Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Martin and Zimmerman (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 66 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  64  65  66   
Author Topic: Martin and Zimmerman
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
Upon researching it, I found that the vast overwhelming majority of the human population uses some form or equivalence to plea bargaining.
I've just emailed the author of the article you cite suggesting she withdraw it since appears to have made a significant error in her understanding of Chinese law.

Short version is - Summary/Simplified Procedures is for crimes with a MAXIMUM penalty of three years (although at the request of defense can be used for crimes with greater penalty if the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming). In an early paragraph she correctly summarizes the law. In a concluding paragraph she mistakenly states that it applies to all cases with a MINIMUM sentence of 3 years. Then uses this mistaken interpretation to conclude that since the sentences being handed down are typically less than 3 years, that this is the result of a plea bargaining effect.

quote:
Summary procedure is only applied to minor prosecuting cases under the current law, while the draft amendment gives the accused the option to apply the procedure in cases where there are clear facts, sufficient evidence and confessions.
http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2012/2012-03/12/content_24876541.htm

Simplified/Summary procedures are largely the same as 'stipulating facts' in US cases; nothing at all like plea bargaining.

There is 'leniency for confession' but it is again, entirely different from plea bargaining.

Also as a final blow - the Simplified Procedures are not allowed in capital cases in China, and plea bargaining or analogous are not allowed in capital cases in almost any country except the US.

[ September 16, 2013, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8068 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if you were right, which it isn't all clear that you are as the link you cite is an unofficial page which cites a draft version which is being submitted for approval, subtracting China and leaving the other nations still puts over 50% of the human population using it.
Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
Even if you were right, which it isn't all clear that you are as the link you cite is an unofficial page which cites a draft version which is being submitted for approval, subtracting China and leaving the other nations still puts over 50% of the human population using it.
As repeatedly stated above it is the number of countries with such policies that matter, since international comparisons on a per capita basis and we are trying to see how we compare.

Secondly, as pointed out - almost no country but the US allows plea bargaining or expedited proceedings for capital cases - ie murder.

quote:
Even if you were right, which it isn't all clear that you are as the link you cite is an unofficial page which cites a draft version which is being submitted for approval
Ok, see page 212 of "Law Reform in Developing and Transitional States; Edited By Tim Lindsey"

quote:
The summary procedures are limited to cases with a maximum potential sentence of three yeas and the simplified ordinary procedures cannot be used in cases in which the death penalty is possible. In contrast, offenders charged even with crimes subject to capital punishment in the United States may pea bargain/ Both the summary and simplified procedures also differ from US-style plea bargaining in that the defendant and procuratorate do not agree in advance on the sentence or in the case of charge-bargaining to the charges. Rather, the judge or judicial panel has the final authority to set the sentence, subject to the provisio that those who voluntarily confess should be treated leniently. [...T]he system is more oriented toward substantial justice and ascertaining the truth than American plea bargaining. The judge must confirm that the defendants acts do, in fact, constitute a crime and that the evidence is sufficient. Thus, it is not possible, at least in theory, for someone to plead guilty to a lesser charge that clearly does not fit the facts in exchange for a lighter sentence, as happens in the American system. The court must also verify that the defendant has voluntarily admitted guilt, thus giving defendants who wish to repudiate their confessions an opportunity to do so and to raise any claims of torture or coercion. Moreover, rather than giving up the right to trial completely, the defendant has the right to make a statement and present 'a defence' in order to explain the situation and persuade the court to be lenient'.
http://goo.gl/qOPgy5

Had to type it by hand since google books you can't copy and paste...

Posts: 8068 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Why do you add extraneous facts to questions?"

You proposed a pseudo-hypothetical that completely lacked context. I provided two examples of context in which your question could be answered (not really, since I can't imagine that it wasn't a rhetorical question).

It wasn't rhetorical, it was philosophical. If you identify the problem in these situations that it's private actors rather than the state enforcing the laws then the police officer example is one you should endorse in general. If on the other hand, like LR apparently does you don't believe that lethal force is proper for anyone, you'd say that police officers are wrong.

