I have a long memory...

[Goldenhawk]

"Sanctimonious: making a show of being morally superior to other people." It has nothing to do what what you think and your reasons for why you think that way. What you think and your reasons, we can discuss and hopefully learn from each other - we agree in many ways but you continue to insult me and everyone else at every chance. Calling people "sheep" because they disagree with you is posturing yourself as their clear moral superior. That's fundamentally the definition of sanctimonious. With that brief grammar lesson, I'm getting bored trying to convince you to have a logic-based discussion, since you end every third post with "sheep."

 

[Clem72]

If you don't have an allodial title on your property, someone else owns it. – Even if its’ PAID IN FULL!

That's why I always recommend only purchasing property within a spanish land grant recognized by treaty. To invalidate ownership they will need to give Florida back to Spain.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

"Sanctimonious: making a show of being morally superior to other people." It has nothing to do what what you think and your reasons for why you think that way. What you think and your reasons, we can discuss and hopefully learn from each other - we agree in many ways but you continue to insult me and everyone else at every chance. Calling people "sheep" because they disagree with you is posturing yourself as their clear moral superior. That's fundamentally the definition of sanctimonious. With that brief grammar lesson, I'm getting bored trying to convince you to have a logic-based discussion, since you end every third post with "sheep."

That may be your perception of what/how I phrase my posts. But I can assure you, I am not morally, or otherwise, superior to anyone. Well, maybe with my ruddy complexion and rugged good looks. But that's it. Maybe my wit too. And charm. If my posts shock your sensibilities, that's what they are intended to do. To get you, people, thinking, critically. So many celebrate liberty, freedom, and yet, happily live under rule accepting reasonable sounding justifications for laws that tax, restrict or outright ban one's liberty and freedoms. They celebrate the things they really have no idea what they are manifestly. They, you, think they have liberty. They, you, think you have freedom. This is their, your, perception. When in actuality, there are neither. As is your perception of me being sanctimonious. You live in the Matrix. [Just like the movie] Ergo, sheep. As in sheep go to slaughter. Not to be a put down. And not because you disagree with me. But because you are of that mindset. Please, take the red pill. Be a lion instead.
By the way. Stop saying I've written things when I haven't. I've only used "sheep" once with you. And most definitely do not use "sheep" every third post. And use it quite sparingly at that. I've no problem accepting criticism of things I actually do. This is not one of them.

 

[Goldenhawk]

See, there you go again. I have a different view of the data, therefore in your view I am somehow deficient because I choose to view it differently than you - I fail to think critically. I took the blue pill. I blindly follow something. Etc. etc. It carries an air of superiority.

...even starting every post with a passive-aggressive "If I may" - as if you could be refused.

No matter how intelligent and thoughtful you are, you don't come across as either teachable or able to teach.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

See, there you go again. I have a different view of the data, therefore in your view I am somehow deficient because I choose to view it differently than you - I fail to think critically. I took the blue pill. I blindly follow something. Etc. etc. It carries an air of superiority.
...even starting every post with a passive-aggressive "If I may" - as if you could be refused.
No matter how intelligent and thoughtful you are, you don't come across as either teachable or able to teach.

I shall address the 'If I may ..." That moniker is along the line kinda like "If I may, get in a word edgewise, please?" or, "If I may, here's thought.' Or, "If I may, if I could say...." Or, "If I may, here's my two cents." Or, "If I may, could I interject?" Take your pick. There are other innocuous euphemisms. Might be used at a gathering where one does not know the people that are conversing. A polite entry into the conversation. "If I may ...", is always used without the intent of sounding snobbish or hoiti toyti, such as, "Pardon me. Do you have any Grey Poupon?" If you take it as such, that just means, to me, you are a closed mined individual. Choosing to always see, and fixate on, the negative possibilities of things.

Second, you mistake, "an air of superiority", for passion on a subject that too many have given the ultimate measure to advance and protect. It is a continual fight for freedom and liberty. And an even harder fight to regain those liberties and freedoms restricted or taken away through color of law by the acquiescence and surrender of the ruled. Wars, this fight, are not pleasant. I will not hold back on this subject to pacify those with insecurities.

