It's not broken just because you and a bunch of other people say it is. There are lot of people, me included, that are perfectly happy and prefer the new start menu/screen interface. People are very resistant to change, and it only takes a little bit of hate/love on one side to sway the majority, and this is exactly what's happening. It's always been chic to bash on MS, and ANYTHING they do will get hated on.
I don't understand... I went to the FishcherTechnik website. All I see there are toys for kids, racing tracks, and a few small-scale models of assembly-line robots? Looks like the entire website is geared for selling to kids as it even categorizes the items based on age, not to mention the kiddie-colours. Then again, perhaps I thought hobby robotics would be a little more serious than what I'm seeing there.
Please can we just get over this whole javascript fad? It's clunky, odd to use, and non-standard from the times I've used it. Replace it with a real programming language such as Python, which is vastly superior to javascript. Or better yet, allow website developers to use both so we can have language competition driving simplicity, functionality and leanness instead of bloat and that awful thing we call javascript syntax.
I think your theoretical ability to have coherent debate lives with the unicorns. You added 0 value to the conversation/discussion. Care to try again? Perhaps with a little more substance? An actual argument?
Why give them a free ride? Why not give them government-enforced jobs where they can be productive in a controlled environment? Giving them a salary, and counselling to save that money for their eventual re-integration into society. Personally, I think we should let them be and have less government. But what boggles the mind, is that government could so easily throw money/will at a problem and fix it. Sadly, a lot of these problems are NOT being fixed and continue to perpetuate. There has to be something deeper to it.
Think about it this way. If taxes and tax-breaks are sometimes used as insentives and disinsentives, then shouldn't free money (welfare) have the same effect of encouraging/discouraging certain behaviour? Think about it. Seems that government has a double-definition when it comes to incentives.
Well the American war-machine needed someone to blame/point fingers at. Can't let all them fancy weapons built by the war industrial complex go to waste now, boy.
I really don't understand people like you... You have to turn everything into "Democrat" and "Republican". Meanwhile, both parties are doing the exact same shit constantly, and only mixing it up to confuse you even more. Take your examples as evidence of that. Take Obama and Hillary as further examples. They needed to mix it up a little confuse the voters, move it away from the Iraq Invasion and US war-crimes. Look at the same-sex marriage issue as a way to confuse people instead of letting them see that Obama's hope and change hasn't really meant anything concrete. Because Gitmo's still open, and he promised to close it. But I know what you're gonna say in response to that: Oh but the did this, did that, blah blah. It doesn't matter because you as a voter don't have a say in the matter. Wake up.
There have been police beating that go beyond reasonable levels. There have also been incidents where the actions of the suspect have changed drastically when they know they are being filmed. Some of the issues include suspects who appear docile but will not show their hands. Many time they have had knives, needles or guns in their hands and use them when the officers get close. If you have never tried to take a violently resisting person into custody then you really don't know what you are talking about.
I'm not saying the cop has to endanger themselves in such a situation just to be non-violent towards the victim. The level of escalation needs to be appropriate to the situation. If anything, a non-violent safe-distance solution is more appropriate than having the cops get close to this supposedly dangerous victim that has dangerous close-range implements. Tazer's come to mind. But beating the victim till they can't thrash around anymore? There should be NO reason for that when we have other options available.
Anyone using a drug useing a drug as an anesthetic would need medical training. Give a little too much and one could kill the patient. The application of the chloroform would require the officer to place his hand over the mouth of the suspect for a period of time. Even if the officer could hold long enough, chloroform is not instant, that is a great way to lose a finger. To counter the chloroform for a while all the suspect would have to do is hold his breath. There is also no way to control the fumes. The officers could be effected to. Finally, as another poster pointed out, chloroform is toxic.
It's only toxic in the wrong doses. Like i told the other poster, if the will for finding non-violent subduing means was there, they'd manage to find a way to make it safe and reliable. The chloroform was just an example, I'm sure smart people could come up with other solutions to the problem.
