/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

ohnopigeons wrote:All taxation is theft.

Hot take

CosmicScientist wrote:I don't even use roads!

You use water pipes and heating pipes for your house baka boy.

Taxation isn't socialism you baka, it's paying for our use and continued use of all the public works. That's capitalism!

Also you're not cute enough for me to pump you full of anything except lead, sorry.

ShadowDimentio wrote:Plus, how fucking evil are you prepared to be for your glorious communist utopia? Now that I've forced you to admit you're literally just robbing people you've flat out given up the ghost and are advocating springing blind robbery on them and taking everything they own with no time for them to escape with any of THEIR shit. It's despicable.

ShadowDimentio wrote:Taxation isn't socialism you baka, it's paying for our use and continued use of all the public works. That's capitalism!

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The only thing I hate more than communists are Roads

ohnopigeons wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:Plus, how fucking evil are you prepared to be for your glorious communist utopia? Now that I've forced you to admit you're literally just robbing people you've flat out given up the ghost and are advocating springing blind robbery on them and taking everything they own with no time for them to escape with any of THEIR shit. It's despicable.

ShadowDimentio wrote:Taxation isn't socialism you baka, it's paying for our use and continued use of all the public works. That's capitalism!

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Rich people don't use public works any more than anyone else.

CosmicScientist wrote:Anything public is socialist. Capitalism would own the roads, the rails, if that's profitable anymore, and if you put on a big smile, remember to not pay taxes for social dental work, with rosy cheeks, then maybe, just maybe, you'll get a ha'penny in charity for your troubles.

We live in mixed societies or I assume anything this side of the Atlantic does, where the government owns and collects taxes for the infrastructure and various large scale social service needs such as police and healthcare. Capitalists get an easy time slotting their businesses into these such as purchasing rolling stock for railways or plugging gaps, intentional or not, in police & healthcare services.

The government owns the public works, they just let everyone use them. C A P I T A L I S M

ShadowDimentio wrote:Rich people don't use public works any more than anyone else.

While people who gamble clearly get more education than anyone else which is why taxes from gambling is used to pay for public education.

Quite the opposite, the lottery is a tax on stupid people. (((Intellectuals))) gamble on the stock market. Better odds.

ShadowDimentio wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:Anything public is socialist. Capitalism would own the roads, the rails, if that's profitable anymore, and if you put on a big smile, remember to not pay taxes for social dental work, with rosy cheeks, then maybe, just maybe, you'll get a ha'penny in charity for your troubles.

We live in mixed societies or I assume anything this side of the Atlantic does, where the government owns and collects taxes for the infrastructure and various large scale social service needs such as police and healthcare. Capitalists get an easy time slotting their businesses into these such as purchasing rolling stock for railways or plugging gaps, intentional or not, in police & healthcare services.

The government owns the public works, they just let everyone use them. C A P I T A L I S M

are you genuinely fucking dense, state ownership is one of the main tenets of communism the state owns absolutely fucking everything in that system, and socialism is a milder derivative of communism that isn't pants on head fucking retarded. Pure capitalism aka libertarian to the extreme would be where the corporations own everything

Capital Gains tax
And you've just contradicted your previous reasoning.

Sometinyprick wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:The government owns the public works, they just let everyone use them. C A P I T A L I S M

are you genuinely fucking dense, state ownership is one of the main tenets of communism the state owns absolutely fucking everything in that system, and socialism is a milder derivative of communism that isn't pants on head fucking retarded. Pure capitalism aka libertarian to the extreme would be where the corporations own everything

I was getting at how public works could be equated to a business in that everyone uses them and thus everyone pays a small amount for their usage, though yeah the important difference is that it isn't done for profit as opposed to businesses.

ohnopigeons wrote:Capital Gains tax
And you've just contradicted your previous reasoning.

I don't follow

"Rich Stupid people don't use public works education any more than anyone else."

ShadowDimentio wrote:

"Serious insider knowledge" like basic knowledge of who just got elected? Unless the entire communist party that just got elected kept it secret that they were all blood red communists, the rich people will know and have bailed at the first sign of it actually looking like the communists may win.

