# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  America.

## hoytmonger

Why do people insist on calling this country 'America'?

This is the United States *OF* America. A union of separate states united under a common federal gov't with limited powers. Calling it 'America' just justifies the centralization of the state (thanks Lincoln).

Call it the United States... please.

----------

Archer (09-20-2013)

----------


## St James

no. We *are* America. and _we_ are Americans.

----------

countryboy (09-20-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

Why do most people call my country 'England'? It's the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, thank you very much.

----------


## Max Rockatansky



----------

countryboy (09-20-2013),Perianne (09-20-2013)

----------


## usfan

I kind of like hoyt's point..  we are 'supposed' to be the United States.. that part is often overlooked by the statists, who gloss over the independent states part of the constitution.  If that had more traction, the debates would be much different.  Lots of things would be (& should be) given back to the jurisdiction of the states, rather than being usurped by a powerful central govt.  Stronger states = weaker central govt, which would do us all more good.

But linguistically, 'america' is fine as an abbreviation or nickname.  It's been used that way for a cpl centuries.

----------

Archer (09-20-2013),countryboy (09-20-2013)

----------


## usfan

> Why do most people call my country 'England'? It's the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, thank you very much.


IMO, the 'United States' should function very much like the 'United Kingdom'.. texas & california should be as independent as scotland or even canada, if you want to include the whole commonwealth.  The united states' centralized part should be more for common defense, international & interstate commerce, & treaties.  They should not be involved in micromanaging everything else like welfare, education, etc.  That is the intent of the constitution, & for nearly a century (or more), the feds have slowly chipped away at that limitation.  In reality, we are no longer, 'the united states', but for all practical purposes, we are the 'federal state of america', with 50 provinces or counties for the feds to lord it over..        :Cry20:

----------

Archer (09-20-2013),St James (09-20-2013)

----------


## countryboy

Thanks to American exceptionalism, the entire world knows what one is speaking about when one says, "America". It is simply an abbreviation for The United States of America.

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
*America! America!* God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
*America! America!* God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
*America! America!* May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine!

O Beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
*America! America!* God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I kind of like hoyt's point..  we are 'supposed' to be the United States.. that part is often overlooked by the statists, who gloss over the independent states part of the constitution.  If that had more traction, the debates would be much different.  Lots of things would be (& should be) given back to the jurisdiction of the states, rather than being usurped by a powerful central govt.  Stronger states = weaker central govt, which would do us all more good.
> 
> But linguistically, 'america' is fine as an abbreviation or nickname.  It's been used that way for a cpl centuries.


Noted historian Shelby Foote's comments about the Civil War gives an explanation of why we think of the USA in the singular:

_"Before the war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'."


_Another comment was this one:

"_Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on an understanding of the Civil War. I believe that firmly. It defined us. The Revolution did what it did. Our involvement in European wars, beginning with the First World War, did what it did. But the Civil War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. And it is very necessary, if you are going to understand the American character in the twentieth century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-nineteenth century. It was the crossroads of our being, and it was a hell of a crossroads._"

----------

St James (09-20-2013),usfan (09-20-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> IMO, the 'United States' should function very much like the 'United Kingdom'.. texas & california should be as independent as scotland or even canada, if you want to include the whole commonwealth.  The united states' centralized part should be more for common defense, international & interstate commerce, & treaties.  They should not be involved in micromanaging everything else like welfare, education, etc.  That is the intent of the constitution, & for nearly a century (or more), the feds have slowly chipped away at that limitation.  In reality, we are no longer, 'the united states', but for all practical purposes, we are the 'federal state of america', with 50 provinces or counties for the feds to lord it over..


I thought that's how it already is, with the state legislatures, courts, etcetera?

----------


## usfan

> Noted historian Shelby Foote's comments about the Civil War gives an explanation of why we think of the USA in the singular:
> 
> _"Before the war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'."
> 
> 
> _Another comment was this one:
> 
> "_Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on an understanding of the Civil War. I believe that firmly. It defined us. The Revolution did what it did. Our involvement in European wars, beginning with the First World War, did what it did. But the Civil War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. And it is very necessary, if you are going to understand the American character in the twentieth century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-nineteenth century. It was the crossroads of our being, and it was a hell of a crossroads._"


good points.. although i don't know if the 'is & are' distinctions are that sharply delineated.  I still see it both ways, & i'm sure it was before.  But the central point of growing federal power is undeniable, & is the main source of our problems today.

