Defending Capitalism

[BitterTea]

Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression?

The two are not the same. No entity other than the state can force you to pay for its services, even if you don't want them. In fact, the state can force you to pay for its services even if you don't use them.

I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway.

But you think the state should be allowed to initiate violence. That's what forcing someone to pay for a service they neither want nor use is.

[NghtRppr]

New law, applies to those who buys such a house AFTER the law came into effect. Those who buys a house after that can't complain.

You claimed that after birth I had a period of time to decide if I wanted to be a victim of taxation and if I didn't like it I'm free to leave the country. Now I'm claiming that after you move into your house you have a period of time to decide if you want to be a victim of house waving service and if you don't like it you're free to leave the country. Where's the difference?

[Gluskab]

Laws aren't retroactive.

What world do you live in?  Not only is this not true on paper in some very egregious accounts (and yes, eminent domain does count.  Theft is theft), but it's true in effect so many more times over when there are so many laws that cover every single possible human action that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, and there is no way for them to avoid this or even know exactly what laws they are breaking in the first place; there's just too many of them..

Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression?

Services are voluntary, not forced upon you.  Perceived benefit does not equal debt.  Taxation BY DEFINITION is agression.  Any definition of taxation that ignores the compulsory aspect is intellectually dishonest.

I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway.

There are a lot of things wrong with this assertion.  The first is that you can use violence to fund protection from violence.  The second is the myth that the police are there to protect you (Hint:  They're there to collect revenue and fill out crime reports, after the fact).  The third is that if you're saying (which it seems like you are) that you don't have a right to defend yourself against aggression, then the police don't either because you cannot confer onto a third party a right which you do not possess yourself.

[BCEmporium]

What the fuck are you on man? Can you make a single coherent point?

Tired to go around and end up in the same place. What coherent point? Do ANY of your so called anarchists believe to make a point on anything up to so far? If so... you're high!
All you keep going around is that taxes is paying for "unwanted services", looks like the "tax evasion joblot" complaining. Go complaint on the IRS!
Then sort out a sort of hippie tax-free society, anarchy with rules and all load of baloney one can buy. Makes it hard to take you serious!

[JA37]

You claimed that after birth I had a period of time to decide if I wanted to be a victim of taxation and if I didn't like it I'm free to leave the country. Now I'm claiming that after you move into your house you have a period of time to decide if you want to be a victim of house waving service and if you don't like it you're free to leave the country. Where's the difference?

The fact that the laws were in effect before you were born, decided by those who lived before you.
If you can convince enough people that your service somehow benefits society and make this into law it still wouldn't apply retroactivly.

There's the difference.

[benjamindees]

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

[JA37]

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

[BitterTea]

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

[NghtRppr]

You claimed that after birth I had a period of time to decide if I wanted to be a victim of taxation and if I didn't like it I'm free to leave the country. Now I'm claiming that after you move into your house you have a period of time to decide if you want to be a victim of house waving service and if you don't like it you're free to leave the country. Where's the difference?

The fact that the laws were in effect before you were born, decided by those who lived before you.
If you can convince enough people that your service somehow benefits society and make this into law it still wouldn't apply retroactivly.

There's the difference.

That's nonsense. Being born doesn't imply consent. You yourself said that it's only after we are born that we are given the real chance to opt out, by leaving the country. So I am posing it to you in the same way but you reject it. You're being inconsistent.

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

The law applies to only you and 99 other people, no matter what house you buy. If you don't like it, don't buy a house.

[BCEmporium]

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

Stop being a lunatic! Fuck! Enough is enough! If enough people (and even fewer than it would take within a voting round) within your "pathetic anarchy" decides to take 50, or even 100% of your income they will simply do it. Don't like? Too bad! They're more than you, stronger as such and you're not superman!

Stop roaming around the very same pathetic arguments as if you have any shade of reasoning!

[NghtRppr]

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

Stop being a lunatic! Fuck! Enough is enough! If enough people (and even fewer than it would take within a voting round) within your "pathetic anarchy" decides to take 50, or even 100% of your income they will simply do it. Don't like? Too bad! They're more than you, stronger as such and you're not superman!

