Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:51:04 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 9-9-9  (Read 3995 times)
dustintrammell
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 05:42:08 PM
 #41

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

If someone invested in a bicycle to "increase their wealth", it becomes immediately apparent why they're poor.  "Things" generally depreciate in value, that's a horrible investment (:
1481284264
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284264

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284264
Reply with quote  #2

1481284264
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:09:17 PM
 #42

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.

I kinda figured you'd say that. I suppose if society voted that all ugly people be put to death, we'd justify that one too, or slavery, or old age, or abortion, or eminent domain, or.... I could go on if you like.

You should draw the line at the initiation of force, otherwise government can (and will) grow without bounds. Look what we have now. It's a product of crossing the line on what the definition of property is. If you take other people's property for convenience sake, you will always be violated, ad infinitum.

Given the arbitrariness of involuntary governing practices, similar to what you suggest, ultimately marches us in the direction of tyrannical totalitarianism. It may not be in your lifetime, but it will eventually happen if we don't stand up and assert our rights. Most people only care about themselves and the here and now, unconcerned about what kind of future they will leave their children.

Will we ever learn from our past? I wonder sometimes.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:10:22 PM
 #43

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

If someone invested in a bicycle to "increase their wealth", it becomes immediately apparent why they're poor.  "Things" generally depreciate in value, that's a horrible investment (:

It's a great investment! You can get a better job, buy better goods, meet more people! I'm not suggesting the bike sits around doing nothing.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:11:36 PM
 #44

The day McDonald's workers are hailed for a value of hundreds of dollar per hour is when leaves will be treated as currency.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:31:59 PM
 #45

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.

I kinda figured you'd say that. I suppose if society voted that all ugly people be put to death, we'd justify that one too, or slavery, or old age, or abortion, or eminent domain, or.... I could go on if you like.

You should draw the line at the initiation of force, otherwise government can (and will) grow without bounds. Look what we have now. It's a product of crossing the line on what the definition of property is. If you take other people's property for convenience sake, you will always be violated, ad infinitum.

Given the arbitrariness of involuntary governing practices, similar to what you suggest, ultimately marches us in the direction of tyrannical totalitarianism. It may not be in your lifetime, but it will eventually happen if we don't stand up and assert our rights. Most people only care about themselves and the here and now, unconcerned about what kind of future they will leave their children.

Will we ever learn from our past? I wonder sometimes.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes people want to live in a totalitarian society.  History tells us that if given the choice, people vote to create societies that are pleasant to live in.  I strongly disagree with abortion but I am outvoted.  You strongly disagree with eminent domain but you are outvoted. Unless we are prepared to use violence, you have to accept that we are outvoted.   In both our cases, being outvoted is far preferable to resorting to violence, don't you agree?

I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
 #46

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
 #47

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.

I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:50:00 PM
 #48

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.
That's not even followed.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 06:54:40 PM
 #49

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.
That's not even followed.

The key thing is where sovereignty ultimately lies. I really like how the EU does it, for example, and wish my home (USA) was more like the EU in that respect. Its power is limited because membership remains optional.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 07:38:32 PM
 #50

The problem with your logic is that it assumes people want to live in a totalitarian society.  History tells us that if given the choice, people vote to create societies that are pleasant to live in.  I strongly disagree with abortion but I am outvoted.  You strongly disagree with eminent domain but you are outvoted. Unless we are prepared to use violence, you have to accept that we are outvoted.   In both our cases, being outvoted is far preferable to resorting to violence, don't you agree?

Those who vote in opposition to the theory of non-initiation of force (NAP) are resorting to violence. Being outvoted in my case means that society, via the ruling class, is voting to use violence against me. Who resorted to violence first? Should I not be able to defend myself in the same manner (violence for violence)?

See how the vote does nothing to protect the weak from the strong, or the minority from the majority when preventing violence? A vote seems so trivially superficial and meaningless in the end -to say nothing of it's non-binding nature- when it comes to me protecting what's mine.

