TakeYouToTasker

All the more reason to dissolve the country. There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Except those of you who protect pedophiles.

I disagree with none of this, but wouldn’t offer it as evidence of sanity. More than anything else, I’m thrilled to know that my particular lack of sanity is more common than I suspected.

No, you need to stop ignoring the economic consequences. What percentage of the US and global population are you willing to plunge into poverty and starve?

India will shortly surpass us as they pull their people out of poverty through industrialization. I'm not interested in per capita. Per capita doesn't solve the problem. And, as I said, 4 billion people are following behind. And no, green energy is not the cheapest. If it were, it would be being used, especially in the emerging economies. Stop pumping voodoo. Solve China. Solve India. Solve the nations who naturally follow. 8 billion people seeking prosperity. Go. No, he hasn't.

We aren't the largest contributors, China and India are. And they're going through an Industrial Revolution. As the global economy grows, and other nations will as well, they'll use the cheapest energy sources to do so. You latched onto another posters ideals. If you have a different idea, state it. As an aside, we're already the global leader in pollution and emissions reduction.

It's a economic and geopolitical concern, saddled along side the reality that unless the largest contributors make drastic changes (forgo their Industrial Revolutions) it doesn't matter what we do. Your proposal destroys the US economy, and doesn't even address what you believe to be the problem.

The (not really) funny thing is that this news is not new.

Your first sentence doesn’t address the questions I asked you. The second is wrong. The document is quite defective. The first step to solving any problem is to first identify all causal factors.

How and why did the Constitution come about? What type of individuals ratified it? Did those who ratified it safeguard it's provisions? If the Constitution was designed to be a cage on the size and scope of government, can you say it has been effective towards those goals?

This is patently untrue. The ban on automatic weapons has only been in place since 1986, though the weapons themselves were invented in 1885. As Tom pointed out, semi-automatic firearms have been in common use in the United States for almost 150 years. The AR-15 itself was invented in 1954, and was available for order in the Sears catalogue via Colt, who purchased the patent in 1963. Firearm safety was a class commonly taught in schools, where students brought their own rifles. Most schools across the country had shooting teams. I'm not talking about slashing policing in half, I'm talking about a much larger overhaul than that. And, no, it wouldn't. It did not in the past, and it will not now. Actual criminals, violent ones, and those who commit property crimes are rare. More than half of our prison population is in jail for drug offenses, and as of 2010 non-violent offenders accounted for 63% of the population. Most of the people locked in cages, or shot dead by police are solely because of state action and aggression. We don't need a police state bent on incarcerating it's own citizens, and inventing civil crimes and legal fictions in order to do so. That is incredibly immoral. Not to mention it's direct links to intergenerational poverty. If 63% of those incarcerated are non-violent offenders, and 93% are men; how many fatherless homes, the single factor most highly correlated with intergenerational poverty, are created? How about the disproportionate impacts on our minority communities? I don't think throwing hundreds of thousands of people in cages, and stealing their dignity, their employability, their futures, and the futures of their families is moral. They would not. The people living in those areas would deal with maintenance, and key arteries, which now span the entire country, would be well maintained. Otherwise how could Amazon, for instance, bring it's goods to market? Who would buy them? In chase of profits innovators fill the gaps. This has always happened. I challenge you to make a comprehensive study of the transcontinental railroads, paying close attention to The Great Northern. I don't believe a moral argument can be made that in order to employ people we must make war. This is an unjustifiable position which necessitates an absence of peace, and elevates the horrors of war to an economic necessity. I reject this wholesale. This is what the elites want you to believe. Challenge yourself to further explore the ideas I am presenting, and challenge your long held assumptions about the way the world "works" while focusing on why poor outcomes are built into the structure of it's operation for so many. Why are we always at war? Why does America have 25% of the global prison population? Why does such a large percentage of our population go to jail? Why do we have a national debt of 23 trillion? Why do we have a two tiered justice system?

