Democratic Marxism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

    The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

    Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

    Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
      How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

      The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

      Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

      Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
      Even elected officials can not violate the Constitution, as was shown recently when Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act was deemed unconstitutional despite his insistence that was what Canadians voted for ("fringe minority with unacceptable views".) Sorry to disappoint you, Bob, but it does not matter what platform is proposed to the electors; the Constitution can not be violated PERIOD!

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

        While Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is primarily concerned with protection against physical or legal harm by the state, its reference to 'security of the person' might be broadly interpreted in contexts involving severe psychological and emotional impact. Consider, for instance, a situation where government policy results in the expropriation of a business that is not merely a source of income but also central to an individual's identity and purpose. Such an action transcends mere financial loss, profoundly affecting the individual's psychological and emotional well-being.

        In scenarios where the loss of a business due to government action leads to severe mental distress for the owner, it could be argued that this constitutes an infringement on their 'security of the person.' The impact here is not just economical but deeply personal, striking at the core of their identity and sense of self.

        ....

        This approach not only overlooks but actively causes the destruction of the very essence of people's lives — something no amount of money can compensate for. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established to protect citizens from such profound violations. Any government policy that significantly interferes with personal livelihoods and identities should be carefully evaluated for its human impact, respecting legal, financial, and, crucially, personal and emotional aspects. This respect for the multi-dimensional nature of human rights and dignity is precisely why the Charter exists, and any system that seeks to undermine these protections is, in my view, inherently flawed and ethically questionable.
        Ok, smartass, what about people LOSING JOBS because of corporate downsizing?

        Is that violating the Constitution?

        Such sanctimonious crap about "mental distress" ... would be ok if it covered ALL such cases, but you cherry pick against DM's policy on private property while at the same tine you would expound corporate violations of the EXACT SAME TYPE AND EFFECT ... simply because corporations in your opinion know better what they are doing! LOL

        We cannot be protected against everything. Life throws us curveballs, we have to learn to hit them for home runs.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
          How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

          The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

          Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

          Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
          Actually Bob, Dilip's position is like Blue Swiss Chess.

          Full of holes and stinking like sewage.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re Sid's Post # 92 above - Charter Application

            I am not disappointed.

            Democratic Marxism fully agrees that not only the people, but also the government (Capitalist or Democratic Marxist), cannot breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

            The Charter is also the Canadian protector of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority"!

            I am glad to see, Sid, that you accept the DM position on the Charter.......we are in agreement on one thing.......maybe there will be more of which we can convince you.

            Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
              How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

              The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

              Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

              Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
              Bob,
              Seems you did not look at the video in my post #75 here. As Sid has stated, there have been the usual brain dead idiotic comments by Pargat posted, (like about some billionaires wanting their taxes to be increased)....and the video in post #75 explains the real truth behind that... and behind the progressive taxation supported by the 'majority' (which is, tax others more than me, which is no different than saying: steal from minority. It is very much the tyranny of the majority over the minority...watch the video in #75 to get some understanding, Bob!)
              Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 1st February, 2024, 05:54 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                The principle: Those who benefit most from the system, should most support the system.

                Nothing wrong with this as a general principle.

                In taxation, the principle generates "Progressive Taxation".

                Your position that this is "stealing" is not supported in law!

                If it were stealing, then it would be a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Government.

                Show me the Canadian case that has been brought against progressive taxation on Charter grounds, and has been won. There are none. Why? Because all, except you and Sid, accept that there is NO illegality involved here in progressive taxation.

                Bob A

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Brain dead idiot

                  Ok, smartass, what about people LOSING JOBS because of corporate downsizing?

                  Is that violating the Constitution?

                  Such sanctimonious crap about "mental distress" ... would be ok if it covered ALL such cases, but you cherry pick against DM's policy on private property while at the same tine you would expound corporate violations of the EXACT SAME TYPE AND EFFECT ... simply because corporations in your opinion know better what they are doing! LOL

                  We cannot be protected against everything. Life throws us curveballs, we have to learn to hit them for home runs.
                  In this latest exchange, we witness yet another example of intellectually bankrupt discourse emanating from someone who seems to believe that breathing in 25,000 PPM of CO2 is perfectly acceptable and that masks, contrary to a substantial body of scientific evidence, do not become Petri dishes for bacteria. These positions are dismissively categorized as "outlier studies," a convenient label for ignoring inconvenient truths.

