That's a cute idea, if it makes batteries less expensive or more efficient. It won't, though, make even a tiny dent in the massive amounts of CO2 that humans are pushing into the atmosphere. Each passenger car puts out an average of 9,737.44 lb/year
The main reason it won't make a dent is that lithium metal has to be manufactured somehow.
People want bigass SUVs because they're more macho than minivans. So all the SUV makers have to pork up[*] to avoid losing sales. The majority of SUVs are not bought for either the S or the U part. They're bought becase of how they look.
What always gets me is how little space many of them have inside compared to a minivan. I'd pick the latter any day. With the good ones, the seats either come out completely or fold neatly out of the way, giving pretty decent cargo space.
Ah yeah I forgot about that one. That's a registered-sex-offender-for-life kind of a deal isn't it. It lets the elected prosecuters run on a platform about how they are extremely tough on the crime of child pornography, while not technically lying.
. . . but then again . . . nobody in the UK besides Theresa May seems to like her Chequers Plan either . . . so maybe she wants to keep an eye on the UK bastards, as well . . . ?
(what's the spaces between the dots?)
That aside, yeah no one in the UK really likes it.
For the vaguely sane, leaving the EU is clearly incredibly stupid and it's clear we're going to much worse under Chequers than we're doing now[*].
For many Brexiters it's not acceptable because Brexit was supposed to make everything better and it won't. they're stil waiting for a magical solution which makes everything better not worse.
And for the Jacob Reese-Moggs and Boris "250k is chickenfeed" Johnsons of this world, they simply don't care that a hard Brexit will utterly fuck everyone less rich than them. They see it as a route to power and they don't care how many people have to die for them to get it.
Thing is though the reception in the UK is barely relevant. No one in the EU likes it either. The May government is very good when it comes to blustering about our "red lines", but they seem to have forgotten that the EU has some too.
[*] There are some interesting things though, particularly the emphasis on goods rather than services. The UK is largely a financial service economy so that will effectively heavily boos the goods side relative to the services side. That could potentially help with the inequality problems because manufacturing of goods can end up employing a lot of people relative to financial services. However, in order for that work, the Tories would have to be a lot more pro British manufacturing than they've ever been in the past which is deeply unlikely. And the EU will have to agree which they won't.
After all, what's to lose? It would take Russia all of half an hour and up to five per cent of its strategic warheads to render the entire UK permanently uninhabitable.
Both men have greatly inconvenienced the US government shortly before these allegations came to light, however
How has this man "inconvenienced the government". In case you hadn't noticed the government is run by Reppublicans at the moment who are happy to beat on "Dem will steal our guns" drum. One could reasonably assume they're pretty pro gun and anti gun control.
Secondly this came from Texas where the governer is a very staunch second amendment suporter (complete with complaints about Calinfornia liberals just in case anoyne didn't think he was a stereorype).
No, it's not. I take your article and raise you "Northanger Abbey", a book published in 1817 which more or less has the plot (heavily summarised) "teenagers are a bit silly". Now how on earth could that be a thing if teenagers didn't even exist then?
Maybe the word teenager wasn't used, but adolescents exist, always have and always will. There are even scientifically measurable brain changes that happen during adolescence.
It's not limited to humans either. You can see the behaviour easily in social animals as well.
Who determines what this "magic age" is?
Welcome to the real world. The real world is messy and fully of grey areas requiring a mixture of poorly applied rules and actual judgement. For example in this case it's often very clear when things are far over one side of the line. 5 years old? Definitely not ok. 50 years old? Definitely OK. Logarithmically interpolate (~16) and you run right into the middle of a grey area.
It's stark but ultimately it's like everything else. There's always a continum between "definitely fine" and "fuck no" and no matter where you draw the line problems abound. But if you don't draw the line anywhere at all you have even worse problems.
My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100.
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
And the FBI mind-controlled Cody Wilson to go to a website that specializes in extra-young prostitutes just so they could set him up.
Oh come on, everyone knows the FBI doesn't run the mind control satellites. And besides this sort of thing is within the purview of what they put in chemtrails not satellites. I think it was a covert op by the NOAA.
In the USA, whinging about busses costing money and requiring absurd pre-sunrise wake up times to compensate is a product of inadequate taxing and incompetent government.
Not only that but one can also complain that it's primarily the "fault" of the low income parents because they have no flexibility in their jobs.
