Browse By

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump Aren’t the Problem. Republicans Are.

In a year when Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump propose massive spending on the military, Dresden-style carpet bombing, the eroding civil liberties protections, promote discrimination on the basis of religion, the torture of suspects, and the killing of suspects’ families, when these candidates term whole nations of brown-skinned people criminals and rapists and refuse to repudiate the nation’s most famous Ku Klux Klansman, it’s tempting to lay blame for all this at the feet of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in particular.  Wouldn’t it be nice if, when Ted Cruz and Donald Trump fell from their political pedestals, their odious approaches to politics and American civic life would just disappear, too?

But here’s the problem: Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are the front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination for a reason.  Republicans still tend to support bigotry.

How can I make such a blanket statement?  Because it’s true.

Consider the Pew Research Center’s latest nationally-representative poll of Cruz and Trump supporters, comparing them to others.  Results indicate:

  • 51% of Cruz supporters and 69% of Trump supporters agree with the statement that “Immigrants today are a burden on our country.” Just 17% of Clinton supporters and 14% of Sanders supporters do.
  • 53% of Cruz supporters and 64% of Trump supporters agree that “U.S. Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny.”  Just 22% of Clinton supporters and 12% of Sanders supporters do.
  • A full 32% of Cruz supporters and 47% of Trump supporters disagree with the statement that “personally insulting political opponents is never fair game.”  Only 25% of Clinton and Sanders supporters disagree with that statement.
  • Only 48% of Cruz supporters and 39% of Trump supporters agree that “an increasing number of people of different races and ethnicities makes the U.S. a better place to live.”  72% of Clinton supporters and 73% of Sanders supporters agree.
  • 70% of Cruz supporters and 52% of Trump supporters oppose allowing gay and lesbian people the legal right to marry.  Only 26% of Clinton supporters and 15% of Sanders supporters oppose legal rights for gay and lesbian married couples.

In short, it’s not just Ted Cruz and Donald Trump who are bigots.  Their supporters are disproporationately likely to be bigots, too.

What about those nice, non-bigoted Republicans some people keep insisting are out there?  According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, they are few and far between.  Despite all the outlandish, discriminatory and even violent statements by Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, only 17% of Republicans indicate that they wouldn’t support Donald Trump for President if he were the nominee.  Only 19% of Republicans indicate that they wouldn’t support Ted Cruz if he were the nominee.  All the rest might have reservations, they might not agree with Trump or Cruz, but nevertheless they’d support Trump or Cruz for President, fulfilling their role as loyal Republicans.

Poll: Whatever they Feel about Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Republicans intend to support them.

No matter how nice American Republicans may seem, large majorities of them are either personally bigoted or willing to go along and support a bigot for U.S. President.  Cruz and Trump wouldn’t be a problem without them.  American Republicans are the problem.

138 thoughts on “Ted Cruz and Donald Trump Aren’t the Problem. Republicans Are.”

  1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    I wish there was polling data for supporters of third party candidates like Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson as an example.

  2. ella says:

    The reason Hillary and Bernie fans are not considered “bigots” by you is because they are they people that you accuse Republicans of being bigoted against. That is why the two parties clash. It has already been documented that illegal aliens are costing the taxpayers, so are a lot of citizens. But we don’t mind the citizens costing the taxpayer as much as we do those who are here illegally. In 2017 one of Obama’s executive orders will greatly increase that cost. But since you don’t care, and the Congress doesn’t care, maybe you aught to split the $4.1 Trillion dollars among you and repay the debt as it comes due as well. By all means feel free to do so and let the Republicans work for and keep their money for their own bills. ;(

    1. Jim Cook says:

      The reason Hillary and Bernie fans are not considered bigots by me is simple: as the nationally-representative Pew poll shows, they tend not to be bigots. Republicans, it is clear from the Pew and NYT/CBS polls, tend toward some combination of bigotry or a determination to support bigots.

      1. ella says:

        Do Hillary and Bernie like Republicans, even though they are Republicans? Republicans are people as well as of the belief we live in a Republic where people have the freedom to work and change their way of living if they want to. I suppose that it opposed to being forced to live on State allocated materials and commodities. Or being taxed to the limit that we were when the new Americans revolted against England. But I don’t see that as bigoted. I see that as two different world and/or governing views. People who have been persecuted, individuals now, not groups, tend to need a way to vent their frustration – no matter what their religion, race, or creed. But that does not make them bigoted. People who are fighting to change a political system gather in large groups and protest against a person or group they see as opposing their personal views. But neither is that bigoted. Our media is very loose with the words they use for effect sometimes, but I have seldom heard anyone use that particular word to describe differences between political parties, as a whole. There are people who ‘hate’ – have strong emotional dislike – of others simply because they have been influenced to believe they do. Others have a reason. I wonder how that study was aligned – what bias. But I would believe they were really measuring the level of compliance with individuals within each party.

        1. Korky Day says:

          Only the top 10% or so should pay any income tax.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            I personally favor replacing the income tax and replacing it with the FairTax.


            Wikipedia’s article and index of articles related to it explains the plain in detail along with an article on Americans for Fair Taxation which includes the link to the organizations supporting it. It also has books on the subject, and all you have to do is search FairTax at Amazon or wherever books are sold.

          2. Korky Day says:

            That ‘Fair’ tax, if it’s the same % for everyone, is very unfair.
            Just exactly what the super-rich would win the most with.

          3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            No, it’s the defintion of Fair!


            Link gives defintion of fairness/proportionality as well a liberty. A fair tax would by defintion be a proportional tax.

          4. Korky Day says:

            The Wikipedia article didn’t seem to back you, Stephen Kent Gray.
            Nevertheless, I don’t buy the 6 principles, anyway, although they’re all right as platitudes.

            Fairness to me is the richer you are, the higher % income tax you should pay, not the ‘flat’ tax.

          5. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Technically, the FairTax has a pre are preventing it from being completely flat, but here is the concept.


            Fairness means treating everyone the same. Discriminating on the basis of income or anything else is unfair. The proportion stay the same, so the tax liability stays proportional and therefore fair. The same proportion means less for less and more for more due to the proportion being a percentage of the tax bases. As the tax base of a person grows, so does their libaibltiy due to the tax being proportional. Also, as it shrinks, so does the tax liability. Proportionality and fairness are the same thing.

          6. ella says:

            “The same proportion means less for less and more for more due to the proportion being a percentage of the tax bases.” Stephen Kent Gray

            Does the Fair Tax have a clause that exempts people who live at or below the poverty line? No tax is truly Fair when it taxes those who are already struggling to survive.

          7. Korky Day says:

            No, increasing % is more fair.
            Just common sense.

          8. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 proclaims:

            A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

            Notice the words “in proportion”. Taxes should be equitable, fair, and proportional.

          9. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Yes, it does, it gives everyone a prebate (a universal basic income guarantee) each month (or each year as the chart gives data for both) before any taxes are paid, Ella. Depending on whether a person is single or married and how many dependents they have, the prebate will vary. The chart gives the prelates for single people and couples with up to 7 children, but it keeps going up for each additional child, so even people who have a dozen or two children will still keep getting bigger and bigger prebates.

            Ella, you would know all this if you had just actually read the full Wikipedia article or even any of it rather than just making assumptions on the name. Actually read stuff, Ella.

          10. ella says:

            I apologize, I did not read the Wikipedia article. For some reason it does “Not Redirect Properly” on my browser. I will see if I can bring it up by copy paste the URL.

          11. ella says:

            Well SKG, I don’t think that answers my questions directly.. It does address a definition, but definitions do not address the particulars of individual circumstances, just in general.

          12. ella says:

            Wait a minute, I got myself crossed in topics. Yes that dose cover the conservative view as well. My humble apologies.

          13. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Ella, you’re welcome, plus there is a separate article for flat taxes on Wikipedia.


            As of now, the tax rates of the countries with flat taxes are:

            44%: Greenland
            33 and 1/3%: Guyana
            30%: Grenada and Tuvalu
            25%: Belize, Jamaica, Saint Helena, Trinidad and Tobago
            23%: Latvia
            21%: Estonia
            20%: Georgia, Geurney, Jersey, Madagascar, Saudi Arabia
            17%: Hong Kong (but with lots of deductions for poor people, so it’s considered effectively progressive)
            16%: Hungary, Romania
            15%: Lithuania, Mauritius
            13%: Bolivia, Russia
            12%: Belarus, Serbia, South Ossetia (limited recognition state, claimed by Georgia)
            10%: Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bularia, East Timor, Kazakhstan, Kygrzstan, Macedonia, Mongolia, Transnistria (limited recognition state, claimed by Moldova), Turkmenistan
            5%: Nagorno-Karabhakh (limited recognition state, claimed by Azerbiajan)
            3%: Anguilla

            Ex flat tax states by highest tax rates now:
            46.28%: Iceland (was 22.75%)
            25%: Slovakia (was 19%)
            23%: Albania (was 10%)
            22%: Czechia (was 15%)
            20%: Ukraine (was 13%)
            These countries above added a second tax bracket, so arent flat tax countries any more, but only have two income tax brackets unlike most countries with have around half a dozen or so tax brackets.

            How proportional or progressive tax brackets are doesn’t tell us what the tax rates are in a given country. Countries with progressive taxation can have low taxes rates and countries with proportional taxation can have high tax rates.

