Macsimcon wrote..

I do not see taxes as theft, I see them as my payment for living in a society where we have free primary education, and Medicare, and Social Security.

If you want to pay taxes that's great - you should be perfectly free to pay them. But whether or not you want to pay isn't the question. Do you support the use of force against those people who have a different opinion than yours and act on it?

Macsimcon, what about the advantages people enjoyed while weightless?

That is, when they jumped off the cliff they participated in the looting and bubble blowing, enjoying the profits of high flyers, no risks (until we land). And now that they've landed we have to pay for their mistakes?

People who DID NOT participate now have to PAY more for FREE services? Is that ok?

If I'm a flag man on a highway and I replace the 'Bridge Out' with 'Thrills Ahead' am I not complicit in the wreck at the bottom of the gorge?

That I am taxed for some other persons thrill ride is wrong.

Read up on Moral Hazard here: http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=206....

Quote:

If I'm a flag man on a highway and I replace the 'Bridge Out' with 'Thrills Ahead' am I not complicit in the wreck at the bottom of the gorge?

Love it Ponzi!!

But you know the counter argument would go: that seeing such a sign on a public road should trigger your 'due diligence' instincts as a road user..

Sux eh. This drawn out trainwreck is waiting for the statute of limitations to expire. That's why we've got the sound of the pin leaving the grenade still ringing in our ears after 3 years - while logic tells us that the ****er should have gone off already.

What morals.

Macsimcon wrote..

I run a consulting company

I'm curious: Who are your customers? They wouldn't happen to depend on government spending as a major source of their revenues, would they?

-Uwe-

Do I support the use of force against those who won't pay taxes? I would say it depends on the level of force. If the IRS wants to file a lien, then I would support that.

Or were you asking if I support the use of force against those who hold differing political views than I? Absolutely not.

We do live in a republic, and people are free to vote for whomever they like, and demonstrate against policies they don't like. If you don't like the level of taxes you're paying, by all means, you have that right, and the right to demonstrate and petition your representatives to change the laws.

It is ludicrous to think that anyone would support public bailouts of private companies' mistakes. If a bank wants to gamble, they should reap the profits, but also pay the price when they lose. They shouldn't get to gamble with taxpayer money, or be bailed out by taxpayers when they go broke.

In no way do I support the banksters. I want them all in jail, but I'd doubt any of them will actually be tried, assuming the statutes don't run.

One of our customers is a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company, so I assume they do rely on government spending to some extent. But I don't think any of the others get any government support, or have any government agencies as customers.

Macsimcon wrote..

Do I support the use of force against those who won't pay taxes? I would say it depends on the level of force. If the IRS wants to file a lien, then I would support that.

Or were you asking if I support the use of force against those who hold differing political views than I? Absolutely not.

How magnanimous of you to oppose the use of violence against people with differing political views, provided those people pay what is demanded from them. I guess once you have their money it doesn't matter whether they agree or not, does it?

Macsimon wrote..

Do I support the use of force against those who won't pay taxes? I would say it depends on the level of force. If the IRS wants to file a lien, then I would support that.

If the person refuses to accept the lien and resists you taking their house/car/business, shall we democratically vote to send people that will kill them?