Skeptic Presidential Poll

[Operaider]

Now, I know what allot of you are thinking. This belongs in the Politics section, not the General Skepticism section. The reason I'm posting it here is I wanted to know how being a skeptic effects somones vote. While many of the people in the Politics section are skeptics, many just want to discuss politics. I wanted to poll the more, for lack of a better term, hard core skeptics.

For those of you not familiar with politics I'll detail the 3 candidates main accomplishments.

George W Bush: "Elected" president in 2000

John F Kerry: Is not Bush

Ralph Nader: Won election in 2000 (for Bush)

[Ashles]

Interesting you should post this because having ventured into the politics section I have found that a lot more posters here were quite right-wing than I expected.

On the IMDB for example it has a very left-wing bias - maybe that is because it is slightly art based beng about films (?).

But I have been surprised that this site has so many right-wingers. I'd have thought that a site based on logic, understanding, scepticism and open-mindedness would have attracted a majority of left-wingers.

I'll be interested in this poll.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'd have thought that a site based on logic, understanding, scepticism and open-mindedness would have attracted a majority of left-wingers.


Why do you assume that skepticism, open-mindedness, and understanding are the sole property of the left? Indeed, I've found that so-called "progressives" are just as prone to dogmatism, intolerance, and irrationality as any conservative.

[Operaider]

My thoughts exactly. Though I will admit that I might be prejudice, being left wing myself. I'm sure a Republican would think they have a monopoly on logic, understanding, skepticism and open-mindedness too. They'd be wrong of course :D.
So as much as I'd like to think that skeptics are liberal, I thought it best to find out for sure.

[Mark A. Siefert]

I vote none of the above. The "choice" between a spendthrift theocrat running on scare stories about terrorists, a two-faced tax-and-spend technocrat running on his Vietnam war record (a war he would later protest against), and a wannabe socialist is not much of a choice at all.

[Operaider]

I probably should have put a none of the above :(

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Operaider
I probably should have put a none of the above :(

That would work! :) Either that, or you could go down the list of every wacked out "third" party that's got a nut to run.

[Phrost]

I actually find it very odd that any self-professed skeptic would lean Socialist.

[BKITU]

Truth be told, most critical thinkers I've come across lean Libertarian. Freedom, baby!

[POLITICAL OPINIONS]
Keep the government out of my bed -- we're both consenting adults.

Keep the government out of my wallet -- I earned the money fairly. I'll give it to charity when I want to help people; don't steal it from me and give it to people who haven't earned anything.

Freedom of, and from, religion -- my or your belief in God is no reason to bring him into a political discussion unless you can prove His existence to the world at large.

Initiation of force is a sin. Fraud is a sin.
[/POLITICAL OPINIONS]

My pair of pennies. Time for another beer.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Phrost
I actually find it very odd that any self-professed skeptic would lean Socialist.

Well, most of the richest and most succesful countries in the world have socialistic tendancies, so it's simply a conclusion based on actual observations, that it can't be all bad. Therefore a socialist leaning is only logical. Of course, if we're talking about total socialism, with no capitalism possible whatsoever, I would tend to agree with you.

[Batman Jr.]

Polls in the past have shown that atheists and agnostics tend to be left-leaning and religious folk right-leaning, so the result of this one is no surprise to me, especially with such a polarizing, antiscientific, Jeebus freak as Bush for an incumbent candidate.

[Mark A. Siefert]

This discussion of "who belongs to what party" reminds me of my first day in "Editorial And Opinion Writing" class back in college. The professor, who was an open and vocal socialist, started things off by asking each of us what their particular ideological view was.

I told him that I considered myself a "small l" libertarian to which he responded "So, you're a conservative!" When I tried to explain to him that I couldn't be a conservative since I support drug legalization, free speech, gay rights, legal abortion, and other "liberal" social issues as much as I do the "free market" he replied, "Don't try to fool me, if you're for capitalism that makes you a conservative."

Perhaps, not surprisingly, when my open and vocal conservative father found out I was libertarian he accused me of being--are you ready?'--a "communist" regardless of my free market beliefs because I was for drug legalization, free speech, gay rights, legal abortion and other "liberal" social issues.

It's funny how people can develop political tunnel vision and not see beyond their narrow view of ideology.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Ashles
Interesting you should post this because having ventured into the politics section I have found that a lot more posters here were quite right-wing than I expected.
Infidels and ULRP have more "lefties" than "righties", and they are skeptic sites. Polling a single site isn't gong to give you an accurate overview of anything but that site. Anyways, I can't vote in the poll, as I am not USian... but I guess if I was I'd be a Kerry supporter.

[JohnF_73]

I'm not american, but I follow US politics, and given the choice between a kick in the nuts and a punch in the face, I have got to go with the third option. I think I understand why the American public doesn't do that in the real world (fear of the wrong "lizard" getting in) but in this poll, I'm surprised the saner 3rd option doesn't have more support.

[Ashles]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ashles
I'd have thought that a site based on logic, understanding, scepticism and open-mindedness would have attracted a majority of left-wingers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why do you assume that skepticism, open-mindedness, and understanding are the sole property of the left? Indeed, I've found that so-called "progressives" are just as prone to dogmatism, intolerance, and irrationality as any conservative


I knew I hadn't worded that particularly well. Of course Republicans can demonstrate all of the positive traits.
But I will disagree on one point - overall conservatives tend to be less tolerant in general (hell it's almost built into the word). But of course left wingers can display all of the negative traits in spades and open mindedness and tolerance can be taken to ludicrous extremes by the left.

I certainly did not wish to imply that all Republicans were Satanists.
I mean, I know the statistical evidence is quite persuasive, but we really need more information.
:p

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by BKITU
Truth be told, most critical thinkers I've come across lean Libertarian. Freedom, baby!

...Keep the government out of my wallet -- I earned the money fairly. I'll give it to charity when I want to help people; don't steal it from me and give it to people who haven't earned anything.
Ah yes, you're thinking critically all right. No taxation. No public expenditure. No government. No police. No courts. No law. No army. But you'll have enough cash to buy your own white flag to wave at Osama. Dolt.

Or is it only you who is to be exempt from taxation?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Ashles
Interesting you should post this because having ventured into the politics section I have found that a lot more posters here were quite right-wing than I expected.

