Warren Buffet On Taxes

[pixelo]

Jon Stewart | Warren Buffett | Class Warfare | Mediaite

 

[RNVC.]

Warren Buffet's intelligence/experience > anyone on this forum.

oyeah agreed

 

[infoslob]

oyeah agreed

Know what? It's not fair that you could put so much thought into a post and not be compensated for it.

That's why I'm putting $50 in your paypal account.

I mean, there I was wondering, "Gee - who is more intelligent and experienced, Warren Buffett or the people posting in a thread with a topic that isn't about whether WB is intelligent and experienced?"

And that's when you came in and seconded someone else's profound observation!

 

[Ar Scion]

I did, or the essence of? What did I actually say? I am simply applying your logic consistently, because you will not.


I don't question this.


This is an opinion, not a fact.


Ideal systems are Utopianism. I am not a Utopian. You claimed you weren't either with your nuanced views about "reality".


Can you prove this?


You mean that piece of paper that the government ignores called the Constitution? Yeah, that works real good. Who applies the rules and regulations? You? Do you have the power to do that?

If not, then the government is beyond your control.

Also, voting is not legitimate. If we all vote to send a religious group to the ovens in genocide, it is not legitimate. If we vote to prevent you from marrying the person you want, it is not legitimate. If we vote to take your property and give it to other people, that is not legitimate.

Government, theoretically, can only do the things which YOU as an individual delegate to them. If you can't do it, they can't. If you can't take my money, government can't. If you can't bomb someone, government can't. Government cannot have any rights not delegated to it, and only those rights explicitly delegated to it by its constituents.


You can't reform something which is fundamentally flawed. The problems with government are that it is a violent monopoly based on force. Until governments have to compete, and until they have to be accountable for their violence, then they cannot be improved.

And the answer to that question is the market, not government. We already have the solution, and it is a civil society based on self ownership.

Government is irrational, as it is a fundamentally socialist institution. The idea of reforming it, because you continue to insist we need it, although you cannot articulate why, is cute, but it isn't an argument.

Again, you've failed to connect the dots on why we all need government, if we all don't need the same level of governance. You also haven't explained how we only get the best humans into office, and how they show the restraint not to tax and spend, start wars, and make idiotic laws that punish their constituents for non-violent personal choices.

You can continue to make emotional appeals, or speak in broad abstractions, but that's not a substitute for a logically consistent argument based on facts.

If you don't question that individuals have varying levels of self-governing capacities among them and specific to each behavior, then you have no further argument to make, because it logically leads to my conclusion.

Ie, that when people struggle to self-govern, they appoint someone to govern over them. When people can sufficiently govern themselves, they have no need to appoint someone to govern over them.

The only element missing from this position is the question of how the governors are governed.

You seem to be unwilling to accept the idea that the influence is cyclical. The fact that people in political office have been voted out, have been impeached, made to resign, lost their positions, imprisoned and subject to investigations must be a very inconvenient slice of reality for you.

At this point, I can't help but feel you have a problem with government, which is understandable.

What is in poor form is the tendency to try to make reality conform to your position by arbitrarily declaring one legal ruling legitimate and another not, by imposing arbitrary claims such as "the government cannot do what the people cannot do".

Really, though, I have to concede one thing to the hardcore libertarians. I only wish they could have somewhere they could live, if only to try the experiment of libertarianism out. Despite our disagreements, I do believe there is a chance it might succeed. More due to self-selection of candidates who live in such a community than anything else.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

At this point, I can't help but feel you have a problem with government, which is understandable.

Guerilla self-identifies as anarcho-capitalist, who fundamentally differ with libertarians in that they believe any state ultimately limits individual freedom. Unlike other types of anarchists however, they don't believe capitalism is problematic because it's seen as entirely voluntary.

 

[silverace]

Yeah but he can get high and laid as often as he wants.

true:smokin:

 

[guerilla]

Guerilla self-identifies as anarcho-capitalist, who fundamentally differ with libertarians in that they believe any state ultimately limits individual freedom. Unlike other types of anarchists however, they don't believe capitalism is problematic because it's seen as entirely voluntary.

I am logically consistent as a voluntaryist. All relations between human beings should be voluntary.

You're welcome to quote me, but don't bother speaking for me.

 

[guerilla]

If you don't question that individuals have varying levels of self-governing capacities among them and specific to each behavior, then you have no further argument to make, because it logically leads to my conclusion.

That's a non sequitur. Prove how it leads there, don't just assert it. An assertion is not an argument.

Ie, that when people struggle to self-govern, they appoint someone to govern over them. When people can sufficiently govern themselves, they have no need to appoint someone to govern over them.

Sure, people can choose their own agents. They cannot however choose mine. An agent can only do what you delegate to that agent to do. If it is not civil for you to interrogate me, or beat me, or take money from me, then your agent cannot do it either.

The only element missing from this position is the question of how the governors are governed.

There is a ton of scholarship reaching back centuries on this stuff.

