Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Take the US as an example, if you get sick and need to go to a hospital for a few weeks then you can be sure you are financially ruined, the same if you need expensive medicines for the rest of your live. And this is in a first world country.

And why can't people afford good health care? Because too much of their wage is taken away by taxes. Yes, American taxes are quite high (but not as high as in Europe of course). So giving the American way of health care as an example of my ideology is either a lie or a misinterpretation of my ideology.

But I can also take private schools as an example, if someone has the brain but not the money to afford more and/or higher education, his/her live will be completely decided by the fact there is not enough money.

Education is maybe one of the issues in which it might be a good idea to give loans to people who want to study (by the government). Because banks won't want to give them a loan because they have no underlying asset as guarantee. Of course, that loan has to be paid back (although some recalculation could be possible because due to education, people will earn more and therefore will pay more taxes (even with flax tax).

And I don't even start about the fact that all we have now and is working great is all made possible because of taxes, like good roads, hopsitals, schools, electric grid, internet, punblic transport like rails, etc etc. It's easy to claim taxes aren't needed if all is already made possible because of this system of taxes. If all of these examples I've just mentioned would be a mess or not even existing, you would beg for taxation to make it possible.

Yes. There would be no Internet without taxes. Makes sense.

And again, roads are public goods, you cannot compare roads with schools or hospitals.

Your utopia is heaven for the rich, but that's not the world I want to live in. The results of privatization and free markets are more and more visible and to often the results show it is a big mistake. And your utopia is also an egocentric and selfish world in which we will all be individuals that needs to take care for themselves, even if they can't for whatever reason.

Yes, because people are evil and don't give anything to charity... Come on. They would earn a substantial amount of money more due to low taxes, and could give more to charity. I don't want to live in a world where people are thought to be evil.

But we aren't individuals, we live in a society and are part of a society, and that's everything but egocentric and selfish. So yes, some pay a bit more for something they don't use (or not used till now), others get a bit more as they pay for because they really need it, and sometimes it's even 'unclear' if you get what you pay for.

We are individuals. You can deny that, but that would be plain stupid. You can call me egocentric and selfish (which I'm not), but you cannot possible expect me to be convinced of that.

I think words like egocentric and selfish and also a part hypocritic cover most of the definition you are looking for ;)

So I should say taxes are egocentric, selfish and hypocrite instead of theft? I'm okay with that ;-)

I will answer your post later this weekend as I need to be busy now with other important rl things, but I already edit my text while you were writing yours: I think words like wanting to be egocentric and selfish and also a part hypocritic cover most of the definition you are looking for ;)

But you already understood my text before I edit it ;)

For people with time: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010?printable=true

I would answer your post, but after reading it I won't. It's full of to many dumb things to give a proper answer. From your point of a scholarship loan of tenth of thousands of euros without any guarantee of a job (look at this crisis that is happening and the unemployment because of that) and not understanding why we have a good working internet grid, to the part of being an individual in a society and the naivety of charity, based on absolutely nothing. I support 3 charities at the moment, but many of my friends support non because they don't think like me and no lower taxes will make them do so, besides, I wonder how many charities you support if you think this is a good system.
(edited)

besides, I wonder how many charities you support if you think this is a good system

Non relevant. And you know I'm not working yet.

I gave to 2 charities already when I was still a student, not to mention I almost always gave something to donators when I saw them collecting and also still doing that. It wasn't much that I could give as a student or at the moment, but it was/is something. So it's not about the money but what you stand for that makes you do it or not. Now you can see it's absolutely relevant what you stand for and are willing to do for it, how ever little it is.

But I'm thinking about stopping the donations as the directors are earning way to much money. I'm helping them to live in big houses, and not really that why I'm giving these charities money for.
(edited)

I'm helping them to live in big houses, and not really that why I'm giving these charities money for.

Then choose other charities. There is a site that shows which charities are worth supporting and which are not.