So you say that officers will need medical training to administer the drug? Sure, fair enough. But don't they need medical training too if they have to know when to stop pounding a victim's face in? Simply stopping when the victim stops thrashing around is not enough, and they surely need training to know the difference. The adrenalin in the victim will make sure he keeps going way past what is safe for them, and that is why this whole thing is such a huge issue, to me anyways. You have not been in a position where you were required to "Stay calm" and not move while being restrained and possibly beaten, have you? Just imagine yourself in that situation. You're half-pinned, someone's beating you to "stay calm" and "stop resisting", what are you going to do? Lie there and take it? If you can do that, i applaude your self-discipline, however most if not all people can not do that. They will trash around, they will scream, they will claw because common sense is thrown out the window at that stage.
Tazering may look violent, but at least it doesn't mean the victim get's his face beaten in because cops can't subdue them.
Ok, so the dosage needs to be perfect, otherwise accidents can happen. That doesn't preclude it from being used in this scenario. Have some sort of regulated dosage-dispenser mask, kind of like a tazer. If the will was there, I'm sure you could make it both safe and reliable. It may not be perfect, but it sure beats having to beat the suspect half to death because only at that point do they become unable to physically resist.
So biting, scratching or kneeing a cop is reason enough for the cop to beat you senseless and into a pulp? What messed up world do you live in?
Being restrained is a very claustrophobic feeling, I can understand people wanting to thrash around and get away. Especially if the moments just prior made the victim think he was going to be beaten or harmed. It's an unfortunate series of events.
My solution: chloroform. If it's fast-acting enough, then why not use it? Harmless, and pretty soon the victim is incapacitated with no harm done. Sadly, cops don't want that because they want to punish the victim.
There was a Star Trek: Voyager episode on a similar scenario. Basically, two opposing sides created robots to fight their wars. And that went on for a long time, until the two sides decided they didn't want the war anymore. What then happened was the robots annihilated their human owners because they prevented them from waging the war that they were taught/programmed to do at all costs. Luckily, the creators of the robots knew such a thing could happen and basically designed all the robots to be unique and as a consequence, prevented the robots from self-replicating.
You make it sound like the citizens have a choice. Sadly, the propaganda war machine will never let the citizens see the real picture, and that is that war is pointless and unnecessary unless you're defending yourself. You manipulate them with fear and hatred, and pretty soon you have them foaming at the mouth for completely disgusting war where human lives get affected in horrific, and permanent ways.
You must be new here. Stackoverflow moderaton has a sort of friend-system going for it. Friends moderate eachother's posts up. The more popular posters regularly get upvoted for mindless nonsense and regurgitation of the obvious. You stumbled on a particularly popular poster. You probably won't even get a response from her/him, as she/he doesn't see an opportunity to get more upvotes from a response to you.
They found a way to gain the system, and they love it. That's why you see so many regular posters posting content with common themes and getting upvotes for them, meanwhile giving the rest of us a WTF-level through the roof.
Personally, I think they derive some sort of pleasure out of it because they have confirmation addiction. But yeah, we can't deny that downvotes make us feel sad, and that upvotes make us feel good in a very basic way. Me, I just come here to possibly get some good debate, and to vent.
Can't we just have peace? I'm really really tired of having this constant looming cloud of impending war. Is peace really too much to ask for? I understand most countries have political problems, I understand we have economic ones.
But moving into my prime years, and thinking about the long term well being of myself and the ones I love is really causing me to look passed all the details. I couldn't care less if the Chinese have some fancy toys, i couldn't care less if some ass hole across the world beats his chest and threatens the rest of us, I couldn't care less if some ass-backward country doesn't have ALL the human rights the rest of us enjoy. Just leave it alone, and don't involve yourselves with them; to hell with globalization. Quit being patriotic, quit thinking you have to police the world, quit meddling with all of our lives.