            You have to compare tax reform ideas to the current tax system, not to your pipe dream hypothetical tax system. America has had progressive income tax since a little before World War I. America has a top rate of 39.6%. It was 35% under Bush. It was 28% under Reagan. It was even lower than that during the Roaring Twenties. As listed, places like Greenland have higher flat taxes than America’s top income bracket. Progresivity and proportionality only tell us the relativity of tax brackets, not what the tax rates are in and of themselves. Nothing prevents progressive tax countries from having all low tax rates or a flat tax country from having one high tax rate, even if there is a de facto 0% rate for the first amount of money below a threshold made. Flat tax doesn’t tell us whether or not it’s 3% or 97%, or 44% or 56% for everyone.

            Let’s say hypothetically the first $100,000 a person made was exempt from the income tax and each dollar over it were taxed at 80% flat tax.

            $100,000 pays $0 due to being exempt

            $1,000,000 has $900,000 of taxable income so pays $720,000 (72% effective rate)

            $10,000,000 has $9,900,000 of taxable income so pays $7,920,000 (79.2% effective rate)

            $100,000,000 has $99,900,000 of taxable income so pays $79,920,000 (79.92% effective rate)

            The higher and higher income reaches infinity, due to the first exemption, the effective tax rate approaches the flat tax rate, but never actually reaches it, so 79.999….% is the highest rate under this hypothetical flat tax.

            This was just a hypothecial using your top income rate, but even under a progressive tax system, an 80% top incone rate is unrealistic in any country, especially in America where the top tax rate is 39.6% last time I checked.

          14. ella says:

            Considering the difference between flat tax and progressive tax, it sounds like either could be problematical. That American tax rates have been increasing with the increase in national debt is now obvious. Any increase change in tax rates will negatively effect both employers and employees. With business tax increases further cutting spending on materials and possible commodities, it is inevitable that jobs would be cut. So the policy of cutting business tax, in spite of the absurd national debt, is almost necessary if the United States is to out pace these other nations that have also steadily increased their taxes. The flat tax does not seem, to me, a sensible solution, as you have mentioned, that it can effectively be used to remove the incentive to increase earnings. The current economic system has long balanced the rise in cost to business with the rise in cost to consumers. The never ending cycle has come to the point that those who live with a stable income are not able compete in the consumer category due to lack of funds. Hence the fight for a rise in minimum wage, which then begins the increase in goods all over again. A social system controlled with taxes.

          15. Dave says:

            You’ve got my vote.

          16. Dave says:

            Korky, if the Fair Tax were ten percent of income then someone making $1000 a day would pay ten times the tax as someone making $100 a day. The lower tax on lower income would allow lower income people to save and invest, eventually becoming higher income people who can then pay a greater share of the taxes. It’s math.

          17. Korky Day says:

            The super-rich love the flat tax because it would tax them much, much less than a graduated tax (without loop-holes).
            That’s why the common people would accept an income tax a century ago: because it was graduated, not flat.

            An over-simplified example:

            Income Flat tax Graduated tax
            20,000 0 0
            50,000 5,000 1,000
            100,000 10,000 5,000
            1,000,000 100,000 500,000
            10,000,000 1,000,000 8,000,000

          18. Korky Day says:

            I’ll repeat that below in a wider column so it makes sense.

        2. James morgan bidmead says:

          I think you are right or wrong.

    2. Al Hopfmann says:

      It is important to consider definitions when judging the results of polls. I think we all know that the results of almost any poll can be deliberately skewed by how the pollster phrases the questions. Even misapplying the meaning of simple words like marriage, responsibility, bigotry, discrimination, and many others can totally change the outcome of polls.
      When it comes to bigotry, the most blatant type is when people are coerced into approving something that they really think is wrong. The real bigots are those people who are not simply satisfied with your tolerance of something that you don’t like, but insist that you actively approve it.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        So follow the link and read the friggin’ questions in the Pew poll.

  3. Peregrin Wood says:

    The reactions of Ella and Al here are really amusing, insisting that these polls can’t be accurate – when both of them have repeatedly made extremely bigoted comments here in response to articles at Irregular Times. We’ve even seen arguments that slavery wasn’t all that bad for African-Americans… and now they’re saying that it’s not fair to call Republicans bigots.

    1. ella says:

      Now Peregrin Wood, there is a definition of bigotry and then a full definition of bigotry. I openly admit biases, even some emotional opinions – but I do not hate people or groups because of their color, religion, or nationality. It would seem if a sensible solution to a problem, that is already occurring in other nations, is followed – to you that would be bigotry. Not so. And some Africans who were brought to the US – under horrible conditions – did find far better circumstances than others. History is the way things actually happened – and then again, the way it has been altered to suit political purposes.

      1. Jim says:

        Then you are different from most Republicans, as shown in the Pew poll. You differ from the top two GOP presidential contenders, who have embraced religious and national bigotry in the primaries. The question is, will you support a bigot Republican presidential nominee, or will you have the courage to walk away from their bigotry?

        1. ella says:

          It is not a settled matter that Trump is bigoted. Cruz is a copycat that listened very well to Trump, learned what was working, and just found a way to repeat what Trump is saying. Lately he has been exaggerating those viewpoints to excess. The problem with Cruz is he is deceiver. He will lead people on and in effect con them. He didn’t stand a chance before that. Is he a bigot? I’d say yes and I would not vote for him. Trump knew what he was doing, and what he was saying, and what he intended to do. Cruz messed up at that juncture – he simply does not have the knowledge or experience in life or business to understand it. A lawyer, is a lawyer, is a lawyer. And that is where his experience is. Trump is a not a bigot. He has facts at his disposal that he uses. That is not bigotry. He does not condemn an entire race, religion, or nationality, but individuals within those groups he exposes as dangerous to our population. Not to point out these facts has been negligent, not beneficial to the society as a whole.

          1. Korky Day says:

            Very well said, ‘ella’.

          2. ella says:

            Thank you. 🙂

  4. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    I’m a Gary Johnson supporter and Libertarian Party activist.

    Immigrants strengthen the country through hard work and talents.
    There should be a way for them to stay legally.
    I oppose building a wall on the border with Mexico
    Increasing diversity makes America a better place to live.
    Muslims shouldn’t be subject to more scrutiny.
    Abortion should be legal in all cases.
    I favor allowing LGBT people to marry legally.

    The economy unfairly favors powerful interests. (Government and people tied to the government, not wealthy people are the powerful interests.)
    Corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of money.
    Economic conditions in America are poor. (We needs less government interference in the economy to make things excellent.)
    Jobs are difficult to find. (This is due to government making jobs scarce.)
    I’m not very satisfied with my position in the economy. (Less government would help me be more satisfied.)
    Most people get ahead with hard work. (But government cronyism works more because the government is too big.)
    Healthcare is not a government responsibility.
    Reductions needs to be considered regarding Social Security.
    Free trade agreements have been a good thing for America.
    Free trade agreements have definitely helped my family.
    American effrorts to solve problems makes things worse around the world.
    Government is doing to many things.

    All five major party candidates would make for terrible Presidents.

  5. Korky Day says:

    My favourites for president, in this order: Jill Stein (Green), Bernie Sanders (Democrat), and Donald Trump (Republican).

    I think that Stephen Kent Gray, the Libertarian supporter (above) would agree with me that the author (Jim Cook) blames the Republicans while both that party and the Democrats are guilty.
    Of course, I don’t buy Gray’s small-government superstition, which is why I’m a Green, not a Libertarian.

    The bright spot for me, unlike Gray and maybe Cook, is that I see the public generally in revolt against the 2-party system, as shown by their support for Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and (to a less extent) Ted Cruz.
    If Trump or Sanders gets a nomination, I will be thrilled. If both, I’ll be ecstatic.
    If neither, I hope the public will be so disillusioned that they will finally turn to my party, the Greens.

    As far as Cook’s silly interpretation of that Pew poll, I would answer as a bigot (in his opinion) on 3 of the 5 answers (the 1st 3).
    He also repeats the libels against Trump that he describes ‘whole nations of brown-skinned people [as] criminals and rapists’, etc., as I have refuted in many comment threads in the Irregular Times.

    As far as people supporting their party’s nominee, though they supported a different person in the primaries, what did you expect, Jim Cook?
    That’s the Duopoly. Both parties do that. If people would regularly desert their parties and vote Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Reform, etc., we wouldn’t have a Duopoly.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      We do not have political parties to negate independent thinking. And yes, you have demonstrated the classic Us-Them bigoted approach to thinking repeatedly. I work like to expect that we all try to extricate ourselves from that kind of thinking.

      1. ella says:

        Jim Cook, it would be nice if that were the case, however, both the media and political parties try very hard to negate independent thinking. It is the era of ‘tell them what they think’ that we live in today.

        1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Immigrants strengthen the country through hard work and talents.
          There should be a way for them to stay legally.
          I oppose building a wall on the border with Mexico
          Increasing diversity makes America a better place to live.
          Muslims shouldn’t be subject to more scrutiny.
          Abortion should be legal in all cases.
          I favor allowing LGBT people to marry legally.

          I support non-bigoted positions, but I’m a Libertarian who ignores mainstream media in favor of alt media like here at Irregular Times and all other Indpendent Political Report listed stuff.

      2. Korky Day says:

        Because of human nature, people will think independently, but mos will vote for the Duopoly in a pseudo-democracy such as the USA.
        They must realize that and work for a real, proportional democracy.

    2. ella says:

      Here! Here!

