What do you believe is moral?

[crumbs]

...

It appears you see no other option but brutality to collect tax

Yes this is accurate, I see brutality as part of the definition of the word tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax  I hit ctrl F, type in "bruta" and the searchbox turns red   What am i doing wrong   Plz point me to the definition you're using.

[Anon136]

...so then im very interested in this idea of a small tax on every transaction that is supposedly in lieu of state brutality. what mechanism other than state brutality do you propose to use to enforce this tax?

What mechanism, other than "brutality," exists for enforcing *any* law?

depends a bit on your definition of law. some would say ostracisation and public shaming are alternative mechanisms for enforcing law. others would say that if those are the punishments than what ever we are talking about isnt a law but rather a custom. to me words should be defined in the way that is most useful for communicating the ideas they are intended to represent. if we had a system where stealing someones property meant that you became so ostracised by society that it was difficult to make ends meat, than i think in a very real sense stealing would be illegal in that society despite the fact that no brutality was involved. but then thats just my opinion! if you dont like the way that i am defining my words feel free to define them in the way that you think is more useful, just be sure to clearly communicate what you mean when you use those words so other people know!

Definition of law is irrelevant here, as long as we agree that laws need to be enforceable to be meaningful.
For instance, making "bad thoughts" unlawful is pointless, unless
a) It is possible to read minds
and
b) A punishment is prescribed for breaking this law.

If you disagree with any of the above, explain why, otherwise i'm assuming we're good as far as that goes.  So:

Unless you are suggesting a society without laws, you have to conceive of punishments to enforce your laws.  I suggest that any enforcement is a form of "brutality," simple as that.  (Of course we will have to define "brutality" -- feel free to offer any definition that you're willing to stick to throughout this discussion -- i'm game for anything )
Keep in mind that your definition will be equally applicable to both the statist thugs & your utopia

There are conceivable non violent enforcement mechanisms for allowing societies to modify the behavior of individual humans.

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

[crumbs]

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

[crumbs]

...

It appears you see no other option but brutality to collect tax

Yes this is accurate, I see brutality as part of the definition of the word tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax  I hit ctrl F, type in "bruta" and the searchbox turns red  What am i doing wrong  Plz point me to the definition you're using.

A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law

Didn't you suggest that punishment could be nonviolent?  As in "nonviolent enforcement"?  Where be the brutality in that?  The punishment could be your ostracism  So, where the brutality be?

Edit:  No likey taxes?  Leave country -- no payee taxes.  How much less violent can shit get?

[Anon136]

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why.

[Rassah]

There are conceivable non violent enforcement mechanisms for allowing societies to modify the behavior of individual humans.

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

Are you familiar with the concept of "positive reinforcement?" Or do you believe that the only way to control people is to force them and punish them when they get out of line?

[Anon136]

...

It appears you see no other option but brutality to collect tax

Yes this is accurate, I see brutality as part of the definition of the word tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax  I hit ctrl F, type in "bruta" and the searchbox turns red  What am i doing wrong  Plz point me to the definition you're using.

A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law

Didn't you suggest that punishment could be nonviolent?  As in "nonviolent enforcement"?  Where be the brutality in that?  The punishment could be your ostracism   So, where the brutality be?

yeayeayea i know you got me. i personally wouldn't consider a situation where failing to give someone money resulted in the redaction of privileges to be taxation. to me taxation necessarily involves rights violations. this puts my definition at odds with wikipedia but im ok with that.

[crumbs]

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why.

You have failed to do the following:

a) To define "nonviolent enforcement" (not to be a prick, but nonviolent is one word)
b) To address how nonviolent enforcement will deal with the scenario i've presented you with.  If you feel that scenario is not plausible, explain why.

[crumbs]

Didn't you suggest that punishment could be nonviolent?  As in "nonviolent enforcement"?  Where be the brutality in that?  The punishment could be your ostracism  So, where the brutality be?

yeayeayea i know you got me. i personally wouldn't consider a situation where failing to give someone money resulted in the redaction of privileges to be taxation. to me taxation necessarily involves rights violations. this puts my definition at odds with wikipedia but im ok with that.

Wheee  We's both happy!

[Rassah]

For the closed system scenario you describe above instead consider three people in a car. Fuel needs to be paid for. Now either the driver can pay for everything or through mutual co-operation the burden of cost can be shared. In this scenario if actor bob refuses to pay his share you advocate tazering him and locking him in the boot until he coughs up, as the only option. The normally prescribed method here is mocking bob for being a tight wad, assuming he can afford to pay and maybe not offer a ride next time, or else letting him off his share this time if he genuinely has money problems. Now you may also call this violence of state albeit mental,  but I would call it social pressure for the greater good of the group.