                  And now, we are presented with a new "gem" of wisdom from an individual who cavalierly views mankind as a cancer, further showcasing a profound disconnect between humanity and reality. To draw a false equivalence between the natural dynamics of business failure and the draconian government expropriation of private property as "sanctimonious crap" Such comparisons are not just intellectually lazy; they're a glaring misrepresentation of fundamental economic principles and a blatant disregard for individual rights.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                    The principle: Those who benefit most from the system, should most support the system.

                    Nothing wrong with this as a general principle.

                    In taxation, the principle generates "Progressive Taxation".

                    Your position that this is "stealing" is not supported in law!

                    If it were stealing, then it would be a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Government.

                    Show me the Canadian case that has been brought against progressive taxation on Charter grounds, and has been won. There are none. Why? Because all, except you and Sid, accept that there is NO illegality involved here in progressive taxation.

                    Bob A
                    You either did not watch the video in #75, or have no responses to what it so succinctly states. And there is inherent contradiction in what you are saying: those who pay the least taxes to the system are the ones currently benefiting the most out of it in terms of government benefits, and so they should pay the most taxes... that is what your 'principle' states!! Those who earn a decent amount (despite your 'system', not because of it) are the ones who worked hard at school, chose an appropriate career, worked smart at making whatever they do a success, prioritized sweating over playing, and yet need to be punished the most by progressive taxation... is that what you applaud?
                    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 1st February, 2024, 08:44 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                      The principle: Those who benefit most from the system, should most support the system.

                      Nothing wrong with this as a general principle.

                      In taxation, the principle generates "Progressive Taxation".

                      Your position that this is "stealing" is not supported in law!

                      If it were stealing, then it would be a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Government.

                      Show me the Canadian case that has been brought against progressive taxation on Charter grounds, and has been won. There are none. Why? Because all, except you and Sid, accept that there is NO illegality involved here in progressive taxation.

                      Bob A


                      Bob, it's critical not to conflate my critique of progressive taxation with an endorsement of the extreme measures you advocate, such as the complete abolition of private property for the "bourgeois" and the proposal that all private property should be administered by the state. There's a profound difference between the concept of progressive taxation, which is legally and widely accepted within our societal framework, and the draconian expropriation of private property by the government, which indeed would violate the charter rights as I've previously outlined.

                      Let's not obscure the debate with misrepresentations. My argument is not that progressive taxation itself constitutes "stealing" in the legal sense; rather, the issue at hand concerns the extent and purpose of such taxation, especially when it verges into territory that fundamentally undermines the right to private property.

                      Moreover, your assertion that my concerns about the legality and constitutionality of abolishing private property are unfounded because there have been no successful Charter challenges against progressive taxation misses the point entirely. The legal acceptance of progressive taxation does not provide a carte blanche for the government to overreach into outright expropriation without fair compensation, nor does it validate policies that effectively nullify the concept of private ownership.

                      Your reference to "fair compensation" in the context of abolishing private property is paradoxical. How can there be fair compensation when, under your proposed system, the very notion of private ownership is eradicated? The historical examples you so casually dismiss—Allende's Chile and Chavez's Venezuela—are instructive, not because they are outliers, but because they demonstrate the inevitable outcome of policies that undermine economic stability and individual rights. The "compensation" offered in these regimes, rendered through rapidly devalued currency, only led to hyperinflation and economic collapse, underscoring the impracticality and ethical bankruptcy of such approaches.

                      Invoking extreme Marxist ideologies as a defense of your position does a disservice to the nuanced and complex debate over economic policy and social justice. It's one thing to advocate for fairness and equity within the tax system; it's quite another to champion policies that have consistently led to economic ruin and the erosion of fundamental liberties. Your idealized version of state administration of all private property ignores the lessons of history and the intrinsic value of individual rights enshrined in our constitution.

