Counter to "Why Bitcoin is dropping ...buying." AMA format / doomsday debunked

[dinofelis]

You don't go to jail for not paying your taxes. You go to jail for failure to file your tax return, for lying on your forms, etc.

How's that ?  If you file an honest tax declaration, but you don't pay, you don't go to jail ??

[NotLambchop]

No.  France has never agreed to you your living there without paying taxes.

The point is that if you live on taxpayer's money, you don't ACTUALLY pay taxes...

Not even wrong.  If you work for me, draw pay, and return all of that pay in exchange for rent on the house (that you also rent from me), can you say that you're not getting paid?
If this is difficult for you to grasp, try not paying taxes on what you earn to understand why.

If you were born at my house, would you feel entitled to live at my house for the rest of your life?  Do you feel that you have a right to live in the maternity ward of the hospital where you were born for free?  How is that different from living in France without paying for it?

That's infrastructure, right ?

It's infrastructure, the land beneath it, the services provided, whole package.  Like living in a country.

Then owning a piece of land is a crime against nature.  It is as repugnant as owning the air above that land.  In short, GET OFF MY LAWN, capitalist imperialist running dog pig

Indeed, owning land is an aberration. [snip] This makes that the state gets an income based upon the bids for natural resources, and no taxation is necessary.  The state has to handle its stuff with its income.

So the state owns the land?  Good.  Finally getting somewhere.
You have no right to dictate to the state what it does with its property.  Get off my lawn

[Elwar]

The US government gets to determine what the laws mean because they have a lot of guns and military power.

The income tax is allowed in its current form simply for the shitty reason that it has been that way long enough so they use that excuse to make it legal.

Like if it was found out that using eminent domain to create military bases was against the 3rd Amendment, just nobody really thought about it until now, it would be de facto legal because of precedent.

There is no point in arguing with an entity with a lot more power than you that they should have less power. You will never win that argument.

[NotLambchop]

...
There is no real arguing with an entity with a lot more power than you that they should have less power. You will never win that argument.

Yup.  Might makes right.  Which doesn't stop keyboard revolutionaries from grumbling.

[B.A.S.]

You don't go to jail for not paying your taxes. You go to jail for failure to file your tax return, for lying on your forms, etc.

How's that ?  If you file an honest tax declaration, but you don't pay, you don't go to jail ??

Generally, penalties/fees/interest are amassed on the amount you owe. Why would you honestly file and then refuse to pay?

The logic for criminal tax evasion and jail time has to do lying/failure to file. Tax evasion is punishable by jail time.

If you honestly file and can't pay, there are numbers of ways to go on payment plans, eventual consolidation, striking of deals if the amount is large enough, etc.

[Elwar]

...
There is no real arguing with an entity with a lot more power than you that they should have less power. You will never win that argument.

Yup.  Might makes right. 

This, survival of the fittest.

[dinofelis]

Not even wrong.  If you work for me, draw pay, and return all of that pay in exchange for rent on the house (that you also rent from me), can you say that you're not getting paid?

The point is that if you want to pay me for something, you want some PRODUCED VALUE in return.  If I am paid by the state, I don't have to produce any value (except on paper).  In your example, there are two free decisions between you and me:
- I work for you for a pay we agreed mutually on
- I rent your house for a rent that we agreed mutually on.

We can both NOT agree with any of these deals.

It's infrastructure, the land beneath it, the services provided, whole package.  Like living in a country.

Land is not infrastructure.  It is nature. The building is infrastructure.

So the state owns the land?  Good.  Finally getting somewhere.
You have no right to dictate to the state what it does with its property.  Get off my lawn

No, you didn't understand my proposal.  The state doesn't own the land, in the sense that "ownerless land" is public land on which anybody can do anything, and there is NO right of exclusivity.  Which makes it unproper for building investments on it, as one cannot enforce exclusivity on that land, and hence on those buildings.  Un-owned land, being public, can be used by me to build a house on, but tomorrow you can come there in the house I build, and I cannot invoke any exclusivity and require the state to force anybody OFF that land or out of that house.

However, the state receives the income of the bid for the right of exclusivity during a certain lapse of time (50 years, 20 years... whatever is the bid).  In return, the state will enforce the exclusivity during that lapse of time.  In other words, the bid goes over the right to require from the state to enforce exclusivity.

This should be the sole income of the state, and with that, the state does as it pleases.

[dinofelis]

Yup.  Might makes right.  Which doesn't stop keyboard revolutionaries from grumbling.

Because there is a difference between undergoing might, and cheering for it !

[dinofelis]

Why would you honestly file and then refuse to pay?

Because visibly, I can be (if in the US) punished if I am dishonest on the filing, but I cannot be forced to pay, according to what you say !

So, logically, according to what you say, if I file my declaration honestly, I cannot be punished for a false declaration, but if I don't pay, the state cannot put me to jail (using force to collect taxes?).

[NotLambchop]

Not even wrong.  If you work for me, draw pay, and return all of that pay in exchange for rent on the house (that you also rent from me), can you say that you're not getting paid?

The point is that if you want to pay me for something, you want some PRODUCED VALUE in return.  If I am paid by the state, I don't have to produce any value (except on paper).

