Nonprofit Organizations Are the Bane of Civilization

[bobevenson]

What do you mean by "social integration"?

Social integration is like a traffic cop keeping people from running into each other.

[Obvious Leo]

The intrinsic value of property is the range of wholesale value it would sell for in the marketplace.

How would this apply to me? Are opinions property? I make my living as a management consultant (whatever the fuck that is), which means that people pay me for my opinions as to how they should conduct their business. In other words I sell my opinions for the best possible price which my target market is prepared to pay. Under the current tax laws in my country I am liable for taxation on these sales and I'm perfectly content to pay it. How would this change under an Evenson government?

[Gary Childress]

Chomsky on "for profit organizations".

https://youtu.be/NajQTN9qhXg

[Arising_uk]

What do you mean by "social integration"?

Don't bother Gary he doesn't know it's just a pet phrase of his and if you press he'll just call you a socailst or something.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes,

I got no beef with the tax exempt status. Hell, I want that sweet deal for myself. No, I object only to taxpayer support of organizations that, with re-jiggering, can support themselves.

You mean like the armed forces; the coast guard; fire service? You are kidding?
Maybe you are just tilting at windmills?
In fact I'm puzzled to understand who exactly you are talking about.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The biggest non-profit organisation in my country is the government, Bob. Should I stop paying my taxes?

The government is the exception that proves the rule. However, under AEP theory, the only proper function of government is social integration. Government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. Under AEP theory, the government is merely an overseer having no employees or payroll. Its only source of transfer funds is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

What do you mean by "social integration"?

I'm more puzzled how government can act in any capacity with the chains that Bob would have them wear.
The government has to provide social integration (whatever that is), without owning anything, without supporting anything, and without promoting anything: not even employees. It would not have the power to do anything without people. It could never gather what limited tax capability he has provided it with and no one is going to declare "market value" for any item - why should it?

Bob is insane.

[Obvious Leo]

Bob is insane.

I think Bob is just pulling everybody's chain. How does he propose that his government will be able to collect taxes without any employees? Is he aware that the more he narrows his tax base the easier it will be for individuals and corporations to avoid paying any tax at all? This is already a serious enough problem under existing tax regimes, where paying tax is essentially optional once an individual or corporation generates revenue beyond a certain level. Is Bob aware that it was just such an optional taxation system which sent Greece belly-up? (although it may also be possible that Ouzo was a contributing factor.)

Take my advice, Bob. Forget about economics and just stick to your excellent idea about providing high-powered fully automatic assault rifles to any psychopath who wants one and your political future is guaranteed. This will also have the added benefit of making the world a safer place for everybody living outside the USA.

[bobevenson]

The intrinsic value of property is the range of wholesale value it would sell for in the marketplace.

How would this apply to me? Are opinions property?

No, only natural and manufactured property have intrinsic market value. In other words, things like opinions, currency, stocks and bonds, patents, trademarks, and intellectual property, while they have no intrinsic market value, they do have market value. The key word here is "intrinsic." Class dismissed!

[bobevenson]

I'm more puzzled how government can act in any capacity with the chains that Bob would have them wear. The government has to provide social integration (whatever that is), without owning anything, without supporting anything, and without promoting anything: not even employees. It would not have the power to do anything without people. It could never gather what limited tax capability he has provided it with and no one is going to declare "market value" for any item - why should it? Bob is insane.

Let me try to clarify things for you. Just because the government owns no property of any kind, not even a single paper clip, and has no employees, it can still accomplish social integration through profit-making companies that are hired by consultants appointed by the government. The money to pay for social integration and other governmental responsibilities such as defense comes from taxation, and any amount of money can be raised by a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. Who determines intrinsic market value? Well, real estate companies already do it for real estate. Paid government consultants will do it for everything else. And by the way, the zillions of other taxes that people and companies pay will be summarily abolished, and the single tax will be paid monthly like a utility bill. This is AEP government in action, my friends.

[Gary Childress]

I'm more puzzled how government can act in any capacity with the chains that Bob would have them wear. The government has to provide social integration (whatever that is), without owning anything, without supporting anything, and without promoting anything: not even employees. It would not have the power to do anything without people. It could never gather what limited tax capability he has provided it with and no one is going to declare "market value" for any item - why should it? Bob is insane.

Let me try to clarify things for you. Just because the government owns no property of any kind, not even a single paper clip, and has no employees, it can still accomplish social integration through profit-making companies that are hired by consultants appointed by the government. The money to pay for social integration and other governmental responsibilities such as defense comes from taxation, and any amount of money can be raised by a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. Who determines intrinsic market value? Well, real estate companies already do it for real estate. Paid government consultants will do it for everything else. And by the way, the zillions of other taxes that people and companies pay will be summarily abolished, and the single tax will be paid monthly like a utility bill. This is AEP government in action, my friends.

