[Jon Dorian]

It is funny how in Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Monarchy and even Tyranny there is a significant emphasis on so-called justice. The general idea is always to make laws look like highly ethical or moral while objective and not personal. We have all heard the expression "the law is the law". In order to maintain this illusion it is necessary to have the appearance of "fair" judges, the most obvious bias being monetary. Anybody would cringe if being judged by a judge with a personal financial stake in favouring the other party. Yet, this is exactly the situation we face in so-called Tax Tribunals! So much for "fair".
http://www.freedomandpower.ws/index.php/taxes/710-j-recuse

[One Degree]

Fairness or morality have nothing to do with legal systems. Legal systems are a means of maintaining control by the establishment. Giving them a higher purpose is simply misdirection from their real purpose. The most important changes in our laws are the ones that never appear in the media. They are too subtle to attract attention.

[Dagoth Ur]

If the law was fair no one would be allowed to have more than they need while others starve. But no taxes are the real injustice. Great job JD getting to the core of what really matters.

[velvet]

The main thrust of this argument is senseless.

Judges don't have a personal financial stake because their earnings aren't dependent on the number of convictions upheld. The cited text seems to be making the claim that because the judges salaries come from the state then it's dependent on them making enough revenue for the state. Just looking at the current deficit of the United States is enough to dispense with this claim.

[Ganeshas Rat]

If the law was fair no one would be allowed to have more than they need while others starve.

There is nothing fair in robbing ones and give their property to others who did nothing to earn this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Even if we accept the argument that taxes are bad and immoral, it is even more immoral to allow those with too much money to keep their money while the poor cannot access food and medicine.

Taxes are the lesser of two evils.

[Dagoth Ur]

There is nothing fair in robbing ones and give their property to others who did nothing to earn this.

Precisely. This is exactly why the bourgeoisie must be dispossessed. They earn nothing and steal everything.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Precisely. This is exactly why the bourgeoisie must be dispossessed. They earn nothing and steal everything.

Yep. We must start from scientists. Those are useless scum. Did at least one scientist grow a bushel of wheat? Did that egg-head physicsfucker do at least one screw-nut? Every worker can carve it. Well. Then teachers. Those bastards can only blah-blah-blah in ears of our children and eat our food. Everyone must die. Well, next... Next medics. Greedy monsters. Who are there? Artists? Do not laugh me. Let's talk about serious things. Builders. They build and build and build. For whom they do it all? For cursed bourgeosie. We must hang them up as fast as we can. Traitors of proletariat. Police? Comrades do not steal things of comrades, there are no need for that relic of bourgeousie. Also, they shoot at workers, when tzar orders. Fuck the police. Who is next? Oh, librarians...

When it all will be ended, we will come to the beautiful shining new civilization of Earth, new Eden, innocent and naked (thank God, we've wiped weavers at the end. They were pathetic and weak creatures who cannot labor in the mines). To hunt a boar and die of diarrhea, can anything be better? All hail to Commies.

[Dagoth Ur]

lel

Ur: bourgie take prole labor, keep it, pay prole tiny piece call rest profit. prole does everything, bourgie steals because he owns property. prole should keep labor and take property away from thieving bourgie.
GRat: WHY YOU WANT KILL PROLE?!
Ur:

[Ganeshas Rat]

Oh, are all those proles for you? Please tell me, who you is in outer party of bourgeousie then.

[Dagoth Ur]

They're all proles to all communists.

Proles sell their labor and live off what they earn
Bourgeoisie own property and live off the money proles make with that property.

Next in Marxism 101: Marx was German.

[Ganeshas Rat]

To whom a writer sells his labor exactly?

[Dagoth Ur]

The publisher of whatever he is writing in, say a magazine, comic or newspaper. Even the book author almost always sells his book to a publisher. Try writing a book and just putting it in stores.

[Ganeshas Rat]

The publisher of whatever he is writing in, say a magazine, comic or newspaper. Even the book author almost always sells his book to a publisher. Try writing a book and just putting it in stores.

Like Silverberg? It was popular in Russia 20 years before when it was much more profitable for an author. Now it's possible too but somehow authors choose publishers. Maybe they don't want to manage small things like paper and ink choosing, marketing and dealers?

