go home Sean Young, you're drunk
So, are you saying that we lost our Freedom around 1914? I'm very curious, what was happening then? Well, there was the build up to the Great Depression. I'm probably giving you too much credit. You probably just don't know how old our country is.
Federal Income Tax. Evidently, I know your history at least somewhat better than you do.
The Free Market is a lie. It has never existed, and it never will.
That's putting it straight, sure... Completely false, but nicely straightforward, thank you.
Mind you, the CIA and the NSA have been doing this shit for decades now
CIA and NSA are only invading my privacy. It is a serious transgression, to be sure, but they don't care, how I raise my children, what I am paid, what sort of light-bulbs I use (a new excuse for the government to check my bedroom), nor, indeed, where and I how I buy my car — just to put this conversation back on topic.
You should read up on what the US did in South America
Stopping the spread of Communism — the deadliest school of thought known to man (even Hitler's peculiar strand of Fascism is but a distant second) — was and remains something to be proud of. Compare Chile, where we succeeded, with Cuba, where we failed... One is Latin America's top economy, the other a crap-hole, which even Michael Moore's brilliant propaganda can't turn into a chicken sandwich.
But we are talking about domestic laws, not foreign policy, so let's stick to that.
If you don't want to help the needy, fund basic education for the betterment of all
I don't want to be forced at gun-point to pay for all those things — and that's exactly, how IRS collects the monies. But, if I must subsidize those poor, would you accept their disenfranchisement? For any recipient of public assistance is to state the Pauper's Oath — and not participate in any poll while receiving such assistance and for, say, three more months after recovering their self-sufficiency?
Why wouldn't you accept that — the unfortunates temporarily down on their luck will not care, while the life-long takers will, at least, lose their say in the affairs of the country. No, it is neither a poll tax nor a property requirement — you can be dirt poor and still vote, as long as you don't ask for public assistance.
Still a no?..
I don't know where you got shelter and telephone service from...
From the government's subsidies for housing projects, fuel assistance, and the telephones — both wired and cellular (affectionately referred to as "Obamaphones"). Evidently, I know more about the country's present than you as well — not just history.
go live in fucking Somalia
(Manners, young man, manners. If you lose your temper, I win.) Why don't you instead go live in fancy North Korea — where laws abound, effective taxes exceed 90% (what is not government-provided is unaffordable) and every one is equally poor?
With my taxes, I buy civilization. I'm going to bike my hippy ass to work tomorrow on publicly funded roads
Is not it terrible, that one still has to pay for the bicycle to enjoy those publicly funded roads? Is not it time, we started buying ourselves even more civilization by providing free bicycles (and, of course, helmets) too?
Start with something by Howard Zinn.
Sorry, but no. I read enough garbage written by Communists (and Socialists — the Communists-lite) while growing up — had to. Worker's paradise, you know... But, if we are exchanging reading suggestions, may I recommend Robert Heinlein?
I say you are wrong, but this guy said it better.
forced a reinvention of politics in many countries by enabling constant two-way dialogue between the rulers and the ruled.
- yes, today more people realize that it is better to be free than "the ruled". As an anarcho-capitalist / libertarian / objectivist I welcome the use of technology to let people to get from under the oppression of these rulers.
The "we" who have freedoms in your model apparently does not include poor people.
It most certainly does. And always did.
Free market principles? How about plain old freedom?
Contrary to some economists' arguments, free market originated from freedom. We didn't become a capitalist country, because it was an efficient way to run economy. We've developed the free markets, because we were free — one's only obligations were those, that were spelled out in the contracts one entered into voluntarily (plus family relations and patriotism).
Sadly, those freedoms have been chipped at for over 100 years now... Today we must feed all the hungry (without subjecting them even to the "indignity" of the Pauper's Oath — forget about disenfranchising), we must pay for other people's education. And shelter. And healthcare. And telephone service...
Freedom, you say?..
Link to Original Source
fly a gun inside
There is already some flexibility on that front. Cancer immunotherapies like sipuleucel-T (Provenge, approved in 2010) are unique to each patient.
"Some flexibility" my sore back... Life-saving medicine is still denied patients, because of the FDA's approval cycle. And the additional obscenity of it all, it that the (would-be) manufacturer of the drug is portrayed as the villain...
Good luck with all of that hyper-socialist nonsense that you are preaching, I was born in a country that had it, USSR, I am glad it fell apart and I would never live in another one like that and you are turning USA into one. No amount of pot-hole and bridge repairs will reduce your trade imbalance, which is, by the way, the real indicator of health of your economy in the age of fake GPD and inflation numbers.
Your trade deficit is around 500 Billion / year and has been there for decades now, you are not paying for things you are getting in the US of A, your suggestion will only worsen the trade imbalance, pot-hole repairs cannot be exported in exchange for all those manufactured goods you are importing for FREE (free, because it's all vendor financed, thus the giant debt).
Anyway, as I said, good luck with your ideas. They have been proven completely false and harmful time and again, but I guess they don't actually teach real history any longer (if they ever did).
The government insists (CBO and all other government nonsense propaganda) that there is no inflation. Food prices are going up? There is no inflation. Phone subscriptions are more expensive? There is no inflation. Gas prices rising? No inflation. Stock market prices going up? No inflation. Bond market going up? No inflation. Commodities going up? No inflation. You live in a 'no-inflation' zone, what are you complaining about? Government says you are at a 'risk' of deflation. Don't you feel that deflation is a risk to you?
Of-course price changes are not inflation or deflation, just prices going up or down. Inflation is expansion of money supply, the Fed is expanding alright, but guess what: no inflation.
Now, on the topic of why the rich _should_ be paying for that. Well, that's the price of a stable and progressive civilization.
- absolutely. The rich ARE paying for EVERYTHING. The businesses are creating all of the products you use, they pay all of the salaries people get (including government salaries, which is money taken away from businesses and from salaries of private industry workers, who get paid by businesses owned by... not the poor, let's be clear on this.)
The rich are creating all of the products, paying all of the salaries, paying all of the taxes. The difference is: in a free society this happens through normal voluntary market participation.
What you are proposing is use of majority of the crowd, which directs the government violence at the few people that are richer than the rest and you think that this is a way to put a price on "stable and progressive civilisation". Well, you are also factually WRONG on that. Before 1913, before income taxes, before IRS, before 99% of all business regulations, before 99% of all that government is doing today the rich were paying for everything and the USA economy was GROWING.
Today, when the government is 100 times larger, enormously more expensive, where business regulations, income taxes, inflation are incalculable basically, where is the society going? The same drain that the economy is going. And AFAIC this is a RIGHTEOUS THING, a good thing, the correct, though unfortunate thing. I am against violence and those who use government violence to destroy individual freedoms (in order to ROB the rich), they should have to suffer all of the consequences of their actions and I welcome this effect, hopefully this will fix the problem, as this coming level of suffering will eventually either help to fix the problem of this violence or it will annihilate this "progressive" civilisation, and if that happens, then good, that's where that particular civilisation belongs for not being civilised enough not to steal from people, not to oppress individuals.
There is nothing stable about what you are proposing and there is nothing good about that type of 'progressive'.
It is my understanding, that FDA's current stance is that all such person-specific treatments/medicines must be individually approved... And, because the approval process is so horrendously difficult and expensive, few would be willing (nay, able) to do it. Companies do it for mass-market drugs, but for individually-tailored mixtures — where the expected market is numbered in mere scores or, at best, hundreds of people — it just makes no sense...
Too many people suffer and die from too many diseases that we more or less understand, but can't effectively treat. I hated it when I worked in hands-on patient care, and I hate it now in the lab. We are, finally, getting there."