What do you believe is moral?

[Anon136]

Logical fallacies?  orly?

You're saying that governments and paved road exist in correlation, not causation, right?  Brilliant.  Enlighten us sniveling plebes with your smartiferous learningz:  How exactly is causation established?

Well you make reasonable arguments that are not logical fallacies. So here is an example of a bad argument that he made:

But hey, if you think my argument is illogical, look at history and see for yourself. Again, not the american history, which is way too short. Without governments, there are no paved roads. Easy as that.

It's as bad as this one:  
Every time flick the switch, a light bulb goes on.  I've flicked the switch 10000 times, and each time i did -- the light bulb went on.  Cheeks moistened by tears of joy & snot, i exclaim:  Eureka!  The switch *causes* the light to go on!
Wrong.  Happened to be nothing but correlation.  
How can i haz causation if correlation is never enough?

Edit:  blahblahblah already pointed this out here (scroll to "inductive reasoning"): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244258.msg2656836#msg2656836
didn't see that.

by clearly describing the causal mechanism.

[cryptoanarchist]

Nice survey, I have some people I'll be sending that link to.

[crumbs]

At which point the argument takes a turn into, "Well how would we pay for public services without a public pool of money (taxation)?"  To which the answer would be, "Through the privatization of these services on an open market."  And then we'd get into how policemen and firefighters can be paid for privately, which is a hard concept to grasp when you're used to paying for it compulsively but anything worth learning takes time.

 
In other words, you don't have an answer so you bluff with "It all rly magnetz & coilz, it taeks tiem & laerningz & UR 2 stoopit."

TL;DR:  Don't like NSA?  Fight that, not taxes.  Bitcoin?  They'll tax that just like any other money.

In Mike's defence though, private enterprise often looks great and it's easy to do an A-B comparison:
A -- some govt agency is crappy
B -- the private equivalent is relatively awesome
"So why not ditch the clunky government version and allow "price discovery" (or market forces etc.) to generally kick-ass?"

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

It's not him, I really deserve all the blame.  
A sweet cloying saying -- "Even a cat can look at a king" -- stirred my egalitarian heart, but i took things too far.  I let that mangy beast wheedle his way into my lap, where the monster peed!1!  Right on my ermine-trimmed velvet cloak!  The subtle beige one, with those really sweet pearl buttons?  Well anyhowz, my dry cleaners won't take it -- it's rhuined! 

[Anon136]

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

that's why most an-caps don't advocate going down to the bowels of the white house and flipping some Frankensteinian on off switch from on to off. we just want to be left in peace somewhere, on land that we legitimately purchase twice if necessary (once from the land owner and once from the state), to test our theories. If we are wrong and markets can infact only operate within the framework of a state than so be it, we just want one opportunity to empirically test that claim because we believe there are good reasons to believe that it is false.

[Elwar]

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

that's why most an-caps don't advocate going down to the bowels of the white house and flipping some Frankensteinian on off switch from on to off. we just want to be left in peace somewhere, on land that we legitimately purchase twice if necessary (once from the land owner and once from the state), to test our theories. If we are wrong and markets can infact only operate within the framework of a state than so be it, we just want one opportunity to empirically test that claim because we believe there are good reasons to believe that it is false.

As long as someone in the world or universe is not paying their "fare share" it is an outrage to those who feed power to the government.

[Rassah]

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

that's why most an-caps don't advocate going down to the bowels of the white house and flipping some Frankensteinian on off switch from on to off. we just want to be left in peace somewhere, on land that we legitimately purchase twice if necessary (once from the land owner and once from the state), to test our theories. If we are wrong and markets can infact only operate within the framework of a state than so be it, we just want one opportunity to empirically test that claim because we believe there are good reasons to believe that it is false.

As long as someone in the world or universe is not paying their "fare share" it is an outrage to those who feed power to the government.

And worse, if such a place ends up having a little "too much freedom," they'll come in to stop us, then accuse us of not paying our fair share for taking care of something we didn't consider to be a problem in the first place (drugs, gambling, prostitution, weapons, whatever).

[Anon136]

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

that's why most an-caps don't advocate going down to the bowels of the white house and flipping some Frankensteinian on off switch from on to off. we just want to be left in peace somewhere, on land that we legitimately purchase twice if necessary (once from the land owner and once from the state), to test our theories. If we are wrong and markets can infact only operate within the framework of a state than so be it, we just want one opportunity to empirically test that claim because we believe there are good reasons to believe that it is false.

