpening your tines to preserve the Constitution as it is, not to change it into something it should not be. Our government is what is broke. It can't keep its grubby fingers out of our pockets, and they are more concerned about non existent global warming and chasing boogie men around the globe than fixing the real problem which is a government bloated with inefficient bureaucracies, porous borders, and robber barons extorting us on Wall Street. Okay I'll stop there, my blood pressure is rising. LOL...Donald BakerNow I have gone and upset you and I am sorry. The government is crippled because we are operatingunder a wonderful document written over 200 years ago, but not quite flexible enough to be applicable to our times.I think it has outlived its usefulness and a new Constitutional Convention could come up with something better. The founding fathers were not guided by the hand of a deity and there are major flaws inthe document that have to be constantly worked around in order to get things done. It is like an old Ford--it was great in its day, but it is time to turn it in for a new model. That is my opinion.As to your comments concerning the actions of our present government--well we can save that for another day--life is long, life is sweet. My keepers told me to adopt this view.WillyD
I reiterate, taxes are a necessary evil, as is government. Why evil? Because man should be independent and free to his own devises. However, because of the corrupt nature of man, and the complexity of civilization (primarily due to the corruption of man), government is necessary so that goods and services can be rendered equitably (in theory anyway). That being said, taxes and government must be designed to not over burden or intrude in the pursuit of man's happiness. Taxes should be cut wherever and whenever possible, and not levied at all if can be avoided. Ideally, if man were perfect, he would need neither taxes or government....alas, this is not the case....I am cursed by my inability to communicate clearly. You say man should be independent and free to follow his own path. I say that this is your opinion and not a fact or practice during all the years man has been on earth. You contend that man is corrupt, but you fail to say whether this is due to his nature (Calvin) or society (Rousseau). Unless all men are to live lives as a solitary beast like a male polar bear, we must live in groups and by doing so build a society and a civilization. Because we are hierarchal creatures, we accept the idea that someone or something has to be in charge because we seem to know through experience that in this way we stave off anarchy, chaos and other social horrors.This is what William Golding was telling us In Lord of the Flies.To the man in charge falls the duty of deciding how to pay for the services required or desired for thegroup. Specialists such as soldiers, craftsmen, priests etc. must be fed, clothed and housed. There isno such mandate to treat people equal--women, slaves, lower orders or aliens with equity and nolimits to the power of the man in charge to extract taxes in kind or labour. He is limited only by what the group will accept and the loyalty of his armed retainers. He makes the laws--we obey them.You say taxes should be cut and in some cases I would agree--but it is not an imperative. In fact, inthe case I outlined a really astute ruler would strike the perfect balance and extract, either by reason,religion or force--it really does not matter--those taxes that will provide him with a maximum of income and yet be bearable and perhaps even acceptable to those that pay. If he is lucky, he gets it right andlives to die in bed having avoided a revolt of the proles.In your last sentence you hit upon a major Marxist flaw. Government could wither away, taxes would not be necessary at all--if only man were perfect or at least perfectible. Alas he is not--ergo--wewill pay and pay and pay until death--and in some cases thereafter.
The Constitution is not broke, so a crisis shouldn't be invoked to "fix it.I respect you opinion with which I respectfully disagree. If I had a pitchfork and were young enough to wield it, I would be sharpening the tines.
They were supposed to as well. The ones that did learned more but didn't have any more fun… just had more info to write a good letter home. Do yuo teach in a private school?
That assumes that public school adminstrators actually want our children to learn versus do well on standardized tests. I know that the school my son went to in Texas spent the last 1/4 of the school year preparing for the mandatory testing.I bet it would work, but only if the whole program were implemented. Cant you hear the houls from parents now if they implemented something like this in public schools.I honestly dont think the average parent cares about their child's success.One intersting observation. In Texas, my sons teacher told us that we were one of three parents that showed up on parent-teacher conference day. i tend to believe her because the halls were totally empty when we went and we did not see another parent in the hour we were at the school the last time we had a conference. It was during the work day but both my wife and i took the time off to be there. Because we care about our son and his education.The contrast is that here in Germany (my son goes to German schools not American), almost all parents show up and there is a line to see the teachers. I was amazed at the level of parental involvement in Germany after spending three years back in the states.I dont just blame schools for stupid kids. Schools are part of it but I think the biggest part is parents who dont parent. If parents actually got involved with their kids instead of being too busy with their own lives kids would do better in school. Modern educational m.//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Parents have abrogated their role for the education of their children--not all, but lots. One reason forthis is that Mom and Dad are both working 2 or more jobs so as to provide the "necessities" of amodern middle class life. With work, commutes and home they are, according to my experiences, too tired to get involved and also some see little hope of really altering a system run by managers with sinecures and teachers protected by unions more interested in their contractual rights than in educatingthe children. In my opinion the whole thing is a huge scam--not all places and not all schools--but enough of them to convince me that the whole system has to have a fundamental change if we hope toachieve any lasting results that are good. Our federal system makes this nigh on to impossible sounless there is a revolution in education we will continue to turn out students with worthless diplomasand send them to college where the only way they can get out is to pick a diploma mill, choose one thataccepts that a dumbed down student body requires dumbed down courses in a major that in the realworld would be useless unless your Dad owned the company. Students have an unerring ability to detectfrauds, fakes and charlatans--ask them about their courses and teachers sometime. Here is a fairlygood test for a High School sophomore--ask him to sit down at the table and ,without any reference books, write you an essay on ..................... . You will. in most cases, be horrified--I know I was.