You all do realize that if any sort of conflict between two super-powers erupts, the entire world will be severely involved and/or affected? If such a thing happens, we're all royally screwed. There would be no hiding from it, no economic shelter, nothing. Please, think about that the next time you want to "support the troops", or complain about other governments' actions like a lot of people are on this thread. Nip this war-talk in the bud. That applies to the other side as well; it applies to all sides.
I highly agree with you. The answers to technical/geeky questions on Slashdot always have a lot of experience and insight. That is something Google searches would never yield, unless they happen to be results of Slashdot questions regarding the topic you're searching for.
> If all my options are pay taxes and live in country A, OR go to hellhole country B where I will get killed but don't pay taxes, then you're not really giving me the option.
Have you considered that maybe the world is trying to tell you something? Do you see a pattern? If every place without taxes is a hellhole where you'll get killed, maybe that means something. Perhaps the place you imagine, one that has no taxes but is not a hellhole, cannot exist in the real world?
The problem there is not one of taxes, but one of government. Lol, your argument is funny. You'd have us believe that if people in Somalia paid taxes, then it wouldn't be a war-torn shit hole.
> Nor did you ever intend on giving me the choice, because you gave me no avenue for recourse via this system you call democracy.
Sure we do, just vote for politicians who support having no taxes at all. If there aren't any, become such a politician and get elected. Doesn't work? Guess what, most people don't agree with your point of view and democracy works as planned.
> Now that I think about it, what you propose is actually a protection racket. "Live in my neighbourhood and get my protection, give me protection money for it, though."
That is how public services work, yes. What separates them from protection rackets would be that the government actually offers you something useful in return, and you get to affect policy by voting.
> Heck, you don't even allow us to claim a piece of unused land in the middle of nowhere as our own to govern as we wish with like-minded individuals.
Countries don't like to lose territory. Are you truly surprised they don't allow you to just 'claim' a piece of land? Suppose you had your hypothetical tax-free country, how would you feel if another guy just walked in and just claimed it as its own? I imagine the situation would quickly turn the place into something one might refer to as a hellhole.
You're being obtuse about it. The simple fact is that we have NO choice other than to have government because of all these things I point out. I don't want to participate in something I never chose. And NO I will not participate by voting; telling me that I can change it by voting is assinine bullshit made to placate statists like you.
> You don't even allow us the chance to BUY that land from you. How is that freedom? How are you giving us an option/choice?
Do you think everything should be for sale? Replace 'land' by 'slaves', or 'nuclear bombs', or 'smallpox'. The same whiny 'argument' applies. You have the freedom to attempt to change your country through democratic means. That is the freedom/option/choice you have.
Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want.
Yes it is. What kind of parallel universe do you live in? Oh, that's right... you live in your little government-sponsored bubble. You probably think that you only have rights because government gives them to you. Oh, you poor thing.
> Personally, I think the only real alternative is giving people direct control over government spending.
By all means, vote for someone who will change your country like that.
> Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever.
By all means, go ahead. It will be hilarious to observe.
> Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever.
I suppose this will leave the unemployed to pay the unemployment benefits?
> People aren't nearly as selfish and greedy as you think, when given the chance and responsibility.
Perhaps most are not, but they are irrational and will act often against their own best interests when given the chance. Many people will refuse to spend any money on things that don't benefit them or their c
And just a quick comment on "It is also immoral to force people to pay for something that they choose not to/don't use": unless you are a complete hermit (growing your own food, sewing your own clothes, etc.), you are indirectly making use of things that you may have chosen not to use for yourself.
Sorry, I construct my sentences a little oddly, lemme rephrase. It is immoral to force people to pay for things that they don't want their currency paying for. I didn't mean it that they are choosing not to pay for something that they directly or indirectly use. Although you could argue that forcing me to use something, and then saying I have to pay for it simply because I used it is immoral. I guess it all boils down to choice. If you have no choice, then you are being forced. And if you are being forced, then that is immoral.
