Of course. It’s a “minor difference” between a city declaring bankruptcy and an “Off-Track Betting Corporation”.
Start a new thread if you’re curious about what sorts of government entities declare bankruptcy. The purpose of this subthread was to debunk the lie that such bankruptcies are a blue-state thing.
I’m sure you could construct criteria to turn the stats about, if that’s your point. Include fire-control districts but exclude water districts; exclude townships whose population was an odd number on Wednesday; whatever.
You were responding to someone talking about cities going bankrupt. Pointing out a bankruptcy of an Off-Track Betting Corporation is hardly a “debunking”.
This is just bizarre magical thinking. First off, the southern states are the ones who wanted no Hurricane Sandy relief, then as soon as a disaster hits their state, turn around and hit up the feds for a handout. The blue states are the ones who believe in fiscal responsibility, which is having a nation-wide safety net that we all pay into for disaster relief.
Secondly, the red states are mostly overwhelmingly the welfare states that get more federal money than they pay in. Your statement is like pointing to some snotty rich kid who constantly hits up their parents for cash and is never broke as a model of fiscal responsibility. Tell you what, send me $3k/month and I will never be late on my bills any more and you can point to me as never running out of money. The red states are being SUBSIDIZED by us lib’rul states with higher taxation, their quality of life would DROP if they were not subsidized. :smack:
Also pointing to Greece…LOL they made tax evasion a national sport land are now paying the price for it, which is the exact opposite argument a libertarian should be making.
Even with the tax evasion, they collected 42.6% of their GDP in taxes. That’s an astonishingly high tax burden, and it looks all the more absurd given that they wanted a lot more out of their citizens. Libertarians have long predicted that high taxes= high tax evasion, unless of course you’re willing to put a lot of people in jail and seize a lot of homes. Which liberals are willing to do, thus the reality that taxes are like extortion. At least when liberals are in charge of enforcement.
Your red state-blue state argument has two killing flaws:
- While red states receive more federal money, that’s not going into state coffers. Those are mostly benefit payments to individuals.
- Disaster relief is a small thing over the long run and it also does not go into state coffers unless the feds allow it to be used as a slush fund, the way they allowed New Jersey and New York to use their “disaster relief”.
The fact is, red states not only aren’t anywhere near bankruptcy, but haven’t even approached the maximum tax revenue they can get out of their citizens. Many blue states are one recession away from bankruptcy at this point, and only avoided it this time due to a massive infusion of federal funds in 2009.
For the benefit of any foreigners still reading this thread, the “blue states” include New York, California, Massachusetts and other desperate third-world slums, wallowing in their socialism and unable to contribute to the country. “Red states” include Alabama, West Virginia and other prosperous paradigms of freedom renowned for their high-technology and prestigious universities.
So have we now moved from arguing that taxes are wrong, period, end them all, to arguing a certain degree of excessively heavy/light taxation is bad?
That seems to be how the debate has shifter to us lurkers…(at least me)
The strict definition of extortion includes the word “unlawful” so…any lawful extortion is not extortion.
There is also a looser casual sense of the term, but by that sense all laws are extortion. In fact by that sense, standard parenting is extortion, as is commerce. The only place you won’t find any extortion at all is perhaps a commune or monastery.
Anyway that’s all besides the point. Whether something is or is not a particular thing is irrelevant to your debate. If you feel it is wrong to put people in jail for not paying taxes, just say that. And then come up with a system that works better.
Cite? What Senators or Representatives wanted no Sandy relief?
Which is why i said, “despite their other deficiencies.” However, blue states go ahead of red states in part by borrowing prosperity from the future. A bankrupt state is going to look far worse than the poorest red state. Greece’s unemployment rate is 24%. Last I checked, states can neither devalue their currency nor print money. Any state that went bankrupt would quickly devolve into a third world country.
Well, I never argued that it’s wrong so much as a necessary evil. It’s force, and under normal circumstances, we almost all agree that the use of force is a necessary evil, not a wonderful thing that we should use willy-nilly for the most frivolous of reasons.
The problem, as I see it, is that liberals suddenly go from wishy-washy soft on crime types to hardcore law and order when it comes to taxation. They believe that Greece’s problem is that Greece didn’t throw enough people in prison or seize enough of the people’s homes.
Just enjoying seeing you write that.
Um, ok. Did you think I was an anarchist or something?
Lawfulness is arbitrarily determined by the state. They call their extortions “taxes”. They also call their murders “wars and executions”, their kidnappings “arrests”, and their enslavement “selective service”.
You went off the rails a bit when you claimed commerce is extortion. Voluntary exchange between individuals for mutual benefit is extortion in the same sense that taxation is extortion? Nah.
Determining whether or not taxation is extortion is “irrelevant” to my debate? That’s strange because I remember making that central to the debate.
I call this post “bullshit”, but hey, I don’t pay American taxes anyway.
The minority in any election is not represented. Therefore the taxing of that minority is an “abomination”. They happen to exist within the states’ arbitrary borders with those that are represented by the winner of the election. Your very very old argument fails on its own terms.
. Those labels are pretty universal though so don’t feel left out.
Huh? Kindness doesn’t necessarily play into the situation at all. Why does the government need a monopoly on protection? You can’t employ someone to protect you? Are you unaware that this happens today? Walk outside.
Since no individual has a legitimate claim to “the commons” as they exist today, no individual can exercise force in protection of them. Only individuals have a right to self defense of person and property. Groups do not have a right to self defense, therefore the government has no right to defend the commons or impose taxes. In a free society, the commons would not exist.
Wow, this has gone to the level of just witnessing, now.
Why is self defense limited to single combat? If two midgets take on one really big guy, does the big guy only have the right to self defense in Farnabyland?