This is actually a pretty nice scenario to demonstrate the difference between government and volyntarism, from which you may be able to derive better opinions on "morality."

Let's say in this scenario, bob lives near where he works, and doesn't actually need the car for day-to-day use.

In a volyntarist society, Bob will refuse to contribute to the gas, forcing the driver and other passenger to pay more, and will be forced to pay a much larger sum to compensate the driver on the rate occasions that he does need to use the car. Bob may decide that it's cheaper to only pay for the car when he needs to, or that it's cheaper to calculate how often he needs to use the car throughout the year, and make constant small payments to distribute his costs. Or bob, along with the driver and other passenger, may realize that the car is costing them too much for the little use they get out of it, and decide to switch to something else, such as two cheaper scooters, which the driver and the passenger can ride independently, and bob can borrow for a fee.

In a government/statist society, the driver and the passenger decide that the car is needed, and agree to force bob to pay for his share of the gas, even though bob rarely, if ever, needs to use the car. If bob refuses to pay, which he likely would due to not needing to use the car nearly as much as the other two people, they will claim that they are authorized to use force to make him pay, going as far as to keep track of all his finances, to see if he has the money to pay. Their justification for this will be that he can also use the car, should he need to, despite the fact that he is being forced to pay for way more use than he actually needs, or uses. As a result, Bob is forced to give up money for things he doesn't want, money that is in effect being "stolen" and used by others, and the car use remains fully funded, hiding the fact that the car may be way too expensive for what the "market" actually needs, preventing new ideas and vehicles from being used.

The last part is fairly relevant when comparing the rail and alternative transportation options of USA and Europe - In US, the roads and gasoline are subsidized so much (by forcing everyone to pay for them) that all other alternative methods of transportation are not able to compete. As a result, we are all forced to rely on driving everywhere, with no possibility of exploring other options like rail and public transportation.

[Rassah]

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

Ah, kind of like, if you get arrested for possession of marijuana, you can't get a federally subsidized student loan.

[Anon136]

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why.

You have failed to do the following:

a) To define "nonviolent enforcement" (not to be a prick, but nonviolent is one word)
b) To address how nonviolent enforcement will deal with the scenario i've presented you with.  If you feel that scenario is not plausible, explain why.

it doesnt have to deal with the scenario you presented because i never made the claim that non violent enforcement could be used to deal with that scenario. you never asked me to demonstrate the capabilities of non violent enforcement you asked me to demonstrate that it exists.

Since we only need to think of one example showing one situation where one rule might be enforced by non violent means to demonstrate that non violent rule enforcement exists lets make a more specific and more explicit example. Lets say that the kid sincerely desires to go WITH his mother to disney world but only on the condition that the mother is in voluntary attendance. (this will preclude things like kidnapping). now the mother says, if you break the rules than i will not voluntarily take you to disney world.

Is this example sufficient to demonstrate that such a thing as non violent rule enforcement exists? if not why not?

[Anon136]

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

Ah, kind of like, if you get arrested for possession of marijuana, you can't get a federally subsidized student loan.

that is a good example.

this is maddening rassah. his reply to

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

was

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

stefan was right, we really do live in a mental zombie apocalypse. i dont want to block people but trying to have a rational discussion wit these people is like trying to herd cats. they are just everywhere and no where at once. seamlessly redefining the context, aim and purpose of the discussion with each new post, claiming that they have a better understanding of what point you are trying to make than you do. its maddening.  

[FirstAscent]

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why.

You have failed to do the following:

a) To define "nonviolent enforcement" (not to be a prick, but nonviolent is one word)
b) To address how nonviolent enforcement will deal with the scenario i've presented you with.  If you feel that scenario is not plausible, explain why.

it doesnt have to deal with the scenario you presented because i never made the claim that non violent enforcement could be used to deal with that scenario. you never asked me to demonstrate the capabilities of non violent enforcement you asked me to demonstrate that it exists.

Since we only need to think of one example showing one situation where one rule might be enforced by non violent means to demonstrate that non violent rule enforcement exists lets make a more specific and more explicit example. Lets say that the kid sincerely desires to go WITH his mother to disney world but only on the condition that the mother is in voluntary attendance. (this will preclude things like kidnapping). now the mother says, if you break the rules than i will not voluntarily take you to disney world.

