I doubt Lenin was referring to an analogy in which an old woman and a local community were being talked about. In this example, yes, the community could be the government - there is such a thing as local government as well as national government you know! So for example if the community being talked about has the powers to get people to donate and to punish people who don't give to a particular cause (elderly women living in their community and not able to survive or going back to the original one, not able to mow their lawn), then you have a form of government right there.

I doubt Karl Mrax was thinking about it eihter, but that is because they were myopic and not too bright (just eloquent).  Lilke many, they only saw what they "felt" was good, and did not try to divine the reprecussions of their edenic ideals.

Now that's the concept I support, except I want the government to be democratic and not like in the Middle East and Africa.

Let people pay for what they use of the commons and not according to what they produce.

Government is simply the name for the system of organisation all human societies use. Representative government is a system which incorporates the views of most citizens. As a result I really don't see why you consider it unreasonable to say that a system where government follows the views of most is democracy. If most choose to take from the rich and give to the poor, it's still democratic. It's just not a government which follows liberal economic ideology.

EDIT: Summary = politics isn't economics.

There's a very strong argument to be made that rentier states are inherently hostile to democracy, instead encouraging dictatorial government.

Wow... so in reality the little old lady who can't mow the grass has to buy cocain for the able bodied yong men in her neighborhood who don't want to help her?

Talk about perversion of ideals.

If anything then I would think that rather then demanding they be forced to do your lawn, at least eliminate the handouts, so that you would not be taxed as much, and they would not be able to buy their crack on YOUR dime... and then you can use that extra money to get lawn service.

Once you allow slavery, even if for ideals and good intentions, it is bound to be abused...

someone here said "what if it was food"... aside from food already being provided in the USA and has been for a while. Lets say it WAS food...

Firstly why is it called donation? A "forced donation" is not a donation. There is no charity involved.

Secondly, starvation isn't the issue here. Charitable organizations and people WOULD provide. It sometimes irks me when I do charitably things and I know that I wouldn't have to do as much if everyone contributed. But does this give me the right to TAKE from those who chose not to contribute? to steal from them to give to others so that I would have to give less to meet the needs of the less fortunate?

Evil? You're seriously trying to argue that having the government help out the most vulnerable in society is evil? Out of interest is invading another country, overthrowing their leader, and having your actions result in the deaths of thousands evil? What about producing harmful gases etc. that will damage the world for everyone in the long term so you can enjoy a slightly better standard of living at the moment?

Anyway Paul has a benefit - if Paul falls on hard times, he will be able to receive help from the government to allow him to survive.

No, because it is the government deciding this, not me. The government decides what will happen in the country (or jurisdiction) it is governing, and if you don't like it, you can move to a different country (or vote for a different government). If you choose to stay in their jurisdiction, then you abide by their rules - such as making people pay according to their ability to pay. I'm also fascinated to hear how taxing people according to their ability to pay is a religion!

As an individual? No. However the government isn't an individual. If it deems that in their country they want everyone to be entitled to something (such as food if they have insufficient income), then they need to fund that by taxes. If they tried just saying 'well you know, these taxes are optional, you can choose whether to pay them or not', you'll end up with free-riders, and it likely wouldn't work. It's also not stealing (depending on the taxes used of course), but rather the price you pay for being able to earn an income in this country - e.g. a % of your income, or maybe a fixed amount. Of course some taxes could in effect be stealing - for example if a company made $1bn in profits last year, you decide to retrospectively impose a windfall tax taking $500m of those profits as a tax (despite having told them previously they could keep those profits). Is that stealing? Yes. On the other hand telling that company in advance that their profits will be taxed at 50%, and then taxing them at that amount isn't stealing.

Very true - and that is why we are a representative Republic.  Where the tyranny of the majority cannot usurp the rights of the minority.  I understand where those not familiar with the US would make such a gross miscalculation.  Not having known freedoms and the protection of said freedoms from the GOVERNMENT.

But the US actually did have a period like that.  And of course we should go back to it right?  Where we deprive minorities of their basic rights?  It really astounds me what is said on these forums without thinking.  The reason we dont go back there is that the rights of EVERY citizen must be protected.  That is black and white, RICH and poor.  Just because you are rich does not mean you are forfeiting your rights.

Changing the subject again I see.

Enslaving me for the benefit of another was outlawed 150 years ago in this country.  If I am forced to work for you for no wages, that is called slavery. Period.  Sugar coat it any way you want, but that is what it is.

Now, do you want to start another discussion on what YOU should do for the less fortunate in society?  Perhaps YOU should help out the less vulnerable out of a sense of morality and compassion.  And you are now going to force your morality on me?  Is that not what liberals are claiming the conservative christians are doing and so are condemning it?  But then that is another discussion.

So who is my massa today?