Third. Freedom is not teachable. You either have the mentality within you to live, to be free, to be fiercely independent of authority and untrustworthy of government, or you don't. You either have the fight in you, or you don't. Or, something happens to you personally that is so egregious, so abhorrent, so intolerable, by those sworn, or those that have taken an oath to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", as to wake you from your slumber to stand and fight, rather than flight. Submission however is teachable, through fear. Something the government is really good at doing. They, are very good, submission, teachers. Did you get an "A" in that class?

 

[BernieP]

If I may ...


Nope. Am not. However, the way I live, and things I have to, by government threat and forced to, (else I wind up arrested and put in jail or prison after a lengthy trail), do in the world to just get through, is far different from what I think, and write. I also, when necessary, ie., when I pick my battles, have no problem standing up to "authority" to challenge the many things in what government thinks they can force upon us. And just think. If everyone did this, governments wouldn't be able to do maybe 90% of the crap they have done and continue to do.

have you considered your own private island nation? Because your values do not mesh with the constitution. While the framers didn't want a large federal government, it doesn't mean they didn't see the need for a federal government and governments at all levels.
Without government there would be no rule of law, just chaos.

 

[Goldenhawk]

The way you use "If I may" is passive-aggressive, because it seemingly asks permission even though that is impossible and pointless. It literally communicates the opposite of its obvious meaning.

Used sparingly, it would work. But when EVERY comment starts that way, giving nobody any opportunity to object, it's just a verbal poke in the eye, starting everything you say.

But you're so much smarter than any of us, I'm sure you knew that already.

 

[Goldenhawk]

If I may ...

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

The way you use "If I may" is passive-aggressive, because it seemingly asks permission even though that is impossible and pointless. It literally communicates the opposite of its obvious meaning. Used sparingly, it would work. But when EVERY comment starts that way, giving nobody any opportunity to object, it's just a verbal poke in the eye, starting everything you say. But you're so much smarter than any of us, I'm sure you knew that already.

Ya see? Even though I, (I thought), explained to you, in great detail, that my use of, "If I may ...", is just pretty much just a silly moniker, you still harp that it is "passive-aggressive", when it is not. And that you continue to take that stance, after a full explanation of its use, you still and always see a negative. Also, there is no way for me to know if I am smarter than anyone here absent we all get tested at the same time by an unbiased testing site on varying subjects. However, by you saying that I am, "so much smarter", then I must be. Thank you for the recognition.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

have you considered your own private island nation? Because your values do not mesh with the constitution. While the framers didn't want a large federal government, it doesn't mean they didn't see the need for a federal government and governments at all levels. Without government there would be no rule of law, just chaos.

Can't afford it. Or the army to defend to defend the castle, nor any naval forces to defend the coasts. Which is exactly why the Federal Government was originally put in place. Two of the 19 enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. The rule of Law, Common Law, is one thing. But what we have now, Statute Law, is complete government control over the people. Government has encroached so much upon The People, becoming so far separated from The People, as to be an unanswerable quagmire of despots set out to enrich only those within at the expense of the ruled. It’s been estimated that every US citizen unknowingly commits at least a dozen felonies every day. There are about 20,000 laws just governing the use and ownership of firearms. And my values, referring to Liberty and Freedom, I am certain, do "mesh" with the founders of this nation, and that of the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Goldenhawk]

So self-righteously smug.

 

[BernieP]

If I may ...

Your writing seems to indicate you would prefer anarchy. Not to many are disputing that we have a myriad of regulations that are outdated, costly and down right annoying. But the reach of those regulation has been upheld in large part by SCOTUS. You forgot to mention that one aspect of the Federal government was to regulate trade among the states (colonies). The so called, "commerce clause". When asked about flag burning, Chief Justice Roberts said it fell under protected speech. While it's a symbol of our nation, it's not what unites us, the constitution and the rule of law are what unites us rather than our ethnic history, race or religion.
Don't forget, the constitution only limits the power of the federal government. Something Barrack Obama should have been well aware of when he lamented the constitution limited his ability to help people. The ability to raise revenue to operate government is not prohibited by the US constitution, states have allowed various forms of taxation - since tariffs are not something they can impose. Some states, NH, hit you with fees, you pay a fee, a significant fee in some cases, for everything. Some use taxes on personal property, real estate, income and occupation. Some of those taxes are a percentage, a flat fee or based on a table look up of your title (yes). But in all cases have been tested and upheld.
Maybe not in Maryland, but in Massachusetts public education was something the leaders felt benefited the entire state therefore the government funded education. The government built roads. The federal government started to standardize and remove private toll roads as interstate travel became vital to the growing nation. Again, all were held to be constitutional.
Nobody likes paying taxes, and our various methods of taxation probably should be revisited and changed to a system that is more equitable.
The problem you don't want to accept is that the federal government is the only government that can spend more than it raises (deficit).
States and local governments, including school systems, are held by law to a balanced budget.
As costs go up, something has to give.

