Defending Capitalism

[wb3]

Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?

No, I'm saying that if you move to a house where cable is a part of the rent, and you knew this moving in, you can't really complain.

Oh, I see. That make more sense. As part of the rent.  But that cuts both ways, some leases include heating, electricity, etc... If you have a six month or year lease and power rates go up, the landlord is stuck with the difference. You have a lease, but it will go up on the next signing.

My niece, living up north had a good deal. She was paying $450/month. But her apartment was above a pizza parlor. She pain next to nothing in heating, and going for a pizza was a snap.

[JA37]

Yes, in certain cases. Obviously the example was simplified, and it doesn't happen like that in real life.
I'm going to assume that you've had enough schooling to know how laws comes into form.

[wb3]

Yes, in certain cases. Obviously the example was simplified, and it doesn't happen like that in real life.
I'm going to assume that you've had enough schooling to know how laws comes into form.

There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.

Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws?  Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.

Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.

No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.

[benjamindees]

Don't forget Maritime/Admiralty Law, Equity Law, Commercial Law, Contract Law, Employment Law, Civil Law, Natural Law, and Family Law.

[MoonShadow]

And merchant law.

[BCEmporium]

...and the laws of physics... 

[JA37]

There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.

Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws?  Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.

Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.

No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.

Yes, please try to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm sure we're all helped by that.
Why not try to define what "is" is while we're at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[wb3]

There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.

Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws?  Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.

Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.

No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.

Yes, please try to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm sure we're all helped by that.
Why not try to define what "is" is while we're at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

No problem,

It is what it is   

[benjamindees]

And Brannigan's Law.

[NghtRppr]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature and we all have to decide what we are going to do tonight. I want to watch Republican Party Reservation. They want to fuck me with switchblades and sexual organs I never knew existed. So I vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck me with switchblades. People have the right to do this?

No. You can't put a rape to a vote. Don't be silly.

Why not? You are agreeing to put theft to a vote. Please come up with some sort of principled argument instead of ad hoc assertions. Why is one immoral act up for vote but not another?

[BCEmporium]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature...

No need to say more! Bough! Just tell me where is that village and I'm moving! 

[rezin777]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature...

No need to say more! Bough! Just tell me where is that village and I'm moving! 

I'll pay for gas on the way!   

[wb3]

Vegas ...  Here we come....


Viva Los Vegas....

[JA37]

Why not? You are agreeing to put theft to a vote. Please come up with some sort of principled argument instead of ad hoc assertions. Why is one immoral act up for vote but not another?

Except that it isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered.

I quite enjoy Article 3 of the UN declaration of human rights.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[bittersweet]

Except that it isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered.

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

[JA37]

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

[Gluskab]

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

The citizens of a country cannot confer a right to their government that an individual citizen does not have themselves.  If an ordinary individual walked through a suburb at night, washed everyone’s cars, and left a bill attached to the windshield, would the owners of the cars be obligated to pay the charges billed?  As there was no meeting of the minds here, there is no contract and no obligation to pay for services rendered; and since no individual has the right to force these bills upon any other individual, individuals who have costumes and work for the government are under no exception.

One final effort at claiming you need taxes to have a functioning society is that there are certain activities which have positive externalities.  The argument is that if someone benefits from something without paying for it, they're a thief.  The most common example provided is usually either education or parks, but if you take this argument to its logical endpoint, you can see it doesn't hold up.  For example, the people I interact with on a day to day basis benefit from the fact that I shower every morning, but would I be able to lay a claim on those people since they received a benefit from something I provided?  Benefit does not equate debt, and you cannot force a service or good upon someone and force them to pay you what you tell them it is worth.

You cannot steal from someone, tell them they're better off because of it, and claim legitimacy because you can see a benefit to the 'service' you provided.  It's also ridiculous to say someone gives consent by using services that a.) are paid for with money stolen from them and b.) have no viable alternative because government granted themselves a monopoly.  Once money is stolen, it lies in a state of nature, and no one should be begrudged for trying to take back what little portion they will be able to get of what was wrongfully taken from them in the first place.