Separation of church and state.  Remember?  But the "you" is anyone that has no right to that money.  The government does to provide for common services, not to compensate some to the exclusion of others (back to slavery).  The You is anyone who does not belong there, so it may be a thief, or the government.  It is the same thing, just a difffernt perp.

Depends on your government.  As it is, here, it is not one, but several.  But certainly not all.  It boggles my mind to find out that 150years ago, half a million americans gave up their life for the elilmination of slavery and today we are in the same position - a sizeable portion of the population advocating - sometimes violently - for the return of slavery.

The government should not be involved in that. This allegory should be entitled "Am I My Brother's Keeper?".

Perhaps not but then we would quickly descend beyond where we are today. "Thou Shalt Bear Witness" also comes to mind.

If one doesn't believe in religion per se, the system of morality espoused in them shouldn't be discarded willy nilly.

We should take care of others. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", and "What you do unto the least of my brothers you do also to me." come to mind.

These are the basis for the social contract that exists between us all.

If you were ill, wouldn't you expect a Doctor to help you? If devastated by loss (personal) wouldn't you feel abandoned if friends didn't come to help and comfort you?

These things shouldn't have to be be legislated. It sickens me to think that we have to do that to 'enforce' humanity, but apparantly our obligations to others are too easily and conveniently  forgotten.

The social net relies on "Where there is no man, be thou the man." If no one comes forward to help, relying on the government or others to do it is what we deserve.

The resistance to the proposition that we owe others such as the infirmed, elderly and orphaned is beneath contempt. If one does not feel this obligation, then one is lacking a vital piece in his personality and if that cannot be taught, then such a 'person' should live his own creed and go off into the woods or desert and make it alone.

The truth is that no man can live alone and as such needs society. Needs vary and should be met. Our constant challenge in this world is to remain human and this means to care for others of our kind.

Your whole response is good.  And the above is the real key.  We are a free society and so we must abide all people, including these.  It is what a free society is all about.  Let these people go off and live as they want.  We are not going to change them by imprisoning them.  And they have as much rights as the rest of society that does rally around the less fortunate.  America has shown that it does care for all people.  But not all Americans do.

Government - American Government - is based on the fact that all men (taken as the scientific term) are free to live as they please as long as doing so does not infringe on other's rights.

Sadly, that is no longer the case.  We can no longer have the capacity for compassion, the freedom of religion.  Now it must be legislated.  And sadly, as history has shown us, it is just the first step into the eventual road of totalitarianism.  Where we become children to the all powerful government.  Some see that as utopia.  But that will be short lived.  Indeed, most of the "dissidents" in totalitarian regimes have not been hermits like you describe in the above quote, but very compassionate and caring people. That probably saw the start of the revolution as good - well intended - but not the eventual conclusion.

We are headed to that conclusion.  When we get there, the ones screaming loudest will be the ones that pushed us to it.

I think you are making an assumption here that every person's 'religion', which is essentially their sense of morality; for some more mainstream and dogmatic than others, has a common theme of "We should take care of others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and What you do unto the least of my brothers you do also to me".

All 'religions' may not. On that basis, how could these tenets be "the basis for the social contract that exists between us all" unless that particular morality is forced upon some individuals whose beliefs don't include those particular attributes?

As a general rule, most Christians believe in charity and practice it when possible without the need to be forced by the Federal Government. But some with different beliefs don't feel the need or moral longing to care for their fellow man, which too is based on their beliefs, but are forced to submit to an imposed morality which may, in fact, go against their 'religion'.

Wouldn't this Government imposed morality be a violation of Church and State?

Actually you were the one who brought up the issue of it being evil. Taxing someone is not slavery, no matter how you try and look at it, and that was what the quoted article appeared to be referring to - about taxing people (and then giving that money to a person for them to obtain a service) or just getting the people who would've paid the taxes to provide the service themself, and how they are in many ways the same thing, but might be viewed differently.

Um...what has that to do with government taxation again? And to think you accused me of changing the subject!

No, the government has the right to levy taxes for common services, and also for redistribution. To argue against the government using taxes for redistribution (or 'compensate some to the exclusion of others', as you seem to be terming it), means you have to be arguing for a head tax - everyone pays a fixed amount of tax for the government services. Quite how people with an income less than or equal to that tax cope I don't know, but if they pay any less than the rich, you can have a redistributive effect. To give you a rough example:

You have 3 people, rich, average, poor, with incomes of $1m, $100k, $10k . The government needs to provide public services (that are used by everyone, e.g. defence, street lights, etc.*), working out at a cost of $10k per person. They decide that they'll make the rich guy pay $11k, the average guy $10k, and the poor guy $9k. This means they are taking $9k from that poor person, and giving them services worth $10k, while they take $11k from the rich person and give back services worth only $10k, the end result being you have a tiny redistributive effect (or 'compensating the poor to the exclusion of the rich'), meaning for that small redistributed part the rich guy is in effect working for the poor guy for no benefit. Such evil slavery shouldn't be allowed - we must tax the poor person all of their income, watch as they starve to death, and be happy in the knowledge that we did the good thing.

