patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

t's the implementation I had a problem with.

Yeah, because I don't have an implementation yet, just an idea. The next question is how to implement such a society. I think it will take many changes big and small. I have a few ideas on what some of those changes are, but not all of them.

For example, I think we need to move away from hierarchical power structures including corporations and towards a peer-to-peer power and distribution architecture. I.e., no CEOs or executives, just workers producing some function. Each node performs a specific function and services all other nodes on the network. Compensation flows as a function of how much a service is used. Any service can be replicated in multiple nodes for competition.

In such a network, there is no root, no headquarters, no board of directors. Direction is given entirely by market demands. No hierarchies and as such, no opportunity to steal production from other nodes. Individual nodes have no power, but ad-hoc networks of nodes can produce great things.

It's just pay or die, with your options limited to two or three identical insurers with identical premiums. They just pretend to compete.

All oligopolies behave this way. In function, oligopolies differ in no ways from monopolies.

CBOEtrader says

Sounds nice...but what does that mean?

The history of mankind could be viewed as subjects and disciplines moving from the arts to the sciences. This happened first with math, then physics, then chemistry, then biology, then ecology. Continuing this trend, one would expect government, economics, and social studies to make the transition next.

When a subject or discipline becomes a science or engineering field, it hardens. People stop talking about it in vague, unquantifiable terms and start talking in very specific, standard terminology. The subject becomes precise.

Of course, no one images that the subject could be a science. How could science possibly explain the creation of a baby, they'll say. But eventually it does with perfect precision.

"All you well off business owners listen up. It's because of me you've become wealthy, because I pay for the infrastructure!!"

--Elmer Fudd middle class taxpayer who paid a total of $1437 in taxes last year and needs to take credit for people's success to compensate for his own feelings of failure.

I don't hate Democracy. I just wonder why there is only Democracy, Socialism, Communism and dictatorship. I guess there are a few small others. It makes me think they can't count past 4 and come up with anything else. I think they are all bullshit. When fucking France has the same monetary system based on loans and lending. WTF is the difference. For fucking freedom fighters. This peoples sure loves the debt cage. Don't live a fucking childs fantasy. Because Monday morning comes and so does the end of the month and reality. So you play the game. The people that are "really" at the top. Are laughing at your people. I don't think the whole thing is so GD funny myself. Your never going to "reform" a debt merchant they are stubborn little bastards that love to swindel.

Artimus 8:00 o'clock Remeber I warned you if a debt merchant gives you flowers and balloons and wants to be your friend. Tell him to fuck off and walk away.

Let's start at the beginning.
1. What are people FOR?
2. What is Good, and what is Bad?
3. What is government/socialism/authority ?
4. What is money?
5. What is Opportunity and where does it come from?
6. What enables people to take advantage of opportunities?

Note: none of these questions are "Why" for a reason.
1. To be useful to the future of the universe over and above what they consume in resources (to give more than we take).
2. #1 pretty much defines "good" and "bad" because failing to do so means eventual extinction.
3. Tools that people choose to utilize in order to make survival more convenient and productive. If they become too productive/consumptive, then the available resources disappear or are contaminated with complexity (see "enough").
4. A tool that increases the efficiency of trade and production/consumption.
5. Opportunity is the occurrence of resources (people, places, tools, time, money, materials) which randomly becomes present to people, depending on initial conditions and circumstances (insert Chaos theory explanation here).
6. Preparation and willingness to take risks (combined).

If people are uneducated or unwilling to take risks, then they cannot take advantage of opportunities when they occur. If OTHER people hoard resources or control the resources, then opportunities are no longer presented randomly to those who are willing and able to take risks (the masses, for the most part).

The Redistribution platform is dependent upon overconsumption in order to have a place to tap resources for redistribution. It is not about normalizing the randomness of opportunity.
The Free Market platform is about hoarding resources by those who already have the resources under their control, in the guise of "we earned it".

Democrats do not stand for labor: they stand for the Labor Business.
Republicans do not stand for free markets, they stand for THEIR markets (mostly military and oil consumption).

There is no "Generosity" party.
Civilization IS socialism. How we choose to implement social/herd tools are a matter of how we choose to apply either wisdom or selfishness or blind authority.

"Every newspaper has a Business section. None of them have a Labor section." -Joe Bageant.

