It is also immoral to force people to pay for something that they choose not to/don't use. And if you can't allow people an alternative to what you propose, then you are, in essence, forcing them to participate. Give anti-tax people a feasible alternative. Only then can you claim any moral high ground when it comes to "society" and "paying taxes".
Most of the people that argue with anti-tax individuals think them morally corrupt and conflate not wanting to pay taxes with some sort of selfish drive. It's not true for most of the ones I've spoken to. Tell me, what is wrong with having a more direct/visible say in how/where our taxes are used? Because clumping it into one giant pool and giving it to a huge bureaucracy is most certainly not moral in any way.
There's only one thing worse than an idiot with bad ideologies, and that's a smart person with bad ideologies. Good luck trying to argue with them on any sort of constructive level. Good luck to us all, really. As these morally corrupt intellectuals are dragging us collectively further down the statist hole.
Taxation is theft if we have no say in how that money is used. And if you honestly think that you have any say at all in how your tax money is used, then you're seriously deluded. Forcing other people to pay for some collective "purpose" is morally wrong.
That's the real problem with taxation, and the biggest one most anti-taxation people have with it. If you want to call taxation voluntary, then allow people to choose how it gets used, and tax them for only the services they use of government. None of this "representative" nonsense that you call giant democracy.
What a lame retort. The person you initially responded to already made the conversation about governments. Thus, this whole thread is a response to that, and has nothing directly to do with the article. The fact that all you can do in response is to restate the obvious is quite telling.
Lol, you're deluded if you can't see how your "power to influence other people in how they vote" makes your vote more valuable than theirs. That's not democracy, man. "One person, one vote". And you being able to "influence" other people breaks that entire concept into "More power to influence = more votes".
Yes, you are conflating democracy with freedom. You seem to think that freedom means a right to influence other people to vote as you. That is not democracy, because democracy in its basic form is "one person, one vote". As such, what you call "freedom", is merely you claiming the right to infringe on other peoples' freedom to vote as they please, free from your influence and manipulation. And also, freedom does NOT include you being able to exercise control over me with what you call "power to influence". Your rights END where my rights over myself start.
It seems to me that you're a fan of democracy simply because in your world-view it conveniently allows you to claim "freedom for all" and at the same time manipulate them into voting the same as you. Because yeah, dude, your phrase "power to influence" simple means coerce and manipulate people into voting the way you want them to.
I'm probably not the first to say this, but... Fuck you, and your damn social contract. Claiming some over-arching "contract" that I never signed doesn't give you magical powers to force me to conform to whatever you deem is contained in this contract of yours.
I'm not well versed with American laws... You said the "1st Amendment". Is that that law that says whoever has the most money is the one that gets to pick who is elected by virtue of more advertising money? Well, gee gosh darn it, that doesn't sound very democratic of you. You sure you're a democracy? One person, one vote, right?
Wrong... I'm not one to quibble over definitions, but that's most certainly NOT what democracy is about. Just think for a moment about what your comment implies. You're saying that you're free to use your own money to promote your own viewpoints. Sure, freedom is good, and everyone should be allowed to be free to do with their money as they please. However... Once you start allowing a person to use his money to enhance the political position of a party/candidate then you are skewing and altering the playing field. You're basically making your single vote count more than the vote of the poor homeless man down the street, or whatever. Even if it's not directly playing out that way, you have to admit that that money will be used by the candidate/party to promote their cause.
But really, the problem is you're conflating democracy with freedom. You think because you have democracy that you are free? Or that freedom means you have a democracy? Both debatable. Especially now that we're seeing how skewed the political system is when money is involved.
I'm no fan of democracy, but it's easy to see what all these things mean when you take them to their logical conclusions. Take away all the fluff, and "freedom" talk you have there, and all you're left with is a system that's heavily influenced by money. Good luck. To all of us.
Wait, you actually think the "system works"? It doesn't... And when it does, it's just to appease you into thinking that "look, see, it works, we told you so".
Can you clarify a little more about how you think campaign contributions are an essential part of democracy? Because to me, every which way I look at it, campaign contributions just expose the possibility of a party/candidate getting benefit due to the fact that their supporters have more money. How is that democracy?
