American Exceptionalism (split)

#151
#151
nbakerld said:
That's debatable. The state was the #1 killer of the 20th century. We think that we need government protection, but if government is the #1 killer, I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off without it.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that the the aggregate number of premature deaths caused by government (and/or Man) (war, Holocaust, pogroms) in the 20th Century is higher than the number of premature deaths caused by nature (disease, natural disaster). In fact, seeing that in 1998, 7.3M individuals died from heart disease, I would infer that heart disease alone is responsible for more deaths in the Twentieth Century than Man (then, add the Influenze Pandemic of 1918 and Man is not even close).
 
#152
#152
therealUT said:
I have a hard time believing that the the aggregate number of premature deaths caused by government (and/or Man) (war, Holocaust, pogroms) in the 20th Century is higher than the number of premature deaths caused by nature (disease, natural disaster). In fact, seeing that in 1998, 7.3M individuals died from heart disease, I would infer that heart disease alone is responsible for more deaths in the Twentieth Century than Man (then, add the Influenze Pandemic of 1918 and Man is not even close).
Click to expand...

If you are saying that government killed less than nature, or less than disease (broad categories), then I'd agree that government is probably not the #1 killer.

But when you compare government to a more narrow category it holds up. Mao is credited with killing anywhere from 49M to 78M.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#159
#159
nbakerld said:
If you are saying that government killed less than nature, or less than disease (broad categories), then I'd agree that government is probably not the #1 killer.

But when you compare government to a more narrow category it holds up. Mao is credited with killing anywhere from 49M to 78M.
Click to expand...

Even if you reduce the 1998 heart disease figure in half and apply that average across the century, you get over 360M deaths from heart disease. Add Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (sp?) and one might come up with 150M, well under half of the conservative (I say conservative but I have done no further research on this) heart disease estimate from inference. I would have to see solid statistics in all categories to come to the belief that government(s) is the number one killer in the 20th Century.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#160
#160
KiffinKiller said:
but there's different govts. some allow more power than others.
Click to expand...

True, but they are all corruptible. We have probably been the freest nation in world history, but that didn't stop us from institutionalizing slavery (government did), we had a mandatory draft (basically slavery, unless you were wealthy and could get out of it), Japanese internment, we killed 50,000 of our own civilians in the Civil War, etc.

It just recently came out the government approved and funded research by Harvard professors where they were giving mental patients syphilis (1940s I believe). This is the freest nation in world history, mind you. What's going on in the other 350 or so countries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#161
#161
HSVol said:
This response is puzzling. You bolded "Government is needed" and responded with "That's debatable."

Are you an anarchist? If you don't believe in government, why are you voting?
Click to expand...

I'm somewhere in between libertarian and anarcho-capitalist. Being anarchist doesn't necessarily mean you have to refuse to participate in the political process. Anarchism is a belief that government is immoral. Voting to limit government's power is definitely congruent with anarchism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#162
#162
therealUT said:
Even if you reduce the 1998 heart disease figure in half and apply that average across the century, you get over 360M deaths from heart disease. Add Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (sp?) and one might come up with 150M, well under half of the conservative (I say conservative but I have done no further research on this) heart disease estimate from inference. I would have to see solid statistics in all categories to come to the belief that government(s) is the number one killer in the 20th Century.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah that puts it into question in my mind as well. I wonder if the figure included war? Or if it was just governments murdering their own. WWII was 60 million casualties alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#164
#164
KiffinKiller said:
isn't govt always a representation of the people. (unless there's an oppressive dictator)
Click to expand...

That's the idea in a democracy, but truthfully it's usually a representation of 51% of the people. The tyranny of the majority can be worse than the tyranny of a dictator* (French revolution). Not to mention representative government can still accomplish a lot against the will of the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#165
#165
volinbham said:
Oh for God's sake - taxation in and of itself undermines capitalism?
Click to expand...
Essentially, yes, given that taxation in and of itself is wealth redistribution.

nbakerld said:
That's debatable. The state was the #1 killer of the 20th century. We think that we need government protection, but if government is the #1 killer, I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off without it.
Click to expand...
Yep. Got my cement bunker, auto turrets and five years supply of canned goods ready to roll. **** all you guys, let's scrap the government and DO THIS.
 
