Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

[cryptoanarchist]

...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]

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]

...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]

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?

[cryptoanarchist]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Hawker]

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]

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

[Hawker]

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?

You are deluding yourself.  Refusing to allow essential infrastructure is not the same as refusing to cheat in World of Warcraft.  

[Hawker]

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

Please do us both a favour.  Google ad hominem  It will save you so much typing.

[myrkul]

You are deluding yourself.  Refusing to allow essential infrastructure is not the same as refusing to cheat in World of Warcraft.  

Yes or no. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

[cryptoanarchist]

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.

That is the difference between a statist and an anarchist. You think people have to be forced to be charitable because you, yourself, are not.

Others are, and that is why even without a government mandate, a hospital will tend to those that are truly in a life or death emergency. I have no problem shouldering Stan's emergency at the hospital. Not if his life depended on it.

In a free market though, individual hospitals could all make their own calls, and even turn away people on the brink of death if they wanted. I don't think that would make them popular, but they would cater to assholes who had the same worries.

[Hawker]

You are deluding yourself.  Refusing to allow essential infrastructure is not the same as refusing to cheat in World of Warcraft.  

Yes or no. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

If you refuse to allow a road and I am depending on that road, then yes.  Whether or not you try to humour me by cheating on WoW is not really something that matters.  don't damage my property investments.

[cryptoanarchist]

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

Please do us both a favour.  Google ad hominem  It will save you so much typing.

I think you should, since you keep referring to it wrong. Ad hominem is "you're an asshole", NOT "statism is the disease". See how one is attacking a person, and one isn't?

[myrkul]

If you refuse to allow a road and I am depending on that road, then yes.  Whether or not you try to humour me by cheating on WoW is not really something that matters.  don't damage my property investments.

ONE WORD

Yes or No. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

[cryptoanarchist]

You are deluding yourself.  Refusing to allow essential infrastructure is not the same as refusing to cheat in World of Warcraft.  

Yes or no. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

If you refuse to allow a road and I am depending on that road, then yes.  Whether or not you try to humour me by cheating on WoW is not really something that matters.  don't damage my property investments.

You still didn't answer the question. YES or NO.

[Hawker]

..snip...

That is the difference between a statist and an anarchist. You think people have to be forced to be charitable because you, yourself, are not.

Others are, and that is why even without a government mandate, a hospital will tend to those that are truly in a life or death emergency. I have no problem shouldering Stan's emergency at the hospital. Not if his life depended on it.

...snip...

So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan.  And you and I have to pay for that.  You are happy to do so.  Hurray - you are a lovely person!  I'm not - fuck Stoner Stan's liberty the free-loading bastard buys insurance or he goes to jail.  If he can afford drugs, then I can't see why I must pay for his health care.

[Hawker]

You are deluding yourself.  Refusing to allow essential infrastructure is not the same as refusing to cheat in World of Warcraft.  

Yes or no. If I refuse to buy your product, am I damaging you?

If you refuse to allow a road and I am depending on that road, then yes.  Whether or not you try to humour me by cheating on WoW is not really something that matters.  don't damage my property investments.

You still didn't answer the question. YES or NO.

Wasting time on changing the subject is wasting time.  The important thing here is that the NAP works fine for eminent domain.  It also works fine for conscription.  I don't see what you are unhappy about.