as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately  libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise. In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details." You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home. All analogies fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo. I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY: A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines. Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on." The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure. Nonplussed, Anon replies: "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated! I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing. I suggest you do the same."I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.
You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code. Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick. So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid? It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there. You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination. Let me make an analogy: I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell. Show me my "argument" is invalid I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.
I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument." i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place. and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone. and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition. ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first. I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership. I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it. If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it. so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this. wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.  Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing. rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe. so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest. do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities. the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass If I trespass on my land? you do understand the concept of a paradox dont you? We both own the land, and we have regulations regarding it. Do you understand why your actions are undesirable for the rest of us? Do you understand the whole 'tree' thing, and how replanting is not a substitute? Do you understand how if you can do it, then everyone else can, and what is then left is a reduction in ecosystem services? Do you understand the ecological ramifications, among others? You have demonstrated that you do not. You can reverse that situation, though. |
|
|
|
as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise. In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details." You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home. All analogies fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo. I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY: A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines. Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on." The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure. Nonplussed, Anon replies: "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated! I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing. I suggest you do the same."I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.
You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code. Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick. So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid? It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there. You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination. Let me make an analogy: I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell. Show me my "argument" is invalid I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.
I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument." i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place. and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone. and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition. ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first. I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership. I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it. If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it. so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this. wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier. Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing. rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe. so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest. do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities. Well, the way you put it, I see you're the last person on earth I want to go do what you said you'd do, precisely because of your ignorance regarding the effects of what you propose. And there's a lot of people like you. The fact of the matter is, you may have read the post I linked to, but you didn't understand it. One of the most blatant offenses you mentioned is planting four new trees for every one you harvest. The bottom line, the regulations are to protect resources from people who don't have a deep understanding of their actions, yet believe they do. And yes, the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass in such a way that is not acceptable, then yeah, you can be forcibly removed. Tell me this, if I go onto your land and disrupt it and do things on it that you don't want me doing, do you condone forceful actions to remove me? |
|
|
|
There's never going to be high demand for niche apps. And no, your suggestions don't calculate data for Kessler Omega motor settings. Anyway, your statements about my first hand knowledge about what I'm describing are useless and irrelevant to the discussion. Just because you want it one way doesn't change the reality of an individual's experiences with special niche apps, which often interface with other manufacturer's products. Please take your Android centric motivations to pick arguments and go argue with someone who cares. It's a fact that your arguments don't mean anything to first hand experiences others have had. On the other hand, if you have something useful to say about your own experiences relating to this discussion, rather than your childish desire to be an argumentative fucktwit, by all means, there's no better time to begin than now. And I do mean fucktwit in the most sincere manner, as your avatar picture brings back unpleasant memories of you in the past, when you behaved the same way. |
|
|
|
why is it when someone says they prefer android over apple an apple fan boy comes to apples defense with a reason why anyone is an idiot for not using ios same with android fanboy some people just need to realize everyone isn't going to like what you like for whatever reason. its about personal preference they both have their strengths and weaknesses and any forum ive ever been on this type of topic like 'whats better android or apple' always ended in everyone arguing lol
I'm just reporting facts about the availability of niche apps. I actually have an Android. My experience has been frustrating because there simply aren't certain apps for it. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe Google, say, cinematography app, and take a look at the results.
Or perhaps, take any specific discipline or field, where we will denote the specific field as X, and do two Google searches, such as:
X app iphone
X app android
Compare the number of search results. Now, factor in the fact that iPhone apps must be approved for quality, and Android apps can be incomplete buggy pieces of shit.
|
|
|
|
i own a cellphone repair shop in atlanta also buy and sell phones,tablets,laptops etc so i come across alot of iphones, ive tried the apple iphone 3g then went back to android because i didnt see what the big buzz was about i tried the 4 then again went back to android ive tried the 4s then again you get the idea lol ive tried to be as open minded and unbiased as i can be but i just cant see what the big deal is with ios i always try it out for a week or two then go back to android
Fine but do you have any professional interests where you need apps other than games and address book apps? uh i run a business with 5 employees of course i do i use kingsoft office, astrid tasks and everynote and i use sigfig to manage my investments to name a few on a daily basis now i know theres more then likely ios apps for everything that i do on my android device but the mind wants what it wants i prefer android not knocking apple i just prefer android its a personal preference You're only reinforcing my point. You've only named very generic general purpose apps. When you start delving into very specific niche disciplines, you'll find a very limited assortment of quality apps on Android vs Apple. |
|
|
|
So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?
Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.
Just to confirm, you voluntarily chose to move to the U.S., correct? |
|
|
|
i own a cellphone repair shop in atlanta also buy and sell phones,tablets,laptops etc so i come across alot of iphones, ive tried the apple iphone 3g then went back to android because i didnt see what the big buzz was about i tried the 4 then again went back to android ive tried the 4s then again you get the idea lol ive tried to be as open minded and unbiased as i can be but i just cant see what the big deal is with ios i always try it out for a week or two then go back to android
Fine but do you have any professional interests where you need apps other than games and address book apps? |
|
|
|
as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise. In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details." You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home. All analogies fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo. I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY: A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines. Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on." The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure. Nonplussed, Anon replies: "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated! I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing. I suggest you do the same."I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.