You're smarter than this Hawker. You know it, and I know you know it. Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 07:43:16 PM
 #51

Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

This shouldn't be the goal of any discussion.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 08:00:20 PM
 #52

Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

This shouldn't be the goal of any discussion.

It isn't my goal, just a logical outcome. Just getting cute. Nothing personal.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 08:31:33 PM
 #53

The problem with your logic is that it assumes people want to live in a totalitarian society.  History tells us that if given the choice, people vote to create societies that are pleasant to live in.  I strongly disagree with abortion but I am outvoted.  You strongly disagree with eminent domain but you are outvoted. Unless we are prepared to use violence, you have to accept that we are outvoted.   In both our cases, being outvoted is far preferable to resorting to violence, don't you agree?

Those who vote in opposition to the theory of non-initiation of force (NAP) are resorting to violence. Being outvoted in my case means that society, via the ruling class, is voting to use violence against me. Who resorted to violence first? Should I not be able to defend myself in the same manner (violence for violence)?

See how the vote does nothing to protect the weak from the strong, or the minority from the majority when preventing violence? A vote seems so trivially superficial and meaningless in the end -to say nothing of it's non-binding nature- when it comes to me protecting what's mine.

You're smarter than this Hawker. You know it, and I know you know it. Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

The NAP is a fantasy.  Things like eminent domain are needed.  Courts are needed.  Pretending that a fairy land is possible doesn't get you anywhere in a world where real people have real problems.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 09:00:55 PM
 #54

The NAP is a fantasy.  Things like eminent domain are needed.  Courts are needed.  Pretending that a fairy land is possible doesn't get you anywhere in a world where real people have real problems.

I would like to believe my NAP fantasy has at least a sporting chance of greater justice and personal liberty, than the established force monopoly of government, which has already miserably failed in so many ways.

Another quote from Lysander Spooner to slake your insatiable "stately" beast:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of
consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without
his consent having even been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government
that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and
forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.

He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He
sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving
himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds
himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a
master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative
than these two.

In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has
been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because,
to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not
to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.

Neither in contests with the ballot—which is a mere substitute for a bullet—because, as
his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the
contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own
natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of
numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had
been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a
matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 26, 2011, 09:12:22 PM
 #55

Fred - that argument is not new.  Humans are flawed and human institutions are flawed as well.  That's just the way things are.  You say to throw institutions that work well away in the hope that perfect institutions will emerge in their place.  I say that since we humans are flawed, whatever emerges will be less than perfect and therefore its better to work with what we have an try to improve it.

helloworld
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 02:32:45 AM
 #56

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 08:01:11 AM
 #57

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 12:57:27 PM
 #58

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

That's an appeal to popularity, it doesn't resolve ethical problems. Not to say it proves you wrong, but it doesn't prove you right.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 27, 2011, 01:21:02 PM
 #59

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.  

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.


No that's not confusion.  If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money.  Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.


You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

That's an appeal to popularity, it doesn't resolve ethical problems. Not to say it proves you wrong, but it doesn't prove you right.

Sorry but if a more popular way of paying for public services than taxation comes along, its going to happen.  There is no ethical issue here - once you decide to spend money it has to be raised and the method is whatever the electorate will tolerate.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 27, 2011, 04:52:33 PM
 #60

Fred - that argument is not new.  Humans are flawed and human institutions are flawed as well.  That's just the way things are.  You say to throw institutions that work well away in the hope that perfect institutions will emerge in their place.  I say that since we humans are flawed, whatever emerges will be less than perfect and therefore its better to work with what we have an try to improve it.

You would be correct. There is no perfect justice or government because there are no perfect people. This is true, except to say that I would like to think that competition amongst competing private security firms might do a better job than those with monopoly-on-force contracts because they must meet the needs of those with whom they contract or else lose business.

Forced monopolies don't have to compete and so rarely consider improving. I suppose mob justice might arise, but even those organizations risk constant push-back by individuals and other security firms who consider such tactics unjust. Maybe it will all dissolve into a big civil war. Hard to say. We'll never know unless we try. Just a thought.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!