What do you believe is moral?

[Rassah]

Your "Oh woes me! We need the regulations to protect out lands and waters and such, because the evil mean corporations will totally destroy them if we don't!" line is a very common misconception about that thing you love to talk about, that being "how things work in the real world." You very obviously and blatantly stated the exact same BS claim that many other pro-regulation pro-environment types state, and I posted, for your benefit, as well as anyone else's who might hold your view (of which, as I mentioned, is many) that in the "real world" government employees are low-paid, low-skilled types who often don't understand what they are regulating (if they did, they'd be working for the company they are trying to regulate),

Don't mean to be rude & break your run-on, but are you suggesting we raise taxes, so we could increase the pay of government employees & attract creme de la creme candidates?  Fabulous idea!  Just might work!

Aaaaactually, this is exactly what pro-government pro-environmentalists suggest when they say "we need more, better, and stronger regulations." Since you apparently missed it, my entire point with the original post was to explain that such a proposed solution to the problem of companies exploiting and polluting nature is misguided at best. Why? Because incentives are wrong (guaranteed personal paycheck v/s personal responsibility and performance-based profits), and because, regulation being an added cost that companies MUST cover, it will always be more profitable for a company to hire those creme de la creme candidates away from the regulatory offices and have them write the regulations (or navigate around them) than to submit to regulations, no matter how much you pay those regulators (up to the point where paying the regulators costs so much that it's cheaper to just fix the land).

in the "real world" regulations are written by the experts, which happen to be the lawyers working for the companies the regulation is written for, in the "real world" regulatory laws are passed by senators influenced by lobbyists working for the company to be regulated, not by the voting representatives of those senators, and in the "real world" regulations often don't do anything other than help establish the large companies as monopolies, or make the crimes against nature perpetrated by those companies technically "legal."

Whew.  Thank goodness i didn't wait for this sentence to end.  IRL regulations are written by people who write regulations, and not by "lawyers working for the companies the regulation is written for."

Who are those "people who write regulations?" Whom do they work for? I claim they work for the companies being regulated, based on the various news of such "scandals" throughout the years. The other option is, at the least, they would be experts in the field. Experts in a field typically do not go to work for government. They go to work in the field they are experts in. So, either those regulations are very well written, but are written by people working for the companies being regulated (the lawyers I mentioned), or they are written by non-experts, and are likely very sloppy and inadequate regulations.

What you're asking, OTOH, is for those regulations to be stripped altogether!  On what grounds?  On the grounds that the companies which are to be regulated had a say in them  gasp!  

On the grounds that they either A) are there only to serve the company that wrote them helping it hold monopoly power (Bitcoin is a shining spotlight on this problem, with the banking industry requiring insane amounts of paperwork and money to enter, meaning all the big banks are safe from small competitors) or B) make "legal" what would otherwise be criminal neglegence or damage to the environment. You can spill tons of oil in the gulf, then try to clean it up with possibly even more toxic chemicals, but hey, it was all within regulations, so you didn't break any laws, despite the gulf being all kinds of fucked up. Without regulations saying that what was done was ok, because all the regulations were followed, we'd be able to go after the oil spillers for the actual damages they have done. Likewise for strip mining. If there are regulations for proper methods of strip mining, then strip mining is "legal" regardless of the amount of damage and pollution to the surrounding areas it does. The company doing the strip mining can just show that they followed regulations, and get away with it, claiming that any damage was due to inadequate regulations, not due to their actions. I'm not pulling this out of my ass btw. This has happened again and again and again. Considering I'm an environmentalist myself, I keep tabs of such things.

When was the last time someone(s) at the head of a mining, oil, or hell, even banking industry went to jail, or even had to pay a fine?

Your reasoning:  I try steering this car, and still i bump into stuff once in awhile.  I'm just going to take my hands off the wheel & see how that goes!

You totally missed it. Your reasoning, this car is being steered by a blind person and bumps into stuff once in a while. So you're just going to add more padding to the car, until it becomes nearly impossible to steer, or just replace the first blind person with the second blind person, when the first one gets hauled off for killing someone. My reasoning is I'm going to take out that blind person, and stick you in that car. Hopefully you wouldn't want to get banged up by bumping into things, and won't want to get hauled off for running someone over.

[crumbs]

wat  "Access to them"? 

If you are paying your landlord for the pool and the doorman, then you get access to the services or use of that pool and doorman.

If i'm renting a server in a datacenter halfway around the world, do i have access to it?

If you are paying for remote access to the server, you get remote access to the server. If you are paying for physical access to the server, you get physical access to the server. Access, as in you are able to use or get benefit for the things you paid for, which you paid for specifically in order to get that use or benefit.

If i'm dumb as dirt & own PMBs, do i have access to them?  What are you saying?  You'd like to tour an army base or a sub? 

I don't know what PMBs are.

A Bitcoiner not knowing what Perpetual Mining Bonds are?  Dood, they make u coinz!

No, I don't want physical access to an army base or a sub. I would like to get the services that they provide in exchange for me paying for them. And I would like the option of not buying their services if I don't need or want them, too.