The civil war was a clear indication of statism growing in the republic, but other than keeping the republic intact, the feds still had little interaction with the common citizens.  Now, the federal govt has their finger in every american pie.

_The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. ~Daniel Webster

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. ~Thomas Jefferson_

----------


## patrickt

American and citizen of the United States are not synonyms. Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. I know people who have lived their whole lives in Mexico but are citizens of the United States. I have a friend who is a citizen of the United States and has lived in Mexico since she was three months old. Now she's in the U.S. and is becoming and American.

Sadly, one can be born a U.S. citizen but one must want to be an American. A lot of foreigners want desperately to be Americans. But some people born in the U.S. don't want to be Americans and want to fundamentally change the United States so it won't be a place they hate, America.

----------

usfan (09-20-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> good points.. although i don't know if the 'is & are' distinctions are that sharply delineated.  I still see it both ways, & i'm sure it was before.  But the central point of growing federal power is undeniable, & is the main source of our problems today.
> 
> The civil war was a clear indication of statism growing in the republic, but other than keeping the republic intact, the feds still had little interaction with the common citizens.  Now, the federal govt has their finger in every american pie.
> 
> _The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. ~Daniel Webster
> 
> Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. ~Thomas Jefferson_


While I feel States had a right secede and that it was, indeed, a "War of Northern Aggression", I'm happy Abe Lincoln sought to preserve the Union, even if by force.  We shouldn't be a superpower today if we'd split into a US and a CSA with the Western States possibly forming a third nation.  We'd look more like the EU than the USA.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> While I feel States had a right secede and that it was, indeed, a "War of Northern Aggression", I'm happy Abe Lincoln sought to preserve the Union, even if by force.  We shouldn't be a superpower today if we'd split into a US and a CSA with the Western States possibly forming a third nation.  We'd look more like the EU than the USA.


Maybe that would have been better off in the long run? A century-and-a-half after the Civil War, many Americans feel their regional motherlands have been effectively forced into this autonomy-munching machine they actively dislike. Localist sentiments are strong and bitter.

----------


## Micketto

> Call it the United States... please.



Not sure if you've noticed but the states aren't all that "united".

And knowing Cali & NY....  I am thankful for that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> *Maybe that would have been better off in the long run?* A century-and-a-half after the Civil War, many Americans feel their regional motherlands have been effectively forced into this autonomy-munching machine they actively dislike. Localist sentiments are strong and bitter.


Not for Europe.  Y'all would be learning German as a native language.  Yes, including the UK.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (09-20-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Not for Europe.  Y'all would be learning German as a native language.  Yes, including the UK.


We have the Russians to owe for that. Most people have rightful problems acknowledging this, given the obvious psychopathy their leadership.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> We have the Russians to owe for that. Most people have rightful problems acknowledging this, given the obvious psychopathy their leadership.


Possibly, but remember that Hitler didn't attack Stalin until after his failure in the Battle of Britain.  Even though a fight between Germany and the USSR was probably a foregone conclusion,  with the US out of the picture (including Lend Lease to the USSR) and the Western European nations secured (including the UK), Hitler wouldn't have had to divide his attention between his Western and Eastern flanks.   I don't see the outcome as being exactly as it turned out with US involvement.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Possibly, but remember that Hitler didn't attack Stalin until after his failure in the Battle of Britain.  Even though a fight between Germany and the USSR was probably a foregone conclusion,  with the US out of the picture (including Lend Lease to the USSR) and the Western European nations secured (including the UK), Hitler wouldn't have had to divide his attention between his Western and Eastern flanks.   I don't see the outcome as being exactly as it turned out with US involvement.


I predict a more protracted war - a far bloodier one, probably. But I'm still confident the Allies would have been able to triumph. Who said the Battle of Britain was won largely on account of American support, anyhow?

----------


## kilgram

> I kind of like hoyt's point..  we are 'supposed' to be the United States.. that part is often overlooked by the statists, who gloss over the independent states part of the constitution.  If that had more traction, the debates would be much different.  Lots of things would be (& should be) given back to the jurisdiction of the states, rather than being usurped by a powerful central govt.  Stronger states = weaker central govt, which would do us all more good.
> 
> But linguistically, 'america' is fine as an abbreviation or nickname.  It's been used that way for a cpl centuries.


What United States? The United States of Mexico or the United States of America?

