[turtle777]

I was wondering.

What if our politicians (Democrats and Republicans) keep digging us deeper and deeper into a gargantuan debt hole. Ultimately, the chicken will come home to roost.

At that point, the government will have to raise taxes on *everyone*, and probably use various other illegitimate means of paying off their debt (confiscation of gold comes to mind).
I'm talking about a situation where your vote doesn't count anymore, because the government bureaucracy developed a life of its, own w/o the citizen's voice being heard anymore.

So, at what point would it become "ok" to evade taxes or not give up ones gold ?

-t

[besson3c]

Aarrrr, you will never take meee goold!

[Chuckit]

Do you mean pragmatically or morally? Because as many Chinese people will tell you (after looking over their shoulders), civil disobedience is not always met so civilly.

[iMOTOR]

^ Exactly what I was thinking, though, I wonder how the fact that individuals still bear arms here would factor into this.

[Chuckit]

Well, ideally guns shouldn't factor into civil disobedience at all.

But on the topic of how the Second Amendment factors into rebelling against the government: They will only let people have the small, crappy arms that are mainly useful against other civilians. In a firefight, the Army would waste any group of arms-bearing rebels. You've got a hunting rifle while they have automatic weapons, missiles, attack robots and daisy cutters.

Either in tax evasion or an armed uprising, it would take an extremely large, coordinated effort to do anything but get squashed by the United States.

[Dork.]

Go ahead and be civil disobedient all you want. Just be ready to go to jail over what you believe, it's that simple.

After all, if everyone up and refused to pay our taxes, the government would have no choice but to change, right?





You go first. I'll be right behind you. Really....

<runs away>

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Aarrrr, you will never take meee goold!

That's a pirate, not a leprechaun, silly! Leprechauns say things like "Faith and Begorrah!" and "Another shot of whiskey!"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you mean pragmatically or morally? .

Good point, those two have different implications.

I agree that the government will not just quietly give in. I fully expect that our subsequent governments (Democrats and Republicans) will become more fascist.

At this point, personally, I'm more looking at the moral aspect.
I know this is very subjective. Right now, my personal belief is that you should pay taxes, and that tax evasion is wrong. However, I'm trying to gauge at what point I would say that the taxes become so out of control that I would resist paying my (full) share, and at the same time, feel like I'm morally doing the "right thing".

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't know about civil disobedience, but tax evasion is certainly a legitimate means of qualifying for an Obama cabinet position.

[Big Mac]

I think taxation becomes illegitimate when more than 50% of one's income gets confiscated, but that's just my opinion. At what point does tax evasion become a legitimate forn of protest? When you're willing to go to prison over it. (And I think it would have to get to really, really high levels in excess of 50% for it to bother me to that degree, at which point I'd look to emigrate.)

If you think about it, taxation means the State is depriving you of your life since you spend so much of your life working in order to gain the income in question.

[Wiskedjak]

The problem isn't that the governments are spending too much money. The problem is that governments are only held accountable to the electorate in the year prior to an election. Sure, their popularity is polled in the interim, but we all know that the average voter's memory only goes back about 6 months.

There really needs to be a better mechanism by which politicians can be held accountable for their decisions during their term. Perhaps some sort of official polling where if the politician's popularity dips below a certain number some sort of accountability process gets triggered. Perhaps an election, though you Americans would have to shorten your election process. Perhaps a removal of privileges and non-essential powers until their popularity goes up; they behave like children much of the time, maybe they should be treated as children, like, no more Air Force One until popularity goes back up.

[besson3c]

Wiskedjak: A vote of no confidence, parliament style?

[Dork.]

No, we deliberately didn't do it that way on purpose. As much as the people who founded this country believed in Democracy and the notion that everyone who was white, male, and owned land should have a say in government, they didn't believe that the government should be a popularity contest, and were against things like "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority". They believed that elected officials should have the benefit of a full term, in order to have the freedom to make decisions that look bad in the near term, but turn out OK in the end.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There really needs to be a better mechanism by which politicians can be held accountable for their decisions during their term.

I always thought that a good test would be if the politician survived walking down the main street where he or she was elected. Without any police, bodyguards or security escort of course.

