"It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them)"
Who is not demanding a government? There needs to be a government to uphold the rights of the citizenry. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be funded by force.
"One has the same choices as anyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values."
That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade more and more members of the public to think likewise, to bring about elected officials that support rights.
"Or, you could fall in with the fringe tax protestor crowd that wants so badly to believe that they don't actually have to pay taxes"
The government does not have the right to tax anyone. It can put down in writing that it has such a right, but it does not make that right a reality. Nothing usurps human rights.
"maybe you could ask Wesley Snipes how that's going"
You've demeaned through association, but you have not refuted anything.
"And where does the money the public should be refunded come from?"
The equipment and infrastructure that were used to support the FCC should be sold off to the highest bidders, and that money should be used for compensation.
"Troll is also used to bury nonsense written by people who think they are saying something profound."
I don't think I'm saying anything profound. Rational, yes, but not profound. You've (implicitly) characterized my statements as nonsense - care to show why that characterization is accurate? Or should people just assume you're right?
"Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences... [snip]..."
Who said they don't? I am not for breaking the law. I'm for overturning it. That can only be done by changing the minds of the public - the whole purpose behind my involvement in discussions like this.
"It's not property. It's information."
It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to spread private information that was taken by force.
"For example: forcing pharmaceuticals to tell you side effects of their medication, or truth in advertising laws."
As I said, if something is withheld, and it negatively impacts you, you can take them to court. I covered that in my first post. Just because preemptively forcing someone to do something is more convenient than suing them after the fact, that doesn't make it right.
Modded troll? I thought that was only for people who stated opinions they didn't actually believe in order to rile people up. I back what I am saying 100%.
Maybe it's just accepted practice to mod people down who you are too mentally incompetent to refute.
The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right? This is basically the majority imposing on the minority.
"Why destroy the information? It's been collected, money's been spent, so why not use it?"
It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.
"But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people."
Let's follow the logic. The government demands people give up money. People give into those demands (some willingly, others not). They use the money to demand companies give up information. The companies give into the demand and give up the information. So the information rightfully belongs to the people?
No, it rightfully belongs to the companies. The government should give back that information to the respective companies (and destroy its own records), compensate those companies for the work load that was incurred to give into the government's demands, and compensate the public for forcibly taking away a portion of their income.
"Joe Blow is paying a pretty good chunk of taxes for this report."
You're using the status quo as supporting evidence in your counterargument, when I am arguing against the status quo. Joe Blow should not be paying taxes for this report.
"Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it."
And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?
"Unless there's a compelling national security reason to keep it secret, the data belongs to the people and should be made available to them."
"But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people."
Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. All at the expense of the rest of the FCC budget (which should also be eliminated).
I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information. Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own or choose not to go with a provider that does not make this information available. With enough like-minded individuals the provider will have a huge incentive to make it available.
And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court.
And of course, if there are no other choices of provider in your area, guess (once again) who you have to thank.
Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this? Customers can't find this stuff out on their own, or choose not to go with a provider that does not make such information available?
Next they're gonna start saying toilet paper doesn't count as kleenex and can't be used as such. Well, damnit, I say it can be.
Did anyone else give up on the tedious page clicking and entirely unfunny "IT Geek Quiz" that was clearly thrown together by the same sort of folks these people are mocking?
"So what happens when (not if) the voluntary funds are insufficient to pay for a police force that does a satisfactory job?...[etc]..."
I really don't see this as likely at all, so you would have to show some evidence that such a situation would be an inevitability for me to consider it anything other than a fantastic hypothetical.
Ultimately what you are suggesting is that liberty has its limits, and that we should, when it is convenient, trade liberty and our rights for security. Unfortunately, there are a lot of politicians in power who agree with this sentiment.
"And your position seems to suggest"
Side comment: I don't think that's proper use of the word "and". I was agreeing with your post that anarchy doesn't work. You assumed that my response about your post was an attack on your post, and used "And" to start a counterattack, except my post wasn't attacking your analysis of anarchy.
"The whole point of governments and financial systems and private property are to either keep people's selfishness from harming society (e.g. putting robbers behind bars) or harnessing people's selfishness to make society productive (e.g. private property)."
"The assumptions you're making are exactly the same types of assumptions that make communist paradises such crappy places to live."
You've characterized some of my statements as assumptions for various reasons, and indirectly stated that those assumptions are false, but you have neither shown that I am making those assumptions or that such assumptions are incorrect.
"No, the problem with your suggestions is that you are proposing anarchy."
Where?
"I'll ask again: Where does the funding for your police force come from?"
