Not voluntary? Wrong. You are free to leave. It is not our problem if there is no place you would like better. Now, let me ask you, would you like it if I came and lived in your house without paying you, and followed my own rules (including, say, peeing in the sink) while there? No? But I never agreed to follow your rules!
Don't assume that I simply don't understand the libertarian point of view. I do. I don't agree with it. I think it is selfish and poorly thought out. If libertarians want to live in a different style of society than the rest of us, I suggest they form their own nation or state and make their own society instead of trying to co-opt one that the vast majority of Americans prefer. Sure, they can try to convince us to adopt their point of view, but I am sick and tired of libertarians unjustly claiming the high moral ground. Libertarians can cry that we are "forcing" them to participate, but we are not. You are all free to leave and start your own libertarian utopia on any uninhabited, unclaimed piece of land in the world. As I said, it is not our responsibility to provide you with the options you'd prefer to have rather than the options you actually have. I simply do not understand the logic behind claiming that government is forcing you to do anything.
You know, I'd like universal health care, but I'm not stupid enough to claim that anyone is forcing me to pay into an HMO. I could go without insurance, but I choose to pay. You could leave the US, but you choose to stay. So do not claim the government is 'forcing' you to stay and participate.
You present a strong argument for a core tenet of Republican beliefs, namely, a smaller Federal government. That is actually one belief I share with Republicans. This is the best way to provide a "market" of governance. States that do poorly will see their populations fleeing to states that govern the best.
You probably know, the tool the government has used to get around the limitations on Federal power is the commerce clause. The constitution grants the Federal government the power to regulate commerce, and by some pretty twisted logic, everything effects commerce in one way or another, and therefore, the Federal government can regulate everything.
However, there are some points where I reject the policy of "Federal government means defense only." As an example, I feel that the Federal government played a good role in the civil rights movement.
You are a free person who is a citizen of a Republic. Here in America, we elect people to make plans for us, because we are free, and we choose to do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but the majority of citizens do, so it is unfair of you to force your 'no government is good government' view on the rest of us.
"which some people might see as a risk of newly-introduced instability."
now who would think that? Honestly now, lets see some hands. You in the back, PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS IN THE AIR! LOOKOUT! The guy in the back has a CHAIR! It's Ballmer, everybody DUCK!
Clean water, safe sewage sanitation, roads, laws, utility right ow ways, law enforcement, fire and other emergency services benefit Microsoft as a company, as well as the individual employees. Should we all be so grateful to Daddy Corporation for providing us jobs that we will let them do anything to us? We have to make a nice house for Daddy Corp to live in, we can't complain about the way Daddy Corp touches us, we have to do whatever Daddy Corp tells us to, we have to pay for everything Daddy Corp wants or he's going to leave us! That's what you're saying. We must all be slaves to the corporation, because without them, we'd be nothing, and have nothing. Even seeing the pragmatic realities of the situation, that kind of thinking makes me sick in the pit of my stomach. We can do better than that. Our ancestors suffered under feudalism, kings, and lords too long to go back to that.
You have the right to live in any state in the country you wish, without paying any taxes? Really? Good luck with that. Tell you what, how about I come stay at your house for free, you wouldn't mind, right?
Good points, and well put. If this is legal, then that's that. We may decide we don't want it to be that way, but you make a good case that we shouldn't. My real motivation here was to tweak the nose of the libertarian 'All taxes are immoral' crowd.
Oh, so you think that if you can't get the choice you want, the rest of us are somehow obliged to provide it for you? There is no country you can go to that won't tax you, therefore the US should give you the option not to pay taxes? No restaurant has free lobster, either, you think that entitles you to free lobster? Not only are you retarded, it sounds as though you have the morals of a thief. You want all the benefits of living in a first world country with non of the responsibilities. Thankfully, retards like you don't run the country, or, in fact, any country in the world, because no one but a retard is dumb enough to think your retarded ideas would ever work.
Ah, the option you wish existed, does not. Therefore, America is obliged to provide it for you. You know, as well as not paying taxes, I'd like free hookers. In fact, because I want that to exist, and it is not available any place else, the US government is obliged to give it too me.
Ah, well, I see your point now. My point was not that you had to leave, but rather that you could, if you didn't want to pay taxes. Just as you could leave a restaurant before eating the food if you didn't want to pay for it.
