Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 04:47:07 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?
Yes, even w/o risks - 35 (38.5%)
Depends on the risks - 22 (24.2%)
No, even w/ risks - 34 (37.4%)
Total Voters: 91

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?  (Read 10118 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:13:46 PM
 #221

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?

They have to treat you. It does not have to be free. Also, you never answered this:

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.

Even if he tells you to get fucked?

I am in court Tuesday and the whole litigation thing is just part of what you do in the business world.  If you win, you win.  If not, you move on.  In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  I'd be buying land around the the motorway exits like a mofo.

On the big question, if you are broke and entitled to free medical care, damn right I want insurance to be compulsory and collected through the tax system.  Free-loaders can cry all they want.

EDIT for clarity: if a man with a gun or a jail where you risk rape is what it takes you make you pay for your own medical care, then so be it.  I'm taxed enough already.


1480740427
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740427

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740427
Reply with quote  #2

1480740427
Report to moderator
1480740427
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480740427

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480740427
Reply with quote  #2

1480740427
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
 #222

FACT: I have an untreated inguinal hernia. I went into the hospital and they didn't treat it saying "its not an emergency until its strangulated, so we can't do anything."

Same situation. Kinda weird, but probably not statistically significant.

But yeah. The law only says they can't refuse treatment in an emergency. Not that they can't bill ya.

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?  

EDIT for clarity: if the answer is no, then I'm with cryptoanarchist and its outrageous to make insurance compulsory.  But I know a flaky fucker who says he gets free care.

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
 #223

...snip...

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.

But if you are an illegal and leave the country or just a bloody deadbeat, I'm stuck with the bill you neglected to pay. 

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2012, 07:20:47 PM
 #224

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.

Remember:
The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Hence, he would tell you to get fucked.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
 #225

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.
..snip...

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  I will buy land around the proposed motorway exits.  The objector is interfering with my use of my land and will lose.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.  You've convinced me that your idea would work for me Smiley  Your recommendation of "The Machinery of Freedom" was a master-stroke.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2012, 07:28:58 PM
 #226

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.
..snip...

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.

Your logic baffles me.... But I guess I'll accept a win. I take it to mean you will now support the Non-Agression Principle, and a market-based society?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:32:57 PM
 #227

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.
..snip...

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.

Your logic baffles me.... But I guess I'll accept a win. I take it to mean you will now support the Non-Agression Principle, and a market-based society?

Yes I'm happy that for people with money, things will be fine.  For some reason, I've always been one of them so its going to be OK for me. 

On the other hand, you will be miserable.  The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream.  My bet is that you will be agitating for a written constitution with guaranteed property rights.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2012, 07:36:33 PM
 #228

The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream. 

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Which is correct?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:43:21 PM
 #229

The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream. 

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Which is correct?

Both.  Its an anarchy.  There are no fixed property rights or indeed any rights at all.  Its all market law as set out in "The Machinery of Freedom."  If you are on a patch of land and doing something that affects my land, you are interfering with my property without my consent. For example, if a road will raise the value of my land and you are stopping the road, you are interfering with my property without my consent.

If there are 2 million people like me and one of you, then you are interfering with 2 million people's property without their consent.  Its arbitration or die.  To be honest, you are lucky we are willing to go to arbitration.  Who do you think you are?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2012, 07:48:09 PM
 #230

If you are on a patch of land and doing something that affects my land, you are interfering with my property without my consent. For example, if a road will raise the value of my land and you are stopping the road, you are interfering with my property without my consent.

I am not stopping the road. Roads can curve. The minute the road hits my property, however, then you are doing something that affects my land. Build around.

Or, take me to arbitration, and get told, not only to get fucked, but to pay me for my time, and cover all the arbitration costs.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:50:23 PM
 #231

...snip...

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.

But if you are an illegal and leave the country or just a bloody deadbeat, I'm stuck with the bill you neglected to pay. 

How many times are you going to make this incorrect ASSumption? No, you don't. The taxpayers have never paid for my shoulder replacement, the hospital just went unpaid. (The way they did it was fucked up and I refuse to pay them.)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:51:15 PM
 #232

If you are on a patch of land and doing something that affects my land, you are interfering with my property without my consent. For example, if a road will raise the value of my land and you are stopping the road, you are interfering with my property without my consent.

I am not stopping the road. Roads can curve. The minute the road hits my property, however, then you are doing something that affects my land. Build around.

Or, take me to arbitration, and get told, not only to get fucked, but to pay me for my time, and cover all the arbitration costs.

You are deluding yourself if you think that the arbitration will allow 1 person to damage 2 million people.  But whatever..the important thing is that we are willing to allow you to go to arbitration instead of just killing you.  Be grateful and be ready to pay our fees.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:53:45 PM
 #233

...snip...

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.

But if you are an illegal and leave the country or just a bloody deadbeat, I'm stuck with the bill you neglected to pay.  