Currently, it is taken by force, violating everyone's rights. Ideally, it would be voluntary donated. The whole purpose of the government is to uphold the rights of the citizenry - this is done by the courts and military/police.
I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get some more time.
"You conveniently ignored that defense is provided under the same "socialist" terms."
That makes no sense. I am not advocating anarchy. The whole purpose of the government is to uphold the rights of the citizenry. This is done through the courts and military/police.
"Moreover, since McCain and his ancestors have a distinguished career in the "socialist" funded armed forces that makes him the chief socialist candidate in this presidential campaign."
You would have to assume that I support McCain in order to think I care about your attack on him. Why would you assume that? Because I'm arguing against Obama in this specific discussion?.... yeeeesh...
"since they don't seem to listen to me, I would want some checks there if they did."
Then you would be contributing to the problem rather than getting to the root of it.
"I'm not really understanding your comments about regulations"
Everytime there is a perceived economic crisis, congressmen think they see a way to fix it, a "hole to patch", with legislation controlling what companies can do. For this current crisis, banks and lenders are the target of regulation.
"I am only talking about the government giving money to investors who got screwed and want a handout. This isn't an economic policy in any way."
The decision whether or not to have federal bailouts is an economy policy as it involves the redistribution of wealth.
"IF the government decided to do it (which they may have already)"
They already have on countless occasions. The most recent example is the Federal Reserve bailout of Bear Stearns.
"I would hope that there would be rules about who got the money."
If you invested in a privately-provided safety net service, you would have much more control over who gets the money. You have no control when the funding is taken by force.
"As for rights violations, I don't see it."
Federal bailouts require funding, which is taken by force from members of the public. Economic regulations tell people what they can and cannot do with their property.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them)"
Who is not demanding a government? There needs to be a government to uphold the rights of the citizenry. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be funded by force.
"One has the same choices as anyone else - talk to your representatives. Beyond that, you also have the opportunity to work within the political system to elect a representative who more closely matches your values."
That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade more and more members of the public to think likewise, to bring about elected officials that support rights.
"Or, you could fall in with the fringe tax protestor crowd that wants so badly to believe that they don't actually have to pay taxes"
The government does not have the right to tax anyone. It can put down in writing that it has such a right, but it does not make that right a reality. Nothing usurps human rights.
"maybe you could ask Wesley Snipes how that's going"
You've demeaned through association, but you have not refuted anything.
"And where does the money the public should be refunded come from?"
The equipment and infrastructure that were used to support the FCC should be sold off to the highest bidders, and that money should be used for compensation.
"Troll is also used to bury nonsense written by people who think they are saying something profound."
I don't think I'm saying anything profound. Rational, yes, but not profound. You've (implicitly) characterized my statements as nonsense - care to show why that characterization is accurate? Or should people just assume you're right?
Touche!
"Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences... [snip] ..."
Who said they don't? I am not for breaking the law. I'm for overturning it. That can only be done by changing the minds of the public - the whole purpose behind my involvement in discussions like this.
"It's not property. It's information."
It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to spread private information that was taken by force.
"For example: forcing pharmaceuticals to tell you side effects of their medication, or truth in advertising laws."
As I said, if something is withheld, and it negatively impacts you, you can take them to court. I covered that in my first post. Just because preemptively forcing someone to do something is more convenient than suing them after the fact, that doesn't make it right.
Modded troll? I thought that was only for people who stated opinions they didn't actually believe in order to rile people up. I back what I am saying 100%.
Maybe it's just accepted practice to mod people down who you are too mentally incompetent to refute.
"Those people might want to know how we're doing in terms of the basic network infrastucture with which we'll be competing in said world."
If there is such a demand, surely a private organization will move in to fill that demand. Why is a federal service necessary in this case?
"Vote accordingly."
That's the whole purpose of my discussing it here. To persuade others to vote and think accordingly.
"To face the consequences of not paying tax."
The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right? This is basically the majority imposing on the minority.
"Why destroy the information? It's been collected, money's been spent, so why not use it?"
It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.
"But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people."
Let's follow the logic. The government demands people give up money. People give into those demands (some willingly, others not). They use the money to demand companies give up information. The companies give into the demand and give up the information. So the information rightfully belongs to the people?
No, it rightfully belongs to the companies. The government should give back that information to the respective companies (and destroy its own records), compensate those companies for the work load that was incurred to give into the government's demands, and compensate the public for forcibly taking away a portion of their income.
"Joe Blow is paying a pretty good chunk of taxes for this report."
