NationStates Jolt Archive

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere.
You want to talk slavery, my libertarian friends? How about earning minimum wage for working hard, earning your company it's money, and getting 1/1000 of what your corporate CEO is? How about being a sixteen year old kid from a poor family with hard-working parents who don't make enough not because of taxes, but because the boss needs all the cash he can get without sparing the tiniest bit? Being forced, because you can't afford otherwise, to live in a two-bedroom bungalow in a rough neighbourhood while all the fatcats live in their cavernous McMansions on suburban lots, commuting everyday in their shiny black Cadillacs while you can barely afford to take a bus?
That's slavery. Having a government take money in exchange for goods and services is not. Even if you don't get welfare money, you drive on their roads, use technological innovations that the government subsidized, use government-printed money, communication infrastructure, public utilities like drinking fountains, and deal with employees at various jobs educated by publicly-funded schools.
The government can do each and every one of these things better, and cheaper, because there is no profit motive. For example, in a private health care system, not only are you paying for the medical supplies and the doctor's salary, but also the owner of whatever hospital or clinic or whatever you're at. Since you're not lining anybody's pocket, you're paying less when everybody pays into it collectively.
And yes, you do have a choice. You choose to live in society, and therefore are obligated to contribute to it, and that's a basic element of political theory. If you hate paying taxes so much and are all about yourself, hermit it up. Go build your own cabin deep in the woods and get far, far away from society where you won't have to deal with being a part of a greater entity beyond yourself.
Otherwise, you don't know anything about slavery until you've lived under the thumb of the capitalist big-shot who's earning his millions off of your pennies.

Your argument falls apart once you realise:

1) the rich create jobs
2) capitalism hopefully also allows skill and hard work to come into the equation

Of course I do agree with you but capitalists won’t (not libertarians your off your rocker with that)

It's most interesting your Compass readings are directly below that post.

I do agree with you that the current ecnomics system is rigged as much as TV wrestling.

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere.
You want to talk slavery, my libertarian friends? How about earning minimum wage for working hard, earning your company it's money, and getting 1/1000 of what your corporate CEO is? How about being a sixteen year old kid from a poor family with hard-working parents who don't make enough not because of taxes, but because the boss needs all the cash he can get without sparing the tiniest bit? Being forced, because you can't afford otherwise, to live in a two-bedroom bungalow in a rough neighbourhood while all the fatcats live in their cavernous McMansions on suburban lots, commuting everyday in their shiny black Cadillacs while you can barely afford to take a bus?
That's slavery. Having a government take money in exchange for goods and services is not. Even if you don't get welfare money, you drive on their roads, use technological innovations that the government subsidized, use government-printed money, communication infrastructure, public utilities like drinking fountains, and deal with employees at various jobs educated by publicly-funded schools.
The government can do each and every one of these things better, and cheaper, because there is no profit motive. For example, in a private health care system, not only are you paying for the medical supplies and the doctor's salary, but also the owner of whatever hospital or clinic or whatever you're at. Since you're not lining anybody's pocket, you're paying less when everybody pays into it collectively.
And yes, you do have a choice. You choose to live in society, and therefore are obligated to contribute to it, and that's a basic element of political theory. If you hate paying taxes so much and are all about yourself, hermit it up. Go build your own cabin deep in the woods and get far, far away from society where you won't have to deal with being a part of a greater entity beyond yourself.
Otherwise, you don't know anything about slavery until you've lived under the thumb of the capitalist big-shot who's earning his millions off of your pennies.

ONE glorious solution comrade...COMMUNISM! *waves red flag* Hurrrahh! for the mother land!!:gundge:

Perhaps I have been read wrong: I am not against capitalism in a social sense. In fact, I believe that small businesses owned locally are the best thing, economically speaking, for a country. It keeps money within the communities instead of funnelling it to corporate headquarters God only knows where.
On the other hand, I am a staunch opponent of market fundamentalism. I do not believe that a CEO, President, manager, owner, or whoever is entitled to earn a gross amount of money disproportionate to his employees. In Japan the average lineworker earns 1/11 what the CEO of his company does. In Britain it is 1/24. In the United States, it is over 1/1100.
Laissez-faire capitalism has created factory farms that manufacture false food while farmers producing good old fashioned edible products of nature are being driven out by the cheap prices of terminator seeds that undermine capitalism by destroying the individual's ability to start up his own business as a farmer. The same can be seen on any level: retail, lumber, primary industries, anywhere.
Giving out mass corporate tax cuts doesn't create jobs, it just makes the wallets, and stomachs, of the company heads fatter. The rich don't create jobs, business creates jobs. The two are mutually exclusive.

ONE glorious solution comrade...COMMUNISM! *waves red flag* Hurrrahh! for the mother land!!:gundge:

Does anyone take what this dingbat has to say seriously? Being on the side of the majority of workers who earn the wealth of a company and who should be getting their fair dividends as opposed to the cash-hoarders does not make me a communist, you dunce. I suggest you do some further research into political theory and ideology to understand that the world isn't divided into "commies" and "capitalists".
Oh, one final thing. Nothing personal, Call to Power, just what I meant was the right libertarians like Milt Friedman and his clueless Chicago crew.

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere.
You want to talk slavery, my libertarian friends? How about earning minimum wage for working hard, earning your company it's money, and getting 1/1000 of what your corporate CEO is?
Awwwwwwwwww.

Want some cheese to go with your whine? You are the poster child for the jealousy that gives rise to socialism.

And no, your blatant non sequitur that since a person lives in "society" that person must "contribute to it isn't a-tall valid. Also, your blatant assertion that governments can provide services better and cheaper is contradicted by reality.

So please--spare us your hate-filled polemic rant about how your life sucks because you won't put forth the effort to make it better, and that you feel you should have everything handed to you on a silver platter.

"Laissez-faire capitalism has created factory farms that manufacture false food while farmers producing good old fashioned edible products of nature are being driven out by the cheap prices of terminator seeds that undermine capitalism by destroying the individual's ability to start up his own business as a farmer."

Well, Frederick, assume that only natural farms existed. Think of the costs of farming, delivering it, and selling it. Factory farms can produce more and at lower costs. Farming costs money and you need the capital to enter the market. And this is my last serious post for the next 2,752 posts.

ONE glorious solution comrade...COMMUNISM! *waves red flag* Hurrrahh! for the mother land!!:gundge:

Mmmmm, ignorance. Tasty.

Mmmmm, ignorance. Tasty.

Where's DHomme when you need him?

And what the hell is "false food" anyway?

And what the hell is "false food" anyway?

Food that isn't true food. *nods*

And what the hell is "false food" anyway?

Anything not grown on an old fashioned 1850s Mom and Pop Alcohol and Carrot farm.

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere.

Taxation isn't slavery.

It's more like mugging, extortion or simple robbery.

You want to talk slavery, my libertarian friends? How about earning minimum wage for working hard, earning your company it's money, and getting 1/1000 of what your corporate CEO is? How about being a sixteen year old kid from a poor family with hard-working parents who don't make enough not because of taxes, but because the boss needs all the cash he can get without sparing the tiniest bit? Being forced, because you can't afford otherwise, to live in a two-bedroom bungalow in a rough neighbourhood while all the fatcats live in their cavernous McMansions on suburban lots, commuting everyday in their shiny black Cadillacs while you can barely afford to take a bus?
That's slavery.

No, slavery is when your personal freedom is deliberately restricted, your humanity denied, your body bought and sold, forced to work at the threat of having you or your family raped or murdered or simply whipped into bloody chunks.

And I know some smarmy fellow here is going to argue, "I have to work or die. Therefore I'm a slave!"

Well, sorry, that's not the definition. Having to work or die is a fact of life. You find me an animal that doesn't work for it's food and I'll show you a hamburger.

Everything we do needs time, energy and money; everything we use requires those things not only to produce, but to use. You're expending energy right now just to argue on this forum - that's work.

And yes, people with extreme disabilities, like people in comas (say, they're vegetables instead of hamburgers), are somewhat of an exception. But *someone* has to work to keep them alive, well-fed and well-connected. That someone is me and you.

Otherwise, you don't know anything about slavery until you've lived under the thumb of the capitalist big-shot who's earning his millions off of your pennies.

Oh please. You have to work for a living. You don't make as much as other people. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Food that isn't true food. *nods*
Much like the True Slack cannot be spoken of. If it is spoken of, it is not the True Slack. Slack is inscrutable like that.

Laissez-faire capitalism has created factory farms that manufacture false food while farmers producing good old fashioned edible products of nature are being driven out by the cheap prices of terminator seeds that undermine capitalism by destroying the individual's ability to start up his own business as a farmer. The same can be seen on any level: retail, lumber, primary industries, anywhere.

"False food???!!"

What the fuck does that even mean???:rolleyes: And what the duck do you mean by "terminator seeds??? A couple of things are screamingly obvious from your post:

1) You have a seriously delusionally warped view of how the "farm system works, at least in the US.

2) You're an ignorant tool.

Here's some fact: the big "corporate farms" which dominate the American landscape these days don't have access to any super powerful seeds/ fertilizers etc that they only get because they can throw money at Congress.

They use the exact same fertilizers and seed that the few remaining small farms do.

The fact is this, in this day and age and modern world, the traditional family farmer/farm is a badly outdated and money draining anachronism, plain and simple.

It simply isn't economically feisable for a family farmer to survive these days wiothout enormous money handouts from the government. Why? Becausee there are so many government regulations which need to be met. And before you start shrieking and bleating about how unnecessary those regulations are, keep in mind that those regulations involve safety, both for the farmer and for the consumer of the farmers product. It is much more viable, from an economic standpoint for a corporate farm to meet all of the regulations then it is for a family farm.

Taxation isn't slavery.

It's more like mugging, extortion or simple robbery.
Funny, looks more like rent to me.

You find me an animal that doesn't work for it's food and I'll show you a hamburger.
Sea anemone.

"False food???!!"

What the fuck does that even mean???:rolleyes: And what the duck do you mean by "terminator seeds??? A couple of things are screamingly obvious from your post:

1) You have a seriously delusionally warped view of how the "farm system works, at least in the US.

2) You're an ignorant tool.

Here's some fact: the big "corporate farms" which dominate the American landscape these days don't have access to any super powerful seeds/ fertilizers etc that they only get because they can throw money at Congress.

They use the exact same fertilizers and seed that the few remaining small farms do.

The fact is this, in this day and age and modern world, the traditional family farmer/farm is a badly outdated and money draining anachronism, plain and simple.

It simply isn't economically feisable for a family farmer to survive these days wiothout enormous money handouts from the government. Why? Becausee there are so many government regulations which need to be met. And before you start shrieking and bleating about how unnecessary those regulations are, keep in mind that those regulations involve safety, both for the farmer and for the consumer of the farmers product. It is much more viable, from an economic standpoint for a corporate farm to meet all of the regulations then it is for a family farm.
OH COME ON! Do you like chicken that is pumped full of antibiotics and hormones and if forcefed so that it is so big that it can't move? What abut cattle kept in cages so small that they can't even turn around? Or Have calves that are fed with a solution that has cow blood in it? I think factory farming is one of he most disgusting, inhumane, and thoroghly barbaric practices of our society. And it is true, it is more economically viable, but I have this revolutionary idea (money isn't everything).

Hard to pick something to respond to, considering I have a wealth of myth-driven rants to do just that to, but I'll start here...

"False food???!!"

What the fuck does that even mean???:rolleyes: And what the duck do you mean by "terminator seeds??? A couple of things are screamingly obvious from your post:

1) You have a seriously delusionally warped view of how the "farm system works, at least in the US.

2) You're an ignorant tool.

Here's some fact: the big "corporate farms" which dominate the American landscape these days don't have access to any super powerful seeds/ fertilizers etc that they only get because they can throw money at Congress.

They use the exact same fertilizers and seed that the few remaining small farms do.

The fact is this, in this day and age and modern world, the traditional family farmer/farm is a badly outdated and money draining anachronism, plain and simple.

It simply isn't economically feisable for a family farmer to survive these days wiothout enormous money handouts from the government. Why? Becausee there are so many government regulations which need to be met. And before you start shrieking and bleating about how unnecessary those regulations are, keep in mind that those regulations involve safety, both for the farmer and for the consumer of the farmers product. It is much more viable, from an economic standpoint for a corporate farm to meet all of the regulations then it is for a family farm.

What the duck do I mean about terminator seeds? I mean the seeds that die immediately after first harvest, impeding anybody from using those seeds again, or seeds from that plant, to continue farming. You may not believe it, for some odd reason, but yes, factory farms DO have a wealth of technology at their disposal, because they are corporate, make a ton of money, and can fund that very research that they need to get the leading edge.
It's impossible for a family farmer to survive not because of government regulations. It's impossible because they're up against corporations like Dole that produce genetially altered food that grows in more plentiful quantities. May sound good, but a) next to no research is required to be done on these new products, and b) the companies can patent the new crops, suing any individual farmer that uses them.
Do some research instead of letting all the corporation-owned media outlets tell you what to know without backing up their facts. Find out for yourself the way things are.
Who's the ignorant tool now?

Awwwwwwwwww.

Want some cheese to go with your whine? You are the poster child for the jealousy that gives rise to socialism.

And no, your blatant non sequitur that since a person lives in "society" that person must "contribute to it isn't a-tall valid. Also, your blatant assertion that governments can provide services better and cheaper is contradicted by reality.

So please--spare us your hate-filled polemic rant about how your life sucks because you won't put forth the effort to make it better, and that you feel you should have everything handed to you on a silver platter.

Jealousy? Buddy, I work for a living, and I'm not all that bad off either. It just so happens that I used to work at a Wendy's, at a grocery store, and at a stadium on the crew. I got paid next to nothing, but since I was a kid, it was okay. There were guys around me who worked exponentially harder than any white collar worker I ever met and got paid the smallest fraction. I'm not jealous: I'm fair.
Yes, if you live in society, then you are obligated to contribute. That's the basic tenant of society: people form a collective group, live amongst each other for a common good. Everyone contributing to it is for the common good, which means that everyone would be a lot better off than if they were only looking out for themselves. It doesn't need to be about "me, my, mine" for you to have a good life. If you don't like it, become a hermit and then be a rugged individualist. By all means.
Corporations can certainly run things better: I'd rather the government keep their hands off of Heinz ketchup, because they're doing a bang-up job. But it's not moral or logical for someone to be looking to make a profit off of necessary things like health care, education, and other basic needs. The rich are not entitled to life any more than the poor, and should not expect a higher standard of health care as a result, nor education. It's called a level playing field, and is how we get rags-to-riches situations.
Don't you dare go about saying that people who are poor aren't striving to make their lives better. They work day in, day out to try to make ends meet, although you're probably saturated with so many untrue myths about welfare that it'd be impossible to sum it up quickly and free you of your ignorance on the matter. Just because they couldn't afford education, weren't born the smartest of the lot, and don't have excessive brawn from playing football in their teens doesn't mean that they're entitled to any less of an ability to live. That's what this is all about: those who work should earn money, and oftentimes people aren't earning enough because the governments of the Western World consistently side with corporate interests and further give the rich more money to burn while slowly depriving the working poor of their dues further. Get a clue instead of just absorbing corporate media information, which is clearly tailored to suit their interests.

OH COME ON! Do you like chicken that is pumped full of antibiotics and hormones and if forcefed so that it is so big that it can't move? What abut cattle kept in cages so small that they can't even turn around? Or Have calves that are fed with a solution that has cow blood in it? I think factory farming is one of he most disgusting, inhumane, and thoroghly barbaric practices of our society. And it is true, it is more economically viable, but I have this revolutionary idea (money isn't everything).

Right on. On top of that, Mac N Cheese that is made with a wide assortment of chemicals and is far from just the usual ingredients of true Italian pasta. My grandmother-in-law would be rolling over in her grave, God bless her Venician soul.
Genetic engineering, pesticides, chemical-laced foods, poisonous preservatives, run-off from the toxic plastic wrappings...need I say more? Again, to all of those but my small crew of like-minded friends here, do some research, don't invest so much trust into corporate factory farming.

Jealousy?
Yep. There's really no other reason for bringing up how much the CEO earns. None.


Buddy, I work for a living,
So do I.


and I'm not all that bad off either. It just so happens that I used to work at a Wendy's, at a grocery store, and at a stadium on the crew. I got paid next to nothing, but since I was a kid, it was okay. There were guys around me who worked exponentially harder than any white collar worker I ever met and got paid the smallest fraction. I'm not jealous: I'm fair.
Fair does not mean equal outcome.


Yes, if you live in society, then you are obligated to contribute.
No, you actually aren't.


That's the basic tenant of society: people form a collective group, live amongst each other for a common good. Everyone contributing to it is for the common good, which means that everyone would be a lot better off than if they were only looking out for themselves.
If you don't look out for yourself, you can't really help others for long, can you?

And, while Adam Smith got a lot horribly wrong, he did get this correct:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."


It doesn't need to be about "me, my, mine" for you to have a good life. If you don't like it, become a hermit and then be a rugged individualist. By all means.
What a wonderfully false dichotomy.


Corporations can certainly run things better: I'd rather the government keep their hands off of Heinz ketchup, because they're doing a bang-up job. But it's not moral or logical for someone to be looking to make a profit off of necessary things like health care, education, and other basic needs.
Why not?


The rich are not entitled to life any more than the poor, and should not expect a higher standard of health care as a result,
Why not?


nor education.
Why not?


It's called a level playing field, and is how we get rags-to-riches situations.
A level playing field doesn't include equality of outcome.


Don't you dare go about saying that people who are poor aren't striving to make their lives better.
I didn't. I said YOU weren't. There's a big difference. Unless, of course, you like strawmen.

Right on. On top of that, Mac N Cheese that is made with a wide assortment of chemicals and is far from just the usual ingredients of true Italian pasta. My grandmother-in-law would be rolling over in her grave, God bless her Venician soul.
Genetic engineering, pesticides, chemical-laced foods, poisonous preservatives, run-off from the toxic plastic wrappings...need I say more?
Yes.


Again, to all of those but my small crew of like-minded friends here, do some research, don't invest so much trust into corporate factory farming.
What *should* we invest our trust in, since you have the luddite answers.

Taxation isn't slavery.

It's more like mugging, extortion or simple robbery.

This has been covered: thanks CthulhuFhtagn, keep on truckin'.


No, slavery is when your personal freedom is deliberately restricted, your humanity denied, your body bought and sold, forced to work at the threat of having you or your family raped or murdered or simply whipped into bloody chunks.

I agree.


And I know some smarmy fellow here is going to argue, "I have to work or die. Therefore I'm a slave!"

Well, sorry, that's not the definition. Having to work or die is a fact of life. You find me an animal that doesn't work for it's food and I'll show you a hamburger.

I agree. But compassion for those who can't work to survive is what sets us apart from the animals. Anybody who doesn't like it can always pull a Mowgli and go live among a pack of wolves.

Everything we do needs time, energy and money; everything we use requires those things not only to produce, but to use. You're expending energy right now just to argue on this forum - that's work.

You must have aced Physics. Little bit of a tangent, though, don't you think?


And yes, people with extreme disabilities, like people in comas (say, they're vegetables instead of hamburgers), are somewhat of an exception. But *someone* has to work to keep them alive, well-fed and well-connected. That someone is me and you.

And seniors, children, amputees, the mentally challenged, the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, the physically disabled, the emotionally disturbed, and anybody who is basically incapable of working.


Oh please. You have to work for a living. You don't make as much as other people. Boo-fucking-hoo.

