There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.
Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws? Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.
Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.
No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.
Yes, please try to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm sure we're all helped by that. Why not try to define what "is" is while we're at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 |
|
|
|
|
Yes, in certain cases. Obviously the example was simplified, and it doesn't happen like that in real life.
I'm going to assume that you've had enough schooling to know how laws comes into form.
|
|
|
|
You mean "move" as in "forced out of your mother's womb" into a reality with rules you never agreed to?
Like I stated above. You had at least 16 years to figure out the rules, probably more. Counted from the time you were "forced out of your mothers womb". |
|
|
|
Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature and we all have to decide what we are going to do tonight. I want to watch Republican Party Reservation. They want to fuck me with switchblades and sexual organs I never knew existed. So I vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck me with switchblades. People have the right to do this?
No. You can't put a rape to a vote. Don't be silly. |
|
|
|
Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?
No, I'm saying that if you move to a house where cable is a part of the rent, and you knew this moving in, you can't really complain. |
|
|
|
If I refuse to help him, is it acceptable if he or someone else holds a gun to my head until I agree to help him?
Ah, except my parents were forced to send me to state run education, where I was told over and over again that government was good. It wasn't until much later that I was able to come to the realization on my own, that it is not.
I don't understand the fetish for guns, but as a general rule no. If however the village you live in and enjoys the benefits from together decides in a democratic fashion to collectivly help the unfortunate person, and you refuse, then yes, I do believe that they have the right to use certain means to make you pay. Perhaps your parents believed that it was a good deal and wanted you to share their values. That's what parents do. |
|
|
|
So, you're saying that it's alright if I let him and his family starve but it's not alright to make him an offer whereby he is able to save his family? That really makes no sense to me.
I don't see how this is analogous to my situation. Are you saying that before I exited my mother's birth canal I knew that I was going to be subject to taxes and therefore I shouldn't have been born if I didn't agree to it? That's plainly false. I'm not some guy moving into a house. I'm a guy kidnapped and taken on board a ship while asleep.
No, I'm not saying that it's alright to let him starve. Far from it, if you have the means to prevent it. But exploiting is something else than indifference. Again, I don't live where you live, but where I'm at you don't start paying taxes until you start earning money over a certain threshold. That usually doesn't happen until you get a full time job, which is after mandatory school. So you're at least 16 when you get your first chance of paying taxes. You've been living in the "house" for at least 16 years. If you don't like the bills that will come you know what to do. |
|
|
|
Yes, I think it should be honored. There's a difference between going on board a ship voluntarily and being kidnapped and carried on board, just like there is a difference between voluntarily immigrating to a country and being born there. The former implies consent to the laws of the land while the latter does not, even if you remain there instead of moving. That's the extent to which that analogy is relevant. Don't read more into it than that.
If I don't offer the guy the deal, his family starves anyways. Somehow by giving him the means to save them I'm harming him?
So, if the cable company starts sending you a bill even though you didn't request their services and don't intend to use them, you're going to pay it? Also, money can exist privately without government. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange and stored value longer than fiat currency. I feel sorry for people that can't even conceive of a system not based on aggression and coercion. The fact we're on the Bitcoin forums where you make the claim that money only has value because of the government is very ironic.
You're exploiting the situatioin and his misfortune. There's only one option he can take and you know it too. It's not a free choice, it's coersion. If I live in a house that had cable before I moved in, and I knew that when I moved in, I can't really refuse to pay, can I? Regardless if I use it or not. Yes, money can exist without government, I agree to that. I'm saying that the money that you claim as yours (fiat money) has value because of the government and the taxes that they take. That money is guaranteed to have some value by the government. Where I'm at the inflation target is about 2%, so I have reason to assume that the value won't drop by much more than that. And that inflation gives me incentive to invest my money in business that pays more. I like the technical merits of bitcoin although I'm not quite sure what it's useful for, and I also recognize that it is VERY high risk. There is nothing backing bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Of course it's valid. All voluntary agreements are valid. Here's what David Hume thinks of such an assertion: Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artizan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves her. Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd. So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid. Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money. And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us. |
|
|
|
Thought experiment: A man shows up at your home with a gun and demands money. He says that if you don't give him money, he will kidnap you and lock you in a cell for as long as he wishes. You hold your ground, refusing to comply with his demands. Can he legitimately use violence against you to get his way? He can if he is an agent of the state. What happens if you refuse to be kidnapped by the state? They will escalate the use of force until you are dead. Chaos is a lack of order. Anarchy is a lack of rulers. There can be order without rulers. Bitcoin is example of order, and rules, without rulers. I don't want states to fail, I want people to realize that states are not necessary. Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State. edit... That's from hereYour thought experiment implies that there is no real debt to be settled. If so, then no, he can't, not even if he's an agent of the state. If there is a debt, meaning that you have used any of the state provided commodities, such as roads, money, police protection, fire protection, education... the list goes on, then yes, he can, if you by violence means that he'll drag you through the legal system where you will have several opportunities to explain yourself and then subject yourself to the ruling, whatever that might be. You don't get that chance with criminals, and they change the rules mid game. Thanks for the explaination about chaos and anarchy. And I agree that there can be order/rules without rulers, in very small and well defined areas, such as bitcoin. Computers are very good at enforcing rules. So, how does that work in a society? Who'll do the enforcing there? Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. |
|
|
|
No, they just shoot you in the head or lock you in a rape dungeon. That's much better!