As long as someone in the world or universe is not paying their "fare share" it is an outrage to those who feed power to the government.

Just explain to those people that you also not wish to receive any services that are payed for through taxation either. That way your choice will not be a burden on anyone else. it obviously wont work every time but some will see the logic.

[Torn]

Take this quick 10 (or less) question morality survey.

http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9fgng77f80xbtr9177028


Tell us how far you got.

Taxation is theft
If you made it this far you may have already understood the concept that taxation is theft or you may not have thought of it in such terms.

When it comes down to it, we as a society have taken the easy path of paying for all of the things the government says we need by ignoring the immorality of the theft that occurs each and every day. If it is immoral for you to steal from me, it is immoral for a government to steal from its citizens.

Instead of taking the lazy way of stealing people's money to pay for things we need to embrace new ideas and concepts and think outside of the box and be progressive. We need to stop voting for politicians who are ok with stealing from us. The very act of voting for someone who would steal from other citizens is immoral and no different from you stealing from another.

Many try to justify the theft by pointing to the things that are provided by government. That does not excuse the fact that an immoral act has occurred. Stealing is immoral. There is no way around that fact.

If services are wanted and necessary by enough people then they can be provided, but not through force or theft but through voluntary cooperation with things such as BitPools or voluntarism. Or some concept not yet discovered that you may be able to come up with by just putting a little bit of thought into it. Instead of taking the easy route of stealing, just because people are willing to look the other way during such an immoral act, in order to enjoy the goodies that the loot provides.

[Mike Christ]

You're a lazy, rude bitch.  Point taken.
Edit: Amazingly stupid, too.  Too frickin' lazy to read a few lines, but spends two long & tedious paragraphs guessing.

Tedious for who?  I enjoy this kind of stuff, else I wouldn't be doing it.  If you can take the time to reply, you can save a lot of my time by making arguments as a grown up would.  You're certainly not doing otherwise; ad hominem and it's only the second response?  Please, make me want to care about your feelings about how government should be, since logic and reasoning don't seem to matter anyway, right?

Which is perfectly okay.  Some people prefer to listen to their feelings over what makes sense--just look at how popular religion is.  I'm not blaming you for that; you'll believe what you believe based on who told you what was true, who I assume was your parents or your school when you were growing up, and that's just who you are.  Just don't expect me to believe you when your feelings tell you that I'm stupid.  That's a word which can only hold weight when used by people who prefer to think.  When used by you, I can only assume you're upset that I wouldn't take you seriously.


Anyway, I posted this on another thread.  Yes, I am saying that I don't know how it would work exactly, for it is impossible to predict the future; nobody knows how societies will function without government for there are very few times in which it has happened, which is not to imply that it cannot function, but simply implies that governments have had a choke hold over people to the point where it cannot happen.  However, we can theorize how it would work, just as we theorize any other concept which has yet to come into fruition.  We as in, anyone who has already decided that the use of government force is immoral, for any reason at all.  If you believe stealing is moral, then sorry, but it's highly unlikely that I, a random patron of a forum on the Internet, am going to change your mind about that.  It doesn't matter if you believe it's a necessary evil or not; so long as one admits that the government and its buddies are the only entities allowed in the world to kill and lie and rob from society under the guise that it's good for us, nothing I ever say will make a lick of sense.  When one is ready to admit that no man, no matter who he is, is allowed to act in what is normally immoral for the rest of society, only then will I make sense.  Till then, you're better off talking to a wall than me, 'cos at least there's common ground with the wall; walls don't have empathy, either.

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

I have never said this wasn't true.  Of course, private businesses will be under the scrutiny of the the public.  The difference between a free society and a state society is who holds the ability to produce law: anybody via arbitration, or a monopoly named government.

[crumbs]

You're a lazy, rude bitch.  Point taken.
Edit: Amazingly stupid, too.  Too frickin' lazy to read a few lines, but spends two long & tedious paragraphs guessing.

Tedious for who?  I enjoy this kind of stuff, else I wouldn't be doing it.  If you can take the time to reply, you can save a lot of my time by making arguments as a grown up would.  You're certainly not doing otherwise; ad hominem and it's only the second response?  Please, make me want to care about your feelings about how government should be, since logic and reasoning don't seem to matter anyway, right?

So.  U bitch about my style, say "...I'm not reading anything else you've said," reply to one line & then ask me to "make you want to care"?
Snowflake, dandies read poetry to gutter bums back in the day, but that stopped as soon as the wretch started drooling or blowing chunks.  How's about a little gratitude? 
Until i see a sincere, well-worded apology, i don't care if you care.  That there is an ad baculum argument.