Also there are financial statements of every charity available on the e-net so you can check on your own how many % of gathered money go to charity and how many go to those who rule...

That's indeed what I have to do first :) Probably I start giving it to smaller charity organizations that really do something with almost all money they get, other then paying huge salaries and other to high overhead costs.

(edited)

Taxation for public goods is necessary.

Really, you'll need to learn to be WAY more precise. Your problem doesn't lie with taxation at all. No surprise there, I just wanted you to admit it out loud and face your own hypocrisy. (Not to make you look bad, but I sincerely hope to teach you something.) Taxation is necessary for the state to exist at all. It is therefore justified and really ought not to be derided as theft. Whatever the merits of your point of view, you make yourself look bad by using cheap and inherently wrong rhetorics. You cheapen whatever else you have to say. Now, to get back to the real issue. You prefer a so called 'small state'. Only a few things are to be considered public goods. If you want to focus on the real issue, you'll need to say just that. You might mention that the state would have less need of tax revenues. That's it.

I have told you multiple times how I see that.

Actually, you haven't. You always dodged the issue. Just as you do now. Liberalism was invented to change the balance of power. To gear it towards a certain group of people. It is a fallacy to deny the existence of a balance of power or to say you don't care. ("I don't care who benefits from 'my' system") Just like any other political system, the point is to gear power towards a certain group. To ignore that either speaks of gross falsehood or nearly inexcusable ignorance.

I prefer small charities as well, maybe because my parents used to work in one that helped mentally retarded [is it a 'safe' term?] children. Nobody in this charity got even a single euro out of it.

Your problem doesn't lie with taxation at all.

Of course it isn't. My problem is taxation in order to pay for non-public goods.

Taxation is necessary for the state to exist at all. It is therefore justified and really ought not to be derided as theft.

Taxation for public goods, yes. Other taxation: no.

Liberalism was invented to change the balance of power. To gear it towards a certain group of people.

Can be. But I'm not liberal (non-Anglosaxon interpretation) to give power to certain groups of people. I'm liberal because I want nobody to have that political power. That's it. You can call that gross falsehood or inexcusable ignorance. I'm fine with that. I cannot force you to believe me on that.

That's nice, always good to do something for the 'less fortunate' :)

I also work as a volunteer for a small non-profit organization, KLOS-TV. They make and sell to all that can use it movies, animations and other helpfull productions for mentally handicapped people, hearing and/or visual handicapped children and dementing elderly. This is what they make: Youtube - KLOS-TV, and my job is to make Flash drawing and soon I will be helping with animations for Fenomena 6.

(edited)

Can be. But I'm not liberal (non-Anglosaxon interpretation) to give power to certain groups of people.

I was in fact referring to Scottish/English liberalism of the 19th century. Had I meant the Austrian version, I would have referred to neo-liberalism. Either way, it's a political system and therefore meant to affect the division of power.

I'm liberal because I want nobody to have that political power.

Then you really ought to call yourself anarchistic instead. Liberalism is all about gearing power towards people of independant means. or, to be more specific, to gear the power to the wealthy. (Which was a step forward from inherited political power, to be sure!)

guys, but you all are really in bad topic :-(
is it so hard to find appropriate one ?

You know what the difference between me and anarchists is. An anarchy is a stateless society. I don't want that, because private ownership is not enforceable then. So I call myself libertarian. And the name isn't even important. Why do you focus on that?

Liberalism is all about gearing power towards people of independant means.

Not true. The economic power, yes. But there would be no political power. That's the point.

whoeverer thinks taxation is theft always forget that all you have is your because of the state.
Without it you can't even produce an income properly..
Liberism is simply a ridiculos theory that you learn at school, but is useless in reality. In fact it were never followed in no country in the intere history.

I can discuss with people that think state must tax more or less, if they give a balanced opinion of benefits/prices of their purpose, but I think it's a loss of times discussing with someone that ideologically think: "to tax is wrong" without any good analysis of what to tax and why he thinks so.