The ironic part is that when we are young (unprepared), we are more willing to take risks than when we are older and more able to be successful at it.

CBOEtrader says

The free market will work miracles if you let it.

There is no "free market" other than places like Somalia and Nigeria. In a true free market the person with the most guns sets the market. All other markets work within the legal and political structures of the society in which they exist. All markets must be balanced somewhere between predatory monopolies like the "guilded age" of the robber barons and overbearing government control like the former Soviet Union.

I would have thought the crash of 2008, brought about by a lack of regulation not over regulation, would have at least muted the senseless bleatings of the "free market" crowd. Businesses, especially large ones, are like small children and satellites. They must be constantly watched over or they will wander off and create mischief.

I'm not talking regulation of operations here, although some is necessary like not allowing dumping of deadly poison in rivers. Anyone remember the Cuyahoga river being so polluted that it actually caught fire in the 60's? Or all the superfund sites filled with deadly toxins? Meat packing in filth? Strip mining? The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

What I'm mostly talking about accountability, transparency, and a level playing field which are all sorely lacking in the US today. Many large businesses talk ad nausiam about the "free market" but endlessly manipulate the system to squash competition or manipulate markets in their favor.

Are there stupid, overbearing, senseless regulations. Of course there are, thousands of them. I've owned my own business and dealt with the inane crap enough. That's the nature of government. But simply throwing out all regulation and letting business run wild would make the situation many many orders of magnitude worse.

nw888 says

--Elmer Fudd middle class taxpayer who paid a total of $1437 in taxes last year and needs to take credit for people's success to compensate for his own feelings of failure.

I paid a total federal income tax of $24,828.00 last year alone, so I do claim credit for the success of billionaires. If you don't like that, send me back my 25 grand. It's a bit more than the figure you quoted.

ArtimusMaxtor says

I don't hate Democracy.

How can you hate that which does not exist? There hasn't been a Democracy on this planet for over two millenia.

Auntiegrav says

Democrats do not stand for labor: they stand for the Labor Business.
Republicans do not stand for free markets, they stand for THEIR markets (mostly military and oil consumption).

There is no "Generosity" party.
Civilization IS socialism.

All true.

bob2356 says

The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

How unpatriotic and un-American to ask such a question! ;-)

bob2356 says

What I'm mostly talking about accountability, transparency, and a level playing field which are all sorely lacking in the US today. Many large businesses talk ad nausiam about the "free market" but endlessly manipulate the system to squash competition or manipulate markets in their favor.

American as apple pie. God Bless America.

wthrfrk80 says

bob2356 says

The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

How unpatriotic and un-American to ask such a question! ;-)

Sorry, not actually being part of the 1% of the population that actually owns everything and gets the financial benefits for these types of activities I sometimes have these thoughts.

Dan8267 says

I paid a total federal income tax of $24,828.00 last year alone, so I do claim credit for the success of billionaires. If you don't like that, send me back my 25 grand. It's a bit more than the figure you quoted.

I think you should thank everyone on this forum for making you successful. Without us you would be nothing.

nw888 says

I think you should thank everyone on this forum for making you successful. Without us you would be nothing.

You still don't get it, do you? It's not that hard of a concept.

Reality isn't a choice between people being 100% responsible for their own success and being 0% responsible. There's a lot of values in between.

If I was born in Afghanistan, there is no way I would be a successful software engineer. Yet, I did teach myself everything I know about software, paid my own way through college, and exceeded at every job I took.

My success comes from both my efforts and the opportunities created by public investment including the electric grid, the Internet, and the HTS. This is true for all successful people.

The fact that I acknowledge the importance of having a stable government, infrastructure, the development of computers during WWII, and public domain knowledge does not in any way deteriorate my accomplishments or my hard work. It does, however, demonstrates that no person is makes it on his own despite society. That "rags to riches all by myself" myth is bullshit. And since you've accepted that I am one of those hard-working, successful individuals, then you should accept my point that in order to be great, you must stand on the shoulders of giants.

bob2356 says

There is no "free market" other than places like Somalia and Nigeria.

You are repeating the lies your talking head cheerleaders feed to you. There is nothing within Somalia or Nigeria that resembles a free market.

bob2356 says

In a true free market the person with the most guns sets the market.

