Public schools are bad and should not exist.

Post Reply New Topic

In effect one should go where he is abused the least. I have a fantasy. Suppose the productive class of the U.S. is plundered and the Irish Republic adapts a policy of laissez faire toward business innovators taxing them hardly at all. Then the productive folks of the U.S. will emigrate to the Irish Republic. Where would that leave the U.S.

What I am suggesting is a slightly skewed version of what happens in -Atlas Shrugged- where all the first rate innovator disappear and live in a hidden are of Colorado. The country falls apart.

There is a substantial risk that the Equalizers and the Redistributors will go one step to far and strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs. At which point the goose flies away (or dies). In either case the country is left to wreck and ruin.

ruveyn

Atlas Shrugged is a poor example to cite for anything, save really crappy writing.

But your fantasy has not been borne out in reality. Wealthy innovators have plenty of tax havens where they could hide out. But, generally speaking, they haven't. So why is that?

First, tax havens generally have insignificant opportunities for investment. Even if you pull all your money out and deposit it with the First Bank of the Caymans--where is that money going to move to in order to start working for you? The equity markets aren't in tax havens, they're in New York, London, Frankfurt, Hongkong, Tokyo, Toronto and the like. Where is the manufacturing? It's in China and India. Where are the service industries? They're in the OECD countries. And most importantly of all--where are the consumers? They are in these same places.

So even if you decamp and head to the Caymans, your investments are still going to be in the places where investment opportunities are found--and your income from your capital is going to be taxed in those places. So if your income is going to be taxed, anyway, then why put yourself in the place where you will not be able to take advantage of bilateral and multilateral tax conventions? At least by remaining in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and the like, you can avoid double taxation by the offsets available under these international agreements.

You have your premise entirely backwards. One should not go where one is abused the least. One should go where one has the greatest opportunity.

And for all of the shortcomings in your country, my country and our peers in the industrialized world, these are still the countries where the greatest opportunity lies.

You are saying that if the state passes a law saying that I can take all of your property without your consent and I do so, then no theft has taken place. And then you say that my perspective is utter and complete nonsense. Then you go on about rhetoric, which has nothing to do with the argument whatsoever.

I disagree with how you use the word "theft". I hope that we agree that taking property without consent is wrong, but I suspect your distaste for calling it "theft" derives from your approval of doing so in support of your own causes.

Of course no theft has taken place, because the law has legitimated that taking.

And of course rhetoric has everything to do with the argument, because you are hiding your wanton disregard for factual accuracy behind rhetoric. If you are going to stand there and lie about the meaning of theft, then I am going to stand here and expose your lies for what they are: political rhetoric.



You can disagree all you like. I have the Oxford English Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary on my side. What are your authorities?

I do not agree with the categorical statement that takeing property without consent is wrong.

I would restate that as, "taking property without lawful authority" is wrong. Now, consent is one way that lawful authority can be given. But it is not the only way. And so long as courts have the authority to issue judgements for money damages and governments have the authority to levy taxes you will not persuade me that your definition and mine are equivalent.

My distaste for calling it theft comes from my distaste for dishonesty and my legal training. I accept the obligation of taxation whether it support government activities with which I agreed or disagree. I fundamentally believe in the right of legitimately elected government to govern and to use the authorities at its disposal in order to achieve that.

Those same industrial nations that also have public education and public healthcare?

It's not dishonest. It's a communication gap. I'm not a lawyer -- I don't speak in legalese. When someone takes my property without my consent, I call it theft. Or stealing. Or taking my property without my consent. The only just reason for doing so would be if I somehow deprived you of an equivalent amount of your property.

You obviously hold the law of government in very high regard. I don't. There is a huge disparity between current laws and justice and it's pretty clear from history that government is not a moral authority.

All of them have public schooling.

Out of my head, the main reasons for US' public education sucking in comparison to other countries would be summed up by: Conservative right not really liking the idea of kids learning science and thus boycotting the thing. The ridiculously underpaid US teachers. The "No child left behind" initiative. If I'd have to sum up shortly what makes the US different to all the other industrial nations is that the US have insanely low taxes.

Some of the better public school systems have people with phds teaching in schools. But in order for that to happen, teachers' salaries have to be actually good.



It is funny that you bring these examples.

Because you are a republifan. And indeed all those examples show government ineptitude WHEN IT IS CHEAP AS HELL. The reality is that the republicans have been boycotting the US government all the time. Raise taxes to the rich and invest them and you will have a good useful government like those Europeans.

Astute observation. I agree entirely. Home schooling is how the Lord intended education be handled. Present structure of public schools is a tax funded baby sitting service designed to hold kids captive until such time as mama or daddy is close to getting off work. If you knock out eating..class changes..and forced watching of Alfgore kill the babies and save the whales movies...there is only about an hour of active instruction. Not counting bullies..exotic diseases...violence etc....coupled with not learning much if anything..its a real crappy place to hang out. Several pals home schooled their kids or mainly their wives and the kids are off the charts smart..well adjusted..doctors lawyers etc. Smart thinking. Now this is in an ideal scenario with sacrifices made of course. Our current Nanny Government takes so much in taxes married couples normally have to both work to pay the taxes..that leaves nobody to educate the chillins but the Nanny Government. We live in a crazy world and it seems to be getting worse rapidly.

Sorry for the double post. Now I cant figger out how to delete it..lol.

Last edited by bigwheel on 30 Nov 2012, 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Moi??? Mais non. I have not been a republican since 1964. I have been an independent since. The last Republican I could possibly vote for was Barry Goldwater and he went down in flames.

I vote for many folks but hardly ever for pinko stinko commie loving redistributionist egalitarians of the Democrat abomination.

ruveyn

This is why one should never pull the "you're a Republican card" when arguing against some anti-government social Darwinist on the inter-webs. They'll just pounce on the one claim, stating it's false ("I vote libertarian", "I've never voted", "I'm not a registered Republican", "I voted for the Constitution Party", etc, etc) while ignoring the main point.

The main point is not voting for pinko stinko Commie loving Democrat liberal redistributionist egalitarians.

ruveyn

You might get away with that disingenuous claim once. But having been confronted with the facts, maintaining a position predicated on an inaccuracy is dishonest. You can no longer claim honest mistake one the mistake has been presented to you.

However, I will grant you the accuracy of, "taking my property without my consent." That is an absolutely fair statement. And so long as you drop the pretence that this is the equivalent of theft or stealing, then we can agree.

Finally, allow me to be clear that I have never suggested that the law or the government are moral forces. The law is amoral, and the principles of equity exist to moderate the law where fairness requires. Similarly, government exists for the purpose of maintaining peace and promoting general well being. But morality is not a basis upon which government can or should act.

Ahhh a person after my own heart here. Now notice the name of Sir Ronald Reagan Maximus appears to be missing off the list of famous grade B actors. I loved him to death. Even though he took my Mamas food stamps and give her free cheese. It was real good cheese.

I can choose to put my money in another bank. There's thousands of them. I can't as easily choose the government.