You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code. Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick. So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid? It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there. You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination. Let me make an analogy: I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell. Show me my "argument" is invalid I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.
I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument." i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place. and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone. and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition. ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first. I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership. I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it. If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it. so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this. wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier. Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing. |
|
|
|
anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.
In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all. In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction? Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint. Landlord's land = Nation's land Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure Landlord's neighbors = Other nations I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors. What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims? So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise? Or will there be blood in the streets? the majority of the planet is still basically wilderness. even if that wasnt the case i would be happy to be allowed to come togather with my friednds to raise the money to purchase the land from the land owner (illegitimate or otherwise) and the state and then opt out of the taxes and the services. as it stands right now they would wako my ass within 10 minutes. this is all i want. this is all i ask for. i dont want the united states government to desolve. i dont care one iota if other people want to pay taxes and recieve the corresponding services, i just dont want you to force me to. i only want you to allow me and my friends to opt out of the current system and try to build something new for ourselves so long as we arnt hurting anyone. Sorry to say it, but the year isn't 1500 anymore. I don't really want you buying land out in the wilderness and doing whatever. Read this post I made earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879Do you advocate the use of violence to prevent me and my friends from creating our own new society out in the wilderness somewhere even if we dont harm anyone in the process? You mean out on my land? You want to go squat in national forest, BLM land, national parks, state parks, etc? Go through the proper channels and get your permits, and adhere to the proper regulations for fires, bathroom activities, hunting regulations, bear cannisters, wood cutting, pets, vehicle use, import of foreign species, removal of artifacts, construction, etc. |
|
|
|
anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.
In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all. In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction? Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint. Landlord's land = Nation's land Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure Landlord's neighbors = Other nations I agree that the state has the right to dictate the terms of use of infrastructure that was built using tax dollars. I agree that a landlord who lords over land that he didnt create is basically the same thing as a state. I agree that other nations are basically the same thing as a land lords neighbors. What did i say specifically that brought you to the conclusion that i do not support one or more of these claims? So, since the world's habitable surface is already covered by states, which already provided infrastructures, no matter how mean & miserable, you agree that there's no room on this green earth for your farmer's paradise? Or will there be blood in the streets? the majority of the planet is still basically wilderness. even if that wasnt the case i would be happy to be allowed to come togather with my friednds to raise the money to purchase the land from the land owner (illegitimate or otherwise) and the state and then opt out of the taxes and the services. as it stands right now they would wako my ass within 10 minutes. this is all i want. this is all i ask for. i dont want the united states government to desolve. i dont care one iota if other people want to pay taxes and recieve the corresponding services, i just dont want you to force me to. i only want you to allow me and my friends to opt out of the current system and try to build something new for ourselves so long as we arnt hurting anyone. Sorry to say it, but the year isn't 1500 anymore. I don't really want you buying land out in the wilderness and doing whatever. Read this post I made earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879 |
|
|
|
anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.
In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all. In one situation Mr. X is saying that you owe him money "because he is allowing you to stand on a piece of land that remains in a state of nature". In the other situation Mr. Y is saying that you owe him money "because you are standing inside of a house that mr y built with his own two hands". I dont think anyone can take seriously any argument that would attempt to claim that there is no distinction between these clearly distinct scenarios. i think perhaps you mean instead to call into question the relevance of this particular distinction? Actually, it's not that way at all. Your analogy is set up in such a way with glaring omissions that it conveniently is biased to your viewpoint. Landlord's land = Nation's land Landlord's house = Nation's infrastructure Landlord's neighbors = Other nations |
|
|
|
anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.
In response to the last sentence quoted above: I don't see how it's different at all. |
|
|
|
|
I'm at a loss as to why the OP believes there isn't such a thing to the extent that it is possible. There are product for sale aggregating sites which do use intermediary product databases seeded by retailers.
|
|
|
|
It always comes back to "but look at all of these wonderful things you get from the money we stole".
Then stop using the services. "Don't use the government if you don't want to pay." Me not using any services does not change the stance of government stealing from me.
Which services are you using currently? "but...uhh...ya..but...Roads!1!!" should be paid per use (modern technology and all)
Just stop using the roads. So are you saying that only tax payers (people robbed by the government) should use government services and roads? And are you ok with theft? What theft? |
|
|
|
Wow. That's not what anyone implied. |
|
|
|
Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies. And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming. ad hominem much ? Certainly not in the post you're referring to. Care to point it out? I think he denied that humans affect global warming... maybe I am wrong, but you are not important enough for me to spend the time to type it in the google.
Please, make some sense. |
|
|
|
Classic examples are the Oregon Petition and all the rot that originates from the Libertarian think tanks such as the Heartland Institute - all funded by the oil companies. And of course, Frederick Seitz, and his crap, paid for by RJ Reynolds regarding cancer and tobacco, and then conveniently, he signed up with the oil companies to spew his nonsense about denying global warming. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