BTW, by the island and negotiate a mutual defense treaty with a neighboring island.

 

[Goldenhawk]

It's deceptively easy to buy into logic that every man is a sovereign nation, and the definition of "free" means that we can do whatever we wish. In fact, there is quite a bit of compelling appeal to LR's rantings about how we're enslaved by the structures that have been built. But that line of thinking misses the natural fact that society doesn't function at all without some mutual interdependence, and willingly surrendering some of our freedom in exchange for mutually funding certain aspects of the public good.

In fact, one of the most common arguments against our "free" society (usually made by socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders) is that it neglects the needs of the poor, and that capitalists left to their own devices will trample on the rights of the undersociety. And while I staunchly disagree with AOC and Sanders and will oppose their agenda to my last breath, it is in fact a true complaint, and it led to things like antimonopoly legislation, preventing companies like Standard Oil and Google and Microsoft from doing unchecked whatever is only in their own best interests. Human nature drives the interest of corporations, and humans are generally somewhat greedy and selfish. It's been demonstrated many times that the powerful will do almost anything to keep power and make money. The free market is limited in its ability to correct this problem. So time after time, the courts have needed to step in to ensure that the power of money does not abuse the power of freedom.

I certainly believe this state involvement can go much too far. I often refer to "The People's Republic of Maryland." But I also recognize that I have a certain responsibility to those around me, if I'm going to live at peace in a generally free society. So when someone like LR gets on a soapbox and preaches to the sheeple that they're oppressed and must break free from the shackles of taxation, I laugh a bit inside knowing that what he proposes is functionally impossible given how people actually work.

As Bernie proposes, he's functionally an anarchist. "If I may... Let me do whatever I want, stop taxing me, and stand up to The Man." But that only really works if you're the only guy on the island, because eventually your fist will connect with someone else's face and their rights will clash with yours. You simply cannot live with others unless you give up some of your personal "freedom" to make the relationship work.

So putting the needs of others at least equal with (if not more important than) our own needs is the only foundation for society that can ever really work. And interestingly, it's also the only way to have personal peace in the midst of the real world. If we stop obsessing about "getting what's rightfully ours" then everyone is better off.

 

[Goldenhawk]

(None of this implies that we should continue to tax ourselves into oblivion or fund infinite welfare or buy into the Universal Basic Income lie. That's not sustainable. But there are practical non-zero amounts which turn out to be necessary.)

 

[ReadingTheNews]

my use of, "If I may ...", is just pretty much just a silly moniker...

The word 'moniker' means nickname. I think the word you're looking for is phrase. As in 'a silly little phrase'.
You're welcome.

 

[BernieP]

(None of this implies that we should continue to tax ourselves into oblivion or fund infinite welfare or buy into the Universal Basic Income lie. That's not sustainable. But there are practical non-zero amounts which turn out to be necessary.)

Agreed. we empower the government, by our vote, to do things for the common good.
Traditionally that's been education, law enforcement, roads (transportation) and for health, water and waste removal.
Obviously the list has grown over time as the country has grown. City needs are different than country needs. That's where our system works, when we limit the federal government and give that authority to the lowest level of government. In some states that works very well, Maryland is not one of them. The state seems to hold the authority and the purse strings. In this case (thread) we are talking about the county level. Raising taxes to provide for community needs. If you don't think the budget is fair, that money is being spent for unnecessary items, or the amounts are excessive, you have the privilege to speak at the voting booth. County government is the closest we come to a democracy, other levels of government we are clearly a republic.