Is this example sufficient to demonstrate that such a thing as non violent rule enforcement exists? if not why not?

You mean like:

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World."

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World nor Florida."

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to a lot of places."

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of a cell."

[crumbs]

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

Ah, kind of like, if you get arrested for possession of marijuana, you can't get a federally subsidized student loan.

that is a good example.

this is maddening rassah. his reply to

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

was

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

stefan was right, we really do live in a mental zombie apocalypse. i dont want to block people but trying to have a rational discussion wit these people is like trying to herd cats. they are just everywhere and no where at once. seamlessly redefining the context, aim and purpose of the discussion with each new post, claiming that they have a better understanding of what point you are trying to make than you do. its maddening.  

What, in particular, bothers you?  You failed to define your terms -- i politely asked you to define them again, in boldface this time.
Again you have failed.  
I asked you to give me a sampling of examples.  You offered me one, and started bawing when you couldn't deal with a counterexample.  
Grow up, will you?  I'm trying to be courteous, but you aren't making it easy.

Edit: Now then, we have already established that taxation can be enforced by nonviolent means HERE, Correct?  Are you going to be "intellectually honest" & concede the point?

[lunarboy]

For the closed system scenario you describe above instead consider three people in a car. Fuel needs to be paid for. Now either the driver can pay for everything or through mutual co-operation the burden of cost can be shared. In this scenario if actor bob refuses to pay his share you advocate tazering him and locking him in the boot until he coughs up, as the only option. The normally prescribed method here is mocking bob for being a tight wad, assuming he can afford to pay and maybe not offer a ride next time, or else letting him off his share this time if he genuinely has money problems. Now you may also call this violence of state albeit mental,  but I would call it social pressure for the greater good of the group.

This is actually a pretty nice scenario to demonstrate the difference between government and volyntarism, from which you may be able to derive better opinions on "morality."

Let's say in this scenario, bob lives near where he works, and doesn't actually need the car for day-to-day use.

In a volyntarist society, Bob will refuse to contribute to the gas, forcing the driver and other passenger to pay more, and will be forced to pay a much larger sum to compensate the driver on the rate occasions that he does need to use the car. Bob may decide that it's cheaper to only pay for the car when he needs to, or that it's cheaper to calculate how often he needs to use the car throughout the year, and make constant small payments to distribute his costs. Or bob, along with the driver and other passenger, may realize that the car is costing them too much for the little use they get out of it, and decide to switch to something else, such as two cheaper scooters, which the driver and the passenger can ride independently, and bob can borrow for a fee.

In a government/statist society, the driver and the passenger decide that the car is needed, and agree to force bob to pay for his share of the gas, even though bob rarely, if ever, needs to use the car. If bob refuses to pay, which he likely would due to not needing to use the car nearly as much as the other two people, they will claim that they are authorized to use force to make him pay, going as far as to keep track of all his finances, to see if he has the money to pay. Their justification for this will be that he can also use the car, should he need to, despite the fact that he is being forced to pay for way more use than he actually needs, or uses. As a result, Bob is forced to give up money for things he doesn't want, money that is in effect being "stolen" and used by others, and the car use remains fully funded, hiding the fact that the car may be way too expensive for what the "market" actually needs, preventing new ideas and vehicles from being used.

The last part is fairly relevant when comparing the rail and alternative transportation options of USA and Europe - In US, the roads and gasoline are subsidized so much (by forcing everyone to pay for them) that all other alternative methods of transportation are not able to compete. As a result, we are all forced to rely on driving everywhere, with no possibility of exploring other options like rail and public transportation.

I still maintain the issue is with an inefficient and corrupt system rather than taxation as a means to share the burden of society. Bob may not need to use a car but frequently gets sick. A % of society needs effective transportation. Whilst Alice may use the car every day but never requires medical care. The fair solution is to proportionally tax the individual and corporation equal to the burden of societal needs. The need to cut cost drives competition and innovation, that will inturn drive the system to higher efficiency.

Without some fair method to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have nots society breaks down, Wells's Morlocks and Eloi get to say I told you so in in a few millennia.

[Anon136]

Drugs in the water?  Aerosols?  Earnest nuns with big anime eyes persuading lawbreakers to stop?  How do you conceive "nonviolent enforcement"?  
Please define the terms as you introduce them. A sampling of examples would be helpful, too.