Plus, how fucking evil are you prepared to be for your glorious communist utopia? Now that I've forced you to admit you're literally just robbing people you've flat out given up the ghost and are advocating springing blind robbery on them and taking everything they own with no time for them to escape with any of THEIR shit. It's despicable.

>I'm a Dreamer
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my status
>the right is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck

>I'm an Iranian working in the US
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my ability to move freely between the two countries
>the right is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck

>I'm a rich fatcat
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my riches
>the left is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck

Why do you think socialists have to look like rabid communists to enact basic social welfare and wealth redistribution?

ohnopigeons wrote:"Rich Stupid people don't use public works education any more than anyone else."

I mean that's true. Poor and middle class use public education roughly the same (or should anyways), while rich people sometimes use public education or don't use it at all because they just get a private education at a private school. So yeah they all use it roughly the same except the rich who use it less or not at all.

You really are dense.

ohnopigeons wrote:You really are dense.

I don't understand

Grazyn wrote:>I'm a Dreamer
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my status
>the right is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck

Trump was INTENSELY vocal about literally all his stances on things, and has following his election largely been fulfilling what he promised to do. Nobody but the willfully ignorant would be caught off guard by the changes he said he'd make, IE dismantling the DREAM act.

Grazyn wrote:>I'm an Iranian working in the US
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my ability to move freely between the two countries
>the right is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck

See above, but plenty of presidents on both the left and right have instituted travel bans.

Grazyn wrote:>I'm a rich fatcat
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my riches
>the left is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck

Why do you think socialists have to look like rabid communists to enact basic social welfare and wealth redistribution?

I don't follow what you're trying to get at here, but I don't like how you tried to frame wealth redistribution as something "basic". It's a big fucking deal and a basic attack on one of the oldest of society's laws, the right to one's property.

If you call it wealth redistribution David talks about fleeing the country and if you call it taxation for the public good he praises the exact same thing

Astounding

Because it's two different things dumb slime.

ShadowDimentio wrote:
I don't follow what you're trying to get at here, but I don't like how you tried to frame wealth redistribution as something "basic". It's a big fucking deal and a basic attack on one of the oldest of society's laws, the right to one's property.

I only ever mentioned taxation as a mean of wealth redistribution, then you started talking about leaving and using loopholes to avoid paying your due, even going as far as "civil disobedience" (aka breaking the law) and I said there usually are consequences for that

Go read from post #410214

CosmicScientist wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.

im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.

go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.

Social democrats, surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)

kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.

Grazyn wrote:I only ever mentioned taxation as a mean of wealth redistribution, then you started talking about leaving and using loopholes to avoid paying your due, even going as far as "civil disobedience" (aka breaking the law) and I said there usually are consequences for that

And your response to the rich just leaving (or reminding the government they can't touch their money) was to try and entrap them by springing this on them out of nowhere, to which I said good luck, they'd have seen it coming a mile away. Then you started talking about how Trump "sprung" things upon people who "weren't expecting it" and I responded by saying he literally couldn't have been more up front about what he was going to do and how the only people who didn't know were the willfully ignorant.

Also though you never explicitly said it, you implied that if the rich didn't willingly give up their wealth they'd be shot after they fail to "respect the laws" and "suffer the consequences".

Grazyn wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Grazyn wrote:What I mean is that there are relatively peaceful ways to do this before the use of force becomes necessary

Haha yeah man the rich should have just given up their wealth willingly if they didn't want to get shot in the head

>democracy
>socialists win
>they make laws
>you don't respect laws
>you suffer the consequences

This is how society works

Yes the state can use violence to enforce laws, that's what the police is there for.

You wouldn't be shot of course, are people shot when they don't pay taxes or cheat the IRS? Of course, it all depends on how far you want to go with your disobedience

For the sake of the middle class I'm confiscating your posts and giving them to lower-count accounts. This is only fair.

I ALREADY KILLED THE LAST AGENT YOU FUCKERS SENT TO STEAL MY POSTS, I'LL KILL THE WHOLE LOT OF YE IF I HAVE TO!