On the IMDB for example it has a very left-wing bias - maybe that is because it is slightly art based beng about films (?).

But I have been surprised that this site has so many right-wingers. I'd have thought that a site based on logic, understanding, scepticism and open-mindedness would have attracted a majority of left-wingers.

I'll be interested in this poll.


Blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc (http://www.**************/~mikelr/fwdr1.html)

[Dr Adequate]

So... Bush and Nader neck and neck for second place with 11% each. As Mrs Thatcher said: "Why are all the clever people left-wing?"

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Ah yes, you're thinking critically all right. No taxation. No public expenditure. No government. No police. No courts. No law. No army. But you'll have enough cash to buy your own white flag to wave at Osama. Dolt.

Or is it only you who is to be exempt from taxation?

That's reducing it to the absurd. Most people who subscribe to, or at least sympathize with, libertarianism realize that there needs to be some form of government and a means to pay for it. However, they do believe that the amount that Americans are taxed and the current system by which that amount is determined (i.e. the "progressive" income tax) is coercive and arbitrary, and that the government has far too much power over the individual's personal and economic freedom.

True, there are more than a few woo-woo anarcho-capitalists out there who think that we need to abandon all government, but they are in the minority of those who are sick and tried of forking out more and more for a government that seems to exist to only screw them out of their liberties rather than protect them.

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Ah yes, you're thinking critically all right. No taxation. No public expenditure. No government. No police. No courts. No law. No army. But you'll have enough cash to buy your own white flag to wave at Osama. Dolt.

Or is it only you who is to be exempt from taxation?

Good heavens, name calling for something quite plainly stated as an opinion. Relax a bit, Dr. A.; your kneejerk reaction is unbecoming.

And where did I indicate that I'm an anarchist? I plainly stated both initiation of force and fraud as sins; it stands to reason that it would be proper for government to protect us against them.

Governments tax to fund their roles. Such is the way of the world, and I acknowledge that. I simply question whether some of their currently-assumed roles are valid. Specifically, I'll be in favor of redistribution of wealth as soon as someone can prove objectively that money rightfully earned should be taken away and given to someone who does nothing, is a proper initiation of force.

[Dr Adequate]

He he. I knew I'd get a rise out of him.
Originally posted by BKITU
And where did I indicate that I'm an anarchist?
Where you characterised taxation generally as "stealing", my dear BKITU. But now it's gradually dawning on you that it's only "stealing" when the money is spent on policies you disapprove of. It's just plain common sense when they're policies you do approve of. WARNING. WARNING. You are using Right-Wing Logic. Your brain will melt in 10... 9... 8...

Now let's watch his U-turn once again in slow motion, 'cos it's funny.

Governments tax to fund their roles. Such is the way of the world, and I acknowledge that. I simply question whether some of their currently-assumed roles are valid. Specifically, I'll be in favor of redistribution of wealth as soon as someone can prove objectively that money rightfully earned should be taken away and given to someone who does nothing
OK. So it ceases to be "stealing" as soon as you're in favour of it, right? Why you in particular, by the way? America is, or is meant to be, a democracy --- who died and made you moral arbiter?

Now then, a case where "money rightfully earned should be taken away and given to someone who does nothing"? Such as American children in need of medicine? That way you could have child mortality rates that resemble those of other developed countries. You Americans don't know what you look like seen from Europe. As plindboe pointed out, all the other rich countries are run on social-democratic lines, and we like it, and keep voting for it. YOU'VE NEVER TRIED IT. Please don't take this the wrong way --- in many ways I admire America and Americans. You put a man on the moon and gave the world The Simpsons. Nonetheless, my friend, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. You are living in the world's richest Third World country.

[Mark A. Siefert]

This is why I hate debating politics. It's a pointless endeavor that never convinces anyone.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert
This is why I hate debating politics. It's a pointless endeavor that never convinces anyone.
Well, I'm not going to persuade BKITU to vote the straight socialist ticket, no. But I may persuade him to give up that particular bit of Right-Wing Logic, and that's all to the good. Every little bit of mental clarity counts.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, I'm not going to persuade BKITU to vote the straight socialist ticket, no. But I may persuade him to give up that particular bit of Right-Wing Logic, and that's all to the good. Every little bit of mental clarity counts.

The trouble with "logic" is that it really doesn't apply to poltics since logic is objective and political opinion isn't.

To you, it's perfectly "logical" for the state to use it's power to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide health care to the masses. To BIKTU and myself, it isn't logical.

To BIKTU and myself, it's "logical" for the governemnt, no matter how "good" their intentions, to stay out of everyone's life and let them succeed or fail on their own. I would assume you would consider that position illogical.

Who's right? Who's wrong? I think I'm right, while you think that I'm wrong? No amount of discussion or evidence will likely sway either of us, and even if if could it would not prove who's side is right.

Politics is a matter of perspective: Some think Cuba is the land of milk and honey, while others see it as a totalitarian hell hole. Some think we need to fight terrorism with miltary force while others believe that diplomacy and foreign aid to the Middle East is the way to go. Yeah, I'm sure there is a "middle ground" view on all these issues, but why is that view any more or less "correct" than the extremes? It's just another opinion?

It would be nice if everyone could get the sort of socio-political environment we desire without fuss or fight. Socialists could have their welfare state. Libertarians can have their miniarchy. However, there is limited real estate here on earth and humans have this nastry habit of wanting to cram their beliefs down the throats of their neighbors. As long as we have that situation, we're going to have the pointless stupidity we call "politics."

[Dr Adequate]

I'd agree that these positions are not to do with logic, but to do with the particular answers we give to the questions: What is the good life? What is a civilised country? And no, I don't think I'm going to change any minds as such. But the Right-Wing Logic I was referring to was the identification of taxation with theft, and you can see how darn silly I've made that look. It's not the conclusion I'm arguing with, but the "reasoning".

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
He he. I knew I'd get a rise out of him.

Two taunts in as many posts directed toward me. Very sad. You're better than that, and you're making yourself look childish.


Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Where you characterised taxation generally as "stealing", my dear BKITU.

Follow the logic:

I refuse to pay taxes based on my personal conviction that I earned the money fairly, therefore it is mine and mine alone. Eventually, someone at Internal Revenue notices and pays me a visit. They tell me I owe $XXXX.XX in back taxes, penalties, etc.