The name of your country has many problems  :Wink:

----------


## Coolwalker

> What United States? The United States of Mexico or the United States of America?
> 
> The name of your country has many problems


People in glass houses should not throw stones!

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

"United States" and "United States of America" are a lot longer than "America." Plus, it was called "America" before "the United States." 

So, no, your request is silly and I will not abide.

----------


## Coolwalker

It is America until you declare yourself a Citizen of America then all hell breaks loose, because Citizens of America don't pay taxes. I have a friend who did this. He was harassed for a few years but in the end he didn't have to pay taxes. he however is not entitled to any services either. Personally to me this is "my country". Call it what you wish, but we were in the beginning and are now The United States of America.

----------


## patrickt

> While I feel States had a right secede and that it was, indeed, a "War of Northern Aggression", I'm happy Abe Lincoln sought to preserve the Union, even if by force.  We shouldn't be a superpower today if we'd split into a US and a CSA with the Western States possibly forming a third nation.  We'd look more like the EU than the USA.


No, we'd never have been like the EU, in my opinion, but we would not have been the superpower we were.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I predict a more protracted war - a far bloodier one, probably. But I'm still confident the Allies would have been able to triumph. Who said the Battle of Britain was won largely on account of American support, anyhow?


Battles may be won by the courage of those fighting it, but wars are won on logistics.  The South lost the American Civil War primarily due to a lack of supplies; a combination of an embargo, lack of manufacturing infrastructure and a lack of raw materials for manufacturing.

Lend-Lease didn't supply just the Brits, but all "the Allies" which included the USSR, China and smaller nations.  Without the US, "the Allies" may have fallen like dominoes with the war with the USSR last and, as you predicted, longest.  Without America's supply chain, must less actual military capability such as bombing Germany's own manufacturing capability and supply chains, I'm not sure Germany  would have been defeated.

If you want to say America didn't win the war alone, I completely agree.  A fractured group of individual or blocks of States in the Americas wouldn't have been able to provide the support as a unified States was able to do.   Even if the United States was as it is, if we'd remained isolationist and Britain had collapsed, with Germany consolidating it's wins then attacking the USSR, I doubt the US could have won it.  As you said, it would have severely protracted the war and I think a peace would have been negotiated instead of a defeat of Germany and, consequently, Japan.   A fractured US might not have stood up to Japan's expansion into China and the Western Pacific, thereby not setting up the scenario of Pearl Harbor...if that base even existed because a unified USA never existed.

----------


## hoytmonger

> no. We *are* America. and _we_ are Americans.


No, we are civilians of the United States. America is a conglomerate of statist principles.

----------


## hoytmonger

> American and citizen of the United States are not synonyms. Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. I know people who have lived their whole lives in Mexico but are citizens of the United States. I have a friend who is a citizen of the United States and has lived in Mexico since she was three months old. Now she's in the U.S. and is becoming and American.
> 
> Sadly, one can be born a U.S. citizen but one must want to be an American. A lot of foreigners want desperately to be Americans. But some people born in the U.S. don't want to be Americans and want to fundamentally change the United States so it won't be a place they hate, America.


A citizen is the property of the state... a civilian is their master.

----------


## Coolwalker

> A citizen is the property of the state... a civilian is their master.


Where the hell did you dig that out of? I am a citizen and a civilian and no one owns me. I was military for a while and yes, at that precise time the government owned me, but as a civilian I am a "private citizen". Sounds like a bit of Marxist crap...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Where the hell did you dig that out of? I am a citizen and a civilian and no one owns me. I was military for a while and yes, at that precise time the government owned me, but as a civilian I am a "private citizen". Sounds like a bit of Marxist crap...


I'm guessing Anarchist crap.

Like these guys:

----------

Coolwalker (09-20-2013)

----------


## hoytmonger

> "United States" and "United States of America" are a lot longer than "America." Plus, it was called "America" before "the United States." 
> 
> So, no, your request is silly and I will not abide.


You may not abide but your reference is not accurate. America is the continent on which the United States resides. It includes the entire Western hemisphere. The United States OF America are the separate states that decided to adopt a constitution to limit the powers of a federal government that joins them together. You seem to enjoy statism.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Where the hell did you dig that out of? I am a citizen and a civilian and no one owns me. I was military for a while and yes, at that precise time the government owned me, but as a civilian I am a "private citizen". Sounds like a bit of Marxist crap...


