That was an interesting read, it reminds me of this interview by Bill Moyers with Mike Lofgren, a congressional staffer for 28 years: To the more cynical political observers, and in spite of all the red-state/blue-state bloviations, the ideological separation between republicans and democrats is insufficient for any true "democracy" to take place in the US. I was in high school for pretty much the entirety of G. W. Bush's first term and I think during that time I still had a conception of the US two party system which represented opposing viewpoints and fundamentally different values. It wasn't until college when I saw the shift from neoconservative leadership, to neoliberal leadership, culminating with Obama's election and Pelosi/Reid's congress, that I began to realize mainstream Republicans and Democrats play fiddle to very similar moneyed interests, particularly with respect to economics and foreign policy. There are a few social dogbone issues tossed into the pit of public debate for them to loudly scuffle over, but many other issues of public policy are either quietly agreed upon with bipartisan support, or hamstrung by a handful of influential key players. To try and identify a specific origin of this Deep State power is difficult, but I think the author takes a fairly safe stab, mentioning the Washington/New York axis. I think any sort of extreme concentrations of wealth lend themselves to backroom power. It really is my biggest issue with Clinton as a presidential candidate, she is very clearly a part of the deep state; I don't think I would have put two and two together at the time, but she was New York's senator for a while, and her role in the state department only solidified that for me. I look at the Benghazi scandal, and to me, that has Deep State written all over it, considering the allegations that the State Department was helping cover the CIA's transfer of weapons from Libyan rebels to Syrian rebels, of course now known as ISIS.What makes the deep state so successful? It wins no matter who is in power, by creating bipartisan-supported money pits within the system.
The author makes sure not to say anything too upsetting. Considering that governments are supposed to act in our interest (because otherwise why would we accept them), and we're talking about governments doing something that we would find "questionable", i.e. against our interests (or plain immoral), what possible justification could there be for concealing it? Even smoking pot is "legally questionable" in many places, but that doesn't matter. The real question is whether something is immoral or not, and governments sure do lots of things that are immoral (taxation, for starters). But if something immoral is done, a "plausible pretext" is just not good enough. In fact, nothing is, because nothing changes an act having been immoral at the time it was committed. Covering it up doesn't make it alright either. This guy is just beating around the bush right from the start, where he framed the issue of a deep state in terms of a problem with the Turkish state in particular, as if there weren't one everywhere. A deep state is basically just whatever group of elite innermost-insider psychopaths is actually calling the shots in a country. They operate behind the scenes of the public political circus, which is like a breeding ground for future members of the deep state. The most "accomplished" psychopaths are promoted, the rest keep competing for a spot (or being useful idiots).all governments—sometimes for good reasons—engage in concealment of their more questionable activities, or even resort to out and out deception
While an elected government might sometimes engage in activity that is legally questionable, there is normally some plausible pretext employed to cover up or explain the act.
I think that you might be misinterpreting what they're making a point of. Firstly, I don't think it's the ultimate goal of a state to act in our interests, at least not to the degree you imply. Their main goal is to propagate themselves and some kind of national interest (in this case, the continuation of American presence and power), and you can look back across history and find a lot of governments do not concern themselves with what the people necessarily think are moral. I think the author made it very clear that individual members of government justify their immoral acts as them being vanguards or soldiers for the greater good of continuing their country. Care to explain how taxation is immoral? I mean, I'm sure you have a good reason, but it looks like a non-sequitir in the discussion of a deep state. That's one of the oldest things done by a country, and probably not what the author means by a deep state. And I don't think they're suggesting any kind of cabal running things. Rather, there's a lot of people who act like this, because they saw benefit and personal justification through doing so, and it creates a system that self-propagates. No specific group is running things, it's just that everyone, or a large number of the people involved in government and benefitting sectors, are keen to keep this system going because it benefits them. That's why even people who profess (and quite likely even have) different political opinions will do a lot of the same things in power, because they're still competing within this system. The most powerful people are still the elected officials, they just do things to benefit the system and those in industries like defence and finance, because they're seeing it as personally beneficial, and quite likely also internalized that helping those kinds of industries aids the national interest.