But you do get the services -- you're alive in the land of the free & the home of the brave!  You're paying half as much for gas as you would in Italy, your Mafia-protected wonderland.  Cheer up!  Next time you think the taxman took too much, remember that you wouldn't make that much money in a lifetime of work, if you lived in ... Somalia!  

Access to services. Like  пoльзoвaтьcя. Learn to english.

I'm forced to pay for things i do not want, and then to *pay again* to dispose of them.

You're forced to pay for them? So now you don't want to be forced to pay for them either? I mean, if you were ok with it, you wouldn't be being forced, you'd be paying voluntarily...

How humorless can you be?  Yeah, i do not want to be forced to pay for the cardboard boxen & popcorn my product came in.

As for you, you're welcome to choose any country that is willing to take you.  Learn to play with others or Happy shopping!

This country is unjust. Most other countries are like this one. I live here too. So it's much easier for you to move elsewhere that's the same as this country, like Europe, Canada, Brazil, or Australia, and for me to try to change things here, than for me to move to a place that doesn't exist yet. So. i.e. you gtfo.

Which one of us is whining about taxes & statist thugs, and in the same breath praising The Invisible Hand?  You don't get to change your mind when The Invisible Hand up to its elbow up your ass.

Everything I do, the government claims to own a piece of. If I create and sell something, they want a portion of my labor. In my eyes, them claiming ownership of my time and labor is pretty much analogous to them claiming ownership of me.

If this place is such a pit, why not do what you suggest to the mothers working for a pittance to feed their kids -- go peddle your ass elsewhere?

Remember the robbery/rape/murder thing? Should I explain that again?

You have a deeply rooted, albeit poorly defended idee fixe that taxation is theft.  It's unlikely that reason will convince you otherwise, though i'll admit it's fun trying.

I am a very logical person. Almost to a fault. You don't have to try to argue or reason with me based on feelings or emotions. All you have to do to convince me is to explain to me why one group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return is theft, while another group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return in taxation. (I'm separating taxes for services I use, like roads, from taxes for things others use and I never will).

Having to show so much fail puts a crack in my monitor.
I go to a computer store, find a monitor just like mine, and start taking it apart -- to get at the LCD panel.
Store clerk walks over and asks WTF
I reply that i don't need the whole thing, i just need teh panel itself.
He patiently tells me they don't sell just the panel, buy the whole thing or GTFO!
I repeat myself.
He repeats himself.
wat do

Are you asking me how you can buy a replacement LCD panel? Wait, do you seriously think that's not possible?
And, again, when you are forced to buy the whole monitor, even if all you need is the LCD pannel, you are still getting the whole damn monitor. Let me state this in big letters so you don't have to squint and misread my statements:
YOU ARE EXCHANGING SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR EQUAL VALUE

but... but i don't want the whole monitor, sir, i just want the panel...  can't i just take it apart in your store & leave the bits i don't need?  kheynk...

Does this makes sense?

but i don't want to pay for what i don't want... i don't want the whole monitor, sir, i just want the panel...  can't i just take it apart in your store & leave the bits i don't need?  kheynk...

Now, when it comes to taxation, you are exchanging your value for something of LESSER value, because a lot of the value you are giving up goes to someone else. Or, in other words,
YOU ARE EXCHANGING (by force) SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR LESSER OR NO VALUE
Come back to me when you grasp the difference.

Meanness of mind and disposition.  Two qualities i care for not at all  

Regarding war, people will spend money to fight wars they believe need to be fought. I would have been in full support for spending money to go fight Hitler, and likely would have bought war bonds.

So ... that war ain't murder?  The point you wished to make was "some wars are murder"?  Talk about "meh."

That was a defensive war, and one where murderers, those who agressed first, were punished. If someone is murdering someone else, it's not murder to kill them in defense. Honestly, I would me much more for small precise tactical teams that come in and only take out the people at the top responsible for the crimes. But we didn't have the means or the technology to do that back then.

So, when you're in the right, war is not murder?  The same war was murder and not murder?  Help me out?

Ok, follow-up question: What's to stop an entity called government from passing laws against walking on sidewalks, or on your front lawn, or in your house, if the goal was to arrest you? It just seems a bit arbitrary that they would make a rule, but only punish you for resisting arrest after breaking that rule. I mean, hell, you could claim that all major criminals who were in police shootouts weren't punished for their heinous crimes, but were punished because they refused to be arrested, which would make refusal to be arrested the biggest crime in US, punishable by death. And that's just a tad silly.

That's not silly at all.  Criminals who are killed in shootouts are shot not because they are being punished.  Even with absurdities like the Patriot Act, the suspect must be *engaged in endangering lives* before a he could be fired upon by teh law.

So, let's ignore the "why" and focus on the "what" instead. You break a law. It may be a public law, it may be a secret law, it may be just not paying taxes. Next step, people come after you. You don't think you broke any laws, so you don't let yourself get arrested. Next step, people with guns come after you. You get shot. You die.
So, to repeat:
You don't pay taxes -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot.
You smoke weed -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot.
You drive while black - you don't get arrested - you get shot.
You hide some jews in the attic -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot (just to point out that laws aren't always just).

I see where you're going here...  You stick a barrel in your mouth->you pull the trigger->you get shot.  I get it, no difference at all.  Meat is Murder!