    3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Korky, when you lived in America, what state did you live in? What parties had and have ballot access there? If you don’t know I will look up what parties have ballot access where.

      Canada has five parties plus three more big enough parties to be noteworthy on I Side With.

      Click on the speicifc country you want like Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom, as America is the defaul country. The countries to click on are at the bottom of the page. Christian Heritrage, Communists, and Libertarians are the three parties not represented in Parliament that are part of the quiz results for the Canada quiz. Tim Moen for Prime Minister and the Libertarian Party of Canada!

      1. Korky Day says:

        I’ve lived in California, Nevada, Washington DC, Arizona, and North Carolina.
        In the last 2, we Greens often struggled and failed to get ballot access, which is extremely easy to get here in Canada.

        1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Interesting facts:

          The Libertarian has been running for President and Vice President every time since 1972 to present.
          In 1972, only Colorado and Washington had them on the ballot as 2 states (no DC) with 16 electoral votes.
          In 1976, it grew to 31 states and DC with 341 electoral votes.
          In 1980, it grew to 50 states and DC with 538 electoral votes.
          In 1984, it shrunk to 38 states and DC with 403 electoral votes.
          In 1988, it grew to 46 states and DC with 496 electoral votes.
          In 1992, it grew to 50 states and DC with 538 electoral votes.
          In 1996, the same with 50 states and DC with 538 electoral votes.
          In 2000, more of the same with 50 states and DC with 538 electoral votes.
          In 2004, it shrunk to 48 states and DC with 527 electoral votes.
          In 2008, it shrunk to 45 states (no DC) with 503 electoral votes.
          In 2012, it grew to 48 states and DC with 514 electoral votes.

          Arizona: ballot access from 1976 to present.
          California: ballot access from 1976 to present. (Was a write-in state in 1972)
          Nevada: ballot access from 1976 to present.
          North Carolina: ballot access from 1976 to 1984 and 1992 to present. (Was a write-in state in 1988)
          DC: ballot access from 1976 to 2004 and 2012 to present.

          Write in states
          1972: California, Maine, Massachuestts, Rhodes Island (4 states WI plus 2 states BA equal 6 states in all)
          1976: Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming (7 states WI plus 31 states and DC BA equals 38 states and DC in all)
          1980: none (50 states and DC BA)
          1984: Florida, Georgia (2 states WI plus 38 states and DC BA equal 40 states and DC in all)
          1988: Missouri, North Carolina (2 states WI plus 46 states and DC BA equal 48 states and DC in all)
          1992: none (50 states and DC BA)
          1996: none (50 states and DC BA)
          2000: none (50 states and DC BA)
          2004: New Hampshire (1 state write in plus 48 states and DC BA equal 49 states and DC in all)
          2008: Maine (1 state WI plus 45 states BA equal 46 states in all)
          2012: Michigan (1 state WI plus 48 states and DC BA equal 49 states and DC in all)

          States not on the ballot at all or write-in
          1972: every state and DC but the six listed earlier (California, Colorado, Maine, Massachuestts, Rhodes Island, Washington being the states with either BA or WI)
          1976: Arkansas, Connecticutt, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennseylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia
          1980: none (universal BA election)
          1984: Connecticutt, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia
          1988: Indiana, West Virginia
          1992: none (universal BA election)
          1996: none (universal BA election)
          2000: none (universal BA election)
          2004: Oklahoma
          2008: Connecticutt, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virignia, DC
          2012: Oklahoma

          States by elections not on the ballot or write-in
          5: Oklahoma, West Virginia
          4: Connecticutt
          3: Indiana, Missouri, Oregon
          2: Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, DC
          1: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachuetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconin, Wyoming
          0: Califronia, Colorado, Rhodes Island, Washington

          I didn’t include ballot access data from 2016 as it has yet to be finalized. I live in Indiana, but all your states have had better ballot access records for the Libertarian Party than mine. Califronia has a perfect record. Arizona, North Carolina, and Nevada only have 1972 as their lack of ballot access time. The list is dominated by states that didn’t have 1972 ballot access because the Libertarian Party was only just founded in the previous year of 1971 at the end of the year.

        2. Korky Day says:

          Thanks, Stephen Kent Gray. You are obviously keen on the Libertarian Party.
          I generally like libertarians more than Duopolists, though your basic free-market philosophy is bad.

          Your party has the best claim on being the 3rd most popular in the USA.
          My Greens are the fourth party there.

          Although no parties have any trouble getting on the ballot here in Canada, your party does much worse in Canada than we Greens do.

          There is one simple reason for that: as soon as a Canadian finds out that libertarians oppose universal health care, they vow never to have anything to do with them.
          The people of no country want to give up universal health care once they’ve tried it.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            People thought people wouldn’t ever overthrow Communism, but the events of 1988-1992 surprised people, except the Austrian School economist who predicted it. People will eventually overthrow universal healthcare, just like Communism was overthrown (except the places like China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam who will overthrow Communism eventually).

          2. Korky Day says:

            Those are not communist countries, Stephen Kent Gray.

          3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Yea, they are.


            Look at the Marxist-Lennist ones, not the nonML ones.

        3. Korky Day says:

          I have voted Libertarian in the USA when no Green was running.
          The Libertarian Party would get more votes if it were more strongly for pro-rep.
          (Proportional representation.)

          Do you, Stephen Kent Gray, support pro-rep?

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            I prefer IRV, instant runoff voting.

            Also, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma are all on the very challenging list of states for Green Party ballot access. All other states are either listed as already ballot access or in play for getting ballot access except those six states. The Greens hope to make a total of 44 states and DC this election for ballot access due to the above mentioned six states being almost impossible for them.

          2. Korky Day says:

            ‘IRV’ is far inferior to real pro-rep, Stephen Kent Gray. Very unfair.
            Support pro-rep and you’ll attract more voters, and you’ll get more co-operation from us Greens.

    4. Dave says:

      I agree, Korky, that Jim is not being honest about Trump’s Mexican statement. He was talking about how our prisons fill up with Mexican nationals that we pay billions to feed, clothe, house and medicate. Let Mexico jail them and pay the bill.

      1. Jim says:

        That is NOT what he said. He called Mexicans rapists. Besides being bigoted he is ignorant. The incarceration rate for immigrants is lower, not higher, than for native-born Americans.

        1. Korky Day says:

          He called some Mexicans, rapists, which is true.

        2. Korky Day says:

          Even if the incarceration rate is lower, that doesn’t mean the risk is low enough.
          A country has the right to bar any immigrants they want.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            The economy needs immigrants who are hard working and talented making any risks from taking in immigrants worth it!

          2. Korky Day says:

            That’s a libertarian position, Stephen Kent Gray, because it drives down wages and helps the super-rich.

            A good economy doesn’t need any immigrants.
            If you don’t have a good economy, create one.
            That’s the job of private interests and government.

          3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Everyone has the right to compete in a free market regardless of their nationality. The economy thrives on the free Movment of goods, services, and everything. Autarchy and protectionism by shutting out immigrants in the name of protecting citizens from competition with froeigners is shooting the economy in the foot. Fairness, freedom liberty, peace, poropirtionality, prosperity are all related to each other.

        3. Dave says:

          It was a statement like Obama’s about “they didn’t build that” that the Right took out of context and ran with it. Context, Man.

  6. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    This reminds of this meme on the Internet?

    Is stuff broken?
    If yes, who broke it?
    Rich/wealthy people? Vote Bernie Sanders.
    Government? Vote Gary Johnson.
    If BLM/Mexicans/Muslims, when is Jesus coming back?
    I don’t know? Vote Donald Trump.
    Next week or anytime at all? Vote Ted Cruz
    If no (on is stuff broken), are women people or should a woman be President?
    Yes? Vote Hillary Clinton.
    No? Vote John Kasich.

    Prerry fun Internet meme? Accurate too?

    1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Gary Johnson officially fixed this Internet meme! Is stuff broken? Yes. Who did it? Government. Gary Johnson. Government means Ds and Rs in Congress voting for massive spending, more debt, less liberty, and constant military interventions. It means the Federal Reserve creating more money out of thin air. It means politicos handing out favors to their cronies. It means government that has become way too big and abusive. VOTE GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016! LIVE FREE!

      Copied and pasted from my Medium post on the subject.

      1. Korky Day says:

        Government did it. Take control of the government. Vote Green.

        1. ella says:

          Go Green, in every election that Green can win and one day – Washington! Congress that is. It will be a long time before we see a society that is ready for that level of common sense, as a whole.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            The Libertarian Party is the Party of Principle and will Shrink Big Government and Advance Liberty, so for a framework for utopia as well as common sense in politics and government, vote for each and every Libertarian you see on a ballot regardless of what their chances of winning are.

        2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Greens and Jill Stein have no stated position on the Internet meme chart.

          1. ella says:

            I’m sorry to hear the Green Party platform has been taken down. I guess it is so hopeless it was considered a moot point.

  7. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    I wouldn’t support any of the five terrible major party candidates, but I would enthusiastically support the Libertarians like Gary Johnson or John McAfee, but I would have reservations about Austin Petersen, and Darryl W. Perry and Marc Allan Feldman probably won’t get the nomination, but I would probably enthusiastically support them.

  8. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Bernie Sanders is a bigot as he and his supporters hate the wealthy like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and their supporters hate BLM, Mexicans, and Muslisms. Both positions are bigoted as class war, crusades, and race wars are all hate wars driven by bigotry.