I continue to refuse to pay. They send notices demanding payment. I ignore them, continuing my refusal. This goes on long enough that charges of tax evasion are brought upon me.

Someone eventually comes to my door to arrest me. I refuse to submit to the arrest on the basis of my continued personal conviction, so one of two things happens: 1) I am wrestled and beat into submission, or 2) I am shot and possibly killed.

At this point, I have done precisely nothing, yet, I am beat or shot into submission so that the government can take by force what I rightfully earned.

How does this differ in any meaningful way from a street thug hitting me over the head and taking my wallet?

Check your answer carefully.

Continuing....

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But now it's gradually dawning on you that it's only "stealing" when the money is spent on policies you disapprove of.

You truly have a knack for putting words in my mouth. In the interest of brevity I had previously made generalised statements. Just couldn't pass up a chance to taunt someone who might have a differing opinion, though, could you?

Stealing is stealing regardless of who does it, be it Uncle Sam or a street thug. Putting an "Approved By Governments Everywhere" label on something means precisely nothing from a moral standpoint.

Now, the cold, hard fact of the world indicates that governments are going to get their funds by taxation of all different types. The fact that I choose to pay my taxes by income deduction instead of by waiting around for the Feds to beat me upside the head to get it in no way means I approve of any form of initiated force, even if it supports roles I consider appropriate. It is just as sinful to steal someone's wallet regardless of whether you use the money yourself or you give it to someone else. You still stole it.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
It's just plain common sense when they're policies you do approve of. WARNING. WARNING. You are using Right-Wing Logic. Your brain will melt in 10... 9... 8...

I acknowledged that taxation is here to stay, nothing more. Cold hard fact of the world. I also acknowledge that people mugging people on the street is here to stay. That doesn't mean I approve of it for any reason.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
OK. So it ceases to be "stealing" as soon as you're in favour of it, right?

Wrong. Addressed above.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Why you in particular, by the way? America is, or is meant to be, a democracy --- who died and made you moral arbiter?

Where this came from, I have no idea. I stated -- and clearly marked as such -- a political opinion, and you come up with this mumbo-jumbo.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

Now then, a case where "money rightfully earned should be taken away and given to someone who does nothing"? Such as American children in need of medicine?

Why must the money be stolen to accomplish this? I worked for 7 years at a private (i.e. not one cent of government funding), not-for-profit charitable organization that aided plenty of people. It was funded entirely on voluntary donations and investment accounts. I have first-hand knowledge that private charities work just fine to accomplish noble tasks.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
That way you could have child mortality rates that resemble those of other developed countries. You Americans don't know what you look like seen from Europe. As plindboe pointed out, all the other rich countries are run on social-democratic lines, and we like it, and keep voting for it. YOU'VE NEVER TRIED IT. Please don't take this the wrong way --- in many ways I admire America and Americans. You put a man on the moon and gave the world The Simpsons. Nonetheless, my friend, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. You are living in the world's richest Third World country.

Now you're just raving.

Your argument is exactly -- EXACTLY -- the same as saying, "X% of the world believes in a god of some sort, so you should, too. We like it, and keep worshipping it. YOU'VE NEVER TRIED IT." Popular opinion does not make something right. This is a board for skeptics, you should know this.

Prove to me that money MUST be stolen to accomplish noble goals.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But the Right-Wing Logic I was referring to was the identification of taxation with theft, and you can see how darn silly I've made that look. It's not the conclusion I'm arguing with, but the "reasoning".

Just because it doesn't sound "reasonable" to you doesn't mean it's not perfectly "reasonable" to someone else. Again, it's a matter of persepective.

(I would also debate whether libertarianism is a "Right-Wing" ideology. See my post above about my journalism professor and my Dad.)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by BKITU
Follow the logic:

I refuse to pay taxes based on my personal conviction that I earned the money fairly, therefore it is mine and mine alone. Eventually, someone at Internal Revenue notices and pays me a visit. They tell me I owe $XXXX.XX in back taxes, penalties, etc.

I continue to refuse to pay. They send notices demanding payment. I ignore them, continuing my refusal. This goes on long enough that charges of tax evasion are brought upon me.

Someone eventually comes to my door to arrest me. I refuse to submit to the arrest on the basis of my continued personal conviction, so one of two things happens: 1) I am wrestled and beat into submission, or 2) I am shot and possibly killed.

At this point, I have done precisely nothing, yet, I am beat or shot into submission so that the government can take by force what I rightfully earned.

How does this differ in any meaningful way from a street thug hitting me over the head and taking my wallet?

Check your answer carefully.
So, we're back with all taxation being theft. Hence, no police, no law, no army, no government. You're going round in vicious circles. If all taxation is theft, then government is morally wrong, and you are advocating anarchy.
Just couldn't pass up a chance to taunt someone who might have a differing opinion, though, could you?
Just couldn't pass up the chance to point out a bit of lousy reasoning. Which part of "sceptic" didn't you understand?
It is just as sinful to steal someone's wallet regardless of whether you use the money yourself or you give it to someone else. You still stole it.

I acknowledged that taxation is here to stay, nothing more. Cold hard fact of the world. I also acknowledge that people mugging people on the street is here to stay. That doesn't mean I approve of it for any reason.

Back-pedalling from the back pedalling...

Your argument is exactly -- EXACTLY -- the same as saying, "X% of the world believes in a god of some sort, so you should, too. We like it, and keep worshipping it. YOU'VE NEVER TRIED IT." Popular opinion does not make something right. This is a board for skeptics, you should know this.

He he he. That's the dumbest analogy I've heard in a long time. Which is why you had to emphasise the word EXACTLY. The lie, as someone said, should be as big as possible. Now, popular opinion does not demonstrate that something is true, but it does demonstrate that that something is POPULAR. We've tried it. We found that it worked. If I saw a man with rotting teeth and bleeding gums, and advocated toothpaste, on the grounds that people who used it found that it worked, and went on regularly brushing their teeth, would you go banging on about how toothpaste use is a religion and how "popular opinion doesn't make something right"?
Prove to me that money MUST be stolen to accomplish noble goals.
Why? It isn't true, and of course, as you'd notice if you weren't so... so you ... I've never said anything of the sort.