It sounds as if all the laws give you only two options: get arrested, or get shot.

There's the third option, though it's seldom mentioned:  Don't break laws

And if you don't think you broke the law, or want to resolve the situation peacefully in court without having to wait in jail, or just think that the laws and the goons coming after you with guns or tazers are unjust, you get shot.

The last time you got killed by goons was when?  I'm not going to going over the same shit just for you to forget it:  You won't get shot unless you threaten the cop's life.  Stop being so frickin' scared.

No, you're right, it's not silly.

Which brings us back to the original question: Where does the government get the right to claim ownership of its property? For your landlord, the answer is obvious: he bought and/or built the property you are renting from. The government didn't buy or build it, it just staked a claim to it, like we did centuries ago. Is that the system we should continue to operate under?

You're wrong.  The landlord owns the property (let's keep it simple & make it plain *land* -- we'd get to the same point through a bunch of regressions anyhow) only in the same sense that a tenant farmer owns the land he farms -- as long as the contract's fulfilled (farmer, pay landlord.  landlord, pay state), they "own" the land.  Once the contract's broken (farmer falls behind on rent.  landlord fails to pay taxes), that ownership is ... no more.  Sad but true.

Yay! Another explanation of how things work iRL, without actually answering my question! Let me restate it. Please try to focus this time: Where does the government get the right to claim ownership of its property?

Eminent domain?  Is that what you want?  It doesn't matter where it got the right, the point is -- it got it now, deal with it.  Where does anyone "get the right"?  The only rights you have are the rights you're strong enough to defend.  K?

Maybe eventually I'll even get to ask you things like "what do we do about these issues, how do we fix them, and what do we do to improve the crappy state of affairs in this country?" But I don't think we're anywhere near that. Especially since I'm pretty sure your answer will be, "Our government consists of the Executive branch, the Legislative, branch, and Judicial branch, and all representatives in the Executive and Legislative and picked by a majority of voters, with all laws being enacted by the Legislative and approved by the Executive"   which, you know, will tell me absolutely nothing new.

A large chunk of the crappiness would vanish as soon as whiny complainers stop seeing themselves as political visionaries & get back to flipping burgers & digging ditches.

[Rassah]

Above post pretty much decimates Rassah's reverence for a timber company in Chile.

Really? Because that company establishing itself in Chille, away from any endangered species, and figuring out how to continue logging on an ever DEcreasing plot of land at an ever INcreasing rate is doing an excellent job at protecting your spotted owls, by making sure less and less logging is needed elsewhere in the world. There's no need to go after those owl's homes, and risk bad publicity for your company, when you work on increasing and optimizing your profits elsewhere.

Also, seriously, what incentives do you believe regulators have to keep that spotted owl safe? What will happen to the politicians if they remove it from the list of endangered species? What will happen to a regulator if he/she overlooks some company's logging activity? As I understand it, it's "not much" in both cases. Worst case, they lose their job and have to go work elsewhere. On the other hand, someone who actually owns the land will be help personally responsible if they do something that harms those spotted owls. Remember, government laws and regulations are (supposed to be) the reflection of the will of the people living in a society. It's not some wishes conjured up by the regulators themselves. So if someone starts to own the land those spotted owls reside on, the will of the people to protect those owls isn't going to just magically disappear. They will continue to have just as much interest in keeping those spotted owls safe. Now, how can they enforce that forest owner's respect for those spotted owls is another issue, and I think there are way better methods of doing this than regulations no one is personally responsible for enforcing.

[FirstAscent]

Above post pretty much decimates Rassah's reverence for a timber company in Chile.

Really? Because that company establishing itself in Chille, away from any endangered species, and figuring out how to continue logging on an ever DEcreasing plot of land at an ever INcreasing rate is doing an excellent job at protecting your spotted owls, by making sure less and less logging is needed elsewhere in the world. There's no need to go after those owl's homes, and risk bad publicity for your company, when you work on increasing and optimizing your profits elsewhere.

Also, seriously, what incentives do you believe regulators have to keep that spotted owl safe? What will happen to the politicians if they remove it from the list of endangered species? What will happen to a regulator if he/she overlooks some company's logging activity? As I understand it, it's "not much" in both cases. Worst case, they lose their job and have to go work elsewhere. On the other hand, someone who actually owns the land will be help personally responsible if they do something that harms those spotted owls. Remember, government laws and regulations are (supposed to be) the reflection of the will of the people living in a society. It's not some wishes conjured up by the regulators themselves. So if someone starts to own the land those spotted owls reside on, the will of the people to protect those owls isn't going to just magically disappear. They will continue to have just as much interest in keeping those spotted owls safe. Now, how can they enforce that forest owner's respect for those spotted owls is another issue, and I think there are way better methods of doing this than regulations no one is personally responsible for enforcing.

Chille is a commune in the Jura department in Franche-Comté in eastern France. It's Chile, not Chille.

Anyway, you keep mentioning the spotted owl. Do you know why there is a big deal in preserving the spotted owl?

