Last week we announced our partnership with +Google, and the response has been great. Who would you like to see in a Hangout?
Republicans will be using YouTube and Google+ to live stream events online from the Republican National Convention in Florida this summer, the convention's organizers announced on Friday. "Go...
David Burger's profile photoChris Nandor (Pudge)'s profile photoRepublican National Convention's profile photoJames Salsman's profile photo
That's easy: there is no such thing as government-run "equitable" wealth redistribution. Inherently, non-voluntary wealth redistribution -- except for in the single case of recovery of fraudulently gained wealth -- is unequal. The free market is the only efficient, fair, and equal way to distribute wealth.
+James Salsman Taxation for funding the constitutionally defined responsibilities of the federal government is NOT the same as taxation for the redistribution of wealth. It is quite a logical leap to assume that one's lack of support for wealth redistribution via taxation equates to not supporting taxation at all. While I am sure we can agree that not all current federal expenditures fall within this category of constitutionally defined federal responsibilities, wealth redistribution absolutely does not.
+David Burger made good points, but I never mentioned "theft." As usual, JS, you are just making up things that aren't there. It's why I put you on /ignore so many years ago.

I am just pointing out the fact that government taking my lawfully obtained wealth and deciding who should get it is -- despite what far-leftists like you claim -- inherently unequal.
+Chris Nandor I was asking because in the past couple months I've been told by two people who I thought seemed otherwise very reasonable that they believe all taxation is theft. I did not intend to imply that you did too with my question, and I'm sorry that you inferred that I had.

+David Burger I hope you agree that the constitutionally defined responsibilities of the federal government are:

1. form a more perfect union;
2. establish justice;
3. insure domestic tranquility;
4. provide for the common defense;
5. promote the general welfare; and
6. secure the blessings of liberty.

Do you agree that number 5 explicitly involves the redistribution of linear wealth into a distribution congruent with greater income equality, given the Berg and Ostry (2011) IMF paper linked above?

The problem with the unconstrained free market is that it is not completely efficient because it is embedded in the physical universe. For example, the unemployment rate under a six day, unlimited work week will almost always be greater than under a five day, 40 hour standard regulated workweek for unskilled labor. Other such examples abound.
+James Salsman I do not agree. Promoting the general welfare is not synonymous to enforcing the redistribution of wealth. I further believe that "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." is in direct opposition of your interpretation of promoting the general welfare via wealth redistribution. Taking what is mine and distributing it as you see fit with no representation is the antithesis of Liberty and is exactly what We The People revolted against. You're welcome to message me directly if you'd like to discuss further as I don't believe this is the appropriate venue for discussing the merits of an article you know will not be well received by the target audience. Good day.
Taxation is theft when it is taken illegitimately. That's a given.

And no, you are misquoting the Constitution. It nowhere defines those as the responsibilities of government; those are -- explicitly -- the purposes of the Constitution. ("We the people, in order to [do all those things], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.")

The preamble is not in any way a granting of ANY powers to the government. (And in case you were wondering, neither does Section 8's "mini preamble" that also mentions "General Welfare".)

And no, you are completely incorrect in assuming that a unemployment rate for a longer work week will be higher than one under a more limited work week. That assumption is not based in any economic reaities.
+Republican National Convention Then how about someone to address ? The part that I am most concerned about is "20 percent [in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group] would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable child and earned income credits"

Can you get someone to say whether that is an accurate description of Romney's tax plan for minimum wage earning working class parents?
Add a comment...