    1. Korky Day says:

      Then I’m the kind of bigot Sanders is!

      1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

        So you admit you’re a bigot!

    2. ella says:

      Stephen Kent Gray, Sanders doesn’t hate anyone. In fact he loves everyone. That is a problem to me, as he loves those who would hate us. Okay, that is a Christian precept. He just wants to take money away from those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes, larger than his, but he never says he will give it to the poor! Have you ever noticed how he and the Clinton’s do that? “We need to take the money from those Billionaires.” But they never say what they will do with it. No, they really want to get their hands on that money. But they really do love all the others, the poor people, the uneducated people, those of different social structures, cultures. They are needed to give them money – all they can squeeze out of them – so they can play the game of politics and get in a position to take all of that lovely money away from those who worked for it and earned it.

      1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

        Sanders doesn’t hate anyone? Yet he uses such hateful rhetoric towards all groups of people like the DNC, Hillary Clinton, wealth people, bankers, people who want to exercise free speech he disagrees with, border patrol agents, lots of people. Taxing the hell out of people is a form of agression banned by the NAP as any Libertarian knows.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Well, strictly speaking, naps ban any activity. The Non-Agression Principle is not a law, S.

          Currently, corporations and wealthy investors are not having the hell taxed out of them. They’re not even having the lint taxed out of them.

          Libertarianism = Freedom for those who have the money to pay for it, and hell for everyone else.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Libertarianism means freedom for all individuals regardless of wealth as no one would be able to use any type of coercion in all the things they do. Freedom is the absence of coercion and wouldn’t require paying anything for it.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            So I’d be free to walk on the beach of a Wall Street tycoon’s estate?

          3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            If you ask him or her and he or she says yes. Private property must be respected and contracts must be lived up to. The freedom or liberty to use a person’s property without asking would constitute a positive freedom/liberty, not a negative one. First read the links I gave then respond to this. Also, I like the Stanford University paper as one of the best things I have ever read.

            It’s like me asking if I’m free to go to your home and use all your stuff, eat all your food, and party all the time three because of freedom. You, like any good propert owner would recognize the fallacy of such freedom claim.

          4. J Clifford says:

            So, in other words, NOT free to walk on the beach of a Wall Street tycoon, only able to move according to the whim of wealthy property owners – sounds a lot like we’d be living like peasants in medieval Europe.

            Those people who have the power to buy up all the land and other assets – the people who start in the Libertarian Paradise with accounts full of massive wealth – will be able to make the rest of us prisoners of their fiefdoms. It’s not slavery, you’re right. It’s serfdom. That’s an important distinction in theory. It’s meaningless in fact.

            Who has the right to move, when other people hold all the land as private property?

            Who has the right to eat, when other people own all the food?

            Who has the right to read, when other people own all the books?

            Who has freedom of the press, when other people own all the media?

            Is that kind of world consistent with the Non-Aggressive Principle? It sounds like in this NAPpy dystopia, the only people with rights are the people who have wealth. If you don’t own stuff, you’re just screwed, and forced to take as wages the bare minimum required for survival… for as long as your work is needed.

            Golly, why haven’t I joined the Libertarian Party sooner?

          5. Jim Cook says:

            So someone who has managed somehow to amass power or harness state power to enforce “ownership” of that land can coerce me into not going on the beach, on threat of imprisonment. No, not coercive at all.

          6. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Jim Cook, I took long to respond because I was busy on social media. I could say the same thing about the left and its extreme edge of everyone becoming serfs of the government because of Commies nationalizing everything and putting everyone in Communes where everyone is forced to work for the government. Friedrich Hayek’s The
            Road to Serfdom exposes how the Left not the Right advocates for serfdom to the government.

            Also, you assume all Libertarians are Anarcho-Capitalists when there are a whole ten types of Libertarians to choose from. There is also the issues of degrees. Assume a scale of 0-100 where 0 is a completely Communist society and 100 is a completely Anarcho-Capitalist one with 50 as the status quo. I’m personally a Minarchist/Classical Liberal rather than an Anarcho-Captialist, so I’m not a full 100. I support the FairTax rather than abolishing all taxes is one example.


            The 2D political quiz takes all your positions on various issues and distillate them to an average of 0-100 on two scales to get your position on its spectrum.

            You need to shadow box against the positions that government should do nothing rather than talking about where the line should be drawn as to how much the government does. You want to pain libertarians as people who say government does nothing, not to defend the status quo, but rather to say the government should actually do even more than it does now.

            You never say what is the absolute minimum that the government needs to do for society, which is Minarchism as opposed to the Anarcho-Capitalism that you shadow box against.

            Going to the beach isn’t an actual necessity or need people have. Private ownership of beaches isn’t some springboard to leap all the way to Jennifer Government style dystopia. Not being able to trespass on other people’s property equal serfdom to you.

            You don’t draw the line where you prevent you arguments from an ever increasing government from going full Commie where everyone and everything is government owned so that people eat at government wonder restaurants, read/watch government owned media, work for government owned comapanies, live in government own hosing, read books from government owned bookstores, etc.

            Your argument implies that you want the government to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour annually as you defend Seatlle doing it. Rather, than say having no miminimum wage, what about the alternatives of $12 via Hillary Clinton, $10 via Marco Rubio, $8.25 via Ben Carson and some other Republicans in favor of raising it or status quo via most Republicans?

            Libertarians agree that the government should be shrunk, but they don’t agree on by how much and to what degree, but most Libertarians want government to continue existing doing stuff, but rather a common sense minimum via Minarchism rather than growin America into some Euro-style social democracy or worse, because of your Marxist fear of the private ownership of stuff.

            More progressive taxation, gun control, universal healthcare, campaign finance regulations, etc need to be actually argued for rather than shadow boxing against no taxation, no gun control, no healthcare whatsoever as nightmare scenarios of no govnemrnet when you are ignoring less government and the stratus quo to swoop in with more government as the only option.

          7. Jim Cook says:

            So, that all boils down to:
            A) beaches don’t count.
            B) tap dance, liberals are meanies, here’s some other words

            Property, enforced, involves coercion. Government organized around protecting “property rights” is power employed to protect the prerogatives of wealth and coerce non-wealthy people into going along. If you’re ok with that, embrace it and vote Libertarian. But don’t pretend coercion is not involved.

          8. Stephen Kent Gray says:


            Wikipedia gives great links like this when I looked up the issue of negative versus positive rights. The article shows how a world in which only negative rights for all individuals equally would work.

          9. Stephen Kent Gray says:


            Wikipedia gives more good links. This time it I looked up negative freedom/liberty versus positive freedom/liberty. Like the other link, Libertarians only believe in negative freedom/liberty/rights, not positive freedom/liberty/rights. The Stanford University paper is one of my favorites as it explains the details of the concepts in excruciating detail.

      2. J Clifford says:

        Did Donald Trump work for and earn that 200 million dollars he inherited from his father, Ella?

        1. ella says:

          J. Clifford, Or was he given 1 million dollars and told to go out and use it wisely to prove he was ready to take over? Did he make mistakes, yes, but did he take what he was given and learn from it? Yes. And then did he take what he earned and build on it? Yes. Then did he take what he inherited and learn some more, earn so more, and prove he is able to handle the responsibility? Yes.

  9. ella says:

    You know what? No matter what political party you belong to, the comment I just read about T. McAuliffe, Virginia’s governor, should raise the hair on the back of your neck. He has just given 206,000 felons the right to vote and hold office. Because of that pardon in Virginia, those same people can go to any state in the union and be elected to any office in the land, have the right to vote in any election, and have the right to serve on a jury. This precedent can be repeated from state to state, giving many professional criminals the rights of office. Of course this is a governor with a cause. It illustrates what lengths a professional politician will go to in order to preserve his/her position of paid by the people. And keep it all in their own society. This is one of the things that is wrong.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Ex-felons. Served their time. Probation done. Citizens. What’s the problem?

      1. Korky Day says:

        In better countries, like Canada, prisoners vote.

      2. ella says:

        The recidivism rates among released prisoners is high enough to be of great concern. Why would a Governor allow criminals to vote and be elected to public office in a blanket amnesty, immediately granted, other than for political purposes. This is in itself should be a criminal offense against the public. It may not be Constitutional, but will that be proven before those criminals are allowed to vote?

  10. Korky Day says:

    My comment got mangled above, so I repeat it below, fixed:

    The super-rich love the flat tax because it would tax them much, much less than a graduated tax (without loop-holes).
    That’s why the common people would accept an income tax a century ago: because it was graduated, not flat.

    An over-simplified example I just made up (flat tax with poor exemption):

    Annual income _______ 10% Flat tax __________________ Graduated tax
    ____ 20,000 ___________________ 0 _________________________________ 0
    ____ 50,000 ______________ 5,000 (10%) _______________________ 100 (0.2%)
    ___ 100,000 ____________ 10,000 (10%) _____________________ 4,000 (4%)
    _ 1,000,000 __________ 100,000 (10%) ___________________500,000 (50%)
    10,000,000 ________ 1,000,000 (10%) _________________ 8,000,000 (80%)

    1. ella says:

      Sure the very wealthy would love a flat tax of only 10%. Wow would that be a cut in their taxes! But then it would be a cut in taxes for many people in the middle class as well. And with the tax beginning at 20,000, that would be fair enough. There is the point of people with so small an income having the possibilities of very expensive living cost occurring though. That would need deductions for say, car purchase, major medical expense, or major home maintenance expenses. People at that income level cannot pay for insurance and eat.