Stop roaming around the very same pathetic arguments as if you have any shade of reasoning!

You're missing the point. If the strong decide to dominate the weak, it will happen. There's no illusion about that. However, your system not only allows for it but it also says that it's LEGITIMATE. That's the key difference.

[Gluskab]

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

Stop being a lunatic! Fuck! Enough is enough! If enough people (and even fewer than it would take within a voting round) within your "pathetic anarchy" decides to take 50, or even 100% of your income they will simply do it. Don't like? Too bad! They're more than you, stronger as such and you're not superman!

Stop roaming around the very same pathetic arguments as if you have any shade of reasoning!

Well, now you're starting to be honest.

Why do you think I said I pay my taxes every year?  It wasn't because I'm on board with them philosophically.

[BCEmporium]

In Democracy there's one rule that makes it LEGIT; nobody will ever vote for YOUR life (or at least targeting directly and only your life), reciprocity means that all votes for subjects related to all and are affected by the outcome of the ballots equally.
So if people come to vote to take out 50% of your income, then 50% of their income is at stake either.
As if people votes that rape is ok, they will be raped too... and so on.

[NghtRppr]

So if people come to vote to take out 50% of your income, then 50% of their income is at stake either.

Unfortunately, that's not true. The more money you make, the more percentage of your income is taken. There are different laws for different groups.

Also, even if everyone paid the same percentage of their income, it's still unfair (not to mention stealing) because 10% of nothing is nothing but 10% of a billion dollars is quite a bit. We should all pay the same amount of money, say $50, assuming we agree to pay taxes in the first place, which I do not.

[JA37]

That's nonsense. Being born doesn't imply consent. You yourself said that it's only after we are born that we are given the real chance to opt out, by leaving the country. So I am posing it to you in the same way but you reject it. You're being inconsistent.


The law applies to only you and 99 other people, no matter what house you buy. If you don't like it, don't buy a house.

Well, you could try to change the law. You just need to get enough people to see things your way. No need to leave if you can do that.  And being born doesn't imply consent. Using services that you know the cost for does. And some services are bundled.
I don't see how I'm being inconsistant. Please explain again.

If the law targets me specifically it's arbitrary. If by some chance it would apply to me and 99 others because of something we do or have, then, it would suck to be us.

[benjamindees]

It applies to everyone who tries to philosophically justify stupid laws.  Looks like that's you.

[Gluskab]

In Democracy there's one rule that makes it LEGIT; nobody will ever vote for YOUR life (or at least targeting directly and only your life), reciprocity means that all votes for subjects related to all and are affected by the outcome of the ballots equally.
So if people come to vote to take out 50% of your income, then 50% of their income is at stake either.
As if people votes that rape is ok, they will be raped too... and so on.

Difference in degree, not difference in kind.

Murdering someone is taking away every hour of time they had left alive.

Stealing 50% of their income is taking away 50% of the time they perform certain duties.

Putting other restrictions on his movement and liberty will also steal part of his time and his ability to enjoy the remaining time that is his.

All of these are differences in degree as all of them implicitly lay ownership claim on that person's life; it just so happens that the three decisions take a different proportion.

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

[Gluskab]

Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

[BCEmporium]

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

Morality is the highest of relative values. If by any reason a society believes to rape is ok, then it's not immoral there. Might be hard is to find rational reasons for such for any one pushing for it.

@bitcoin2cash

That "feature" you're stating is part of the Socialism... for the sake of justice and taken taxes are percentages they should be flat rates, so everybody would pay according to his income. Socialists however think otherwise, but not a Democracy's fault.

[Gluskab]

Morality is not relative.

If this applies to a group of millions, it applies to a group of three.

Any two guys cannot corner a girl, gang-rape her and slit her throat and claim they were morally justified because they held a majority.

In your POV, the holocaust was just because 'a society' allowed it to happen.

You own your actions as well as your body and your property.