Grazyn wrote:Yes the state can use violence to enforce laws, that's what the police is there for.

You wouldn't be shot of course, are people shot when they don't pay taxes or cheat the IRS? Of course, it all depends on how far you want to go with your disobedience

I think this is how the gulags got started.

ColonicAcid wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.

im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.

go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.

Social democrats, surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)

kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.

i thought you were a uk citizen

How can you argue for 2 pages about how people in prison knew the consequences and shouldn't have broken the law by smoking pot and poor conditions in prison didn't bother you because they made their choice and then turn around and say "this is how gulags started" when Grazyn talks about the police enforcing laws

ShadowDimentio wrote:Because it's two different things dumb slime.

You just acknowledged rich people will pay a larger share for public education while often not even utilizing it for their own kids. Their wealth has been redistributed to the people using those services/towards a public good.

Sometinyprick wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.

im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.

go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.

Social democrats, surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)

kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.

i thought you were a uk citizen

I thought he was a BR for a long time so you're as confused as I am.

Kor wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:Because it's two different things dumb slime.

You just acknowledged rich people will pay a larger share for public education while often not even utilizing it for their own kids. Their wealth has been redistributed to the people using those services/towards a public good.

Good point. I wouldn't be opposed to the rich receiving a tax return worth what they would have contributed to the public schools if they private school their kids, then. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they already do.

Sometinyprick wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.

im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.

go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.

Social democrats, surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)

kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.

i thought you were a uk citizen

i swear to fucking lord i tell this shit every single time.


i was born in portugal but i moved to england when i was young and the only reason im not a british citizen is because it costs like 2k to get neutralised and i would rather spend that money on being a good citizen and burning contraband that i buy from dealers. i have a southwest accent and ive been educated here but i still don't understand sarcasm very well.

cedarbridge wrote:

Sometinyprick wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.

im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.

go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.

Social democrats, surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)

kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.

i thought you were a uk citizen

I thought he was a BR for a long time so you're as confused as I am.

out of all the insults you could have said this one hurts the deepest.

ColonicAcid wrote:i was born in portugal but i moved to england when i was young and the only reason im not a british citizen is because it costs like 2k to get neutralised and i would rather spend that money on being a good citizen and burning contraband that i buy from dealers. i have a southwest accent and ive been educated here but i still don't understand sarcasm very well.

>Don't understand sarcasm very well

It's a good thing you didn't try to become a British citizen then, sarcasm is one of the prerequisites

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Grazyn wrote:I only ever mentioned taxation as a mean of wealth redistribution, then you started talking about leaving and using loopholes to avoid paying your due, even going as far as "civil disobedience" (aka breaking the law) and I said there usually are consequences for that

And your response to the rich just leaving (or reminding the government they can't touch their money) was to try and entrap them by springing this on them out of nowhere, to which I said good luck, they'd have seen it coming a mile away. Then you started talking about how Trump "sprung" things upon people who "weren't expecting it" and I responded by saying he literally couldn't have been more up front about what he was going to do and how the only people who didn't know were the willfully ignorant.

I'm not gonna address the fact that even if Dreamers had started to work towards settling their status as soon as Trump started talking about dismantling the DREAM act they still wouldn't have been able to do that in time, but we're still talking about hundreds of thousands (or even millions if we consider all those affected by the travel ban) and it's hard to believe that every single one of them was stupid or willfully ignorant. My point isn't that Trump "sprung" things upon people in a mischievous way, it's that people tend to not expect politicians to go through with their promises, so it's a surprise when the odd one actually does it.

Socialists always talk about tax raises for the rich and wealth redistribution but they never end up doing it in a serious way, and rich people don't usually leave the country en masse when the left is elected. But what if they actually did it for real one time? That's what I'm saying, and that's how it should be done. It's not about sneaking up unto unsuspecting people, is about doing what you've been elected for, just for once. And if they fail to take steps to avoid it beforehand, it's on them.

pretty sure its genetics because try as i might the only sarcasm i can get is the really obvious ones like "REALLYUHHH??" but anything more subtle and it just flies straight thru me and i think they're saying the truth.