I fail to see how someone can think that giving politicians money is a good thing. Shouldn't it just be about votes? Isn't that the point of democracy? How can you justify giving money in any way? Do you think your vote is not enough that you have to give money? Why do you feel the need to give money other than because you want your vote to count more than what it does by itself? Can't you see that that leads to you thinking that your "vote" should count more inherently by virtue of you giving more money?
Just sit back, look at it rationally and wonder about these things you take for granted. Please.
In case you haven't noticed, but that's how conversations go. One topic leads to the next. My first paragraph was sufficient to address 1/2 of your post, but don't let that stop you from doing your thing and implying I'm somehow incapable of understanding your point because 1/3 of my post wasn't specifically aimed at the point you arbitrarily chose to be the "point you made". 1/2 of your post was also about overall democracy and majority rules. Seriously, now that I re-read both our posts, it seems that you're positively correct. About half of your post was about the definition of democracy/republic. the rest is most certainly applicable to what I responded.
And pray do tell who votes in these "representatives" other than the majority? And if the majority votes in the representatives then the assumption is that they're the ones that are having their opinions represented. Calling democracy, whether direct or representational, mob rule is just plain rhetoric to scare people. But no matter how you swing it, democracy IS majority rule and that means that the minority has no say.
To see just such oppression, you need look no further than the LGBT community that is trying to get equal rights. They are at the mercy of the whims and opinions of the majority. One day they might get equal rights, and some fool will come along and say "Look, democracy WORKS". But that'll only happening IF the majority approves.
However, that isn't the whole picture. How many instances have we seen where the majority wanted something but was denied by their "representatives". The costly wars by America is just one shining example of that. Now, I don't know about you, but these two examples together paint one picture for me. That you have no representation, just token bones thrown at you every once in a while to appease you, and all the other bones thrown at you just to distract you.
Why don't you rather suggest that people that don't like living under government should go out in the middle of nowhere where they can be left alone? Oh, that's right... Because government owns ALL land, and they will SHOOT you if you try claim any of it, even if they're not using it. That sort of violence is no different than the kind you find in Somalia.
Copy from a response to another poster above:
You know, we'd love to just leave you guys the fuck alone and go to our own piece of land somewhere out there in the middle of nowhere where none of you can impose your morals and taxes on us. But ALL land is taken, and we have no where to go. Hence why statist assholes like you keep telling us to go to Somalia. Because statism has taken up ALL land, and we have no course of action but to convince you weenies that what you're doing is morally wrong and pretty darn violent.
I'm utterly disgusted with the fact that you got upvoted. Not that I place value on being upvoted, but rather because it shows me the general consensus of people that are reading these discussions.
You're just presenting the same old rehashed arguments. Not even good ones, I might add. However, the person below that logically and clearly explains the error in your thinking gets no moderation.
You know, we'd love to just leave you guys the fuck alone and go to our own piece of land somewhere out there in the middle of nowhere where none of you can impose your morals and taxes on us. But ALL land is taken, and we have no where to go. Hence why statist assholes like you keep telling us to go to Somalia. Because statism has taken up ALL land, and we have no course of action but to convince you weenies that what you're doing is morally wrong and pretty darn violent. Heck, we can't even buy our own property. All we can do is rent it from government. Feudalism 2.0.
A six-lane highway has bottlenecks, and those bottlenecks are the on/off ramps. You could make the off-ramps bigger, but then the adjunct roads also need to be upgraded. In the end, most cities don't have the capacity to properly feed and siphon off traffic from anything remotely resembling a "super highway".
As individuals we get taxed on our individual "revenue". Not our net "income" (except for a few minor deductions). The big difference being that a human being can't claim the majority of their living expenses as "expenses in the pursuit of profit", whereas a corporation can.
Don't bother with that particular type of troll. It's not that they don't know...It's just that their purpose is simply to pollute the discussion. So instead of arguing actual things, you spend your time correcting them. We all know what Mark Twain said about stupid people: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
It's like watching something die in slow-motion. What with the ever-desperate titles and articles, and the frequency with which Slashdot spews them out. Heck, most of those articles don't even break the 100-comment mark despite being geeky and/or interesting. People just don't bother anymore. It's really sad.
Lemme guess, you're a bitter person stuck in your own government-imposed bubble and you're lashing out at those that want to prevent others from joining you, right?
Slashdot Mirror
It is also immoral to force people to pay for something that they choose not to/don't use. And if you can't allow people an alternative to what you propose, then you are, in essence, forcing them to participate. Give anti-tax people a feasible alternative. Only then can you claim any moral high ground when it comes to "society" and "paying taxes".
