You'll have to forgive me, I don't remember your island example. I may not have read it if it was in a thread I wasn't involved in. And no, I'm not adding fantasies to any realities. I know exactly how the real world works. That's why I'm complaining about it. Please don't fall into the same stupid bullshit line as crumbs, where your replies to "shit sucks and should change" is nothing more than, "but that's the way things are."


Yes, of course I know that there are third parties involved. That's why I am asking about those third parties. Questions like "where does the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, 'I have ownership too!'" I'm not asking how things are in this world, I'm asking why are they like that, why do people think they are ethical and just when they are seemingly not, and what can we do to change them. If your answer is that they are ethical and just, and that nothing should change, then you have nothing to add to the discussion, and we're done.

The onus is on you to show where the extra rights come from. The only rights I care about are the previous owner's legitimate claim to the property he is selling to me, and his willing to give up that claim to me in some provable manner, such as with a signed document. By the way, it doesn't matter if this document is recorded by a government institution, some private institution, or just something that only he and i have that we signed with our PGP keys. From that point on, it's up to me to secure my property, either by showing proof that the previous owner has given it to me, or if need be by secure doors and walls, or by force. Please point out where the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, "I have ownership too!"

Sounds like an extremely inefficient system. So what does one do if he wants to build or make something, and needs specialists for the job?

Roman refused to sell the debt because no one wanted to buy the whole thing. He asked around, no one was willing to buy it all. He had no problem with individual people selling their debt, as long as they did it between themselves. I know this, because I bought someone else's debt, and was being repaid. Roman did not refuse it.

i dont think hes a troll. hes vastly more intellectually honest than firstassent. now that's a troll.
[/quote]

Strange. From my point of view, I've found FirstAscent to be honest, but just really dumb. He honestly believes the things he says, even if they are extremely shortsighted, simpleminded, or even unethical. He may have a lot of cognitive dissonance, but he believes in his own understanding of the world wholeheartedly. He may be an evil bastard, but at least he's upfront about it.
Crumbs, on the other hand, seems to be all over the place, constantly derailing discussions and questions with red herrings, claims of supporting certain points followed by claims of always having supported the opposite, and is very intellectually lazy, avoiding discussions about possible solutions to problems or alternative ways of doing things by always replying with "that's not the way things work iRL," and even resorting to petty insults when pushed for real answers. I can't tell if he's an evil bastard of not, but he's definitely a dishonest asshole, and is apparently very open about it.

He's an ex-Soviet, communist immigrant who's native tongue is Russian, who grew up in the severely brainwashing propagandist statist socialist state, where the concept of "property" and "good work" hasn't existed for almost a century. It's all "why should I do it, when someone else can do it for me" over there. Not entirely his fault. That he is a troll, and a lousy one at that, however, is entirely his fault.

Thank you crumbs. Thanks to you, I had a very satisfying and stress relieving Iaido and Kendo class tonight, and am now way more relaxed and content. Now back to the discussion...


Let's stick to the topic here. You are paying for things in your apartment that you don't want to pay for. You are claiming you are forced to pay for them, and that this is no different from how one is forced to pay taxes for things. I asked if you are actually getting the services you are being forced to pay for. Obviously you are, since you are the one seeing the manicured lawn and the doorman that money pays for. I asked if you were aware of these costs before choosing to buy this property. I suspect that was disclosed somewhere in your purchase agreement. I asked why you don't move if this is something you don't want to pay for. You didn't really answer. Every state has a ton of properties that don't come with lawn services and doormen. The point is that (1) you had a choice to live where you live and voluntarily picked the place yourself, (2) you are actually getting the services you paid for, even if you are being forced to pay for them, and (3) you are very free to move around and pick a different place to live that is either cheaper, or offers other services for you to buy. None of those apply to a government, which doesn't give you a choice where you are born, forces you to pay for services you never need, and restricts you in where you can move to, in the case of USA even continuing to charge you for services when you are living on foreign territory.
This is why being forced to pay apartment fees is not at all the same as being forced to pay taxes.