You're perfectly welcome to emigrate to some country that doesn't tax. But taxation is a condition of living in the US and most developed countries. If you don't want to pay taxes, you have two choices: elect leaders who will lower taxes and cut government services or leave.
And what if people that want no/little taxes find themselves constantly in the minority? That is a fundamental flaw with democracy that no one seems to consider. How is it moral to force the minority to conform to the majority's wishes? Explain that little leap of logic you have there.
Enjoying the benefits of living in the US or other such country where the elected leaders have decided that there will be taxes without paying what has been determined to be your fair share is selfish and immoral. Your method of redress is your vote or your feet, not your dodging of taxes.
As I noted to one of the other guys above. You're not really giving me an option or a method of redress. You're telling me "if you don't like it, or don't agree with it, then go to that other there country where you will most likely die.". How about giving me a piece of land instead that I and like-minded individuals can build our own community? No, you say, I can't have that? Well, that's not freedom then. Freedom to leave and go to a hellhole where I will die is NOT freedom. But that's not really the freedom you meant. You meant it as some sort of "subset" of actual freedom. We're free to do what the majority deems is allowable, is the freedom most indoctrinated people refer to. But that is not absolute freedom. Your "freedom" ends where mine starts, so don't think that means you're free to assault me.
This is the social contract...we agree that the benefits of rules applying universally within our borders outweigh the costs of having policies apply to people who disagree with those policies.
Who is this "we" you speak of? Was I giving the choice to not participate in this lovely little country? I, and every single other person born in whatever country are never given the option. You automatically assume that by virtue of our birth in your country we agreed to all your laws and "social contracts".
Arguing that someone against taxation shouldn't have to pay is like arguing that a murder shouldn't be put to death because he's against the death penalty. It's fine for him to try to change the laws, but he's still subject to them until they're changed.
I never argued that. I said it was immoral to force us to pay tax. Big difference.
That's not a feasible alternative. That's precisely the point you're not getting. If all my options are pay taxes and live in country A, OR go to hellhole country B where I will get killed but don't pay taxes, then you're not really giving me the option. Nor did you ever intend on giving me the choice, because you gave me no avenue for recourse via this system you call democracy. Now that I think about it, what you propose is actually a protection racket. "Live in my neighbourhood and get my protection, give me protection money for it, though."
Heck, you don't even allow us to claim a piece of unused land in the middle of nowhere as our own to govern as we wish with like-minded individuals. You don't even allow us the chance to BUY that land from you. How is that freedom? How are you giving us an option/choice?
Personally, I think the only real alternative is giving people direct control over government spending. Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever. Think humble-bundle, and see how that turned out? People aren't nearly as selfish and greedy as you think, when given the chance and responsibility.
Lol... Yay, a statist finally figures it out. The services you _want_ to get from taxes, and the services you _get_ from taxes are wildly different. The fact that you, or possibly even the majority want it, means diddly to the government behemoth. And with no other government you can feasibly choose as an alternative, you're stuck with it. That's democracy and "freedom" for you, friend.
In reality, your taxes are paying for a slew of things that most wouldn't even consider "paying" for directly, if given the choice. Just look at all the frivolous wars, handouts, subsidies, kick backs, whatever bad government spending you can think of. Any sane person would complain over a lot of these things if it was billed directly in their tax form with a proper description. "Subsidy X", "Subsidy Y", "War Tax", "AA Handouts", "DHA", etc.
Then charge them directly for the use of those services/infrastructure. Quit being obtuse about it and obfuscating the whole transaction under a crap-ton of bureaucracy and "taxes".
Slashdot Mirror
It's not broken just because you and a bunch of other people say it is. There are lot of people, me included, that are perfectly happy and prefer the new start menu/screen interface. People are very resistant to change, and it only takes a little bit of hate/love on one side to sway the majority, and this is exactly what's happening. It's always been chic to bash on MS, and ANYTHING they do will get hated on.