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

Ah, kind of like, if you get arrested for possession of marijuana, you can't get a federally subsidized student loan.

that is a good example.

this is maddening rassah. his reply to

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

was

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

stefan was right, we really do live in a mental zombie apocalypse. i dont want to block people but trying to have a rational discussion wit these people is like trying to herd cats. they are just everywhere and no where at once. seamlessly redefining the context, aim and purpose of the discussion with each new post, claiming that they have a better understanding of what point you are trying to make than you do. its maddening.  

What, in particular, bothers you?  You failed to define your terms -- i politely asked you to define them again, in boldface this time.
Again you have failed.  
I asked you to give me a sampling of examples.  You offered me one, and started bawing when you couldn't deal with a counterexample.  
Grow up, will you?  I'm trying to be courteous, but you aren't making it easy.

there is no need for more than one example. one example is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate the existance. if you said i dont believe in rocks. and i said look i have a rock right here in my hand. you wouldnt say, yea but thats only one rock, you have to show me more than one rock before ill believe that rocks exist.

anyway deal with the comment that i sent to you not rassah. here it is again incase you missed it.

it doesnt have to deal with the scenario you presented because i never made the claim that non violent enforcement could be used to deal with that scenario. you never asked me to demonstrate the capabilities of non violent enforcement you asked me to demonstrate that it exists.

Since we only need to think of one example showing one situation where one rule might be enforced by non violent means to demonstrate that non violent rule enforcement exists lets make a more specific and more explicit example. Lets say that the kid sincerely desires to go WITH his mother to disney world but only on the condition that the mother is in voluntary attendance. (this will preclude things like kidnapping). now the mother says, if you break the rules than i will not voluntarily take you to disney world.

Is this example sufficient to demonstrate that such a thing as non violent rule enforcement exists? if not why not?

[Rassah]

stefan was right, we really do live in a mental zombie apocalypse. i dont want to block people but trying to have a rational discussion wit these people is like trying to herd cats. they are just everywhere and no where at once. seamlessly redefining the context, aim and purpose of the discussion with each new post, claiming that they have a better understanding of what point you are trying to make than you do. its maddening.  

Agreed. I pretty much ignore crumbs, because, unlike others on here, he is just all kinds of bonkers. I's half convinced he is just a troll, really. But, despite my attempts to ignore him, sometimes the things he says are just so stupid and badly thought out that I can't help but comment. I try to convince myself that I am doing it for the benefit of other readers who may be misled by his *ahem* opinions, but I think I'm only convincing myself.

[Rassah]

You mean like:

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World."

Yes!

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World nor Florida."

Yes!

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to a lot of places."

Yes!

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of a cell."

*Screeech* And you veered off from "nonviolent" for "forced kidnapping." >.< I mean, I would have said "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of your property," which, again, many of us would agree to, but I guess our two minds work differently, yours apparently having quite a bit more of a tendency towards violence than mine. 

[crumbs]

Sure. So an example of violent enforcement might be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm going to spank you. An example of non violent enforcement may be a mother saying, if you break the rules than I'm not going to take you to disney world this summer like we had planned.

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.

im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why.

You have failed to do the following:

a) To define "nonviolent enforcement" (not to be a prick, but nonviolent is one word)
b) To address how nonviolent enforcement will deal with the scenario i've presented you with.  If you feel that scenario is not plausible, explain why.

it doesnt have to deal with the scenario you presented because i never made the claim that non violent enforcement could be used to deal with that scenario. you never asked me to demonstrate the capabilities of non violent enforcement you asked me to demonstrate that it exists.

You simply claimed that nonviolent enforcement exists?  That was all you were trying to do?  There was no implicit claim that it could be used to enforce more than a few laws that you custom-crafted for it?  You're being, as you put it, "intellectually honest"?
Further, you failed to define nonviolent enforcement, something i have asked you to do in bold font.  And further still, you have provided just one example -- i have asked for a sampling.  

Since we only need to think of one example showing one situation where one rule might be enforced by non violent means to demonstrate that non violent rule enforcement exists lets make a more specific and more explicit example. Lets say that the kid sincerely desires to go WITH his mother to disney world but only on the condition that the mother is in voluntary attendance. (this will preclude things like kidnapping). now the mother says, if you break the rules than i will not voluntarily take you to disney world.

Is this example sufficient to demonstrate that such a thing as non violent rule enforcement exists? if not why not?

Stop being absurd.  If one of the conditions is "mom *wants* to go," then what, exactly, is being enforced here?