And on another point: you keep saying that taxes go to waste in such matters as the type we're discussing. That is woefully incorrect on your part and crumbs touched on it. Taxes pay for experts to study such cases, but apparently not enough to compete with the lawyers hired by private industry. The last thing we want is less taxes to hire less competent experts.

I'll tell you absolutely what we want less of. We want less money from Exxon/Mobil funding a property rights lawyer masquerading as an expert on climate science publishing a libertarian rag known as Environment & Climate News from the libertarian think tank Heartland Institute, which contains propaganda generated by a few lone cowboy sellout scientists to the oil companies.

The true enemy on these matters are the deliberate liars whom hold the same views you do on taxes and government.

[crumbs]

Your "Oh woes me! We need the regulations to protect out lands and waters and such, because the evil mean corporations will totally destroy them if we don't!" line is a very common misconception about that thing you love to talk about, that being "how things work in the real world." You very obviously and blatantly stated the exact same BS claim that many other pro-regulation pro-environment types state, and I posted, for your benefit, as well as anyone else's who might hold your view (of which, as I mentioned, is many) that in the "real world" government employees are low-paid, low-skilled types who often don't understand what they are regulating (if they did, they'd be working for the company they are trying to regulate),

Don't mean to be rude & break your run-on, but are you suggesting we raise taxes, so we could increase the pay of government employees & attract creme de la creme candidates?  Fabulous idea!  Just might work!

Aaaaactually, this is exactly what pro-government pro-environmentalists suggest when they say "we need more, better, and stronger regulations." Since you apparently missed it, my entire point with the original post was to

Get back on a soapbox you're familiar with?

explain that such a proposed solution to the problem of companies exploiting and polluting nature is misguided at best. Why? Because incentives are wrong (guaranteed personal paycheck v/s personal responsibility and performance-based profits), and because, regulation being an added cost that companies MUST cover, it will always be more profitable for a company to hire those creme de la creme candidates away from the regulatory offices and have them write the regulations (or navigate around them) than to submit to regulations, no matter how much you pay those regulators (up to the point where paying the regulators costs so much that it's cheaper to just fix the land).

in the "real world" regulations are written by the experts, which happen to be the lawyers working for the companies the regulation is written for, in the "real world" regulatory laws are passed by senators influenced by lobbyists working for the company to be regulated, not by the voting representatives of those senators, and in the "real world" regulations often don't do anything other than help establish the large companies as monopolies, or make the crimes against nature perpetrated by those companies technically "legal."

Whew.  Thank goodness i didn't wait for this sentence to end.  IRL regulations are written by people who write regulations, and not by "lawyers working for the companies the regulation is written for."

Who are those "people who write regulations?" Whom do they work for? I claim they work for the companies being regulated, based on the various news of such "scandals" throughout the years. The other option is, at the least, they would be experts in the field. Experts in a field typically do not go to work for government.

ORLY?  You know this because you heard a friend of yours bitching?  The true experts in environmental regulations are prep cooks, except for that janitor but he's a CIA mole?
*why is it that i feel safer with dumb treehuggers doing the regulatin' than i would with coal tycoons?

They go to work in the field they are experts in. So, either those regulations are very well written, but are written by people working for the companies being regulated (the lawyers I mentioned), or they are written by non-experts, and are likely very sloppy and inadequate regulations.

Regulations applicable to mining are not about mining, but about environment -- a subject related to mining by the fact that mining harms it, and not much else.

What you're asking, OTOH, is for those regulations to be stripped altogether!  On what grounds?  On the grounds that the companies which are to be regulated had a say in them  gasp!  

On the grounds that they either A) are there only to serve the company that wrote them helping it hold monopoly power (Bitcoin is a shining spotlight on this problem, with the banking industry requiring insane amounts of paperwork and money to enter, meaning all the big banks are safe from small competitors) or B) make "legal" what would otherwise be criminal neglegence or damage to the environment. You can spill tons of oil in the gulf, then try to clean it up with possibly even more toxic chemicals, but hey, it was all within regulations, so you didn't break any laws, despite the gulf being all kinds of fucked up. Without regulations saying that what was done was ok, because all the regulations were followed, we'd be able to go after the oil spillers for the actual damages they have done. Likewise for strip mining. If there are regulations for proper methods of strip mining, then strip mining is "legal" regardless of the amount of damage and pollution to the surrounding areas it does. The company doing the strip mining can just show that they followed regulations, and get away with it, claiming that any damage was due to inadequate regulations, not due to their actions. I'm not pulling this out of my ass btw. This has happened again and again and again. Considering I'm an environmentalist myself, I keep tabs of such things.

When was the last time someone(s) at the head of a mining, oil, or hell, even banking industry went to jail, or even had to pay a fine?

Your reasoning:  I try steering this car, and still i bump into stuff once in awhile.  I'm just going to take my hands off the wheel & see how that goes!

You totally missed it. Your reasoning, this car is being steered by a blind person and bumps into stuff once in a while. So you're just going to add more padding to the car, until it becomes nearly impossible to steer, or just replace the first blind person with the second blind person, when the first one gets hauled off for killing someone. My reasoning is I'm going to take out that blind person, and stick you in that car. Hopefully you wouldn't want to get banged up by bumping into things, and won't want to get hauled off for running someone over.