I don't understand... I went to the FishcherTechnik website. All I see there are toys for kids, racing tracks, and a few small-scale models of assembly-line robots? Looks like the entire website is geared for selling to kids as it even categorizes the items based on age, not to mention the kiddie-colours. Then again, perhaps I thought hobby robotics would be a little more serious than what I'm seeing there.
Please can we just get over this whole javascript fad? It's clunky, odd to use, and non-standard from the times I've used it. Replace it with a real programming language such as Python, which is vastly superior to javascript. Or better yet, allow website developers to use both so we can have language competition driving simplicity, functionality and leanness instead of bloat and that awful thing we call javascript syntax.
Except, I'm not the person you initially responded to. They're the ones that deserve the reasoned argument, not me :)
I think your theoretical ability to have coherent debate lives with the unicorns. You added 0 value to the conversation/discussion. Care to try again? Perhaps with a little more substance? An actual argument?
Why give them a free ride? Why not give them government-enforced jobs where they can be productive in a controlled environment? Giving them a salary, and counselling to save that money for their eventual re-integration into society. Personally, I think we should let them be and have less government. But what boggles the mind, is that government could so easily throw money/will at a problem and fix it. Sadly, a lot of these problems are NOT being fixed and continue to perpetuate. There has to be something deeper to it.
Think about it this way. If taxes and tax-breaks are sometimes used as insentives and disinsentives, then shouldn't free money (welfare) have the same effect of encouraging/discouraging certain behaviour? Think about it. Seems that government has a double-definition when it comes to incentives.
Well the American war-machine needed someone to blame/point fingers at. Can't let all them fancy weapons built by the war industrial complex go to waste now, boy.
I really don't understand people like you... You have to turn everything into "Democrat" and "Republican". Meanwhile, both parties are doing the exact same shit constantly, and only mixing it up to confuse you even more. Take your examples as evidence of that. Take Obama and Hillary as further examples. They needed to mix it up a little confuse the voters, move it away from the Iraq Invasion and US war-crimes. Look at the same-sex marriage issue as a way to confuse people instead of letting them see that Obama's hope and change hasn't really meant anything concrete. Because Gitmo's still open, and he promised to close it. But I know what you're gonna say in response to that: Oh but the did this, did that, blah blah. It doesn't matter because you as a voter don't have a say in the matter. Wake up.
There have been police beating that go beyond reasonable levels. There have also been incidents where the actions of the suspect have changed drastically when they know they are being filmed. Some of the issues include suspects who appear docile but will not show their hands. Many time they have had knives, needles or guns in their hands and use them when the officers get close. If you have never tried to take a violently resisting person into custody then you really don't know what you are talking about.
I'm not saying the cop has to endanger themselves in such a situation just to be non-violent towards the victim. The level of escalation needs to be appropriate to the situation. If anything, a non-violent safe-distance solution is more appropriate than having the cops get close to this supposedly dangerous victim that has dangerous close-range implements. Tazer's come to mind. But beating the victim till they can't thrash around anymore? There should be NO reason for that when we have other options available.
Anyone using a drug useing a drug as an anesthetic would need medical training. Give a little too much and one could kill the patient. The application of the chloroform would require the officer to place his hand over the mouth of the suspect for a period of time. Even if the officer could hold long enough, chloroform is not instant, that is a great way to lose a finger. To counter the chloroform for a while all the suspect would have to do is hold his breath. There is also no way to control the fumes. The officers could be effected to. Finally, as another poster pointed out, chloroform is toxic.
It's only toxic in the wrong doses. Like i told the other poster, if the will for finding non-violent subduing means was there, they'd manage to find a way to make it safe and reliable. The chloroform was just an example, I'm sure smart people could come up with other solutions to the problem.