You can look at the services provided by the US, and the amount it will cost you in taxes, and if you don't like it, you can leave. Exactly like the restaurant scenario. It is the same situation, except in the minds of people who would rather reap the benefits of living in a first world country without paying for them.
That's like saying, "I ate the steak, and the lobster, but I didn't want veggies, so I'm not going to pay for the veggies I didn't eat." Taxes don't work that way, it's like paying for cable, there is no a la carte.
Really? Explain, using modern legal interpretations as accepted by the Supreme Court, how Article IV of the Constitution permits you to live in the US without paying taxes. Just because you think that's what Article IV means, doesn't mean that anyone who matters thinks that way.
Ah, so you think you should be able to live anywhere, regardless of who already lives there and what rules they have in place. Tell you what, I don't have a contract with you regarding the use of your property, so I am going to come live in your house and eat your food. You obviously don't mind.
All three are there in regards to government services and taxes as well. The offer is, use our services. The acceptance is you actually using the services. The consideration is your taxes. Do you really not understand the basics of contract, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
So you have the right to profit off of my work, do you? Because that's what you're doing when you don't pay taxes. We contribute to the public good through our taxes, paying for positive externalities that everyone benefits from. I'm not telling you to leave, I'm saying you have a choice. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't take any of the benefits I pay for or you are stealing from me. Do you think that's fair?
Cute. Are you trolling, or do you really believe you have a right to live in the US without following US laws? You freeloaders make me sick. You want the benefits of living in America without the costs. There are plenty of places you can live and not pay taxes, the thing is, you wouldn't actually want to live there. What you want is a first world country, with first world services, without paying for anything except what you think is fair. And I want to purchase just five channels from a cable or satellite provider. Any provider. But I can't, so those evil cable and satellite providers must be oppressing me and taking away my rights.
You can say whatever you like. You can try to get taxes repealed. That's within your rights. What isn't within your rights is not paying your taxes while using the services. Not only that, it isn't ethical or moral. No one has the power to force you to do things, because you can always go live on a deserted island somewhere, or in a cave, and no one will bother you. If you want to live with other people, you have to make compromises, like it or not. People have the power to offer you things that you may want so much that you aren't willing to live in a cave. That isn't force or coercion, that's you, deciding you like what they offered and you accept the damn contract. Sorry if you don't like the choices offered, but no one guaranteed you a right to be offered only choices you like.
There is no valid contract for you to pay for your food when you go into a restaurant, yet few people dine and dash. No one would assume the restaurant is just giving you the food for free. What there is is an implied contract. You eat the food, you pay the bill. With government services, there is the same implied contract. If you don't want to pay the bill, don't make use of the services. If you don't agree to pay taxes, go live somewhere else, you have no right to live here.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the SF Zoo was the example. Not the tiger attack in particular, but the entire pattern of fraud and neglect. Specifically: not putting money into upgrading older exhibits, firing experienced animal handlers and hiring cheaper replacements, forcing the city to pay for workman's comp and then forcing employees to engage in dangerous tasks resulting in injuries on the job, and not buying enough animal feed so the handlers had to (for instance) steal eucalyptus branches for the koalas. That's all I can remember from the articles I read, it was a while ago.
Some people think America is always evil. Others think America can do no evil. A few of us believe that we should take it on a case by case basis. There's no proof here that America did anything. But this is likely more than a coincidence. When was the last time you heard of an underwater cable being cut? Never? Yeah, me neither. Then, boom! 3 or 4 in a few weeks. Not very likely. Now, I haven't ruled out coincidence, but I have shown probable cause to search for another explanation. So, who has the means, the opportunity, and the motivation? The Bush administration. Am I saying I know for sure they did it? Of course not.
Now, are you saying you know for sure they didn't?
I'm not saying that privatization caused the tiger escape. I'm saying the SF Zoo has sucked since it was privatized, and this is yet another example of them screwing up. They should have known the enclosure was faulty, it doesn't meet recommendations. The fact that the inspectors signed off on it is a little suspicious since it clearly violates the guidelines.
My grasp of logic is fine, your reading comprehension skills need work. But thanks for attempting to help me help "my cause."
Slashdot Mirror
Not voluntary? Wrong. You are free to leave. It is not our problem if there is no place you would like better. Now, let me ask you, would you like it if I came and lived in your house without paying you, and followed my own rules (including, say, peeing in the sink) while there? No? But I never agreed to follow your rules!