We've got a live one here, folks! The shiftiness, the irrelevance, the straw men, the stamping of little feet... it's as good as watching a Creationist try to reason his way out of a paper bag.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert
Just because it doesn't sound "reasonable" to you doesn't mean it's not perfectly "reasonable" to someone else.
Well, evidently it does sound reasonable to someone else. But he is wrong. See also under monster, loch ness, pyramids, alien builders of, homeopathy, efficacity of, ... everything sounds "reasonable" to someone. I see in his recent post he's gone back to the "ALL taxation is theft" line. At least this is intellectually consistent, as he'll explain to the mujahadeen when they invade America.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert
(I would also debate whether libertarianism is a "Right-Wing" ideology. See my post above about my journalism professor and my Dad.)
Have you ever checked out The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) website and their scoring system? They solve the discrepancies between people's beliefs on the left-right spectrum by plotting a person in accordance with both their economic and social stances on a two-dimensional plane. You would probably test in the economically conservative and socially liberal quadrant, whereas your dad would fall into the economically conservative and socially conservative portion of the chart.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Have you ever checked out The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) website and their scoring system? They solve the discrepancies between people's beliefs on the left-right spectrum by plotting a person in accordance with both their economic and social stances on a two-dimensional plane. You would probably test in the economically conservative and socially liberal quadrant, whereas your dad would fall into the economically conservative and socially conservative portion of the chart.

Yup, I know all about the "Noland Diamond." However, most versions I've seen don't ask nearly enough questions to be really accruate, and they don't convice anyone I've met that libertarians are neither liberal or conservative. To leftist, you are either a "progressive" or a "wingnut" To a right-winger, you're one of them or a "commie."

You just can't win.

[Dr Adequate]

Mr Siefert's right. We have here two ideas which are orthogonal and call them both "right wing". I can understand how the notion that both sets of ideas necessarily go together would annoy a libertarian.
(Edited to spell Siefert properly.)

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
At least this is intellectually consistent, as he'll explain to the mujahadeen when they invade America.

Your uses of absurdity are astounding. Please explain to me how challenging the nature of taxation implies that terrorists will invade.

You also haven't responded to my other questions.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, evidently it does sound reasonable to someone else. But he is wrong.

YOU think he's wrong. I'm sure that BICKTU feels the same way about your arguments. So, who's right? We aren't debating something that can be really proven one way or the other like creationism vs. evolution, we're debating politics positions.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by BKITU
Your uses of absurdity are astounding.
Well, you keep supplying me with such a rich variety of raw material. But thanks.

Please explain to me how challenging the nature of taxation implies that terrorists will invade.
If taxation is wrong, then government spending is wrong, hence national defense spending is wrong. Hence the US should now, and indeed, should throughout its history, have no army, no navy, and no airforce --- not to mention the complete state of anarchy which will obtain when you abolish the police. This might just make you rather vulnerable. I suggest you start campaigning for that and see what sort of response you get right now.
You also haven't responded to my other questions.
Anyone wishing to see whether this guy is telling the truth about this can look at his posts and mine and see that I've answered all his questions (and that he keeps not so much ducking mine as limbo-dancing under them) and laugh and laugh and laugh. Could you do a little better than that BKITU? No, you probably couldn't.

I'm going home now, but any other rationalist who wants to kick him about is welcome to him.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert
We aren't debating something that can be really proven one way or the other like creationism vs. evolution, we're debating politics positions.
But the reasons given may be wrong. E.g: "We must introduce the Death Penalty because this is the only way to combat the Evil Squrrels In My Head". You can be for or against the death penalty, but you can see that this is a rubbish argument, whichever. You should be pleased to see halfbaked libertarianism shot down, in case it makes you look silly by association.

[Anders]

80% for Kerry??? Methinks, that mostly Europeans voted here. Or, perhaps, skeptic Americans are mainly democrats.

I think that of American skeptics, about half would vote for Kerry and half for Bush. Not quite the same in Europe, but than again, we can't vote in the US, so who cares.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Phrost
I actually find it very odd that any self-professed skeptic would lean Socialist.

How many do?

If I think that a socialized model is plausible for some areas of society, does that make me a socialist? If so, it doesn't seem like a very useful term, where if I think one or two things could possibly be done in a socialist manner, I am in the same bunch as those that want to socialize everything.

For the record, I am about 95% capitalist. If that qualifies me for capitalist, and I think it reasonably should... I suspect we have very few socialists on the board.

[gnome]

Originally posted by BKITU
I acknowledged that taxation is here to stay, nothing more. Cold hard fact of the world. I also acknowledge that people mugging people on the street is here to stay. That doesn't mean I approve of it for any reason.

But, to suppose that something is morally wrong, requires that there is a choice to be made. Clearly morality requires free will.

Therefore, if you believe something is wrong, you must have an idea of what should be done instead.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But the reasons given may be wrong. E.g: "We must introduce the Death Penalty because this is the only way to combat the Evil Squrrels In My Head". You can be for or against the death penalty, but you can see that this is a rubbish argument, whichever. You should be pleased to see halfbaked libertarianism shot down, in case it makes you look silly by association.

OK, you think the argument is "half-baked." Could you please explain how taxation ISN'T theft? I don't think you adequtely explained it (no pun intented).

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
So, we're back with all taxation being theft. Hence, no police, no law, no army, no government. You're going round in vicious circles. If all taxation is theft, then government is morally wrong, and you are advocating anarchy.

You're the one making the equivocation. Nowhere have I said "all." My example is specific to income taxes. You're assuming my position on other forms of government revenue (taxation is not the only means).

You're throwing up stuff like this, then saying I'm the one giving straw men. Check yourself.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

He he he. That's the dumbest analogy I've heard in a long time.
Which is why you had to emphasise the word EXACTLY. The lie, as someone said, should be as big as possible.

You are the one saying that the US should increase socialist spending. Your only argument in favor of this was that Europe does it and likes it.

I respond in kind: so the hell what? Does Europe liking it make it right?

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

Now, popular opinion does not demonstrate that something is true, but it does demonstrate that that something is POPULAR. We've tried it. We found that it worked.

So should I read your argument to mean that pragmatism is justification?