So you say that officers will need medical training to administer the drug? Sure, fair enough. But don't they need medical training too if they have to know when to stop pounding a victim's face in? Simply stopping when the victim stops thrashing around is not enough, and they surely need training to know the difference. The adrenalin in the victim will make sure he keeps going way past what is safe for them, and that is why this whole thing is such a huge issue, to me anyways. You have not been in a position where you were required to "Stay calm" and not move while being restrained and possibly beaten, have you? Just imagine yourself in that situation. You're half-pinned, someone's beating you to "stay calm" and "stop resisting", what are you going to do? Lie there and take it? If you can do that, i applaude your self-discipline, however most if not all people can not do that. They will trash around, they will scream, they will claw because common sense is thrown out the window at that stage.
Tazering may look violent, but at least it doesn't mean the victim get's his face beaten in because cops can't subdue them.
Ok, so the dosage needs to be perfect, otherwise accidents can happen. That doesn't preclude it from being used in this scenario. Have some sort of regulated dosage-dispenser mask, kind of like a tazer. If the will was there, I'm sure you could make it both safe and reliable. It may not be perfect, but it sure beats having to beat the suspect half to death because only at that point do they become unable to physically resist.
What are you on about?
So biting, scratching or kneeing a cop is reason enough for the cop to beat you senseless and into a pulp? What messed up world do you live in?
Being restrained is a very claustrophobic feeling, I can understand people wanting to thrash around and get away. Especially if the moments just prior made the victim think he was going to be beaten or harmed. It's an unfortunate series of events.
My solution: chloroform. If it's fast-acting enough, then why not use it? Harmless, and pretty soon the victim is incapacitated with no harm done. Sadly, cops don't want that because they want to punish the victim.
You're not getting my point. My liberty is currently being impinged by laws. To say that all laws are required for my liberty is completely asinine.
I don't know about you, but I'm very oppressed by insane and immoral laws. What exactly are you trying to say with your quote?
There was a Star Trek: Voyager episode on a similar scenario. Basically, two opposing sides created robots to fight their wars. And that went on for a long time, until the two sides decided they didn't want the war anymore. What then happened was the robots annihilated their human owners because they prevented them from waging the war that they were taught/programmed to do at all costs. Luckily, the creators of the robots knew such a thing could happen and basically designed all the robots to be unique and as a consequence, prevented the robots from self-replicating.
You make it sound like the citizens have a choice. Sadly, the propaganda war machine will never let the citizens see the real picture, and that is that war is pointless and unnecessary unless you're defending yourself. You manipulate them with fear and hatred, and pretty soon you have them foaming at the mouth for completely disgusting war where human lives get affected in horrific, and permanent ways.
You must be new here. Stackoverflow moderaton has a sort of friend-system going for it. Friends moderate eachother's posts up. The more popular posters regularly get upvoted for mindless nonsense and regurgitation of the obvious. You stumbled on a particularly popular poster. You probably won't even get a response from her/him, as she/he doesn't see an opportunity to get more upvotes from a response to you.
They found a way to gain the system, and they love it. That's why you see so many regular posters posting content with common themes and getting upvotes for them, meanwhile giving the rest of us a WTF-level through the roof.
Personally, I think they derive some sort of pleasure out of it because they have confirmation addiction. But yeah, we can't deny that downvotes make us feel sad, and that upvotes make us feel good in a very basic way. Me, I just come here to possibly get some good debate, and to vent.
Can't we just have peace? I'm really really tired of having this constant looming cloud of impending war. Is peace really too much to ask for? I understand most countries have political problems, I understand we have economic ones.
But moving into my prime years, and thinking about the long term well being of myself and the ones I love is really causing me to look passed all the details. I couldn't care less if the Chinese have some fancy toys, i couldn't care less if some ass hole across the world beats his chest and threatens the rest of us, I couldn't care less if some ass-backward country doesn't have ALL the human rights the rest of us enjoy. Just leave it alone, and don't involve yourselves with them; to hell with globalization. Quit being patriotic, quit thinking you have to police the world, quit meddling with all of our lives.