Most of the people that argue with anti-tax individuals think them morally corrupt and conflate not wanting to pay taxes with some sort of selfish drive. It's not true for most of the ones I've spoken to. Tell me, what is wrong with having a more direct/visible say in how/where our taxes are used? Because clumping it into one giant pool and giving it to a huge bureaucracy is most certainly not moral in any way.
There's only one thing worse than an idiot with bad ideologies, and that's a smart person with bad ideologies. Good luck trying to argue with them on any sort of constructive level. Good luck to us all, really. As these morally corrupt intellectuals are dragging us collectively further down the statist hole.
Taxation is theft if we have no say in how that money is used. And if you honestly think that you have any say at all in how your tax money is used, then you're seriously deluded. Forcing other people to pay for some collective "purpose" is morally wrong.
That's the real problem with taxation, and the biggest one most anti-taxation people have with it. If you want to call taxation voluntary, then allow people to choose how it gets used, and tax them for only the services they use of government. None of this "representative" nonsense that you call giant democracy.
What a lame retort. The person you initially responded to already made the conversation about governments. Thus, this whole thread is a response to that, and has nothing directly to do with the article. The fact that all you can do in response is to restate the obvious is quite telling.
Lol, you're deluded if you can't see how your "power to influence other people in how they vote" makes your vote more valuable than theirs. That's not democracy, man. "One person, one vote". And you being able to "influence" other people breaks that entire concept into "More power to influence = more votes".
Yes, you are conflating democracy with freedom. You seem to think that freedom means a right to influence other people to vote as you. That is not democracy, because democracy in its basic form is "one person, one vote". As such, what you call "freedom", is merely you claiming the right to infringe on other peoples' freedom to vote as they please, free from your influence and manipulation. And also, freedom does NOT include you being able to exercise control over me with what you call "power to influence". Your rights END where my rights over myself start.
It seems to me that you're a fan of democracy simply because in your world-view it conveniently allows you to claim "freedom for all" and at the same time manipulate them into voting the same as you. Because yeah, dude, your phrase "power to influence" simple means coerce and manipulate people into voting the way you want them to.
I'm probably not the first to say this, but... Fuck you, and your damn social contract. Claiming some over-arching "contract" that I never signed doesn't give you magical powers to force me to conform to whatever you deem is contained in this contract of yours.
Are these auto auctions for second hand cars?
I'm not well versed with American laws... You said the "1st Amendment". Is that that law that says whoever has the most money is the one that gets to pick who is elected by virtue of more advertising money? Well, gee gosh darn it, that doesn't sound very democratic of you. You sure you're a democracy? One person, one vote, right?
Wrong... I'm not one to quibble over definitions, but that's most certainly NOT what democracy is about. Just think for a moment about what your comment implies. You're saying that you're free to use your own money to promote your own viewpoints. Sure, freedom is good, and everyone should be allowed to be free to do with their money as they please. However... Once you start allowing a person to use his money to enhance the political position of a party/candidate then you are skewing and altering the playing field. You're basically making your single vote count more than the vote of the poor homeless man down the street, or whatever. Even if it's not directly playing out that way, you have to admit that that money will be used by the candidate/party to promote their cause.
But really, the problem is you're conflating democracy with freedom. You think because you have democracy that you are free? Or that freedom means you have a democracy? Both debatable. Especially now that we're seeing how skewed the political system is when money is involved.
I'm no fan of democracy, but it's easy to see what all these things mean when you take them to their logical conclusions. Take away all the fluff, and "freedom" talk you have there, and all you're left with is a system that's heavily influenced by money. Good luck. To all of us.
Wait, you actually think the "system works"? It doesn't... And when it does, it's just to appease you into thinking that "look, see, it works, we told you so".
Can you clarify a little more about how you think campaign contributions are an essential part of democracy? Because to me, every which way I look at it, campaign contributions just expose the possibility of a party/candidate getting benefit due to the fact that their supporters have more money. How is that democracy?
I fail to see how someone can think that giving politicians money is a good thing. Shouldn't it just be about votes? Isn't that the point of democracy? How can you justify giving money in any way? Do you think your vote is not enough that you have to give money? Why do you feel the need to give money other than because you want your vote to count more than what it does by itself? Can't you see that that leads to you thinking that your "vote" should count more inherently by virtue of you giving more money?
