The Value of Freedom

He made the comment, originally, that taxation was the act of a communist state..Now what would you infer from that and would you require clarification?

Here goes: My abridged opinion
Taxation is government mandated compensation for services. Or inversely, payment for services. It is a system of coersion, but is justified by the social contract. We created political systems to govern society. We created society to advance civilization. We chose civilization over a natural state. By living in a society, you are forced to bear expenses. Indirectly or directly, you receive service for your tax. The degree of coersion depends directly on individual representation, and governmental reciprocation. We have not yet realized absolute political representation, so we are subject to politcal arbitration.

Under our democratic system, we elect politicians who arbitrate the annual duty. We have checking systems, but, neglecting protestation rights, are slaves to majority. Ideally, the scope of service "should" correlate proportionally with contribution. Realistically it is subject to the agenda of the elect. Once taxes are pooled who recieves ownership? The government? What is the government? A political system, but essentially a collection of individuals, societal delegates, responsible
for the redistribution of generated funds to where, what, and who they deem fit. It is for the people. Does that infer common ownership? Insofar as we today represent government I believe so.

Taxation is the currency of government, and the pillar of society. Here in the US, I believe it inefficient, arbitrary, and coersive. It's justice is corrupted by political fraud and the primacy of need over worth. I accept it being unable myself to devise a more efficient system, but i identify it as a statist system.

Personal definition: Governmental arrogation of individual property for the relief of societal need.

I appreciate your input and your opinions but it is only a sign of a failing economy that drives these opinions. My question was, is communism, in every country, if taxation is used to secure the country?

Why shouldn't it? Failure necissitates change, not success. My opinions are driven by ethical as well as economical failure. Now, as I said, taxation is coersion. Default is illegal, and is met with legal force. Taxation is the arrogation, compilation, and redistribution of private property for common interests. To that extent, taxation is a communist system. Aquiring wealth requires time, thought, and work. The product is income. The government TAKES an individual's time, thought, and effort, and arbitrates where it is needed most.

Communism:"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. "

Now, taxation takes a portion of individual ownership. So "to a degree," yes, I believe tax-based governments are communist.

By its nature it satisfies those with the money to influence government policy. If you think money has a place in determining government policy then I can understand your happiness.

People don't have to be influenced if they don't want to be. It is up to them. You cannot be forced to be influenced. If you are, then it is your fault.

Of course they dont have to be bribed , they are our perfect representatives, I'm so silly.

Bribery is a crime. If you have evidence of bribery you should produce it. But lobbying is not a crime. It is how special interests make their interests known.

so what would you call giving money to politicians for favours? Crime , crime against common decency does not need legislation.

If that is what is being done, then that, of course, is bribery, and a crime.

"If men were angels, then we would need not government" (or laws). The Federalist Papers.

I think you and Nero aught to form a new movement. Letting the world know that communism has succeeded and is ruling the world. I have never heard the description of communism being described as purely the ability to gather taxes. I dont think it needed inventing as even we where attempting to tax the colonist three hundred years ago. Even the Romans had the ability.Holding ownership of a few dollars is deemed to be Marxist, I think this should be in 3d like the new Alice film.

Yes all nations are communist, even America? Well why comment on any particular country if you consider all are communist. If you idea of communism is the act of taxing its citizens can you give me an alternative. A working example would be nice, not Disney Land now.

Do you ever consider your views a bit strange and extreme Nero? I really do appreciate you being here, you exhibit all the extreme ridiculous views that we see displayed in certain media.

You heard it here first folks ..The whole world is communist...even the Kingdom of SA...absolutely amazing bit of news , totally revealing..:perplexed:

No offense, and just out of curiosity, when did taking part in collective action become the antipode of human dignity? Can't it also represent the personal recognition that all of humanity is deserving some minimum of dignity, and the pursuit of it? Is all collective action coercive? The uncompromising brand of individualism you seem to espouse seems like a bit of a slippery slope. At what point does it cease to be humanism (which implies a common as well as an individual dignity) and become simply Nero-ism?

I'm not too sharp on politics so please bear with me.
Beyond the criminal aspect ,which political lawyers are very good at avoiding, this appears to me as the area where Capitalism begins to erode
Democracy.
It appears as though Democracy defends itself by developing socialist tendencies. I think maybe this is what is happening now, but I have not heard it said.
Does this seem likely?

I never equated communism with taxation. If you interpreted that, allow me to redirect you. Individual income is individually earned, correct? A political body functions to preserve the well being of a society. A society is a collection of individuals, earning individual incomes. Through taxation, the state exacts an arbitrary payment from individual constituents. The funds are pooled, and at the discretion of the political unit, redistributed to society. Who or what is society? A collective(of individuals). Take from each, to give to all. That is how I see it. Taxation as common ownership of individual property. Where am I missing?

Obviously voluntary collective action is not against human dignity. What I talk about is prohibiting voluntary action or coercing involuntary action for the "greater good of the collective". That is collectivism.
Individualism can never cease to be humanism, that's like asking "at what point does believing in God cease to be theism?".

You are leaving out the most important part. All nations are to some degree communist. Even America. It is a matter of degree, xris. It's a fluent transition. There is no nation that is 0% communist, and no nation is 100% communist, but all are somewhere inbetween. We only call it communism in the extreme though. A "little bit of communism" is socialism.
All nations have some restriction on voluntary interactions between individuals, or force involuntary interactions. Thus no nation fully employs the free market (where all transactions are voluntary). As you say yourself, a true free market may be impossible. Therefore all nations are a little bit communist.
Evil empires and "democratic" socialism are not different in kind only in degree, when what you judge then by is their humanism; their respect for the individual. When you judge them by other criteria, that is different. It depends what your values are. I am a humanist.



Obviously voluntary collective action is not against human dignity. What I talk about is prohibiting voluntary action or coercing involuntary action for the "greater good of the collective". That is collectivism.
Individualism can never cease to be humanism, that's like asking "at what point does believing in God cease to be theism?".

You are the best there is. How can you judge a community on its political stand point by accepting the fundamental necessities of government to describe its values,IE it gathers taxes. You made your views quite clear that any country that gathers taxes is communist, now in that in my book is a completely outrageous claim that needs clarification, by you...

Degree describes us all but to say im a Marxist because I believe in a social responsibility is pure propaganda. You are a right wing fascist thug if we take that path of describing each other with that logic.

I'm not too sharp on politics so please bear with me.
Beyond the criminal aspect ,which political lawyers are very good at avoiding, this appears to me as the area where Capitalism begins to erode
Democracy.
It appears as though Democracy defends itself by developing socialist tendencies. I think maybe this is what is happening now, but I have not heard it said.
Does this seem likely?

I did not mean to insult you xris. Marxist is not just a term that is thrown around by right wingers. It is an actual living ideology. It is a real thing, it's not just a slur. I used the term in the health care thread, not in general. I don't mean that you are a Marxist in general, because you are not, I know that. But I meant it in an academic, accurate sense, which technically applies. At least to your opinion on health care.
If you look up Marxism on wikiedia, it tells you that Marxism has three primary aspects:
1. Materialist concept of history
2. Critique of capitalism
3. Get rid of the profit motive, disown the evil rich bastards and distribute goods according to need.
The first one is a underlying assumption that we both share. So that is a given.
And wouldn't you say you criticize capitalism a lot? So the second is the case as well.
Now, the reason I called you "Marxist "on the issue of health care, is that on the issue of health care you also support the third one. You want to get rid of the profit motive and throw out the greedy insurance companies so health aid can be distributed according to need, and not ability to pay. You stated those things in that thread. So when I called you that term, it of course was meant as a negative, but it was technically true.