You all do realize that if any sort of conflict between two super-powers erupts, the entire world will be severely involved and/or affected? If such a thing happens, we're all royally screwed. There would be no hiding from it, no economic shelter, nothing. Please, think about that the next time you want to "support the troops", or complain about other governments' actions like a lot of people are on this thread. Nip this war-talk in the bud. That applies to the other side as well; it applies to all sides.
</incoherent_rant>
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato
I highly agree with you. The answers to technical/geeky questions on Slashdot always have a lot of experience and insight. That is something Google searches would never yield, unless they happen to be results of Slashdot questions regarding the topic you're searching for.
> If all my options are pay taxes and live in country A, OR go to hellhole country B where I will get killed but don't pay taxes, then you're not really giving me the option. Have you considered that maybe the world is trying to tell you something? Do you see a pattern? If every place without taxes is a hellhole where you'll get killed, maybe that means something. Perhaps the place you imagine, one that has no taxes but is not a hellhole, cannot exist in the real world?
The problem there is not one of taxes, but one of government. Lol, your argument is funny. You'd have us believe that if people in Somalia paid taxes, then it wouldn't be a war-torn shit hole.
> Nor did you ever intend on giving me the choice, because you gave me no avenue for recourse via this system you call democracy. Sure we do, just vote for politicians who support having no taxes at all. If there aren't any, become such a politician and get elected. Doesn't work? Guess what, most people don't agree with your point of view and democracy works as planned.
> Now that I think about it, what you propose is actually a protection racket. "Live in my neighbourhood and get my protection, give me protection money for it, though." That is how public services work, yes. What separates them from protection rackets would be that the government actually offers you something useful in return, and you get to affect policy by voting.
> Heck, you don't even allow us to claim a piece of unused land in the middle of nowhere as our own to govern as we wish with like-minded individuals. Countries don't like to lose territory. Are you truly surprised they don't allow you to just 'claim' a piece of land? Suppose you had your hypothetical tax-free country, how would you feel if another guy just walked in and just claimed it as its own? I imagine the situation would quickly turn the place into something one might refer to as a hellhole.
You're being obtuse about it. The simple fact is that we have NO choice other than to have government because of all these things I point out. I don't want to participate in something I never chose. And NO I will not participate by voting; telling me that I can change it by voting is assinine bullshit made to placate statists like you.
> You don't even allow us the chance to BUY that land from you. How is that freedom? How are you giving us an option/choice? Do you think everything should be for sale? Replace 'land' by 'slaves', or 'nuclear bombs', or 'smallpox'. The same whiny 'argument' applies. You have the freedom to attempt to change your country through democratic means. That is the freedom/option/choice you have.
Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want.
Yes it is. What kind of parallel universe do you live in? Oh, that's right... you live in your little government-sponsored bubble. You probably think that you only have rights because government gives them to you. Oh, you poor thing.
> Personally, I think the only real alternative is giving people direct control over government spending. By all means, vote for someone who will change your country like that.
> Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever. By all means, go ahead. It will be hilarious to observe.
> Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever. I suppose this will leave the unemployed to pay the unemployment benefits?
> People aren't nearly as selfish and greedy as you think, when given the chance and responsibility. Perhaps most are not, but they are irrational and will act often against their own best interests when given the chance. Many people will refuse to spend any money on things that don't benefit them or their c
And just a quick comment on "It is also immoral to force people to pay for something that they choose not to/don't use": unless you are a complete hermit (growing your own food, sewing your own clothes, etc.), you are indirectly making use of things that you may have chosen not to use for yourself.
Sorry, I construct my sentences a little oddly, lemme rephrase. It is immoral to force people to pay for things that they don't want their currency paying for. I didn't mean it that they are choosing not to pay for something that they directly or indirectly use. Although you could argue that forcing me to use something, and then saying I have to pay for it simply because I used it is immoral. I guess it all boils down to choice. If you have no choice, then you are being forced. And if you are being forced, then that is immoral.