This is where I roll my eyes: you don't understand. They're called the working poor for a reason. They work, they don't earn enough, and you'd be very much surprised how many cases are a result of greed by the bosses. Just because they may have worked their way up the company ladder does not entitle them to 1100 times what their subordinates earn, like in America, versus Japan's 11.

What a wonderfully false dichotomy.
It's not a false dilemma by any means.

He's challenging you to live up to his standards of not being a hypocrite.

I will agree very simply with the OP in saying that taxation is not slavery... and as Marx pointed out many years ago, the choice to work or die is no choice at all.

Yep. There's really no other reason for bringing up how much the CEO earns. None.
Yes, there is, because that's the reason why their subordinates earn so much less: because they are extorting them for their own personal gain. When that attitude is pervasive in an economy, then a worker cannot simply look for a better paying job. They are not entitled to that much more.

So do I.
Congratulations. Obviously not in a capacity that would allow you to experience the hardships of the working poor, and if so, then you've read one too many Ayn Rand novels.

Fair does not mean equal outcome.
Never said it did. Just an outcome difference that is justifiable by the amount of work put in and the value to the earning power of the business.

No, you actually aren't.

Yes, you are. Care to expand on that plain, mundane statement that in no way contained anything close to a real response?

If you don't look out for yourself, you can't really help others for long, can you?

And, while Adam Smith got a lot horribly wrong, he did get this correct:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It's not quite that simple. The butcher, the brewer, and the baker exist because society needs them, and that co-dependant relationship needs to be respected. Hence, sure, they can look to make a living, but that doesn't mean they should be looking to become the richest person in the world regardless of who they need to step on.

What a wonderfully false dichotomy.

Explain.

Why not?

Because the rich are not entitled to live any more than the poor are. We're talking about life here, not some entity that's existance is disputable. Life should be available to anybody, and even if you believe in the asinine idea that the poor don't deserve life because they didn't work hard enough, how about their children, who's only crime is being born into that family? If you can accept allowing the children of the poor the same quality health care as the children of the rich, then we're at least on the same page in one way or another. Even so, how can you possibly believe that health is not a right, regardless of your financial position?
How you could possibly believe, also, that the rich are entitled to better education is horribly callous. Money should not be a factor in getting quality education: potential should be. Let the kids who show the greatest potential for intelligence acheive their higher education without cost being a factor, and those who would be better suited to a skilled trade, let them go to a vocational school. When the ability to pay is a factor, the wrong people end up in the wrong places.

I didn't. I said YOU weren't. There's a big difference. Unless, of course, you like strawmen.

I am completing a bachelor's degree in journalism, planning to do an associate's in political science after that. I am working to make my life better. I work for an independant magazine in my city for a decent sum that allows me a comfortable, though far from luxurious, lifestyle. In my line of work, I look to spread information and facts for the benefit of others, even though I could be working for a much larger newspaper for a much larger salary. I look out for me in the sense that I look to earn a living wage, but my primary concern is the universal availability of information.

What *should* we invest our trust in, since you have the luddite answers.

A source that has nothing to lose by going against the flow of the big business river. People who care more about people than money. Those who are willing to stand up to the tyranny of market fundamentalism, aka laissez-faire capitalism, that sees to create a situation in which the biggest corporations are dominant, crushing the little man who tries to get ahead with his own business, which is the kind of situation that right-economics are about and exactly what I'm opposed to. Stop trusting those who wish to get you on their side only so they can add to their already vast fortunes.

It's not a false dilemma by any means.

He's challenging you to live up to his standards of not being a hypocrite.

I will agree very simply with the OP in saying that taxation is not slavery... and as Marx pointed out many years ago, the choice to work or die is no choice at all.

Thank you. But I would imagine that it's not like my standards of not being a hypocrite are exclusive to me: what's so non-hypocritical about wanting to look out for yourself but still enjoy a relationship with a society that allows you to prosper, only to not contribute back to it?

(money isn't everything).

Yes, actually, it is. Money is the only thing worth getting on this miserable rock of a planet. And if you can remove competition while you get it, so much the better. Communism fosters weakness. The only situation where this is not so is a Stalinist dictatorship where the lower class are turned into usable material. There are two things that have true value. Survival, and quality of life for the individual. Both of those can be achieved with money. *When I say individual, I mean the person who is in question, not the whole, human life has no intrinsic value except to the human in question.*(Yes, I realize my faith doesn't blend with my logic, but I'm having a hard time remedying that)

It's not a false dilemma by any means.
Actually, it is. There are more than those two options.


He's challenging you to live up to his standards of not being a hypocrite.
I'm not.


I will agree very simply with the OP in saying that taxation is not slavery... and as Marx pointed out many years ago, the choice to work or die is no choice at all.
Marx was wrong about a great many things, not the least of which was that.

Yes, there is, because that's the reason why their subordinates earn so much less: because they are extorting them for their own personal gain.
*sighs*

You really don't know much about economics, do you?


When that attitude is pervasive in an economy, then a worker cannot simply look for a better paying job. They are not entitled to that much more.
Why not?



Congratulations. Obviously not in a capacity that would allow you to experience the hardships of the working poor, and if so, then you've read one too many Ayn Rand novels.
Wanna bet? I've been 3 weeks from being dead flat broke before. When I was younger, my mother got food stamps.

*POP*

That's the sound of your bubble being burst.


Never said it did.
Then don't bring up the disparity of income.


Just an outcome difference that is justifiable by the amount of work put in and the value to the earning power of the business.
Oh, you're one of THOSE people. Y'know--the ones who think valuation is objective. Here's a hint: valuation is subjective.



Yes, you are.
No, you aren't.


Care to expand on that plain, mundane statement that in no way contained anything close to a real response?
Why? You didn't provide any support for your contention, so all I had to do was gainsay it.



It's not quite that simple.
No, it is that simple.


The butcher, the brewer, and the baker exist because society needs them,
1. There is no such thing as "society" and it cannot have "needs".
2. They butcher, brewer, and baker exist to make money which they can trade for other goods and services. They aren't in it just because "society" "needs" them.


and that co-dependant relationship needs to be respected. Hence, sure, they can look to make a living, but that doesn't mean they should be looking to become the richest person in the world regardless of who they need to step on.
So your problem is that you believe that if you're not an altruist, you're just some evil, heartless, cruel person who wants to kill everyone on the way to the top. What a wonderfully cartoonish view of reality. Rates you right up there with the cretinists who want a half man/half ape fossil.



Explain.
What's to explain? You can have "yours" and I can have "mine". But for you to think that the alternatives are solely some weird "must give back to society" or "live as a hermit", you're sadly mistaken and deluded.



Because the rich are not entitled to live any more than the poor are.
Ok. So what?

[rest of that snipped due to hyperbolic emotive pleas and strawmen]


How you could possibly believe, also, that the rich are entitled to better education is horribly callous.
Prove it.


I am completing a bachelor's degree in journalism, planning to do an associate's in political science after that.
I'm certain that you'd do well writing screed.


I am working to make my life better.
Then don't bitch and moan about compensation levels.

A source that has nothing to lose by going against the flow of the big business river.
What makes the bigness of a business bad?


People who care more about people than money.
Beware the man who says he cares more about people than he does about money. He's trying to sell you something that doesn't exist.


Those who are willing to stand up to the tyranny of market fundamentalism, aka laissez-faire capitalism, that sees to create a situation in which the biggest corporations are dominant, crushing the little man who tries to get ahead with his own business, which is
...the biggest and most laughable strawman straight out of the worst drek of Hollywood.

Seriously--you have bought into that myth? Dude--that myth is like a Weekly World News cover.

Funny, looks more like rent to me.

Not really, no. If I don't pay my rent, I have to find a new place to live.

If I don't pay taxes, they throw me into prison, thereby depriving me of my liberty and most likely, anal virginity. Sure, I could "love it or leave it," but ya know, leaving the nation is slightly different from leaving a particular building.

Sea anemone.

Ah but it does expend both time and energy nonetheless. Even if not, do people really want to be sea anenomes?


I agree. But compassion for those who can't work to survive is what sets us apart from the animals. Anybody who doesn't like it can always pull a Mowgli and go live among a pack of wolves.

I would say there's a good deal of things that set us apart from other animals. But we're not so fundamentally superior that we can expect to live our lives as priveledged as philosopher-kings with the responsibility of a sea anenome.

You must have aced Physics. Little bit of a tangent, though, don't you think?

Not really, if we're going by Marx's "work or die is no choice at all" leading to "work is slavery."

And seniors, children, amputees, the mentally challenged, the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, the physically disabled, the emotionally disturbed, and anybody who is basically incapable of working.

Emotionally disturbed? So they're not mentally unstable (since you listed them separately), but "disturbed?" You know, I'm disturbed by that, emotionally, so someone give me a welfare check! ;)

This is where I roll my eyes: you don't understand. They're called the working poor for a reason. They work, they don't earn enough, and you'd be very much surprised how many cases are a result of greed by the bosses. Just because they may have worked their way up the company ladder does not entitle them to 1100 times what their subordinates earn, like in America, versus Japan's 11.

Whoever pays their wage is who gets to decide what amount they are "entitled" to. Since that someone is rarely me, I'm not about to tell them they can't have it, nor say I am "enslaved" by anyone, or "under the thumb" of "capitalist pigs" and jockey for a global revolution.

Actually, it is. There are more than those two options.

and

I'm not.

Yeah, you are. If you don't want to contribute to society, don't live among it. If you're so self-absorbed that you can't bear to send tax money for the betterment of your fellow men, then how can you possibly explain a desire to live among them? You're such a he-man individual, then go live off on your own too. Otherwise, if you have any interest in community and society, then suck it up and get a little more focussed on learning how more people benefit to a greater degree when we all work together instead of competing viciously like vicious, uncivilized, wild animals. If that's the life you want to live, then go live it like that guy in Benji The Hunted.

Marx was wrong about a great many things, not the least of which was that.

Go sponge up some more senseless anti-communist propaganda, why don't you? God knows I love a good roasting of communist ideology, but not when it's as senseless, groundless, and devoid of facts as yours. Read some political philosophy from something other than your money-loving, capitalist-worshipping, society-hating overlords.

Yeah, you are.
No, I'm not.


If you don't want to contribute to society, don't live among it.
If you think that the only way to "contribute to society" is to have the government to enslave you and steal your money, you're deeply deluded. And clearly, you are deeply deluded, since you do believe that the only way to to "contribute to society" is to have the government enslave you and steal your money.

Now then, your hate-filled screed has been removed. Emotive pleas won't work. Crying won't work. Screaming about how unfair life is because you're not as rich as Oprah won't work. Being ignorant of economics won't save you. And yes: I've read more about economics than you will ever do. So have fun frothing at the mouth. Be sure to visit the vet to get that taken care of.

Your argument falls apart once you realise:

2) capitalism hopefully also allows skill and hard work to come into the equation



Bwahahahaha....

Haven't been out much, eh? Skill and hard work doesn't mean jack sometimes.

Not really, no. If I don't pay my rent, I have to find a new place to live.

If I don't pay taxes, they throw me into prison, thereby depriving me of my liberty and most likely, anal virginity. Sure, I could "love it or leave it," but ya know, leaving the nation is slightly different from leaving a particular building.

Getting evicted from an apartment for not paying rent is not defying the law, but a contract between you and your landlord. Similar situation with not paying taxes, thereby defying the natural agreement between a society and you, the individual.
I don't see how it's THAT different, really. Leaving Canada because you don't want to pay taxes to a wonderful country is the same, proportionate to the seriousness of the situation, as leaving a wonderful apartment because you don't want to pay rent. Head on over to Cuba or North Korea, where I'm sure you'll get a free apartment...but you'll still have to pay taxes. Poor you.



I would say there's a good deal of things that set us apart from other animals. But we're not so fundamentally superior that we can expect to live our lives as priveledged as philosopher-kings with the responsibility of a sea anenome.

Again, you all seem to confuse anybody who wishes to see workers get their dues with those who believe that there should be no difference in anybody's income. I AGREE that everybody should be earning their living as long as they physically can. Nobody should be entitled to live as a philosopher king while standing on the necks of those who earn them their fortunes, which is what my philosophy is all about.


Not really, if we're going by Marx's "work or die is no choice at all" leading to "work is slavery."

I never called up an Marxian terms. I disagree with his statement, although I certainly believe in exceptions in the case of not being able to work. I believe that working should ALWAYS provide you with a liveable pay, and that if you work, you should be able to survive without struggling needlessly working at a McDonald's while the Mickey D's shareholders, who do zero work beyond checking their stock values, rake in the cash.


Emotionally disturbed? So they're not mentally unstable (since you listed them separately), but "disturbed?" You know, I'm disturbed by that, emotionally, so someone give me a welfare check! ;)

Obviously, you just don't get it, but from someone as incompassionate as you towards anybody who's not an executive I would expect nothing less clueless. Emotionally disturbed constitutes someone who is distraught by a past event to the degree that they cannot mentally cope, so it is more like they are a category within the mentally disturbed, although the two are separable. For example, survivor's guilt, war trauma, extreme grief resulting in mental illnesses (like a fellow I know about who lost his wife, leading him to develop schizophrenia), and all of those other things you hear about. Yes, they are legitimate medical problems, and can be cured with the proper treatment. In the meantime, there is no reason to let them whither away and starve.


Whoever pays their wage is who gets to decide what amount they are "entitled" to. Since that someone is rarely me, I'm not about to tell them they can't have it, nor say I am "enslaved" by anyone, or "under the thumb" of "capitalist pigs" and jockey for a global revolution.

Absolutely not. Whoever pays their wage is in a position of severe conflict of interest: pay their employee a decent ten bucks an hour for an honest day's work at the mill, or lowball them to five bucks and keep that extra 50% for himself/herself (usually the former)? That's the logic behind minimum wage. It's easy enough to say "if they employee doesn't think he's getting enough, he or she can search for employment elsewhere", but like I said, when the idea is pervasive in the economic sector, there will be no better opportunities. You have every right to demand from your boss what you have worked for, my friend. Since you believe that it's your boss' choice what to pay you, if he wanted to go 50 cents/hour, you might quit. But what if everyone else was doing the same to both keep production cost low (a BS reason 9/10 times) and keep their hoards of undeserved money? Then you're not going to be able to market yourself all that well. But isn't it you who worked to earn the company that money anyhow? Aren't you entitled to a fair share of it?

Getting evicted from an apartment for not paying rent is not defying the law, but a contract between you and your landlord. Similar situation with not paying taxes, thereby defying the natural agreement between a society and you, the individual.
Nice bit of reification. And there is no "natural agreement" between myself and other individuals that I should pay taxes. If you think there is, you should probably demonstrate that there is.



Again, you all seem to confuse anybody who wishes to see workers get their dues with those who believe that there should be no difference in anybody's income.
They're consistent; you're merely arbitrary.


I AGREE that everybody should be earning their living as long as they physically can. Nobody should be entitled to live as a philosopher king while standing on the necks of those who earn them their fortunes, which is what my philosophy is all about.
aka some silly hollywood script.


I never called up an Marxian terms. I disagree with his statement, although I certainly believe in exceptions in the case of not being able to work. I believe that working should ALWAYS provide you with a liveable pay,
Then you should work at a place where you can find that, or do without some things. Either way, to demand a wage higher than what the employer values the work at requires one of two (or possible both) views: either you believe that you are a dictator, or that you will soon find yourself unemployed for not wanting to work for a wage lower than what you consider livable.


and that if you work, you should be able to survive without struggling needlessly working at a McDonald's while the Mickey D's shareholders, who do zero work beyond checking their stock values, rake in the cash.
So it is about jealousy. Just as it always is.



Obviously, you just don't get it, but from someone as incompassionate as you towards anybody who's not an executive I would expect nothing less clueless. Emotionally disturbed constitutes someone who is distraught by a past event to the degree that they cannot mentally cope, so it is more like they are a category within the mentally disturbed, although the two are separable. For example, survivor's guilt, war trauma, extreme grief resulting in mental illnesses (like a fellow I know about who lost his wife, leading him to develop schizophrenia), and all of those other things you hear about. Yes, they are legitimate medical problems, and can be cured with the proper treatment. In the meantime, there is no reason to let them whither away and starve.
There's no reason to compel others to provide that person with care.


Absolutely not. Whoever pays their wage is in a position of severe conflict of interest: pay their employee a decent ten bucks an hour for an honest day's work at the mill, or lowball them to five bucks and keep that extra 50% for himself/herself (usually the former)?
You really don't know how wages are formed.


That's the logic behind minimum wage.
Actually--no. Minimum wage was instituted at the behest of labor unions in order to keep wage costs up and keep the "undesirables" out of the labor union's way.

I still wonder what makes you say that the boss/whomever doesn't deserve the level of compensation that they receive.

If you think that the only way to "contribute to society" is to have the government to enslave you and steal your money, you're deeply deluded. And clearly, you are deeply deluded, since you do believe that the only way to to "contribute to society" is to have the government enslave you and steal your money.

Now then, your hate-filled screed has been removed. Emotive pleas won't work. Crying won't work. Screaming about how unfair life is because you're not as rich as Oprah won't work. Being ignorant of economics won't save you. And yes: I've read more about economics than you will ever do. So have fun frothing at the mouth. Be sure to visit the vet to get that taken care of.

Who says that taxation is the ONLY way to contribute to society? But it is, as the facts show, the most effective and efficient way.
You're one of those ludicrously obtuse folks who adhere to that "taxation is enslavement/theft" that led me to post this very thread in the first place. Get over yourself: it is neither of those. It is the government taking what you owe them for everything they do for you. It is the best way, too, consider that governments are elected, can be replaced, and do not see profit that would drive up the cost for you, as the consumer, anyways. That is why we let the government build roads, provide us with our education, and generally take care of the bare necessities, because it's cheaper than letting private interests looking out for themselves and their own gain do it. They care nothing for the people they serve, usually, and there is a direct (although not absolute) correlation between the size of the business and it's apathy for the public interest. Democracy was chosen as the best means to govern because it puts more power in the hands of the people than any system in which private companies rule all, which is basically a monarchy, all things considered (inheritence being a good majority of those things).

Who says that taxation is the ONLY way to contribute to society?
You.


But it is, as the facts show, the most effective and efficient way.
Actually, the overhead alone shows that it's horribly inefficient.


You're one of those ludicrously obtuse folks who adhere to that "taxation is enslavement/theft" that led me to post this very thread in the first place.
And you're one of those laughable "Oh poor pitiful me--I have to work for a living and I hate people who have a penny more than I do" people. Get over yourself. Stop thinking that everyone has to provide you with everything on a silver platter. Stop being so jealous of anyone who has a penny more than you do.

In the meantime, since I know it will take a while for you to accomplish that, you could educate yourself in some political philosophy--mostly to understand what democracy is and what a monarchy is, and how democracy is really the ultimate form of socialism, and that a purely private property system wouldn't be monarchy.

1. There is no such thing as "society" and it cannot have "needs".
2. They butcher, brewer, and baker exist to make money which they can trade for other goods and services. They aren't in it just because "society" "needs" them.

There is society. Most corporate terms for it is "market". And if society didn't have needs, the butcher, brewer and baker might as well be druggies for all the money they'd make. Without demand, there is no butcher, brewer or baker.

What makes the bigness of a business bad?

Prime example would be Microsoft and the "Trusted Computing" (spyware built into your hardware is more like it) initiative they've got going with all the other major hardware firms. Too much concentration of market power in the hands of a few, allowing for economic tyranny.

Getting evicted from an apartment for not paying rent is not defying the law, but a contract between you and your landlord. Similar situation with not paying taxes, thereby defying the natural agreement between a society and you, the individual.