I'm not sure what to make of your message overall, except that it looks intellectually dishonest. So I'll just keep this brief. We pay taxes because otherwise we're imprisoned, just like restaurant owners pay protection money to a mafia because otherwise they'll be hurt or their property destroyed. 1. Extortion is immoral. 2. Taxation is extortion. 3. Taxation is immoral.
#2 is a premise, an axiom. An organization threatening you with <NOPE> to get money from you matches both extortion and "taxation".
No see it's like this. The mob comes to you and says, "we're gonna make things rough on you. the only way out is to pay us off." The government on the other hand, determines that certain things (services, infrastructure, defense, etc) are vital to a functioning society and asks that its citizens pay a portion of their income, purchases, property value etc towards funding those things. Some citizens decide they'd rather not, so the government has to enact incentives (generally negative) to encourage people to pay.
You know "ask" is not the right word, right? I bet you also understand that your argument is based on that.. shall we say, mistake? ("encourage" is wrong too)asks that its citizens pay
So in your world the government would collect no taxes? Sounds great. I'm sure that will go well. You can call it whatever you want but the fact remains that in order to have a functioning society, some costs must be collectivized and borne by all of the people, for the benefit of (ideally) all the people.
Somehow you failed to mention why "costs must be collectivized", and what the "costs" even are, and to whom? Also, politicians just keep showing us, with their actions, that they're not working towards our interests, but their own (and their cronies). Why would you still insist otherwise?the fact remains that in order to have a functioning society, some costs must be collectivized and borne by all of the people, for the benefit of (ideally) all the people
This is fairly off topic, but I'm just curious about where you're coming from here. Would your point of "2. Taxation is extortion." change if the penalty for failing to pay were different? Say forcible deportation? This is purely hypothetical, so I have no idea where one would be deported to, but there would be no imprisonment, if you don't want to pay you'd be dropped off at the border, free to start your own micronation or whatever. I also consider a second hypothetical scenario, no "government" (as we traditionally understand it), just a commune that you're born into, everyone produces food, goods and services for each other, while using certain communal facilities and resources. All members participate with the understanding that a portion of their labor each month must go to maintain those communal facilities, otherwise they will no longer be welcome to engage with the other members. Would you consider that labor an immoral tax? To me, the simple logic of, "1. Extortion is immoral. 2. Taxation is extortion. 3. Taxation is immoral." short circuits some of the logic behind what allows communities of humans function. The maxim "No taxation without representation," captures the gist of what I find immoral about taxation much better. If you are (truly) represented at the decision-making table, to me, that makes taxation less of a "forced extortion" and more of an agreement among peers. Now of course, when we consider our current situation with the US Federal government, it strains credulity to say that 99% of us plebeians have our interests represented at the political table. Furthermore, talking specifically about the Deep State here, I think it makes it even more apparent that we have taxation without actual representation, and there are only a tiny fraction of particularly wealthy and powerful individuals who have decision-making power. The premise that America has turned into an oligarchy is not exactly a new idea. I think you still have a point, but it's undermined by such simplicity. People are social creatures and I think most individuals understand that contributions to the community, as a whole, do not seem immoral if they are made with representation and consent. It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric, "The State is evil! Individual autonomy is paramount in all circumstances!" but personally, I reject that notion; collectivism is both important for the progress of our species, and does not necessitate an "immoral State" to maintain.
When you say "penalty for failing to pay", you're actually talking about "punishment for disobeying". When a mafia tells you to give them money, they know you won't do it voluntarily, so they'll have to force you (by threatening you with violence or property destruction or whatever). "Penalty for failing to pay" sounds like you have an obligation to pay, which of course you don't. When a government tells us to give them money for all their fucking adult lives, they know we wouldn't do it voluntarily, so they force us to pay (by threatening us with imprisonment). People grumble about having to pay taxes, just like a restaurant owner would grumble about having to pay protection money, but they don't see that it's actually just extortion, because they've been brainwashed by government schools and continuous propaganda bombardment from the media. Suppose a photography club- .. nay, commune, imposes its membership on you and starts extorting you for money. They'll tell you that your money will be used to provide equipment for the club's members, so that they can produce lovely photographs. Naturally, the photography club has a Leader who gets to impose his will on all the other members. The leader is chosen by voting, and anyone who disobeys him will be punished. Since "collectivism" is important for the progress of great photography, I guess everything is alright?