The 'homemaker' stayed home and handled things like weird school times, plus you know, actually teaching their own kids about life. Now both parents have to work, isn't it nice that now it takes two people working full time jobs to earn enough that used to be done by ONE full time parent? This tells me that your job is only worth half the value it used to be! Progress for corporations, at the expense of your family, indeed.
Like most things we think of as "the way it used to be", that was basically an anomalous period of history around the 1950s. At most points in history most people have had to work.
Would you kindly do me the favor of not replying while under influence?
You miss-spelled "on your phone". The autocorrect is adaptive and changes up to 3 words back. Sometimes I don't notice. Was meant to say oh fuck it I don't know.
er
something about you want people to pay for your safety.
I think I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure... My own safety is my own responsibility - the country's continuing existence is what taxes can be ethically spent on assuring.
You have not explained the grounds for your ethics. ou are treating "existence of the counrty" as some sort of axiom. The only reason for having the country is because of it citizens. If you want the country to be protected, the nyou are asking for you to receive some protection.
Which is fine.
What you won't elucidate is how far hte government should to to protect the borders and WHY.
That and it being essential to the country's continuing existence. This is an important requirement - only the government could get to the Moon in the 1960-ies, but it was not needed for the US to survive - at all - and therefore should not have been done, for example.
Was having accurate ICBMs essential to the country's survival? A hostile and massively murderous adversary, the USSR, was busy arming up as well. Many would argue yes. A lot of research came out of the space race. A lot of that has continued to be used ot this day for space launch stuff, including earth observing satellites.
You might very well argue that intelligence is necessary for border protection.
You tried to.
No, I did. You're yet to explain where the government can shake the magic money tree to raises taxes for border protection and law enforcement. That money has to come from a functioning economy. Therefore the functioning economy is part of a country's survival. Therefore according to your ethics the government can raise taxes to that effect.
Your ongoing lamentations over the poor slobs "dying under bridges" appeal to the audience's compassion and charity, even shame and guilt.
Despite your inane hyperbolic language, yes, I am appealing to the audiences sense of humanity. If you have none, then why bother doing anything at all?
But you never said, we must all take care of such slobs to improve our military strength.
That's correct. I have reasons which clearly don't overlap with yours for why the government should do stuff. However if you actually follow your arguments to their logical conclusion it leads to the support of the economy.
But your contention is that the government should only touch border protection and law enforcement becasue those are curcial to the country's survival is simply not correct. There are other things crucial to the country's survival like having enough money to protect those borders.
Unless your next post addresses your earlier-mentioned inconsistency, I'm unlikely to reply.
You're finding excuses now. I adderssed it. I've repeatedly followed your reasoning to its conclusion and keep getting the answer you don't like. Yo're only saying this to excuse disengagement so you don't have to address the fact that your agruments lead to conclusions you dislike.
Which is exactly what we predicted when congress passed ObamaCare, requiring full time employees be covered. Well, now we have a bunch of professions that no longer work full time, simply because idiots can't figure out how their stupid ideas would be handled by businesses.
Well, that is what happens when you have to pander to the republicans to get something passed. Honestly, I think the republicans congress inhabitants knew their changes would do that. They just didn't care.
You're exactly the same. Forcing someone you pick your cousin is bad, forcing converting to pay for your safety is good.
You claim only the government can do that, and that's the definitive factor. I've provided reasons why that doesn't follow which you simply ignored because they're inconvenient. Then you started quoting the constitution at me as if that's some sort of moral guide (or relevant legally to me).
Fundamentally you're ignoring the facts though. You want government protection. That's fine. The problem is you don't really admit that needs money and they had to come from somewhere. Sure you say tax, but tax what? The government can't magic money out of thin air. If you want protecting you therefore need to live in an economy capable of supporting the level of protection you desire. In the modern world with mobile armies, planes and nukes that's really expensive, so you need a big economy.
No economy has ever got that large without a government doing more than providing just border protection and law enforcement. So to get what you claim to want you need song approximation of what you have now.
What you actually want is not and will never be provided by the system you claim you want.
You also flat out ignored an earlier question. Do you support the existence of the EPA paid for by taxes?
I didn't just state it "more definitively" - I provided (repeated) the clear and easily applied test. It is not arbitrary at all.
A non arbitrary answer to an arbitrary test is still arbitrary.