Hahahahahahahahah...OMG. Wow. Ok, so if someone walks up to you with a gun, and demands all your stuff, in your world THAT'S A FREE MARKET TRANSACTION?!

bob2356 says

I would have thought the crash of 2008, brought about by a lack of regulation not over regulation

Again. Nonsense.

Specific regulations were destoyed in the name of the free market-- but in fact had zero to do with the free market. A free market requires proper regulation.

Many, many more onerous regulations were created over the years than destroyed. Besides, the financial industry is one of our most highly controlled and regulated industries. We regulated ourselves into an ologopolistic system, into too big to fail, into a money system controlled by the friends of the big banks.

2008 was a failure of our financial system-- which again, has little resemblance to a free market. The key elements of the 2008 crash would have been either non-existent, or greatly mitigated had big government not been controlling every aspect.

bob2356 says

There is no "free market"...

You don't even know what point you are trying to make. Is there no "free market" or was 2008 a failure of the free market?

bob2356 says

The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

What "crowd" are you talking about? Are you talking about Fox news? Fox news real purpose: a ready made go to straw man for all liberals. Talking heads on Fox news are only experts at public opinion manipulation-- certainly not economics.bob2356 says

What I'm mostly talking about accountability, transparency, and a level playing field which are all sorely lacking in the US today. Many large businesses talk ad nausiam about the "free market" but endlessly manipulate the system to squash competition or manipulate markets in their favor.

Exactly. Big government is the facilitating partner of big business. Together they are the aristocracy.

Dan8267 says

You still don't get it, do you? It's not that hard of a concept.

Dan8267 says

so I do claim credit for the success of billionaires

Yep...got your concept loud and clear. You're claiming that you are the reason that billionaires are where they are.

Obviously if we're born in a country of opportunity we are lucky, i just think that taking ownership for someone's success is both weird and ridiculous. I pay more taxes than you do, so I pay more than my fair share of infrastructure costs. My parents paid for the infrastructure while I was a child. I'll give them some props, but not you or the guy down the street. You have nothing to do with my success.

nw888 says

Yep...got your concept loud and clear. You're claiming that you are the reason that billionaires are where they are.

Yep, I personally am. I'm also claiming credit for creating oxygen, light, and the Earth.

Tell me, are you really that stupid or are you just deliberately misinterpreting what I've said? Are you really so freaking brain dead that you read what I wrote and came to the conclusion that I'm stating that I am personally responsible for every fucking thing that goes right in the universe? If so, please don't reproduce. Our species doesn't need genetic predisposition to that level of stupidity.

On the small chance that you might just be drunk out of your rocker, I suggest reading this entire thread again, this time without your head stuck up your ass. If you do that with a clear and open mind, you should be able to come back and demonstrate your reading comprehension skills by stating what I and others have actually said instead of the bullshit Straw Man arguments you are refuting.

Do that, and I'll have respect for you. Continue on this assine path of deliberate misinterpretation and I'll have no problem brushing you off as another mindless troll who's too much of a pussy to address his opponents actual arguments.

mw888, welcome to the delusional world of liberal thinking in the flesh.

It seems like you're one of the few that want to take ownership of yourself, your efforts, and the results - whatever they are, good or bad.

You take personal responsibility for yourself and the outcome. The liberal interpretation: HOW DARE YOU! The government is supposed to take care of you from womb to tomb.

You are already the target. You'll recieve insults, verbal jabs, derogatory sexual slurs, and put downs of every shape. Thats how the lib's on this site operate. They don't want anyone to exhibit self sufficiency. They don't want anyone to question authority. They want to maintain the status quo. They don't want anyone with common sense or logic.

Here is the lib's battle cry: Government - good, thinking for yourself or being self sufficient- bad. Communism, collectivism, socialsim, statism - good, being independent - bad. Equality - good, freedom and opportunity - bad.

You get the picture,

Honest Abe

nw888 says

Obviously if we're born in a country of opportunity we are lucky, i just think that taking ownership for someone's success is both weird and ridiculous.

You clearly miss the point here. It's the collective accomplishments of society that deserves credit for the success of our people. Yes, the individual is also important, but the most amazing individual in the world will still fail without an adequate base of:

- Infrastructure
- Employees
- Customers
- Rule of law

I pay more taxes than you do,

Can you prove that?

so I pay more than my fair share of infrastructure costs.

Logical fallacy I'm afraid. You paying more taxes than Dan does not mean that you pay more than your "fair share". Realistically, based on your previous threads and your implied income level, I find it unlikely that you're actually paying your fair share. Most people don't.