[straw man with bleeding gums snipped]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

We've got a live one here, folks! The shiftiness, the irrelevance, the straw men, the stamping of little feet... it's as good as watching a Creationist try to reason his way out of a paper bag.

Where have I not addressed a question posed to me?
Where have I been irrelevent?
Where have I stamped my feet?
Where have I posed a straw man?

The main question I asked you -- which you have not addressed other than with an insult -- is, what is the meaningful difference between the government forcing money away and a street thug stealing it from you?

All I have done here is given food for thought -- offered the idea that there is no difference between forcible withholding of funds and outright theft. This concept is so dubious to you that you find it reasonable to insult me without provocation, then not answer the question I posed in the first place.

I have done here only what a "good skeptic" would do; I have questioned. I have questioned the means by which my government gets the lion's share of its income, and what it does with it. Governments have other forms of income generation at their disposal, and each can be debated on its own merits, so you saying that my dislike of income taxation is endorsing complete anarchy is an irresponsible straw man on your part. You should know better than that.

I also acknowledged that this particular taxation system is here to stay whether or not I like it, and you called that backpedalling. Admitting that something exists you don't like isn't the same as endorsing it. It's identification of reality.

If all you care to do is insult me and ignore my simple question, then save yourself the trouble and just ignore me. Your insults are unprovoked, and your delusions that you have somehow shredded my arguments are laughable. You haven't addressed a single point head-on. I posed a simple question, and you have accused me of all manner of dodging and straw men, when it is you who have not answered anything directly.

I have not insulted you in any way. I think I have been quite reasonable and level-headed, all things considered. Your unprovoked attacks on what was clearly marked as a political opinion -- albeit a controversial one -- indicate that you somehow find this threatening, and it has you so stirred up that you're practically foaming at the mouth while sitting there and insulting me.

I am a skeptic and a critical thinker. So are you. You and I have a differing opinion on something. So be it. If you care to address the matter at hand, do so. If you just want to go on with the name-calling, however, I have better things to do with my time than listen to someone raving, and I would invite you to have some STFU with your afternoon tea.

Your call.

[plindboe]

About taxation being theft, I find such a statement to be absurd to say it mildly. Without society, there would be no money in the first place. Living in society is a package deal, you get the benefits and you have to pay taxes. If you don't like it, the only alternative is to abandon society, and try to make it on your own. It's like living in someone's house and calling it theft if they want you to pay the rent.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by JohnF_73
I'm not american, but I follow US politics, and given the choice between a kick in the nuts and a punch in the face, I have got to go with the third option. I think I understand why the American public doesn't do that in the real world (fear of the wrong "lizard" getting in) but in this poll, I'm surprised the saner 3rd option doesn't have more support.

My political ideologies are closer to that of Nader than Kerry, but since Nader has no chance of winning, the vote would be thrown out the window if one chose to vote for him.

If this poll was about which politician you agree with the most, instead of which you would vote for, I can imagine more of the Kerry votes would have been placed at Nader.

[BKITU]

Originally posted by gnome
But, to suppose that something is morally wrong, requires that there is a choice to be made. Clearly morality requires free will.

Therefore, if you believe something is wrong, you must have an idea of what should be done instead.

Yes, I do.

[BKITU]

Originally posted by plindboe
About taxation being theft, I find such a statement to be absurd to say it mildly. Without society, there would be no money in the first place. Living in society is a package deal, you get the benefits and you have to pay taxes. If you don't like it, the only alternative is to abandon society, and try to make it on your own. It's like living in someone's house and calling it theft if they want you to pay the rent.

Poor analogy. You have a choice not to live in a given house. Any rent you pay is paid voluntarily.

My specific beef is with income taxes. It is Dr. Adequate, not I, who stated that I consider all taxes theft. I do not believe this at all; he just read that into my statements, then went on to insult me.

Plenty of societies existed without income taxes. The US did not add a Constitutional Amendment granting congress the power to levy an income tax until 1916. Governments have other outlets -- user taxes, for example -- for revenue generation.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by BKITU
Poor analogy. You have a choice not to live in a given house.

And you have a choice not to live in your society. Your life would be made a great deal more difficult, but continuing with the analogy, so would life be if you didn't live in a house. Of course you can investigate whether there's a better house/country somewhere out there for you, and then choose the one that fits you the best.

The fact is you have benefitted hugely because of the society you live in, but since you have lived your entire life in it, you have been used to all the amazing things provided by it, and now feel that you are entitled to this and that.

The clockradio that wakes you up in the morning is provided because of society. The clothes you wear is provided because of society. The breakfast you eat in the morning is provided because of society. The car you drive to work in and the roads you drive to work on are provided because of society. Your work place exists because of society. The pay you receive from your work is provided because of society. The stuff you exchange this payment for is provided because of society. But refusing to pay taxes of your income is the equivalent of saying; "I don't owe society anything".

Time for another analogy. The thing is, without society there would be no money in the first place. It's like a guy paying you $100 but demanding that you pay him back $30, and you then refer to it as theft.


Originally posted by BKITU
Any rent you pay is paid voluntarily.

It's just as forced as taxes. If you don't pay but continue to harvest the advantages of living in the house, you will eventually be kicked out.

PS. *Contacts Guiness Book of Records, since this must be the single post in which the word "society" has been mentioned the most.* :D

[gnome]

Originally posted by BKITU
Yes, I do.

Well, lay it on us... how should the government be funded?

[Soapy Sam]

Whether the categories of "left" or "right" have any relevance at all is open to discussion. What is not open to discussion is the fact that the labels are culturally and individually subjective. I am generally seen as right wing in the UK, but as left wing by American colleagues- even those who are themselves Democrat.

I suspect the terms will remain subjective, albeit with a narrower range, in some relatively small geographical areas, such as New York State or even city.

I also suspect that by "left wing" we all mean "left of MY position" (and ditto for "right") and that this causes the confusion which renders political debate involving such vagueries utterly pointless.

The only political debate worth the breath concerns detailed, specific issues, just like any other form of reasoned argument.

[BKITU]

Originally posted by plindboe
And you have a choice not to live in your society. Your life would be made a great deal more difficult, but continuing with the analogy, so would life be if you didn't live in a house. Of course you can investigate whether there's a better house/country somewhere out there for you, and then choose the one that fits you the best.