Just sit back, look at it rationally and wonder about these things you take for granted. Please.
Here we go: citation 1
Or another one: citation 2
In case you haven't noticed, but that's how conversations go. One topic leads to the next. My first paragraph was sufficient to address 1/2 of your post, but don't let that stop you from doing your thing and implying I'm somehow incapable of understanding your point because 1/3 of my post wasn't specifically aimed at the point you arbitrarily chose to be the "point you made". 1/2 of your post was also about overall democracy and majority rules. Seriously, now that I re-read both our posts, it seems that you're positively correct. About half of your post was about the definition of democracy/republic. the rest is most certainly applicable to what I responded.
And pray do tell who votes in these "representatives" other than the majority? And if the majority votes in the representatives then the assumption is that they're the ones that are having their opinions represented. Calling democracy, whether direct or representational, mob rule is just plain rhetoric to scare people. But no matter how you swing it, democracy IS majority rule and that means that the minority has no say.
To see just such oppression, you need look no further than the LGBT community that is trying to get equal rights. They are at the mercy of the whims and opinions of the majority. One day they might get equal rights, and some fool will come along and say "Look, democracy WORKS". But that'll only happening IF the majority approves.
However, that isn't the whole picture. How many instances have we seen where the majority wanted something but was denied by their "representatives". The costly wars by America is just one shining example of that. Now, I don't know about you, but these two examples together paint one picture for me. That you have no representation, just token bones thrown at you every once in a while to appease you, and all the other bones thrown at you just to distract you.
Why don't you rather suggest that people that don't like living under government should go out in the middle of nowhere where they can be left alone? Oh, that's right... Because government owns ALL land, and they will SHOOT you if you try claim any of it, even if they're not using it. That sort of violence is no different than the kind you find in Somalia.
Copy from a response to another poster above:
You know, we'd love to just leave you guys the fuck alone and go to our own piece of land somewhere out there in the middle of nowhere where none of you can impose your morals and taxes on us. But ALL land is taken, and we have no where to go. Hence why statist assholes like you keep telling us to go to Somalia. Because statism has taken up ALL land, and we have no course of action but to convince you weenies that what you're doing is morally wrong and pretty darn violent.
I'm utterly disgusted with the fact that you got upvoted. Not that I place value on being upvoted, but rather because it shows me the general consensus of people that are reading these discussions.
You're just presenting the same old rehashed arguments. Not even good ones, I might add. However, the person below that logically and clearly explains the error in your thinking gets no moderation.
You know, we'd love to just leave you guys the fuck alone and go to our own piece of land somewhere out there in the middle of nowhere where none of you can impose your morals and taxes on us. But ALL land is taken, and we have no where to go. Hence why statist assholes like you keep telling us to go to Somalia. Because statism has taken up ALL land, and we have no course of action but to convince you weenies that what you're doing is morally wrong and pretty darn violent. Heck, we can't even buy our own property. All we can do is rent it from government. Feudalism 2.0.
A six-lane highway has bottlenecks, and those bottlenecks are the on/off ramps. You could make the off-ramps bigger, but then the adjunct roads also need to be upgraded. In the end, most cities don't have the capacity to properly feed and siphon off traffic from anything remotely resembling a "super highway".
As individuals we get taxed on our individual "revenue". Not our net "income" (except for a few minor deductions). The big difference being that a human being can't claim the majority of their living expenses as "expenses in the pursuit of profit", whereas a corporation can.
No, you're talking about calling someone retarded because they have a different viewpoint to you. There is no other way you can swing it, really.
Don't bother with that particular type of troll. It's not that they don't know...It's just that their purpose is simply to pollute the discussion. So instead of arguing actual things, you spend your time correcting them. We all know what Mark Twain said about stupid people: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
It's like watching something die in slow-motion. What with the ever-desperate titles and articles, and the frequency with which Slashdot spews them out. Heck, most of those articles don't even break the 100-comment mark despite being geeky and/or interesting. People just don't bother anymore. It's really sad.
UEFI Secure Boot is only applicable for Surface RT. The Surface Pro has no such limitations and you can install ANY OS you please.
You're welcome.
Lemme guess, you're a bitter person stuck in your own government-imposed bubble and you're lashing out at those that want to prevent others from joining you, right?
Experience != skill