Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

IDK what you mean by power of mitigation, but it doesn't sound like the financial power to which I was referring. I did not mean to imply that financial was the only form of power at the gov't's disposal.

You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.

So you just said that the ONLY way for public bureaucracy to make money is by taxation?
Have you heard of government owned industries?
You must have. So this use of language is intentionally misleading, or intended to to stir an emotional response.

Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).

I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.

{I deleted everything past this because it seems pointless to argue definitions over basic words that are common parlance.}

This conversation is not educational for me; I'm sorry if I wasted any of your time.

I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're suggesting that citizens being forced to finance the government is what gives them mitigation capacity. Unless I misread what you originally said.

You did.

Your point is included in what I said. A government owned industry would gather its revenues by consumer choice. If it was not by consumer choice, it would be taxation. In this case, the taxation would come by the means of forced consumption, but that still is a tax (SCOTUS ruled as much in the ACA case a few years ago).

I have not attempted to mislead or evoke an emotional response.

If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.

"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."
False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.

Any prevarication on your part to alter the meaning of that sentence after you posted it is a waste of our time.

I think we're just getting started. A week or so ago, it appeared to me that you said something along the lines of not being interested in understanding the philosophy and function of government. The confusion that you have with my post is what I think includes the philosophy and function of government. To repeat the main example: when you thought I hadn't considered government owned industries, I actually had because they fall into either category of consumer choice or forced consumption/taxation.

blah, blah...

That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.

[wufwugy]

You did.

Then please clarify what you meant here:

The government needs $XX dollars to maintain programs and services. These dollars come from taxes, because that is the most direct way to ensure the flow of money (power) to the government is mitigated by the citizens.

If my point is included in what you said, then your use of words is misleading to the point of conversation stopping in every post.

I don't think that's the case. I have not improperly used words in this exchange.

"Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore."

Here's the full quote

Removing taxes from the equation means the government can't operate anymore. Any government that could operate would be one whose revenues are by choice, and that is when it would be beholden to the citizens.

You are saying I said the first part but not the second part.

False. Governments can operate using money from state-owned corporations. The consumers are outside the country, as the state exports all of the goods.

This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.

That thing you wrote meant the opposite of the literal reading... again. I'm glad I wasted the time taking you seriously, just so you could tell me how you meant the thing you didn't write.

Maybe it was wrong for me to have earlier admitted that I have on occasion used a word or two in a way they're more extremely defined (while still being philosophically accurate), because it seems now you're seeing it where it isn't the case. I'm using standard definitions. It is the logic you use that I'm disagreeing with, yet it seems that you're brushing that off by assuming I'm just making up definitions or something.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is consumption by choice. These state-owned corporations would be receiving revenues by the choice of the people in foreign countries to consume those exports.

Then the government is not beholden to its citizens for its income.

[wufwugy]

Then the government is not beholden to its citizens for its income.

You're going down a weird logic path based on the mistake in believing taxation makes government beholden to its citizens. That is like saying a guy who takes something from you is beholden to you because you're affected by his taking.

Taxation has the opposite effect of what you claim. It makes the citizens beholden to the government.


Also get over your kick of saying I'm using words wrongly. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and being nice when I conceded that I could have been clearer. I haven't been using any words wrongly. Instead I've been using them in ways of more understanding than is colloquially standard. You're basically complaining about having to learn more about what these words mean.