    2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Korky, you’re ignoring the Greenland paradox I’ve menu toned earlier. How progressive of proportional doesn’t tell us exactly what the tax rates are, but rather what they are relative towards each other. So a country with a flat tax like Greenland has higher taxes than a country with progressive tax brackets like America. I’ve listed all the data with a Wikipedia link as well earlier.

      1. Korky Day says:

        No, Stephen, the flat tax is loved by the super-rich because they pay less proportionally.
        Of course, they love paying less overall, but the flat chance gives them a better chance of paying less, other things being equal.
        You ignore the question, shouldn’t the rich pay a higher %, other things being equal? Yes, of course.

        1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Pay less than what? You assume that your 80% top rate tax the wealthy dream scenario of your is what any tax reform plan should be judged against rather than America’s current tax code.

          Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the “left” typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the “right” usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.

          A flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income. A true flat tax would be a proportional tax, but implementations are often progressive and sometimes regressive depending on deductions and exemptions in the tax base. There are various tax systems that are labeled “flat tax” even though they are significantly different.

          Also, support for tax plans is more correlated with ideology rather than income? It’s the redneck free marketer versus the champagne limousine socialists. Left wingers tend to ignore those groups for the false narrative that poor people are more left wing and wealth people are more right wing, but polling data time and time again shows just the opposite.

          True flat rate income tax
          A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions.

          Marginal flat tax
          Where deductions are allowed, a ‘flat tax’ is a progressive tax with the special characteristic that, above the maximum deduction, the marginal rate on all further income is constant. Such a tax is said to be marginally flat above that point. The difference between a true flat tax and a marginally flat tax can be reconciled by recognizing that the latter simply excludes certain types of income from being defined as taxable income; hence, both kinds of tax are flat on taxable income.

          Flat tax with limited deductions
          Modified flat taxes have been proposed which would allow deductions for a very few items, while still eliminating the vast majority of existing deductions. Charitable deductions and home mortgage interest are the most discussed examples of deductions that would be retained, as these deductions are popular with voters and are often used. Another common theme is a single, large, fixed deduction. This large fixed deduction would compensate for the elimination of various existing deductions and would simplify taxes, having the side-effect that many (mostly low income) households will not have to file tax returns.

          Hall–Rabushka flat tax
          Designed by economists at the Hoover Institution, Hall–Rabushka is a flat tax on consumption. Principally, Hall–Rabushka accomplishes a consumption tax effect by taxing income and then excluding investment. Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka have consulted extensively in designing the flat tax systems in Eastern Europe.

          Negative income tax
          The negative income tax (NIT), which Milton Friedman proposed in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, is a type of flat tax. The basic idea is the same as a flat tax with personal deductions, except that when deductions exceed income, the taxable income is allowed to become negative rather than being set to zero. The flat tax rate is then applied to the resulting “negative income,” resulting in a “negative income tax” that the government would owe to the household—unlike the usual “positive” income tax, which the household owes the government.

          For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be $20,000 per adult and $7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making $54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making $74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.20 × (74,000 − 54,000) = $4,000, as would be the case under a flat tax system with deductions. Families of four earning less than $54,000 per year, however, would experience a “negative” amount of tax (that is, the family would receive money from the government instead of paying to the government). For example, if the family earned $34,000 a year, it would receive a check for $4,000. The NIT is intended to replace not just the USA’s income tax, but also many benefits low income American households receive, such as food stamps and Medicaid. The NIT is designed to avoid the welfare trap—effective high marginal tax rates arising from the rules reducing benefits as market income rises. An objection to the NIT is that it is welfare without a work requirement. Those who would owe negative tax would be receiving a form of welfare without having to make an effort to obtain employment. Another objection is that the NIT subsidizes industries employing low cost labor, but this objection can also be made against current systems of benefits for the working poor.

          Capped flat tax
          A capped flat tax is one in which income is taxed at a flat rate until a specified cap amount is reached. For example, in 2014, the United States Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $117,000 of gross compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $7,254). This cap has the effect of turning a nominally flat tax into a regressive tax.

          You haven’t also specified which of the flat taxes, you’re specifically talking about. You also don’t back up any of your assertation with math, If you compare Herman Cain’s 999 tax plan to America’s current tax plan that is a concrete tax plan to tax plan scenario. But comparing the concept of progressive taxation to proportional taxation doesn’t involve math because they are abstract concepts unless you give concrete tax rates and other info.

          America revises it tax plans every so often.

          Tax cuts are when taxes are lower than the previous year or a tax proposal is lower than the status quo. Tax hikes are when taxes are higher than the previous year or a tax proposal is higher than the status quo. Standard budgeting math requires you to compare a year to another year of the tax code or a tax proposal to a year of the existing tax code, usually the current year.

          Tax codes are written for each specific year. Unless a provision expires, provisions usually stay on there until speicifcally changed by the legislature. The year is currently 2016, so if a person propose a tax reform proposal to go into effect 2017 and future years, you have to compare it to the 2016 status quo tax code. That’s standard budgeting math here in America. You can’t shadow box a hypothetical tax code against another tax code.

          Federal tax reform: Automated payment transaction tax, 9–9–9, Competitive Tax Plan Efficient Taxation of Income, FairTax, Flat tax, Hall–Rabushka flat tax, Kemp Commission, Taxpayer Choice Act, USA Tax, Value added tax

          There are a total of eleven tax reform proposals listed above.

          Tax reform is the process of changing the way taxes are collected or managed by the government and is usually undertaken to improve tax administration or to provide economic or social benefits. Tax reform can include reducing the level of taxation of all people by the government, making the tax system more progressive or less progressive, or simplifying the tax system and making the system more understandable or more accountable.

          Numerous organizations have been set up to reform tax systems worldwide, often with the intent to reform income taxes or value added taxes into something considered more economically liberal. Other reforms propose tax systems that attempt to deal with externalities. Such reforms are sometimes proposed to be revenue-neutral, for example in revenue neutrality of the FairTax, meaning they ought not result in more tax or less being collected. Georgism claims that various forms of land tax can both deal with externalities and improve productivity.

          Back to budgeting math, you gave two hypothetical tax plans. That is not how comparing tax plans actually works. You’re supposed to compare an actually proposed tax plan, like one of the eleven I listed, and compare it to the current year status quo tax proposal. You take the concrete examples of people and their current tax burden and compare it to their tax reformed tax buredens to see if it goes up, down, or stays the same. You didn’t follow any of this budget math by comparing a 10% flat tax against an 80% top rate tax to say that wealthy people always pay more under progressive tax systems than under flat tax systems. I disproved that by mentioning Greenland’s flat tax (44%) compared to America top rate (39.6%, but was 35% before the Bush tax cuts expired).

          United States

          “‘Revenue Reform’ Train Stopped by ‘Vested Interests,’ ‘Local Issues,’ ‘Trusts,’ and other poles” — Political cartoon from 1880–1900 commenting on tax reform.

          There have been many movements in the United States to reform the collection and management of taxes.

          During the late 19th century, American economist Henry George started a global movement for tax reform. The aim of the movement was the abolition of all forms of taxation other than the Single Tax on land value. The effects of the movement on taxation policy, although diminished, can be seen in many parts of the world including Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Efforts to promote this form of tax reform in the United States continue under the aegis of organizations such as The Henry George Foundation of America.

          In 1986, landmark tax reform was passed in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In the 1990s, reform proposals arose over the double-taxation of corporate income, with a large report in 1992 by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

          During the Bush administration, the President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform recommended the removal of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Several organizations are working for tax reform in the United States including Americans for Tax Reform, Americans For Fair Taxation and Americans Standing for the Simplification of the Estate Tax (ASSET). Various proposals have been put forth for tax simplification in the United States, including the FairTax and various flat tax plans and bipartisan tax reform proposals.

          In 2010, Fareed Zakaria proposed what he described as a “grand bargain” with tax reform for economic adversaries Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson; an attempt to bridge their political divide with the creation of a simple and indirect Federal Sales Tax. Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania introduced a bill, H.R. 4646, called the Debt Free America Act that would introduce a 1% financial transaction tax and eliminate federal income tax. He has introduced bills calling for similar tax reform since 2004, but the bills have never made it out of committee.

          President Obama’s tax reform proposals are highlighted in his administration’s 2013 United States federal budget proposal and in a framework for corporate and international tax reform presented by the administration. While some of these proposals have become irrelevant due to the “United States fiscal cliff” agreement at the end of calendar year 2012, these policies present a center-left approach to tax reform. In general, the proposals involve some marginal tax rate increases, some marginal tax rate decreases, and base broadening by closing, canceling, or limiting tax loopholes, deductions, credits, or other tax expenditures for top income earners and corporations.

          From 1913-present, individual and corporate income taxes exist in America. 1776-1912, federal taxation was through completely non-income based taxation. I support FairTax rather than flat tax, but since Ella like flat taxes better I was talking about them recently. When income tax was introduced in 1913, all tax rates were under 10%. I think the highest tax rate was somewhere around 7% with the lowest tax rate being 1%. During the Roaring Twenties, the it was 2-25%. Under Reagan, 15-28%. Now, 10-40% (actually 39.6% is the top rate but I rounded). Those are the tax rates without all the other things that complicate the tax code. With all this info on the history of the tax code in America, you have to compare tax reform to the historic and current tax codes of America, not the tax code you dream of America having.