Pay your taxes? Do you think you own your property?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Pay your taxes? Do you think you own your property?


Under your system would he own it?  How would that work, precisely?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You may not abide but your reference is not accurate. America is the continent on which the United States resides. It includes the entire Western hemisphere. The United States OF America are the separate states that decided to adopt a constitution to limit the powers of a federal government that joins them together. You seem to enjoy statism.


You're not great at logic, are you? I fail to see how quibbling over semantics means I "enjoy" statism, especially when I have a reputation here for advocating communitarianism.

----------


## hoytmonger

[QUOTE=Max Rockatansky;135411]I'm guessing Anarchist crap.[QUOTE]

Keep guessing. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's far from intelligence.

----------


## Coolwalker

> Pay your taxes? Do you think you own your property?


I pay my taxes as do all good "citizens" and I have a piece of paper to prove I own my house. It's paid for.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Under your system would he own it?  How would that work, precisely?


It's not my system... there are many volumes written on the subject. I suggest Murray N. Rothbard, 'For a New Liberty' for a start.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

----------


## hoytmonger

> I pay my taxes as do all good "citizens" and I have a piece of paper to prove I own my house. It's paid for.


You pay your taxes as a slave. If you don't pay your taxes the state will foreclose on your house... you don't own it.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Originally Posted by Max Rockatansky
> 
> 
> I'm guessing Anarchist crap.
> 
> 
> Keep guessing. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's far from intelligence.


And insults aren't answers.  No worries, HM.  I didn't expect any honest answers from you.

----------


## hoytmonger

> And insults aren't answers.  No worries, HM.  I didn't expect any honest answers from you.


You wouldn't accept an honest answer... it just proves my point.

----------


## hoytmonger

> You're not great at logic, are you? I fail to see how quibbling over semantics means I "enjoy" statism, especially when I have a reputation here for advocating communitarianism.


If semantics means that a system of separate states joined under a federal government limited in it's authority as opposed to a dictatorship... I suppose you're correct.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> If semantics means that a system of separate states joined under a federal government limited in it's authority as opposed to a dictatorship... I suppose you're correct.


Semantics means quibbling over the name of a country when both of the two names in question are correct. It doesn't magically change what the country is.

----------


## Coolwalker

> You pay your taxes as a slave. If you don't pay your taxes the state will foreclose on your house... you don't own it.


You are full of shit. Taxes I pay willingly as I enjoy the fact that I am able to travel on paved roads and my children get an education. I am not a slave. But you are a slave to a delusion that no government would be a good thing. Without government to be there when you need it, you would be a slave to fear of the unknown. You anarchists make me laugh...and you I am sure pay taxes as well so stop acting like you are superior to everyone else.

----------


## Albert Reincarnated

Is America the same thing as the USA?  Is it possible to love America while hating the USA?

----------


## Coolwalker

> Is America the same thing as the USA?  Is it possible to love America while hating the USA?


Why is there air? Figure that out and you'll have your answer.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Semantics means quibbling over the name of a country when both of the two names in question are correct. It doesn't magically change what the country is.


The name of the country is the United States... and it means it. Calling it America is diminishing what the country stands for.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

When I say "America," everybody in the world knows I'm talking about the United States. As for "diminishing what it stands for," talk to our evil government about that. They are doing far more to diminish what our nation stands for through actual actions than I am for shortening it's name.

----------


## hoytmonger

> When I say "America," everybody in the world knows I'm talking about the United States. As for "diminishing what it stands for," talk to our evil government about that. They are doing far more to diminish what our nation stands for through actual actions than I am for shortening it's name.


When you say 'America' everybody in the world thinks of the centralized government the United States has become.

----------


## Coolwalker

> The name of the country is the United States... and it means it. Calling it America is diminishing what the country stands for.


The U.S.S.R. or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was called Russia...that diminished it somehow?  Yeah right...this shit is getting yoyo. Call it whatever you want, which in itself is weird because you are an anarchist.

----------


## Micketto

> The name of the country is the United States... and it means it. Calling it America is diminishing what the country stands for.


As I said this morning... the states are not united.

So what's the point in claiming they are ?

----------


## Coolwalker

> As I said this morning... the states are not united.
> 
> So what's the point in claiming they are ?


That may be the root of our problem(s). Were all the states in lock-step, we could force the constitution to be upheld. The Feds like it when we aren't unified (united).