I live in the US voluntarily and abide by its laws. Yes, this is a choice of society. All "modern" societies, though, use the same basic model. Continuing the house analogy with modern income taxation, it works like this:

You choose to live in a given house. However, instead of paying a mutually-agreed rent voluntarily at the beginning of the month (as I do with my real-life apartment), the landlord instead comes knocking on your door, holds a gun to your head, checks your books, and extorts a rent he alone deems sufficient to allow you to continue living there. My ability to avoid this system is limited because all apartment complexes worth living in use the same business model.

This does not make the business model right, however.

Originally posted by plindboe
The fact is you have benefitted hugely because of the society you live in, but since you have lived your entire life in it, you have been used to all the amazing things provided by it, and now feel that you are entitled to this and that.

Incorrect. I think I am entitled to nothing. I have indeed benefitted greatly because of the society I live in, but society has also benefitted greatly because of my contributions to it -- and I'm not talking monetarily at all. I "give back" to society by being a productive member. People have incomes, invest in their own businesses, and create other jobs because of the work I do.

Society, however, did not give me my job; a corporation did. My alarm clock was not produced because of "society," but instead because of the profit interests of General Electric. The breakfast I ate this morning was not provided because of society, but because I earned money with my own work, and spent it at a grocery store of my choosing. The clothes I wear were produced by a manufacturer working for its own interests within a given society, not because of society itself.

Society is a framework within which entities function. It's the building, not the producers in it. The building provides shelter and workspace; it's the producers who make it function. Without the producers, the workspace does nothing. Society exists because people want to work for their own interests, and enact rules and standards within which to do so. Society owes its existence to the producers, not the other way around.

Originally posted by plindboe
Time for another analogy. The thing is, without society there would be no money in the first place. It's like a guy paying you $100 but demanding that you pay him back $30, and you then refer to it as theft.

This analogy also fails. The way it really works, one person pays you $100 voluntarily for performing a task, then someone else holds a gun to your head and demands $30 of it "for the public good." The source of the money and the demand for the repayment are from different sources.

Originally posted by plindboe

It's just as forced as taxes. If you don't pay but continue to harvest the advantages of living in the house, you will eventually be kicked out.

I really don't mind society gathering funds to do its work; I simply question one of its methods. As I mentioned earlier, there are several other means by which a government can generate revenue. The fact that I pay $1.60 every day in tolls is testament to that.

Originally posted by plindboe

PS. *Contacts Guiness Book of Records, since this must be the single post in which the word "society" has been mentioned the most.* :D

Not anymore. ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by BKITU
You're the one making the equivocation. Nowhere have I said "all." My example is specific to income taxes. You're assuming my position on other forms of government revenue (taxation is not the only means).
Explain how a government can be entirely funded by means not involving compulsion. And make it good.(I have this mental image of the Prez wandering down Pennsylvania Avenue shaking a tin and wearing a sign saying "Wife, family and world's only superpower to support". But perhaps you have in mind something more sophisticated. Do tell.)
You are the one saying that the US should increase socialist spending. Your only argument in favor of this was that Europe does it and likes it.
I respond in kind: so the hell what? Does Europe liking it make it right?
So should I read your argument to mean that pragmatism is justification?
Yes and, in this case, yes. What on earth is a government for if not the good of its citizens?
[straw man with bleeding gums snipped]
If you object to my analogy, you should point out the error, rather than just calling it a straw man. I pointed out the gross error in your analogy, and you've been kind enought not to repeat it. We have quite a high standard of debate here. Try to keep up.
Where have I not addressed a question posed to me?
Where have I been irrelevent?
Where have I stamped my feet?
Where have I posed a straw man?
In your posts. There's no point in denying it, because everyone can read them. You are making a flake argument by flake methods. This makes you fair game.
The main question I asked you -- which you have not addressed other than with an insult -- is, what is the meaningful difference between the government forcing money away and a street thug stealing it from you?
I should have thought I'd made that crystal clear even to you, but let me spell it out for the hard of thinking. The difference is that taxation appears to be necessary to the preservation of the life and liberty of myself, all those I love, and my fellow countrymen generally. Therefore I'm happy to pay up out of a combination of patriotism, ethical obligation, fellow-feeling and self-interest. A mugger does not spend the money ON ME, in ways that I GET TO DECIDE. If he did, that would be like having someone to do my shopping for me. I'd like that. He would need no violence to part me from my money.
Governments have other forms of income generation at their disposal, and each can be debated on its own merits, so you saying that my dislike of income taxation...
If, as I suspect, you are now going to draw a distinction between income tax and other taxation, you must explain why these other forms of taxation are distinct from mugging, in your view, since they all involve legal compulsion.
I also acknowledged that this particular taxation system is here to stay whether or not I like it, and you called that backpedalling. Admitting that something exists you don't like isn't the same as endorsing it. It's identification of reality.
What you wrote really did look as if you were endorsing a tax-funded minarchy a la Mr Siefert, and obviously in interpreting your rather cryptic posts, my default assumption is that you are trying to say something vaguely sensible. I'm sorry, I was wrong. You weren't.
I have not insulted you in any way...

...I have better things to do with my time than listen to someone raving, and I would invite you to have some STFU with your afternoon tea.
This man doesn't need me to make him look ridiculous. He does such a fine job of it himself.
Your unprovoked attacks on what was clearly marked as a political opinion -- albeit a controversial one -- indicate that you somehow find this threatening, and it has you so stirred up that you're practically foaming at the mouth while sitting there and insulting me.
Now this is typical woo-woo talk. Disagreeing with his reasoning is an "unprovoked attack". Hand me my violin. Haven't we heard this so many times? Yes, I am "threatened" by your discovery that Taxation Is Morally Equivalent To Mugging. Just as I was too frightened to admit the efficacity of aura healing. And too stupid to believe in reincarnation. Too closed-minded to accept Creationism. You are part of the broken record that a sceptic has to listen to all the time. "Practically foaming at the mouth"? In the wise words of WinAce: "You have a BS in amateur psychology. And you can read minds." "Practically foaming at the mouth"? This delusion must comfort you, but as a matter of fact I am practically falling off my chair. I haven't had so much fun since they banned Interesting Ian.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by BKITU
My specific beef is with income taxes. It is Dr. Adequate, not I, who stated that I consider all taxes theft. I do not believe this at all; he just read that into my statements, then went on to insult me.
Now... let me explain this very slowly. You have identified income taxation as morally equilvalent to mugging on the grounds that (1) It involves forking out money (2) This is elicited by compulsion (3) The compulsion is backed, ultimately by the threat of violence.

