Fed up with War, some won't pay Taxes - Page 2

Kytro · 07-08-2007, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The people DO NOT have the right to make day to day policy. We are not a democracy.

No, not a direct democracy (well some states do have elements of that) - I am not suggesting that it should be, just that representative democracy (which the US is according to the accepted understanding and dictionary definition) has flaws as well.

thomez · 07-08-2007, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

That obviously works well

not a problem with the system, a problem of apathy

maybe these people who don't want to pay for needless war will work a little harder to campaign for their candidate next time

Kytro · 07-08-2007, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think the contentious objector excuse is bullshit, both for taxes and for service. If your religion or conscience won't allow you to participate in national defense, then go live somewhere else where you're not dead weight. People can't have their cake and eat it to. If you want the protections of this nation even when the nation doesn't feel like it, then you should fight/fund for the nation even if you don't feel like it.

I'd rather be in jail than fight for something I didn't believe in.

Joe_Cool · 07-08-2007, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

That obviously works well

It works as intended.

Kytro · 07-08-2007, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

not a problem with the system, a problem of apathy

maybe these people who don't want to pay for needless war will work a little harder to campaign for their candidate next time

Really, so people are wrong, and the system is right....just like communism would work if only people were not so corrupt

Kytro · 07-08-2007, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

It works as intended.

So it was intended to give an illusion of control - because that is what it is right now.

thomez · 07-08-2007, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Really, so people are wrong, and the system is right....

people suck at voting

and communism has more faults than corruption

Kytro · 07-09-2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

people suck at voting

and communism has more faults than corruption

Yes, it does have more faults than that -it was just an illustration that any system needs to account for human behaviour.

People suck at voting because they lack the understanding of politics.

The issues are broken down into simple concepts that do no accurately represent the actual problems faced. Politicians' primary goal is to get elected, and basically do do that they generally manipulate voters using these simple concepts.

The problem with the system is most people don't have the time / inclination to understand running a nation - so when they decide who they want to represent them they are doing so with a flawed understanding of why.

Ideally a system wouldn't let flawed decision impact decision making. This is almost impossible to achieve as it would effectively mean policies would have to be determined based proven results as opposed to what a politician thinks.

Joe_Cool · 07-09-2007, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

So it was intended to give an illusion of control - because that is what it is right now.

It was intended that the people would choose representatives who would make decisions on their behalf. You want control? Make your voice heard and vote for somebody different next time. Or even better, RUN FOR OFFICE.

That's how it works. Everything doesn't come grinding to a halt because YOU don't like it.

Kytro · 07-09-2007, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

It was intended that the people would choose representatives who would make decisions on their behalf. You want control? Make your voice heard and vote for somebody different next time. Or even better, RUN FOR OFFICE.

That's how it works. Everything doesn't come grinding to a halt because YOU don't like it.

I am not advocating more control to people in general, I don't believe most people are in a good position to be making policy decisions.

I was just pointing out that people have less of a say than it appears on the surface.

I can vote for someone who represents me all I want but it is still unlikely to impact things greatly simply because most people do not make informed choices

avsp · 07-09-2007, 07:56 AM

Opt outs as suggested in the original article are probably even more divisive than unpopular wars. Although I do admire the 'pay cut' approach

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

[... snip]
I think the contentious objector excuse is bullshit, both for taxes and for service. If your religion or conscience won't allow you to participate in national defense, then go live somewhere else where you're not dead weight. People can't have their cake and eat it to. If you want the protections of this nation even when the nation doesn't feel like it, then you should fight/fund for the nation even if you don't feel like it.

Arent COs typically, in times of conscription, given non-combatant military medical roles?

Complaints about voter apathy here in the UK have led to calls that voters should be able to directly influence some spending decisions @ local council level.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Voters given local budget powers

If ppl could be more directly involved then perhaps they'd eventually learn to appreciate being better informed?

Is it the impression that the various 'proposition' votes increase informed engagment amongst those who otherwise wouldnt bother?

Diesel66 · 07-10-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

Arent COs typically, in times of conscription, given non-combatant military medical roles?

yes. Or other govt jobs (firefighters)

And remember CO's are those who refuse to fight FOR ANY REASON.

Joe_Cool · 07-10-2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I was just pointing out that people have less of a say than it appears on the surface.

The people don't have ANY say, other than voting for a representative and calling his office to ask him to vote the way they want him to.

WickedLou9 · 07-10-2007, 02:16 PM

I think that such a bill would open the door to further tax challenges where contientous objectors would want thier money used for faith based funding, or would not want any of thier money to go to AIDS research, etc. If we allow people an option for religous objections, people would object to everything and it would be a beurocratic nightmare.

I too think that the correct answer is that if your congressmen and/or senator support the war and you don't... vote them out of office. This is a republic where we elect people to do our will. I don't think it's a good idea for the general public to decide where and how thier individual tax dollars are spent.

If you look at the last election, the process does work. Fed up with the war, the american people voted many of the incumbants out of office and the direction has changed. You hear more people in government now calling for an end to the war than we had previous to the last election.

Kytro · 07-10-2007, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

The people don't have ANY say, other than voting for a representative and calling his office to ask him to vote the way they want him to.

It isn't something I think is a particularity good way running a country, better than many others perhaps, but still quite flawed.

Joe_Cool · 07-11-2007, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It isn't something I think is a particularity good way running a country, better than many others perhaps, but still quite flawed.

I don't agree at all. Neither did the people who founded this country.

Joe_Cool · 07-11-2007, 02:47 AM

This crackpot idea that the US is a democracy and everybody gets his say is the source of a lot of problems. Your say is your vote. After that, except for calling your representative and senators, you're out of the loop.

Kytro · 07-11-2007, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I don't agree at all. Neither did the people who founded this country.

As is your choice, as for the people who founded the nation in the past, they have a limited ability to create a workable system that can endure. Situations change, as do people and culture, and so must the system of cooperation and organisation over time.

I don't see why politicans are espically good and making decisions, in fact I propose they are just as biased if not more so than the average person. This simply means a more narrow set of bad laws.

Kytro · 07-11-2007, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

This crackpot idea that the US is a democracy and everybody gets his say is the source of a lot of problems. Your say is your vote. After that, except for calling your representative and senators, you're out of the loop.

The US is a reprentive democarcy and a republic, they are not mutually exclusive.

Some US states also include direct democracy

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

The US is a reprentive democarcy and a republic, they are not mutually exclusive.

Some US states also include direct democracy

states yes, Federal government no. For instance, in local elections the voters often decide directly whether or not property taxes will be raised, whether or not the school budget will pass, whether or not land will be set aside for preservation, etc. The same is not true on the federal level.