That's a giant "if", is not it?
I called it a hypothetical.
and, indeed, more than likely "No", than "Yes".
No, it's more likely Yes than No.
Government can levy taxes to get a capable military.
The government cannot tax what does not exist.
It can not levy them to make the country "nicer" - because that would be arbitrary (and also ineffective, but that's another thing).
It can levy taxes and build an environment where the economy prospers. Giving it a lot more resources to tax for the milirary and so giving it much greater defensive power. Oh and infrastructure to improve the effectivenes of the military. Like th einterstates.
To reiterate:
To reiterate your claims. Not facts.
* Because it is this necessity that makes taxes ethically acceptable despite being oppressive, tax-collected monies can only be spent on things essential to the polity's very survival.
Like having a military big enough to be effective. Which requires a working economy. The bigger the better in fact...
Questions of ethics settled,
You simply restatig the same claims is not the same as settled.
we have this document called Constitution.
So? That's not an argument of ethics. It's a document drawn up by a bunch of guys over 200 years ago.
No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be - ethically - spent on things crucial to the country's existence .
That's still completely arbitrary. Stating an arbitrary thing more definitively does not make it les arbitrary.
Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence
There is no point maintaining a coutry for the sake of the country in the absence of people. The only point is for the benefit of the individuals involves.
b) he can take care of himself
There are many, many cases where that is demonstrably not true.
Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable - ethical - to confiscate the materiel
Yes, now keep that in mind.
What if there aren't enough finds and materiel? The town and everyone in it dies/is enslaved etc etc. But what if the government can act to increase the available funds and materiel to the point where there are enough to save the town? Well without the government acting there were't enough in this hypothetical. But if the government can ensure there are enough by levying taxes and supporting things that grow the economy to the point where the town is safe then it is surely is ethical and acceptable to do so.
Because without doing so the town dies.
Your argument justifies much greater taxing and spending than simple law enforcement.
Personally though I think it's unethical to hoard everything (while taking people to keep my hoard protected) while letting others die in the streets due to poverty.
Because of you and your kind.
My kind: the kind that doesn't want people to die en-masse and in pain from easily preventable causes. I'm happy with being of that kind.
They are oppressive and I rely on them - there is no inconsistency here.
So basically you consider life oppressive. You're oppressed if you pay taxes and you'll be oppressed by someone if you don't. That's an information-free way of looking at the world. It adds nothing ot the discussion because all paths start off equal.
They are unavoidable evil,
If it's evil then you are evil for wanting them, even for your own personal protection.
and that is why it is wrong to use them for anything, that's not essential to the very existence of the country.
That's completely arbitrary. The only reaosn the country is important is because of the people inside it. So why draw a line between borde protection and healthcare?
I'm not happy to do it, that's one. I accept the necessity - with great reluctance
You're so reluctant to steal other people's money but you do it anyway. Don't worry I'm sure they feel your reluctance with every blow of the pig-cop's truncheon.
- to fund the things, only government can do: a) protection from foreign enemies; b) protection from domestic criminals.
Private security can do the latter. You just don't want to fork out for it.
Ot of interest, do you support that taxes go towards the EPA?
You on the other hand, really are happy - jeering even - to tax some in order to "help" others (and yourself).
Jeering is a stupid way of putting it, but yes, I support higher taxes than I'm currently paying. And I vote that way at every election.
You'd be aghast over someone forced to work another's fields, but are perfectly content to see people forced to pay for others' healthcare.
So? Those two are not remotely eqivalent. And i include myself as one of those paying for other's healthcare. I'm pretty lucky in that regard: given my family history I'm likely to have decent health into my old age, and I'm currently decently paid (there's a good market for people who can write C++ right now) so the chances are I'll be a net contributor.
You just want this other vast list - that can, and therefore should, be done by non-government organizations
You say should as if it's some universal truth. You also declare "can" without evidence. There's no evidence that non governmental systems can provide anything approximating a decent transport network for example. Every industrialised country has had massive government investment in that regard.
I rely on taxes paying for a) border protection; b) domestic law-enforcement.
You said taxes were "oppressive". Now you say you *rely* on them. Make up your mind: you're so inconsistent.