Or wishful thinking (on my part) as I believe that even though most folks were caught up in the Manifest Destiny idea it was not so much the Imperialistic mode, for most, as the shinning city on the hill mentality.I agree that "some" might have been so inclined, but I have perhaps a less optimistic view of human naturewhich is based both on experience as well as lots of reading. John Calvin and the Catholic church both got it right in my opinion--we are essentially not good people--back to the killer ape idea where the Id rules.
On of the failures of education (IMHO) is not spending more time getting the right fit for kids. Far too often students are encouraged to go to schools that are too much too soon... don't get me wrong I'm for any kid that can going on beyond HS, but with a caveat. Don't take a kids that could use a couple of years at a community college, to polish their skills, and send them directly to a four year school; don't take a kid that would do well at the local 4 yr, and send them off into the state university (read the likes of USC, etc.) system; don't take the State U prospect and send to Harvard / Yale / Princeton... get the kid on the first step and having success before pushing higher.Too many times I saw kids set up for failure by this process... happens not just with affirmative action programs, but generally anytime we want to promote the progress. The failure is then pinned on education generallyOn another line; why blame HS's for Johnny and Janey not being able to read or do math? They should have learned that stuff in the primary grades, eh?...Wally:How about this. Most jobs do not require a college degree despite what we have been told. Years agopeople who wanted to be lawyers, doctors,engineers ministers and teachers went to school to acquire specializedknowledge in their desired field. Some people also attended because it was thought to advance their chances of meeting a better class of people. The High schools had programs that prepared most students for the world of work in offices, factories and everything else. There was no need for an office worker or a factory hand to know anything about the plays the Racine, the teachings of Plato, or thebetter paintings of the Renaissance. These were held to be esoteric subjects and seldom discussed inthe bars or living rooms of ordinary Americans.In today's world we have to face the fact that the glitter of an education at an enormous cost may nolonger be desirable or affordable. Perhaps we should explore the idea that our dwindling resources should be spent to train our children for a world of work wherein they or us will not have burdensome student loans to repay and a good job can be had with the right training in the right field. College is not required. In fact, i am told that we are swimming in a sea of college graduates who cannot find a job because their majors in school are nice, but unappealing to employers--e.g. French Literature, Psychology, Communications, English, History, Art History, Music, German. Russian, Spanish and French.Employers and government agencies require college degrees for some jobs because they can get people to apply for them. The lessons learned at school, often have no applicability to the position at all. Takea police officer. Many police departments want their officers to have or get a degree--why? Betterby far to send him to a one year school after the academy where he would learn practical subjectsapplicable to the position--no need for a four year degree except it sounds good.My guess is that we would save tons of money, have a happier student body not being required to takesubjects in which they have no interest and look upon as merely another hurdle to overcome. Wewould all benefit preparing them for the economic world that is coming, not for the world that was.Let college be for the elite, the very bright and the wealthy. The rest of us have family to support anda life to live. Let college be looked upon as a luxury, needed by some, desired by others, but in the enddifficult to justify especially if one looks at the kinds of students many of our colleges are turning out.I would hazard a guess that a graduate of a good urban high school, in 1930 would do better on anexam, mutatis mutandis, that a 2009 college graduate.
No need to have an Emperor to rule an Empire. Empire is closely related to Imperialism : "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." France had an emperor once but its imperialism lasted more than Napoleon himself.A question of semantic ?Perhaps it is one use as a noun another as an adjective ORThe fact that the word has varied defininitions.So then the USA is an Empire?
I read his book too–a lovely blue and white cover–it is buried in my stacks somewhere. Yes–govt. must be paid for–nobody works for free at such a thankless task.
