Why are people scared of taxes?

[myrkul]

Yep, and under your contract with the government (as Locke would put it), you are obliged to pay tax from the fruits of your labour as well. 

Care to show me that contract, and where, exactly, I signed? The only valid contract is one entered voluntarily. In fact, the only "social contract" I've signed is this one. Doesn't say anything about tax on there.

Both you and the government are bound by that contract.

They would seem to disagree.

You are however, according to John Locke, free to join the rest of the citizens in a revolution to replace the government if the government is working against the interests of citizens.

What do you think I'm doing? Just because you don't shoot anyone, doesn't mean it's not a revolution.

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

You're still a fucking troll, though.

Scary, huh?

No, not really, just sad that you have nothing better to do.

[1714513289]

1714513289

[1714513289]

1714513289

[1714513289]

1714513289

[vampire]

Funny you call the least effective system in the world "pretty efficient".  I think you need to do some more research.

Funny that I can get a doctor next day, when I have to wait for months in UK, France and Canada. Do some research please.

edit: Do I need to bring up healthcare systems in Ukraine and Russia? They're free.
edit2: You know why it's so expensive here? People are just FAT. Really FAT, if they were as fat as in Norway, our costs would be down a LOT.

[myrkul]

Just a little insight into my formative years, as a young teen I read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. While it is socialist semi-propaganda, the points raised within the book are too close to accurate for me to just laugh it off. That was one of the major foundations of my political philosophy.

If a contractor came into your home, and pointed out the the floor joists were rotten, the foundation was slipping, and the roof had more leaks than good shingles, but then proceeded to offer you the solution of a can of spray-paint, would that be a good contractor to hire?

Occupying much the same position in my formative years is The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein. Strongly suggest you read it, and while you're at it, keep looking into AnCap.

[Richy_T]

I can think of several exceptions, and for me it's those things that justify different rules, even though it makes markets imperfect. E.g.: kids can't choose what family they are born into, or whether their parents squander money or spend it wisely. Therefore, in my mind at least, market perfection ought to be taken down a couple of notches to make room for "state charity" even if it tends to get abused.

For me, the free market is not an end unto itself, it's more about allowing people free association and to trade however and with whoever they wish. It's about the individuals involved.

That that happens to provide a more efficient system than central planning is a happy coincidence. In fact, it's even robust enough to still provide amazing dividends even when hobbled with quite severe interference.

I'll just add that your want for "state charity" is not completely at odds with a mostly-free-market (It does distort things depending on degree though).

[sturle]

Funny you call the least effective system in the world "pretty efficient".  I think you need to do some more research.

Funny that I can get a doctor next day, when I have to wait for months in UK, France and Canada. Do some research please.

I'll get a doctor the same day if I'm ill.  If it isn't necessary, perhaps I want to fix an ingrown toenail or something which isn't critical, I may have to wait a few days, or more if I need a specialist.  If the public heath system in the USA will find me a specialist and fix my problem the next day it would be great, but I doubt it.  I think you are comparing apples and oranges.  It is by no means forbidden for me to find a private specialist and pay for it myself, or get a health insurance which will pay for it, but most people don't care that much.

edit: Do I need to bring up healthcare systems in Ukraine and Russia? They're free.

And much more effective than the U.S. system measured in what they get per dollar.  They just spend a lot less dollars on it.

edit2: You know why it's so expensive here? People are just FAT. Really FAT, if they were as fat as in Norway, our costs would be down a LOT.

It can probably explain some of the problem, yes.  If you are to fat in Norway, and no diet helps, you will be offered free surgery to fix it permanently.  E.g. removing 90% of your stomach and some of your intestines to make it impossible to eat to much, and make your body take up less fat.  It is a drastic measure, but very effective.  The patient will likely be able to work more and need less health services in the future.  One will typically have to wait for more than a day for this procedure as well, but I don't think that is much of a problem.  Faced with not being able to eat more than half a small yoghurt beaker and some vitamins in one meal for the rest of her life, the patient may want to try that diet again, and perhaps another diet and some exercise before the surgery.

[sturle]

Yep, and under your contract with the government (as Locke would put it), you are obliged to pay tax from the fruits of your labour as well. 

Care to show me that contract, and where, exactly, I signed? The only valid contract is one entered voluntarily. In fact, the only "social contract" I've signed is this one. Doesn't say anything about tax on there.