My parents paid for the infrastructure while I was a child.

This is also unlikely, but even if it was, it's not like infrastructure is a fixed, one-time cost.

I'll give them some props, but not you or the guy down the street. You have nothing to do with my success.

Try living in a country without infrastructure, skilled employees, good customers, and the rule of law for a while and then let me know how successful you are.

Kevin says

You paying more taxes than Dan does not mean that you pay more than your "fair share".

Somehow I doubt that nw888 pays more in taxes than I do or has a higher income. He strikes me as someone deluded into thinking that someday he'll be rich because he's so special.

In any case, as for taxation, I would be all for replacing the general income tax fund with taxing for specific services. For example, the roads would be paid for with an automobile tax and/or gas tax. Lighthouses would be paid for by boat registration taxes. Education would be paid for by a child tax. Police and fire departments would still be paid for via land / real estate taxes. In other words, socialize the cost of a service over the users of that service rather than the population at large.

Such a system would eliminate the free-for-all tax and spend policies encouraged, nay demanded, by a single general source of revenue. Furthermore, such a system would allow the tax-payers to have a more refined control over government spending. Boat owners could vote on whether or not to build more lighthouses. Commuters could decide how much they want to spend on expanding roads. Parents could vote on whether or not the public education system works or needs to be expanded or contracted.

Of course, such a system would not be a graduated tax system, but it does not have to be. An income tax, applied only to the richest people, and graduated as a function of the rich-poor gap could still be used to provide social services aimed at eliminating poverty and insuring a minimum standard of living. This was the original intention of the federal income tax. And it would give the rich motivation to make the poor better off since it would be the only way to make themselves better off. I.e., if the rich wanted to be richer they would have to solve poverty not cause it.

Of course, the best situation for society is for it to be impossible for parasites to become billionaires in the first place. Society should be structured so that the only way to become rich is to produce wealth rather than siphoning it off of others. Most of those self-proclaimed self-made men are simply parasites who got lucky and ended up rich instead of in prison where they belong.

Dan8267 says

Most of those self-proclaimed self-made men are simply parasites who got lucky and ended up rich instead of in prison where they belong.

Yup. It is my opinion that those who siphoned value, did so with the government as their main partner. Mitt Romney for example, made his fortune in private equity. The private equity lobby has given themselves a favorable tax and legal structure-- allowing them to make an investment which is 10% of their equity, 90% debt on the purchased company's balance sheet. They bring in an army of consultants, whose job it is to show a few quarters of increased returns-- long term value is seondary, though nice if it happens. They then pile on more debt to the purchased company's balance sheet, which they take out as bonuses for themselves.

In short, a year into it, they have zero skin in the game. The company and banks shoulder all the risk, while the private equity firm has set themselves up with a free call option.

It's sickening...and not even close to the worst siphoning game. All of this is only possible because the government lets industry lobbyists write the laws and regulations.

There's a world of difference between Lloyd Blankfein and Sergei Brin. It is not coincidence that Mr. Brin's company operates in a mostly free market industry and creates value for all of us-- whereas Lloyd Blankfein operates in a highly government controlled industry, and his company destroys wealth for the general public.

Dan8267 says

ell me, are you really that stupid or are you just deliberately misinterpreting what I've said? Are you really so freaking brain dead that you read what I wrote and came to the conclusion that I'm stating that I am personally responsible for every fucking thing that goes right in the universe? If so, please don't reproduce. Our species doesn't need genetic predisposition to that level of stupidity.

There's no reason to be rude, so please refrain from doing it. If you want to have an adult discussion, that's fine with me, but let's be civil here.

You stated that you take credit for people's success. There's no arguing that. Own your words sir. I've read this whole thread, and your quote on taking credit is what prompted me to respond.

I'm with the whole being the reason for the individual. Without the whole we would be nothing. No one's arguing that.

Dan8267 says

Most of those self-proclaimed self-made men are simply parasites who got lucky and ended up rich instead of in prison where they belong.

See it's statements like this to lead me to believe you have this skewed view of wealthy people, and you are trying to both take credit for and demean their success. That's what I have a problem with. Maybe you're speaking specifically about bankers though? If so, it's best to be very clear on who you're speaking of.