I'm happy to argue either position, but I was trying to focus on what you are actually in favor of (so that my arguments might be more on point, and hopefully (slim hope) persuasive).

Posts: 1834 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR trying to reduce the complex legal systems of the world to a straight - don't allow plea bargaining - isn't going to work. First of you have to discount many because they don't consistently provide justice free from corruption. Is it a plea bargain, or equivalent, if the right bribe reduces or eliminates the charge?

Then you have to consider that many justice systems are designed to force confession, or have latitude to bring charges and accept confessions for situations that the state couldn't prove if it did it in a fair trial.

About the safest thing that can be said, is the US system overuses and possibly abuses plea bargains.

Posts: 1834 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, I don't have a philosophical position on whether or not to shoot fleeing crooks. It's a pragmatic and operational problem instead. I'd have to look at the details of an actual situation in order to render an opinion (but not necessarily even then). Your slim hypothetical has none of those details, so I can't answer.
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't want cops (or anyone) to shoot people who are stealing things when that theft did not involve a threat to a person.

I concede however that "Stop or I'll shoot." is a valuable tool for apprehension that I don't think I'd take away from our police. I don't believe that theft is a great enough harm to others to suspend your right to go on breathing. That said, I'm a big believer in good behavior through lethal repercussions of doing bad.

Granting police the ability to make that call (no appeal after the bang) is a lot of responsibility and trust. They are after all human just like us and prone to make mistakes or abuse power just like the rest of us.

Removed a line about not seeing it as complicated. If that were true I could give a more assertive answer...

[ September 17, 2013, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 3478 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Seriati, I don't have a philosophical position on whether or not to shoot fleeing crooks. It's a pragmatic and operational problem instead. I'd have to look at the details of an actual situation in order to render an opinion (but not necessarily even then). Your slim hypothetical has none of those details, so I can't answer.

Al Wessex, law is always written in hypotheticals. How can you criticise the law in question without a view about whether its acceptable to use lethal force?

To D.W. if no one shoots to stop robbery, won't that encourage criminals to always run for it? Ever seen an episode of the show where they track police chases? Plenty of innoncents hurt there too.

[ September 17, 2013, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 1834 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To D.W. if no one shoots to stop robbery, won't that encourage criminals to always run for it?
It will, which is why I don't want to deprive them of that tool. Just not entierly comfortable with the alternative.

Much like SYG. There are flaws I see in it but I'm not sure on ballance the alternatives are better.

Posts: 3478 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I strongly discourage police shooting fleeing criminals except and unless the criminals present a threat to bystanders as they flee. A lot of armed patrolmen retire after 30 years of active duty without ever having shot anybody, but I assume that's because they never came up against a situation where shooting was the best and only solution.

So from a philosophical perspective, let the police shoot any time they think it's necessary, but never when they have another option. I can't give you a better answer than this, so I hope it is enough for you.

Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't want cops (or anyone) to shoot people who are stealing things when that theft did not involve a threat to a person.

I concede however that "Stop or I'll shoot." is a valuable tool for apprehension that I don't think I'd take away from our police. I don't believe that theft is a great enough harm to others to suspend your right to go on breathing. That said, I'm a big believer in good behavior through lethal repercussions of doing bad.

Granting police the ability to make that call (no appeal after the bang) is a lot of responsibility and trust. They are after all human just like us and prone to make mistakes or abuse power just like the rest of us.

Removed a line about not seeing it as complicated. If that were true I could give a more assertive answer...

In reality theft is a violent crime. It is quite literally the destruction of your life force. You have a limited amount of time on this earth, and thus you only have a limited amount of time to earn money to support you and your family. When a criminal steals from you he is quite literally destroying a small or large part of your life.

And frankly, this is why many states contain provisions in their justifiable homicide laws that allow citizens to defend themselves not just from physical threats, but also to stop things like certain felonies (robbery of a certain amount or higher) from happening to them. My state is an example of this.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In reality theft is a violent crime. It is quite literally the destruction of your life force."