Unfortunately the planet is no longer big enough for humans to sustain themselves as free and independent family/social units, as prehistoric humans did. If you want to start your own country and make your own rules, make a micronation and fight for your independence, but don't expect that you can just mooch off of society by continuing to interact with the members of that society. If you want to be part of a group of people, you have to play by the rules of the group. If those people's rules are set unilaterally by a tyrant, they're probably shitty rules to live by, akin to extortion. If those rules are set through the consent of the members of the group, well, that is the will of the group and they are under no obligation to allow you to be a part of the group if you choose not to follow their rules. You really think any group should be forced to allow you to be a member if you choose not to follow their rules? I get the impression you don't really want to talk hypotheticals here, so I'll say this: here in America, we have "freedom" or whatever you want to call it; you can "buy" land and you "own" that land, but that land is still under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the state government, the county government, and perhaps even a local government. If you want true freedom, without those airquotes, as in you are lord, king and commander, beholden to no one but yourself, you have to fight to the death for it. I hate to be the one shatter your illusions of what the difference between "freedom" and freedom is, but most of us have already wised up to this. Like I said before, the planet is no longer big enough for humans as a species to sustain themselves as free and independent family units, so I'm willing to accept the airquotes around my freedom. As a compromise, I would like to live in a true democracy (either direct or representative) where myself and my peers have a real and equal say in the decision making process of the state that governs my life and property. Unfortunately, the government I live under does not resemble this, and I'm willing to join with others to fight for a more equal say in the governing process, but if you want to be on your own, then you have to fight on your own. No one is going to fight for your rights if your responsibilities end at your doorstep.
Hmm.. I wonder how you, as a psychopath playing games with me, see this situation. I'm guessing you thought you managed to "hook me" with the earlier message where you were "more reasonable", and now thought it was time to start making me jump through your bullshit hoops, refuting complete fucking horseshit? As an aside, how fucking sad is it to gleefully play games where your "opponent" doesn't even know he's playing? In reality, your supposed opponent is not even an opponent, because he's simply not playing. There's only one player, like some retarded child moving the pieces of both sides of a chessboard and being proud of winning. You might want to consider trying to have your life amount to more than just a shitstain on the sole of humanity's boot. Participate.
See, here's the difference between you and me. I'm here to rationally and honestly discuss things, looking for new ideas to challenge my beliefs. You, apparently, are here to spew expletives and insults, which while mildly entertaining to read your anger, only serves to debase your arguments. Your point that "taxation is immoral" because "taxation is extortion" is both shallow and incomplete; "taxation without representation is immoral" because "taxation without representation is extortion" is a much more rigorous assertion. I've responded to your points, yet you return crude language with no intellectual value. If you want to continue our discussion, edit your comment to remove the quoted language and I will consider your points if there is anything left. Until then, good day to you.... psychopath... your bullshit... complete fucking horseshit... how fucking sad... some retarded child... just a shitstain...
Taxation is done to keep the state alive. Calling it extortion is ridiculous, and misses the historical and social reasons we have tax. Sure, maybe it feels like extortion because there's a threat of punishment, but a having a government is the natural state of things, and they do provide some very beneficial services. Perhaps it's because I think Hobbes provides realistic perspectives on the existence of the state, that I don't think it's so evil and immoral. I actually do think having a state is a useful, noble thing, and I think it's rather clear that any stateless entity will not have any longevity, not because it's unstable, but because more powerful actors will always come in.
Extortion is done to fund a mafia's activities, and the bosses' yachts and so on. Calling it extortion is ridiculous and misses the historical and social reasons we have mafias. Sure, maybe it feels like extortion because it is, but having a mafia is the natural state of things, and they do provide some very beneficial protection services.Taxation is done to keep the state alive.
Calling it extortion is ridiculous, and misses the historical and social reasons we have tax.
Sure, maybe it feels like extortion because there's a threat of punishment, but a having a government is the natural state of things, and they do provide some very beneficial services.
How do you even establish property in the first place?Extortion is done to fund a mafia's activities, and the bosses' yachts and so on.
Except people being extorted by the mafia are not part of the mafia, nor have any say in its activities. A representative government is different.