Speaking of parties... I think they're stupid. Not just as a concept, but in practice, too. Especially since their definitions are liable to change, or how unlikely every single tenet is to match your beliefs unless you allow the label to wear you instead of you it.
In particular, I have an issue with herd mentality/mob mentality/sheeple (whatever you want to call it), which I attribute as a common production and/or byproduct of parties. I don't care for anything that imposes or inspires the need to think less for oneself and to let someone else do more of the thinking for you. I'm pretty sure that they're supposed to be representing our ideas and beliefs, not us representing theirs.
Would you believe even with all I say and my positions clearly being in line with allot of conservatives I am still Registered as and consider myself to be a Democrat. The thing is looking at the history of the party over all I'm sitting where the middle was before Reagan. How disturbing is that?
Well, Reagan did say that the democratic party left him, not the other way around.
Hope I didn't offend you or come across harsh in any of this.
And, no, you didn't offend me. I have no reason to argue against something as if I completely know what I'm talking about, which I know I don't. Obviously taxation is more complicated than simply seeing the numbers and expecting them to read as such. But I've heard from both sides of the political spectrum -- on many occasions -- that the tax rate on the rich is less. However, since I don't like taxes, despite the amount of times I heard it, the details never really stuck; I'm mostly left with the impression. I'm not even sure
what taxes were being referred to. All I know is that it's two numbers, one applied to the wealthy and another that isn't. It could be an average of multiple progressive rates for all I know.
Concerning something Frice brought up: mind you, I was tempted to say a lot of "bad things" about Beck in my first post, but I didn't see what the point would be in this context. I just don't like people who try to manipulate others like he does, especially since many of the ideas he tries to spread to others would likely inspire them to support people who -- in my opinion -- will do the country more harm than good. I see him like I do most televangelists, and if you recall how I believe that prayer is all anyone needs to communicate with God (a middleman to Him is ridiculous, isn't it?), you can probably imagine why. That's what I'm hoping for, at any rate.
Your view on Capitalism is why I feel you are a socialist.
What is my view? Also: how can I be a socialist if I don't even know (mostly because I forget) exactly what that portends? Whenever I do bother to look it up, what I remember is disagreement on some of its basic tenets. And I often hear it summarized as "share the wealth." Either way, labeling is cheap and dirty, and you should know better considering we agree on plenty of non-socialist ideas; whatever they happen to be. I just know they're not because you'd likely not support them if they were. ;p
But I'll tell you my view on capitalism. It's the profit portion of it that I detest the existence of. Most modern capitalists -- as far as I see it -- place their focus on profit, so I know it's not the true face of capitalism. But it's still the reality of what it is right now, at least to me. I believe in trade, in equal give and take. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What goes up, must come down. The problem with profit is that, unlike in nature, it's only when there's too little that there is any real problem. (But, even then, a person could live without it under the right circumstances.) Having too much is a target of theft, but there are ways to defend against it. Otherwise, there's no real consequence to having far more money than one needs. It's not like breathing in too much oxygen, which becomes harmful -- even deadly -- instead of being life and health-sustaining as usual. I believe in balance. Capitalism, even in its ideal form, is not balanced. Profit is extra. It tells me that someone got more out of the deal than the other person did. But that may just be me. I blame the dictionary.
Of course, you probably know that it's more than mere profit that I dislike. Though I don't see how disliking currency makes me a socialist, either. I mean, obviously, mankind had to get this far without using currency. Heck, even trade. I don't see what's wrong with one person helping another, and vice versa. And if I recall correctly, Jesus endorsed helping people in need without expecting something in return. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Seems simple enough. Besides, we help each other unofficially, anyway. We just use money as an impetus or as an excuse to do it. Because money, being an object, can make people lose sight of what's really important. And money isn't. It's only important because we believe it is. In the same way we believe that the dollar has any real value.
Also: is taxation a form of socialism? People are forced to chip in money for various things concerning both few, many and all people.
I don't think a Revolution can give us anything better than we currently have unless it is well informed and educated with all the lessons we had in our first Revolution.
Don't be so pessimistic. That's my job. ;p
Voluntary Tax would never work.
Where there's a will there's a way. It certainly wouldn't work with how the system currently stands, but in a more pristine republic and democracy there shouldn't be any reason for it not to work. I think we're more than technologically advanced enough. And if people don't put enough funds into something important, and it blows up in their face, they'll get an abject lesson in priorities. After all, it'd be hard to fund a war if you can't work due to being sickened by water that hadn't been purified. It'd be a good way to keep people focused on the needs of their community and the country as a whole. Jesus also had something to say about that. Something about noticing a small something in someone else's eye but not the big something in their own eye; one needs to first take care of the object in their own eye before they address that of another's.
Did you know that right now Federal Regulations currently in place and supposedly in force by character count is 3 times more text than the total printed works collected in the library of Congress. Before the Obama Administration it was only 1/2 by character count the total printed material of the library. I think we have room to do allot of cutting.
I wasn't particularly aware of that, no. I'm not against cutting regulations, but they shouldn't be taken too far. Any person or entity who commits a crime should have to account for it, so certain regulations should stay in place. But whenever I hear about the kind of deregulation this or that person wants, it sounds like the kind of stuff that would allow said people and entities to act with impunity at the expense of the average citizen.