Erm, no. Not paying taxes IS defying the law. Taxation is not defined legally, nor is it functionally, a "contract." Just what am I getting with my tax dollars? Dead Iraqi children? Gee, just what I wanted.

I don't see how it's THAT different, really. Leaving Canada because you don't want to pay taxes to a wonderful country is the same, proportionate to the seriousness of the situation, as leaving a wonderful apartment because you don't want to pay rent. Head on over to Cuba or North Korea, where I'm sure you'll get a free apartment...but you'll still have to pay taxes. Poor you.

All you have to do is leave your family, your friends, your ethnic group, your career, learn a new language.... just like when moving to a new apartment! ;)

If you don't see the difference then maybe I'm just more creative and perceptive like that.


Again, you all seem to confuse anybody who wishes to see workers get their dues with those who believe that there should be no difference in anybody's income.

No. But now that YOU mention it, there is indeed a similarity between people who think the one and think the other.

I AGREE that everybody should be earning their living as long as they physically can. Nobody should be entitled to live as a philosopher king while standing on the necks of those who earn them their fortunes, which is what my philosophy is all about.

Just what IS your philosophy? That capitalism is evil? That rich people don't earn anything? That if I work at a place, I am entitled to write my own paycheck so that no one could possibly be interpreted to be "standing on" my neck?


Obviously, you just don't get it, but from someone as incompassionate as you towards anybody who's not an executive I would expect nothing less clueless.


Nice ad hominem AND strawman. I'm compassionate towards plenty of people. Just not foolish anti-capitalists grasping at lame comparisons on an online message board.

Emotionally disturbed constitutes someone who is distraught by a past event to the degree that they cannot mentally cope, so it is more like they are a category within the mentally disturbed, although the two are separable. For example, survivor's guilt, war trauma, extreme grief resulting in mental illnesses (like a fellow I know about who lost his wife, leading him to develop schizophrenia), and all of those other things you hear about.

That's all "mental instability." I know psychology too. You just made a new category so you could offer this big list to make it appear as if more people were excluded from having to work than really are.


Absolutely not. Whoever pays their wage is in a position of severe conflict of interest: pay their employee a decent ten bucks an hour for an honest day's work at the mill, or lowball them to five bucks and keep that extra 50% for himself/herself (usually the former)?

And if the company can't afford to pay a "decent" wage, then it goes out of business by being forced to by the government. Then the mill closes. Then everyone finds a new job. Welcome to economics, clearly you've never ran a business.

But hey, that means more people will look to work for the government at some point! Hooray, dead Iraqi children!

That's the logic behind minimum wage. It's easy enough to say "if they employee doesn't think he's getting enough, he or she can search for employment elsewhere", but like I said, when the idea is pervasive in the economic sector, there will be no better opportunities. You have every right to demand from your boss what you have worked for, my friend.

Oh okay. I worked for five hours. I believe that equates to $50,000. Gimme now, or I'm SUING those evil capitalist slave driving pig-dogs for CHEATING me what I am "due!"

Since you believe that it's your boss' choice what to pay you, if he wanted to go 50 cents/hour, you might quit. But what if everyone else was doing the same to both keep production cost low (a BS reason 9/10 times) and keep their hoards of undeserved money? Then you're not going to be able to market yourself all that well.

Oh well. But luckily, in the US, not everything is run by the government yet and there are *gasp* different businesses with *extra gasp* different wages and EVEN different employers.

Hard to believe, I know, but it's 100% true.

But isn't it you who worked to earn the company that money anyhow? Aren't you entitled to a fair share of it?

I'm entitled to what I signed up for in my employment contract with that company.

Not what I suddenly decided was "mine" on account of me being jealous of "greedy" "executives" who "don't work."

Prime example would be Microsoft and the "Trusted Computing" (spyware built into your hardware is more like it) initiative they've got going with all the other major hardware firms. Too much concentration of market power in the hands of a few, allowing for economic tyranny.
And how is it economic tyranny?

There is society.
No--there are only collections of individuals.


Most corporate terms for it is "market".
The market is a process.


And if society didn't have needs,
Only individuals have needs.

Nice bit of reification. And there is no "natural agreement" between myself and other individuals that I should pay taxes. If you think there is, you should probably demonstrate that there is.


I'm assuming you would be fine without roads, emergency services and other tax payer funded provisions by the government?

Nice bit of reification. And there is no "natural agreement" between myself and other individuals that I should pay taxes. If you think there is, you should probably demonstrate that there is.

Not between you and other individuals so much as you and society. You live in that society, and by continuing to live in it, you are basically agreeing to be a component of that society. Herego, as society is a larger form of community, you look to what you can do for that society instead of just what that society can do for you.

They're consistent; you're merely arbitrary.

How so? I see my arguments as entirely consistent.


aka some silly hollywood script.

Or a reality in which nobody is exploited by some tyrannical upper class that steals wealth out of the hands of those who earn it.


Then you should work at a place where you can find that, or do without some things. Either way, to demand a wage higher than what the employer values the work at requires one of two (or possible both) views: either you believe that you are a dictator, or that you will soon find yourself unemployed for not wanting to work for a wage lower than what you consider livable.

What the employer values is how own wealth, and the employer is willing to step on anybody that he/she has to to get more and more. Asking for a living wage for doing valuable work does not make you a dictator. I wonder what work this employer does that entitles him/her to a grossly disporportionate sum of money as opposed to everybody else. Do the hands of a clock get the grease when the clogs making it tick get rusty? Like Pink Floyd says, "if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're giving one away".


So it is about jealousy. Just as it always is.

I happened to live in an upper class neighbourhood in an upper class family when my divorcee mother remarried, and I can tell you with some certainty, I am in no way jealous of their soulless, communityless lifestyles. Nobody knows anybody, they are all just content to be obsessed with themselves and their money. That is not the type of community I have now, where I know everybody, I interact, and we help each other out. That escalates to society, which goes back to all of those challenges you made to me to explain it to you. I live close to where I work and go to school, so in the event of an oil crisis, I am not a slave to the oil and gas industry who rolls over and begs for more gas when it is low. If you want independance, free yourself from those metallic prisons you call cars.


There's no reason to compel others to provide that person with care.
Do unto others, my friend.


You really don't know how wages are formed.
By determining how much that person has earned proportionate to their value to the company. Unfortunately, that's idea. Nowadays it is formed around minimum wage, porportionate to the raises needed to keep a stable base of dedicated employees, while maximizing the bank account value of the employer. You can't deny that most employers are looking out for their own finance and don't care about giving the employees their dues as long as the employees are passive enough to take that abuse.


Actually--no. Minimum wage was instituted at the behest of labor unions in order to keep wage costs up and keep the "undesirables" out of the labor union's way.

I still wonder what makes you say that the boss/whomever doesn't deserve the level of compensation that they receive.
Labour unions are composed of those very "undesirables", are they not? Minimum wage, in case you don't know (clearly, you don't), is all that keeps some people from starving to death. Minimum wage is a 100% necessary, although it should be higher, and to pay an employee around what the executives and shareholders want to earn is an abomination. Companies need to learn to value their employees as humans who need to survive and not just as sources of labour that they can exploit, like the Chinese do, for their own life of luxury.

I'm assuming you would be fine without roads, emergency services and other tax payer funded provisions by the government?

I'm assuming you believe torturing terrorist suspects constitutes "contributing to society?"

And how is it economic tyranny?

Very simple. By controlling the market, you can easily set up a "take it or leave it" philosophy and charge whatever you feel like it. Maybe you don't feel it to be too bad for some things, but imagined if daily essentials, like say a loaf of bread went at $500 with similar effects on all food throughout the country? And no, you can't import stuff that's cheaper or grow your own.

It would be like going to state run industries. No real need to innovate or develop and certainly no real stumbling block to keep prices artificially inflated.

As for the "trusted computing" initiative, do you like having major corporations having master control over your computer?


No--there are only collections of individuals.


Society is a collection of individuals. A crude, but effective image would be that of mob mentality. Otherwise, social concepts such as peer pressure, standards and expectations wouldn't exist.

A collection of real individuals doesn't exist. In fact, I dare you to point one out.


The market is a process.

Bzzt. Incorrect. Market is a tool, not a process. Trade is a process. The market isn't.


Only individuals have needs.

If only. See above.

I'm assuming you believe torturing terrorist suspects constitutes "contributing to society?"

Hardly. That isn't something that's normally expected of the average citizen to pay for.

But unless you pave your own roads, the ones you use everyday are paid for with tax money no?

What makes extortion or slavery wrong?

What makes slavery wrong?

Nothing other than the simple fact that if you claim to be a country of equal rights and liberty for all, having slavery makes you a hugeass hypocrite.

Nice going, BAAWAKnights, you managed to adhere to the senseless Thatcherite ideology of "society doesn't exist, there are only individuals".
The world "individual" itself has really begun to grind my gears lately, if only because it is used as a justification by fools like a certain member with a five-letter abbreviation attached to a British novelty title.
Society is when a group of people (ie. your much-lauded, holy "individuals") band together for a common interest. That's how a city comes about, you see, and that's essentially how a nation forms. If you wish to not be a part of that, like I have been saying all along, go hermit-style, grow and hunt for your own food, and take care of yourself without associating with anybody else, the only way in which your ideology could not contradict itself.
Just in response to what you said earlier about "there are different businesses with different wages". In fact, those "different" businesses are constantly being consolidated under the banner of parent companies, and as different as they may be, they all have the same goals: maximize profit and minimize expense. That expense is, in almost all cases, workers. The ones who need money, who earn the company their money. Companies follow a collective mentality when there is this sense of extreme competitiveness (eat or be eaten, in other words).

Furthermore, you said that I have obviously never run a business. I cannot profess to have ever been the executive editor or publisher of the magazine I work for, but I mentioned earlier that we are a small, independant publication, and there were no secrets. In fact, I contributed a great deal to the "running" of the business part of the magazine. Unlike unethically profit-obsessed businesses, we only sought to break even, all get our dues, all in the name of getting information to the public. We hired as many employees as we could to maximize production instead of continually straining the already-present workers to the point of a nervous breakdown (it happens). That's the kind of businesses we need: small, not driven by the pursuit of billions of dollars, and morally superior to their heartless corporate giant counterparts who care nothing for their customers, only their shareholders.

Finally, I just want to point out how asinine your statement "only individuals have needs" is. While this may be true, it is generally accepted (by those with an ounce of logic) that society IS a collection of individuals. The needs of the majority are the needs of society. If one individual in the society needs a loaf of bread, he or she can get it him/herself. But if all of the people need a road, then that's not the needs of every single individual, but of the society. Wrap your brain around the little concept of society and get over the notion that the individual is the almighty pinnacle of existance and should only be looking out for number one.

ONE glorious solution comrade...COMMUNISM! *waves red flag* Hurrrahh! for the mother land!!:gundge:

Dasvedanyah, Rodina!

When the government demands that you pay taxes, what do they point at you?

Yeah, that's what I thought (http://www.mdgardner.com/guns/Colt45ACP-1_800.jpg)

Who's made you work for minimum wage?

Yeah, yourself.

Usually, the concept of slavery involves the concept of coercion. No one, save for your own incompetence and ineptitude, is making you work for minimum wage. No one is pointing a gun at your head and saying "sure, you could be a brain surgeon, but I won't allow, now go bag some groceries."

Oh, and also, I do not agree with using tax dollars to kill Iraqi children either, but the government is elected by the people, and if the majority support Bush's illegal war on a sovereign country that has never attacked America or stated that they wish to wipe America off the face of the earth in any sense, then that is the will of the people, and you as the individual must get over it.
As a Canadian, my tax dollars are currently going towards the war in Afghanistan, and God knows I don't support that illegal intervention into another country's affairs in which we are allying ourselves with terrorists as terribly radical as the Taliban. Nevertheless, I still pay my taxes. I just wish to see the Harper government voted out, and a New Democratic government voted in with my buddy Jack Layton as our prime minister (the best damn one we might ever have with the possible exception of Ed Broadbent, God bless him). I respect the will of the society, which is a concept you should learn along with many others besides Friedmanian economics and Randian social philosophy.

When the government demands that you pay taxes, what do they point at you?

Yeah, that's what I thought (http://www.mdgardner.com/guns/Colt45ACP-1_800.jpg)

Who's made you work for minimum wage?

Yeah, yourself.

Usually, the concept of slavery involves the concept of coercion. No one, save for your own incompetence and ineptitude, is making you work for minimum wage. No one is pointing a gun at your head and saying "sure, you could be a brain surgeon, but I won't allow, now go bag some groceries."

Are you some kind of tool? A) Nobody's going to point a gun at you the moment you stop paying taxes, that comes after months of refusal and patience on the part of the tax collectors, and b) that's no different than if you committed any other crime, but there's no way they'll point a gun at you unless you decided to resist arrest by pointing a gun at the cops. Stop being a brainwashed moron.

Are you some kind of tool? A) Nobody's going to point a gun at you the moment you stop paying taxes, that comes after months of refusal and patience on the part of the tax collectors, and b) that's no different than if you committed any other crime, but there's no way they'll point a gun at you unless you decided to resist arrest by pointing a gun at the cops. Stop being a brainwashed moron.

It's not a literal statement, screwy, it's a metaphor. The government, the state, has a monopoly on the use of force, and in whatever action the state takes, you must never forget the fact that that action is guaranteed by the gun.

There's a difference between not paying your taxes and commission of another type of crime anyways. You see, when I go out and rob a store, that is a crime of my commission. Where I take the extra energy to go off and do something. "You are not allowed to do x".

Not paying my taxes on the other hand, is a crime of omission. The state demands that I do something, and if I don't, it comes after me.

Stop being a brainwashed moron.
Dude, no need for that sort of language.

Fact of the matter is that paying taxes is done under physical coercion, namely being sent to jail if you fail to do it.

Working under low wage conditions is not done under physical coercion (unless it is a socialist country of course), but a result of the circumstances, much like a caveman having to collect all berries all day to survive.

I actually agree with you that there is a scope for government to make affordable (not free) education available, and personally I see the point of a voucher system to that effect. Nonetheless, no one has the right to a good job. It's something one earns by providing value to one's fellow man (no, not society, but the person who chooses to employ you).

It's not a literal statement, screwy, it's a metaphor. The government, the state, has a monopoly on the use of force, and in whatever action the state takes, you must never forget the fact that that action is guaranteed by the gun.

There's a difference between not paying your taxes and commission of another type of crime anyways. You see, when I go out and rob a store, that is a crime of my commission. Where I take the extra energy to go off and do something. "You are not allowed to do x".

Not paying my taxes on the other hand, is a crime of omission. The state demands that I do something, and if I don't, it comes after me.

The state doesn't "come after you" in any shadowy sense. They come looking for what is rightfully theirs, looking for what you owe them for what they have provided you. Of course, I do not believe that the state must use force unnecessarily, but to demand tax money and have stiff legal penalties for those who do not comply is just plain logic, and no guns or knightsticks need be used in that case. Just get over yourself, pay your taxes, and be happy that the government is sane enough to deliver the services to you regardless of what an ungrateful worm you obviously are.

Dude, no need for that sort of language.

Fact of the matter is that paying taxes is done under physical coercion, namely being sent to jail if you fail to do it.

Working under low wage conditions is not done under physical coercion (unless it is a socialist country of course), but a result of the circumstances, much like a caveman having to collect all berries all day to survive.

I actually agree with you that there is a scope for government to make affordable (not free) education available, and personally I see the point of a voucher system to that effect. Nonetheless, no one has the right to a good job. It's something one earns by providing value to one's fellow man (no, not society, but the person who chooses to employ you).

I beg to differ (and yes, I apologize for the moron comment, but to be fair, if you're going to start calling people for rough language, I'm not the one to start with). The voucher system has been proven to be unhelpful, as Germany and many other European systems were North American right-wing economics have infected their once-noble lifestyles have proven, both systems end up sub-par when they attempt to co-exist.
I disagree that people don't have a right to a good job. Well, maybe not quite so plainly, that is. I think everybody has a right to a living wage, and that's that. Bascially, I've always thought that having a minimum dividend that must go to salaries, out of the gross revenue of the company, in addition to a minimum wage, or something of the sort. I hate to cite the same information again, but American executives earn a disgustingly disproportionate amount compared to their subordinates (1,100 times at least, compares to somewhere between 21 and 24 for the Brits). That would prevent inflation and recession, too, that would result from prices going up because the greedy execs need their six/seven/eight-figure plus incomes and couldn't care less about what happens to the majority if they're living it up.

The state doesn't "come after you" in any shadowy sense. They come looking for what is rightfully theirs, looking for what you owe them for what they have provided you. Of course, I do not believe that the state must use force unnecessarily, but to demand tax money and have stiff legal penalties for those who do not comply is just plain logic, and no guns or knightsticks need be used in that case. Just get over yourself, pay your taxes, and be happy that the government is sane enough to deliver the services to you regardless of what an ungrateful worm you obviously are.

Christ, chill out.

Which obviously brings the question, how does the state enforce these "stiff legal penalties"? What do you think they should be?



In case you don't notice, I'm egging you on. I have no problem with paying taxes, and feel that in the US I get a reasonably good deal for what I pay. I think you aren't using the word slavery properly, but that's a whole different matter

Christ, chill out.

Which obviously brings the question, how does the state enforce these "stiff legal penalties"? What do you think they should be?



In case you don't notice, I'm egging you on. I have no problem with paying taxes, and feel that in the US I get a reasonably good deal for what I pay. I think you aren't using the word slavery properly, but that's a whole different matter

A legal battle in which, if you are found guilty of evading taxes, are forced to pay the government what you owe them, interest free, and in the event that you fail to do so peacefully, then there must be penalties. I hate suggesting things because often they are arbitrary and not thought out. I definitely don't agree readily with jail time, which seems a bit extreme, unless you carry on so much that fine after fine, and you either don't pay taxes or don't pay late fines once your first chance at amnesty was denied. Perhaps jail time would, inevitably, be the answer for contempt of court as a result of not fulfilling the sentance imposed upon you, just like anything else.

I beg to differ (and yes, I apologize for the moron comment, but to be fair, if you're going to start calling people for rough language, I'm not the one to start with). The voucher system has been proven to be unhelpful, as Germany and many other European systems were North American right-wing economics have infected their once-noble lifestyles have proven, both systems end up sub-par when they attempt to co-exist.
"Once noble"? You mean like in the GDR?

I suggest you go back over the history of the European system, and the German one in particular. It was free-market people like Ludwig Erhard, inspired by even more free-market people like Wilhelm Röpke and the Ordoliberals, who created the basis on which Germans could earn money.

For most of the great economic miracle, the government actually kept out of it. There were no grand social programs. It was only once the SPD came into power later on that the "social market economy" got a decidedly socialist feel to it - and promptly started to slow down.

I disagree that people don't have a right to a good job. Well, maybe not quite so plainly, that is. I think everybody has a right to a living wage, and that's that.
Even if they don't provide anything to anyone else? And if you say that they need to be fed even in that case: would it not be both more fair and more economically efficient to take money from those who want to help others, in other words rely on charity?

Bascially, I've always thought that having a minimum dividend that must go to salaries, out of the gross revenue of the company, in addition to a minimum wage, or something of the sort.
And if the company starts losing money...are they gonna lose money as well?

And if not, then how do you justify going one way and not the other, if not by arbitrary "poor guy = good, rich guy = bad" opinions?