For a moment I thought you had read Locke.  You obviously haven't.    I used Locke's terms there, and even specified it in parenthesis to make it clear.

Both you and the government are bound by that contract.

They would seem to disagree.

Huh?  This court concluded that the contract wasn't broken.  If you think it should be in the contract (your nation's laws), you have to tell your lawmakers that.

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

[vampire]

I'll get a doctor the same day if I'm ill.  If it isn't necessary, perhaps I want to fix an ingrown toenail or something which isn't critical, I may have to wait a few days, or more if I need a specialist.  If the public heath system in the USA will find me a specialist and fix my problem the next day it would be great, but I doubt it.  I think you are comparing apples and oranges.  It is by no means forbidden for me to find a private specialist and pay for it myself, or get a health insurance which will pay for it, but most people don't care that much.

Again you are comparing a little country with a lot of oil. Population of Norway is about the same as the isle of Manhattan during the day. And spend a lot of money on healthcare per person, 3.4K for UK vs 5.3K for Norway vs 7.9K for US.

And I am not sure what do you mean by public, I can find a specialist next day in NYC using my private insurance.

A real life example: my gf's mom was waiting about 4 months for MRI in Canada. She's suffering from bad headaches and no one can pin point the cause, looks like MRI didn't help much or they can't read it. She's waiting for an another doctor.... months and counting.

And much more effective than the U.S. system measured in what they get per dollar.  They just spend a lot less dollars on it.

They get very little. I am talking from personal experience. Except basic treatments like painkillers and antibiotics you wont get much from the system. And they're abusing antibiotics big time.

It can probably explain some of the problem, yes.  If you are to fat in Norway, and no diet helps, you will be offered free surgery to fix it permanently.  E.g. removing 90% of your stomach and some of your intestines to make it impossible to eat to much, and make your body take up less fat.  It is a drastic measure, but very effective.  The patient will likely be able to work more and need less health services in the future.  One will typically have to wait for more than a day for this procedure as well, but I don't think that is much of a problem.  Faced with not being able to eat more than half a small yoghurt beaker and some vitamins in one meal for the rest of her life, the patient may want to try that diet again, and perhaps another diet and some exercise before the surgery.

Offered or forced? It seems that most people here don't really care about eating healthier.

[sturle]

This is simply not true.  You are making this up.  Give one example of a country with a free market health system that is better and more efficient than a public health system.  One single case.  Just one! 

Give one example of a country with a free market health system.

In my opinion a free market health system is impossible, because a large part of it is a natural monopoly.  It can't be a free market because the customer often don't have a real choice.

Some parts of the health system can work as a free market.  E.g. dental services and cosmetic surgery.

[myrkul]

Yep, and under your contract with the government (as Locke would put it), you are obliged to pay tax from the fruits of your labour as well. 

Care to show me that contract, and where, exactly, I signed? The only valid contract is one entered voluntarily. In fact, the only "social contract" I've signed is this one. Doesn't say anything about tax on there.

For a moment I thought you had read Locke.  You obviously haven't.    I used Locke's terms there, and even specified it in parenthesis to make it clear.

Philosophy changes, grows, evolves. Ideas are not the hidebound things you seem to think they are. You can build upon a philosophy. This is called progress. It does not contradict Locke's view of social contract theory to require that the contract be explicit and entered into voluntarily. In fact, if Locke were alive today, I think he would agree.

Both you and the government are bound by that contract.

They would seem to disagree.

Huh?  This court concluded that the contract wasn't broken.  If you think it should be in the contract (your nation's laws), you have to tell your lawmakers that.

No, this court concluded that the government was not bound by the contract. "Citizen" Is defined as someone who owes allegiance to a state, and is entitled to the protection of that state. By stating that there was no duty to protect, they asserted that they were not bound by the citizenship "contract." In my opinion, that means that even if such a contract existed, they broke it right there.

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

[Kontakt]

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I feel that you are the one that feels that. You were not the first to inhabit your plot of land. In fact, the US government claimed it as sovereign territory first.

[myrkul]

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I feel that you are the one that feels that. You were not the first to inhabit your plot of land. In fact, the US government claimed it as sovereign territory first.

Actually, no. They did not. Originally, it was "claimed" by Mexico. Then, the Texans declared their independence, and it became the republic of Texas. It later became part of the state of Texas when Texas joined the Union in 1845. In the 1860s, settlers homesteaded the land to set up cattle ranches. I'm not going to track the history of my specific parcel of land, but it was certainly part of that homesteading. It has since changed hands through voluntary exchanges (also known as buying at fair market value).

