Public Schools - Indoctrination Centers

And that no longer makes it ideological?

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things as in several philosophical tendencies, or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.

Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

If I were to tell you that I wasn't a Capitalist, that I was a "Practicalist" who cared only about 'what works in the real world', and that I wasn't ideological at all, what would you say to help me see the truth?

No please, explain to me how to more precisely convey the concept of: Using the law, rather than a gun, to take money away from one individual - without compensation - and then hand that money over to a different individual - who did not earn it and does not deserve it.

The 'forced redistribution of wealth' sums all that up pretty nicely but I'm open to suggestions.

Then you ARE opposed to progressive taxes?

After the civil war laws were written that everyone was subject to equally - it just so happned that the only ones who were not allowed to vote under the laws were blacks. It is not enough that the people are subject to the same laws. The intent of the law must also not be to treat people differently. A truly fair law when it comes to income tax would be that each person pays the same percent with no deductions or exemptions for any reason. If we must have income tax laws then at first glance I think income from all sources must be treated the same. Why should the gov decide that investment must be encouraged more than labor? If the tax rate were small enough then we would not even complain about poor people paying income tax. I suggest that everyone poor or rich could afford 3% income tax, 5% sales tax, and enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered. The economy would be so much more prosperous that the gov would take in more than now. Poverty would be lower as would unwed mothers, and people who do not save for retirement or health needs. With the increased revenue to gov, decreased social problems, and greater prosperity we could do more to solve social problems than can do now.

Lets revisit the notion that progressive taxes subject everyone to the same laws equally.

What would happen if we paid people progressively? People who work more would be paid progressively more so doctors who tend to work a lot of hours would be paid even more than they are today. Drafted them progressively? People who are out of work have more time to spare so they can serve their country for longer stints. Feed people progressively? People who order more food at mcdonalds can pay three times as much for only twice as much food so a happy meal costs three dollars but a value meal costs ten. People who get better grades should REALLy get better grades so an F is an F but a D is a B and and a C is an A+++ and a ...

I am not coming up with good example so if anyone can think of better ones please post.

An example of an enumerated fee on a real estate tax bill might be: "#15 garbage removal: All enrolled property owners need to include $375 for their share of waste services."

A very good rule of taxation is that if you tax something you make it more rare. Taxes on cigarettes for example are enacted specifically to make smoking rare. When the gov taxes labor at about 32% and taxes investments at about 15% it is encouraging investment but also discouraging working. For those who have enough money there is no doubt why they choose to work less and to invest more which is exactly why buffet pays less as a percentage than his very well off secretary.

But backing up and looking from outside we can see that the tax on labor discourages labor, the tax on investment discourages investment, the tax on liquor discourages buying booze, same for cigarettes, candy, corn, gasoline, and in short all products or services that are taxed. Taxes are in fact a huge drag on the entire economy and with no taxes at all the economy would operate at its most efficient. We do need to fund gov and there will have to be some drag on the economy but we must aim to make the drag as small as possible so that prosperity can be shared by all.

Exactly! If the justice system is doing its jobs then there is no need for a gov system of social justice. If the justice system is not doing its job then the solution is to fix the justice system not waste more money creating new systems that won't work.

Let's not... Treating everyone equally means doing just that. The power to selectively raise and lower taxes for specific individuals or demographic groups, to benefit some at the expense of others, is not equal treatment under the law. So many of our nation's problems come from government using and abusing that power.

It's immoral: Individuals are not being treated equally under the law. Some are getting punished for making decisions you disagree with while others get rewarded for making decision of which you approve. It is impossible to target a specific behavior, to punish or reward, with laws that truly apply equally to everyone.

It distorts the free market: Taxing one group, e.g. smokers, to discourage smoking artificially increases the cost of cigarettes - that's the point, right? Well that is government interference in the free market. That distortion is compounded further if tax rates are then lowered on some other group or activity to encourage a more healthy lifestyle.

It creates partisanship and breeds corporatism: With the power to benefit some at the expense of others, citizens are no longer seen as individuals but voting blocks of special interest groups. With just two major parties on the ballots, both will be lobbied extensively and showered with campaign funds in hopes of obtaining special treatment for supportive special interests.

The Free Market is the economic system within the Capitalist ideology. One cannot exist without the other, that's why the two are often confused for being one in the same. If you are this confused about the subject, I can only imagine how few public school children would know the difference.

And, while I know Free Markets do work in the real world, you are often the one claiming that it does not - like you did with HC. You didn't think a system of volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange would be "practical" because it could not guarantee results - but no system can.

So, like with Capitalism, just pretend it isn't there and it won't exist...? You do have an ideology. We all do. Even if you've taken bits and pieces from a whole bunch of ideologies and made a combination that doesn't quite fit any of the current definitions for any of the other specific ideologies, it's still an ideology - it just hasn't yet been named. So we'll name this amalgamation of Collectivism, Utilitarianism, and Pragmatism... We'll call it "Practicalism" and you can take credit as being the first "practicalist", congratulations.

So, because I get to vote, I should just accept the fact that my life, liberty and property are all at the mercy of my neighbors whims? The purpose of government is to secure our liberties, not to legalize their violations at the voting booth . The fruits of my labor are being forcibly taken (opposite of volitional consent) without compensation (opposite of mutually beneficial exchange) and given away to someone who did not earn it and does not deserve it. If "taxation with representation" means we give up all our other rights to have the right to cast a ballot, then I don't want any part of it and formerly withdraw my "consent" as one of the governed.

The entire purpose of having a Republic is to protect the rights of the individual from being violated by a "Democratically elected" majority. That's what separates a "Democracy!" from a Republic. I wonder how many public school children know the difference...

So your saying that taxing something produces less of it? Maybe someone should tell the Obama voters that. Being he ran on raising taxes on the job creators.

If there is already a sales tax then a gas tax would be an additional tax on top of the sales tax. But your point that the tax on gas would logically go to bridges and highways is something I have been saying for a long long time. Tax money should be taxed in a way that is relevant to its purpose.

I was indeed thinking of my local real estate taxes. A second principle is that taxes should be as local as possible. Anyone who wants a representative gov knows that at the local level maybe a few thousand people vote so each vote is highly represented. But at the federal level when millions vote each vote is swallowed up and diluted.

That starts out as a nice principle but fails when just about every economic activity is something that we should want to encourage. Consider gas taxes for example: people use gas to run their businesses, to deliver groceries..

In end it is not wise for the gov to get involved in picking winners and losers. It should aim not to discourage economic activity but not to choose which is preferable. Sadly that seems to be the main role of gov today in the form of just about every regulation written that benefits someone at the expense of someone else. Then the game morphes into who can lobby best rather than what laws best serve the country.

Kind of sick isnt it?

If the definition of "reasonable" is 'within the bounds of reason' then, no, it's not reasonable. Force and reason are opposites. Hiking taxes on cigarettes to "discourage smoking" isn't reasonable at all, it's coercion. The thinking is, "if they can't afford to smoke because of higher taxes, they'll quit, and then they'll be better off", but you have no right to force your opinions on others through government.

Crowd laughs as Chicago Teachers Union president talks about killing the rich

“… Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.”
Some in the audience laughed and clapped at her remark.
“I don’t think we’re at that point,” Lewis laughingly replied, without specifying when “that point” might arrive. “And that’s scary to most people. But the key is they think nothing of killing us. They think nothing of putting our people in harm’s way. They think nothing of lethal working conditions.”
She then used schools without air conditioning as an example of “lethal working conditions.”