I hate to cite the same information again, but American executives earn a disgustingly disproportionate amount compared to their subordinates (1,100 times at least, compares to somewhere between 21 and 24 for the Brits).
I can believe the first, I can't believe the second all that easily. Where do you get your figures from, if I may ask?

That would prevent inflation and recession, too, that would result from prices going up because the greedy execs need their six/seven/eight-figure plus incomes and couldn't care less about what happens to the majority if they're living it up.
Giving everyone more money to buy the same amount of stuff would prevent inflation?

How?
And just out of pure honesty I think I need to tell you, I'm a third year student in Economics.

But let's come back to coercion and taxes: Say I walked into your house while you were still sleeping and quickly made you breakfast. Then, when you get up and eat the breakfast, I charge you for it. Would you pay it?
Indeed, if you're now going to say "Well, I could just make my own breakfast." I'll have to ask you: Ever tried building a proper road? Now, which government department would say "No" to that...

Anyways, I'm out for the night, may be back tomorrow, but of course, I have to work (big surprise, huh?). To those who have graciously fought the laissez-faire capitalists tonight, keep it up, you're doing a bang-up job. To those of you who have still not seen the light, it was nevertheless a worthwhile use of my free time to have this debate, and hopefully a new topic will arise in the future. More so, I hope that you will come around some day and give up this useless crusade to protect you "individualism" that you see as being infringed upon. Peace out.

A legal battle in which, if you are found guilty of evading taxes, are forced to pay the government what you owe them, interest free, and in the event that you fail to do so peacefully, then there must be penalties. I hate suggesting things because often they are arbitrary and not thought out. I definitely don't agree readily with jail time, which seems a bit extreme, unless you carry on so much that fine after fine, and you either don't pay taxes or don't pay late fines once your first chance at amnesty was denied. Perhaps jail time would, inevitably, be the answer for contempt of court as a result of not fulfilling the sentance imposed upon you, just like anything else.

Once again, what if I just say "screw you" to the government and stay on my couch? What if I refuse to go to the court? What if I peacefully refuse to pay after the decision is handed down to me?

I just sit on my couch in silent, civil disobedience.

What if society desires that women cover themselves head to toe and stay in the house all day? Or that genital mutilation is acceptable? In my mind, those pratices are unacceptable. But to some people, not engaging in such things would be wrong. Luckily for me, the West makes the rules.

The fact of the matter is people can whine and complain all they want about taxation being extortion or slavery, but... its society that has decided that extortion and slavery are, for the most part, wrong. For someone to use the standards of a body they reject doesn't seem quite right to me.

The fact of the matter is people can whine and complain all they want about taxation being extortion or slavery, but... its society that has decided that extortion and slavery are, for the most part, wrong. For someone to use the standards of a body they reject doesn't seem quite right to me.
Yeah, you see though: Most libertarians take their standards of morality from somewhere else. I suggest you start your journey with wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

exact same fertilizers and seed that the few remaining small farms do.

The fact is this, in this day and age and modern world, the traditional family farmer/farm is a badly outdated and money draining anachronism, plain and simple.

It simply isn't economically feisable for a family farmer to survive these days wiothout enormous money handouts from the government. Why? Becausee there are so many government regulations which need to be met. And before you start shrieking and bleating about how unnecessary those regulations are, keep in mind that those regulations involve safety, both for the farmer and for the consumer of the farmers product. It is much more viable, from an economic standpoint for a corporate farm to meet all of the regulations then it is for a family farm.
I dont find your comments in the least bit credible. I come from a country that has safe farming practises, that imports high quality farm produce to the US. Most of our farms are family ventures, government subsidies for farmers were done away with decades ago and we face sanctions on our farm imports to the US because our produce is high quality and too cheap for US producers (even with their subsidies) to compete with.
Our family farmers can produce food safely, and cover the cost of transporting the stuff from one hemisphere to another, without government subsidies, and do so cheaper than your government subsidised corporations can get stuff onto the market in their own nation. This being the case your analysis is clearly bunk.

As for the OP, what I find incredibly ridiculous is those illogical persons trying to claim that taxation is both slavery and theft of property...apparently it's slavery because you work to produce for others, then apparently it's theft because the produce the 'slaves' produced doesnt belong to the slaves...it could be one or the other but logically it cannot be both since if one is a slave they dont own the proceeds of their labour and if one owns the proceeds of their labour in order for their property to be stolen, they clearly are not a slave.:rolleyes:

As for the OP, what I find incredibly ridiculous is those illogical persons trying to claim that taxation is both slavery and theft of property...apparently it's slavery because you work to produce for others, then apparently it's theft because the produce the 'slaves' produced doesnt belong to the slaves...it could be one or the other but logically it cannot be both since if one is a slave they dont own the proceeds of their labour and if one owns the proceeds of their labour in order for their property to be stolen, they clearly are not a slave.:rolleyes:

To the people you are talking about, theft of property is the same thing as slavery. That is because, to them, property represents labor, and the coercive seizure of property (theft) amounts to the coercive seizure of labor (slavery.)

...but logically it cannot be both since if one is a slave they dont own the proceeds of their labour and if one owns the proceeds of their labour in order for their property to be stolen, they clearly are not a slave.:rolleyes:
Here is how it works:

You work for a bit, and as a result you own something. That something is the product of the work your body has performed, an extension of that body, so to speak.

Now the government comes along, points a gun at you and says: "This isn't yours, it's mine now."

That's theft.

But then, at the same time it's a denial of the right to the products of your body. It's like saying: "No, you don't own your body, we do. We can choose how much of you as a person we want, and we'll take it."

That's like slavery.

If it is not recognised as theft, it is slavery. If it's not recognised as slavery, it's theft. Since it's not recognised as either, it's both. :D

Right, but the majority of us, in this case, do not see theft and slavery as something wrong. I'm not sure how effective an argument that appeals to morals is if there are differing standards. Actually, I am sure, its not effective at all. Sure, it might be theft and slavery... so what?

Right, but the majority of us, in this case, do not see theft and slavery as something wrong.

Or, rather, we do not see it as theft and slavery.

Frederic Bastiat's treatise "The Law" likens it to legalized plunder.
i recommend the book to everyone.

Once again, what if I just say "screw you" to the government and stay on my couch? What if I refuse to go to the court? What if I peacefully refuse to pay after the decision is handed down to me?

I just sit on my couch in silent, civil disobedience.

they'll arrest you. and if everyone follows in your footsteps, then society collapses and most probably we'll live in a state of anarchy =)

Right, but the majority of us, in this case, do not see theft and slavery as something wrong. I'm not sure how effective an argument that appeals to morals is if there are differing standards. Actually, I am sure, its not effective at all. Sure, it might be theft and slavery... so what?
Well, obviously it isn't. I've spent enough time on NSG to have given up on the universality of morality.
But the sheer fact that ultimately you're imposing your morality on me should make you think.

If it doesn't...oh, well. Who ever said the world was fair? :p

Perhaps the only thing we should be striving for is consistency: why is one type of theft bad and another isn't?

Perhaps we should try to maximise freedom and allow no one to impose his views on other people.

Perhaps we should ignore all of morality and simply go down the relatively amoral road of CSE-type libertarianism, which isn't opposed to taxation on grounds of morality, but on grounds of efficiency (and is therefore not opposed in principle at all).

I tend towards the latter, but then, that may simply be an excuse in itself because I just don't feel I should be paying taxes so people who supposedly represent a "majority" (which invariably seems to exclude me) can send people to die overseas.

As it is, I will still try my level best to get out of paying taxes for the rest of my life, both by "legal" and "illegal" means.

To the people you are talking about, theft of property is the same thing as slavery. That is because, to them, property represents labor, and the coercive seizure of property (theft) amounts to the coercive seizure of labor (slavery.)
Which proves the people I am talking about apparently are in dire need of a dictionary.

Here is how it works:

You work for a bit, and as a result you own something. That something is the product of the work your body has performed, an extension of that body, so to speak.
No, when I eat things and digest those things then shit those things out in the toilet, despite the shit being very much a product of my body it isnt an extension of my body. The fact that a body 'produces' something or contributes to the production of something does not make that something an extension of the body. The fact that you add "so to speak' makes it pretty clear that you understand as much.

Now the government comes along, points a gun at you and says: "This isn't yours, it's mine now."

That's theft.
If people wish to veiw this as theft and wish to retain any semblence of logic in their view then they must accede that the person the property is (in their view) being stolen from isnt a slave nor is the taking of the property slavery because if the person were a slave they wouldnt own the product of their labour.

But then, at the same time it's a denial of the right to the products of your body. It's like saying: "No, you don't own your body, we do. We can choose how much of you as a person we want, and we'll take it."
No it isnt like saying "no you don't own your own body, we do". It's like saying "we are going to take some of your stuff".

That's like slavery.
It's no more like slavery than naming your child is like slavery, possibly it is less like slavery than naming your child.

If it is not recognised as theft, it is slavery. If it's not recognised as slavery, it's theft. Since it's not recognised as either, it's both.
What a load of nonsense. If I dont recognise my foot as my foot, my foot isnt my foot but is some other thing?! Either it is or it isnt theft, if it is theft and isnt recognised as theft it doesnt suddenly magically become some other thing either instead of or in addition to theft. Same thing goes for slavery. If plantation owners in the South had not recognised their ownership of people as slavery, it still would have been slavery.

If that's how it 'works' then my original assesment that it is illogical and in fact doesnt work was entirely accurate.

Not between you and other individuals so much as you and society.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Society. There. Are. Only. Collections. Of. Individuals. You. Cannot. Make. An. Agreement. With. Some. Amorphous. Blob. Called. Society. It. Is. Not. Possible.


You live in that society, and by continuing to live in it, you are basically agreeing to be a component of that society. Herego, as society is a larger form of community, you look to what you can do for that society instead of just what that society can do for you.
Looking out for your own interest helps the collection of individuals.


How so? I see my arguments as entirely consistent.
And that's your problem. At least with those who want real economic equality there's no inconsistency vis-a-vis that. You rail against CEOs making X amount more than the rest of the workers, but you just arbitrarily have made X amount bad. There's no reason for it other than your say-so. Period. Thus, it's arbitrary.



Or a reality in which nobody is exploited by some tyrannical upper class that steals wealth out of the hands of those who earn it.
And how, precisely, does the "tyrannical upper class" steal "wealth out of the hands of those who earn it"?



What the employer values is how own wealth, and the employer is willing to step on anybody that he/she has to to get more and more.
aka some silly hollywood script. Or the Marxist view of the Historical Class Struggle.


Asking for a living wage for doing valuable work does not make you a dictator.
I said "demand", not "ask". Please do be honest in your responses.


I wonder what work this employer does that entitles him/her to a grossly disporportionate sum of money as opposed to everybody else.
They have the knowledge of how to run the operation. They take the risks. They advance the company.

Look, valuation is entirely subjective. Why you cling to the silly and outworn myth that valuation is objective just boggles me.


I happened to live in an upper class neighbourhood in an upper class family when my divorcee mother remarried, and I can tell you with some certainty, I am in no way jealous of their soulless, communityless lifestyles.
Ok then, you just hate them. Bolded words are my evidence.


Nobody knows anybody, they are all just content to be obsessed with themselves and their money. That is not the type of community I have now, where I know everybody, I interact, and we help each other out. That escalates to society, which goes back to all of those challenges you made to me to explain it to you. I live close to where I work and go to school, so in the event of an oil crisis, I am not a slave to the oil and gas industry who rolls over and begs for more gas when it is low. If you want independance, free yourself from those metallic prisons you call cars.
Oh, a silly primitivist.

Tell you what: why don't you go live in squalor like they do in North Korea. That seems to be your ideal.


Do unto others, my friend.
So you're prefer to be compelled? How telling.


By determining how much that person has earned proportionate to their value to the company.
Value is entirely subjective. And no, that's not how wages are formed, either.

Wages come out of profits, and an employer will offer a wage based upon what s/he feels is the value of the outcome of the work to be performed. If someone wishes to undertake that work and agrees with the valuation (or at least that valuation is greater than that person's valuation of it), that person will trade the time for the wage.

You, like most of the boobousie (look it up--it's a word H.L. Mencken invented) who post here screaming about the "evil, greedy capitalists", haven't got the first clue as to economics. Yet, empowered by your keyboard and connection to the internet, you feel that you are the master of all subjects.


Unfortunately, that's idea. Nowadays it is formed around minimum wage, porportionate to the raises needed to keep a stable base of dedicated employees, while maximizing the bank account value of the employer.
*sighs*


You can't deny that most employers are looking out for their own finance and don't care about giving the employees their dues as long as the employees are passive enough to take that abuse.
I can and do deny the second part. The first part--if the employers didn't look out for their own finances, they wouldn't be employers for very long. They'd be bankrupt, and then the employees wouldn't be employees. They'd be unemployed.


Labour unions are composed of those very "undesirables", are they not?
The undesirables according to the labor union leaders.



Minimum wage, in case you don't know (clearly, you don't), is all that keeps some people from starving to death.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, you're killing me with your abject ignorance of economics.

Very simple. By controlling the market, you can easily set up a "take it or leave it" philosophy and charge whatever you feel like it.
Like governments do. And I don't see how MS controls the market, given that there are competitors.


Maybe you don't feel it to be too bad for some things, but imagined if daily essentials, like say a loaf of bread went at $500 with similar effects on all food throughout the country?
If that happened, then there must have been some major catastrophe which caused most of the world's grain supply to be eliminated. You do realize that prices are formed from the subjective valuations of individuals based upon supply and demand, right?



As for the "trusted computing" initiative, do you like having major corporations having master control over your computer?
wrt trusted computing, we do have the option of using non-TS computers. The consumer is sovereign in that respect.



Society is a collection of individuals.
Not when it is reified, as most people seem to do.


A crude, but effective image would be that of mob mentality. Otherwise, social concepts such as peer pressure, standards and expectations wouldn't exist.
But only individuals hold those standards and expectations. "Society" does not.


A collection of real individuals doesn't exist. In fact, I dare you to point one out.
Real individuals? As opposed to fake individuals?



Bzzt. Incorrect. Market is a tool, not a process.
Bzzzt. Incorrect. The market is a process. It is the aggregate of the non-coerced trades among individuals.



If only. See above.
Yes, see your reification fallacy.

Nice going, BAAWAKnights, you managed to adhere to the senseless Thatcherite ideology of "society doesn't exist, there are only individuals".
There are. I defy you to produce for me "society" apart from the individuals. Go on. I'm waiting. Seriously. Show me society apart from the individuals.

Well.

Where is it?

I'm still waiting.

Hello? Are you there? Can you provide society to me without the individuals?

Oh that's right: you can't. It's not possible, you silly Hegelian wank.

It is the most asinine belief that "society" can have needs. There is no society apart from individuals. To believe that society can have needs is to believe that reification is not a fallacy. But it is a fallacy.

And just in case you need the education: reification is the treating of a concept as a real object that has some physical existence. Anselm committed this fallacy in his ontological argument (as well as treating existence as a predicate). It is also known as hypostatization.

What if society desires that women cover themselves head to toe and stay in the house all day? Or that genital mutilation is acceptable? In my mind, those pratices are unacceptable. But to some people, not engaging in such things would be wrong. Luckily for me, the West makes the rules.

The fact of the matter is people can whine and complain all they want about taxation being extortion or slavery, but... its society that has decided that extortion and slavery are, for the most part, wrong. For someone to use the standards of a body they reject doesn't seem quite right to me.
Gambling, prostitution, drug use, insider information/trading, drinking alcohol (in places), homosexual activities, selling/use of sex toys---those are some of the things that some "societies" have deemed wrong. And illegal.

Thinking about revising your stance?

they'll arrest you. and if everyone follows in your footsteps, then society collapses and most probably we'll live in a state of anarchy =)

Exactly, it proves the point that every action that the state takes is backed by men with guns, and is therefore coercion. He just doesn't want to admit it.

The rich create jobs?

You know, some of us work for ourselves. Providing services to other people on a similar economic level.

I'm sorry... I look around, and I see no evidence that "trickle down" economics works for a country as a whole. Or rather, whatever is trickling down, it's not prosperity.

Companies and corporations and people in our current system seem to be "healthy" when they pay out as little as possible, and take in as much as possible. But there's very little internal regulation as to what's okay to take, and what's necessary to give.

The purpose of having a country, as I see it, is so that certain common resources and capacities can be pooled for the benefit of everyone. And no... I don't mean communism. : )

I favor a free market over a controlled one. I grew up with the idea that capitalism and a free market economy were good things, but I didn't just accept that blindly. I wanted to know why, and I tried to learn about it.

Capitalism doesn't mean "see how much money you can grab, so you have all the capital."
Capitalism means that instead of having to get a writ of favor from a monarch or the equivalent in order to be allowed to have a business, that you just need the capital, resources, and knowhow to make the business work.

At its best, a free market means that people compete to provide the best services and/or the best prices, and success is based on how well you can provide your good or service, and you'd _think_ it would favor those who can provide things that are good, cheap, fast, or some combination of the three.

Frankly, I see a major breakdown in this country, of what I'd think of as capitalism. Do you know how much money I'd have to pay for the privilege of being allowed to run a hotdog cart? : ) How much permission I'd have to ask? It's certainly not a matter of knowing how to cook hotdogs and buy the equipment, let me assure you.

And as far as a free market, I see the most money going not to people who provide the best products or services, but the ones who are best at advertising (and often, frankly, lying), and who are good at undermining competitors in ways that have little to do with quality.

The purpose of society, in my mind, isn't to provide a pyramid where a small number of people with a good handle on skills of minimal use to what makes society work get to collect all the money and resources and benefits, and where everyone else is encouraged to stomp whoever they need to in order to get to the top of the heap. That's not of benefit to most people, and I don't think it makes for a society that ultimately functions very well. It rewards people who make short-term personal gain, and punishes everyone else.

That tends to select for people who are good at short-term personal gain. It tends to increase the tragedy of the commons I hear mentioned in libertarian propaganda, not dminish it.

The problem that I have with government control of business is that somehow, we allow things that benefit very few people, but we regulate the crap out of stuff that would let more people get more benefit.

We make it easy for people to be "unregulated" when it benefits a huge corporation or special interest - even if it means endangering our food supply, breeding more disease through poor health standards in food or medicine, polluting air, water and soil, or using up nonrenewable resources. But we'll regulate the crap out of small business licenses, zoning codes, and all sorts of other commerce. The number of hoops I'd have to jump through to sell coffee or open a restaurant are ridiculous.

But I digress. The purpose of taxes isn't to "steal" money from the best people. Assuming that having money or being good at making it is the only thermometer of self worth seems pretty inane to me. It would be like me saying that because I'm more physically capable of killing someone, or preventing myself from being killed, that I'm somehow more evolved. Being able to break someone's arm or shoot them doesn't make me good at making food, or doing math, or programming computers, or driving a truck, or any of a zillion other things that actually are useful for supporting life or society. It _might_ mean that I might be able to benefit society by operating as a protector or soldier or police officer or bouncer, and someone _else_ in society benefits _me_ by being able to make furniture, or build cars, or do accounting, or produce food or fuel.

I don't have kids. But I _happily_ pay taxes that I know will be used, in part, to educate other people's children. I don't want to live in a country where the only people with an education are the wealthy or privileged, because I don't want to live in a country filled with illiterate, uneducated people. People accomplish less, and are more easily moved to stupid behaviors when they have little or no education. Other people's education benefits _all_ of us.

I don't drive any more. But I kinda think that the society I live in benefits from having roads that are for _everyone's_ use, and weren't built for the special interest only of people rich enough to pay for them.