By the way, when you go to a loan shark they are up front with you. They say, "We'll loan you this money but if you don't pay up then we'll break your thumbs." If you don't like that deal, don't take it! Are you seriously expecting me to feel sorry for someone that voluntarily enters into an agreement and then is surprised when the other party keeps their word?
Again, at least with a loan shark you can agree to their terms or walk away. With the government there is no option. Pay up or we'll take your stuff. If you try to defend yourself, we'll kill you or beat you into submission and lock you in a rape dungeon. That's somehow better?
I'm not expecting you to feel sorry for someone in the scenario above. I'm expecting you to be human enough to understand that a contract of that kind isn't valid. Or would you prefer that the state said "Pay your taxes or we'll break your legs"? Where I'm at jail is always the last resort and mainly used to protect society from dangerous people. Tax evaders will have plenty of opportunities to be honorable. With the government you have the chance of walking away. It's called moving to a different country that better suit your preference. And you have a very romantic view of criminals. Many, if not most, of the debts that they collect are not real debts. They'll approach you, tell you that you somehow owe them this much money and that you have 7 days to pay, or else. Try walking away from that. Atleast when you move from a country they won't tax you in the new country. Hells Angels aren't that picky. They'll collect anywhere. Oh, and if your country beats you, or puts you in a rape dungeon I suggest you move. We don't have that here. Even our prisons are quite nice, except from the "you are now in jail" bit. |
|
|
|
All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.
Yeah, they're all examples of what happens when a state fails. Special interest groups take over, the most violent ones. I am however intrigued by the comment "nor is chaos anarchy". Could you please elaborate? |
|
|
|
Our society is already full of thugs and gangs, the police and politicians. Go ask some poor bastard sitting in prison being tortured, locked away from his family, his livelihood taken away from him because he refused to pay taxes or had the audacity to smoke a joint. The difference is that our current system necessarily promotes abuse and injustice. At least we have a fighting chance with anarchism.
Yeah, "fighting chance" is about right. Have you seen anarchistic societies? Afghanistan, where the state doesn't have control, which is just about everywhere. Not a good place, but quite close to anarchy. Iraq, same thing, although a semi-functional state is about to get some control in certain areas. Somalia, quite a "shitty place" (creightos words form another thread) for a long time, and no state to speak of. Mexico, in the cartel areas. Not good places to be if you plan for a long and happy life. Please explain to me how anarchism will prevent such things. I think I'd rather have a state, governed by rule of law. That said, I don't live in the US so I can't really relate. Where I live you don't go to jail for smoking a joint. Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But atleast there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors". Oh and the " I agree, that's a good thing. However, even if you want to help other people, you're still doing that based on your own value scale. You're still trying to achieve your highest goal, even if that goal is helping your neighbor. In that sense we are all selfish." from a comment above. That's just mental masturbation and is probably fun if you're around 20 years old. Not anymore. Not for me. It's the equivalent of "Can you prove you're just not a brain in a jar" argument. |
|
|
|
Selfish meaning they care about themselves first and others second. Who would deny that?
Selfish, as defined by Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish": concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" My emphasis. Clearly noone denies your definition, but what I was saying was that people aren't selfish according do Marriam-Websters definition. People DO care about others. More than they have to. And it's a good thing imho. |
|
|
|
I didn't say they are purely selfish.
A few years ago there was a science radio show about generosity and human nature. Can't provide a link unfortunatly but from what I recall the conclusion is quite the opposite what you claim. People are inherently generous, and give more than they "have to". The study was done on isolated tribes all over the world. Tribesmen who didn't manage to get enough food or shelter were aided by their peers, and in every single study the peers gave more than what was needed. The "cheapest" society gave about 20% surplus, the more generous societies gave well over 100% more. Believe it or not, but there you have it. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, just noticed that it was down a few minutes ago. Seems to be back up now.
I also send a coin their way. Is there a way to see the current number of players for the upcoming draw?
|
|
|
|
|
So, bitlotto.com is down?
|
|
|
|
This only reason ANYONE has EVERY paid taxes threw out recorded (or unrecorded) history is because some tyranical, warlord, murdering psycho with a gun tells them to 'pay or their family dies with them' ... these are the same people that tell you "give up ALL your rights and privileges and means of SECURITY and we will protect you .. but if you keep any of your rights, privileges and means of SECURITY we will kill you .... seeeee, we care!" ... there has never been a worse crime against ALL humanity than taxes or the central banks that criminally created them.
Dear lord, you really lay it on thick don't you? |
|
|
|
Why? Let the free market handle it. If it's not popular it'll die out...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