You seem to be unwilling to accept the idea that the influence is cyclical. The fact that people in political office have been voted out, have been impeached, made to resign, lost their positions, imprisoned and subject to investigations must be a very inconvenient slice of reality for you.

How so? I acknowledge this. It's like saying a stopped watch is right only twice a day. It's a fucking stopped watch.

It's completely irrelevant to the argument that people are capable of selecting rational governors, when you claim that they cannot govern themselves. That is your claim you keep repeating, and yet you cannot substantiate it. You just keep asserting things which have nothing to do with your own statements.

At this point, I can't help but feel you have a problem with government, which is understandable.

I actually have less problems with government, than I do with the ignorant who defend government as something even government admits it is not. Government is a racket. It always has been. They own the schools, which teach kids all about the evil of private society, and all about the endless virtue of the state. Every country does this. In one country, Americans are heroes, in another, villains. Every country forges a nationalistic identity based on myths and fables to deliberately create a tribal cohesiveness around these lies.

And people repeat it down, generation after generation to their children, in what has been termed, "residual tyranny". The lie becomes truth when it becomes the official history.

Yeah, this sounds radical. If people won't stop for 5 minutes and question their beliefs, everything sounds radical. I've bought into the lie, and I have questioned the lie. Have you ever questioned the stories and narratives you have been told? If not, I think you should. You should investigate another side to those stories to see if you have been given an accurate, or even likely picture.

What is in poor form is the tendency to try to make reality conform to your position by arbitrarily declaring one legal ruling legitimate and another not, by imposing arbitrary claims such as "the government cannot do what the people cannot do".

It is not an arbitrary claim. You have said that government is an agent, selected by the people unable to govern themselves. If that is the case, then the agent cannot do what the people cannot (basic Declaration of Independence stuff based on natural rights theory).

On the one hand, your claim goes like this.

People who won't care for the poor, have to choose someone, who will force them to care for the poor.

But what you're saying is, that people can choose a government to make them do what they could already do. They have a right to take care of the poor, and the agent is just making sure they do it. Like a personal trainer making sure you get your workouts in.

Where did you or anyone else get the right to take money from me? Why do I have to pay taxes, because you can't bring yourself to work and take care of the poor yourself? Why does your lack of capacity to self-govern, commit me to be governed by your chosen agent?

Really, though, I have to concede one thing to the hardcore libertarians. I only wish they could have somewhere they could live, if only to try the experiment of libertarianism out.

We're living it daily. Although freedom is again shrinking in the world, most interactions and lifestyle/social/community choices made every day, around the planet are done in a libertarian manner.

What is mostly lacking in private life is violent interactions the state forces upon us through taxes, war and regulation (of civil and economic liberties).

Remember, the number one killer in the world is the nation state. More so than any religion. Although one could make the correlation that democracy is the new atheistic religion, a belief in temporarily holy and super wise men over men, rather than God over men.

I'll say this for God, at least he wasn't elected. We're stupid enough to elect the Hitlers and Trumans of the world. Says a lot about the rationality of people unable to govern themselves, selecting better people to govern them, doesn't it?

Would anyone hire Barack Obama for any commercial purpose if he wasn't President? Has he proven to be anything more than a snake oil pitchman? What led the unable to self-govern, to believe a man like him could govern their lives better?

If y'all have a shred of intellectual honesty, do some research into libertarianism. I don't buy into everything ever written, but insisting the state is the solution without even examining the problem closely is incredibly lazy and a huge waste of our scarce time.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

I am logically consistent as a voluntaryist. All relations between human beings should be voluntary.

You're welcome to quote me, but don't bother speaking for me.

Okay:

Ancaps are not Utopians. We aren't missing that point at all. I believe we're the only ones rationally addressing it. [...]

(emphasis added)


You've also equated the two:

[...]
There is a voluntarist (I prefer that term to ancap myself) who makes the following point. [...]

You might see where I got the impression you identified as anarcho-capitalist. But of course, you're entitled to change your opinion.

 

[sixthcutuan]

Skipped a bit because I cba answering some.

I actually have less problems with government, than I do with the ignorant who defend government as something even government admits it is not. Government is a racket. It always has been. They own the schools, which teach kids all about the evil of private society, and all about the endless virtue of the state. Every country does this. In one country, Americans are heroes, in another, villains. Every country forges a nationalistic identity based on myths and fables to deliberately create a tribal cohesiveness around these lies.

Well I went from thinking you were crazy to seeing your point. Yes every government often subjects it's people to propaganda, but some governments more than others. The main offenders I can think of in history are: The Nazi's, Mussolini but of course the main offenders were Soviet Russia and *drum roll* America! It tend's to be that the more extreme the country, the more it tries to manipulate it's people. In case you don't realise, the US is very right wing. This is not government however, it is abuse of government. It's the same as saying all babysitters are evil because there have been a few that abused children. Why is it that American's (I take it you are American) are so scared of governments? I heard it was something to do with philosophical values recently.