I could probably give a list of things that tax money is used for (or is supposed to be used for) that simply wouldn't get done, or would get done poorly or only to benefit a few, if it were all up to private individuals.

To begin with, I haven't seen much sign that even with an educational system in place, that people in general are very good at deciding what things are best to sink their money into. And believe it or not, money is a limited resource. It actually comes from somewhere. Don't let the abandonment of the gold standard fool you, money is based on energy, resources, and work, and that's in limited amounts. The more money that is wasted, or is spent on stuff that's only _advertised_ well, or is spent _selfishly_ by groups or individuals whose primary concern is themselves, the less efficiently, safely, and prosperously the whole society will run.

I'm in favor of individuals having a lot more freedom and power, as well as the education and opportunity to use it wisely.

I'm also in favor of _some_ kind of system that doesn't depend wholly on something approaching mob rule, for governing the things that make society run.

I'm not in favor of a society that favors the few over the many, regardless of the mechanic that makes it work. At the same time, I'm not in favor of any society that treats the individual as meaningless or unprotected, because that's how you _get_ the former.

Society works when I work to support society, and it works to support me in return. I don't work because I'm a worker bee, good for nothing else. I work at least partly for my own benefit and happiness. And I don't feel I deserve a free ride. At the same time, society needs me to do my job and support it in return.

Hell yes, I'm happy to pay taxes. I just don't like how they're spent, necessarily.

Gambling, prostitution, drug use, insider information/trading, drinking alcohol (in places), homosexual activities, selling/use of sex toys---those are some of the things that some "societies" have deemed wrong. And illegal.

Thinking about revising your stance?
How would that change anything? I'm against some of those things, for others, but it doesn't mean i'm going to reject society's ability to decide anything.

How would that change anything? I'm against some of those things, for others, but it doesn't mean i'm going to reject society's ability to decide anything.
1. Society doesn't decide anything.

2. All of those mentioned things involve no violation of rights. So why should "society decide against" those things? Why should people impose their aesthetics upon everyone else?

1. Society doesn't decide anything.

2. All of those mentioned things involve no violation of rights. So why should "society decide against" those things? Why should people impose their aesthetics upon everyone else?

Exactly. If people have decided that property owniership is not a right and that it belongs to all of the community then who is tell them that they can't?

Trilby63;11937337']Exactly. If people have decided that property owniership is not a right and that it belongs to all of the community then who is tell them that they can't?
Fine. But then they cannot impose that upon others. And, of course, there's the problem of the performative contradiction of denying property ownership while actually doing the denial. One must accept one's own ownership of one's self in order to deny property ownership. But that means that property ownership is accepted while denied. It's a beautiful thing, concept stealing.

Fine. But then they cannot impose that upon others. And, of course, there's the problem of the performative contradiction of denying property ownership while actually doing the denial. One must accept one's own ownership of one's self in order to deny property ownership. But that means that property ownership is accepted while denied. It's a beautiful thing, concept stealing.

Indeed.

I know this is just semantics but I consider property to be land. Everything else is a possesion.

Trilby63;11937514']Indeed.

I know this is just semantics but I consider property to be land. Everything else is a possesion.
Rather specious distinction.

There are. I defy you to produce for me "society" apart from the individuals. Go on. I'm waiting. Seriously. Show me society apart from the individuals.


That's just being silly. I defy you to produce "rain" apart from H2O, go on, well I'm waiting. Actually no I'm not, because that would be foolish and silly semantic wankery...:rolleyes:

As for your 'society has no needs' nonesense, it is no more a reification to state that societies need X than it is a anthropomorphism to state that electric stoves require electricity. When one states the latter no one with any good sense thinks that the intended message is "electric stoves are capable of forming an intent that enables them to place requirements on others". Only a person lacking any good sense or absolutely determined to play at being obtuse would interpret the statement "society needs X" as meaning that society itself has a need rather than meaning that society necessarily must have X if society is to retain its utility.

Playing at being obtuse while insulting the intelligence of others, all under the guise of semantic wankery is not a good look. If you think you are actually impressing people, think again...all you do is make those you argue against look good in contrast while minimising the chance that anyone will take you (or your arguments) seriously. If your intention is to discredit yourself while making those you argue against appear better than they might otherwise, by all means you are doing a splendid job.

Fine. But then they cannot impose that upon others.

Why can't we impose our will onto you or others?

That's just being silly.
No it isn't; it's demonstrating the reification fallacy.


As for your 'society has no needs' nonesense,
If society has needs, then it must exist in actuality. Show it to me. Various people here are claiming that society does have needs independent of the individuals. Therefore, I'm quite correct in mystatements.

Why can't we impose our will onto you or others?
If you do so via an initiation of force, you are violating my rights. However, if you're doing so in retaliation for my initiation of force, it's fine.

If you do so via an initiation of force, you are violating my rights. However, if you're doing so in retaliation for my initiation of force, it's fine.

Yeah, but why should the majority of us care if we violate your rights? If your "rights" are derived from a different source than the rest of us, and we don't believe the same things you do, to claim that something we are doing is in violation of your "rights" is meaningless. Which is why we will always tax you.

No it isn't; it's demonstrating the reification fallacy.
No you are not because no one was reifying anything, anymore than describing a stove as requiring electricity is anthropomorphising it.

If society has needs, then it must exist in actuality. Show it to me. Various people here are claiming that society does have needs independent of the individuals. Therefore, I'm quite correct in mystatements.
Way to demonstrate that your reading and comprehension skills are somewhat suspect. Is there some reason why English constructs that are perfectly understandable to every other English speaker, are apparently beyond your ability to comprehend or are you (as I suspect) simply being intentionally obtuse?

Just in case you really cannot comprehend in just about every case (certainly in every case I have encountered) when people refer to "the needs of society" they are actually communicating that there are things that are necessary to the "best functioning" of society. Unless you wish to argue that you would miscomprehend a simple statement such as "houses and underwear need regular cleaning" to mean that houses and underwear themselves are 'needy', I have to conclude that you are making comments even you dont believe.

Yeah, but why should the majority of us care if we violate your rights?
Consistency. That if you do it to others, you open yourself up for it to be done to you.


If your "rights" are derived from a different source than the rest of us, and we don't believe the same things you do, to claim that something we are doing is in violation of your "rights" is meaningless.
No it isn't.


Which is why we will always tax you.
Because you're savages.

No you are not because no one was reifying anything,
Yes, they were. They were treating society as if it actually existed apart from the individuals which comprise it.


Way to demonstrate that your reading and comprehension skills are somewhat suspect.
Way to lie.

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere
Good post, you really articulated many of my opinions.

Don't worry though. The only person to my knowledge who makes the hilarious assertion that taxation is slavery is BAAWAKnights.

Good post, you really articulated many of my opinions.

Don't worry though. The only person to my knowledge who makes the hilarious assertion that taxation is slavery is BAAWAKnights.
By hilarious you mean "correct".

Consistency. That if you do it to others, you open yourself up for it to be done to you.
Most of us realize that there's a possibility we may get screwed, but view the benefit of having civilization as greater than the risk.

Want some cheese to go with your whine? You are the poster child for the jealousy that gives rise to socialism.
No, never seen you whining and raging, not once, ever. ;)

I don't agree 100% with Rickvaria, but he is just looking out for his interests. That's no crime.

Oh please. You have to work for a living. You don't make as much as other people. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Not all of us are lemmings that are happy with such a pay gap between ourselves and our capitalist overlords. Do you think that the CEO works 1100 times harder than the average worker?

And I know some smarmy fellow here is going to argue, "I have to work or die. Therefore I'm a slave!"
By no means. Indeed, in some jobs in certain laissez-faire economies, the worker is worse off than a slave.

On the taxation is slavery:

It is technically correct that if you take my possessions without my consent and dont even use them in ways I consent too, you are depriving me of my freedom. However, I consider it theft more than slavery. That society must say "give us your possessions to help us operate or you will die." Is indeed barbaric. Every taxman that comes to your door does so backed by the guns of that countries military.

Society is not a true construct, not compared to the individual anyway, and it certainly needs funding to survive and function. It must be remembered though, that the world is becoming such that there is no refuge for those who refuse society any longer. There is no wilderness to envelope them, no frontier for them to explore. Everywhere they go, they are subject to the groupthink whims of the majority.

By hilarious you mean "correct".
Of course that's what I mean, baby.

Every taxman that comes to your door does so backed by the guns of that countries military.

All the property you own is backed "by the guns of that countries military" (more precisely, the guns of the law enforcement, but nevermind.)

All the property you own is backed "by the guns of that countries military" (more precisely, the guns of the law enforcement, but nevermind.)

A fine point, One to which I have no real rebuttal- Classic of you Soheran ;) . Im more interested in in my secondary point anyway, but I may just make a whole new thread about that as soon as I do some research on it.

Yes, they were. They were treating society as if it actually existed apart from the individuals which comprise it.
I disagree, and you've not proven your assertion in this regard. The onus of proof is on the person making the assertion, you've failed to provide proof, so until you do you assertion is baseless and without worth of any kind.

Way to lie.
I'll interperet that as self-directed, since you've already admitted to being a lier in another thread.

Most of us realize that there's a possibility we may get screwed, but view the benefit of having civilization as greater than the risk.
Stealing from others isn't civilized, nor is enslaving them.

I disagree, and you've not proven your assertion in this regard. The onus of proof is on the person making the assertion, you've failed to provide proof, so until you do you assertion is baseless and without worth of any kind.

But that implies that there is a general truth to a abstract concept, and there is not. For the burden of proof to be upon you, he must simply find himself to be the defender, a position he has already taken several times.

No, never seen you whining and raging, not once, ever. ;)

I don't agree 100% with Rickvaria, but he is just looking out for his interests. That's no crime.
No, he's not looking out for his own interest. He's simply jealous of the pay differential.


Not all of us are lemmings that are happy with such a pay gap between ourselves and our capitalist overlords.
Not all of us are hate-filled jealous little monsters who want to steal from the rich.


Do you think that the CEO works 1100 times harder than the average worker?
I think that their work is valued more.

Tell me: why do you believe the myth that valuation is objective?


By no means. Indeed, in some jobs in certain laissez-faire economies, the worker is worse off than a slave.
And those jobs are.....?

All the property you own is backed "by the guns of that countries military" (more precisely, the guns of the law enforcement, but nevermind.)
Which can be confiscated by the government for any reason at all, really.

I disagree,
Feel free to.


and you've not proven your assertion in this regard.
I have: their own words.


I'll interperet that as self-directed, since you've already admitted to being a lier in another thread.
Nope. And the word is "liar".

But that implies that there is a general truth to a abstract concept, and there is not. For the burden of proof to be upon you, he must simply find himself to be the defender, a position he has already taken several times.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean. BawaaKnights asserted in the positive that X did Y. Because it is possible to prove (at least to the degree that anything is provable) a positive assertion but logically impossible to prove a negative assertion (no matter how many times you prove something is not the case there is the logical possibility that it is the case in some instance you have not addressed) the onus of proof is logically placed on positive assertions rather than assertions to the negative.

When someone utters "taxation is slavery," what he really means is "i am unreasonable and I can't be reasoned with."

So, why try?

Stealing from others isn't civilized, nor is enslaving them.
And reverting to the pre-government "everyone for themselves" stone age is civilised.

No, he's not looking out for his own interest. He's simply jealous of the pay differential.
He's trying to get more money for himself, more education and basically he's after a higher quality of life. That's in his best interets.

Not all of us are hate-filled jealous little monsters who want to steal from the rich.
Indeed we aren't.

I think that their work is valued more.

Tell me: why do you believe the myth that valuation is objective?
No, I don't believe that. Though I do believe that it's wrong for someone to idle in luxury while another works to the bone. That is at best, theft, and at worst, slavery.

And those jobs are.....?
Coal mining in Le Borinage, Belgium in the 1880s for example. Shirt manufacturing in Derry, Ireland (part of the ultra-capitalist Brit Imperium at the time) around the same time is another example.

When someone utters "taxation is slavery," what he really means is "i am unreasonable and I can't be reasoned with."

So, why try?

And naturally, the converse, that the OP is arguing, is also totally untrue.

That is, of course, the argument I tried to make last night.

When someone utters "taxation is slavery," what he really means is "i am unreasonable and I can't be reasoned with."

So, why try?
Mmm, it's all so clear now. I can only shake my head at my failure to recognise this for myself - now you've stated as much explicitly it all seems rather obvious. Thanks for the clarification. If I feel like wasting my time I'll try reasoning with such folk, otherwise I'll recall your excellent analysis and leave unwell enough alone.

And naturally, the converse, that the OP is arguing, is also totally untrue.

That is, of course, the argument I tried to make last night.
Actually, the unreasonable leftist equivalent to "Taxation is slavery" is "Property is theft!" Though it took the right-wingers 130 years to come up with the former.

/me throws John Rawls into the discussion.
Discussion closed, imo.

Little summary:
http://infotech.fanshawec.on.ca/faculty/jedicke/rawls.htm

When someone utters "taxation is slavery," what he really means is "i am unreasonable and I can't be reasoned with."
No, when someone utters "taxation is the price you pay for civilization", what he really means is "I want to steal your stuff but am too cowardly to do it myself, so I'll get some gang to do it for me."

Actually, the unreasonable leftist equivalent to "Taxation is slavery" is "Property is theft!"

"Property is theft" is far more justified both in its false interpretation and in the way Proudhon actually meant it.

And reverting to the pre-government "everyone for themselves" stone age is civilised.
I do so love the strawman.


He's trying to get more money for himself,
By having it stolen from someone else.


Indeed we aren't.
Yes, some of us are moral humans. The rest are socialists.


No, I don't believe that.
Then why bring up if a person has worked X number of times harder?


Though I do believe that it's wrong for someone to idle in luxury while another works to the bone.
Oh, you mean that it's wrong for someone to suck off welfare while others work to provide that.


Coal mining in Le Borinage, Belgium in the 1880s for example. Shirt manufacturing in Derry, Ireland (part of the ultra-capitalist Brit Imperium at the time) around the same time is another example.
Imperialism is not capitalism, and Britain was quite mercantilist at the time.

I wonder when people like you will finally realize that spouting off on topics that you've got no clue on does not make you believable. It makes you rather like Noam Chomsky.

It makes you rather like Noam Chomsky.

"I should say that when people talk about capitalism it's a bit of a joke. There's no such thing. No country, no business class, has ever been willing to subject itself to the free market, free market discipline." - Noam Chomsky

Remind me again who sounds like whom?

"I should say that when people talk about capitalism it's a bit of a joke. There's no such thing. No country, no business class, has ever been willing to subject itself to the free market, free market discipline." - Noam Chomsky

Remind me again who sounds like whom?
Yes, people who spew their nonsense without ever bothering to learn about the topic are just like Noam Chomsky.

What makes the bigness of a business bad?


For one, the fact that it might drive other companies out of business and in that way create a monopoly in its area. Monopolies are, in general, bad, and threaten the free market.

Yes, people who spew their nonsense without ever bothering to learn about the topic are just like Noam Chomsky.

Have you actually read Noam Chomsky?

Or are you just Noam Chomskying right now?

For one, the fact that it might drive other companies out of business and in that way create a monopoly in its area.
How exactly can that happen? Bear in mind that if you try the "war chest of profits" argument, you'll fail.


Monopolies are, in general, bad, and threaten the free market.
So why are people so supportive of the biggest monopolies of them all: government?

I do so love the strawman.
Abolishing government, currency, society. It's like the stone age with better technology.

By having it stolen from someone else.
The market that causes some people to acquire significantly greater amounts of money than others for little to no extra work is not a base for ideas of morality. Indeed, it is immoral for one person to live in luxury if they did not work to deserve it.

Yes, some of us are moral humans. The rest are socialists.
In your view, who isn't a socialist?

Then why bring up if a person has worked X number of times harder?
In order to point out that just because someone has money, doesn't mean that they have an untouchable moral or legal right to it.

Oh, you mean that it's wrong for someone to suck off welfare while others work to provide that.
I believe that is also wrong, but as I pointed out similar abuses occur in both laissez-faire and socialist economies.

Imperialism is not capitalism, and Britain was quite mercantilist at the time.
Please explain how the workers would have gained greater wages, more free time and a higher quality of life if a laissez-faire model had been followed.

So why are people so supportive of the biggest monopolies of them all: government?
To my memory the OP said he didn't want the government monopoly on everything, tomato ketchup for example.

Have you actually read Noam Chomsky?
Yes. I've read several of his articles about topics which do not relate to linguistics, such as politics and economics. He's great for linguistics. But once he steps outside of that--it's just an unvarnished load of nonsense.

Abolishing government, currency, society.
Only the first. The second and third do not depend on a government.


The market that causes some people to acquire significantly greater amounts of money than others for little to no extra work is not a base for ideas of morality.
Aha. So why do you think that the amount of labor put in to something reflects its value?


Indeed, it is immoral for one person to live in luxury if they did not work to deserve it.
By what definition of "work" and "deserve"? Your own pet one?


In your view, who isn't a socialist?
People who do not advocate the theft of the property of others in order to feel better about their own guilt for having more than the poor.


In order to point out that just because someone has money, doesn't mean that they have an untouchable moral or legal right to it.
It doesn't mean that someone else has a right to it.


I believe that is also wrong, but as I pointed out similar abuses occur in both laissez-faire and socialist economies.
What laissez-faire economy?


Please explain how the workers would have gained greater wages, more free time and a higher quality of life if a laissez-faire model had been followed.
Please explain how it happened because of socialism. And you need to have a direct link, not post hoc ergo propter hoc.

How exactly can that happen? Bear in mind that if you try the "war chest of profits" argument, you'll fail.
One company gets so strong it either buys or drives the other companies out of business either by selling its products to less than the market price or by simply being stronger than the other companies. Yes, it might be the best company selling the best products at the lowest prices. However, if competition is eliminated, the company will produce and sell so that its profits are at the highest. This is not the best price nor production quota for the consumers.


So why are people so supportive of the biggest monopolies of them all: government?

As I said, monopolies are bad in general. In my country for example, there's a monopoly on sale of spirits, because the government believes that drinking is so big a problem the sale should be controlled. This would however not be relevant in "your" society...

I'm not going to make you show your homework again, so I'll just say something in the lines of Churchill: "Democracy is far from perfect, but it's better than all the other things we've tried."

One company gets so strong it either buys or drives the other companies out of business either by selling its products to less than the market price or by simply being stronger than the other companies.
The latter is the refuted-to-death "war chest" myth. The former has yet to happen.


Yes, it might be the best company selling the best products at the lowest prices. However, if competition is eliminated, the company will produce and sell so that its profits are at the highest. This is not the best price nor production quota for the consumers.
Like the production of security, law, etc. Governments have the monopoly on that.



As I said, monopolies are bad in general. In my country for example, there's a monopoly on sale of spirits, because the government believes that drinking is so big a problem the sale should be controlled. This would however not be relevant in "your" society...

I'm not going to make you show your homework again, so I'll just say something in the lines of Churchill: "Democracy is far from perfect, but it's better than all the other things we've tried."
It's the highest expression of collectivism.

Oh, and also, I do not agree with using tax dollars to kill Iraqi children either, but the government is elected by the people, and if the majority support Bush's illegal war on a sovereign country that has never attacked America or stated that they wish to wipe America off the face of the earth in any sense, then that is the will of the people, and you as the individual must get over it.
As a Canadian, my tax dollars are currently going towards the war in Afghanistan, and God knows I don't support that illegal intervention into another country's affairs in which we are allying ourselves with terrorists as terribly radical as the Taliban. Nevertheless, I still pay my taxes. I just wish to see the Harper government voted out, and a New Democratic government voted in with my buddy Jack Layton as our prime minister (the best damn one we might ever have with the possible exception of Ed Broadbent, God bless him). I respect the will of the society, which is a concept you should learn along with many others besides Friedmanian economics and Randian social philosophy.