Don't assume that I simply don't understand the libertarian point of view. I do. I don't agree with it. I think it is selfish and poorly thought out. If libertarians want to live in a different style of society than the rest of us, I suggest they form their own nation or state and make their own society instead of trying to co-opt one that the vast majority of Americans prefer. Sure, they can try to convince us to adopt their point of view, but I am sick and tired of libertarians unjustly claiming the high moral ground. Libertarians can cry that we are "forcing" them to participate, but we are not. You are all free to leave and start your own libertarian utopia on any uninhabited, unclaimed piece of land in the world. As I said, it is not our responsibility to provide you with the options you'd prefer to have rather than the options you actually have. I simply do not understand the logic behind claiming that government is forcing you to do anything.
You know, I'd like universal health care, but I'm not stupid enough to claim that anyone is forcing me to pay into an HMO. I could go without insurance, but I choose to pay. You could leave the US, but you choose to stay. So do not claim the government is 'forcing' you to stay and participate.
You present a strong argument for a core tenet of Republican beliefs, namely, a smaller Federal government. That is actually one belief I share with Republicans. This is the best way to provide a "market" of governance. States that do poorly will see their populations fleeing to states that govern the best.
You probably know, the tool the government has used to get around the limitations on Federal power is the commerce clause. The constitution grants the Federal government the power to regulate commerce, and by some pretty twisted logic, everything effects commerce in one way or another, and therefore, the Federal government can regulate everything.
However, there are some points where I reject the policy of "Federal government means defense only." As an example, I feel that the Federal government played a good role in the civil rights movement.
You are a free person who is a citizen of a Republic. Here in America, we elect people to make plans for us, because we are free, and we choose to do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but the majority of citizens do, so it is unfair of you to force your 'no government is good government' view on the rest of us.
now who would think that? Honestly now, lets see some hands. You in the back, PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS IN THE AIR! LOOKOUT! The guy in the back has a CHAIR! It's Ballmer, everybody DUCK!
Clean water, safe sewage sanitation, roads, laws, utility right ow ways, law enforcement, fire and other emergency services benefit Microsoft as a company, as well as the individual employees. Should we all be so grateful to Daddy Corporation for providing us jobs that we will let them do anything to us? We have to make a nice house for Daddy Corp to live in, we can't complain about the way Daddy Corp touches us, we have to do whatever Daddy Corp tells us to, we have to pay for everything Daddy Corp wants or he's going to leave us! That's what you're saying. We must all be slaves to the corporation, because without them, we'd be nothing, and have nothing. Even seeing the pragmatic realities of the situation, that kind of thinking makes me sick in the pit of my stomach. We can do better than that. Our ancestors suffered under feudalism, kings, and lords too long to go back to that.
You have the right to live in any state in the country you wish, without paying any taxes? Really? Good luck with that. Tell you what, how about I come stay at your house for free, you wouldn't mind, right?
Good points, and well put. If this is legal, then that's that. We may decide we don't want it to be that way, but you make a good case that we shouldn't. My real motivation here was to tweak the nose of the libertarian 'All taxes are immoral' crowd.
Oh, so you think that if you can't get the choice you want, the rest of us are somehow obliged to provide it for you? There is no country you can go to that won't tax you, therefore the US should give you the option not to pay taxes? No restaurant has free lobster, either, you think that entitles you to free lobster? Not only are you retarded, it sounds as though you have the morals of a thief. You want all the benefits of living in a first world country with non of the responsibilities. Thankfully, retards like you don't run the country, or, in fact, any country in the world, because no one but a retard is dumb enough to think your retarded ideas would ever work.
Ah, the option you wish existed, does not. Therefore, America is obliged to provide it for you. You know, as well as not paying taxes, I'd like free hookers. In fact, because I want that to exist, and it is not available any place else, the US government is obliged to give it too me.
Brilliant logic, sir, I applaud you.
Ah, well, I see your point now. My point was not that you had to leave, but rather that you could, if you didn't want to pay taxes. Just as you could leave a restaurant before eating the food if you didn't want to pay for it.
You can look at the services provided by the US, and the amount it will cost you in taxes, and if you don't like it, you can leave. Exactly like the restaurant scenario. It is the same situation, except in the minds of people who would rather reap the benefits of living in a first world country without paying for them.
