This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] brother_tempus 2 points 4 points 6 points (+6|-2) ago
Regulations and taxation are just alternate forms of prohibition which can create a black market depending of the severity of such, the size of legitate demand , and lastly tie size ( in dollars ) of the market
Prohibition does not work and so logically neither does regulation and taxation
[–] cli-che-guevara ago
Your first statement is right. Severity of taxation is very important on whether a parallel marketplace develops.
But your conclusion is logically fallacious due to it's over simplification. Your first statement shows there is a gradient of severity, but your conclusion is a rule that ignores your own assertion of a vector.
Prohibition does not work if there is a market place willing to risk the punishment for operation. Someone will be willing to make money off of unlawfully supplying a restricted good or supplying a highly taxed item below the taxed value and keeping the difference. Alcohol prohibition through Constitutional regulation is a great example.
Moderate taxation, where the risks of operating a black market don't outweigh the rewards, is still a partial prohibitional taxation. These cases go against your simplified rule. Regulation and taxation can be used to change trends in usage of a good or service as long as they are implemented in a way to not incentivize the creation of a second, parallel market. A good example is tobacco use. Regulation of advertisement and slowly increasing costs due to taxation have effectively shrunk the legal marketplace domestically.
That being said, I think forcing gun owners to license their firearms is just as unconstitutional as voter ID laws. In both cases the government is adding a cost restriction on a Constitutionally given right.
[–] Orthum 10 points -10 points 0 points (+0|-10) ago
Okay sure dumbass. You learn that in right wing nutjob school? Come on get the tinfoil hat off, taxation is legal, and civilization needs police, because I don't want a crazy fuckhead like you running around deceiding you don't like niggers and jews and starting to go off shooting people.
[–] brother_tempus 2 points 4 points 6 points (+6|-2) ago
ahh name calling, the hallmark of the intellectually impotent whose lack of ability compels him to attack the messenger because they cannot refute the message
[–] Truly 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You are reading entirely too much into his statement and acting like a moron.
He is saying that taxing a specific object leads to some size black market... he isn't speaking about taxation in general, just as an effect on guns.