*This can then of course be extended further; the government provides a service to everyone worth $5k, which isn't necessarily a public good by default. Everyone receives this, and it is taxed in the same way - the rich person pays marginally more than the poor.

Not at all, in my view. That religious figures vocalized the words points to the fact that they saw others not living by them (those words) and the results of that.

How does "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or the variants of it (Rabbi Hillel actually was the source of those words) imply belief in a religion? In my view they don't.

If one benefits from society he should feel an obligation to do for that society. If he doesn't, the ethical act would be to leave it. The selfish act would be to stay and take without giving.

And if someones moral beliefs don't include that tenet? Do their beliefs not qualify as a religion because it is not one of the state approved/sanctioned religions?

Would not denying someone their form of religion because it wasn't on the 'approved list' violate that so-called separation?

The problem with trying to reconcile these two issues; forcing citizens to abide by a redistribution of property based on a particular morality that all may not ascribe to vs. the founders intent for every person to follow their own selected guidelines in the area of morality/religion, is that the founders did not intend to hold all citizens to a particular morality in what they saw as private concerns or, for that matter, a government mandated redistribution of property.

In my view, they realized there were other very real dangers in operating under such a system of communal property.

Do you propose that those that take from the communal property system without contributing should leave the system? Voluntarily take themselves off the government assistance roles?

This won't happen. And it is not a new problem.

As William Bradford discovered after trying what he called the "common course and condition". He found "the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by confusion and discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of slavery and injustice. And this among “godly and sober men.” In short, the experiment was a failure that was endangering the health of the colony."

He also noted that "Under the arrangement of communal property one might reasonably suspect that any additional effort might merely substitute for the lack of industry of others. And these “others” might well be able-bodied, too, but content to take advantage of the communal ownership by contributing less than their fair share."

What we have today is no different from the problems of William Bradford's time. The selfish abuse a failed sytem which encourages that very behavior in those with different moral beliefs (for them, I suspect they believe there is nothing wrong with taking what has become to be known as 'their fair share') and those that contribute to such a system who grow more and more discontented and resentful of both those that take advantage and of those that continually demand more in the name of 'morality' or worse 'patriotism'.

But not when those taxes are not used for benefits of all society.  At least that is not how the law was written. And the constutution.  There is a reason that they called it the "Wal-Mart" law (see Maryland) and it was ruled unconstitutional.  What is done must be done without penalizing people for who they are.

Until Obamanation.  NOw that is the only reason for doing it.  All hail il Duce.

Um, check the title of the article.

Changing the subject again.  That is not the article nor the comments.  Please reread and then repost - on topic if you want a response since we have already been over this (changing the subject).

No, to argue against it has nothing to do with your leap of logic.  SImply put, forcing me to work for another with no compensation is slavery.  Taxing me to pay for the society I live in is what is called democracy (or representative republic).  Nowhere does anyone argue against taxation, or against a tithing to the government.  SO how is it you keep trying to turn the debate to that?  Perhaps you should start your own blog and argue the merits of slavery.  For now, we are arguing the point of forced indenturedness of some citizens to others, without benefit of rights.

It is actually the very epitome of perverted ideals when the sick old lady (you) has to pay to "help" able bodied young men (the crack lords).

As for my "discontinuity with reality". At most I misunderstood what you said, you obviously misunderstood what I Said on several counts. Reread it again please.

I didn't realise I'd need to spell out such an obvious thing, but since you're insisting issues are somehow off-topic, here you go:

Now what is the highlighted bit? That's taxation - the government taxes the man $40 a week (and spends that on a 'lawn welfare program' that gives elderly women money they can use to mow their lawns).

And there's your slavery link. Here's how it works:

Slavery ~= forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another ~= government taking money from one person+giving to another = taxation

=> Slavery ~= taxation. Still keep saying it's off topic+in no way related to either the original article or later posts to avoid answering any awkward questions if you want, I'm sure it will make a very convincing rebuttal . Oh and just to help you a bit more (incase you start reading the sequence in reverse), taking money from one person to give to another is taxation, but not all taxation is taking from one person and giving to another.