BUT THIS IS TRUE OF ALL FORMS OF TAXATION. They are all compulsory. You would be arrested for evading any of them. If you resisted violently, as in the example you gave, you would be arrested violently. There is nothing about this which is SPECIFIC TO INCOME TAX.

Have you got it yet? If you admit the legitimacy of some forms of taxation, then you admit the illegitimacy of the particular argument you have used against income tax, because it applies equally to ALL forms of taxation.

This is why I said you were using Right-Wing Logic. If you were just being right-wing, I'd have no complaints --- this is a board for sceptics, not political argy-bargy. You remind me of those Christians who triumphantly brandish a knock-down proof that Christianity is true, without noticing that if their argument was valid, it would also be a knock-down argument for Islam, Hinduism, and Stalinism. You have --- you think --- a knock-down argument against a form of taxation you dislike. If it were valid, it would also be a knock-down argument against ALL forms of taxation, including those which you approve of.

Is the penny beginning to drop?

Slightly edited for spelling, disambiguity

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Now... let me explain this very slowly. You have identified income taxation as morally equilvalent to mugging on the grounds that (1) It involves forking out money (2) This is elicited by compulsion (3) The compulsion is backed, ultimately by the threat of violence.

BUT THIS IS TRUE OF ALL FORMS OF TAXATION. They are all compulsory. You would be arrested for evading any of them. If you resisted violently, as in the example you gave, you would be arrested violently. There is nothing about this which is SPECIFIC TO INCOME TAX.


Vehicle registration tax: I can choose to walk or ride a bicycle
Property tax: I can choose not to own a home
Cigarette tax: I do not smoke
Liquor tax: I can choose not to drink
Sales tax: I can choose not to consume taxed items
Gasoline tax: See vehicle registration tax
Highway tolls: I can use non-toll routes

Seven examples, just off the top of my head, where the tax isn't compulsory. I do not have to pay them if I choose not to. None of these are vital to my existence. However, if I choose to avoid the income tax, I have to avoid having an income. I must therefore either starve or steal the money/go on the dole (which is effectively using the government to steal the money for you)

Reading the rest of your two posts, I see you still find it reasonable to insult me despite my request that you save the time of a response if you cannot be civil. I do not consider your challenging my philosophy an unprovoked attack, I consider you calling me a "dolt," as well as several other snide, childish comments insulting my intellect, unprovoked attacks. You are continuing to insult me where I do not insult you back. I have no issue discussing these topics in a reasonable, level-headed manner, as others here have seen. You, however, seem to get your kicks by demeaning others whose opinions differ. You are rude and childish, and I will waste no more time with you.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by BKITU
Vehicle registration tax: I can choose to walk or ride a bicycle
Property tax: I can choose not to own a home
Cigarette tax: I do not smoke
Liquor tax: I can choose not to drink
Sales tax: I can choose not to consume taxed items
Gasoline tax: See vehicle registration tax
Highway tolls: I can use non-toll routes

Seven examples, just off the top of my head, where the tax isn't compulsory.

Just wanted to point out a few things:

1. Many people do have a need for a vehicle if they want to have a job or income. For some, it IS compulsary. Myself, for example. I can't afford to live close to work due to higher costs, and my home is too far away for walking or biking. There is no mass transit. In any case, without my car, my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are curtailed.

2. Yes, but someone has to. You can rent, but you still are indirectly paying property tax, as the land owner figures that expense into the rent. The money still comes from you, just through one additional intermediary. If this is different to you, then by the same logic a job would be free to collect a "usage fee" from you, which it then sent on to government. If you don't like it you could find another job (which is going to do the same thing) or start your own business (where you still have to pay the tax).

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

5. Um, no. Very few items are exempt from sales taxes. You really don't have a choice here, unless you have access to special stores (i.e.-military PX or BX for example) or buy everything second-hand. This is not really an avoidable one.

6. Agreed, but again vehicles are very much a necessity for many today.

7. Um, if you do awy with taxes, there ARE no toll-free routes. You're doing what you were accused of earlier...enjoying the benefits of taxation while not wanting to pay for it. Road maintenence of "toll-free" roads comes from your taxes.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by BKITU
Vehicle registration tax: I can choose to walk or ride a bicycle
Property tax: I can choose not to own a home
Cigarette tax: I do not smoke
Liquor tax: I can choose not to drink
Sales tax: I can choose not to consume taxed items
Gasoline tax: See vehicle registration tax
Highway tolls: I can use non-toll routes

Mugging: I can choose not to go outdoors
Date rape: I can choose not to go on dates
Mail order fraud: I can choose not to order things by mail
Embezzlement: I can choose not to own a business
Burglary: I can choose to have no possessions and live in a tree

In all the cases you've given, the money is extracted from you by the government by compulsion underlined by the threat of force. The fact that by grossly inconveniencing myself I might be able to avoid some of it can't change its moral status as such.
Reading the rest of your two posts, I see you still find it reasonable to insult me despite my request that you save the time of a response if you cannot be civil. I do not consider your challenging my philosophy an unprovoked attack, I consider you calling me a "dolt," as well as several other snide, childish comments insulting my intellect, unprovoked attacks. You are continuing to insult me where I do not insult you back.
BKTIU, a hint. The people who look at this website can read. They can all see that you are not telling the truth. I have of course raised no objection to your insults, because I am Adequate --- and also, of course, because I feel that your tone adds (an admittedly factitious) weight to my side of the argument. There is no need for you to lie about the question of whether your remarks have been insulting. Some of them have indeed been so intended, as everyone who reads your posts can tell, but of course, this doesn't invalidate your argument. It's the huge, gaping flaw in it that does that.
I have no issue discussing these topics in a reasonable, level-headed manner, as others here have seen.
Others? Like to give your opinions? Has BKTIU successfully read your mind? Is his talk of "raving" and "foaming at the mouth" actually "reasonable" and "level-headed" in your view? Is that what I've been doing? We tend to look down on people who "rave" round here. I think I should be told.
You, however, seem to get your kicks by demeaning others whose opinions differ
Now where have we heard that before, sceptics? Ah yes, every time we show a crank the flaw in his reasoning.
You are rude and childish, and I will waste no more time with you.
Ah, splendid --- the last excuse of the woo-woo: the Argument From Putting Your Fingers In Your Ears. It's just like talking to Interesting Ian. Very well. I shall just carve the letter A on your chest, and I'm done with you. You run for the hills like a bunny now. And --- Have A Nice Day!