That's like saying, "I ate the steak, and the lobster, but I didn't want veggies, so I'm not going to pay for the veggies I didn't eat." Taxes don't work that way, it's like paying for cable, there is no a la carte.
Really? Explain, using modern legal interpretations as accepted by the Supreme Court, how Article IV of the Constitution permits you to live in the US without paying taxes. Just because you think that's what Article IV means, doesn't mean that anyone who matters thinks that way.
Ah, so you think you should be able to live anywhere, regardless of who already lives there and what rules they have in place. Tell you what, I don't have a contract with you regarding the use of your property, so I am going to come live in your house and eat your food. You obviously don't mind.
All three are there in regards to government services and taxes as well. The offer is, use our services. The acceptance is you actually using the services. The consideration is your taxes. Do you really not understand the basics of contract, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
So you have the right to profit off of my work, do you? Because that's what you're doing when you don't pay taxes. We contribute to the public good through our taxes, paying for positive externalities that everyone benefits from. I'm not telling you to leave, I'm saying you have a choice. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't take any of the benefits I pay for or you are stealing from me. Do you think that's fair?
Funny, that's how I thought the free market works, and government was there to protect us from that.
Cute. Are you trolling, or do you really believe you have a right to live in the US without following US laws? You freeloaders make me sick. You want the benefits of living in America without the costs. There are plenty of places you can live and not pay taxes, the thing is, you wouldn't actually want to live there. What you want is a first world country, with first world services, without paying for anything except what you think is fair. And I want to purchase just five channels from a cable or satellite provider. Any provider. But I can't, so those evil cable and satellite providers must be oppressing me and taking away my rights.
You can say whatever you like. You can try to get taxes repealed. That's within your rights. What isn't within your rights is not paying your taxes while using the services. Not only that, it isn't ethical or moral. No one has the power to force you to do things, because you can always go live on a deserted island somewhere, or in a cave, and no one will bother you. If you want to live with other people, you have to make compromises, like it or not. People have the power to offer you things that you may want so much that you aren't willing to live in a cave. That isn't force or coercion, that's you, deciding you like what they offered and you accept the damn contract. Sorry if you don't like the choices offered, but no one guaranteed you a right to be offered only choices you like.
There is no valid contract for you to pay for your food when you go into a restaurant, yet few people dine and dash. No one would assume the restaurant is just giving you the food for free. What there is is an implied contract. You eat the food, you pay the bill. With government services, there is the same implied contract. If you don't want to pay the bill, don't make use of the services. If you don't agree to pay taxes, go live somewhere else, you have no right to live here.
That's actually a pretty decent motivation. But maybe he actually deserves it. I have to ask, did you defend Clinton the same way?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the SF Zoo was the example. Not the tiger attack in particular, but the entire pattern of fraud and neglect. Specifically: not putting money into upgrading older exhibits, firing experienced animal handlers and hiring cheaper replacements, forcing the city to pay for workman's comp and then forcing employees to engage in dangerous tasks resulting in injuries on the job, and not buying enough animal feed so the handlers had to (for instance) steal eucalyptus branches for the koalas. That's all I can remember from the articles I read, it was a while ago.
Oh, it's true. Could be anyone. I just picked Bush because I know sumdumass loves him. I'm a bad, mean troll, I know.
Some people think America is always evil. Others think America can do no evil. A few of us believe that we should take it on a case by case basis. There's no proof here that America did anything. But this is likely more than a coincidence. When was the last time you heard of an underwater cable being cut? Never? Yeah, me neither. Then, boom! 3 or 4 in a few weeks. Not very likely. Now, I haven't ruled out coincidence, but I have shown probable cause to search for another explanation. So, who has the means, the opportunity, and the motivation? The Bush administration. Am I saying I know for sure they did it? Of course not.
Now, are you saying you know for sure they didn't?
How about "Christmasbush" for all the Robert Forward or Hans Moravec fans.
I'm not saying that privatization caused the tiger escape. I'm saying the SF Zoo has sucked since it was privatized, and this is yet another example of them screwing up. They should have known the enclosure was faulty, it doesn't meet recommendations. The fact that the inspectors signed off on it is a little suspicious since it clearly violates the guidelines.
My grasp of logic is fine, your reading comprehension skills need work. But thanks for attempting to help me help "my cause."