[The Script]

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

The citizens of a country cannot confer a right to their government that an individual citizen does not have themselves.  If an ordinary individual walked through a suburb at night, washed everyone’s cars, and left a bill attached to the windshield, would the owners of the cars be obligated to pay the charges billed?  As there was no meeting of the minds here, there is no contract and no obligation to pay for services rendered; and since no individual has the right to force these bills upon any other individual, individuals who have costumes and work for the government are under no exception.

One final effort at claiming you need taxes to have a functioning society is that there are certain activities which have positive externalities.  The argument is that if someone benefits from something without paying for it, they're a thief.  The most common example provided is usually either education or parks, but if you take this argument to its logical endpoint, you can see it doesn't hold up.  For example, the people I interact with on a day to day basis benefit from the fact that I shower every morning, but would I be able to lay a claim on those people since they received a benefit from something I provided?  Benefit does not equate debt, and you cannot force a service or good upon someone and force them to pay you what you tell them it is worth.

You cannot steal from someone, tell them they're better off because of it, and claim legitimacy because you can see a benefit to the 'service' you provided.  It's also ridiculous to say someone gives consent by using services that a.) are paid for with money stolen from them and b.) have no viable alternative because government granted themselves a monopoly.  Once money is stolen, it lies in a state of nature, and no one should be begrudged for trying to take back what little portion they will be able to get of what was wrongfully taken from them in the first place.

I was just debating this with a friend the other day.  I was criticizing government and advocating abstention from the political process rather than trying to change it from within.  My friend accused me of being a hypocrite because I am currently working at a University to pay my way through Grad School, and thus am the beneficiary of government grants.  I can see his point, but at the same time there's not much choice for education with the virtual government monopoly on higher education, and as you stated, if it's stolen money is it really wrong to try to get it back? 

I certainly don't plan on making a career out of government leeching, however.  I plan on finding employment in the private sector, and hopefully at some point will be able to start my own company or consulting firm.

[BCEmporium]

Well, if you put to concept "leeching government's money" is what "Anarcho-Socialists" are dreaming of.

If you remove the crap, and scratch it well, out of anarchists you come to realize they're as different as water from wine by whatever is in front of the hyphen.

Anarcho-Capitalists:

The ones that believe on the worth of working. However they tend to overrate their own work and underrate others'.
They go pretty well with rules, actually, as long as they are the ones dictating it there is.
Have a somewhat obnoxious point of view on the humanity levels also, as they would do anything to not aid anyone (even if the poor bastard has no arms and legs).

Anarcho-Socialists:

The good for nothing folks waiting and wanting to live at someone else's expenses. Just a bunch of social leeches. They dream of a society where they can pick whatever they want for free... nothing else.
They don't get along with rules, as they just follow what suits them and such "as we go" rules keeps changing.
Have however a better humanity level, would aid anyone (or ask/force someone else - more likely - to aid someone in need).

[BitterTea]

Well, if you put to concept "leeching government's money" is what "Anarcho-Socialists" are dreaming of.

If you remove the crap, and scratch it well, out of anarchists you come to realize they're as different as water from wine by whatever is in front of the hyphen.

Anarcho-Capitalists:

The ones that believe on the worth of working. However they tend to overrate their own work and underrate others'.
They go pretty well with rules, actually, as long as they are the ones dictating it there is.
Have a somewhat obnoxious point of view on the humanity levels also, as they would do anything to not aid anyone (even if the poor bastard has no arms and legs).

Anarcho-Socialists:

The good for nothing folks waiting and wanting to live at someone else's expenses. Just a bunch of social leeches. They dream of a society where they can pick whatever they want for free... nothing else.
They don't get along with rules, as they just follow what suits them and such "as we go" rules keeps changing.
Have however a better humanity level, would aid anyone (or ask/force someone else - more likely - to aid someone in need).

Who needs facts or logic when you have grand generalizations?!