And people repeat it down, generation after generation to their children, in what has been termed, "residual tyranny". The lie becomes truth when it becomes the official history.

Tribes are natural. Hierarchy is natural. Get used to it.

Yeah, this sounds radical. If people won't stop for 5 minutes and question their beliefs, everything sounds radical.

I question everything. I just weigh up the evidence on either hand.

I've bought into the lie, and I have questioned the lie. Have you ever questioned the stories and narratives you have been told? If not, I think you should. You should investigate another side to those stories to see if you have been given an accurate, or even likely picture.

There seems to be another thing going around in the US, that because you think "differently" that somehow makes you right because you separate yourself from a lot of dumb people. Think conspiracy theorists. Many can get into a frame of mind that because they "know more" that means they don't have to listen to the logical arguments. I don't think this is you yet but maybe time to take your own advice and reflect?

It is not an arbitrary claim. You have said that government is an agent, selected by the people unable to govern themselves. If that is the case, then the agent cannot do what the people cannot (basic Declaration of Independence stuff based on natural rights theory).

On the one hand, your claim goes like this.

People who won't care for the poor, have to choose someone, who will force them to care for the poor.

But what you're saying is, that people can choose a government to make them do what they could already do. They have a right to take care of the poor, and the agent is just making sure they do it. Like a personal trainer making sure you get your workouts in.

Where did you or anyone else get the right to take money from me? Why do I have to pay taxes, because you can't bring yourself to work and take care of the poor yourself? Why does your lack of capacity to self-govern, commit me to be governed by your chosen agent?

Another difference in philosophy between Europe and the US. Apparently in philosophy over here, when there are US students in the room the lecturer often says "In Europe we all think this ..." simply because we think so differently. Anyway, most of the US goes by the John Stuart Mill idea that every man's labour should stay his own and it is a crime to take anything away. A very interesting read for a mid nineteenth century book, however it is wrong. Society is essential to human existence (Don't even bother arguing about that one). Without contribution, society would fall apart. Unfortunately its as simple as that. It's a COMPLETELY different matter however deciding how much is "enough" contribution.

We're living it daily. Although freedom is again shrinking in the world, most interactions and lifestyle/social/community choices made every day, around the planet are done in a libertarian manner.

Argh libertarians. The most right wing of them all.

What is mostly lacking in private life is violent interactions the state forces upon us through taxes, war and regulation (of civil and economic liberties).

Another abuse, not part of the definition of democracy. "Ruled by the people". Thats why we have to work to improve government.

Remember, the number one killer in the world is the nation state. More so than any religion.

I would say natural death is actually. Anyway this has been going on since tribes. Remember, hierarchy is natural.

Although one could make the correlation that democracy is the new atheistic religion, a belief in temporarily holy and super wise men over men, rather than God over men.

Really, really disagree.

I'll say this for God, at least he wasn't elected. We're stupid enough to elect the Hitlers and Trumans of the world. Says a lot about the rationality of people unable to govern themselves, selecting better people to govern them, doesn't it?

As far as im aware, Truman only got in because Roosevelt died and only 37% of Germans voted for the Nazi's. Many only looking at the benefits farmers we're getting and not realising the bad bits.

Would anyone hire Barack Obama for any commercial purpose if he wasn't President? Has he proven to be anything more than a snake oil pitchman? What led the unable to self-govern, to believe a man like him could govern their lives better?

I believe in him and he isn't even my president. He's had a tough time because of unfortunate time's and a lot of backstabbing from the opposing party (you have no idea how stupid American politics is from an external view). I still see him as one of the best American president's ever. I would have thought McCain, or if you don't agree, at least Palin, would have been far worse.

If y'all have a shred of intellectual honesty, do some research into libertarianism. I don't buy into everything ever written, but insisting the state is the solution without even examining the problem closely is incredibly lazy and a huge waste of our scarce time.

Do some research into centre-left. We ain't communist or socialist nor are we selfish. I am yet to meet a libertarian who has nothing to gain by being one. Plenty of rich lefties who are willing to give more to help others. Plenty of poor lefties who are also willing to give more.

Thanks for the debate.

 

[DocApocalypto]

This thread is full of big government faggots and pussy liberal hand wringers who are scared to let their fucking balls hang.

LMAO....^^this....sig worthy veritas

 

[Moxie]

Argh libertarians. The most right wing of them all.

Hmm... Michelle Bachmann wants to ban porn. Ron Paul wants to allow Guerilla and I to have unregulated heroin-fueled-meatspin-satanic-mma events in our living rooms. (hypothetical example :uhoh2

 

[DocApocalypto]

libertarians have 2 wings, and we soar above the fascists and commies with our head up high.

 

[guerilla]

Thanks for the debate.

sixthcutuan, yours was one of the most thoughtful dissents in this thread.

I would love to debate you over it, but you have to quote properly because you're pushing all the work on me to have a relationship, like a typical lefty