Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_styles() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601

Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_scripts() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601
Worldwide Ace » Politics, Anger and Tact

Worldwide Ace

Because a true Ace is needed everywhere…

Entries Comments


Politics, Anger and Tact

22 December, 2003 (01:40) | Politics

These are three things which can’t coexist at the same time. Rush Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Jim O’Brian, Jerry Falwell. These are names synonymous with blatantly bandying opinions about. They’re angry, they’re loud, and they’re not afraid to talk about it. The problem is that even their valid, and perhaps smart (though I doubt it), opinions are never heard because of how offensive they are. They’re offensive because they lack tact and grace.

Tonight, I spent an hour vehemently arguing with someone about politics. The only problem is that we both believe in very similar things:

  • We both think that government is inherently corrupt and should be disbanded.
  • We both believe people should have their right protected.
  • We both believe that people deserve freedom in all respects
  • We both want a society built on free trade.

But what did we end up arguing about? Taxes. It always comes down to taxes. At least it began with taxes. And, while I think I made my point clearly, I was tactless and offensive. Of course, we were also arguing different points in the end.

She argued that taxes are theft and that the government should have no right to take people’s money. I agree. If there was no government, there’d be no taxes and everyone could keep the money they earn and use it for the good of humanity or however else they wish. The problem was that her argument included absolutely no middle ground. I began to argue that if you don’t want to work with the system you should leave. Of course, the conversation didn’t exactly go like that:

Emily: maybe not. but you don’t have the right to steal from them
Ben: and it is besides the point. This is not a moral discussion. The rich, as well as the poor and the middle classes have entered into the society voluntarily, and have agreed to taxation, hence, being voluntary, it can’t be theft
Emily: no we haven’t.
Emily: because I’d go to jail if I didn’t pay
Ben: well then get the fuck out cause we don’t want you here

Now admittedly, I only included the part that made me look bad, and no I’m not guilty about it. She honestly would succeed and create corporate states. Nothing wrong with that. Hell, I’m a Marxist. The difference here is that my ideal society isn’t possible because man is corrupt. A Marxist society would require everyone to be honest and trustworthy. Like hell that’s going to happen. Her society would require companies to respect the workers, and that’s not going to happen because man is greedy and corrupt.

In fact, it’s the ultimate problem. Regardless of your beliefs or how strongly you want the government and regulation to go away, government is a necessary evil. Would it be less corrupt as a corporation than as it is now? I highly doubt it, but then again communism and socialism have basically destroyed my faith in man. In fact, and this is basically what’s happening in the US, a country ruled by an oligopoly with dictatorial fear seems the only way to truly be uncorrupt, and that’s only because corruption is ingrained into the hierarchy in that case.

Either way, my frustration was aimed at the lack of compromise. My biggest peeve is people who sit idly by and think they’re not doing anything wrong. If you can’t beat the system, work with it and change it. That’s all I can hope for. Compromise is the only way, because something that helps you will likely hurt another, and that is unacceptable.

«

  »

  • american taxes don’t seem so bad compared to europe….

  • american taxes don’t seem so bad compared to europe….

  • It not issue of taxes, but of stratification. The current regime is making tax cuts that will ultimately cost the common man more than the rich. It’s true that the wealthiest 50% of the population pays about 98% of taxes, but the bottom 50% pays about 98% of thier income. The issue that she’s arguing, and I’m not disagreeing with, is that it’s wrong to take money that people have earned for no reason when private corporations can provide better service than the government. Still, during the Enron fiasco, the CEO made almost 4 billion dollars while most of the company’s employees were financially ruined. I do not want to protect assholes like that.

    In Europe that higher taxes go towards socialized healthcare and systems that protect and help the common man. Here, the rich, who spend a fair bit of their money making sure their candidate is elected, work the system to favor them (and ultimately against the common man, though that may not be the intention). I see no reason to say, “hey, you’re right, I’m suffering here because I can’t afford anything and you want to kick the regulating office out so you can fleece me some more without having to give back to the people who made you rich in the first place.” If corporations would buy me healthcare without taking life insurance policies out on me that pay to them and not my family, maybe I’d be ok letting a corporation run my life. But corporations, like most men, are inherently greedy. In fact, they’re more-so since corporations are inanimate and have morality to kick them in the ass. I’d trust a bunch of corrupt politicians before I even began to turn my life over to a pile of greedy bastards out to take my money.

  • It not issue of taxes, but of stratification. The current regime is making tax cuts that will ultimately cost the common man more than the rich. It’s true that the wealthiest 50% of the population pays about 98% of taxes, but the bottom 50% pays about 98% of thier income. The issue that she’s arguing, and I’m not disagreeing with, is that it’s wrong to take money that people have earned for no reason when private corporations can provide better service than the government. Still, during the Enron fiasco, the CEO made almost 4 billion dollars while most of the company’s employees were financially ruined. I do not want to protect assholes like that.

    In Europe that higher taxes go towards socialized healthcare and systems that protect and help the common man. Here, the rich, who spend a fair bit of their money making sure their candidate is elected, work the system to favor them (and ultimately against the common man, though that may not be the intention). I see no reason to say, “hey, you’re right, I’m suffering here because I can’t afford anything and you want to kick the regulating office out so you can fleece me some more without having to give back to the people who made you rich in the first place.” If corporations would buy me healthcare without taking life insurance policies out on me that pay to them and not my family, maybe I’d be ok letting a corporation run my life. But corporations, like most men, are inherently greedy. In fact, they’re more-so since corporations are inanimate and have morality to kick them in the ass. I’d trust a bunch of corrupt politicians before I even began to turn my life over to a pile of greedy bastards out to take my money.