There was a rule of law before the income tax. What there was an absence of, however, is a war on drugs which accounts for more than half our prison population. There were no militarized police forces. Would a return to community based policing in which only truly violent offenders and those engaging in actual property crimes were incarcerated be a bad thing? Wouldn’t it be desirable to put an end to the “high school to prison pipeline” which assists so many in our inner cities into intergenerational poverty and turns kids into violent criminals? As to roads and infrastructure, people value these things, and businesses require them in order to operate. These repairs and improvements would be made at the local level, largely paid for by the businesses which need them in order to exist. This is, in fact, how things used to operate. These improvements would be made more rapidly, and much cheaper, because the graft would be removed. Society would not break down, but rather would grow closer, because true communities would re-emerge as existed as recently as the early 1980’s. The economy would grow stronger due to larger work force participation in the private sector, as the unproductive, bureaucratic government sector would shrink.

It should be. The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites. There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

I wouldn’t know. You’re the one who concocted him, and implied that broad federal power fosters community. If you’d like to argue against my position, feel free, but you haven’t done so yet.

As they should be. There are a very small amount of people who are unable to work and provide for themselves. The overwhelming majority of individuals on public assistance are there because they choose not to be productive, and have made a series of very poor decisions because the system in place has enabled them to do so. With the removal of the welfare state private charities are more than able to service the needs of those who would remain behind. The system, as it exists, manufactures intergenerational poverty by creating a culture of normalized dependence. This is an extreme cruelty, and it is purposeful, as this reality: soft slavery under the guise of “help”, is a necessary part of the elite’s ploy to keep common man subjugated under their yoke.

It would certainly force Congress out of its current power advocacy role, and drive them back into legislating, which would create Congressional turnover, and end the elite fiefdom model they currently operate under. Short term pain, long term structural health.

Strawman. There are solutions which don’t include the protection of a global caste system which preys upon the common man. In fact, tight knit communities are central to those solutions.

Localism and volunteerism. Local government is more responsive to the needs and wants of its citizens because it’s leaders reside in the same neighborhoods and live under similar conditions, and face direct personal consequences for corruption. Roads existed before the income tax. Fire and police departments existed before the income tax. The military existed before the income tax. People will pay for things they find value in without the threat of being locked in cages by men with guns. Rule of thumb:

I think your perception is being clouded by a familiarity gap. IE, you’re more familiar with the machinations of the elites in the US, and are therefore working off assumptions that these other nations aren’t just as steeped (in many cases more steeped, simply because the History of Europe has produced untold dynastic wealth because of Monarchy and it’s longer history) in elites as the US.

No it’s not. The country was quite civilized before the advent of the Federal Reserve and the income tax (1913 and 1914 respectively, and non-coincidentally). More civilized, in fact, as the nation wasn’t plunging itself into extremely costly (in terms of both lives and real wealth) wars on other continents in order to funnel wealth into the pockets of banking and business elites. That “tax is the cost of cost of civilization” is a lie taught to the toiling masses in order that they believe they are dependent of those elites who casually rob them and toss their lives away to enrich themselves.

Can you name a few, and then in each case (not a comprehensive list by any means), can you explain the “why”?

This is massive.

The United States invests more into education than most countries on the planet. The OECD reports that in 2018 the US spent $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education, 35% more than the average OECD country. The US spent $30,000 at the post-secondary level which was 93% more than the average OECD country. Spending does not create better results. Take a look around the world not just today, but throughout history. The entire purpose of government is to protect the ruling elite from the toiling underclass. It’s why the elite not only allow governments to exist, but insist that they do. If you want to take an honest dive into this, I’ll gladly go with you. And there’s the rub. If you build a power structure that is a monopoly of force it will *always* be co-opted by those who will use the power you have embued the structure with towards their own ends. It’s the reason they seek the office in most cases. Libraries full of history and philosophy have been written on this subject, and it always turns out the same. The entire purpose of the state is, and has always been, to protect the interests of the ruling elite. It is, in fact, the only thing the state can be used for, as it’s very existence requires a ruling elite. As Tom says, your thoughts on the matter aren't congruent.

There is exactly zero merit to the low IQ, the disinterested, and the ignorant voting. None. Most people cannot name the Vice President, a single member of SCOTUS, or their own Congress person or Senators. It’s even worse at the local and state levels of government. There's also a sizable portion of the electorate that understands that democracy is a sham designed to keep an elite class elevated, and the underclass ruled over, and is not designed to solve problems. This recognition allows them to understand that government is illegitimate, and they pay their taxes simply so they aren’t throw in cages by the grifters and their henchmen.