You're using the status quo as supporting evidence in your counterargument, when I am arguing against the status quo. Joe Blow should not be paying taxes for this report.
"Because the government is the people. Joe Blow did find this information - he paid the government to do it."
And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?
"Unless there's a compelling national security reason to keep it secret, the data belongs to the people and should be made available to them."
"But once they do compile it, it rightfully belongs to the people."
Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. All at the expense of the rest of the FCC budget (which should also be eliminated).
Interesting sig. Care to provide your stance on it?
"You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data?"
I ask why the federal government needs to provide such information. Why can't Joe Blow find this information out on his own or choose not to go with a provider that does not make this information available. With enough like-minded individuals the provider will have a huge incentive to make it available.
And as always if the provider misinforms the customer, they can be taken to court.
And of course, if there are no other choices of provider in your area, guess (once again) who you have to thank.
Why must there be a federal organization to handle crap like this? Customers can't find this stuff out on their own, or choose not to go with a provider that does not make such information available?
Next they're gonna start saying toilet paper doesn't count as kleenex and can't be used as such. Well, damnit, I say it can be.
Did anyone else give up on the tedious page clicking and entirely unfunny "IT Geek Quiz" that was clearly thrown together by the same sort of folks these people are mocking?
One Click to Rule them All, and in the PTO Bind them!
"So what happens when (not if) the voluntary funds are insufficient to pay for a police force that does a satisfactory job? ...[etc]..."
I really don't see this as likely at all, so you would have to show some evidence that such a situation would be an inevitability for me to consider it anything other than a fantastic hypothetical.
Ultimately what you are suggesting is that liberty has its limits, and that we should, when it is convenient, trade liberty and our rights for security. Unfortunately, there are a lot of politicians in power who agree with this sentiment.
"And your position seems to suggest"
Side comment: I don't think that's proper use of the word "and". I was agreeing with your post that anarchy doesn't work. You assumed that my response about your post was an attack on your post, and used "And" to start a counterattack, except my post wasn't attacking your analysis of anarchy.
"The whole point of governments and financial systems and private property are to either keep people's selfishness from harming society (e.g. putting robbers behind bars) or harnessing people's selfishness to make society productive (e.g. private property)."
"The assumptions you're making are exactly the same types of assumptions that make communist paradises such crappy places to live."
You've characterized some of my statements as assumptions for various reasons, and indirectly stated that those assumptions are false, but you have neither shown that I am making those assumptions or that such assumptions are incorrect.
...if NASA didn't hold a monopoly on space development and travel.
"And practically, what that means is you have private police forces..."
Where did I say that? I meant voluntary donation to the government. Your entire post shows why anarchy is nonsensical and cannot function.
"No, the problem with your suggestions is that you are proposing anarchy."
Where?
"I'll ask again: Where does the funding for your police force come from?"
Currently, it is taken by force, violating everyone's rights. Ideally, it would be voluntary donated. The whole purpose of the government is to uphold the rights of the citizenry - this is done by the courts and military/police.
I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get some more time.
"You conveniently ignored that defense is provided under the same "socialist" terms."
.... yeeeesh ...
That makes no sense. I am not advocating anarchy. The whole purpose of the government is to uphold the rights of the citizenry. This is done through the courts and military/police.
"Moreover, since McCain and his ancestors have a distinguished career in the "socialist" funded armed forces that makes him the chief socialist candidate in this presidential campaign."
You would have to assume that I support McCain in order to think I care about your attack on him. Why would you assume that? Because I'm arguing against Obama in this specific discussion?
"since they don't seem to listen to me, I would want some checks there if they did."
Then you would be contributing to the problem rather than getting to the root of it.
"I'm not really understanding your comments about regulations"
Everytime there is a perceived economic crisis, congressmen think they see a way to fix it, a "hole to patch", with legislation controlling what companies can do. For this current crisis, banks and lenders are the target of regulation.
"I am only talking about the government giving money to investors who got screwed and want a handout. This isn't an economic policy in any way."
The decision whether or not to have federal bailouts is an economy policy as it involves the redistribution of wealth.
"IF the government decided to do it (which they may have already)"
They already have on countless occasions. The most recent example is the Federal Reserve bailout of Bear Stearns.
"I would hope that there would be rules about who got the money."
If you invested in a privately-provided safety net service, you would have much more control over who gets the money. You have no control when the funding is taken by force.
"As for rights violations, I don't see it."
Federal bailouts require funding, which is taken by force from members of the public. Economic regulations tell people what they can and cannot do with their property.