Kevin says

nw888 says

Obviously if we're born in a country of opportunity we are lucky, i just think that taking ownership for someone's success is both weird and ridiculous.

You clearly miss the point here. It's the collective accomplishments of society that deserves credit for the success of our people. Yes, the individual is also important, but the most amazing individual in the world will still fail without an adequate base of:

- Infrastructure
- Employees
- Customers
- Rule of law

No I understand the point perfectly.
Kevin says

Logical fallacy I'm afraid. You paying more taxes than Dan does not mean that you pay more than your "fair share". Realistically, based on your previous threads and your implied income level, I find it unlikely that you're actually paying your fair share. Most people don't.

I pay plenty of money to cover roads and services that I use. I pay for a lot of services that I don't use, so yes I pay my fair share and then some.

My parents paid for their services via taxes as well, so how were they not paying for the infrastructure?
Kevin says

Try living in a country without infrastructure, skilled employees, good customers, and the rule of law for a while and then let me know how successful you are.

Again, I'm not arguing that living in this country doesn't provide opportunity. Just because you as an individual pay taxes doesn't mean you contribute to a rich person's success anymore than I do. Employees and good customers need business owners who provide a product just as much as the business needs them. It's a mutualism.

I just think this thread is trying to imply that rich people are nothing with US, and that's one sided to me.

What a loser argument. Do Democrats really want to tell Americans that they are nothing without the Government wiping our behinds 24/7? It's just like that creepy "Julia" cartoon that Obama put out showing how the government supported Julia her entire life.

Seriously, who really wants to live in a society where all of our success and very existence is beholden to politicians and union protected bureaucrats?

nw888 says

There's no reason to be rude, so please refrain from doing it. If you want to have an adult discussion, that's fine with me, but let's be civil here.

There is nothing ruder than shoving your words down someone else's mouth. It should a distinct lack of respect for the other party, the audience, and the truth. I'll correct a person the first and second time they do it, but when it becomes a pattern, there is no choice but to call out the bullshit for what it is.

nw888 says

You stated that you take credit for people's success. There's no arguing that.

This is exactly the bullshit that I'm talking about. So, yes, I'm arguing it, you idiot. My claim is that in order for any person to succeed, he must use resources that are available only because society has made those resources available. The real world ain't Minecraft where you can chop down a tree with you bare hands and two days later have a castle on a private island you created with plenty of torches to keep the monsters at bay. In the real world we all use resources that we take for granted from roads to sewer systems to the electric grid that make modern life possible and becoming rich possible. Without all the inventions and institutions and labor of countless pass generations, we'd still be in the stone age. No man is an island that creates billions of dollars of wealth without using other people's labor.

This point is so obvious that there is no argument against it. And that is precisely why you deliberately twisted these words into "Dan thinks he is personally responsible for any success any person in the world has ever had". That is fucking retarded and quite frankly not worthy of my respect. If you want to have an adult conversation, than stop making childish and obvious Straw Man arguments. It shows that you have no confidence in what you are saying.

nw888 says

I just think this thread is trying to imply that rich people are nothing with US, and that's one sided to me.

That's because you're not listening. This thread is clearly addressing the myth that the ultra-rich are solely responsible for their riches and society contributed nothing to their success, and therefore the rich are morally responsible when they say "I've got mine, fuck everybody else".

What's really apparent is that well off middle class people with six figure salaries, who actually produce the wealth they take home, are perfectly ok with acknowledging that the poor and middle class should be protected from exploitation, whereas the utlra-rich, who never produced any wealth in their lives, want a multitude of poor people to maintain their opulent lifestyles. And the ultra-rich brainwash the Republican voter into thinking that the ultra-rich are rich because of hard work and production instead of bribing Congress to let them do things that would be illegal for anyone else.

Dan8267 says

the utlra-rich, who never produced any wealth in their lives, want a multitude of poor people to maintain their opulent lifestyles. And the ultra-rich brainwash the Republican voter into thinking that the ultra-rich are rich because of hard work and production instead of bribing Congress to let them do things that would be illegal for anyone else

Yes, I believe that the uber rich want to feel as though they are at an all inclusive resort in a developing country - where they feel like kings while local employees serve them with a smile on their face while they work for scraps.

Dan8267 says

This is exactly the bullshit that I'm talking about. So, yes, I'm arguing it, you idiot.

Go fuck yourself.