Please answer this question. If you must "explain iRL" to me, which I thought was the whole point of the question, then please do. Then, maybe strain some brain cells and explain to me why you support this iRL the way it is, or why you think it should be changed.




Which still doesn't answer why, just because I was dragged here against my will and when I was too young to make decisions on my own, that the US government now owns me, or is forcing me to own whatever it is I am being forced to pay taxes for. Again, why is it that your father can't move you into a house, and then force you to assume ownership of that house, including all the fees that come with it,but my parents can can move me into a country, and then force me to assume ownership of that country, including all the fees involved with that. Or an even better question, why do you think that this is just and should remain that way?





I ask because I am not content with theft and murder. So when I see someone, be it a person or an organization, stealing from people and murdering people, it bothers me, and I speak up about it. I see taxation as theft, and I see war as murder. You asked why I'm debating this, or why I'm bothering with wanting to change things instead of just accepting iRL like you do. That's your answer. It's OK if you don't see taxation and war and theft and murder, though. People didn't think there was anything ethically wrong with slavery and communism, either.



Not a trick question. I think the correct answer was thieves. The follow-up question is what makes thieves different from organized government?
As for the gun business. What happens if I refuse to pay taxes? Will I just be left alone? Or will someone come to take me away? What if I prevent them from taking me away? Will they just leave me alone? Are you really claiming that any of us can simple stop paying taxes, and live in peace without the IRS or their enforcers bothering us?



Assuming that you aren't going to be left alone if you simply don't pay taxes, are you OK with the people who work for the government coming to either force you to pay, or take you away, at the point of a gun if need be.

Afford? You are paying for a place with a manicured lawn and a doorman. I'm sure there are plenty of more affordable places without those perks. You have 50 states to choose from!


You didn't answer my question. And we are not discussing about how things are, we are discussing what's wrong with them, and what should be changed. Well, the rest of us are, anyway. You seem to be content with just repeating that "that's the way things are" and making fun of anyone who suggests they should be different.


It has everything to do with the topic. You specifically said that it was my parents that burdened me with the ownership of whatever (Citizenship? Social contract?), and made me have to pay the fees for owning that whatever. So I'm asking you, why is it that someone else can force me to own this whatever?



I'm not so sure. FirstAscent seems to be quite intent on making sure no one squats anywhere without laws, and some others here seem to believe that laws define what is right and what isn't, so if USA outlaws something, they don't give a crap which country those laws get broken and still come after you.
That still doesn't answer my question. Are you content with someone being robbed, raped, or murdered, as long as it doesn't involve you personally? Actually, maybe you have already answered it.

Ok, let's say government is too vague. What term do you use to describe people who force you, with the threat of either a gun or forced imprisonment, to give them your posessions?

Follow-up question: Are you ok with such people doing things? Why and under what conditions?

Do you have a link to the theft thread? I was under the impression that the theft happened while he was backing up and upgrading the Bitfloor server, the theft itself resulting from him putting a backup of the wallet file on an unsecured backup computer, meaning he was actually there, at the Bitfloor server, when the theft happened, not in London.

Also, while he did not do the debt transfers himself due to it having added liability and a ton of other issues, he did not have any objections to debt transfers. I know this, because I had someone else's debt transferred to me.

This should probably have been asked from the very beginning, but, how do you define government?

Why did you buy this appartment if you knew you were buying a ton of things you didn't want? And why don't you sell it and trade it for something that doesn't have those things?



Learn the difference between owning and borrowing. Same as FirstAscent.


Is your premise that USA government owns all the property in the entire country, and thus has the right to charge maintenance fees on everything and everyone? If yes, why do we bother to buy property from each other, since we don't actually own any of it? If no, then what?