I never said anything about "lawlessness" - your putting words into my fingertips is a sign of a desperation
You said taxes were oppressive. Without oppressive taxes you have no law enforcement. Unfortunately for me, I took you at your word. Naturally of course you backtracked instantly. You *rely* on taxes for various things, such as law enforcement.
So apparently they're not oppressive?
Not "charity" - whereby the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats confiscate money from Paul to pay Peter's healthcare (and food, and shelter, and education).
But you're happy to rob from Paul to pay for that slacker Peter's protection. Oh I see, everything you personally like is benevelont, moral and good. Everything other people like that you don't is evil and coercive. Wait! Isn't that black and white thinking just what SJWs are supposed to do?
Turns out you're an SJW as well! Who knew?
You concede (implicitly) that coercion is wrong
Coercion of what, specifically. I'm happy to coerce people trying to kill me into stopping, as apparently are you. And you're happy to coerce people into parting with money (i.e. taxes) to fund things I think are important (as are you).
The only thing we disagree on is what, precisely is important. With your SJW black and white thinking you're incapable of reasoning about that.
Then why haven't you moved to a haven of non oppressiveness like the libertarian paradise of the Congo, then?
Oh that's right becase you rely on all those things that "oppressive" taxes pay for and don't want to live in the kind of lawless helhole you get when there's no functional government.
I lookforawrd to hear how they're doing lawlessness "wrong" and if only they did lawlessless right then it would be a paradise.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a cute idea, if it makes batteries less expensive or more efficient. It won't, though, make even a tiny dent in the massive amounts of CO2 that humans are pushing into the atmosphere. Each passenger car puts out an average of 9,737.44 lb/year
The main reason it won't make a dent is that lithium metal has to be manufactured somehow.
A Beowulf cluster of Bitcoin mining rigs, optimized for streaming AI and Deep Learning in the cloud. That sounds like a totally new paradigm.
New? Hardly. I don't hear anything about serverless architectures or NodeJS. Sounds legacy to me.
People want bigass SUVs because they're more macho than minivans. So all the SUV makers have to pork up[*] to avoid losing sales. The majority of SUVs are not bought for either the S or the U part. They're bought becase of how they look.
What always gets me is how little space many of them have inside compared to a minivan. I'd pick the latter any day. With the good ones, the seats either come out completely or fold neatly out of the way, giving pretty decent cargo space.
[*]I love that! Thanks GP!
Ah yeah I forgot about that one. That's a registered-sex-offender-for-life kind of a deal isn't it. It lets the elected prosecuters run on a platform about how they are extremely tough on the crime of child pornography, while not technically lying.
. . . but then again . . . nobody in the UK besides Theresa May seems to like her Chequers Plan either . . . so maybe she wants to keep an eye on the UK bastards, as well . . . ?
(what's the spaces between the dots?)
That aside, yeah no one in the UK really likes it.
For the vaguely sane, leaving the EU is clearly incredibly stupid and it's clear we're going to much worse under Chequers than we're doing now[*].
For many Brexiters it's not acceptable because Brexit was supposed to make everything better and it won't. they're stil waiting for a magical solution which makes everything better not worse.
And for the Jacob Reese-Moggs and Boris "250k is chickenfeed" Johnsons of this world, they simply don't care that a hard Brexit will utterly fuck everyone less rich than them. They see it as a route to power and they don't care how many people have to die for them to get it.
Thing is though the reception in the UK is barely relevant. No one in the EU likes it either. The May government is very good when it comes to blustering about our "red lines", but they seem to have forgotten that the EU has some too.
[*] There are some interesting things though, particularly the emphasis on goods rather than services. The UK is largely a financial service economy so that will effectively heavily boos the goods side relative to the services side. That could potentially help with the inequality problems because manufacturing of goods can end up employing a lot of people relative to financial services. However, in order for that work, the Tories would have to be a lot more pro British manufacturing than they've ever been in the past which is deeply unlikely. And the EU will have to agree which they won't.
It's not, which is how you end up with 19 year old "sex offenders" with distraught 16 year old girlfriends.
Oh it gets stupider than that. You can get two distraught 16 year olds both charged with sex offences.
Russia my my arse. This is to keep an eye on those Belgian bastards.
Yep. We do after all rely on Wallonia's vote to secure whatever half-cocked Brexit deal we manage to negotiate.
After all, what's to lose? It would take Russia all of half an hour and up to five per cent of its strategic warheads to render the entire UK permanently uninhabitable.