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Just wanted to point out a few things:

1. Many people do have a need for a vehicle if they want to have a job or income. For some, it IS compulsary. Myself, for example. I can't afford to live close to work due to higher costs, and my home is too far away for walking or biking. There is no mass transit. In any case, without my car, my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are curtailed.

Indeed the more you want to use the system, the more you pay. However, if you were to relocate or change jobs or decide not to drive for whatever reason, nobody from the government is going to come to you and demand you start paying car taxes again, and therein lies the difference. Your chosen livelihood may depend on having a car; mine does, and since I'm using public roads I pay willingly the taxes to support the roads. My point, though, is I still have a choice to get another job where I don't need a car.

The choice not to have an income, though, means starvation or some form of theft/mooching. It is the income tax alone that puts such a choice on me, and that's part of what I find morally dubious. It's a literal case of "your money or your life."

Originally posted by Huntsman
2. Yes, but someone has to. You can rent, but you still are indirectly paying property tax, as the land owner figures that expense into the rent. The money still comes from you, just through one additional intermediary. If this is different to you, then by the same logic a job would be free to collect a "usage fee" from you, which it then sent on to government. If you don't like it you could find another job (which is going to do the same thing) or start your own business (where you still have to pay the tax).

Absolutely true... but if the taxes don't get paid, it's not my neck on the line. Should I want to buy property, I go into it knowing I have to pay tax, but again, I have a choice not to buy property, or sell the property if I don't want to pay the tax, and nobody will come knocking on my door demanding that I'm not paying.

Originally posted by Huntsman

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

5. Um, no. Very few items are exempt from sales taxes. You really don't have a choice here, unless you have access to special stores (i.e.-military PX or BX for example) or buy everything second-hand. This is not really an avoidable one.

Generally speaking, food (other than dining out), water, shelter, medical services, and prescribed medicines (i.e. the necessities for existence) are exempt from sales tax. This varies from state to state and region to region, but it is the rule of thumb. Here in Chicago, even some of these items are taxed very slightly, but I still have to disagree with taxing the means of our bare existences.

Originally posted by Huntsman
6. Agreed, but again vehicles are very much a necessity for many today.

See above.

Originally posted by Huntsman
7. Um, if you do awy with taxes, there ARE no toll-free routes. You're doing what you were accused of earlier...enjoying the benefits of taxation while not wanting to pay for it. Road maintenence of "toll-free" roads comes from your taxes.

And I willingly pay all applicable car taxes, license fees, registration fees, and gasoline taxes to continue driving my car.

User fees and user taxes to fund used services -- these I find reasonable. People using specific government services funding them with specific fees to pay for them. Court costs funded with legal fines, roads funded by people using cars, postal system funded by postage, and so on. This is how things worked before income taxes.

Since all US residents enjoy the benefits of the US military, I don't find it unreasonable to consider a national sales tax on non-staple items to fund it. I suppose an argument could even be made on taxing staple items to fund it, considering the current world situation.

In all of these situations, those who enjoy the service the most pay the most, and monies currently generated by income tax could be acquired by increasing these other types of taxes.

I know the questions that will follow. I await them eagerly. :D

[Ashles]

I know the questions that will follow. I await them eagerly.
Well one obvious one is what about safety and security?
Your taxes pay for police to prevent people from killing you just because they don't like the look of you. (Ie the whole system of punishment that prevents anarchy)

And on a bigger scale taxes pay for for all those weapons that stop large groups of people (armies) coming and killing you and living on your land. Edited to add: I've just read you agree to this, but not on income tax, on other products - see point below.

All other taxes (road, courts etc.) would just have to be added on to existing products. You COULD not pay income tax, but to live in the society you live in you'd have to pay it elsewhere.

[Hellbound]

First, I have to disagree with your assessment of cars. I don't have the choice of getting a job closer to home (there aren't any in my field) and I also don't have the option of moving closer to work. For me, having a car is a live or die situation. Sure, I could flip burgers close to home, but then my family starves. But I'll forget that, and we'll assume that everyone can find a job within walking distance of home, and/or sell there home at the drop of a hat to move closer to a job elsewhere :rolleyes:

As to #2, you seem to agree that that's fine. Great. In that case, we'll just rework income tax so that employers are required to take it out of your paycheck. Then, it's not your neck on the line, so it's okay, right? You don't care about the money, as long as you aren't in trouble for not paying it. IF someone else is, that's immaterial...using your reasoning.

And for #7...so, you're ready to double social security taxes and excise taxes? Oh, and if you want to come back with "we should get rid of social security too", well, that saves about 3% of the expenditure, so you have 32% of the income to make up, meaning that other taxes would increase by about five times. That's just for federal tax income. For states you also have to increase property tax, registrations and fees for vehicles, sales taxes would all go up...basing off federal stats, about 50% as well (would vary from state to state). Of course, if we simply require employers to pay the tax, then it's okay.

I'm sorry, but your position is internally inconsistant and leads to absurdity. The entire concept seems to be based on extreme selfishness...basically, your whole view is "as long as my butt isn't in trouble for not paying, go ahead." However, without the threat of force, there are people who would abuse the services and not pay. That even happens with current "pay for use" systems. Some sort of income tax is needed to pay for services everyone uses. Schools and education, defense, law enforcement, social security, interest payments on the national debt, and other such things that affect everyone. Your position just doesn't seem very well thought out...more of a visceral reaction to having to pay than a logically defensible stance.

Ashles:
Apparantly, income tax is okay if the government places the responsibility for it on employers or on those providing the income. As long as it isn't your own neck on the line (see property tax anser from BKITU)