[nonhuman]

We should go San Marino style and say that elected officials can be held personally accountable for their actions.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Every six months, the Council elects two Captains Regent to be the heads of state. The Regents are chosen from opposing parties so there is a balance of power. They serve a six-month term. The investiture of the Captains Regent takes place on 1 April and 1 October in every year. Once this term is over, citizens have three days in which to file complaints about the Captains' activities. If they warrant it, judicial proceedings against the ex-head(s) of state can be initiated.

San Marino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[olePigeon]

I think we should be an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it inturns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week. All the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting; a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major.

[Big Mac]

Speaking about America, if we were to hold the federal government to its Constitutionally limited basis, we wouldn't have a problem with excess spending and taxation. Before people start thinking about completely different modes of government, why don't we just get this one in line according to our founding and highest law?

The absurd thing is that traditionally left-wing countries are moving to the right (witness Germany's federal election), while America making a massive lurch to the left.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The absurd thing is that traditionally left-wing countries are moving to the right (witness Germany's federal election), while America making a massive lurch to the left.

Yes, that would be nice.

*dream*

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The absurd thing is that traditionally left-wing countries are moving to the right (witness Germany's federal election), while America making a massive lurch to the left.

meh ... back in 2001 people were saying that America was making a massive lurch to the *right*. The reality is that America will probably make a massive lurch back to the right in 4-12 years, just as every other country moves back and forth between "left" and "right". Also "right" in the rest of the world generally equals America's "left".

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Speaking about America, if we were to hold the federal government to its Constitutionally limited basis, we wouldn't have a problem with excess spending and taxation. Before people start thinking about completely different modes of government, why don't we just get this one in line according to our founding and highest law?

I don't want to live in a Feudal society.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't want to live in a Feudal society.

O'Rly ?

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The absurd thing is that traditionally left-wing countries are moving to the right (witness Germany's federal election), while America making a massive lurch to the left.

For most of the time, Germany has been governed by conservative governments (40 years vs. 20 years). All forms of basic insurances (unemployment, health, etc.) have been created by conservative governments.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

O'Rly ?

I take that back. I don't want to serve in a Feudal society.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For most of the time, Germany has been governed by conservative governments (40 years vs. 20 years). All forms of basic insurances (unemployment, health, etc.) have been created by conservative governments.

Weren't we making fun of Germany's economy a few years ago?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Weren't we making fun of Germany's economy a few years ago?

Pff, there are still idiots that laugh at Germany because they export more than they import.
THAT's not a good point to make fun of.

Try their financially broken social security and pension system, and you might have a winner.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

meh ... back in 2001 people were saying that America was making a massive lurch to the *right*. The reality is that America will probably make a massive lurch back to the right in 4-12 years, just as every other country moves back and forth between "left" and "right". Also "right" in the rest of the world generally equals America's "left".

People who claimed that Bush was taking the country on a massive lurch to the right obviously didn't know what they were talking about. Bush was only nominally right-wing.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For most of the time, Germany has been governed by conservative governments (40 years vs. 20 years). All forms of basic insurances (unemployment, health, etc.) have been created by conservative governments.

They weren't very conservative then, were they? Our major Socialist programs were created by our Socialist presidents FDR and LBJ.

How true is it that the party (the Free Democrats) that won big in the German election is rather close to the American Libertarian party? If that's true, that's a wonderful development in German politics.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

They weren't very conservative then, were they? Our major Socialist programs were created by our Socialist presidents FDR and LBJ.

Most of them were very conservative. The first social programs were invented by a guy in the 19th century who believed Germany should have an emperor and was fighting true socialists not just with kind words.

You shouldn't take your political bearings and transfer them to other countries, that doesn't work. In Japan the `Liberal Democrats' are the conservatives

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

People who claimed that Bush was taking the country on a massive lurch to the right obviously didn't know what they were talking about. Bush was only nominally right-wing.

Don't you realize that the *exact* same thing could be said about those claiming that Obama is taking the country on a massive lurch to the left? Obama is only nominally "left-wing". From my perspective, Obama is about as left-wing as the currently-in-power right wing party in Canada.

In other words, what you call a "lurch to the left", others might consider "a little less to the right".

[Big Mac]

Ah, Wikedjak, the fact is, with no false pride, I'm far more politically astute than you can possibly appreciate. Sometimes it's scary when I reflect on just how much more intelligent I am when it comes to politics in comparison to my dimwitted leftist adversaries.