Which is perfectly okay.  Some people prefer to listen to their feelings over what makes sense--just look at how popular religion is.  I'm not blaming you for that; you'll believe what you believe based on who told you what was true, who I assume was your parents or your school when you were growing up, and that's just who you are.  Just don't expect me to believe you when your feelings tell you that I'm stupid.

My feelings tell me you're rude & dull, the drivel you post tells me you're stupid.

That's a word which can only hold weight when used by people who prefer to think.  When used by you, I can only assume you're upset that I wouldn't take you seriously.

Anyway, I posted this on another thread.  Yes, I am saying that I don't know how it would work exactly, for it is impossible to predict the future; nobody knows how societies will function without government for there are very few times in which it has happened, which is not to imply that it cannot function, but simply implies that governments have had a choke hold over people to the point where it cannot happen.  However, we can theorize how it would work, just as we theorize any other concept which has yet to come into fruition.  We as in, anyone who has already decided that the use of government force is immoral, for any reason at all.

When you don't know something, just run to the nearest grownup & ask.  Even i would be happy to teach you, but first you have to apologize. 

If you believe stealing is moral, then sorry, but it's highly unlikely that I, a random patron of a forum on the Internet, am going to change your mind about that.  It doesn't matter if you believe it's a necessary evil or not; so long as one admits that the government and its buddies are the only entities allowed in the world to kill and lie and rob from society under the guise that it's good for us, nothing I ever say will make a lick of sense.  When one is ready to admit that no man, no matter who he is, is allowed to act in what is normally immoral for the rest of society, only then will I make sense.

Lolz.  "Until you agree with everything i believe, i won't any make sense."  Bulletproof logikz

Till then, you're better off talking to a wall than me, 'cos at least there's common ground with the wall; walls don't have empathy, either.

If you're trying to convince me that a wall is your better in every way, you're preachin' to the choir
Now stop sulking, apologize, and i might save you from a long & dreary future of drinking & digging ditches.

TL;DR:  Scroll to the top.  Read everything.  Read it again.  Learn every word i wrote by heart.  Fall to your knees & apologize.
 

[crumbs]

But it's easy to forget the context: private enterprise works within the realm of government and (in the case of democracies) social oversight.

that's why most an-caps don't advocate going down to the bowels of the white house and flipping some Frankensteinian on off switch from on to off. we just want to be left in peace somewhere, on land that we legitimately purchase twice if necessary (once from the land owner and once from the state), to test our theories. If we are wrong and markets can infact only operate within the framework of a state than so be it, we just want one opportunity to empirically test that claim because we believe there are good reasons to believe that it is false.

The big problem is the part about being "left in peace." 
You don't have to agree, but consider that many countries who do not wish to be at war have standing armies nevertheless.  Why?  Because they feel that if they did not, they may not be left in peace.  The Prisoner's Dilemma is played out every day in politics, with one caveat:  instead of just one guy who may or may not rat you out, you have all the other countries.  And each one of them is in the same shoes.  That's one of the reasons we have armies & diplomats.

[crumbs]

As long as someone in the world or universe is not paying their "fare share" it is an outrage to those who feed power to the government.

You don't need to think it fair for the whole thing to work, that's the beauty of it.  If it helps, think of ethics as the slice of baloney in which i wrap my dog's meds, so he's happy to gulp them down.  I could explain to him why he needs to take them, but the baloney method is simpler & quicker for both of us.  

[LostDutchman]

Take this quick 10 (or less) question morality survey.

http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9fgng77f80xbtr9177028


Tell us how far you got.

I got to here:

http://kwiksurveys.com/app/rendersurvey.asp

"If you made it this far you may have already understood the concept that taxation is theft or you may not have thought of it in such terms.

When it comes down to it, we as a society have taken the easy path of paying for all of the things the government says we need by ignoring the immorality of the theft that occurs each and every day. If it is immoral for you to steal from me, it is immoral for a government to steal from its citizens."

[Elwar]

As long as someone in the world or universe is not paying their "fare share" it is an outrage to those who feed power to the government.

You don't need to think it fair for the whole thing to work, that's the beauty of it.  If it helps, think of ethics as the slice of baloney in which i wrap my dog's meds, so he's happy to gulp them down.  I could explain to him why he needs to take them, but the baloney method is simpler & quicker for both of us.  

But there are fair ways of doing it. People prefer the lazy route of stealing from people though.

The mafia was very efficient in getting their protection money from people. Just think of a few busted knee caps as the baloney around a dog's meds.