Nonsense, unless your "life force" resides in your possessions. That is the weirdest formulation of the value of property that I have ever heard of.

Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How else is someone supposed to amass wealth? Are they supposed to wish for it and click their heels three times?

You do understand that a person's time on earth is limited, and that that time represents their life? There is a great book called "Your money or your life" which describes the balance that someone must make when planning out their career and retirement savings.

You have to spend precious, unrecoverable work hours to acquire wealth. You can't get those back.

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In reality theft is a violent crime. It is quite literally the destruction of your life force.
I love my "stuff" but I guess I'm just not that materialistic.
Posts: 3478 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, if what you're saying makes sense, then the more wealth and possessions you accrue during your lifetime the stronger your life force will be. You should live longer with more vitality than people with fewer possessions. Once your possessions are transferred to the thief, do they now have some of your life force or do they become more "vital" by their life force entering the new possessions? Is what you're describing at all similar to voodoo?
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's ridiculous, when I said "life force" I was clearly referring to the time investment that people make.

Someone who slaves away 60-80 hours a week to earn money for their family is different from a bum who refuses to work and then goes and robs that hard worker who busted his butt to acquire the wealth that he had for his family.

You seriously do not see how that is one person feeding on another person's life?

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right, I seriously do not see that. What I do see is someone stealing the results of someone else's hard work, but I don't wrap that in some notion of some sort of "life force".
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you think people have the ability to work infinitely in their lifetime and if someone takes something from that they have infinite opportunities to work and earn back the resources that were taken?
Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course not. OTOH, some people are born to wealth. How does their "life force" differ from someone who worked long hours to accrue the same amount of money? If someone works 40 hours a week and embezzles $1M and someone steals the $1M from them have they stolen the embezzler's life force?
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The person before them, or the person before THEM, worked for that money.

Eventually somewhere back in the line someone expended effort for those resources if you trace it back far enough. You may argue about the nature of that effort but they had every right to pass it onto their children unless they acquired it by stealing it from someone else, and that's what theft laws are for.

You seem to be arguing that inheritance is bad, which is counter to freedom. You also use examples of people stealing, which we have laws for and in fact what this argument is about to show how stealing literally takes people's lives away. Absurd.

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get that our time has value. I get that a theft of property is a theft of time. Time is limited. So how much of a theft of our limited time being stolen are we expected to shrug off? At what point has enough of our life been taken that we can justify ending the life of the person who took it?

Does this calculus differ depending upon the earning potential of each person? By their life expectancy? If you steel the same amount of time from me as you did a wealthy person you are getting a lot less material wealth for that time you stole from me.

Am I entitled to kill a thief for less stolen wealth because that stuff" cost me more time to acquire? Should the rich shrug off greater loss because it doesn't impact their limited time as much as the same theft would me?

Is a theft against the poor more egregious than a theft against the rich? This is sounding like a sci-fi movie I saw recently.

[ September 17, 2013, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 3478 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I get that our time has value. I get that a theft of property is a theft of time. Time is limited. So how much of a theft of our limited time being stolen are we expected to shrug off? At what point has enough of our life been taken that we can justify ending the life of the person who took it?
This is why many states specifically state in their justifiable homicide statutes that stealing over a certain amount is a felony, and felonies or certain levels of felonies trigger justifiable homicide. IE: Under this provision it can be argued possibly in some states that stealing a stick of gun is not enough to warrant deadly force however grand theft auto is.

[ September 17, 2013, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, If I spend my life acquiring $1M by working 40 hours a week and someone steals it from me, would it be justifiable homicide for me to kill them in order to get it back?
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And doesn't this line of reasoning lead to rich people being able to buy their way out of prison? I meant openly trading money for prison. If wealth=time, then why not?