ColonicAcid wrote:it costs like 2k to get neutralised.

I could do it for you for less.

yeh my parents voted for PSD because we had like a even worse version of gordon brown as the prime minister under PS and everyone kinda had a knee jerk reaction and PSD won the election with a coalition with CDS-PP (christian democracy yuck) only for a vote of no confidence to be passed 11 days into the new government so now we have an actual really fucking good prime minister who isn't corrupt and actually cares about the citizenry and is also from PS.

they're basically the continetal european version of the conservative party.

modern fiscal conservatism whilst also being the "family first" party that has strong christian values in a country where the biggest voter base goes to church consistently every week.

Grazyn wrote:I'm not gonna address the fact that even if Dreamers had started to work towards settling their status as soon as Trump started talking about dismantling the DREAM act they still wouldn't have been able to do that in time, but we're still talking about hundreds of thousands (or even millions if we consider all those affected by the travel ban) and it's hard to believe that every single one of them was stupid or willfully ignorant. My point isn't that Trump "sprung" things upon people in a mischievous way, it's that people tend to not expect politicians to go through with their promises, so it's a surprise when the odd one actually does it.

Socialists always talk about tax raises for the rich and wealth redistribution but they never end up doing it in a serious way, and rich people don't usually leave the country en masse when the left is elected. But what if they actually did it for real one time? That's what I'm saying, and that's how it should be done. It's not about sneaking up unto unsuspecting people, is about doing what you've been elected for, just for once. And if they fail to take steps to avoid it beforehand, it's on them.

>As soon as Trump mentioned it

They should have pursued citizenship the moment they found out they weren't citizens.

>Actually going through on promises

See that's where another issue begins. Even if a commie got elected to president, and even if they were hell bent on bringing about the glorious communist utopia to the US, it would be an AGONIZINGLY slow process (assuming it ever went through) because the political machine would do everything it possibly could to stop it. Admit it or not, communism is VERY unpopular with a LOT of people, rich and poor. It would take ages for whatever movements they wanted to come into practice, during which time the rich will have been long gone.

Why do we keep bringing up communism when we're discussing socialism?

Though they are under the same umbrella they are quite different.

CosmicScientist wrote:I thought the dreamers were a grey problem because they didn't get to decide where they were taken as children and can't have pseudo citizenship unless the current despot decides we cool or we not cool, with none of them being able to hope for more than residency? Or are any of them viable for the Murican immigration standards that I never hear anything about?

You're either a citizen or not a citizen, and they're not citizens. They can apply for immigration and citizenry but that takes time and money and effort.

Rustledjimm wrote:Why do we keep bringing up communism when we're discussing socialism?

Though they are under the same umbrella they are quite different.

Because we're talking about communism. Grazyn flat out said "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"

There are many stages of status when living in a country.

There is not just "citizen" and "not a citizen".

That is a very us vs them attitude which is quite hostile in nature.

citizenship is the biggest restraining social construct of the 21st century

quote me on this

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Rustledjimm wrote:Why do we keep bringing up communism when we're discussing socialism?

Though they are under the same umbrella they are quite different.

Because we're talking about communism. Grazyn flat out said "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"

That is a part of the socialism umbrella, not specifically communism.

Just because you're allowed to live in a country or work there doesn't mean you're a citizen there. You either are a citizen or you aren't.

Rustledjimm wrote:That is a part of the socialism umbrella, not specifically communism.

Only on the harder, communist end of the stick.

ColonicAcid wrote:citizenship is the biggest restraining social construct of the 21st century

quote me on this

True but it's also critically important and keeps the rabble out.

i mean yall can argue and throw shit at literal buzzwords.

you really think that in the future anyone is going to call themselves democrats or socialist or liberals or whatever? we can't imagine a world without democracy but i can assure you that a 12th century peasant or noble or monarch could not imagine a world without feudalism.

ive stopped associating myself with set and rigid systems of ideology, the only ideology i subscribe to is humanism, if you care about the continued improvement of the human race i suggest you start reading about what humanism is.