Wanting to Socialize the rest of health care that the government doesn't already wreck represents a leftward lurch. Taking over banks, insurance companies and car companies represents a leftward lurch. Letting Nancy Pelosi and the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party craft your domestic policy is a leftward lurch. A foreign policy that embraces America's enemies while selling out our allies represents a leftward lurch. Quadrupling Bush's record deficit represents a leftward lurch.

Those who can't connect those dots after all the proof I've offered - those people need to step away from the Socialist Kool Aid and put their thinking caps on a little tighter. Seriously, this isn't computer programming, brain surgery or rocket science here.

[Wiskedjak]

You may be amazingly politically astute regarding American politics, but you appear to be painfully oblivious to where American politics sit on the left-right continuum. The "leftward lurch" of Obama is still well to the right of the system that Conservative Canadian politicians support.

The foreign policy you mention has nothing to do with Left or Right, neither does the record deficit spending. Both have in the past been done by right and left governments alike around the world. Bush's spending itself was a record before broken by Obama.

[Big Mac]

I'm not painfully oblivious concerning the political spectrums found in other countries, so please don't falsely label me as such. Their central position is substantially further to the left. But the political orientations of other countries happens to be more or less a non-sequitur when it comes to a discussion of President Obama and how left-wing his policies for America happen to be in comparison to the baseline for America.

I don't know how you can claim record deficits and weak, appeasement based foreign policy that abuses our allies is anything other than left-wing policy in action. And again, Bush was essentially only right-wing when it came to military force and social conservatism. Otherwise, his policies were those of a big-government liberal. I don't think you understand the points you're trying to argue, and I don't really blame you, a citizen of a different country, for not understanding American politics.

[Andy8]

Land of the free™

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't know how you can claim record deficits and weak, appeasement based foreign policy that abuses our allies is anything other than left-wing policy in action.

Did not Bush, a Republican President selected by American Conservatives, rack up a record deficit before Obama claimed the title? You can claim that he wasn't really "right wing" until you're blue in the face, but, unless you want to claim that Bush represented a "lurch to the Left", you can't use record deficits as an example of "lurching to the left".

Likewise on appeasement. In the matter of military force you hold that Bush *was* right-wing. And, yet, North Korea and China are still standing and were, in fact, appeased during the last Right-Wing Presidency (as they were during the previous Left-Wing Presidency and will be during the *current* Left-Wing Presidency). So, again, unless you want to claim that Bush's approach towards China and North Korea represent a "lurch to the left", you can't use foreign policy appeasement as an example of "lurching to the left".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Did not Bush, a Republican President selected by American Conservatives, rack up a record deficit before Obama claimed the title?

Bush was elected (twice) by a lot more than just conservatives. He was blasted by conservatives for his role in racking up record deficits, you just weren't paying attention. (As many liberals weren't who try and insist conservatives were happy or complacent about bigger government and higher deficits under Bush.) His reducing taxes helped keep those deficits from going higher, but he (or more importantly congress) doesn't get a pass for the rampant spending.

You can claim that he wasn't really "right wing" until you're blue in the face, but, unless you want to claim that Bush represented a "lurch to the Left", you can't use record deficits as an example of "lurching to the left".

Bigger government, more spending, less fiscal responsibility is always a lurch to the left. Big Mac is right.

Likewise on appeasement. In the matter of military force you hold that Bush *was* right-wing. And, yet, North Korea and China are still standing and were, in fact, appeased during the last Right-Wing Presidency (as they were during the previous Left-Wing Presidency and will be during the *current* Left-Wing Presidency). So, again, unless you want to claim that Bush's approach towards China and North Korea represent a "lurch to the left", you can't use foreign policy appeasement as an example of "lurching to the left".

I don't recall Bush giving secrets or nuclear equipment to the North Koreans. What exactly was he supposed to do about China? Attack them? There's a big difference between "appeasement"- which yes, is more a leftwing thing than right- and simply not being overly-confrontational with every single power on earth that could possibly be considered an enemy.

[Wiskedjak]

So, what you're saying is that America has been lurching to the left since 2001.

I'd say by not boycotting goods from China, the US government under Bush most certainly continued a pattern of appeasing China. There are other ways of not appeasing than combat.

By sending $25M in aid to North Korea, Bush most certain continued a pattern of appeasing North Korea.