How many times are you going to make this incorrect ASSumption? No, you don't. The taxpayers have never paid for my shoulder replacement, the hospital just went unpaid. (The way they did it was fucked up and I refuse to pay them.)

I provided a source when you asked.  Now its your turn.  Please show me where it says that neither the hospital itself or the taxpayer has to pay if you fail to pay.  If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill and that is free-loading.

EDIT for clarity: I am ready to agree with you that compulsory insurance is a disgrace.  I just want to know that decent people are not being shafted.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2012, 07:56:15 PM
 #234

You are deluding yourself if you think that the arbitration will allow 1 person to damage 2 million people.  But whatever..the important thing is that we are willing to allow you to go to arbitration instead of just killing you.  Be grateful and be ready to pay our fees.

If I refuse to sell to you, am I damaging you?

I I refuse to speak with you, am I damaging you?

If I refuse to buy from you, am I damaging you?

No. I am not. You are not entitled to profit from my land without my permission. That's what this means:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Or by "my" in that sentence, were you only referring to yourself?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 07:57:40 PM
 #235


I provided a source when you asked.  Now its your turn.  Please show me where it says that neither the hospital itself or the taxpayer has to pay if you fail to pay.  If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill and that is free-loading.

EDIT for clarity: I am ready to agree with you that compulsory insurance is a disgrace.  I just want to know that decent people are not being shafted.

Finally! You made a point with "If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill"

You're right about that. Me not paying them forces them to charge more. They did a shitty job of replacing my shoulder into socket and didn't do as I asked. Their shitty customer service results in their loss of competitiveness. Others can choose to go to a different hospital or pay extra.

Not to mention the fact they overcharged me anyway: A shot of thorazine and two interns using straps to yank in back into socket is not worth $3000. The irony is that its government subsidizing healthcare that makes them charge that much in the first place.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 08:01:58 PM
 #236

You are deluding yourself if you think that the arbitration will allow 1 person to damage 2 million people.  But whatever..the important thing is that we are willing to allow you to go to arbitration instead of just killing you.  Be grateful and be ready to pay our fees.

If I refuse to sell to you, am I damaging you?

I I refuse to speak with you, am I damaging you?

If I refuse to buy from you, am I damaging you?

No. I am not. You are not entitled to profit from my land without my permission. That's what this means:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Or by "my" in that sentence, were you only referring to yourself?

I'm not sure why you are asking the same questions in different ways.  This is your idea - I got it from the book you recommended I take hours to read.  In "market law" if you are doing something that damaged me, we have to either have violence or go to arbitration.

If we have 2 million against 1, I assume you will choose arbitration.  Your protection agency is not suicidal.

The arbitrator is faced with 2 million people suffering a loss and 1 person that is standing in their way.  What way will he rule?  

I know already that the one person will lose.  So do you.  

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 08:03:35 PM
 #237

this is a good thread cause it allows those sitting on the fence of this issue to see how a statist has to run the argument in circles.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 08, 2012, 08:04:39 PM
 #238

I'm not sure why you are asking the same questions in different ways.  This is your idea - I got it from the book you recommended I take hours to read.  In "market law" if you are doing something that damaged me, we have to either have violence or go to arbitration.

You are certifiably insane. There can be no other explanation.

Riddle me this: If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 08:06:30 PM
 #239


I provided a source when you asked.  Now its your turn.  Please show me where it says that neither the hospital itself or the taxpayer has to pay if you fail to pay.  If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill and that is free-loading.

EDIT for clarity: I am ready to agree with you that compulsory insurance is a disgrace.  I just want to know that decent people are not being shafted.

Finally! You made a point with "If its the hospital, then the fee is just added to everyone else's bill"

You're right about that. Me not paying them forces them to charge more. They did a shitty job of replacing my shoulder into socket and didn't do as I asked. Their shitty customer service results in their loss of competitiveness. Others can choose to go to a different hospital or pay extra.

Not to mention the fact they overcharged me anyway: A shot of thorazine and two interns using straps to yank in back into socket is not worth $3000. The irony is that its government subsidizing healthcare that makes them charge that much in the first place.

That is fair.  You and I both choose a hospital.  They screw up with 1% of cases and you are the 1%.  Of course I and the other 99% pick up the cost.  Same thing happens in garages with car service.

But if  Stoner Stan shows up.  He needs care.  They do it as they are legally obliged to do.  Stoner Stan can't pay as he injected all his savings into his penis.

Now you and I are paying for Stoner Stan's care.  Fuck off.  He has to be told to pay his way.

cryptoanarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
July 08, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
 #240

I'm not sure why you are asking the same questions in different ways.  This is your idea - I got it from the book you recommended I take hours to read.  In "market law" if you are doing something that damaged me, we have to either have violence or go to arbitration.

You are certifiably insane.

Statism is the disease, insanity the symptom.

This guy explains it well:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 »  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!