It seems you agree with me here as well (well, with the slavery~=forced labour link):

And you accused me of leaps of logic?! Taxing you to pay for the society you live in isn't democracy - democracies can tax you to pay for the society you live in and more as well, and they can not tax you to pay for the society you live in. Meanwhile dictatorships can also levy taxes. Hence democracy isn't the only form of government with taxation, and taxing you to pay for the society you live in isn't the only form of taxes featured in a democracy. Also the OP article is arguing against taxation, as are many of the posts contained within it. Maybe your problem is you're not fully understanding what taxation is. If the government takes 10% of everyones income/profit, that's taxation. If they take $1000 from every person, that's taxation. If they take 10% from the poor and 20% from the rich, that's also taxation. So if the government takes $40 from someone and give it to an old lady so she can mow her lawn, that's also taxation. Taxation isn't concerned with how the money is used.

And here in lies the difference of opinion.  When the government assesses taxes to pay for common things that everyone can benefit from (roads, police, fire, etc) that is not the point of contention, I don't think anyone has a problem with that.  In fact I think everyone is ok with the incremental system that we have where the rich pay a higher percentage of their income for these services because they tend to own more property and that just makes sense.

The problem comes in when you are taxing people (the rich and the middle class) for the benefit of only the poor, or some other small group like little old ladies who need help mowing their lawn.  That is where Dr. Guy starts mentioning slavery.  Not all taxation is slavery, as you point out, but some of it certainly seems that way and that is the taxation that I have a problem with.

Yes the community that the little old lady "should" chip in to help her out with food or with mowing her lawn, whatever she happens to need.  But the government should not "mandate" that everyone "must" chip in to help out all the little old ladies.

No, that is not taxation. Taxation is taking money and paying government employees to provide a service for everyone. Not taking from person A to give to person B who provides nothing in return. That would be wealth redistribution, aka, slavery.

Taking money from people to provide the following is taxation: military, police, roads, schools (for everyone equally), healthcare, etc.

Some could argue that some of the above examples (for example, healthcare) should not be a government thing, that it is still wrong because it is taking from people disproportionately to provide disproportionately (aka, a rich person pays more for the army because the army protects more of his assets, but by paying more to cover other people healthcare he is getting nothing extra...)

But this is not here nor there... what you are calling taxation is way way WAYYYY beyond mere socialism and into the realm of pure theft and slavery.

If you take money from people against their will to give to: The nobles, the poor, the white skinned people, the black skinned people (zimbabwe) or any other group. You are engaging in slavery and theft. It is the worst form of wealth redistribution. It is apalling that you could say "nothing is wrong with that", that things have gotten so bad that people actually condone that. The serf system had money taken from the serfs to give to the nobles, the nobles provided nothing in return. That is why we had revolutions, they called it taxation, but it wasn't. it was indirect slavery. (compared to direct slavery, such as the owning of blacks in the USA, in direct slavery the slaves have no money; in indirect slavery they are allowed to make money, then you take it and give it to their lord).

No, but not surprising you are so ill informed.  Government taking money for the common good is just.  Government robbing peter to pay paul is slavery.  You are forced to work for another for no benefit to yourself.  Learn the difference or you will never be able to discuss it intelligently.

well... back in the days of serfdom the serfs were all slaves, bound the land, owned by the lord. The lord would "tax" them... he would not provide a service, he would just take from them to give to himself. However the governments of that age called it a tax. Despite me oppsing the stupid remarks that "it is just taxation", I am left wondering, what exactly IS the definition of taxation.

wikipedia (I know, bad source...) says: A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state.

If you look up state and so on, you get that basically a tax is when whomever controls an area / people (by means of might) takes money from everyone else it is a tax. (so if say, ghengis khan conquered your city and decides to loot it, it is technically a tax, since he is the effective government at the moment).

Anyways, does calling something a tax make it one? Would calling slavery a tax make it one?

The biggest issue is what is being represented. The argument that "it is just taxation" is evading the actual question. Rather then addressing the issue at hand, it attempts to deflect it by saying "this is just a tax, taxes are ok, therefore this is ok", and sparks a debate about exactly what is the defintion of a tax. (because there ARE very real examples of people referring to slavery as taxes).

So the question should be... what is this in of itself?

A. Taking to provide for everyone - public works. examples: army, police, roads...

B. Taking unequal amounts to provide in unequal amounts - socialism (taking from a few to provide for many)/corruption (taking from the many to provide for the few)... examples include: government provided healthcare, or tax payers funding a project that benefits a specific corporation thanks to corrupt politicians.

C. Taking to give to someone else - slavery. examples: serfdom, wealth redistribution from rich to poor.

BTW. Unemployment CAN be B or C, depending on how it is structured.

I thought UI was something you paid into along with your employer .... after all is it not insuranc?

It is something EVERY employer must pay for by law, employees never pay into it directly (aka, you don't see a deduction on your income for it), and should you become unemployed, you claim it directly from the government.

So it is an insurence run by the government paid by all employers by law on behalf of employees. Not exactly the "typical" defintion of insurence.