#167
#167
milohimself said:
Essentially, yes, given that taxation in and of itself is wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

I ain't buying it - I could make pretty simple argument that taxation aimed at public goods and common defense is a capitalism enhancer; not something that undermines capitalism.

IOW, it is not an either/or. Too much taxation coupled with increasing barriers against private ownership and free capital deployment undermines capitalism but the mere act of taxation itself (at any level and in any form) does not de facto undermine capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#168
#168
volinbham said:
I ain't buying it - I could make pretty simple argument that taxation aimed at public goods and common defense is a capitalism enhancer; not something that undermines capitalism.

IOW, it is not an either/or. Too much taxation coupled with increasing barriers against private ownership and free capital deployment undermines capitalism but the mere act of taxation itself (at any level and in any form) does not de facto undermine capitalism.
Click to expand...

Taxation interrupts the functions of a free market because you are diverting money away from those taxed, thus you are eliminating whatever market activity they would have sparked.

As far as taxes weakening capitalism...public provision of public goods* might enhance the market, but I'm not sure that it does.

* BTW, not certain what you mean by public good. Common defense is a public good. Public education is not a public good (by strict economic definition).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#169
#169
volinbham said:
Oh for God's sake - taxation in and of itself undermines capitalism?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Capitalism is based upon an idea of free exchanges. Taxes are anything but. Taxes are just legalized theft. Don't believe me? Consider, if they wouldn't arrest you, fine you, confiscate your goodies, etc, would you voluntarily pay taxes?

volinbham said:
I ain't buying it - I could make pretty simple argument that taxation aimed at public goods and common defense is a capitalism enhancer; not something that undermines capitalism.

IOW, it is not an either/or. Too much taxation coupled with increasing barriers against private ownership and free capital deployment undermines capitalism but the mere act of taxation itself (at any level and in any form) does not de facto undermine capitalism.
Click to expand...

Anything worth having is worth paying for. If something is worth it to me, I will pay for it. Some people consider education a common good (I don't). Do many of those same people voluntarily spend money to pay private school tuition or college tuition? Yes. Do companies hire guards? Yes. All voluntary. Taxation is the apotheosis of slavery. It is the way we are all enslaved and convinced it is for our own good.
 
#170
#170
RespectTradition said:
Absolutely. Capitalism is based upon an idea of free exchanges. Taxes are anything but. Taxes are just legalized theft. Don't believe me? Consider, if they wouldn't arrest you, fine you, confiscate your goodies, etc, would you voluntarily pay taxes?



Anything worth having is worth paying for. If something is worth it to me, I will pay for it. Some people consider education a common good (I don't). Do many of those same people voluntarily spend money to pay private school tuition or college tuition? Yes. Do companies hire guards? Yes. All voluntary. Taxation is the apotheosis of slavery. It is the way we are all enslaved and convinced it is for our own good.
Click to expand...

so how do you fund the necessary and proper functions of the federal government?

btw, I look to Article 1 Section 8 to determine the "necessary and proper" functions of the federal government.
 
#171
#171
MG1968 said:
so how do you fund the necessary and proper functions of the federal government?

btw, I look to Article 1 Section 8 to determine the "necessary and proper" functions of the federal government.
Click to expand...

The intent was to do it through tariff tax, which still distorts the economy, but is much less invasive.
 
#172
#172
MG1968 said:
so how do you fund the necessary and proper functions of the federal government?

btw, I look to Article 1 Section 8 to determine the "necessary and proper" functions of the federal government.
Click to expand...

Personally, I believe in usage taxes, if the govt has to provide anything. For example, you want to use a publicly built road, then pay either tolls or a mileage tax each year. You want to send your kid to school, pay tuition. You want help from the fire dept, pay a yearly maintenance fee. Same goes for the police. That way no one has to pay for things they don't want or need. We are not supposed to have a standing army, see A1,S8 and the federalist papers. I personally think A1, S8 gives congress too much power.
 
Last edited:
#175
#175
KiffinKiller said:
my guess is run a giant deficit.
Click to expand...

What else is new? But....

In 1816 the US government was $127M in debt which was a huge sum at the time. By 1835 the national debt was down to $33K. I believe the only significant federal revenue was from tariff tax. Andrew Jackson alone took the debt from $58M down to the $33K (in just 6 years) and you know he was all about a strong army and navy. He was hellbent on fiscal responsibility which is why I admire him despite his flaws.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top