[Dagoth Ur]

Maybe its the same reason as why I work for a restaurant rather than cooking out of my house. This is irrelevant. The vast majority of professional writers are proletarian.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

There is this silly notion among people, like Ganesha, who believe in that style of Ayn Rand lolbertarian capitalist myth of captains of industry, and supermen of capitalism, as if there is a mystical, magical class of people, above and beyond the abilities of the poors/dregs of humanity, without whom there can be no creativity, imagination, progress, development, etc. Despite all his posturing about the "property rights" of the bourgeoisie, he apparently doesn't recognize that the rest of humanity is forced to sell their labor for unfair wages, while the bourgeoisie exploit their labor, which is where their mass accumulation of wealth comes from: stolen from the rest of humanity, and concentrated into the hands of an incredibly small percentage of people.

But hey, property rights of the rich is what's truly important! How dare the working class try to take back what belongs to them, and was stolen from them!

[Ganeshas Rat]

Justice is what truly important. Yes, the private property is the most important institute of society, only that can move people to new achievements and to work hard. As Machiavelli said, people easily forgive the death of a father, than a losing of property. Only a madman can contest Machiavelli. But, of course, there are idealists, youngsters or eternal kids who never live in the socialistic society and do not know what it is.

I can throw a couple of words about this, but there is more important topic. I do not know, what you guys mean under the word 'bourgeoisie'. It has the specific meaning. When I did read 'The Venice Train' by George Simenon (Do not know, if you read this, it seems, Anglophones haven't heard about French culture yet), I also have checked up the foreword of Soviet commentator, true Marxist, of course, who singed like a Nightingale. Oh, genius of the French author, who laughed up and showed to us all the poverty and ugliness of Bourgeoisie. The hero of the novel is the little bourgeois. He is clerk, also, that means, he sells his labor.

Because you know, the word 'bourgeoisie' has the same meaning as the word 'Ctizen' in English, 'Гражданин' in Russian, 'Ciudadano' in Spanish and 'Bürger' in German. All these words have the 'City' part in themselves. There are peasants who live in villages and grow grain and bourgeoisie in cities who do everything else. Yes, I know every communist secretly hates our urban civilization. Khmer Rouges are the apotheosis and the highest peak of communism, because they said it clearly and openly: 'The urban civilization is dead, all egg-headed will be murdered. Everyone who wants to help us build the Heaven, get palm leafs from the major of your village. For every five slitted throats we will give you one real bullet'.

No, I do not take it. If you do not like bourgeoisie, you can start from refusing the shower (Bourgeois things, we in the village take it once a month and all is normal). It will be smelly, of course, but at least it will be honest.

[Pants-of-dog]

Justice is what truly important. Yes, the private property is the most important institute of society, only that can move people to new achievements and to work hard. As Machiavelli said, people easily forgive the death of a father, than a losing of property. Only a madman can contest Machiavelli. But, of course, there are idealists, youngsters or eternal kids who never live in the socialistic society and do not know what it is.

It has been decades since I read The Prince, but I know that Machiavelli is wrong if he said that. It is easily disproved by the fact that people willingly give not only their personal property to save the life of a loved one, but they will even donate their organs and blood to save them.

This is another reason why paying a small amount in taxes is nothing compared to the benefits of food security and health care programs.

[Ganeshas Rat]

It has been decades since I read The Prince, but I know that Machiavelli is wrong if he said that. It is easily disproved by the fact that people willingly give not only their personal property to save the life of a loved one, but they will even donate their organs and blood to save them.

No. It is because we as hearers like to hear about people giving their bloods and organs (regenerating, also) to save loved ones. We feel a disgust and nausea when we hear about people who tried to cheat their familliars for taking their property, but this is how people usually live. The donators are how some people can rise from this dirt, they are the exception in the universal law.

I am by muself, of course, support taxes, not very high so, of course not so high as in the socialistic countries. With those rates socialists can only make people to escape from a state.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide evidence for your claim that most people would prefer to let a loved one die rather than part with any money. Thank you.