You've just discovered MAD.
Both men have greatly inconvenienced the US government shortly before these allegations came to light, however
How has this man "inconvenienced the government". In case you hadn't noticed the government is run by Reppublicans at the moment who are happy to beat on "Dem will steal our guns" drum. One could reasonably assume they're pretty pro gun and anti gun control.
Secondly this came from Texas where the governer is a very staunch second amendment suporter (complete with complaints about Calinfornia liberals just in case anoyne didn't think he was a stereorype).
Your paranois is misplaced.
No, biologically and by the standards of the past few thousand or so years of human society, a 16 year old is an adult.
Bullshit biologically. 16 year olds are almost always in the middle of some fairly rapid and dramatic changes in brain development. See e.g.:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Treating them like a child is an extremely recent cultural development due to the increased length of education typically required to get a job rather
Certainly true. But it's still not true tht adolescents behave identically to mature adults.
The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46...
No, it's not. I take your article and raise you "Northanger Abbey", a book published in 1817 which more or less has the plot (heavily summarised) "teenagers are a bit silly". Now how on earth could that be a thing if teenagers didn't even exist then?
Maybe the word teenager wasn't used, but adolescents exist, always have and always will. There are even scientifically measurable brain changes that happen during adolescence.
It's not limited to humans either. You can see the behaviour easily in social animals as well.
Who determines what this "magic age" is?
Welcome to the real world. The real world is messy and fully of grey areas requiring a mixture of poorly applied rules and actual judgement. For example in this case it's often very clear when things are far over one side of the line. 5 years old? Definitely not ok. 50 years old? Definitely OK. Logarithmically interpolate (~16) and you run right into the middle of a grey area.
It's stark but ultimately it's like everything else. There's always a continum between "definitely fine" and "fuck no" and no matter where you draw the line problems abound. But if you don't draw the line anywhere at all you have even worse problems.
My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100.
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
And the FBI mind-controlled Cody Wilson to go to a website that specializes in extra-young prostitutes just so they could set him up.
Oh come on, everyone knows the FBI doesn't run the mind control satellites. And besides this sort of thing is within the purview of what they put in chemtrails not satellites. I think it was a covert op by the NOAA.
In the USA, whinging about busses costing money and requiring absurd pre-sunrise wake up times to compensate is a product of inadequate taxing and incompetent government.
Not only that but one can also complain that it's primarily the "fault" of the low income parents because they have no flexibility in their jobs.
The 'homemaker' stayed home and handled things like weird school times, plus you know, actually teaching their own kids about life. Now both parents have to work, isn't it nice that now it takes two people working full time jobs to earn enough that used to be done by ONE full time parent? This tells me that your job is only worth half the value it used to be! Progress for corporations, at the expense of your family, indeed.
Like most things we think of as "the way it used to be", that was basically an anomalous period of history around the 1950s. At most points in history most people have had to work.
Wow you're really sore about the coc ain't you?
That's funny
Thankyou. Hot fuzz jokes are always good.
Well when "do no evil" becomes "for the greater good"
They're google not the Sandford Neighbourhod Watch Alliance.
Would you kindly do me the favor of not replying while under influence?
You miss-spelled "on your phone". The autocorrect is adaptive and changes up to 3 words back. Sometimes I don't notice. Was meant to say oh fuck it I don't know.
er
something about you want people to pay for your safety.
I think I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure... My own safety is my own responsibility - the country's continuing existence is what taxes can be ethically spent on assuring.
You have not explained the grounds for your ethics. ou are treating "existence of the counrty" as some sort of axiom. The only reason for having the country is because of it citizens. If you want the country to be protected, the nyou are asking for you to receive some protection.
Which is fine.
What you won't elucidate is how far hte government should to to protect the borders and WHY.
That and it being essential to the country's continuing existence. This is an important requirement - only the government could get to the Moon in the 1960-ies, but it was not needed for the US to survive - at all - and therefore should not have been done, for example.
Was having accurate ICBMs essential to the country's survival? A hostile and massively murderous adversary, the USSR, was busy arming up as well. Many would argue yes. A lot of research came out of the space race. A lot of that has continued to be used ot this day for space launch stuff, including earth observing satellites.
You might very well argue that intelligence is necessary for border protection.
You tried to.