The other part of this discussion is if people don't like it, maybe they should run for office and have to make the decisions on what stays and what goes. It's easy to protest without knowing the complete story and having to deal with the fallout of your decision.
Who and what doesn't get funded if taxes aren't raised? What programs get cut? What public works projects don't get started or completed?
If you don't want to give teachers a raise, what is the impact on hiring and retaining qualified, and motivated teachers. (as a side note, location alone makes it harder to hire and retain new teachers).

 

[Goldenhawk]

The other part of this discussion is if people don't like it, maybe they should run for office and have to make the decisions on what stays and what goes. It's easy to protest without knowing the complete story and having to deal with the fallout of your decision.
Who and what doesn't get funded if taxes aren't raised? What programs get cut? What public works projects don't get started or completed?

... unless you're Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who clearly hasn't a clue how the real world actually works, thinks that government money just magically appears, and yet convinced millions of New York idiots to vote her into office, where she will continue to push for nonsensical government handout programs that are unsustainable and will bankrupt us. SMH...

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

The word 'moniker' means nickname. I think the word you're looking for is phrase. As in 'a silly little phrase'. You're welcome.

Can it be the nickname of my nickname? Oh alright, fine then. It's a phrase. Thank you.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

It's deceptively easy to buy into logic that every man is a sovereign nation, and the definition of "free" means that we can do whatever we wish.

That is not my definition. I am fully aware, and understand, that living among others in society that one cannot just do whatever one pleases. There are social norms, that, if, one wants to function properly and get along with others, there are certain decorums, customary behavior, and conformities that must be followed. That is not my argument. At no time associated with the previous statement, should others be allowed to force another to do, or take, something against their will. You want to raise revenue for governmental functions? Fine. Everything should be based on use. Want to purchase something in commerce? Pay a sales tax. Use a road or highway? Pay a gas tax. Etc. But never take from a person's labor wages. Never tax or levy a person's primary home.

 

[Goldenhawk]

At no time associated with the previous statement, should others be allowed to force another to do, or take, something against their will. You want to raise revenue for governmental functions? Fine. Everything should be based on use. Want to purchase something in commerce? Pay a sales tax. Use a road or highway? Pay a gas tax. Etc. But never take from a person's labor wages. Never tax or levy a person's primary home.

On the surface, that's a very reasonable argument. However, it apparently ignores the fact that certain things are practically necessary for modern life, and thus taxing them is just as forceful as taxing wages. Thus, the government is still forcing people to do something "against their will." (...or at least against YOUR will; I personally am willing to pay taxes and have the option of moving if I disagree.)

So if you only proposed to tax true luxuries, your argument would be more compelling.

But even that is not as simple as it first appears.

Is food a luxury or a necessity? Everyone must eat.
If food is a necessity, what about all items related to preparing the food properly? Can't have one without the other.
Is toilet paper a necessity?
If so, is Charmin a luxury simply because it's softer?
Is a car a luxury or a necessity, if you need to get to a job? Many jobs simply cannot be reached with a bicycle.
If a car is a necessity, then gas and related consumables and parts are also automatically a necessity.
If a car is a luxury, is a bicycle or walking shoes a necessity or luxury?
Is a road a luxury or necessity? If you've allowed that a car or even a bicycle are necessities, how can a road be a luxury?
Are clothes a necessity or luxury?
Is a cell phone a luxury or a necessity?
Is a house a luxury? If only basic living quarters are a necessity, where do you draw the line between luxury and necessity?
Is deodorant a luxury or necessity?
How about an electric razor? Do we draw the line at an old straight razor, or maybe at disposable safety razors?

When you start winnowing the list down like this, about the only things left as taxable are jewelry and higher-priced versions of items.

If you start worrying about how expensive or premium an item is, now the government is in the position of setting standards for luxury. "Everything is free, but only if you get the basic item. Otherwise, we're imposing a luxury tax." That starts to sound awful socialist. As a matter of fact, that's an awful lot like it goes in communist Cuba. That seems to violate the very heart of your viewpoints.

Even if we could solve that, then as soon as you only tax the luxury items, you'll have to heavily tax them to make enough money for all the necessary services. When you do that, people mostly stop buying the items with unfair tariffs, and the revenue stream goes away (c.f. "the law of unintended consequences"). Now you have no choice but to tax other items.

Also, note that unfair tariffs was one of the original complaints of the founders of our nation. Do we really want to go there again?

So I would stipulate that your proposal is an unworkable one.