Sunday, September 24, 2006

Lift! Bend! Tax! Spend!

According to the London Free Press, GoodLife Fitness Clubs owner David Patchell-Evans and the Fitness Industry Council of Canada are urging the federal finance department to make fitness club memberships tax deductible.

"The benefit to the government is huge."
Do tell… a government that represents Canadians receives benefits for itself, independent of Canadians? The indirect benefit, even if Patchell-Evans is understood to be appropriating an aggregate of individual Canadians under the banner of government, can only be supposed at best — without accomodatingly flexible social science metrics, that is — and clearly is not inclusive of those Canadians who get their exercise outside of a gym. But the financial benefits of specific incentives to targeted industries, of which Patchell-Evans is a member, are on the other hand incontestable…

… which makes these kinds of incentives nothing more nor less than indirect tax subsidies, as the shortfall in revenue must be adjusted for against the demands of other targeted tax subsidies. Why not eliminate all tax deductions and indirect tax subsidies to business altogether, and reduce the tax rate wholesale? Give Canadians the resources to act upon their own incentives instead of the government's. When did we start working out for the government instead of ourselves?

8 comments:

Ian Scott said...

Exactly, MapMaster... and:

"Give Canadians the resources to act upon their own incentives instead of the government's" in all things, including what foreign wars one wants to support or not support.

Little Big Man said...

Why not eliminate all tax deductions and indirect tax subsidies to business altogether, and reduce the tax rate wholesale? Give Canadians the resources to act upon their own incentives instead of the government's. When did we start working out for the government instead of ourselves?

Exactly MM. But careful: the "conservatives" will be calling you "pro-tax" because you dared to speak out against targetted tax cuts and subsidies: "What's the matter Mapmaster? Are you against successful business? Another Liberal!"

MapMaster said...

Ha ha, I suppose I deserve these parenthetical devices, eh Ian?

Ian Scott said...

LOL.. well I don't know about "deserve," just what logically follows :)

Ian Scott said...

But seriously.. let's consider something.. there are many Afghanis here in Canada.. in fact, one of my favorite convenience store attendents when I need smokes in the middle of the night, is from Afghanistan.

Now, there may be a majority of Afghans here in Canada that support their tax dollars going to the Canadian military and it's involvement in Afghanistan.. but if even ONE of them.. so valued their family that remained in Afghanistan, and knew that because of their proximity of where they lived, their lives were at "ultra risk" due to Canadian forces involvement... would you or anyone else, call them "traitor" for wishing or demanding their tax dollars were not spent on Canada's military involvement in that country?

How do you think some might feel, knowing that a government that coorced money out of them, might have used that money to kill.. even accidentally, loved ones?

With the excuse, "we were protecting ourselves?"

If wars were fought with funds from private donations, instead of power hungry political governments, I have no doubt that liberty would be the outcome.

In the long run, it is only individual liberty that can fund anything for any length of time.

Hell, just look at the Roman Catholic Church.. it funded much wars for a long time.. but her funding was based on a form of taxation called "tithing."

As more and more realized how evil this was, the more that Church lost its power. And ability to wage war on Non-Roman Catholics.

Religion is not much different from politics, MapMaster.

And I suggest that the ONLY way to ensure that no Muslim ever wants to kill you, is to offer him trade.

I dunno.. maybe 20 years of working in law enforcement, where I found different ways of dealing with folk that were supposedly a "risk," and finding that some of the most "dangerous" people would often be the ones coming to my rescue when in need has jaundised my views too much.

But when you got guys with guns, doing what everyone else says is "illegal" or "immoral," but you decide to actually treat them with respect as an individual, and they come to your rescue ... well.. that's more reality than assholes who live by some stupid foreign policy about aggression against others to protect interests.

Which leads me to more thoughts about what we discussed in our emails.

All political policies are in fact, stupid and idiotic. They assume shit about individuals that in fact, might not be true at all. The only and safest philosophy is to be apolitical, and encouraging others, regardless of belief, to share that view.

Not all muslims are "bad." The MAJORITY of Muslims, or followers of Islam, have as their own first priorities, the same things you and I love.. our children, our friends, our ability to do better than what we have right now.

Violence and war are always, secondary solutions. And they don't always work out. Check out East Berlin and most of eastern Europe after WW2. Of course, we can also ignore the fact that Hitler DID make peace offerings to the UK before 1940.... but of course, in retrospect, because Hitler is now "KNOWN" to be such an evil man, it is accepted that such "peace offerings" were "correctly" not bothered with.

For what?

Some six million Jews (or thereabouts.. 5.2 million if you accept the figures of serious historians.. but for decades, tyranny against a dozen more millions.

Maybe Chamberlain was too "soft..." but what if, Churchill, instead of being the warmonger he was, and the "British Empire" believer, had said, "Ok, this Hitler guy is an asshole, but let's seriously talk peace with him on our terms" instead of going off on his own rant, which was nothing short of bombing Dresden, etc.,?

It's all hypothetical of course. But can anyone really say, that peace was a possibility back then? Nope. Some politicians decided to use their own great oratory skills... and often, oratory skills are confused with critical thinking.. and five years of brutal war occurred.

I'm rambling. And I know I'm playing a game of "what if?" But.. for all intents and purposes, someone needs to play that game, if for the very least, to motivate SOME people to think about the politics of war, and what results from it. Glory? Freedom for ALL CONCERNED? Or just freedom for some group, that at the the time, has the political and emotional appeal?

how come we don't hear about the Gypsies? Or the Protestant Christians that were massacred by the Ustaci?

All in the name of WW2.

All in the name of who our "allies" were.