Wow , Rickvaria I was actualy impressed with your arguments until you resorted to a juvnile and ignorant swipe at American forgien policy. Hmm...as some one recently said to me... way to generalise.

By the way what was the point of this thread again?

Wow , Rickvaria I was actualy impressed with your arguments until you resorted to a juvnile and ignorant swipe at American forgien policy. Hmm...as some one recently said to me... way to generalise.
Pretty chip, doesnt it ever get a bit on the heavy side though?

I haven't read most of this thread (it's late), but I have to interject here as I am one of your 'working poor'.

They're called the working poor for a reason. They work, they don't earn enough,

...And then they have a large chunk of that 'not enough' taken from them in order to satisfy the consciences of people like yourself. Thanks bud, it's good to know you care. Now please stop.

One question-how does being taxed help the poor guy who is a "slave" to the big evil corporate boss?

...If that's how it 'works' then my original assesment that it is illogical and in fact doesnt work was entirely accurate.
Now, which part of me putting a smiley face at the end of the post didn't you understand?

Of course it's not both slavery and theft. It depends on how you look at it. But that's rhetoric anyways, it doesn't come anywhere near the real point of the argument.

The fact of the matter is that theft is defined as the taking of someone's stuff without their consent. That's what happens in taxation.

Just because in Iran it may be considered okay to rape a woman does not mean that it is no longer rape, or that it should somehow be considered okay.

As I said in another post...obviously you are free to have the opinion that one type of theft is wrong and another type is right. But you better have some sort of consistent basis for that. And even then, if you fail to be able to convince other people of that consistent basis, you will be imposing your morality on those people, by force of arms. You'll be taking their freedom so you can feel better about the world. Don't ever forget that.

...And then they have a large chunk of that 'not enough' taken from them in order to satisfy the consciences of people like yourself. Thanks bud, it's good to know you care. Now please stop.
Pre-fucking-cisely.

The idea that the free market is an invention propagated by rich people is one of the biggest strawmen allowed to exist.

Libertarians aren't pro-rich. They simply observe the ongoing systemic failure of government to manage anything properly (caused by its inherent lack of incentives to do so) and they decide that everyone (and especially the poor...hell, some rich people are rich because government allows them to be) would be better off if government were not allowed to meddle.

Your argument falls apart once you realise:

2) capitalism hopefully also allows skill and hard work to come into the equation
That's how Paris Hilton got to be so rich.

That's how Paris Hilton got to be so rich.
With people like her it's a pretty clear trade-off: Her father worked pretty hard, and he obviously did so in part because he wanted Paris to live the best life possible (he failed IMHO, but that's another matter).

The question is: Is it proper for us to tell the father that he's not allowed to work for that reason, just because we don't like the idea of Paris getting lots of money she didn't earn?

The question is: Is it proper for us to tell the father that he's not allowed to work for that reason, just because we don't like the idea of Paris getting lots of money she didn't earn?
Well, if it keeps her irritating visage off our screens, then I think the answer would be a resounding 'Yes!'.

Well, if it keeps her irritating visage off our screens, then I think the answer would be a resounding 'Yes!'.
Hehe, fair enough. But then, people seem to pay for her to be on our screens so someone seems to like her. :confused:

How exactly can that happen? Bear in mind that if you try the "war chest of profits" argument, you'll fail.



So why are people so supportive of the biggest monopolies of them all: government?

ah the free market allows for the emergence of monopolies =)

just a random thought.

those arguing for an absolutely true free market economy i feel i essentially arguing for the impossible, an extreme situation.

the free market economy allows everything to be determined through the market and the price mechanism (demand and supply factors, where market is cleared at an equilibrium where demand equals supply). there would be efficency in resource allocation, bla bla bla. however it is abit like communism or rather the command economy, looks wonderful on paper, impossible to implement.

you would have to take into account market imperfections, imperfect knowledge. what about private goods and public goods? Public goods are goods that non-excludable and non-rival in consumption, thus demand is hidden and private firms would not provide the supply (you cant actually charge for street lighting can u?).

and then i saw sumone advocating the abolishment of the governement. currency is very much dependent on the government unless of course what you meant by currency is barter trading or using shells as money or gg back to gold coins. simply because the governmen through central banks determine money supply (ammount of currency in circulation). now without this control of money supply or simply put teh printing of money, there would be spiraling inflation (MV=PY). a case of too much money chasing too little goods. and you cannot leave this to private banks because they have the profit motive, they would print money whenever they needed it. now with gold or barter trading the supply of currency is naturally limited so the controls already exist. just that we mite have to carry around tons of gold or find sumone who wants what we have to offer and has what we want.

now assuming the government has no profit motive (which is bull but then again they are liable to voters in a democratic institution so there is some control since voters are consumers and do not want higher prices). how does the government fund this controls when they need to hire someone who is driven by profits? they tax, they tax because they need to hire economists to do the economic planning teh accountants the beuracrats and bla and bla bla. basically to run the government and eduation and all because theoraticaly left to market forces things like education and health care would be under-supplied and most likely prices would be high, resulting in a less than desirable amount of people having access to it, still resulting in pretty much in an elitist society like the middle adges where only the aristocrats go to school.

taxes also provide equity if implemented correctly. with those higher income taxed more, the money would mostlikely go back to thebuilding of schools or hospitals and the mainatinence of roads and stuff liddat provided that it is spent properlly.

then again if there is too much tax, it acts as a disincentive for people to work. so clearly it is a blance of taxing the right amount.

it is also a balance of having certain markets under government control and leaving most of everything else to market forces. and in the real world, you can expect monopolies to form and even more so without government control

Consistency. That if you do it to others, you open yourself up for it to be done to you.
Correct. Everyone is taxed.

Because you're savages.
Mmm, flames.

Correct. Everyone is taxed.
So everyone is enslaved and stolen from.


Mmm, flames.
Can't be. It's an accurate description. What else do you call someone who desires to destroy civilization?

2) capitalism hopefully also allows skill and hard work to come into the equation


Sorry, but this is bullshit.

the employers wants to get the most work for the least cash.
the employees want the most cash for the least work.

(this is not to imply employees are lazy, but they want the best deal possible - likewise for employers).

When there is a shortage labour/skills wages go up.
When there is a surplus of labour/skill wages go down.

The actual value of work to the employer, or the hardness with which the employee works has little to do with the wages they are paid - it is almost all about supply and demand.

e.g. A pool lifeguard does a very valueable job for the person whose life they save, and gets paid crap.

e.g. A shelf stacker can work their ass off doing 60-80 hour weeks but they will get paid less than the accountant who works 40, most of which is playing solitare.

There are countless highly skilled jobs that pay badly, and countless jobs that require hard work that don't pay well.

It's *almost* all purely supply and demand.

..bla..bla..bla.....They have the knowledge of how to run the operation. They take the risks. They advance the company....bla..bla..bla..


Alrighthy then. A question though. Where did they get the knowledge of how to run the operation? Most likely, in a public school.....Which is paid by (partially, at the very least) taxes. Neat, huh?

So in essence, what you really want is the rebirth of aristocracy. You don't want economic freedom....not for everyone, at least. Moving on.


They take the risks...Oh, my god, and such an awsome thing to do. They "take the risks"? No, they make the decision for the company to take the risks. If they fuck up, they still go home with a HUGE paycheck, while workers will probably be unemployed. They don't take any risk at all. Personally, they are in the clear. Which is not the case for every one.

You're right, value is subjective. What is not subjective is that if someone is giving his time and effort to a company, he has the right to earn a minimal amount of comfort of it.

Awwwwwwwwww.

Want some cheese to go with your whine? You are the poster child for the jealousy that gives rise to socialism.

And no, your blatant non sequitur that since a person lives in "society" that person must "contribute to it isn't a-tall valid. Also, your blatant assertion that governments can provide services better and cheaper is contradicted by reality.

So please--spare us your hate-filled polemic rant about how your life sucks because you won't put forth the effort to make it better, and that you feel you should have everything handed to you on a silver platter.

OMG............I agree with BAAWA on something..........*hides*

BAAWAKnights, do you pay taxes?

Alrighthy then. A question though. Where did they get the knowledge of how to run the operation? Most likely, in a public school.....Which is paid by (partially, at the very least) taxes. Neat, huh?
No.


So in essence, what you really want is the rebirth of aristocracy.
No.


They take the risks...Oh, my god, and such an awsome thing to do.
It is.


You're right, value is subjective. What is not subjective is that if someone is giving his time and effort to a company, he has the right to earn a minimal amount of comfort of it.
No he doesn't.

BAAWAKnights, do you pay taxes?
Relevance?

Thats bollocks. Stop whining, get an education, and elevate yourself.

So everyone is enslaved and stolen from.
You're running in circles. I am pointing out your erroneous refutation of Kwangistar. You implied that imposing taxes on one individual is dangerous because it means that taxes can be imposed on everyone. This is a redundant statement, because taxes are never imposed individually. They're imposed on everyone.


Can't be. It's an accurate description. What else do you call someone who desires to destroy civilization?
I live in a country where taxes exist. Civilisation is flourishing. Explain this contradiction.

OMG............I agree with BAAWA on something..........*hides*
Thats bollocks. Stop whining, get an education, and elevate yourself.
Hwo nice. Two good Christians who think that we shouldn't help other people.

Not all of us are lemmings that are happy with such a pay gap between ourselves and our capitalist overlords.

Translation: You're jealous. You want more. You dislike who has more.

:Shrug:

It's natural, everyone gets jealous sometimes.

Do you think that the CEO works 1100 times harder than the average worker?

If I type a sentence that is twice as long as yours, does my post have twice as much value?

Labor Theory of Value is dead. Let it rest in peace.

By no means. Indeed, in some jobs in certain laissez-faire economies, the worker is worse off than a slave.

A meaningless statement. How are you quantifying "worse off?" I think you do it by ignoring the concept of liberty.

Hardly. That isn't something that's normally expected of the average citizen to pay for.

ORLY? And yet it is. I pay taxes, Department of Defense gets a good portion of those taxes, and uses the funds to build, maintain and employ weapons of war. I am not alone in this either.

But unless you pave your own roads, the ones you use everyday are paid for with tax money no?

True, and for a long time the clothing people wore was manufactured by slaves...

(Oops, I compared taxes with slavery again. I don't mean to. Taxes are more like theft.)

Point is though, people would find a way to make road-maintaining profitable. Tolls, perhaps. Then the people who use that road would pay, the ones who don't wouldn't.

those arguing for an absolutely true free market economy i feel i essentially arguing for the impossible, an extreme situation.
Much like any anarchist community (hehe), it needs the commitment of those who take part, yes.

But if you had a bunch of anarcho-capitalists who truly believed in the ideals (and the moral code) of capitalism, then I don't see why it shouldn't work, as long as it isn't destroyed from the outside.

And unlike state communism for example, there wouldn't be a problem with people not pulling on the same string (so to speak), because if you didn't like it, you could leave that very minute.

the free market economy allows everything to be determined through the market and the price mechanism (demand and supply factors, where market is cleared at an equilibrium where demand equals supply). there would be efficency in resource allocation, bla bla bla. however it is abit like communism or rather the command economy, looks wonderful on paper, impossible to implement.
However: Who says everything would have to be perfect? It would just have to be better than the next-best alternative, right?
Even if there is imperfect information, all used cars are crap and not all resources are always perfectly allocated - as long as it's closer to perfect than whatever alternative you're considering, free-market capitalism is still the way to go.

Really, the stuff we do on paper is just a standard to measure reality by.

you would have to take into account market imperfections, imperfect knowledge. what about private goods and public goods? Public goods are goods that non-excludable and non-rival in consumption, thus demand is hidden and private firms would not provide the supply (you cant actually charge for street lighting can u?).
Well, real anarcho-capitalists argue that there is no such thing as public goods. Or rather, that they can be provided without government. If a bunch of people who live along that street want street lights, they could all get together and pool some of their money for that purpose.

Works fine in that example, perhaps not so well with a lighthouse, where users are not necessarily from the same community.

Fact of the matter is that public goods exist, I agree. I also believe that technology constantly changes what can be called a public good and what can't. And as soon as excludability is introduced, in theory at least there is a scope for a market and a price.

and then i saw sumone advocating the abolishment of the governement. currency is very much dependent on the government unless of course what you meant by currency is barter trading or using shells as money or gg back to gold coins.
The latter, in fact. The gold standard is a pretty decent way to stabilise a currency.
But then, you'd have millions of people flocking to Africa to dig for more gold. Or go into space to dig in asteroids.
Or start alchemy again. :D

simply because the governmen through central banks determine money supply (ammount of currency in circulation). now without this control of money supply or simply put teh printing of money, there would be spiraling inflation (MV=PY). a case of too much money chasing too little goods. and you cannot leave this to private banks because they have the profit motive, they would print money whenever they needed it.
Well, strictly speaking banks are already creating a lot of money "for themselves".

The quantity theory of money, as neat as it is, doesn't actually reflect the truth though. Velocity isn't constant, it's never been, and Friedman himself accepts as much.

now with gold or barter trading the supply of currency is naturally limited so the controls already exist. just that we mite have to carry around tons of gold or find sumone who wants what we have to offer and has what we want.
Well, all it'd need would be for a bank's privately made currency to be pegged against that bank's gold reserves.
It would be much like it was back in the days of the gold standard, except that it's not governments but banks that do it.

If you look at why the gold standard disappeared, it's not because the system didn't work, it's because governments made more debt than they could provide gold for...so they did what government does and broke their promise to pay for their currency in gold.

they tax, they tax because they need to hire economists to do the economic planning teh accountants the beuracrats and bla and bla bla. basically to run the government and eduation and all because theoraticaly left to market forces things like education and health care would be under-supplied and most likely prices would be high, resulting in a less than desirable amount of people having access to it, still resulting in pretty much in an elitist society like the middle adges where only the aristocrats go to school.
And you have found one of two reasons I'm not actually an anarcho-capitalists. Well, really it's one and the same, really: externalities.

I do enjoy the Coase Theorem for the perspective it provides and its amoral approach, but just like Coase I know that it's just not realistic that people negotiate all these things, nor is total amorality for the sake of economic efficiency necessarily desirable.

A voucher system for education and healthcare, I would gladly pay taxes for. Unfortunately the government wants more than that, for reasons I certainly don't agree with.

taxes also provide equity if implemented correctly. with those higher income taxed more, the money would mostlikely go back to thebuilding of schools or hospitals and the mainatinence of roads and stuff liddat provided that it is spent properlly.
Equity...or gross distortion of incentives?

The problem is with your assertion that it "most likely" would go anywhere in particular. The only thing that is likely is that it will used in a way the politician sees fit, and that can be either the public good, or their own careers. Or indeed seemingly random ideologies which compel them to export democracy to the Middle East.

then again if there is too much tax, it acts as a disincentive for people to work. so clearly it is a blance of taxing the right amount.
I agree. But that would have to be a flat tax, and it would have to be low.

Estonia can do it, why not everyone else?

it is also a balance of having certain markets under government control and leaving most of everything else to market forces. and in the real world, you can expect monopolies to form and even more so without government control
Have you by any chance ever read Schumpeter?

As far as monopolies are concerned, he had it pretty correct with the idea of "creative destruction". Monopolies are the result of entrepreneurial spirit, good decision making and doing a good job by one's customers.

There is an alternative to that, of course, namely being good mates with politicians, but that wouldn't happen in a minarchist community (or at least it'd be much less useful, seeing as to how limited the powers of government would be).

And much the same, there are two ways for a monopoly to continue to exist: Either it continues to be at the forefront of innovation and entrepreneurship, providing superior value to consumers and thus preventing small competitors from starting up and being successful. Or, alternatively, you're good mates with government again. The latter is much more common with large companies these days, it seems.

In short: non-government-sponsored monopolies are the result of generally doing a good job, and can therefore be seen as the just reward.

Hwo nice. Two good Christians who think that we shouldn't help other people.

I don't think that what you propose actually does help people.

No.



No.



It is.



No he doesn't.

1,717 posts. All with the same argumentative quality. Ground breaking.

Let's start with the first no. What, exactly, are you denying? That it's neat? Yeah, ok, then maybe it's not neat.

Or that they, these superb examples of humanity and competence, don't get their educations from public schools. Given what i've heard from the American public education system, maybe you're right.

But let's picture for a second, that taxes didn't exist, or that, at the very least, education wasn't where they were reinvested. In such a situation, the rich get along fine. They can afford to pay for a private school. So they'll have a bright future running some corporation somewhere. What about those that aren't so fortunate as to be born "à lá Paris Hilton"?

What do they do? They can't afford an education, therefore it'll be very hard for them to get a job. A decent job, that is. So there goes social mobility.

Hence, Aristocracy. The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor.

What else was there? Oh, yes, that taking risks was an awsome thing to do. The only affirmative answer in your post. Alright. Let's take the logic a step further. Thieves take risks. Murderes, rapists, and the like, take risks. Do they deserve compensation for their actions, for the simple fact that they have taken risks?

Come on, i want to hear you say "yes"!:p

What else? Oh, that the worker doesn't have the right to be confortable doing whatever it is he is doing. But the employer does? Why? Which god gave him that right? Oh, wait, no god in there, as it is merely subjective. He has the right because he has the money. Just like government has the guns.

I have my doubts as to which "incentive" works the best. You're simply trying to replace one with the other.

Hwo nice. Two good Christians who think that we shouldn't help other people.

Strawman, address their point, not your generalized opinion of libertarian thought.

I would recommend apologizing to Smunkee for being an asshole, as well.

I agree. But that would have to be a flat tax, and it would have to be low.

If taxes are theft how do you justify even low taxes?

If taxes are theft how do you justify even low taxes?
On efficiency grounds.

As I pointed out before in another post, moral arguments are all fine and dandy but pointless if they fall on deaf ears with guns.

So my main argument against them is on grounds of efficiency: the money is simply spent better by the people who earn it, most of the time. And progressive tax systems are worse distortions of the market than flat ones.

Except for those few exceptions that are mostly recognised: the provision of certain public goods, vouchers for education and healthcare as well as internal and external security.

If that was all, and there was no spending on welfare, interest groups, subsidies, militaries capable of aggression or people's retirement, the taxes wouldn't have to be very high.

You're running in circles. I am pointing out your erroneous refutation of Kwangistar.
It wasn't erroneous; it was correct.


You implied that imposing taxes on one individual is dangerous because it means that taxes can be imposed on everyone. This is a redundant statement, because taxes are never imposed individually.
They can be.


I live in a country where taxes exist. Civilisation is flourishing. Explain this contradiction.
Ok. Your second sentence is wrong.

1,717 posts. All with the same argumentative quality.
I give what I get. You offered exactly nothing to support your claims. So why should I offer you anything more for a response?

Tell you what--re-write your initial post to me with some actual evidence and backing. Then you can complain about my responses if I don't give you anything more than what I already have.

Until then, feel free to be infected with a very nasty strain of hemorragic fever.

I give what I get. You offered exactly nothing to support your claims. So why should I offer you anything more for a response?

Tell you what--re-write your initial post to me with some actual evidence and backing. Then you can complain about my responses if I don't give you anything more than what I already have.

Until then, feel free to be infected with a very nasty strain of hemorragic fever.

Knights, you're just alienating more people with every acidic post you write. You're not helping your case.