[ September 17, 2013, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 1829 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
they had every right to pass it onto their children
Remember, rights are invented. We as a society agree to what "rights" someone has.
Posts: 21532 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In reality theft is a violent crime. It is quite literally the destruction of your life force. You have a limited amount of time on this earth, and thus you only have a limited amount of time to earn money to support you and your family. When a criminal steals from you he is quite literally destroying a small or large part of your life.
They're taking what are generally replaceable evidence of your efforts not the fact of the effort itself. It's a good argument for a community to have a mechanism for insuring its members against such losses by rewarding the makers of the things stolen for making replacements for the person who was stolen for (perhaps with some requirement that the person at least made a reasonable effort to prevent theft in the first place); it's not rational justification for ending a life, however.

It's like stealing the numbers off the scoreboard at a sporting event- doing so doesn't take away from the actual performance of the team during the game, despite the fact that there is only a limited amount of time to score more points.

It makes more sense to just hand up new numbers rep[resenting the current score and deal with the thief on more reasonable terms when they can be more peaceably apprehended than it does to suggest that it might be justifiable to kill the thief to prevent the team from losing the points it had earned.

Posts: 10197 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
they had every right to pass it onto their children
Remember, rights are invented. We as a society agree to what "rights" someone has.
Particularly when you're talking in terms of public accounting credit of any sort. We don't generally allow other forms of public reward, such as military honors to be directly inherited (the medals or badges that commemorate them, sure, but not the actual decorations themselves) That we should make an exception for one particular form of public credit for certain kinds of effort to be fully passed on without regard to the actual efforts of the recipient is actually a rather strange exception, all told.
Posts: 10197 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freedom is an inherent right of all humans. The slavery of taxes was made later by flawed men.
Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Define "freedom". Not joking. I want to know what you include (and consequently what you don't).

If taxes is slavery, you have a right to be free of them. Why haven't you exercised that right?

Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the founding of the colonies, how long did it take to get the 13th Amendment passed? How long have we had an income tax? Granted, this modern slavery might be harder to throw off than the earlier version.

But hey, I'm not unreasonable. Liberals want more tax revenue, I want lower taxes, good thing we can have both, however someone has to teach those liberals economics first.

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
good thing we can have both
Do you understand how, on the Laffer curve, there is a point at which the two lines intersect? Do you believe our taxes are above or below that point?
Posts: 21532 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But hey, I'm not unreasonable. Liberals want more tax revenue, I want lower taxes, good thing we can have both, however someone has to teach those liberals economics first."

So you're willing to live under tax slavery, as long as it isn't *too* much slavery? 10% isn't slavery, but 15% is? Do you have a relative scale for freedom or other kinds of morals, too?

Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are forms of taxation where people can choose how they are taxed, and how much.
Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Instead of attacking the status quo and vaguely suggesting there are better ways, propose a new system. I've asked this several times, now.
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Flat VAT national sales tax, 10%. No other federal taxes needed. Cut everything the GAO and CBO admits is waste and fraud, stop enrolling new people in social security and medicare. Stop "automatic" expansion of the budget every year.

Imagine if the tax code were a couple sentences, a paragraph at the most, instead of over 79,000 pages...

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's pretty much a recipe for disaster.

I understand that you're spouting what is essentially a mantra, but have you really stopped to consider the numbers on this? It's not workable; no one who has ever proposed this plan -- and it's been proposed often, off the cuff, blue-sky -- has ever suggested a way that they might make it work.

The assumption at its core is that the federal government basically doesn't need to exist, and that you can remove the federal government without plunging the nation into a massive economic depression. That somehow business leaders will step up and, motivated by the prospect of profit, fill all those gaps.

But there is nothing -- not one single piece of research -- to suggest that this is possible, much less would happen.

[ September 17, 2013, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 21532 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cut the IRS while we're at it. [Smile]
Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, was that the whole thing? Pretend that something like that happens. What then? What happens to the military, social security, Medicare, infrastructure, etc...
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't need the IRS to collect taxes. If we had a sales tax that relied on businesses collecting taxes FOR the government and sending it in, a much smaller revenue collection department would suffice, and it wouldn't have the power to harass individual citizens.

Somehow, many states manage to function just fine this way...

[ September 18, 2013, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 4989 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What will the government do with the tax money that they find on their doorstep every morning?
Posts: 7701 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 66 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  64  65  66   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1