WTF?  Reduced to empty verbiage?

[FirstAscent]

Rassah,

You are woefully uneducated when it comes to the environment, ecology, the experts in the field, its purpose, or the far reaching consequences of failing to acknowledge its importance.

Sadly, you get your information from libertarian sources, which is a politically motivated movement about rights and taxes, not ecology or science.

I get my information about the environment and ecology from scientists.

Here's some advice: let science motivate your political ideals, as opposed to letting your political ideals motivate your views on science.

[Rassah]

No, I don't want physical access to an army base or a sub. I would like to get the services that they provide in exchange for me paying for them. And I would like the option of not buying their services if I don't need or want them, too.

But you do get the services -- you're alive in the land of the free & the home of the brave!

Am I now? How does my freedom depend on some poor schmucks on the other side of the planet being bombed by $100,000 bombs, flown by $100,000,000 drones? Oh, it doesn't? Then why the fuck am I paying for that shit?!

You're paying half as much for gas as you would in Italy, your Mafia-protected wonderland.

No I'm not. You can't magically wish value into existence. That barrel of oil is worth the same around the world. In Italy, they pay the full price for that barrel of oil. Here, I pay a much smaller price for a part of that barrel at the pump, and then secretly pay the other part through my taxes which go to oil subsidies and security to keep oil pipes from being blown up. In the end we all pay the same price. It's just that here much of it is hidden from us.

How humorless can you be?  Yeah, i do not want to be forced to pay for the cardboard boxen & popcorn my product came in.

Then don't order stuff online, and pick it up at a store. Or order online, but tell them not to pack it, and that you'll accept all damages and liabilities. It's really not that hard. I mean, it's not as if there are laws against that. Unlike the laws that force you to pay for government stuff.

Which one of us is whining about taxes & statist thugs, and in the same breath praising The Invisible Hand?  You don't get to change your mind when The Invisible Hand up to its elbow up your ass.

Since when does The Invisible Hand refer to government?

Having to show so much fail puts a crack in my monitor.
I go to a computer store, find a monitor just like mine, and start taking it apart -- to get at the LCD panel.

Are you asking me how you can buy a replacement LCD panel? Wait, do you seriously think that's not possible?
And, again, when you are forced to buy the whole monitor, even if all you need is the LCD pannel, you are still getting the whole damn monitor. Let me state this in big letters so you don't have to squint and misread my statements:
YOU ARE EXCHANGING SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR EQUAL VALUE

but... but i don't want the whole monitor, sir, i just want the panel...  can't i just take it apart in your store & leave the bits i don't need?

Sorry irrelevant. You are not restricted to just that one store. You are not restricted to just that one product. You can even negotiate with the store owner to only get a part if needed. And even if you are forced to buy the whole thing, you still have parts that you own and can resell to recoup your money. ALL of which fails to explain to me why one group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return is theft, while another group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return in taxation.
And, again, when you are forced to buy the whole monitor because no other options are available, you still get the whole monitor and all it's worth. Something of yours of value for something o someone else's of value. With taxation, you get a lot of nothing for something of yours of value.

Keep trying.

Now, when it comes to taxation, you are exchanging your value for something of LESSER value, because a lot of the value you are giving up goes to someone else. Or, in other words,
YOU ARE EXCHANGING (by force) SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR LESSER OR NO VALUE
Come back to me when you grasp the difference.

Meanness of mind and disposition.  Two qualities i care for not at all  

I am only a reflection of the people I talk to. I.e. you're an ass, so I'll talk to you like an ass. Considering just how much of an ass you are, meanness of mind and disposition are apparently very much your preferences. Want to change how I talk to you? Be more polite. Otherwise I don't really care for you either.

So ... that war [WW2] ain't murder?  The point you wished to make was "some wars are murder"?  Talk about "meh."

That was a defensive war, and one where murderers, those who agressed first, were punished. If someone is murdering someone else, it's not murder to kill them in defense. Honestly, I would me much more for small precise tactical teams that come in and only take out the people at the top responsible for the crimes. But we didn't have the means or the technology to do that back then.

So, when you're in the right, war is not murder?  The same war was murder and not murder?  Help me out?

When you are ethical and just, it's not murder. Go to the NAP discussions to figure out what ethics and justice (morals and such) are about. It's not that difficult of a concept that doesn't need laws or government decrees for you to figure out.

That's not silly at all.  Criminals who are killed in shootouts are shot not because they are being punished.  Even with absurdities like the Patriot Act, the suspect must be *engaged in endangering lives* before a he could be fired upon by teh law.

So, let's ignore the "why" and focus on the "what" instead. You break a law. It may be a public law, it may be a secret law, it may be just not paying taxes. Next step, people come after you. You don't think you broke any laws, so you don't let yourself get arrested. Next step, people with guns come after you. You get shot. You die.
So, to repeat:
You don't pay taxes -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot.
You smoke weed -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot.
You drive while black - you don't get arrested - you get shot.
You hide some jews in the attic -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot (just to point out that laws aren't always just).