Knights, you're just alienating more people with every acidic post you write.
You say that as if I'm supposed to care. You're not helping your case.

Now, which part of me putting a smiley face at the end of the post didn't you understand?
I dont really know, perhaps the part where it means I'm not allowed to respond...
The part that meant that you didnt mean anything you said...

Some other part...

You tell me.

Of course it's not both slavery and theft. It depends on how you look at it. But that's rhetoric anyways, it doesn't come anywhere near the real point of the argument.
If you didnt mean a word you said, I have to say the 'wide smile' smiley isnt sufficient to communicte that.

The fact of the matter is that theft is defined as the taking of someone's stuff without their consent. That's what happens in taxation.
Great, so you did mean what you said and the smiley meant 'but no one may reply'...? At this point I have to wonder if even you know what you mean...

Just because in Iran it may be considered okay to rape a woman does not mean that it is no longer rape, or that it should somehow be considered okay.
Lalalalalalalalalalala...

As I said in another post...obviously you are free to have the opinion that one type of theft is wrong and another type is right.
Let me know when you want to cover some ground relevent to something I've actually posted in this thread...

But you better have some sort of consistent basis for that. And even then, if you fail to be able to convince other people of that consistent basis, you will be imposing your morality on those people, by force of arms. You'll be taking their freedom so you can feel better about the world. Don't ever forget that.
What brand of soap did that box come from.

Just to clarify, you posted a post that seemed to indicate a view, but we should all know you dont hold that view because you chucked a grinning smilie at the end. The fact that the veiw was utterly illogical and you got called on it, of course has nothing to do with why you attempt to disclaim it now, or at least half of it. The fact that I am on good terms with logic and prefer not to see it abused means that I need a lecture about rape in Iran whilst you go about reiterating at least half of the view that we should all have known you didnt hold on account of the smilie...

What part/s dont I get? All of them. As I already mentioned, I'm on good terms with logic and sometimes this has drawbacks. For instance it makes it a bit hard to follow your malarky.

Knights, you're just alienating more people with every acidic post you write. You're not helping your case.
I expect that's because he or she is not here to help their case or any case, but rather to troll. It's already been established that Knights will happily post things Knights doesnt believe (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11937801&postcount=309). Since it seems that Knights intends a reaction, that's trolling.

Awwwwwwwwww.

Want some cheese to go with your whine? You are the poster child for the jealousy that gives rise to socialism.

And no, your blatant non sequitur that since a person lives in "society" that person must "contribute to it isn't a-tall valid. Also, your blatant assertion that governments can provide services better and cheaper is contradicted by reality.

So please--spare us your hate-filled polemic rant about how your life sucks because you won't put forth the effort to make it better, and that you feel you should have everything handed to you on a silver platter.
I have decided you are a troll. You don't know this person, so don't spout BS about effort.
Also, it is clearly true that anyone, by absolute definition, contributes to the society they live in, unless they're Boo Radley. And even he was a legend. So if anyone contributes at least negatively, they should contribute positively as well. Unless they're selfish, which, since I'm stereotyping you as everything I dislike in a troll, I'm guessing you are.
You want to talk about the jealousy that gives rise to socialism? How about the jealousy that gives rise to capitalism? Rich people aren't happy unless they're richer than their neighbours.

Like governments do. And I don't see how MS controls the market, given that there are competitors.

Governments don't set the prices. They can set ceilings and floors, but not the actual prices itself. And they don't always have the ability to enforce it.


If that happened, then there must have been some major catastrophe which caused most of the world's grain supply to be eliminated. You do realize that prices are formed from the subjective valuations of individuals based upon supply and demand, right?

Ever heard of artificial shortages?


wrt trusted computing, we do have the option of using non-TS computers. The consumer is sovereign in that respect.

And what non-TS computers are there hmmm? Manufacturers who didn't get into the line were subsequently snubbed by TS compliant companies, eventually going out of business by lack of supporting components.


Not when it is reified, as most people seem to do.


I'm pretty sure you misquoted me on that. Unless I missed the "not" addition.


But only individuals hold those standards and expectations. "Society" does not.

Do you know what group think is? That's what society does for standards and expectations.


Real individuals? As opposed to fake individuals?


Fake individuals are those who fall into the category of group think. They are what make up society.

As to you claiming society doesn't exist, why not claim your car doesn't exist? After all, it's only a collection of components. Or hey, what about you? You're not human. You're just a collection of biological matter that happens to function co-dependently.

What about nations? They don't exist. They just happen to be geographical land masses with a collection of people arguing about where the lines go.


Bzzzt. Incorrect. The market is a process. It is the aggregate of the non-coerced trades among individuals.


By using the term aggregate, you either must acknowledge that society exists as an aggregate of interactions by people or be exposed as a hypocrite.

You tell me.
Dude, here is the deal: I have never claimed that it was both slavery and theft.

Depending on your outlook on life and your morality you can argue either, it's that simple.

I personally call it theft, not slavery, because it is theft by definition. That's regardless of morality, regardless of whether you see the produce of your mind and body as morally identical with it.

Lalalalalalalalalalala...
What the hell sort of response is that? Just because you call rape something else doesn't make it anything other than rape. Just because you call theft "taxation" doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

A rose by any other name...

Let me know when you want to cover some ground relevent to something I've actually posted in this thread...
Why would I bother? You seem to be in a very nice world of your own, claiming that you have debunked libertarianism by pointing out that taxation can't be theft and slavery at the same time, unless one is very good at mental gymnastics, perhaps.

My point is simple: Taxation is theft, there is no way around that fact.

Now, you can go ahead and argue that it is justified theft, which you are free to do. Even I myself have conceded that some taxation is so worthwhile that I would call it justified.

What part/s dont I get? All of them. As I already mentioned, I'm on good terms with logic and sometimes this has drawbacks. For instance it makes it a bit hard to follow your malarky.
Look, I'll type this very slowly: If a communist calls a human who owns a factory a "pig", that is a contradiction, correct?

Does that mean that once a communist yells something about capitalist pigs, I have debunked communism and the debate can stop right there?

Or do I recognise rhetoric and the extra stuff as just that, and instead concentrate on the meat of the argument?

I'm not going to argue that taxation is slavery, that case is for someone else to make. But I am pretty clear on it being theft. Now, you can choose to respond to that or not, your call.

And the smiley was me recognising and admitting that I was not following the rules of logic with my last sentence. Obviously you chose not to credit me with enough brain to recognise it as such and instead hoped to have found a farcically dumb person you could yell at. Not the case, I'm afraid.

I personally call it theft, not slavery, because it is theft by definition.

Nonsense.

You can either go with the moral definition or the legal definition of theft, or at least I don't see any other one that would be relevant.

If you go with the legal definition, it is not theft, because it occurs through legal means, and the property that is taken through taxation is no longer property that you legally own.

If you go with the moral definition, there is room for dispute, since the moral definition implies the coercive deprivation of justly owned property.

Neither way is it theft "by definition."

Nonsense.
So, theft is not taking someone's stuff without consent, is it?

So, theft is not taking someone's stuff without consent, is it?

"Someone's stuff" is the point of contention.

By what right is it theirs?

"Someone's stuff" is the point of contention.

By what right is it theirs?
So in other words, you would be against taxing a farmer by taking part of his harvest, but in favour taxing an engineer for taking part of his wages?

But ideas like theft become meaningless anyways if no one actually owns anything. But then, there wouldn't be taxation in your world either, so it's really irrelevant, isn't it.

So in other words, you would be against taxing a farmer by taking part of his harvest, but in favour taxing an engineer for taking part of his wages?

Did I say that?

All I said was that in order to define something as theft you must define property somehow, and in order to do so, you need either a moral or a legal definition of property, or at least I can't think of any other relevant ones.

Under the legal definition, taxation is not theft, because the law says it isn't.

Under the moral definition, taxation may be theft, but the problem you were trying to avoid surfaces again - I can always object to your argument that the property taken is justly owned. (Alternatively, I can say that the seizure is justified even if the property is justly owned, but I do not have to go in that direction.)

But ideas like theft become meaningless anyways if no one actually owns anything.

"Theft" is a term substantially broader than that. I can steal someone's freedom, for instance.

Relevance?

Are you a slave by your own definition?

Did I say that?
Well, I'm trying to work out what exactly acceptable and inacceptable property is according to you, and thus figure out which taxation would and wouldn't be theft.

Under the legal definition, taxation is not theft, because the law says it isn't.
Well, ask the thief what he's doing, and chances are you won't get an honest answer.

Under the moral definition, taxation may be theft, but the problem you were trying to avoid surfaces again - I can always object to your argument that the property taken is justly owned. (Alternatively, I can say that the seizure is justified even if the property is justly owned, but I do not have to go in that direction.)
Does it have to be justly owned? Can't I steal from a thief, and that would still be theft, even if you called it less bad?
It doesn't have to be about properly defined property rights. As long as someone "has" something in the most mundane of senses, I can take it away and that would be theft.

"Theft" is a term substantially broader than that. I can steal someone's freedom, for instance.
Only if I try to somehow objectify "freedom". It carries little more meaning than for example "stealing" someone's heart.

Dude, here is the deal: I have never claimed that it was both slavery and theft.
If it is not recognised as theft, it is slavery. If it's not recognised as slavery, it's theft. Since it's not recognised as either, it's both.
(http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11936341&postcount=70)
Aha, sure Dude.
Depending on your outlook on life and your morality you can argue either, it's that simple.
Right, which explains why you posted the above linked to commentary in direct response to my statement claiming it couldnt be both at the same time...

I personally call it theft, not slavery, because it is theft by definition. That's regardless of morality, regardless of whether you see the produce of your mind and body as morally identical with it.
Good for you, this perhaps clarifies why you responded as you did to my assertion that it couldnt be both at the same time, although only in your own head. However, out here in reality, unless we assume you are trying to back-track, it remains slighty more opaque than mud.

What the hell sort of response is that? Just because you call rape something else doesn't make it anything other than rape. Just because you call theft "taxation" doesn't change the fact that it's theft.
The kind of response your rambling warrented.

A rose by any other name...


Why would I bother? You seem to be in a very nice world of your own, claiming that you have debunked libertarianism by pointing out that taxation can't be theft and slavery at the same time, unless one is very good at mental gymnastics, perhaps.
Actually it's clearly you that is in a world or thier own (although how nice it is, I dont presume to judge). Lying about what other people said is a sure sign of desperation. I think you'd have been better off cutting your loses rather than stooping to such a level, but if your sense of self respect is so low that you're happy to cavort about a few feet lower than the gutter, I guess that's your lookout.

My point is simple: Taxation is theft, there is no way around that fact.
Really, so your point is no longer that it can be both at once. Well I guess that's an improvement on your earlier assault on my good friend logic.

Now, you can go ahead and argue that it is justified theft, which you are free to do. Even I myself have conceded that some taxation is so worthwhile that I would call it justified.
Good for you. Is there some particular reason you are beating on strawmen and attempting to pass off your own imaginings as being the stated views of others, (or perhaps you dont imagine these are my stated views but rather that you ascertained my views via ESP or perhaps through some other equally wacky method.)
It may surprise you to learn that people can actually be friends with logic without necessarily believing they have discredited liberalism, or that theft of some kind or other is justified.

Look, I'll type this very slowly: If a communist calls a human who owns a factory a "pig", that is a contradiction, correct?
Well it was worth a try, but typing slowly doesnt seem to have helped you keep track of what is going on any better than your previous typing speed. Maybe if you try reading more slowly....either way better luck for next time.

Does that mean that once a communist yells something about capitalist pigs, I have debunked communism and the debate can stop right there?
I wouldnt expect so, although my expectations are based on reality and not your strange world where respect for logic is identical with a belief that one has debunked liberalism.

Or do I recognise rhetoric and the extra stuff as just that, and instead concentrate on the meat of the argument?
If your conduct in this thread is any indication, you ignore everything they said and start rambling about rape in Iran and attributing views to others based on your own imaginings.

I'm not going to argue that taxation is slavery, that case is for someone else to make.
Or at least not again...

But I am pretty clear on it being theft. Now, you can choose to respond to that or not, your call.
Well at least you are (purportedly) clear on something.

And the smiley was me recognising and admitting that I was not following the rules of logic with my last sentence.
It probably would have made more sense for you to go with something that would have facilitated other peoples' recognition of this, after all one would expect you'd have already known and wouldnt need to communicate the fact to yourself via a wide grinning smilie.

Obviously you chose not to credit me with enough brain to recognise it as such and instead hoped to have found a farcically dumb person you could yell at.
I dont see how it would be obvious when it is not even true, but then many things that are not true are apparently true in your head...

Not the case, I'm afraid.
I'd also be afraid if I were suffering hallicinations and couldnt differentiate between what other posters posted and what was merely in my head. Of course I'd be even more frightened if I were a strawman and I saw you coming.

If you live in a society that has provided you with the oppertunity to prosper then if you choose to make use of that oppertunity then you defacto owe society back.

Taxes are paying back the debt you owe society for providing you with an environment in which you have enjoyed your success.

Your argument falls apart once you realise:

1) the rich create jobs

They more often do not, downsizing their business to maintain profits.


2) capitalism hopefully also allows skill and hard work to come into the equation


Only to an extent, it is not meritocratic atm as it should be

-snip-
Let me see now...

As for the OP, what I find incredibly ridiculous is those illogical persons trying to claim that taxation is both slavery and theft of property...apparently it's slavery because you work to produce for others, then apparently it's theft because the produce the 'slaves' produced doesnt belong to the slaves...it could be one or the other but logically it cannot be both since if one is a slave they dont own the proceeds of their labour and if one owns the proceeds of their labour in order for their property to be stolen, they clearly are not a slave.
Here is how it works:

You work for a bit, and as a result you own something. That something is the product of the work your body has performed, an extension of that body, so to speak.

Now the government comes along, points a gun at you and says: "This isn't yours, it's mine now."

That's theft.

But then, at the same time it's a denial of the right to the products of your body. It's like saying: "No, you don't own your body, we do. We can choose how much of you as a person we want, and we'll take it."

That's like slavery.

If it is not recognised as theft, it is slavery. If it's not recognised as slavery, it's theft. Since it's not recognised as either, it's both. :D
Now, I note that you haven't actually attacked the argument at all. My post clearly illustrates two different ways of thinking about the issue at hand.

The last paragraph is the place where I actually put them together, but then the last paragraph is obviously not a sound statement, and it was followed by a smiley face. I thought that would've been enough to make it clear (as in a laughing smiley, "haha, he made a joke" sort of way). Obviously it wasn't.

Going on to what you actually did do: You have attacked the notion that my produce is an extension of me as a person, which is fine. You haven't made such an argument properly yet, but you'll get to it eventually, I'm sure. Problem was probably that I said "body" rather than "person", the latter being a more accurate description of the 'self' which is really the issue.

You have however failed to point out how taxation is not theft. It is for this reason (namely you apparently accepting that it is theft, but going over it and disregarding it as if it didn't matter) that I went on to cite rape as another example of something wrong that may be accepted as okay by society.

It is just my way that I don't always limit myself to what was actually written letter for letter, I generally think about and respond to what has been said with a post. That's why I'll often leave out bits of posts in my responses and the like, because I try to get at the crux of a disagreement. Occasionally that results in apparent misunderstandings, but that's rarely the case (and when it is, that's often because the other side doesn't want to respond to it).

Now, when I said you might be thinking you debunked liberalism with your little game, I made a statement about how incredibly pointless and unimportant that game really is. Whether taxation is slavery is one contention within libertarian thought, whether it is theft is another. It is not automatically clear that it can't be both either, but that's where more invested philosophy comes in, theft being the material side, slavery the more abstract "they deny the connection of my self with my produce, so they really deny my self" sort of side.

Point is that by saying that it can't be both at the same time you haven't really said anything. You haven't shown how it is not wrong to tax people, you haven't shown that liberalism has any flaw within it whatsoever. All you have done is build up a strawman of what the other side apparently thinks ("those illogical persons trying to claim") and then knock it down.

Your friend logic wouldn't exactly be thrilled if he knew.

to the person who replied to my post thanks =) cant really rebut u on everything... not that strong at econs haha but i see your point of view and feel that it is valid. personaly i still think the key is balance. maybe my environment and exposure makes me abit of a statist haha.

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere.
You want to talk slavery, my libertarian friends? How about earning minimum wage for working hard, earning your company it's money, and getting 1/1000 of what your corporate CEO is? How about being a sixteen year old kid from a poor family with hard-working parents who don't make enough not because of taxes, but because the boss needs all the cash he can get without sparing the tiniest bit? Being forced, because you can't afford otherwise, to live in a two-bedroom bungalow in a rough neighbourhood while all the fatcats live in their cavernous McMansions on suburban lots, commuting everyday in their shiny black Cadillacs while you can barely afford to take a bus?
That's slavery. Having a government take money in exchange for goods and services is not. Even if you don't get welfare money, you drive on their roads, use technological innovations that the government subsidized, use government-printed money, communication infrastructure, public utilities like drinking fountains, and deal with employees at various jobs educated by publicly-funded schools.
The government can do each and every one of these things better, and cheaper, because there is no profit motive. For example, in a private health care system, not only are you paying for the medical supplies and the doctor's salary, but also the owner of whatever hospital or clinic or whatever you're at. Since you're not lining anybody's pocket, you're paying less when everybody pays into it collectively.
And yes, you do have a choice. You choose to live in society, and therefore are obligated to contribute to it, and that's a basic element of political theory. If you hate paying taxes so much and are all about yourself, hermit it up. Go build your own cabin deep in the woods and get far, far away from society where you won't have to deal with being a part of a greater entity beyond yourself.
Otherwise, you don't know anything about slavery until you've lived under the thumb of the capitalist big-shot who's earning his millions off of your pennies.

No taxation witout representation, FOO'!

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/f/fc/MrT.JPG

I PITY THA FOO' THAT DO DIS!

Let me see now...
Let's only hope you do.

Now, I note that you haven't actually attacked the argument at all. My post clearly illustrates two different ways of thinking about the issue at hand.
Note that you dont appear to have an argument; there is a difference between presenting an argument and simply being argumentitive.

I posted that it was illogical to hold two particular positions simultaneously. I never suggested that either position alone was problematic in terms of logic. I never suggested that I had any trouble following the reasoning of either stance. I stated that holding both at the same time was illogical.
If you dont disagree (and you've since conceeded that you dont), what on earth was the point of your response to my statement that it is illogical to hold both veiws at once?


The last paragraph is the place where I actually put them together, but then the last paragraph is obviously not a sound statement, and it was followed by a smiley face. I thought that would've been enough to make it clear (as in a laughing smiley, "haha, he made a joke" sort of way). Obviously it wasn't.
I thought your entire post was utterly without a point if in fact you were not arguing against anything I said nor adding anything to the conversation that was mind-numbingly obvious. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to assume that you had or were even attempting to make a point. I admit that I tend to expect that when people post they do so because they actually have some point or other....in my defense this is usually the case. Maybe if instead of a smilie you added "there is absolutely no point to my post and neither is there intended to be" to your posts matters would be clearer and such misunderstandings could be avoided.

Going on to what you actually did do: You have attacked the notion that my produce is an extension of me as a person, which is fine.
I countered it certainly.

You haven't made such an argument properly yet, but you'll get to it eventually, I'm sure.
That is incorrect.

Problem was probably that I said "body" rather than "person", the latter being a more accurate description of the 'self' which is really the issue.
What is a product of the body is a product of the person.

You have however failed to point out how taxation is not theft.
What you have failed to do is point out a single reason why I would point such a thing out. What you have failed to do is refrain from making straw men and from basing your comments on imagings from inside your head rather than on what has actually been posted.