----------


## hoytmonger

> The U.S.S.R. or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was called Russia...that diminished it somehow?  Yeah right...this shit is getting yoyo. Call it whatever you want, which in itself is weird because you are an anarchist.


Yes, I am an anarchist... the US was considered an anarchist state by the Europeans and was then documented by a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville. This is the same man that described the US as exceptional.

Calling the US 'America' is falling prey to the statist belief that the states are subservient to the federal government. It's indoctrination.




> As I said this morning... the states are not united.
> 
> So what's the point in claiming they are ?


The states are united, under a limited federal government. That's the law as it stands. The states are allowed their differences and their residents are allowed to move between them... but their liberty is subject to state law.
The federal government claims authority over the states... this is false. The US is based on individual rights... based on natural rights... the federal government has no legal authority except that which is allowed by the document which authorized it... the US Constitution. The current, and past, federal administrations are illegal... yet they can impose their authority through coercion.

----------


## usfan

> yet they can impose their authority through coercion.


They also use bluff, bravado, & deception.  It's worked pretty well for them for 100 years...

----------

hoytmonger (09-20-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You are full of shit. Taxes I pay willingly as I enjoy the fact that I am able to travel on paved roads and my children get an education. I am not a slave. But you are a slave to a delusion that no government would be a good thing. Without government to be there when you need it, you would be a slave to fear of the unknown. You anarchists make me laugh...and you I am sure pay taxes as well so stop acting like you are superior to everyone else.


 I see, so if the government, instead of deducting from your wages and demanding other taxes, were to just send you a bill asking you to kindly pay 40% of your income, plus another 15% for your retirement, so that it can pay for all of the things that it currently pays for, you would willingly write that check?

----------


## hoytmonger

> You are full of shit. Taxes I pay willingly as I enjoy the fact that I am able to travel on paved roads and my children get an education. I am not a slave. But you are a slave to a delusion that no government would be a good thing. Without government to be there when you need it, you would be a slave to fear of the unknown. You anarchists make me laugh...and you I am sure pay taxes as well so stop acting like you are superior to everyone else.


It's interesting that the states with the highest taxes have the worst paved roads... and government 'education' is a joke. The state does not, cannot and has no obligation to protect you. You only pay taxes because you are coerced to do so... and what you get for your taxes is bullshit.
The state is detrimental to human society and has no redeeming qualities.

----------


## Belazure

> It's interesting that the states with the highest taxes have the worst paved roads... and government 'education' is a joke. The state does not, cannot and has no obligation to protect you. You only pay taxes because you are coerced to do so... and what you get for your taxes is bullshit.
> The state is detrimental to human society and has no redeeming qualities.


Well you wouldn't be able to post on the internet if it wasn't for 'da state'

Anarchism has failed miserably everywhere it's been implemented - even communism or fascism are more functional political systems.

----------


## Dan40

Why is the United States of America called the USA or America, or the United States?

For brevity.

Why was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics called the USSR or Russia or the Soviet Union?


Why does John get called "Jack?"

Why does Charles get called Chuck or Charlie?

Why does William get called Bill?

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

Helps you change a flat tire?

Jack.


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

Is hiding in your mailbox?

Bill.


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

And you throw him in a ditch?

Phil.


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

Has no head?

Chester.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

Has no head and no torso?

Dick.

----------

usfan (09-21-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> I see, so if the government, instead of deducting from your wages and demanding other taxes, were to just send you a bill asking you to kindly pay 40% of your income, plus another 15% for your retirement, so that it can pay for all of the things that it currently pays for, you would willingly write that check?


That's exactly what people like me who are self employed do. I think this is how all taxes should be collected from everyone. Then maybe people who think confiscatory tax rates are just fine and dandy would wake up and smell the coffee.

----------

Perianne (09-21-2013),usfan (09-21-2013)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Well you wouldn't be able to post on the internet if it wasn't for 'da state'
> 
> Anarchism has failed miserably everywhere it's been implemented - even communism or fascism are more functional political systems.


You're factually incorrect on every facet of your post... try again.

----------


## Perianne

> That's exactly what people like me who are self employed do. I think this is how all taxes should be collected from everyone. Then maybe people who think confiscatory tax rates are just fine and dandy would wake up and smell the coffee.


It must take some serious discipline to set that money aside.