I see where you're going here...  You stick a barrel in your mouth->you pull the trigger->you get shot.  I get it, no difference at all.

the difference, as always, is who makes the rules, and who gave them the right to make those rules. That's what this whole godamn discussion is about. Who gave the majority the right to tell me what I should do with myself and my own stuff? It sure as hell wasn't be. Not willingly, anyway, since, as pointed out, if I don't follow their rules that they gave themselves, I get shot.

 Meat is Murder!

ass

It sounds as if all the laws give you only two options: get arrested, or get shot.

There's the third option, though it's seldom mentioned:  Don't break laws

That's a tad difficult when there are secret laws, or unjust laws. And aren't you glad those people in the south didn't break laws by reporting runaway slaves, and those germans didn't break laws by reporting jews hiding in attics? I bet you're even more glad that people in US didn't break laws against drinking alcohol, and that we still have laws making alcohol illegal 

And if you don't think you broke the law, or want to resolve the situation peacefully in court without having to wait in jail, or just think that the laws and the goons coming after you with guns or tazers are unjust, you get shot.

The last time you got killed by goons was when?  I'm not going to going over the same shit just for you to forget it:  You won't get shot unless you threaten the cop's life.  Stop being so frickin' scared.

I don't get shot because I'm not stupid enough to test it. I've seen plenty of other people get shot, and use them as examples. And, ok, let's walk this through. A cop comes to me and says I did something illegal, which I don't believe is wrong. I tell him to go away, because I didn't do anything wrong. The cop tries to put handcuffs on me, I resist and defend myself, by, say, wrestling him off of me. He escalates his attempts at arresting me, and I escalate my attempts are defending myself. At what point does he stop, and walk away? And if he doesn't, then where does this escalation end?

You're wrong.  The landlord owns the property (let's keep it simple & make it plain *land* -- we'd get to the same point through a bunch of regressions anyhow) only in the same sense that a tenant farmer owns the land he farms -- as long as the contract's fulfilled (farmer, pay landlord.  landlord, pay state), they "own" the land.  Once the contract's broken (farmer falls behind on rent.  landlord fails to pay taxes), that ownership is ... no more.  Sad but true.

Yay! Another explanation of how things work iRL, without actually answering my question! Let me restate it. Please try to focus this time: Where does the government get the right to claim ownership of its property?

Eminent domain?  Is that what you want?  It doesn't matter where it got the right, the point is -- it got it now, deal with it.

My whole issue is that I don't want to deal with it specifically for the reasons I've stated. It's not just, it's not ethical, it's without basis beyond the old rule that you can own land by sticking a flag on it. People organized, decided to call themselves government, and started to throw their weight around using guns and force. For someone looking for ways to better the system, you sure seem to like this one.

A large chunk of the crappiness would vanish as soon as whiny complainers stop seeing themselves as political visionaries & get back to flipping burgers & digging ditches.

How will that solve the problem of corrupt politicians, being bought out by banks and corporations, who then get extra perks paid for by our tax dollars? I mean, that's in essence what we're talking about here - the power to enforce arbitrary rules, and force you to pay (steal from you) to support those rules.

[crumbs]

What would you like to know? (limit: one thing.  No cheating) 

Why can't you write coherent sentences?

Why else?  The government.
*promise kept

[DobZombie]

9. Would it be morally wrong for you and the majority group to designate someone to hire someone to steal from me as long as that designation was called a 'vote' and the theft was called a 'tax' or 'fine'.   
10. Would it be morally wrong for the majority to elect someone with their votes to hire tax agents and police to go collect taxes from me?

I see what you did there

[PrintMule]

When you buy something you have to pay VAT

When you resell it to someone he has to pay VAT

When he resells it he has to pay VAT


So the item in question is bringing triple profits to the BIG guy. Also in my country there were some laws against manufacturers selling directly to end users. There has to be a middleman, owned by manufacturer or not, does not matter. So that item sells at least twice.

[crumbs]

When you buy something you have to pay VAT

When you resell it to someone he has to pay VAT

When he resells it he has to pay VAT


So the item in question is bringing triple profits to the BIG guy. Also in my country there were some laws against manufacturers selling directly to end users. There has to be a middleman, owned by manufacturer or not, does not matter. So that item sells at least twice.

It's much worse than that, as Rassah has so eloquently shown.  Tax is murder.  The derivation is simple, true, and goes something like this:

1. Taxation is theft. (given)
2. If you refuse to be victimized, the government thugs will come & threaten you with violence. (that's why we call them government thugs, duh!  Dood, do you even Ayn Rand?)
3. If you do not submit, a thing no freedom-loving man would ever stoop to, you will be shot. (why do you think we call them thugs, brah?  That's what they *do,* they prey on the innocents!)
4. Taxation is murder, Q.E.D.

If you enjoyed today's lesson, tune in next time for more Libertarian Logics

[Rassah]

When you buy something you have to pay VAT

When you resell it to someone he has to pay VAT

When he resells it he has to pay VAT


So the item in question is bringing triple profits to the BIG guy.

Not exactly. Businesses deduct paid VAT from their taxes, so, when you buy something, you pay VAT, when you sell it, you deduct it, essentially getting it back. So the actual VAT amount gets passed down the line to the last person to buy the item (typically consumer). This system incentivizes everyone in the line to report the transaction, since everyone who paid the VAT wants to get the money back as a tax deduction, and thus makes tax evasion by businesses much more difficult.