[sturle]

I'll get a doctor the same day if I'm ill.  If it isn't necessary, perhaps I want to fix an ingrown toenail or something which isn't critical, I may have to wait a few days, or more if I need a specialist.  If the public heath system in the USA will find me a specialist and fix my problem the next day it would be great, but I doubt it.  I think you are comparing apples and oranges.  It is by no means forbidden for me to find a private specialist and pay for it myself, or get a health insurance which will pay for it, but most people don't care that much.

Again you are comparing a little country with a lot of oil. Population of Norway is about the same as the isle of Manhattan during the day. And spend a lot of money on healthcare per person, 3.4K for UK vs 5.3K for Norway vs 7.9K for US.

The population of Norway may not be high, but it is spread over a large area.  The distance from the southern tip of Norway to the northern tip is about the same as Vancouver to San Diego, and UK is more densely populated with roughly 2/3 of the area of Norway (mainland only).  Lower population density leads to higher costs.  And, yes, Norway is fortunate to be an energy exporter.  In percent of GDP Norway spends 9.6% and UK spends 9.8%, which is about average for Europe.  US spends 17.4%!

And I am not sure what do you mean by public, I can find a specialist next day in NYC using my private insurance.

I can buy a private insurance as well, but I don't think I will find specialists around here much faster no matter what insurance I have.  There are a few obvious differences between rural Norway and NYC, making comparing difficult.

A real life example: my gf's mom was waiting about 4 months for MRI in Canada. She's suffering from bad headaches and no one can pin point the cause, looks like MRI didn't help much or they can't read it. She's waiting for an another doctor.... months and counting.

Bad headaches which the doctors can't find the cause for are quite common.  As long as the headache isn't caused by a tumour (and I suppose they checked that early), the odds of finding the cause for it is rather low.  It can be trigged by food or beverages, lack of sleep or to much sleep, etc.  Doctors can usually only give advice and painkillers.

It can probably explain some of the problem, yes.  If you are to fat in Norway, and no diet helps, you will be offered free surgery to fix it permanently.  E.g. removing 90% of your stomach and some of your intestines to make it impossible to eat to much, and make your body take up less fat.  It is a drastic measure, but very effective.  The patient will likely be able to work more and need less health services in the future.  One will typically have to wait for more than a day for this procedure as well, but I don't think that is much of a problem.  Faced with not being able to eat more than half a small yoghurt beaker and some vitamins in one meal for the rest of her life, the patient may want to try that diet again, and perhaps another diet and some exercise before the surgery.

Offered or forced? It seems that most people here don't really care about eating healthier.

Offered, of course.  There is no pressure.

[Kontakt]

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I feel that you are the one that feels that. You were not the first to inhabit your plot of land. In fact, the US government claimed it as sovereign territory first.

Actually, no. They did not. Originally, it was "claimed" by Mexico. Then, the Texans declared their independence, and it became the republic of Texas. It later became part of the state of Texas when Texas joined the Union in 1845. In the 1860s, settlers homesteaded the land to set up cattle ranches. I'm not going to track the history of my specific parcel of land, but it was certainly part of that homesteading. It has since changed hands through voluntary exchanges (also known as buying at fair market value).

Buying from whom? Is it legal to buy something that was stolen in the first place? How many changes of hands are required before your claim could even be considered legal at all?

[myrkul]

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I feel that you are the one that feels that. You were not the first to inhabit your plot of land. In fact, the US government claimed it as sovereign territory first.

Actually, no. They did not. Originally, it was "claimed" by Mexico. Then, the Texans declared their independence, and it became the republic of Texas. It later became part of the state of Texas when Texas joined the Union in 1845. In the 1860s, settlers homesteaded the land to set up cattle ranches. I'm not going to track the history of my specific parcel of land, but it was certainly part of that homesteading. It has since changed hands through voluntary exchanges (also known as buying at fair market value).

Buying from whom? Is it legal to buy something that was stolen in the first place? How many changes of hands are required before your claim could even be considered legal at all?

A better question would be: Stolen from whom?

[Kontakt]

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I feel that you are the one that feels that. You were not the first to inhabit your plot of land. In fact, the US government claimed it as sovereign territory first.