Note that not all of the "allies" had any ideas about recognizing individual liberty. All of them though, had their own political issues to overcome. Political power.

If you lived in 1943, and happened to have a son that was 18, the argument wasn't about whether your son should enjoy liberty, but whether your son should be required to fight at risk of his own pesonal death, for the sake of politics.

Not for the sake of liberty. If liberty was truly the goal, then Russia would never have been accepted as an ally of both the UK and the USA at the time. Russia was a political ally, just because their political system disliked Hitler for it's own reasons, that had nothing to do with the political reasons of the UK and the USA. But that was enough to call them an "ally" during WW2.

If you had an 18 year old son, is that what you'd want him to die for?

Would you be proud to say that your 18 year old son died so that instead of Hitler being in control of Eastern Europe, the USSR was in control?

Just because.. politics make strange bedfellows, when it suits?

Would you be proud to say that your 18 year old son died in the liberation of Berlin, so that East Berlin, for decades after could be in control of what was an "ally" at the time?

Would you be proud to say that your 18 year old son died in some fight in Iran, a couple of decades ago, while the US was involved in trying to politically destabalize some, while spending American tax dollars, stabilizing another, and a fight broke out, which caused your son to be killed as a result?

If you had an 18 year old son, would you be proud to know that he was killed in Iraq, during a war between Iraq and Kuwaitt, wherein the US originally lied to Iraq about what interest they had, and instead, have helped to support a totally UNDEMOCRATIC nation, just because it is friendly, and the US makes money from, even though there is evidence that Kuwait was indeed stealing from Iraq?

i just find it bizarre, that folks that call themselves "libertarians" or "anarchists" would even remotely give credence to US or otherwise interventions anywhere in the world, when in fact, the whole philosophy of both libertarians and anarchists is about no state, or limited state, as far as individuals go.

The goddamned state reguluates who you and I can trade freely with, and then they all get pissed off at some poppie growers in Afghanistan who are making money off their poppies, because somehow, they are being exported to "western world" countries and being turned into "illegal drugs."

yet, in times past, when it suited our own "political" representatives, these same poppy growers actually received funding from western governments in the "fight" against communism.

Man, politics is so fucked up. That's why I swear off it all.. and especially partisan shit, or shit that says, "well, in some case, it is necessary.. look what we did to help the Jews after WW2..." yeah.. look what we did.. we helped create an "Anti-Gentile" State, and many of us support it. I realize I'm verging on being called "anti-semitic" for this.. but seriously.... the facts are there. Israel IS an anti individual, anti-gentile State. It's absolutely NO different than some radical "Native" groups in North America - except that in some cases, here in North America, there actually treaties and signed agreements between the political representatives, that give much of the Native Land claims a huge advantage, if contract law is to be taken seriously.

Basically, as libertarians or anarchists, we need to seriously examine upon what premises any of our beliefs or support for any action, is based upon, and can it be measured universally.

If your grandfather bequeathed land to you, that somehow at the time, he was fucked out of actually owning because of some fuck ups by the political czars at the time, but it was his request that you should have the land, wouldn't you want to have a full and meaningfull disclosure of all that occured that fucked up the fact your granddaddy' wishes weren't complied with?

And how far back do you want to go? Wars? What is exactly the "right" to property, and how is that recognized and passed on during the ages?

If, indeed, some group of people can make claim to some part of the world because their ancestors held it for generations, but it was warring nations that took it from them, then... shouldn't that same principle apply to ALL lands and property?

Here's a scenario for you.. if in 500 years from now, there's a regime in the USA, that decides to find a way to gather up all the descendants of the Cherokee nation that still exist, and then use them as slave labour during a war, and then begin to exterminate them.. do you think you'd support a Cherokee demand to return to their "homelands," taking over that which others at the time, 500 hundred years hence, have some valid property claim to, and then the Cherokees, in order to create a Cherokee nation, do what they gotta do, to purge the land they are "returning" to, evict, kill, and take over, from the "American" inhabitants of this land, just because the rest of the world says that it should be "ok" for them to do so?

Just because the rest of the world thinks it was horendous that the Americans decided to focus on Cherokees at the time, and try to kill them all off?

So, that would make it ok for the Cherokees to return to the Georgia area, and the city of Atlanta, and take over, and exert their own nation status over their original lands, of five hundred years ago?

I dunno.. just asking. Trying to figure out premises, correct arguments as far as ancestral property rights, and of course, just ranting as well... and yeah, it's very very long, I know :)

Take your time if you are interested at all in responding.. and of course, don't respond if you don't have the time or inclination to do so, as well.

Little Tobacco said...

Christ! Ian how the hell do you excpect anyone to read all that?

Ian Scott said...

LOL, Little Tobacco :) Umm.. by using their eyes? :)

But as a follow up.. I'm wondering if Mapmaster and the rest of the London Foggers and commenters have ever bothereed themselves to take a long hard look at the plight of the Gypsies?

Gypsies, who have a genetic claim to being a "people," and who centuries ago, were driven from their "home lands" of Sri Lanka and Southern India, also are in a "diaspora."

I wonder why no one bothers to suggest they should have their own homeland, and recognize the genocidal activities against them as a people throughout the centuries, and yes..even in Hitler's WW2?

Is it all about "numbers?" Or are there some "REAL" principles involved? That can be applied, uiversally?

And if universally, where are the gypsy sympathizers?

Oh, I forgot.. Gypsies are.. um.. considered to be "thieves." funny that, compared to what some folks thought about Jews, a few hundred years ago...

Pietr said...

Let's rephrase the question:Why would anyone want to read all or any of that?