[Rassah]

It's much worse than that, as Rassah has so eloquently shown. Tax is murder

1. Taxation is theft. (given)
2. If you refuse to be victimized, the government thugs will come & threaten you with violence.
3. If you do not submit, you will be shot.
4. Taxation is murder, Q.E.D.

If you enjoyed today's lesson, tune in next time for more Libertarian Logics

Taxation is murder in the same way that being robbed on the street at the point of a gun is murder. I.e. it's not. It's just being robbed under the threat of a gun. Obviously the prudent and safe thing to do is to give up your wallet, which we also all do when being taxed. But that doesn't change what's actually happening, or the morality of the situation.

If you disagree, please, feel free to explain where your numbers 1 through 3 are incorrect.
You constantly avoided explaining why a group of thugs with guns on the street asking for your money is robbery, but a group of thugs in suits calling themselves government asking for your money is not robbery. Since you avoided that question 3+ times, I can only surmise that you agree with #1 (otherwise it'd be easy to defend).

You insinuated, twice, that if you don't pay taxes, no one will come after you. As much as I'd love that to be true, we both know that is not the case, so unless you can show me that government thugs will NOT come and threaten you with violence (arrest, imprisonment, or worse), then we'll have to agree that #2 is correct as well.

Finally, I asked you, twice, what would happen if you resisted their violence (refused to give up your money and your freedom). You pretty much ignored this, and veered off into a tangent about how you don't get shot for a crime, you get shot for resisting to be arrested for a crime. Fine, but irrelevant. The end result is the same: You are accused of something you don't believe you did, you resist, you die. Feel free to explain why this isn't true, either.

Feel free to point out how wrong my "Libertarian" logic is (and ps, I'm not a libertarian)

[crumbs]

It's much worse than that, as Rassah has so eloquently shown. Tax is murder

1. Taxation is theft. (given)
2. If you refuse to be victimized, the government thugs will come & threaten you with violence.
3. If you do not submit, you will be shot.
4. Taxation is murder, Q.E.D.

If you enjoyed today's lesson, tune in next time for more Libertarian Logics

Taxation is murder in the same way that being robbed on the street at the point of a gun is murder. I.e. it's not. It's just being robbed under the threat of a gun. Obviously the prudent and safe thing to do is to give up your wallet, which we also all do when being taxed. But that doesn't change what's actually happening, or the morality of the situation.

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.
Religious people have canonical texts -- the Qur'an, the Bible, etc., to offer immutable truths -- irrefutable foundations on which to build their ethical codes. If asked "why is lending for profit immoral," a Muslim will reply: "Because it is abhorrent to God, my holy book tells me so."  You?  You have nothing but gut feelings to base your morality on.  A morality that's subjective, without absolutes, in constant flux -- no more than a word for "stuff i believe is wrong, but can't think of logical reason for such belief."

You say taxation is immoral, i say Christ was explicitly fine with it, though he didn't mince words when it came to commerce, calling the merchants & money changers trading in the temple "a den of thieves."  If you do have something coherent to found your morals, i'm all ears

If you disagree, please, feel free to explain where your numbers 1 through 3 are incorrect.

#1 is false, and since the entire argument is predicated on it, the whole thing's junk.

You constantly avoided explaining why a group of thugs with guns on the street asking for your money is robbery, but a group of thugs in suits calling themselves government asking for your money is not robbery. Since you avoided that question 3+ times, I can only surmise that you agree with #1 (otherwise it'd be easy to defend).

Again, you think you know the meaning of the word "robbery," but are too lazy to get past the dictionary definition.
Oh well, leech off my generosity, i'll educate.  Ready?

The difference between the muggers & the government is simple:  There are no contracts or predefined agreements between the victim & the muggers, while there is between you and the US government:  It's called the body of law & the combined tax codes.  

You, as an immigrant, should know this.  The citizenship test demands, in plain language, to swear that you will obey all US laws, or GTFO.  You may have not taken the citizenship test, or received derivative citizenship through your parents -- in that case, your beef's with them.
Now you have your answer -- you're in a binding contract with the US government.  

You insinuated, twice, that if you don't pay taxes, no one will come after you.

No.  That's absurd and borders on criminal.  I'm sorry if you got that impression.

As much as I'd love that to be true, we both know that is not the case, so unless you can show me that government thugs will NOT come and threaten you with violence (arrest, imprisonment, or worse), then we'll have to agree that #2 is correct as well.

Finally, I asked you, twice, what would happen if you resisted their violence (refused to give up your money and your freedom). You pretty much ignored this, and veered off into a tangent about how you don't get shot for a crime, you get shot for resisting to be arrested for a crime.

Would you stop it with grade-school sophistry already?  You're in a contract with your government.  You are an immigrant -- in your case the contract is explicit.  By not paying your taxes, you are stealing from your government.  
The "violence" you talk about is no different from the violence awaiting any pickpocket who sucks at his trade.  You're a thief, ok?  Is this the answer you were fishing for?

Fine, but irrelevant. The end result is the same: You are accused of something you don't believe you did, you resist, you die. Feel free to explain why this isn't true, either.