Actually, no. They did not. Originally, it was "claimed" by Mexico. Then, the Texans declared their independence, and it became the republic of Texas. It later became part of the state of Texas when Texas joined the Union in 1845. In the 1860s, settlers homesteaded the land to set up cattle ranches. I'm not going to track the history of my specific parcel of land, but it was certainly part of that homesteading. It has since changed hands through voluntary exchanges (also known as buying at fair market value).

Buying from whom? Is it legal to buy something that was stolen in the first place? How many changes of hands are required before your claim could even be considered legal at all?

A better question would be: Stolen from whom?

That is a good question. Who was it stolen from, then?

[myrkul]

That is a good question. Who was it stolen from, then?

You're the one claiming that it was stolen. How can you claim that it was stolen, without knowing who it was stolen from?

[Kontakt]

That is a good question. Who was it stolen from, then?

You're the one claiming that it was stolen. How can you claim that it was stolen, without knowing who it was stolen from?

I would presume it was stolen from the natives, or the animals that lived there if you really wish to be progressive.

How can you tell that taxes are stolen money if you don't know who it was taken from?

[myrkul]

That is a good question. Who was it stolen from, then?

You're the one claiming that it was stolen. How can you claim that it was stolen, without knowing who it was stolen from?

I would presume it was stolen from the natives, or the animals that lived there if you really wish to be progressive.

How can you tell that taxes are stolen money if you don't know who it was taken from?

The only natives there at the time were the Choctaw, themselves refugees from US oppression. I see no historical records of disputes over the land, so I would "presume" that it was not stolen. I do not wish to be so progressive as to grant animals property rights, so you're left without any ground to stand on to claim it was stolen.

As to the taxes, I do know who it was stolen from. Me, and anyone else who pays taxes because of the threat of kidnapping or murder if they do not.

[myrkul]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any evidence that the defendant committed the crime of which you accuse him?"

"No, Your Honor, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

*sigh* "Case dismissed. Come back when you actually have evidence. And consider yourself lucky I don't hold you in contempt for wasting the court's time."

[sturle]

Yep, and under your contract with the government (as Locke would put it), you are obliged to pay tax from the fruits of your labour as well. 

Care to show me that contract, and where, exactly, I signed? The only valid contract is one entered voluntarily. In fact, the only "social contract" I've signed is this one. Doesn't say anything about tax on there.

For a moment I thought you had read Locke.  You obviously haven't.    I used Locke's terms there, and even specified it in parenthesis to make it clear.

Philosophy changes, grows, evolves. Ideas are not the hidebound things you seem to think they are. You can build upon a philosophy. This is called progress. It does not contradict Locke's view of social contract theory to require that the contract be explicit and entered into voluntarily. In fact, if Locke were alive today, I think he would agree.

John Locke's philosophy is what it is.  If you change it or add to it, it is no longer Locke's philosophy.  Locke himself built the work of many other philosophers.  If you choose to build on elements from Locke, it doesn't make it his philosophy.

I don't think Locke's social contract establishing civil society would work if every person in the society would have their own contract with everyone else, and some will end up without a contract, or a contract signed only by a few other people.  Not to mention the humongous bureaucracy we would get when everyone were to sign each others contracts, and to stay up to date those contracts would need renegotiation from time to time.  In some areas people would become entirely unprotected.  Your rape story suddenly get relevant again.  Perhaps you don't want any mention in your contract that you are not allowed to rape minors.  No, Locke wouldn't agree.  It contradicts his philosophy in so many ways.

Locke's is very clear that the citizens have a right to revolution to replace the government when it acts against the interests of citizens.  His social contract must be generally agreed to, not something which everyone are forced into against their common interests.  How is this revolution going to work when some have social contracts acting against the interests of a clear majority of the citizens?

Both you and the government are bound by that contract.

They would seem to disagree.

Huh?  This court concluded that the contract wasn't broken.  If you think it should be in the contract (your nation's laws), you have to tell your lawmakers that.

No, this court concluded that the government was not bound by the contract. "Citizen" Is defined as someone who owes allegiance to a state, and is entitled to the protection of that state. By stating that there was no duty to protect, they asserted that they were not bound by the citizenship "contract." In my opinion, that means that even if such a contract existed, they broke it right there.

It concluded that the contract (the law) didn't cover this particular case.  Which law is your definition from?  Courts judge according to the law, not the dictionary!

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I never claimed John Locke said that.  And by the way, I want in my contract that grinding the owner of some land under my foot makes the land mine!  I'm going to this among a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo on page 6502 in my contract, of course.