          People pay taxes each year. Tax codes are fairly stable, but there is nothing mandating each year’s tax code be simmilar in any way, shape, or form to that of previous years. A tax cut or tax hike is just a hypothetical comparison of one’s current tax burden to that under a previous tax code year. People care more for their absolute tax burden than the hypothetical of it being higher or lower under a different tax code. You have to realize, America’s tax code status quo looks absolutely nothing like your dream tax code, neither now or in the past.

          If you have an individual income tax, you have to ask yourself what rate should an individual pay. If you say that dependends on what tax bracket income falls into, it ceases to be on the basis of individuality, but rather becomes bracket income tax.

          In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

          Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
          Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).
          If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn’t have or need is irrelevant.

          On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

          Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully.

          The above Robert Nozick references were on fairness, justice, and property rights. Also, the defintion is everyone pays the same proportion, so no one would pay less proportionally or more proportionally under proportional taxation.

          1. James morgan bidmead says:

            I think you are right or wrong.

  11. Korky Day says:

    Stephen Kent Gray is trying to break the record for the most words spent not answering the question.
    On general principles, why shouldn’t the rich pay a higher rate (not flat) than the poor?
    Only because they’re selfish and try to control the politicians.

    1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      The words did answer the question. You just didn’t read all of them. I’m saying fairness means treating everyone the same. Fairness and equality before the law as well as justice are related to each other. Earlier, I posted info form the Robert Nozick section of the Justice article. Now, I have stuff on progressive taxation below. Rate isn’t the same thing as tax liability. The same rate of differing income means and increased liability as income increases and a decreasing livability as income decreases.

      The point of taxation is revenue for the government, nothing more and nothing less. Does the government really need so much revenue that wealthy people need to be taxed more than others? Taxes are simply money taken from people that goes to government.

      Basically, I will appeal to moral foundations theory and say that progressive taxation constitutes both cheating and oppression/tyranny. Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating. Liberty: the loathing of tyranny; opposite of oppression. Those are two foundations of morality. At the bottom of this with the Robert Nozick and Anarchy, State, and Utopia sections I will define fairness and proportionality as well as justice.

      Before, I put the sections on the topics I mentioned, I will also mention the intrinsic kratos nature of politics that supports progressive taxation. Kratos and archy are part of the Brain Patrick Mitchell Eight Ways to Run the Country political spectrum.

      Arguments against implementation of progressive taxation

      It has been argued that progressive taxation violates the principle of equality under the law.

      Progressive taxes lower savings rates. High-earners have a lower average propensity to consume, so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate savings rate, which should increase steady state growth (if the savings rate is initially below the Golden Rule savings rate).
      The classical argument against progressive taxation runs as follows: The diminishing returns argument applies to the fraction of income used for present consumption. As income rises, diminishing returns implies that a smaller and smaller fraction of income will be spent on consumption goods. The remaining income will (of necessity) be used to purchase capital goods. This acts as a form of positive feedback that in turn yields more income for capital spending. Meanwhile (and because) these capital goods induce a decline in the costs of production which has the effect of raising real wages generally and implicitly raising the general standard of living. The income paid back on the capital helps create the disincentive to consume that creates capital spending. Thus, those capitalists who effectively manage their property are rewarded and given control of more (newly created) property, of which they are increasingly less inclined to consume and increasingly more inclined to purchase capital goods and thus further elevate the general standard of living by driving down the costs of production. As they acquire more capital goods, eventually their ownership outstrips their ability to manage and oversee what they own; however, they control only as many capital goods as can be attributed to the income of their prior capital—which previously did not exist. Therefore, their ownership does not negatively contribute to the general standard-of-living relative to counterfactual state of them not purchasing those goods. It would thus be misleading to argue that redistributing their capital may yield further increases in the standard-of-living. Doing so may well cause that effect, but doing so neglects that it was the assumption that redistribution would not happen that induced the accumulation of capital. — Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System, 1896

      A belief that progressive taxation shifts the total economic production of society away from capital investments (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present consumption goods. This could happen because high-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. Smithian and neo-classical growth theory says that spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the standard of living, and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future production possibilities.

      Brain drain and tax avoidance. High progressive taxes may encourage emigration because taxes are not internationally harmonized, so very high earners are sometimes able to relocate in order to pay less tax, or find tax havens for their income. Unlike the opposing income effect and substitution effect of leisure which may make tax progressivity neutral in terms of working hours, the emigration rate must increase with the top rates of tax. The differential in the higher rates of tax between the United States and Europe are cited as a factor in the “brain drain” of high-earners to America in the 1960s, and is considered an important influence on modern “economic migration.”

      Increase in tax loopholes such as income splitting techniques. This creates an incentive for business owners to split their business into smaller, less efficient ones for a lower tax bracket. It also encourages production from less efficient smaller businesses than larger ones.
      The increasing energy expended on tax avoidances which occur with greater progressivity produces an increase in the work of accountants and lawyers. Because tax avoidance creates no net wealth this work is unproductive, and can make taxes on the rich less efficient than on the middle class, who have less motivation to exploit tax loopholes.

      Progressive taxes are argued to create work disincentive. Consider again someone who makes twice the minimum required to live on but pays all income above the minimum living threshold in taxes. Such a person had no monetary incentive at all to try to increase his or her income above the base level.

      Justice in representation: economic equity is sometimes used to argue against progressive taxation, on the grounds of representation being out-of-proportion to taxation: While the top 5% in income in most countries pay over half the taxes they have only 5% of the voting weight. This argument can be reversed into the plutocratic case that if tax is to be progressive it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most.

      Policymakers are argued to be under a pressure from lower and middle income voters to limit higher incomes by the means of progressive taxation. A few economists argue against inequity aversion: “If policy makers’ primary goal is … economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the politics of envy.” (Gregory Mankiw)

      A study from the libertarian Institute for Policy Innovation, which aims to reduce government intervention in the economy, has concluded that progressive taxes fail to decrease real income inequality.

      Some libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, argue that only poll taxes can be economically efficient in the fullest sense (the utilitarian view), and/or that equity requires each citizen to pay the full exchange value in trade for governance services such as the guarantee of property rights (the natural rights viewpoint).

      In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

      Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
      Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).
      If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn’t have or need is irrelevant.

      On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

      Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully.

  12. Korky Day says:

    I skimmed Stephen Kent Gray’s latest answer of 2016 5 5. You should realize, Stephen, that if I wanted to read a book, I’d go to a library or bookstore, not read your too-long answers.

    You don’t understand fairness. It isn’t % of income (flat tax), which you wrongly think is obvious. Some might consider a specific dollar amount for everyone, rich or poor, to be more fair. That idiocy (head tax) is what ended Margaret Thatcher’s career. Your flat tax is almost as idiotic. Even a person of average intelligence can get that an increasing rate (%) on increasing wealth is more fair.

    You instinctively know that, so you don’t rely on your bunkum ‘fairness’ idea alone. You reinforce it with how people will cheat anyway, so we might as well make it easier for them to pay less than their fair share. We couldn’t possibly hire more enforcers. That would be big government! Can’t have that! Better to let the rich keep more of their money. Right. Totally fair!

    1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Margaret Thatcher’s career ended not because of taxes, but because she wouldn’t have brought the UK into the EU if she were still Prime Minister so some Conservatives in her party conspired to kick her out in favor of a more pro-EU Prime Minister which led to the creation of the Anti-Federalist League in support of the ideals of Thatcherism which is now know as UKIP.

      Also, you should skim, you should actually read no matter how long. You have confirmed that Greens are basically watermelons. Watermelons are green (environmentalist) on the outside and red (socialist/communist) on the inside. Your dream income tax brackets are far to the left of America’s current tax code. You criticize tax reforms for basically not soaking the rich like you want. How can 80% of any individuals wealth being taken in taxes, no matter how wealthy they are be counted as fair? You apparently believe taxation isn’t to be used as revenue for the government, but rather as a tool for taking stuff away from wealth people. You seem to think all individuals should have liberty and rights, unless there wealthy which means the government should bleed them dry. I suggest you read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

      In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

      Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
      Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).
      If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn’t have or need is irrelevant.

      On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

      Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully.

      The idea that taxation is theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection. Anarchists, Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, as well as objectivists and most minarchists see taxation as a clear violation of the non-aggression principle.

      Murray Rothbard argued in The Ethics of Liberty in 1982 that taxation is theft and that tax resistance is therefore legitimate: “Just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in one’s house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns.”

      Supporters of taxation usually assert that no such violation of rights is taking place. Supporters argue that “theft” must be considered in the context of the system of government in place. One justification of taxation is contained in social contracts. The general view is that taxation is required to fund basic provisions that provide for infrastructure and enhance economic growth (i.e. law and order, transport/telecom/energy services). Some economists, however, claim taxation is forced wealth distribution very similar to theft and just as crime it has a major negative impact on a country’s GDP.

      In the classical liberal tradition of John Locke, taxation could be seen as theft. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke takes the position that government authority arises from the consent of the governed, and not through the accidental birth of rulers. L.K. Samuels asserts in his “Rulers’ Paradox” that since the citizenry is the holder of all rights, governmental bodies derive their authority to govern society via elections of government officials. In that vein, Samuels maintains that citizens can only give rights which they have. The Rulers’ Paradox comes into play when governmental bodies exercise rights that the citizens do not hold or could not hold. According to Samuels: “If ordinary citizens could assassinate, steal, imprison, torture, kidnap, and wiretap without incrimination, that authority could be transferred to government for its democratic arsenal of policymaking weaponry.” Taxation could be viewed as theft since, according to Lockean natural rights doctrine, government authority must obtain their rights from the citizenry.