Just for shits and giggles, what is it you were accused of that you do not believe you did?  Edit:  I'll see if i can clear things up for you

Feel free to point out how wrong my "Libertarian" logic is (and ps, I'm not a libertarian)

Fine, make it furlogic.

[Anon136]

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

[ErisDiscordia]

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.
Religious people have canonical texts -- the Qur'an, the Bible, etc., to offer immutable truths -- irrefutable foundations on which to build their ethical codes. If asked "why is lending for profit immoral," a Muslim will reply: "Because it is abhorrent to God, my holy book tells me so."  You?  You have nothing but gut feelings to base your morality on.  A morality that's subjective, without absolutes, in constant flux -- no more than a word for "stuff i believe is wrong, but can't think of logical reason for such belief."

did you just state that you trust authority more than your own judgement? We might have found the key to your disagreements with Rassah

[Anon136]

Here's something I've been thinking about:

It seems quite understandable to me why people would choose to argue in favor of (personal) freedom and a free society (whatever that might mean). Even if their visions of how such a thing might work or be achieved can be perceived as naive, idealistic or flat out impossible by some.

What I don't understand are people who would choose to argue against a free society. Are they convinced they have figured out that it definitely can't work? Why?...

What if there's no such thing as freedom? What if it's just propaganda? "You should _____ (go fight this war, etc) to prevent ______ (Hell/terrorism/lack of freedoms) and increase your freedoms!" If oil-war propaganda seems obvious, then what about anti-govt propaganda?:

"You should _____ (reject governments and democracy, etc) to prevent ______ (Hell/coercion/taxes/lack of freedoms) and increase your freedoms!"

Uh, to me it seems that freedom has a circular, dualistic definition -- it's the lack of bad stuff, or relatively more good stuff, as claimed by the people talking about it... In other words, it's bullshit. And, in the context of criticising alternative politics like An-Cap and whatnot, I don't think anyone's opposing freedom in any way, they're just saying it wouldn't be as good as you think.

this is the defintion that google gives and i think its pretty good: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I mean you are free to define any word you like any way you like but i think this is much closer to what most people mean when they use the word than "the lack of bad stuff, or relatively more good stuff, as claimed by the people talking about it"

[crumbs]

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.
Religious people have canonical texts -- the Qur'an, the Bible, etc., to offer immutable truths -- irrefutable foundations on which to build their ethical codes. If asked "why is lending for profit immoral," a Muslim will reply: "Because it is abhorrent to God, my holy book tells me so."  You?  You have nothing but gut feelings to base your morality on.  A morality that's subjective, without absolutes, in constant flux -- no more than a word for "stuff i believe is wrong, but can't think of logical reason for such belief."

did you just state that you trust authority more than your own judgement? We might have found the key to your disagreements with Rassah

Not at all.  I haven't mentioned my personal beliefs. 
Curious: is your use of "we" intentional (majestic plural), or a symptom of dissociative identity disorder?  If it's the latter, please allow your dominant personality to reply for all of you.

[ErisDiscordia]

Curious: is your use of "we" intentional (majestic plural), or a symptom of dissociative identity disorder?  If it's the latter, please allow your dominant personality to reply for all of you.

That's what we are doing, puny human suffering from the aneristic illusion.

What if there's no such thing as freedom? What if it's just propaganda?

What if there's no such thing as government? What if it's just a hallucination in the minds of politicians?

Otherwise an interesting thought. You know how you can use vastly different descriptions to describe the same thing? "Nigger-loving busybody" and "civil rights activist" can refer to the same person as well as "scatter-brained hogwash" and "avant-garde philosophy" can describe the same idea. What on person calls philosophy, another might call propaganda. Note that only people holding incompatible views from yours are subject to propaganda, while you yourself digest information

Anyways I'm intrigued. If "freedom" is in fact propaganda, who is spreading this propaganda? "Communist propaganda", "fascist propaganda" or "christian propaganda" all make sense to me. But "freedom propaganda"? Who stands to profit from something like that? Someone who wants you to think that you can be free so that.....I can't think of anything, please help me.

[crumbs]

... Anyways I'm intrigued. If "freedom" is in fact propaganda, who is spreading this propaganda? "Communist propaganda", "fascist propaganda" or "christian propaganda" all make sense to me. But "freedom propaganda"? Who stands to profit from something like that? Someone who wants you to think that you can be free so that.....I can't think of anything, please help me.

I'll help you unshackle your mind, ErisDiscordia!
Illusory goals are always handy.  What use is the notion of paradise to anyone on earth?  Yet many claim that organised religion has been used to keep the riffraff from plucking chickens, sharpening pitchforks & tarring torches  Placate the plebes with false hopes & distract them with false goals.  Shangri La!  Heaven!  Freedomz! Nirvana!

Edit:
Xanadu--Xanadu (now we are here)
In Xanadu(Xanadu)
Xanadu--Xanadu (now we are here)
In Xanadu(Xanadu,Xanadu)

Now that I'm here, now that you're near in Xanadu
Now that I'm here, now that you're near in Xanadu
Xanadu

It's Olivia Newton-John!1! -- See the movie!