----------


## wist43

> You are full of shit. Taxes I pay willingly as I enjoy the fact that I am able to travel on paved roads and my children get an education. I am not a slave. But you are a slave to a delusion that no government would be a good thing. Without government to be there when you need it, you would be a slave to fear of the unknown. You anarchists make me laugh...and you I am sure pay taxes as well so stop acting like you are superior to everyone else.


1) You do not own your house, or property, as long as you pay property tax. Property tax is rent, rent assumes ownership by the payee. If you don't think this is the case - just don't pay your property tax, and see how long you "own" your house.

Your house/property will be seized and sold; the government will keep what they say you owe them, plus fines, interest, and fees - and then give you the difference. 

Ownership implies sovreignty and control - property tax as a means of revenue collection by the state completely negates ownership of property.

2) We all recognize the need for roads and basic services. But that doesn't mean that we should blindly and foolishly allow the government to pick our wallets before we've even looked in our wallets.

Automatic payroll deduction is nothing short of foolish, as it effectively severs the taxpayer from being painfully aware of how much government is costing him. If he were actually aware of how much he was paying, he would stay on top of it, and his voice to government would be one of constraint. Of course this is unacceptable to the left - as they want to operate and spend with impunity... they literally want an ignorant population of payers to "shut up and take it".

Prior to automatic payroll deduction, the government was much smaller - 1) b/c the average citizen was much better informed about the dangers of government in general, and 2) b/c what little he did pay in taxes was paid personally, and usually at one time - and most of that bill was state and local. Very little actually went to the FedGov.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm very much for government - _limited government_.

Just b/c some of us recognize government as inefficient, wasteful, belligerent, and a creeping danger - does not mean we want no government. It just means we view government as our Founding Fathers did - as useful and necessary, but at the same time, as George Washington said, 
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

That view of government was arrived at only after examining all of recorded history - and that history teaches the same lesson over and over again - government must always be constrained and tended to by the citizens, or it will, and always has, swallowed the freedoms of the people.

Put government on autopilot at your own peril.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> That's exactly what people like me who are self employed do. I think this is how all taxes should be collected from everyone. Then maybe people who think confiscatory tax rates are just fine and dandy would wake up and smell the coffee.


I am self-employed and I agree with you that it should be that way if the looting is to continue. However, you missed the gist of the question. That's not "exactly what you do" as there is no kind request to pay. If you don't pay, you will be harmed. There is an implicit threat behind it. My question was whether or not someone would pay if they knew that it was just a request with no implicit threat.

----------


## Perianne

> 1) You do not own your house, or property, as long as you pay property tax. Property tax is rent, rent assumes ownership by the payee. If you don't think this is the case - just don't pay your property tax, and see how long you "own" your house.
> 
> Your house/property will be seized and sold; the government will keep what they say you owe them, plus fines, interest, and fees - and then give you the difference. 
> 
> I have never thought of it this way.  But I think you are right.
> 
> Ownership implies sovreignty and control - property tax as a means of revenue collection by the state completely negates ownership of property.
> 
> 2) We all recognize the need for roads and basic services. But that doesn't mean that we should blindly and foolishly allow the government to pick our wallets before we've even looked in our wallets.
> ...


If I know Coolwalker, he agrees with all this (correct me if I'm wrong @Coolwalker).  You guys are saying the same thing sometimes, just in different ways.

----------

Coolwalker (09-23-2013)

----------


## Micketto

> Why is the United States of America called the USA or America, or the United States?
> 
> For brevity.
> 
> Why was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics called the USSR or Russia or the Soviet Union?
> 
> 
> Why does John get called "Jack?"
> 
> ...



Can't believe you forgot a couple....


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
Is at your front door ?

Matt.



What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
Is in the pool ?

Bob.

----------


## Calypso Jones

yall are awful.

----------


## Dan40

> Can't believe you forgot a couple....
> 
> 
> What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
> Is at your front door ?
> 
> Matt.
> 
> 
> ...


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

Is hanging on your wall?

Art.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

Has Art nailed to him?

Wally.


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
Is in a box and his arms and legs are in the box with him?


Kit.


What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:

You throw into an Irish fireplace?

Pete.

What do you call a guy with no arms AND half legs:

Neil.

What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
Is skiing behind your ski boat?

Bob, Bob, Bob.

----------


## Micketto

> What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
> 
> Is hanging on your wall?
> 
> Art.
> 
> What do you call a guy with no arms or legs that:
> 
> Has Art nailed to him?
> ...



Lol... I forgot all about Art.

----------