      How many men? is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the concept of taxation as theft. The experiment uses a series of questions to posit a difference between criminal acts and majority rule. For example, one version asks, “Is it theft if one man steals a car?” “What if a gang of five men steal the car?” “What if a gang of ten men take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it?” “What if one hundred men take the car and give the victim back a bicycle?” or “What if two hundred men not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle, as well?” The experiment challenges an individual to determine how large a group is required before the taking of an individual’s property becomes the “democratic right” of the majority.

      Taxation as slavery is the belief that taxation results in an unfree society in which individuals are forced to work to enrich the government and the recipients of largesse, rather than for their own benefit.

      Historically, the earliest and most widespread form of taxation was the corvée, which can be traced back to the beginning of civilization. The corvée was state-imposed forced labour on peasants too poor to pay other forms of taxation (labour in ancient Egyptian is a synonym for taxes).

      In her book, American Patriots, journalist Gail Buckley wrote, “In British eyes, the American colonies existed only for the benefit of the mother country, but Americans saw any form of taxation as slavery.” Anarchists are some of the foremost proponents of the argument that taxation is equivalent to slavery. The International Society for Individual Liberty has made this claim, as has Bureaucrash, which refers to Social Security as “social slavery.” George Mason University professor Thomas Rustici uses two hypothetical anecdotes to illustrate this point. In the first, Sam Slime mugs a person for £50. In the second, Sam Slime votes for a politician who taxes a person in order to redistribute £50 to the “disadvantaged” Slime. Both examples involve the use of force. However, the second scenario is arguably worse, since through the state, Slime is now empowered to repeatedly take others’ money, thus putting them in a condition of slavery. Leo Tolstoy argued that taxation of labor is one of three stages of slavery (the other two being land slavery and personal slavery).

      1. Jim Cook says:

        Congratulations, Stephen, you have mastered the art of cutting-and-pasting Wikipedia:

        Boring, cheap, and not you.

        1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Boring, cheap, not me, but it did communicate the concept of the fiarness of flat tax to Korky Day to some extent. She keep talking about fairness without defining it. I had to go and explicitly define faintness several times for her to get the logic behind the flat tax, despite me supporting FairTax not flat tax.

          1. ella says:

            “( – Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion today declaring that the Obama administration violated the Constitution by funding Obamacare subsidies for which Congress did not appropriate funds.”

            New subject (old one but for now): How do the Libertarians view Obama’s high handed use of funds without Congressional appropriation? Do the Libertarians support Obamacare?

          2. Korky Day says:

            Stephen Kent Gray, you never defined fairness any more than I did.
            Thatcher said the same amount for everyone is fair.
            You say the same % for everyone is fair.
            I say the same graduated scale for everyone is fair.

            My way is the hardest mathematical concept, which might be why you don’t understand it enough to see it as fairer.

    2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Libertarians believe that most people can spend their own money far more effectively than any government could. However, most libertarians are not anarchists and accept that some tax revenue must be raised to pay for the legitimate functions of government.

      As such, libertarians should advocate for a flat tax, a form of taxation that infringes less upon individual liberty, is more conducive to economic growth, and when done correctly, has minimal collection costs.

      The flat tax has many features that should make it attractive to libertarians. The elimination of progressive marginal tax rates would dramatically enhance incentives to work, save, and invest. People who work hard, invest in their education, or start new enterprises would no longer be overly penalized by punitively rising tax rates.

      A flat tax could also help constrain the size of government through limiting political discretion and making it harder for the government to single out specific groups. In contrast to progressive income-tax systems, politicians would no longer be able to propagate the illusion that they can foist the cost of new government programs on higher income taxpayers.

      With all taxpayers facing the same marginal rate, they are likely to be leery of new spending proposals, correctly grasping that the flat tax would mean higher taxes for all, not just a politically unpopular minority. By clearly highlighting the costs of more government to all, a flat tax would increase the constituency for smaller government and deter politicians from proposing new spending.

      A flat tax should also reduce the power that special interest lobbies exercise over our political institutions. Presently, the income-tax systems of most nations are packed with deductions and tax credits that benefit select interest groups.

      This narrows the tax base and leads to higher marginal rates than otherwise would be needed to raise sufficient revenue. Under an ideal flat-tax system that replaces the myriad of deductions and credits with one lower rate, legislators would be less favorably disposed towards calls for tax gifts from special interest groups, realizing that granting such preferences would inevitably mean the unpopular prospect of higher taxes on all other taxpayers.

      Further, without these deductions and credits, collection and compliance requirements would drop. This would be welcomed considering the Canada Revenue Agency has over 40,000 employees, making it the single largest Canadian federal government department (National Defense is second with nearly 23,000 employees).

      Finally, a flat tax would restore equity to the tax system. Through history, there have been two competing conceptions of fairness, the Aristotelian and the Marxian. To the Aristotelian, fairness means treating people equally under a set of neutrally applied rules. In contrast, the Marxian believes that fairness is not procedural but distributive.

      A flat tax would move society away from the flawed Marxist conception of fairness. By levying a uniform rate, it would treat all individuals fairly.

      The flat tax is a largely libertarian reform. While some may find it imperfect, it is imperative that the perfect not become the enemy of the good.

      So basically, Aristotle, founder of all Western philsophy, versus Karl Marx on fairness is our argument. You keep using the word fair without actually defining it. You keep saying your vision of taxation is more fair without every specifying what fairness is. Not everyone is a Marxist or a Green Party supporter like you.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        Hey, Stephen, I thought Libertarians believed in property rights.

        You stole those words:

        Who else’s words have you ripped off without attribution?

        Some “libertartian.”

        1. J Clifford says:

          Libertarian means that I grab stuff and then justify my grabbimg of it later as “property rights”.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Opposing the concept of IP is more of a freedom of press/speech issue than a property rights issue.


            Only physically tangible things that are inanimate objects should count as property not ideas as listed on the Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property article and as quoted in another comment here.

            Goods and services are things that should either be bought/sold or gifted. This is in contrast to abstract concepts like ideas and so called “IP”.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            BULLSHIT. This is about LYING by portraying someone else’s words as yours. You can USE someone else’s words without PRETENDING to be the author. They’re called bloody QUOTATION MARKS.

          3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Copyright laws are the chief example of mala prohibita laws.


            I had to link each twice because I couldn’t remember which was the correct tense to use (singular or plural). The chief take-away from the links is knowing the difference between these concepts is important and why opposing so-called public welfare laws against public welfare offenses like copyright violations and all the other examples givens are consistent for me.

          4. Jim Cook says:

            Latin words don’t make you right, So you approve of property until it’s inconvenient for you, you amoral scumbag. This is not about copyright: it’s about you using others’ words and not attributing authorship to them. That’s lying. That’s plagiarism. Your lack of moral center is showing.

          5. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            They’re concepts, but people use Latin because that is the traditional phrasing.

            Wikipedia defines the phrases as follows:

            Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: “wrong [as or because] prohibited”) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

            Conduct that is so clearly violative of society’s standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson:

            Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is “naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community,” whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).
            “Public welfare offenses” are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often “‘result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'” Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

            Examples of crimes and torts that might be considered as malum prohibitum—but not malum in se—include:

            building or modifying a house without a license
            copyright infringement
            illegal drug use
            illegal hunting
            operating a business without a license
            prohibition of alcohol
            surrogacy for profit
            weapon possession
            illegal immigration

            Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

            For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state. For example, law in the United States require drivers to drive on the right side of the road. This is not because driving on the left side of a road is considered immoral, but because consistent rules promote safety and order on the roads.

            This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.

            Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between “malum in se” and “malum prohibitum” is “iussum quia iustum” and “iustum quia iussum,” namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just (iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).

            Back to me now. Isn’t it hypocritical for Mr. I Want To Walk On Privataley Owned Beaches Because Prititization Of Beaches Is Somehow Feudalism to care about intellectual property but not actual property. Actual theft should actually be about something tangible in that taking something means someone no longer has it. Copyright is about copying despite people using the language of theft.

            Also, now you know the concept of public welfare offense I was talking about earlier.

            It’s not inconsistent to approve of property, but not think of intellectual property as actual property. Theft involves real property, not make believe intellectual property. Also, lying would required me to actually have said something false as opposed to omitting something true. I only omitted the attribution as opposed to attributing anything to myself. People only assumed stuff, but I never explicitly attributed anything to myself.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            Dozens of lines of text tap dancing desperately around the issue. Bullshit. When you put words next to your name, and you don’t use quotation marks and Indicate a source, that constitutes a claim of authorship. When Korky Day complemented “your” writing, you didn’t even admit it wasn’t yours. You put on some dog & pony show instead as if you were the author.

            Liar. Fraud. Plagiarist. Libertarian.

          7. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Claiming stuff is actually claiming at her than omitting or withholding stuff. I did the latter not the former. To be a liar someone has to actually tell a lie rather than omitting or whitholding a truth.