The state expects value in return for pay, that should be obvious.  If you knowingly fail to provide value, you are a crook.  Stop stealing taxpayer's money, dinofelis.

It's infrastructure, the land beneath it, the services provided, whole package.  Like living in a country.

Land is not infrastructure.  It is nature. The building is infrastructure.

You are paying the property owner for the right to be on that land.  A right that he, in turn, has paid the state for, as you've suggested.

So the state owns the land?  Good.  Finally getting somewhere.
You have no right to dictate to the state what it does with its property.  Get off my lawn

No, you didn't understand my proposal.  The state doesn't own the land, in the sense that "ownerless land" is public land on which anybody can do anything, and there is NO right of exclusivity.  Which makes it unproper for building investments on it, as one cannot enforce exclusivity on that land, and hence on those buildings.  Un-owned land, being public, can be used by me to build a house on, but tomorrow you can come there in the house I build, and I cannot invoke any exclusivity and require the state to force anybody OFF that land or out of that house.

However, the state receives the income of the bid for the right of exclusivity during a certain lapse of time (50 years, 20 years... whatever is the bid).  In return, the state will enforce the exclusivity during that lapse of time.  In other words, the bid goes over the right to require from the state to enforce exclusivity.

This should be the sole income of the state, and with that, the state does as it pleases.

If the state doesn't own the land, what right does it have to "enforce exclusivity"?
Curiouser and curiouser...

[NotLambchop]

Yup.  Might makes right.  Which doesn't stop keyboard revolutionaries from grumbling.

Because there is a difference between undergoing might, and cheering for it !

I'm not cheering for it any more than I cheer gravity--it simply is

[dinofelis]

If the state doesn't own the land, what right does it have to "enforce exclusivity"?
Curiouser and curiouser...

Because the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).  Its business is violence.  It should remain with its business.

[dinofelis]

I'm not cheering for it any more than I cheer gravity--it simply is

You ARE cheering for it.
You ARE thinking up reasons why people SHOULD pay taxes (not why they have to pay taxes, namely that otherwise they get in big big trouble).

I'm back to my initial comparison between the state requiring taxes, and maffia thugs requiring you to pay them "for protection".

You do have more "feelings of duty" for the former than the latter, don't you ?  You do not have the same attitude towards both of them, don't you ?

So you are relatively cheering for taxes.

[NotLambchop]

Why would you honestly file and then refuse to pay?

Because visibly, I can be (if in the US) punished if I am dishonest on the filing, but I cannot be forced to pay, according to what you say !

So, logically, according to what you say, if I file my declaration honestly, I cannot be punished for a false declaration, but if I don't pay, the state cannot put me to jail (using force to collect taxes?).

If you really want to be nerdy about it, filing your taxes constitutes a contract to pay them.  If you are financially capable of honoring the contract, but fail to do so, jackbooted thugs will drive you around in a partyvan & put you in jail.  Gratis.

[dinofelis]

If you really want to be nerdy about it, filing your taxes constitutes a contract to pay them.  If you are financially capable of honoring the contract, but fail to do so, jackbooted thugs will drive you around in a partyvan & put you in jail.  Gratis.

Is that not "enforcing the collection of taxes" ?

[B.A.S.]

If you really want to be nerdy about it, filing your taxes constitutes a contract to pay them.  If you are financially capable of honoring the contract, but fail to do so, jackbooted thugs will drive you around in a partyvan & put you in jail.  Gratis.

Is that not "enforcing the collection of taxes" ?

It is, but the government itself was not responsible for that force so no laws need to be on the books. That's the ticket! Shirking responsibility since 1776. This is how the US gets around a lot of shit like this: third-party van parties.

[NotLambchop]

>the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).
No.  Or, rather, not by any sane definition.

>you are relatively cheering for taxes.
No.  I am pointing out that your arguments are intrinsically flawed.

[dinofelis]

>the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).
No.  Or, rather, not by any sane definition.

It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

>you are relatively cheering for taxes.
No.  I am pointing out that your arguments are intrinsically flawed.

Not by any logic.

[NotLambchop]

>the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).
No.  Or, rather, not by any sane definition.

It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Lol, that's Max Weber's  definition of "Monopoly on violence."  For the definition of "state," start with disambiguation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State
It is you who wished to grant the state such monopoly--to enforce your exclusive right to land that was neither yours nor the state's.

>you are relatively cheering for taxes.
No.  I am pointing out that your arguments are intrinsically flawed.

Not by any logic.

I'm afraid we've reached an impasse.  You continue insisting that you're a little tea pot, short and stout, even after I've pointed out you have neither a handle nor a spout

[dinofelis]

>the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).
No.  Or, rather, not by any sane definition.

It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Lol, that's Max Weber's  definition of "Monopoly on violence."  

Again, your logic fails on you.  Your claim was that the statement "the state is the violence monopolist" is NOT "any sane definition".

I gave you one:

Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory.

Now, this is the definition of a state as the violence monopolist by Weber in 1919.  I can presume that if that definition is taken over on wiki about 100 years later, it must have some elements of sanity to it.

By which your statement that no such sane definition exists, is contradicted.  QED.

BTW, don't try to take me on logic.  I have a very high degree of Spock in me :-)