Dan8267 says

My claim is that in order for any person to succeed, he must use resources that are available only because society has made those resources available.

Isn't this claim obvious? Why are we even discussing it? Everyone needs each other to survive.

nw888 says

Go fuck yourself.

You're a fuckin' asshole. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!

socal2 says

What a loser argument. Do Democrats really want to tell Americans that they are nothing without the Government wiping our behinds 24/7? It's just like that creepy "Julia" cartoon that Obama put out showing how the government supported Julia her entire life.

Seriously, who really wants to live in a society where all of our success and very existence is beholden to politicians and union protected bureaucrats?

Only people with really, really low reading comprehension. You must have gone to public schools.

dublin hillz says

Yes, I believe that the uber rich want to feel as though they are at an all inclusive resort in a developing country - where they feel like kings while local employees serve them with a smile on their face while they work for scraps.

Oh, I don't think that just want to feel it. Many of them seem to be actively trying to make it a reality.

Debunking the Self made man - debunked. Government occupies the central role in creating conditions which lessen economic prosperity and personal opportunity.

Government despises, demonizes and punishes economic prosperity while simultaneously crushing personal opportunity.

The proof is that government strives to create EQUALITY which negates, or is the opposite of, economic prosperity and personal opportunity.

Honest Abe says

The proof is that government strives to create EQUALITY which negates, or is the opposite of, economic prosperity and personal opportunity.

Equality is the opposite of personal opportunity only if you believe in nothing but zero-sum games.

Arguing that people who have made money from scratch because of infrastructure is a facile argument.
Of course having roads to transport goods is helpful and so is having the internet to communicate. People who are self made have contributed to these systems too and in fact have usually kicked in vastly more than whiny journalists. Outside of the extreme fringe of the Libertarian party who would ever complain about some services being publicly provided?
As a Los Angeles resident, it is very obvious to me that a significant proportion of the population doesn't work. On my middle class street there are a couple of households at best that go off to work every day. Yet they can afford these houses and most have big, shiny late model cars in the driveway. Unless I happen to live on a street with independably wealthy people myself and a few others are paying for all the public services we all enjoy.

m1ckey6 says

Arguing that people who have made money from scratch because of infrastructure is a facile argument.

And I would agree with that up to the point where conservatives argue against this facile truth with the myth of the self-made man who succeeded, not because of all the opportunities and support he received from society, but despite it and therefore he has no moral or ethical obligation, no duty to return to society a bit of the profits so that the next generation can have successful people as well.

The self-made man myth is used as a justification for selfishness and self-centerness. It runs contrary to the self-evident truths that now people are claiming are obvious. It has been said that the truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. Although, until nw888, I never saw a person go through all three stages in a few lines of text.

Its really about the difference between freedom and slavery. Many support the concept of free enterprise (freedom). Liberals believe they own the person or the labor of the person . Owning another person, or the fruits of their labor is slavery, isn't it?

Honest Abe says

Liberals believe they own the person or the labor of the person .

I have yet to meet a liberal who believes that.

As for taxation being slavery, our employers tax us at 50-80% of our labor's fruits. Out of the remaining portion, government only taxes about 25%. I'm more a slave to my employer than to the government.

The fact is that no system could make an executive a billionaire without heavily taxing the producing class.

Dan8267 says

As for taxation being slavery, our employers tax us at 50-80% of our labor's fruits.

Well that's a perspective I hadn't thought of.

But you're right, the targetting of our wallets by corporations is pretty direct & comparable. Whatever you make, they want to find a way to make you spend it on their products.

Dan, how is it the employer taxes us 50 - 80%?? Maybe I'm missing something, please elaobrate.

Honest Abe says

Dan, how is it the employer taxes us 50 - 80%?? Maybe I'm missing something, please elaobrate.

As I showed earlier in this thread, the average American worker produces over $100k of wealth a year, yet is paid before taxes about a third of that. Where does the rest of the wealth go? It goes to the employer as a tax on the employee's productivity.

Now a 10% tax on employee productivity would be somewhat reasonable. At that rate, an employer only has to employ 10 people to make as much as the workers while doing minimum work himself, but to take about two-thirds of the worker's income is extravagant by any standards.

The bottom line is that your employer takes a far larger chunk of your wealth production than your government. Yet people ignore this because they have no idea how much money their employers are making off of them. Ignorance is their greatest tool. That's why salary information is always secret.