            I was talking to Korky Day about how flat taxes were fair and poroptional, but you keep caring about how I kept bringing other people’s arguments to her. I never claimed the arguments were my own, but I was just getting her to read them, even if she did just skim them over. I was just spreading the ideas presented and not claiming any form of ownership of the ideas. I was just defending the flat tax, not claiming ownership of the idea.

          8. Jim Cook says:

            I don’t care that you “brought other people’s arguments to her.”

            I care that you’re a plagiarist.

          9. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Where did I make any actual claims of ownership rather just use some arguments while only omitting sources because you system penalizes giving too many links? I never typed the sentence “all these words are my own” in any comments, therefore I never claimed any authorship.

            You claim that by ommitting saying X, I am claiming Y. That is the worst logic ever. Ommitting quotation marks and not indicating a source are omission while claiming authorship would be an actual claim. The former is the negation of action while the latter posits action. Typical illogical of saying no doing X is the same as doing Y.

            Fails at the proper use of logic (as defined)
            Spin doctor
            Recognizes the fairness of the flat tax, so argues about intellectual property claims

          10. Jim Cook says:

            Shame on you.

          11. ella says:

            SKG, I would not vote for you for President. One you make long speeches, and two you won’t just admit you left out the quotation marks and go on.

          12. ella says:

            Jim Cook, I also know how it is to have someone use my ideas and words, but you have expressed it so well, I mean that is getting a little rough there. I overlooked this comment before, but it is true that it takes awhile to check out links sometimes. If we have something worth saying though, it is worth the wait.

          13. Jim Cook says:

            Amen. Libertarian is a long word for selfish.

        2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Intellectual property isn’t considered actual property among some libertarians. It’s one of the various debated issues.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            You mean among assholes. Authorship as a form of ownership is so fucking easy to respect when it comes to posting comments. Just cite your source and use quotation marks. But that’s below your “libertarian” philosophy. Oh, please.

        3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          That is the IP specific article.

          Specific section

          Roderick T. Long argues that the concept of intellectual property is not libertarian. He holds that prohibiting people from using, reproducing, and trading copyrighted material is an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that since information exists in people’s minds and other people’s property, one cannot own information without owning other people. Claiming that authors and publishers will continue to produce absent copyright protection, he cites the fact that hundreds of thousands of articles are uploaded onto the Internet by their authors every day, available to anyone in the world for free and that nearly all works written before the 20th century are in the public domain, yet pre-1900 works are still published and sold.

          Benjamin Tucker, opposing intellectual property, writes, “…the patent monopoly…consists in protecting inventors…against competition for a period long enough to extort from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labor measure of their services, – in other words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of Nature, and the power to exact tribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all.”

          This is also the stance of all the Pirate Parties you find around the world.

        4. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Your system (unless the glitch or whatever has been fixed) here only allows me to give one link per article or else the time for the comment to be posted goes up exponentially. Also, Korky Day doesn’t read any links and barely skims over anything posted, so it would have lead to her reading even less than she has done. Also, did I mention my earlier perspective on IP versus real actual property. Besides, proper atribution would have put the comment in a limbo of taking forever to actually go up as each comment would have required several links to be posted, which I have mentioned makes it take longer for stuff to get posted here, except suspiciously for people’s comments who write here it seems unless the glitch has been fixed. I will write an example post with several links some time later to see if the glitch has been fixed.

        5. Stephen Kent Gray says:

          Jim, how do you expect people to attribute anything when the system here automatically flags comments with more than one link in them for automatic moderation pending status which people who write here can automatically opt out as as they don’t need to moderate their own comments? You are the one who set up the insane system where any comments with two or more links automatically goes to moderation pending status. I’m not responsible for that or the fact that people have to forgo attirubition to make their comments get posted faster. If you wanted people to always attribute, you wouldn’t set up a system that punishes them for doing so by putting their commenting in moderation pending status.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            1. Quotation marks.
            2. Citations
            3. Stop cutting and pasting.
            4. Paraphrase
            5. Think and write for you damned self.

            Liar. Thief. Plagiarist. You’re no libertarian. You’re just amazingly selfish.

          2. ella says:

            SKG, that is so that they can go read all of the links posted before anyone else does. That way they can comment right away. 🙂

          3. Korky Day says:

            Jim Cook is right, Stephen Kent Gray: it’s expected that you mention the use of other people’s words and intellectual property. If e-links cause problems, then just put in one link to your Web site or write attributions without computer links.

            Also, I’m a man, in case you want to use male pronouns for me.

          4. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Ok, but you never mentioned being male before. You do have a first name ending in the letter y like Ashley, Cindy, etc.

        6. ella says:

          It has been awhile since I have kept up here, but there is an article out by “The Week” on the Libertarian Party that I thought was good. The point, that the Libertarian Party should really be getting some publicity this cycle and isn’t. They are on the ballot in all 50 states. Another indicator of how disenchanted the American people are with the ‘duopoly’ as you guys call it.

  13. Korky Day says:

    Stephen Kent Gray wrote (2016 5 3) to me ‘you’re ignoring the Greenland paradox I’ve menu toned.’

    I know English, not computerese. Anyway, whether a country has high or low overall taxes makes no difference–it’s still fair and practical to graduate the income taxes.

  14. Korky Day says:

    Thanks for the skimming material, Stephen Kent Gray. Probably I’m the only one here who read ANY of it.
    You’re not a bad writer, so I suggest you save that for a book.
    You can probably get some publisher funded by the super-rich to publish it, as it is to their benefit only.
    If you are NOT super-rich and never will be, you are a dupe.

    The only slightly good argument of yours I noticed is that people will support government spending more frugally if their pocketbook is more involved–as with a head tax or flat tax.
    That’s true, but not enough of an argument to adopt the head tax or flat tax.

    1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      You should actually read stuff fully rather than skimming. How can you fully aprreaciate stuff by only skimming it?

      Also, the left has a weird defintion of benefit and harm. Instead of limiting benefit to actual benefit and harm to actual harm, they broaden the deifintions of the words to benefit being the abscence of a hypothetical harm and the abscence of a hypothetical benefit respectively. A consistent individualist cares about all individuals and their rights not just themselves. A consistent individualist must oppose any and all forms of affirmative action even if they would benefit from it due to it being unfair to other individuals. It would be inconsistent for a consistent individualist to only care about their own personal tax burden and not those of others. Having others pay more taxes than me (as a proportion, not in liability) is unfair even if it benefits me in any way, shape, or form. The left has a divide and conquer strategy to put individuals against others on the basis of class. The left claims to be for selflessness and against selfishness, but always keeps appealing to the economic self-interests of working class and other lower classes. They also mention how such low class people vote against their economic self-interest everything they lose elections. This is basically the politics of envy. Another’s harm isn’t automatically my benefit and another’s benefit isn’t automatically my harm.

      Why would people care more about fairness and proportionality rather than their own benefit or harm? It’s because having every being taxed at the same fair proportion is fair. It doesn’t harm someone who pays a given percentage of their income in taxes that everyone else pays the same proportion in taxes. This is seen in the real life experience of the dozens of countries in the world who have flat tax systems.

      I just like commenting on social media and don’t need anything published, even though I do have Facebook, Google+, Meduim, and Twitter.

      1. Korky Day says:

        I read all of your last comment because it wasn’t so long.
        Do you, Stephen Kent Gray, read every word of every discussion thread? I doubt it. Everyone skims for the same reason: to budget their time. The shorter an answer, the more it is read, other things being equal.

        I still haven’t read from you any more reasons you reject the fairest income tax: graduated. So far, you type out what you think are reasons, but they are not at all convincing. They just convince us that you’re probably a dupe of the rich, who stand to gain billions and trillions if graduation of income tax is ended.

        If you really want to persuade people, learn to say in 3 lines or less why flat is more fair than graduated.
        Almost everyone so far thinks the latter is more fair, as do I.

      2. ella says:

        Another quick change of subject. I watched an interview with M. La Pen on RT today. She is a Communitarian and makes complete sense to me.

  15. ella says:

    I have a scream to let loose here so anyone can notice it and make negative comments the current move to indoctrinate small children into the world of dirty old men by forcing them into bathroom situations with all age group using a toilet.

    1. J Clifford says:

      What does age have to do with it?

    2. J Clifford says:

      I thought dirty old men indoctrinating and abusing little kids was a role Christian priests and preachers were known for.

      1. ella says:

        “I thought dirty old men indoctrinating and abusing little kids was a role Christian priests and preachers were known for.” J Clifford

        Have you ever read anything about the last days of the Roman Empire? Christianity was in existence at that time, but as a subjugated religious group, burned on crosses, eaten by lions, that sort of thing. Subjugating children really is an old habit of dying governmental structures, and some older or mentally disturbed – well…people, that may say something about the state of the degenerating original structure of the Christian founders. The Catholic Church has, for many years, been altering the laws which at one time governed them. But the nature of life among monks in the Catholic Church was, in my opinion uncalled for. There are those to whom celibacy is natural, but that was never a “Christian” requirement before it was established within the Catholic Church at Rome. What exists there today should not be equated with the original structure of Christianity.

      2. ella says:

        I just had to add this to make a quick point. Things like this young man just trotting into women’s room is par for what will happen now.

  16. Korky Day says:

    You’re right ella. Just because men going into women’s wash rooms hasn’t been much of a problem yet doesn’t mean it won’t be.
    I think I speak for men generally when I say that we don’t mind if women come into ours. That’s no danger to us generally.
    It’s the other way around that could end tragically when people with penises go into the women’s room.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!