                      Engaging in serious discourse about the role of government and the rights of individuals requires a commitment to realism and respect for historical evidence. Let's not reduce this critical debate to simplistic slogans or theoretical extremes that have repeatedly failed in practice. The challenges we face demand more thoughtful consideration and respect for the principles of freedom and property rights that form the bedrock of our society.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                        ...... To draw a false equivalence between the natural dynamics of business failure and the draconian government expropriation of private property as "sanctimonious crap" Such comparisons are not just intellectually lazy; they're a glaring misrepresentation of fundamental economic principles and a blatant disregard for individual rights.
                        Oh, it's a false equivalence? Why is that? Because you say it is?

                        So tell us, oh great wise man .... why is it a false equivalence? I can already imagine the Dilipian wordsmithing you are going to engage in, saying nothing in anywhere from 200 words up.

                        I think CT readers are smart enough to recognize crocodile tears coming from a biased hypocrite.

                        Comment


                        • Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies

                          Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5

                          Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.

                          image_3419.jpg

                          Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy

                          When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.

                          It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”

                          In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then whent the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).

                          The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy

                          The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.

                          So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).

                          The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.

                          The Non-Paid Working Class

                          The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.

                          The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.

                          Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.

                          Quality of Life

                          Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.

                          For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.


                          Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

                          Original – 20/8/4; Recent Revision – 20/10/17

                          Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

                          Recent Reviser: Bob Armstrong

                          Most Recent Postings:

                          24/2/2: CT.DM; DMPO; DM-G; DMGF; TRN

                          Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

                          (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

                          Fb Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum

                          https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus

                          E-mail:

                          demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

                          Snail Mail:

                          DMGI

                          P.O. Box 3246,

                          Meaford, Ontario, Canada

                          N4L 1A5

                          Website:

                          In development



                          Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                            Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies

                            Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5

                            Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.

                            image_3419.jpg

                            Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy

                            When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.

                            It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”

                            In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then whent the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).

                            The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy

                            The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.

                            So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).

                            The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.

                            The Non-Paid Working Class

                            The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.

                            The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.

                            Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.

                            Quality of Life

                            Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.

                            For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.


                            Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

                            Original – 20/8/4; Recent Revision – 20/10/17

                            Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

                            Recent Reviser: Bob Armstrong

                            Most Recent Postings:

                            24/2/2: CT.DM; DMPO; DM-G; DMGF; TRN

                            Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

                            (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

                            Fb Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum

                            https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus

                            E-mail:

                            demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

                            Snail Mail:

                            DMGI

                            P.O. Box 3246,

                            Meaford, Ontario, Canada

                            N4L 1A5

                            Website:

                            In development



                            Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020
                            I see when you can't argue a point, change the subject, and tell us all fairy tales about the benefits of a Marxism that, in practice, would be unconstitutional and, as was proven with your hero, Allende did not work in practice, ie, 600 percent inflation that had ZERO to do with US intervention.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

                              Oh, it's a false equivalence? Why is that? Because you say it is?

                              So tell us, oh great wise man .... why is it a false equivalence? I can already imagine the Dilipian wordsmithing you are going to engage in, saying nothing in anywhere from 200 words up.

                              I think CT readers are smart enough to recognize crocodile tears coming from a biased hypocrite.


                              The equivalence is false because business failures occur within market dynamics, influenced by consumer choice, competition, and innovation—elements of a free economy. Government expropriation of private property, however, is a unilateral action that strips individuals of their rights and assets without their consent or the natural interplay of market forces. It's not merely an economic transaction but a fundamental violation of personal freedoms and property rights protected under the law.






                              Comment


                              • Government & Expropriation

                                How far will the majority of capitalist voters go?


                                BREAKING: documents show Ontario may move to allow expropriation of land before environmental review



                                The Ontario government is mulling changes to environmental laws it believes will block lawsuits from landowners and fast-track highway, energy and transit projects.

                                According to an internal government document reviewed by The Narwhal, the change is expected to be announced as part of an omnibus bill in February, referred to as the Get It Done Act. It includes new proposed tools that could make it easier for the government to allow for expropriation of land to proceed with major infrastructure projects — a change the document notes could be viewed as “further weakening” of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.

                                https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...fGJspRMGRGTqrP

                                Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X