Sounds like a pretty nutty society. I take it you didn't watch any of the Chomsky video I posted?

[bobevenson]

Sounds like a pretty nutty society. I take it you didn't watch any of the Chomsky video I posted?

Maybe you'd care to elaborate on what you think is nutty about it. I wasn't able to watch the Chomsky video, but maybe you'd like to tell me who Chomsky is and what he has to say.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm more puzzled how government can act in any capacity with the chains that Bob would have them wear. The government has to provide social integration (whatever that is), without owning anything, without supporting anything, and without promoting anything: not even employees. It would not have the power to do anything without people. It could never gather what limited tax capability he has provided it with and no one is going to declare "market value" for any item - why should it? Bob is insane.

Let me try to clarify things for you. Just because the government owns no property of any kind, not even a single paper clip, and has no employees, it can still accomplish social integration through profit-making companies that are hired by consultants appointed by the government. The money to pay for social integration and other governmental responsibilities such as defense comes from taxation, and any amount of money can be raised by a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. Who determines intrinsic market value? Well, real estate companies already do it for real estate. Paid government consultants will do it for everything else. And by the way, the zillions of other taxes that people and companies pay will be summarily abolished, and the single tax will be paid monthly like a utility bill. This is AEP government in action, my friends.

Fuck off - you are just making a complete arse of your self. How the fuck can a government appoint anyone without staff. Your brain is dead.

[bobevenson]

I'm sorry, but since you are unable to fathom political or economic theory, it would be best for you to associate yourself with Philosophy Explorer in The Lounge.

[Gary Childress]

Sounds like a pretty nutty society. I take it you didn't watch any of the Chomsky video I posted?

Maybe you'd care to elaborate on what you think is nutty about it. I wasn't able to watch the Chomsky video, but maybe you'd like to tell me who Chomsky is and what he has to say.

Noam Chomsky is probably best known in academia as a pioneer in (or even the "father" of) the field of linguistics. To us regular dopes he's somewhat equally well known as an American dissident, critical of many of the US government's foreign and domestic policies.

The video is only 17 minutes long but it does a pretty good job of highlighting some of what Chomsky has said about the tendency of so called "libertarianism" and other far right movements to distract themselves from the real enemies of ordinary people. There are two major sectors in American society; the corporate sector and government. Although our government is essentially far from a democracy (due to the effects of corporate media propaganda) it is more democratic than a corporation is. Corporations are authoritarian structures. In Chomsky's view, If ordinary people want to change their plight, getting rid of government in the favor of exploitive corporations is the wrong way to go about it.

You might enjoy reading some of Chomsky's political works. It might open some new perspectives on things. It did for me when I first started reading him in the 1990s. I still find his views surprising and enlightening to this day. He's in his late 80's now and still sharp as a tack. Very admirable old man.

[bobevenson]

Sounds like a pretty nutty society. I take it you didn't watch any of the Chomsky video I posted?

Maybe you'd care to elaborate on what you think is nutty about it. I wasn't able to watch the Chomsky video, but maybe you'd like to tell me who Chomsky is and what he has to say.

Noam Chomsky is probably best known in academia as a pioneer in (or even the "father" of) the field of linguistics. To us regular dopes he's somewhat equally well known as an American dissident, critical of the US government's foreign and social policies.

The video is only 17 minutes long but it does a pretty good job of highlighting some of what Chomsky has said about the tendency of so called "libertarianism" and other far right movements to distract themselves from the real enemies of ordinary people. There are two major sectors in American society; the corporate sector and government. Although our government is essentially far from a democracy (due to the effects of corporate media propaganda) it is more democratic than a corporation is. Corporations are authoritarian structures. In Chomsky's view, If ordinary people want to change their plight, getting rid of government in the favor of exploitive corporations is the wrong way to go about it.

You might enjoy reading some of Chomsky's political works. It might open some new perspectives on things. It did for me when I first started reading him in the 1990s. I still find his views surprising and enlightening to this day. He's in his late 80's now and still sharp as a tack. Very admirable old man.

I'm sorry, but it is quite apparent that Mr. Chomsky should stick to linguistics. If he believes that the U.S. is not a democracy because of corporate advertising money, he must think Americans could be swayed to vote for Satan if they saw enough of his ads. His idea that corporations are exploitative and should be democratic only betrays his economic ignorance.