You're perfectly welcome to emigrate to some country that doesn't tax. But taxation is a condition of living in the US and most developed countries. If you don't want to pay taxes, you have two choices: elect leaders who will lower taxes and cut government services or leave.
And what if people that want no/little taxes find themselves constantly in the minority? That is a fundamental flaw with democracy that no one seems to consider. How is it moral to force the minority to conform to the majority's wishes? Explain that little leap of logic you have there.
Enjoying the benefits of living in the US or other such country where the elected leaders have decided that there will be taxes without paying what has been determined to be your fair share is selfish and immoral. Your method of redress is your vote or your feet, not your dodging of taxes.
As I noted to one of the other guys above. You're not really giving me an option or a method of redress. You're telling me "if you don't like it, or don't agree with it, then go to that other there country where you will most likely die.". How about giving me a piece of land instead that I and like-minded individuals can build our own community? No, you say, I can't have that? Well, that's not freedom then. Freedom to leave and go to a hellhole where I will die is NOT freedom. But that's not really the freedom you meant. You meant it as some sort of "subset" of actual freedom. We're free to do what the majority deems is allowable, is the freedom most indoctrinated people refer to. But that is not absolute freedom. Your "freedom" ends where mine starts, so don't think that means you're free to assault me.
This is the social contract...we agree that the benefits of rules applying universally within our borders outweigh the costs of having policies apply to people who disagree with those policies.
Who is this "we" you speak of? Was I giving the choice to not participate in this lovely little country? I, and every single other person born in whatever country are never given the option. You automatically assume that by virtue of our birth in your country we agreed to all your laws and "social contracts".
Arguing that someone against taxation shouldn't have to pay is like arguing that a murder shouldn't be put to death because he's against the death penalty. It's fine for him to try to change the laws, but he's still subject to them until they're changed.
I never argued that. I said it was immoral to force us to pay tax. Big difference.
That's not a feasible alternative. That's precisely the point you're not getting. If all my options are pay taxes and live in country A, OR go to hellhole country B where I will get killed but don't pay taxes, then you're not really giving me the option. Nor did you ever intend on giving me the choice, because you gave me no avenue for recourse via this system you call democracy. Now that I think about it, what you propose is actually a protection racket. "Live in my neighbourhood and get my protection, give me protection money for it, though."
Heck, you don't even allow us to claim a piece of unused land in the middle of nowhere as our own to govern as we wish with like-minded individuals. You don't even allow us the chance to BUY that land from you. How is that freedom? How are you giving us an option/choice?
Personally, I think the only real alternative is giving people direct control over government spending. Give me a bunch of damn sliders and categories so I can fine-tune the damn budget how I see fit by assigning my tax money to each cause/agency/whatever. Think humble-bundle, and see how that turned out? People aren't nearly as selfish and greedy as you think, when given the chance and responsibility.
Lol... Yay, a statist finally figures it out. The services you _want_ to get from taxes, and the services you _get_ from taxes are wildly different. The fact that you, or possibly even the majority want it, means diddly to the government behemoth. And with no other government you can feasibly choose as an alternative, you're stuck with it. That's democracy and "freedom" for you, friend.
In reality, your taxes are paying for a slew of things that most wouldn't even consider "paying" for directly, if given the choice. Just look at all the frivolous wars, handouts, subsidies, kick backs, whatever bad government spending you can think of. Any sane person would complain over a lot of these things if it was billed directly in their tax form with a proper description. "Subsidy X", "Subsidy Y", "War Tax", "AA Handouts", "DHA", etc.
Then charge them directly for the use of those services/infrastructure. Quit being obtuse about it and obfuscating the whole transaction under a crap-ton of bureaucracy and "taxes".