It is for this reason (namely you apparently accepting that it is theft, but going over it and disregarding it as if it didn't matter) that I went on to cite rape as another example of something wrong that may be accepted as okay by society.
I didnt accept or reject it as theft. There is clearly a mismatch between what is apparent in your head and what is actually occuring in reality. That 'it' is or is not theft doesnt matter to my point. What matters is (as you have already conceeded) that 'it' cannot be both theft and slavery at one and the same time.

It is just my way that I don't always limit myself to what was actually written letter for letter, I generally think about and respond to what has been said with a post.
While it isnt necessary to respond letter by letter, unless you enjoy appearing dellusional, it is a good idea to not start responding to stuff that wasnt said. You might think 'it's just my way' but most others are likely to think 'is this person on drugs, suffering from a form of psycosis, or just so desperately argumentive that in a fix they'll make up something that wasnt said just for the fun of arguing against it?'

That's why I'll often leave out bits of posts in my responses and the like, because I try to get at the crux of a disagreement.
By imaging things neither said nor hinted at and then arguing against them? Most people dont describe that as getting to the crux of things, most people describe that as bashing on a strawman, dellusional, or lacking in comprehension.

Occasionally that results in apparent misunderstandings, but that's rarely the case (and when it is, that's often because the other side doesn't want to respond to it).
Sure, blame the other person for your hallcinations...unless the other poster slipped you a mickey fin, I dont see that as being particularly reasonable, which judging from your conduct in this thread is simply parr for the course so far as you are concerned.

Now, when I said you might be thinking you debunked liberalism with your little game, I made a statement about how incredibly pointless and unimportant that game really is.
Did you, I doubt I paid much attention given the utterly non sequitor nature of the comment.
Whether taxation is slavery is one contention within libertarian thought, whether it is theft is another.
That it cannot be both simultaneously is a contention that anyone with the slightest respect for and competency with logic would recognise easily.

It is not automatically clear that it can't be both either,
Yes it is, which is probably why you yourself eventually commented that it 'of course' couldnt be both.....

but that's where more invested philosophy comes in, theft being the material side, slavery the more abstract "they deny the connection of my self with my produce, so they really deny my self" sort of side.
How very 'emo' of them...

Point is that by saying that it can't be both at the same time you haven't really said anything.
You really do have it 'in for' logic dont you? If you wish to imagine that saying something is not saying something your problems supercede my capacity to help.

You haven't shown how it is not wrong to tax people, you haven't shown that liberalism has any flaw within it whatsoever.
That's right. I've not claimed (anywhere outside your over-active imagination) that it is not wrong to tax people and so clearly it isnt something that I've shown... Is there some reason you would expect people to show things they are not claiming?

All you have done is build up a strawman of what the other side apparently thinks ("those illogical persons trying to claim") and then knock it down.
No, raising and arguing against an argument that has been made (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11928546&postcount=7) isnt building a strawman, rather, it's raising and arguing against an argument that has been made, a fact that seems apparent and obvious to me.

Your friend logic wouldn't exactly be thrilled if he knew.
Logic is always a woman to me.

I expect that's because he or she is not here to help their case or any case, but rather to troll.
False.


It's already been established that Knights will happily post things Knights doesnt believe (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11937801&postcount=309).
Just like I would assume that there is a largest prime in order to prove that there isn't one.

Or don't you understand reductio ad absurdum? Actually, I don't need to ask that question, since it's clear that you don't understand it.

I have decided you are a troll.
I've decided that your uninformed opinion doesn't matter.

Looks like we're even.

Governments don't set the prices.
They can and have when they run the business.


Ever heard of artificial shortages?
Like the ones caused by government intervention.



And what non-TS computers are there hmmm?
All of them. It hasn't been fully implemented yet.


I'm pretty sure you misquoted me on that. Unless I missed the "not" addition.
You did.


Do you know what group think is?
Yes. And you know that a group is made of individuals, right? You know, therefore, that a group itself does not think; that only the individuals of a group can think.

You can't win this. I'm correct. There's no way for you to demonstrate the veracity of your claim, period.


Fake individuals are those who fall into the category of group think.
What a nice pet definition.


As to you claiming society doesn't exist, why not claim your car doesn't exist?
Because that would be a false analogy.


What about nations? They don't exist. They just happen to be geographical land masses with a collection of people arguing about where the lines go.
That's true in part.



By using the term aggregate, you either must acknowledge that society exists as an aggregate of interactions by people or be exposed as a hypocrite.
Non sequitur.

"Someone's stuff" is the point of contention.

By what right is it theirs?
Ok then; let's see someone assault you and we'll see how fast you figure out by what right you own yourself.

Are you a slave by your own definition?
A slave to the government, yes.

The great thing about America is that its the land of opportunity, everybody actually buys into this belief that one day "i'm going to be the guy driving the cadillac with the trophy wife and a million dollar house". So its easy to forget about the trash on the trailor park when deep down you believe you're not one of them, you don't really belong with the rest of the trash and when you seize your opportunity you'll be outa here. So the little guy with no money agrees to cut taxes for the rich and thinks nothing of allowing salaries 1000 times his own cos hell he's PROTECTING HIS OWN INTEREST FOR WHEN HE GETS RICH...;) God bless America and thank God I don't live there

False.
Not false.

Just like I would assume that there is a largest prime in order to prove that there isn't one.

Or don't you understand reductio ad absurdum? Actually, I don't need to ask that question, since it's clear that you don't understand it.
I understand that when asked if you were arguing something you didnt believe, you confirmed that indeed you were arguing something you didnt believe.

I also understand that a reductio ad absurdum deduction requires that all assumptions be discharged prior to the conclusion to be valid (as all indirect proof deductions do). Rather than discharging the assumption, it appears to be your conclusion.

Not false.
Certainly is.


I understand that when asked if you were arguing something you didnt believe,
Just like I don't believe that there is a largest prime, but I would start the proof that there isn't one by assuming that there is.

You can't win; you don't understand reductio ad absurdum, despite your claim that you do.

Rich people aren't happy unless they're richer than their neighbours.

that's not true.

Hwo nice. Two good Christians who think that we shouldn't help other people.

Good? Debateable.

Christian? moi? not a chance.

The point of capitalism, amongst others, is that it is unfair. Inequality of market and society generates competition, which thus engenders the financial and material progression endemic to capitalism. Injust though it undoubtedly is, Capitalism affords its adherents a greater chance at prosperity than the puerile socialism the OP advocates, and, in any case, nature is unjust, hence why should we render society different?

I give what I get. You offered exactly nothing to support your claims. So why should I offer you anything more for a response?

Tell you what--re-write your initial post to me with some actual evidence and backing. Then you can complain about my responses if I don't give you anything more than what I already have.

Until then, feel free to be infected with a very nasty strain of hemorragic fever.


You give what you get indeed. I take it Mises hasn't been feeding you lately then, cause you haven't been giving anything apart from your self-inflated ego.

You want proof? See, that doesn't work that way, because i'm not the one showing up in here and declaring that 200 years of economic science are wrong. The burden of proof is on you. In more than fifteen hundred posts you failed (from what i could see) to provide constructive arguments for most of what you say.

I can live with your claims that Taxes are theft/slavery/some other shit. After all, we don't get asked if we're going to contribute for the betterment of....the infrastructures which service society. And that's precisely why they're needed. Because most of us, if asked, would say "no". And then a lot of people are in the shit.

It would be nice if those who could, contributed to the building of roads, schools, hospitals, airports, ports, water supply systems, energy production, etc, and then allowed the less fortunate to make use of those facilities/goods for a minor fee, if not for free.

Unfortunately, they don't, and they won't. And this isn't written in any economics manual, or thesis, or some bloody website. It's fucking reality.

But don't worry. I'm pretty sure that when everyone stops caring about Justice, you'll be made CEO of some corporation. Only way you'd get there anyway, but there is always hope, right? Keep pushing.

Well, I'm trying to work out what exactly acceptable and inacceptable property is according to you, and thus figure out which taxation would and wouldn't be theft.

No taxation is theft, as long as its existence is public and its basis is legitimate. Some taxation is unjust.

I think the primary legitimacy of property rights lies in the expectation of their existence.

Does it have to be justly owned? Can't I steal from a thief, and that would still be theft, even if you called it less bad?

Stealing from a thief something that the thief stole from someone else would be taking something that isn't yours; that's theft. Taking what is rightfully yours from a thief who stole it from you would not be theft at all.

It doesn't have to be about properly defined property rights. As long as someone "has" something in the most mundane of senses, I can take it away and that would be theft.

So if I walk into your house and take something of yours, for you to forcibly take it back would be theft?

Only if I try to somehow objectify "freedom".

There is no objectification involved. If I make someone my slave, I have stolen her freedom; I have deprived her of something that she justly deserves.

Ok then; let's see someone assault you and we'll see how fast you figure out by what right you own yourself.

I do think I have the right not to be assaulted, and, non-absolutely, most of the rights generally associated with self-ownership in and of itself.

I tend to be far more skeptical of its extension into the right of ownership of the so-called product of labor.

*pulls up chair, makes popcorn*

Too many people lately have been saying that taxation is slavery, and it's really been chapping my derriere.
You want to talk slavery, my libertarian friends? How about earning minimum wage for working hard, earning your company it's money, and getting 1/1000 of what your corporate CEO is? How about being a sixteen year old kid from a poor family with hard-working parents who don't make enough not because of taxes, but because the boss needs all the cash he can get without sparing the tiniest bit?

As if "the boss" were rummaging through the parents' mattress looking for their savings...

What, exactly, does "the boss" owe your parents? What does he owe you? Nothing. When yo ugo out for a job, yuo enter into an agreement to work at a job, during specified work hours with specified responsibilities, for a specified amount of money. You are not forced to do this. "The boss" is offering a pay rate equivalent to the market trend. He does not control this.

Why, exactly, should he offer more money for the job if the employe is willing to take the amount that IS offered?

And don't say it's because all the fatcats are etting together to hold down the poor. Employers offer higher wages to more attractive job candidates because not only do they compete for customers, they compete for the good workers. Remember that.


Being forced, because you can't afford otherwise, to live in a two-bedroom bungalow in a rough neighbourhood while all the fatcats live in their cavernous McMansions on suburban lots, commuting everyday in their shiny black Cadillacs while you can barely afford to take a bus?
That's slavery.


No it's not slavery, and it's not injustice. You live in a 2 bedroom bungalow? That's better than what I live in at the moment. If yuor neighborhood is crapy, that isn't "the boss'" fault. The community collectively has a responsibility for its own maintanence. If the crime rate is high, pressure politicians to improve police coverage. get involved. Elect better leadership. Establish neighborhood watches. None of this has anything to do with who you work for.


Having a government take money in exchange for goods and services is not. Even if you don't get welfare money, you drive on their roads, use technological innovations that the government subsidized, use government-printed money, communication infrastructure, public utilities like drinking fountains, and deal with employees at various jobs educated by publicly-funded schools.


First of all, the Government seldom generates technological innovations. That's generally done by corporations/private industry. Government subsidies are not the golden fleece of revenue. Communication infrastructure is privately owned and maintained. When your telephone service goes down, it's the phone company, not the municipality that arrives to fix it.

And don't forget, when the Government takes your money in taxes, they're taking it BY FORCE. Don't believe me? When you grow up and have a tax bill. Just ignore it and see how long you last.


The government can do each and every one of these things better, and cheaper, because there is no profit motive. For example, in a private health care system, not only are you paying for the medical supplies and the doctor's salary, but also the owner of whatever hospital or clinic or whatever you're at. Since you're not lining anybody's pocket, you're paying less when everybody pays into it collectively.


No. The Government has consistently demonstrated a LACK of competence and efficiency precisely BECAUSE they don't have to worry about profit. Since they don't worry about profit, and lwamakers are always poised to raise your taxes to cover greater expenses, you find massive waste and pork in any Government venture. Take any industry at all in which both the Government and pivate industry are involved, and private industry does it better evry time.

Including health care. Don't believe that? Then ask a Canadian how long their waiting list is to get a gall bladder surgery. I agree that US health care is VERY expensive, but it's also the highest quality medical care in the world.


And yes, you do have a choice. You choose to live in society, and therefore are obligated to contribute to it, and that's a basic element of political theory. If you hate paying taxes so much and are all about yourself, hermit it up. Go build your own cabin deep in the woods and get far, far away from society where you won't have to deal with being a part of a greater entity beyond yourself.


Won't work. The IRS will still tax you if they find you.


Otherwise, you don't know anything about slavery until you've lived under the thumb of the capitalist big-shot who's earning his millions off of your pennies.

Capitslis bigshots usuall become that way (if not inherited) by hard work, ambition, education and competence. These are traits available to everybody.

Let me clue you in on something. In the USA you have opportunities. People with yuor complaints sicken me because you act as if somehow the Government (aka everyone else) owed you a bigger and better house or a Cadillac. Newsflash: I don't owe you a damn thing. Upside: You don't owe me a damn thing either. I drive a modest car, make decent money and have the ability to afford some luxuries in my life. How did I get it? By educating myself and getting a good job. I don't whine and cry about my living conditinos because I have seen to it that I have the power to control such things. My home life right now is small and cramped, but I also have a plan and by this time next year will have a much nicer home. NOt because the Government or some corporate fatcat decided to hand it to me, but because I will have EARNED it by my own hands. If your parents can't do any better than a 2 bedroom bungalow, then either they're not willing to work for something better, or they're satisfied with the home. Nothing wrong with a 2 bedroom house. I wouldn't mind having one myself. There are places in the world where your bungalow would have to hold 5 families and that bus ride you take for granted wouldn't exist.

So stop crying about slavery. You expose your ignorance. A slave is someone with *no* freedom *no* opportunity and *no* prospects. How are your grades? Are you doing well enough to earn yourself a scholarship? Are you saving money from that job to pay for school expenses? Are you doing your very best in school so that you can increase your opportunities when you graduate?

If not, then you have nobody but yourself to blame, and I, for one, see no reason why the Government should raise my taxes just to compensate for your laziness.

/rant

You give what you get indeed.
That's correct.


You want proof?
Yep, I do. And it does work that way. The age of some other claims makes no difference at all, unless you believe that argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't a fallacy.


I can live with your claims that Taxes are theft/slavery/some other shit. After all, we don't get asked if we're going to contribute for the betterment of....the infrastructures which service society. And that's precisely why they're needed. Because most of us, if asked, would say "no".
What a wonderful assumption that has absolutely no backing whatsoever. Truly, you are amazing in your powers of prognostication.


It would be nice if those who could, contributed to the building of roads, schools, hospitals, airports, ports, water supply systems, energy production, etc, and then allowed the less fortunate to make use of those facilities/goods for a minor fee, if not for free.
It would be nice if the costs we see associated with those weren't so overinflated due to government meddling.



Unfortunately, they don't, and they won't.
Astounding. You've gotten that from what evidence again? Oh, you mean the evidence that governments normally put the kibosh on such private ventures that no one is really willing to have to take on the 3 assloads of red tape just to try?

It wasn't erroneous; it was correct.
Explain why.

They can be.
Name a western country that imposes special taxes on a particular individual. And criminal fines don't count.

Ok. Your second sentence is wrong.
Explain how civilisation is not flourishing in Ireland.
Edit: without using circular logic.

I do think I have the right not to be assaulted, and, non-absolutely, most of the rights generally associated with self-ownership in and of itself.
Then you understand where it comes from.


I tend to be far more skeptical of its extension into the right of ownership of the so-called product of labor.
Then you're skeptical of self-ownership.

Explain why.
I already did.


Name a western country that imposes special taxes on a particular individual.
Ah, there's your problem. You think that just because it isn't done currently means that it can't be done ever. Can you see the problem with your reasoning?


Explain how civilisation is not flourishing in Ireland.
Socialism itself is a step backward, and I seem to remember the rather nasty war (which is only under a cease-fire) in Northern Ireland between two religious factions.

Good? Debateable.

Christian? moi? not a chance.
Well, you should be!

Capitalism affords its adherents a greater chance at prosperity than the puerile socialism the OP advocates, and, in any case, nature is unjust, hence why should we render society different?
The system advocated by the OP is neither peurile nor pure socialism. Nature is neither inherently unjust nor capitalist. Some people are unjust, and their might makes right ways must be controlled to stop them infringing on the rights and benefits of other people.

I agree that a market economy is necessary for prosperity, as the USSR proved. But not a pure, unregulated one. Pure capitalism defeats the purpose of society, which is to render benefits and quality of life to its members.

I don't think that what you propose actually does help people.
Are you making the laughable assertion that most people were better off when we lived in tenements and worked in sweatshops? I'm just trying to retain the gains in quality of life that we have made at the expense of the big business lobby.

I am however, sorry for my abrasive manner in my previous post.

If taxes are theft how do you justify even low taxes?
Because contrary to what libertarians believe, private property is not the ultimate right. (Not that taxes are actually theft, but the contention that they are reveals the right-wing disdain for the right to life.)

You say that as if I'm supposed to care. You're not helping your case.
So you don't want any more anarcho-capitalists in the world?

So, theft is not taking someone's stuff without consent, is it?
Taxes exist because the people voted for them to exist. Even a lot of rich people vote for them. What is this nonsense of "without consent" anyway?

Is rent theft?

Then you're skeptical of self-ownership.

Perhaps of the rights you believe are implied by self-ownership.

I already did.
Explain better, or link to your oringinal then.

Ah, there's your problem. You think that just because it isn't done currently means that it can't be done ever. Can you see the problem with your reasoning?
It is possible, but not under the current constitution, or legal ethos. It's so unlikely that it's negligible.

Socialism itself is a step backward
And that's circular logic. I expected you to say that.

and I seem to remember the rather nasty war (which is only under a cease-fire) in Northern Ireland between two religious factions.
That was a political struggle (not a war) between a number of political factions. Although its roots were in religious discrimination, the central issue of that 30 year conflict was the national identity of the six counties of Northern Ireland.

In any case, it's all over now. Weapons have been decommissioned, and there has been no act of terrorism since 1998. Its conclusion has improved our civilisation.

Are you making the laughable assertion that most people were better off when we lived in tenements and worked in sweatshops? I'm just trying to retain the gains in quality of life that we have made at the expense of the big business lobby.

I am however, sorry for my abrasive manner in my previous post.


ah.......strawman. nice.

[QUOTE=Zagat;11936333]I dont find your comments in the least bit credible. I come from a country that has safe farming practises, that imports high quality farm produce to the US. Most of our farms are family ventures, government subsidies for farmers were done away with decades ago and we face sanctions on our farm imports to the US because our produce is high quality and too cheap for US producers (even with their subsidies) to compete with.
Our family farmers can produce food safely, and cover the cost of transporting the stuff from one hemisphere to another, without government subsidies, and do so cheaper than your government subsidised corporations can get stuff onto the market in their own nation. This being the case your analysis is clearly bunk.[QUOTE]

Christ, that isn't fucking analysis, it's the fucking cold hard facts. There isn't anything TO analyze.

In the United States, the idea of the "family farm" is an anachronism and has been for the last 15 years, plain and simple.

End of story.

Christ, that isn't fucking analysis, it's the fucking cold hard facts. There isn't anything TO analyze.

In the United States, the idea of the "family farm" is an anachronism and has been for the last 15 years, plain and simple.
End of story.
Your point wasnt that the 'family farm' is an anachromism, but rather that it is so for particular reasons, those reasons dont hold up under analysis of the fucking cold hard facts; end of story.