The Copenhagen climate summit was pretty much summed up in the high-level segment yesterday when Penny Wong’s (the Australian environment minister) speech was interrupted by whistles and chanting and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez got a standing ovation.
[...]
President Chavez brought the house down.When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation
…and what of Chavez’s own ‘road to hell’?
#60, You’ve carefully avoided the crux of my argument.
No, I am not. I have already said I do not consider anything collected through apportionment to be socialist but you keep changing the wording thinking you’ll get a different answer.
Any other method is subjective no matter how you try to justify it.
modern democracies
You are correct. 51% of the population can take away the rights of the remaining 49%. That’s why this is a Republic and not a democracy.
Your fixated on ‘everybody paying the same’
My bad. I thought you understood the definition.
Another word for apportionment would be a consumption tax, like say 10% (instead of the income tax). Thus someone spending $200 a year would only pay $20 and someone spending $200,000,000 a year would pay $20,000,000.
We on the same page now?
Chavez = typical AGW believer.
I blame sex for AGW. If sex weren’t so much fun there wouldn’t be nearly as many of us as there are now.
Climate changes. It was hotter in the past and it was colder in the past and now we have cooling trend that the scare mongers can’t explain so the obscure data to try and make facts look like the planet is warming when in fact it is cooling.
The planet also does not hold on to more heat when it warms up a tad. That has been established.
Under the circumstances forget cap and trade and the dog and pony show.
#48 Are you done licking obama’s floor? Get back to it, sheeple!
# 61 LibertyLover
‘Your fixated on ‘everybody paying the same’
My bad. I thought you understood the definition.’
The definition uses ‘just proportions’ – so what it mean depends on your determination of just. I assumed you meant ‘equal’ – as you hinted at previously, and when I said that was my assumption you didn’t deny it.
Soo. Now I’m understanding that what you’re effectively proposing is that there would be no tax on property, but there would be a tax on transactions. Like there already is at with state tax. And increasing that to 10% would be enough.
Who knows. It would shift around wealth. I fail to see how that’s some killer solution.
So economically it encourages people not to make transactions. A brilliant plan to counter global warming no doubt.
I didn’t bring it up before – but rich people don’t pay taxes at the same proportion as middle class or poor people. Proportionately rich people pay much less. Go look it up, its kind of embarrassing. As do multi-national companies, that can pay next to none. I think I read goldman sachs paying tax at 1%.
Anyways this is great and all – but it doesn’t really have anything to do with socialism. What you are talking about is tax. Tax isn’t socialism. It may be a method to derive funds to fund social programs but it isn’t socialism. And that you don’t think it’s socialism if money is collected via ‘apportioned tax’ makes no sense to me.
Anyways to take a different tangent. Forget all that. What are we trying to maximize here? If it’s to maximize individual ‘money’ or ‘property’ then we are fools.
We should be trying to maximize ‘happiness’ – and money and property over a fairly nominal figure, don’t make any difference. So all these methods presumably to maximize individual ‘wealth’ are all doomed to fail. It may sound hokey – but if you are around people who are generally happy its much easier for you to be happy. In fact I’d argue you can only get true happiness through other people. And as a bonus, you won’t need to be scared of people taking your stuff, so they can pay for a roll of bread for their kid.
We’re all connected folks. And on that note Merry Christmas.
#66, Like there already is at with state tax. And increasing that to 10% would be enough.
Actually, I was thinking of it at the federal level. There are federal duties that must be performed as per the Constitution. Dumping the income tax in favor of a consumption tax would be enough.
There are numerous studies out there showing the bottom line but all have been slammed by those who stand to lose too much from the current system.
but it doesn’t really have anything to do with socialism. What you are talking about is tax. Tax isn’t socialism.
You are partially correct — not all taxes are not socialism. However, by taking income tax, you are doing the exact thing socialism is defined as — controlling the production. When you can see how reducing someone’s standard of living results in changes to production, you’ll see this is what an income tax does.
We should be trying to maximize ‘happiness’
Well, that is a noble goal. But you can’t legislate happiness. If you want people to be happy, you need to let them be free to do what they want as long it doesn’t interfere with anybody else’s rights. How hard is that to understand?
Benjamin Franklin said it best — “The Constitution only guarantees your right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
#67, Loser,
by taking income tax, you are doing the exact thing socialism is defined as — controlling the production.
Another definition of “socialism”?
I got some news for you. Controlling the production has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with creating an artificial scarcity / abundance of goods. It’s an old capitalist trick used to corner the market.
One group will dump a lot of product on the market driving the prices dawn. When the competition has gone out of business, the survivors raise the prices to something a lot more profitable. This tactic has killed more domestic industries over the past few years than anything else, including your taxes.
#68, Why would you sacrifice others to save your wife?
Why? We’re waiting for answer.