Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

[myrkul]

Read the first page and its factually wrong.  The Beveridge Report was commissioned because people in the UK were not getting adequate health care.  Since the NHS was created, everyone has had health care that is free at the point of delivery and that is paid for through the tax system.

Well, I looked up the Beveridge Report, and I 1) did not find any references to it in the article, and 2) found scant information on Wikipedia, and none linking it to the information in the article. Some explanation would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge#Report_on_social_insurance

Essentially they found that a more efficient system would make the Brits more prosperous.

Again, no indication that the report found that Lodge practice was inefficient, or ineffective, just socialist rhetoric.

So some explanation of how it relates to the article I posted would really be appreciated.

[Hawker]

Read the first page and its factually wrong.  The Beveridge Report was commissioned because people in the UK were not getting adequate health care.  Since the NHS was created, everyone has had health care that is free at the point of delivery and that is paid for through the tax system.

Well, I looked up the Beveridge Report, and I 1) did not find any references to it in the article, and 2) found scant information on Wikipedia, and none linking it to the information in the article. Some explanation would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge#Report_on_social_insurance

Essentially they found that a more efficient system would make the Brits more prosperous.

Again, no indication that the report found that Lodge practice was inefficient, or ineffective, just socialist rhetoric.

So some explanation of how it relates to the article I posted would really be appreciated.

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

[myrkul]

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

Translation: I don't feel like giving a reason why your article is wrong, it just is.

Sounds like we are indeed repeating the NAP thread. Specifically, the part where you could not explain why sometimes, a behavior is reason to violate someone's property rights, and sometimes it is not.

[Hawker]

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

Translation: I don't feel like giving a reason why your article is wrong, it just is.

Sounds like we are indeed repeating the NAP thread. Specifically, the part where you could not explain why sometimes, a behavior is reason to violate someone's property rights, and sometimes it is not.

Property rights are no different to the right to universal health care. 

[myrkul]

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

Translation: I don't feel like giving a reason why your article is wrong, it just is.

Sounds like we are indeed repeating the NAP thread. Specifically, the part where you could not explain why sometimes, a behavior is reason to violate someone's property rights, and sometimes it is not.

Property rights are no different to the right to universal health care. 

Wrong. Property rights are the right not to be told what or what not to do with your body, your land or your money.

The "right" to universal healthcare is the right to have healthcare, at the expense of everyone else.

[Hawker]

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

Translation: I don't feel like giving a reason why your article is wrong, it just is.

Sounds like we are indeed repeating the NAP thread. Specifically, the part where you could not explain why sometimes, a behavior is reason to violate someone's property rights, and sometimes it is not.

Property rights are no different to the right to universal health care. 

Wrong. Property rights are the right not to be told what or what not to do with your body, your land or your money.

The "right" to universal healthcare is the right to have healthcare, at the expense of everyone else.

All that says is that you like one more than the other. 

[myrkul]

No - its redundant as we risk repeating the NAP thread. 

Translation: I don't feel like giving a reason why your article is wrong, it just is.

Sounds like we are indeed repeating the NAP thread. Specifically, the part where you could not explain why sometimes, a behavior is reason to violate someone's property rights, and sometimes it is not.

Property rights are no different to the right to universal health care. 

Wrong. Property rights are the right not to be told what or what not to do with your body, your land or your money.

The "right" to universal healthcare is the right to have healthcare, at the expense of everyone else.

All that says is that you like one more than the other. 

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

[Hawker]

...snip...

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

And we are back to natural law arguments.  Which are in a parallel thread.  Why not address them there?

[myrkul]

...snip...

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

And we are back to natural law arguments.  Which are in a parallel thread.  Why not address them there?

Because inevitably, it gets down to this root level. No matter where we discuss it, you're going to say that some magic piece of paper gives you the ability to force your decisions on me, and me the ability to force my decisions on you, while I say that there is no such right, and we should both leave each other the fuck alone. I have an opinion that I have a negative right to be left the fuck alone, and you have an opinion that you have a positive right to not leave me the fuck alone. There's gonna be conflict there.