[crumbs]

As long as someone in the world or universe is not paying their "fare share" it is an outrage to those who feed power to the government.

You don't need to think it fair for the whole thing to work, that's the beauty of it.  If it helps, think of ethics as the slice of baloney in which i wrap my dog's meds, so he's happy to gulp them down.  I could explain to him why he needs to take them, but the baloney method is simpler & quicker for both of us.  

But there are fair ways of doing it. People prefer the lazy route of stealing from people though.

The mafia was very efficient in getting their protection money from people. Just think of a few busted knee caps as the baloney around a dog's meds.

Not sure if you're joking, but many people (Rassah, to name a local) actually use Mafia protection rackets as the shining example of free enterprise in action.  As far as fairness goes, my take on ethics is similar to what some wit said about standards:  "The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from."  And, while i'm thinking about clever people saying clever things, you'd probably be surprised that i'm a fan of Ben Franklin's line: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -wikiquote

[Elwar]

Take this quick 10 (or less) question morality survey.

http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9fgng77f80xbtr9177028


Tell us how far you got.

Taxation is theft

Government money is owned by government. Their money, their rules.

If you choose to do stuff with it, for example: earn the right to become the legal "bearer" of some of it, then it's still government money and you still have to play by their rules.

You know those weird laws that prohibit people from burning or deliberately damaging legal tender? (I know at least a few countries have such laws, probably most.) That's because even if you're the rightful bearer, the money still isn't yours!

Saying things like "this is my money" (and the gubment is trying to steal it) is usually intellectual laziness, unless you're claiming that your government is trying to tax the bitcoins you control (or other tokens of some other system of money that they don't own). Then that would be theft.

The government does tax the bitcoins I control. It has been discussed on this forum several times.

[Rassah]

Government money is owned by government. Their money, their rules.

If you choose to do stuff with it, for example: earn the right to become the legal "bearer" of some of it, then it's still government money and you still have to play by their rules.

You know those weird laws that prohibit people from burning or deliberately damaging legal tender? (I know at least a few countries have such laws, probably most.) That's because even if you're the rightful bearer, the money still isn't yours!

Saying things like "this is my money" (and the gubment is trying to steal it) is usually intellectual laziness, unless you're claiming that your government is trying to tax the bitcoins you control (or other tokens of some other system of money that they don't own). Then that would be theft.

Are you advocating we don't pay taxes on our Bitcoin capital gains, or any business profits earned through Bitcoin? Also, don't we buy government money through our labor and products? Or does the government just lease us that money in exchange, but still owns it, the was USSR rubles worked?

[LostDutchman]

Government money is owned by government. Their money, their rules.

If you choose to do stuff with it, for example: earn the right to become the legal "bearer" of some of it, then it's still government money and you still have to play by their rules.

You know those weird laws that prohibit people from burning or deliberately damaging legal tender? (I know at least a few countries have such laws, probably most.) That's because even if you're the rightful bearer, the money still isn't yours!

Saying things like "this is my money" (and the gubment is trying to steal it) is usually intellectual laziness, unless you're claiming that your government is trying to tax the bitcoins you control (or other tokens of some other system of money that they don't own). Then that would be theft.

Are you advocating we don't pay taxes on our Bitcoin capital gains, or any business profits earned through Bitcoin? Also, don't we buy government money through our labor and products? Or does the government just lease us that money in exchange, but still owns it, the was USSR rubles worked?

Well, if he's not, I am!

Offshore coporations, offshore bank accounts, anonymous debit cards.

My $.02.

[Mota]

^this.

[Anon136]

Take this quick 10 (or less) question morality survey.

http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9fgng77f80xbtr9177028


Tell us how far you got.

Taxation is theft

Government money is owned by government. Their money, their rules.

If you choose to do stuff with it, for example: earn the right to become the legal "bearer" of some of it, then it's still government money and you still have to play by their rules.

You know those weird laws that prohibit people from burning or deliberately damaging legal tender? (I know at least a few countries have such laws, probably most.) That's because even if you're the rightful bearer, the money still isn't yours!

Saying things like "this is my money" (and the gubment is trying to steal it) is usually intellectual laziness, unless you're claiming that your government is trying to tax the bitcoins you control (or other tokens of some other system of money that they don't own). Then that would be theft.

more sense from the most sensible statist around these parts. people who use FRN's can hardly complain about having to pay taxes. if you want to live a tax free life you better be willing to accept the sacrifice associated with using an anarcho-currency instead.