Last time I checked, I can't force you to take possession of a property without your consent. Tell me, in your world, if your father buys a house for $100,000, and that houses loses value, now being worth only $10,000, but the house still has a $90,000 mortgage on it and requires at least $1,000 a month in maintenance fees, can your father just transfer that house to you and force you to own it and pay for those fees without your consent? If no, then why can my parents force me to take ownership of something, along with all the fees involved, without my consent?


Funny you gave him 5 internets for his rant about having to pay rent for living in someone else's house.


Glad I could answer this for you. I only hope you understood it.




Why do you believe I won't? I'm not complaining because this is not an option for me. I should be a multi-millionaire within a couple of years, at which point the option will be easily available. I just want to make sure you f'in lunatics don't come after me because you think wherever it is that I live might have "too much freedom." Moreover, it shouldn't matter whether this is something that affects me directly. At least not to me personally. If you see someone being robbed, raped, or murdered, do you just ignore it and find it acceptable because it's not happening to you?

I imagine I know way more about magnets and electricity than you do, since it's my job to. I also know quite a bit about things people think were impossible, which turn out to be true thanks to some new ways of mechanical interactions. But energy is energy. It doesn't really matter where it comes from or what it's generated by. The rules governing it never change.

So, what powers your magnetic engine?

Yes, you were. In the contexts of the OP, the whole topic is about government being an entity that is "stealing" by forcing you to make nonvoluntary contributions.

Actually, if we're talking about rent, that's not your property. The property is the landlord's. You are just buying the right to access their property. Big difference between owning something of your own, and just renting something from someone else. If you actually owned the property instead of rented, then yes, it would be a problem for someone else, like an HOA member, to come into your apartment, charge you money, and force you to change things inside your place against your will.

Please learn the difference between owning something and borrowing something.

No, as a matter of fact, there were not. I didn't even know what taxes were when I moved and lived here.

Simple. When you pay for building maintenance, you are paying for the services you are actually using. Moreover, you are voluntarily paying to maintain your property, since if you don't like the maintenance fees, you can sell your property and buy something cheaper AND this building maintenance fee was something you either agreed to when you first bought the property, or had to either agree to, or give up your property, when it was brought up in a discussion with other apartment owners. When you pay taxes, not only are you being forced to pay for services you are actually using, but also services you are not using, many of which have nothing to do with you, and which you may never need. It's the difference between having to buy a bottle of water so you don't die of thirst, and having to buy a bottle of something you don't need, like mercury, because someone else says you must, who then uses it for their own purposes. It's a fairly basic distinction, isn't it?


I didn't come here voluntarily, and didn't know anything about this country, or even politics and finance when I came here, BUT, what does this have to do with anything?

How is Anarcho-Syndicalism any different from Anarcho-Capitalism, which allows for formation of unions and syndicates? Are labor unions not allowed to compete for employment by capitalists under anarcho-syndicalism? Or do capitalists, i.e. people who have a vision and wish to hire a lot of workers to see their idea become reality, just aren't allowed to exist under anarcho-syndicalism?

Is that a swimming pool on the building's property, that you knew was there when you were buying that apartment, and kept it in mind when considering whether to buy the property? Or is this a pool that is somewhere across town, where you're not exactly even sure, which you may or may not ever use or see, but is there for some other people to use?

Does your landlord force you to pay for building maintenance, local school (despite you not having kids), medical insurance, local libraries, roads that aren't on the building's property that you never use, insurance for elderly who don't live in your apartment, and a slew of other services that have absolutely nothing to do with your apartment nor things you actually receive? Or does your landlord force you to pay for only the specific services that have to do with the apartment you live in, all of which affect you directly?

If building maintenance has to do with the property you reside on, services you receive, and is something you are buying directly, it's not government. If building maintenance includes things that have nothing to do with what you want, need, or actually receive directly, it's government.


Same question to you. You are thirsty and need to buy a bottle of water. You complain about the store clerk forcing you to pay for that bottle of water, which you have to buy, because there isn't any other water around (let's say you're stranded somewhere). Is it government?