[adamas]

I wonder if the thread starter is a tax office investigator?

[Hawker]

...snip...

No, one is negative, the other positive. negative rights can be had by all, without infringing upon another. positive rights do not always meet this criteria.

And we are back to natural law arguments.  Which are in a parallel thread.  Why not address them there?

Because inevitably, it gets down to this root level. No matter where we discuss it, you're going to say that some magic piece of paper gives you the ability to force your decisions on me, and me the ability to force my decisions on you, while I say that there is no such right, and we should both leave each other the fuck alone. I have an opinion that I have a negative right to be left the fuck alone, and you have an opinion that you have a positive right to not leave me the fuck alone. There's gonna be conflict there.

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

[myrkul]

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

Simple answer: leave each other the fuck alone.

[Hawker]

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

Simple answer: leave each other the fuck alone.

Not possible.  If I want a road and you don't and it runs across your land, you can be causing me a problem.  I have to deal with that problem that you have imposed on me. 

[myrkul]

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

Simple answer: leave each other the fuck alone.

Not possible.  If I want a road and you don't and it runs across your land, you can be causing me a problem.  I have to deal with that problem that you have imposed on me. 

On the contrary, you want to impose upon me. If you want a road, and I don't, build it around my land, or buy my land out. If I won't sell for less than it would cost to build around, well, then that's your choice, isn't it? build around, spend enough money to get me to sell.

[Hawker]

Exactly. So any political system needs a way to resolve these disputes or we will end up needing to kill one another.

Simple answer: leave each other the fuck alone.

Not possible.  If I want a road and you don't and it runs across your land, you can be causing me a problem.  I have to deal with that problem that you have imposed on me. 

On the contrary, you want to impose upon me. If you want a road, and I don't, build it around my land, or buy my land out. If I won't sell for less than it would cost to build around, well, then that's your choice, isn't it? build around, spend enough money to get me to sell.

Again that costs me money.   Sitting at home suffering the loss you are imposing on me is not an option.  If we can't agree on this, we need a peaceful way to resolve it.  Or else we have to kill one another.

[myrkul]

Again that costs me money.   Sitting at home suffering the loss you are imposing on me is not an option.  If we can't agree on this, we need a peaceful way to resolve it.  Or else we have to kill one another.

Well, economic decision time. Which is more costly:

Building around my land,

Buying my land so that you can build straight, or

Kicking me off the land by force?

Think carefully, before you answer, the result may not be as clear cut as it seems.

[Hawker]

Again that costs me money.   Sitting at home suffering the loss you are imposing on me is not an option.  If we can't agree on this, we need a peaceful way to resolve it.  Or else we have to kill one another.

Well, economic decision time. Which is more costly:

Building around my land,

Buying my land so that you can build straight, or

Kicking me off the land by force?

Think carefully, before you answer, the result may not be as clear cut as it seems.

Lets assume its not 2 people but 2 million people.  1.9 million want the road and 100k don't.  We need a way to resolve the dispute that scales to millions of people.

[myrkul]

Lets assume its not 2 people but 2 million people.  1.9 million want the road and 100k don't.  We need a way to resolve the dispute that scales to millions of people.

Leaving each other the fuck alone scales beautifully all the way up to infinity.

[Hawker]

Lets assume its not 2 people but 2 million people.  1.9 million want the road and 100k don't.  We need a way to resolve the dispute that scales to millions of people.

Leaving each other the fuck alone scales beautifully all the way up to infinity.

So the 100,000 don't stop the road being built.  Great - I love your idealism.

[myrkul]

Lets assume its not 2 people but 2 million people.  1.9 million want the road and 100k don't.  We need a way to resolve the dispute that scales to millions of people.

Leaving each other the fuck alone scales beautifully all the way up to infinity.

So the 100,000 don't stop the road being built.  Great - I love your idealism.

No, of course not. If the 1.9 million want a road, they can build it on their land. Surely they have enough.