No, I did. You're yet to explain where the government can shake the magic money tree to raises taxes for border protection and law enforcement. That money has to come from a functioning economy. Therefore the functioning economy is part of a country's survival. Therefore according to your ethics the government can raise taxes to that effect.
Your ongoing lamentations over the poor slobs "dying under bridges" appeal to the audience's compassion and charity, even shame and guilt.
Despite your inane hyperbolic language, yes, I am appealing to the audiences sense of humanity. If you have none, then why bother doing anything at all?
But you never said, we must all take care of such slobs to improve our military strength.
That's correct. I have reasons which clearly don't overlap with yours for why the government should do stuff. However if you actually follow your arguments to their logical conclusion it leads to the support of the economy.
But your contention is that the government should only touch border protection and law enforcement becasue those are curcial to the country's survival is simply not correct. There are other things crucial to the country's survival like having enough money to protect those borders.
Unless your next post addresses your earlier-mentioned inconsistency, I'm unlikely to reply.
You're finding excuses now. I adderssed it. I've repeatedly followed your reasoning to its conclusion and keep getting the answer you don't like. Yo're only saying this to excuse disengagement so you don't have to address the fact that your agruments lead to conclusions you dislike.
Which is exactly what we predicted when congress passed ObamaCare, requiring full time employees be covered. Well, now we have a bunch of professions that no longer work full time, simply because idiots can't figure out how their stupid ideas would be handled by businesses.
Well, that is what happens when you have to pander to the republicans to get something passed. Honestly, I think the republicans congress inhabitants knew their changes would do that. They just didn't care.
You're exactly the same. Forcing someone you pick your cousin is bad, forcing converting to pay for your safety is good.
You claim only the government can do that, and that's the definitive factor. I've provided reasons why that doesn't follow which you simply ignored because they're inconvenient. Then you started quoting the constitution at me as if that's some sort of moral guide (or relevant legally to me).
Fundamentally you're ignoring the facts though. You want government protection. That's fine. The problem is you don't really admit that needs money and they had to come from somewhere. Sure you say tax, but tax what? The government can't magic money out of thin air. If you want protecting you therefore need to live in an economy capable of supporting the level of protection you desire. In the modern world with mobile armies, planes and nukes that's really expensive, so you need a big economy.
No economy has ever got that large without a government doing more than providing just border protection and law enforcement. So to get what you claim to want you need song approximation of what you have now.
What you actually want is not and will never be provided by the system you claim you want.
You also flat out ignored an earlier question. Do you support the existence of the EPA paid for by taxes?
I didn't just state it "more definitively" - I provided (repeated) the clear and easily applied test. It is not arbitrary at all.
A non arbitrary answer to an arbitrary test is still arbitrary.
That's a giant "if", is not it?
I called it a hypothetical.
and, indeed, more than likely "No", than "Yes".
No, it's more likely Yes than No.
Government can levy taxes to get a capable military.
The government cannot tax what does not exist.
It can not levy them to make the country "nicer" - because that would be arbitrary (and also ineffective, but that's another thing).
It can levy taxes and build an environment where the economy prospers. Giving it a lot more resources to tax for the milirary and so giving it much greater defensive power. Oh and infrastructure to improve the effectivenes of the military. Like th einterstates.
To reiterate:
To reiterate your claims. Not facts.
* Because it is this necessity that makes taxes ethically acceptable despite being oppressive, tax-collected monies can only be spent on things essential to the polity's very survival.
Like having a military big enough to be effective. Which requires a working economy. The bigger the better in fact...
Questions of ethics settled,
You simply restatig the same claims is not the same as settled.
we have this document called Constitution.
So? That's not an argument of ethics. It's a document drawn up by a bunch of guys over 200 years ago.
No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be - ethically - spent on things crucial to the country's existence .
That's still completely arbitrary. Stating an arbitrary thing more definitively does not make it les arbitrary.
Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence
There is no point maintaining a coutry for the sake of the country in the absence of people. The only point is for the benefit of the individuals involves.
b) he can take care of himself
There are many, many cases where that is demonstrably not true.
Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable - ethical - to confiscate the materiel
Yes, now keep that in mind.
What if there aren't enough finds and materiel? The town and everyone in it dies /is enslaved etc etc. But what if the government can act to increase the available funds and materiel to the point where there are enough to save the town? Well without the government acting there were't enough in this hypothetical. But if the government can ensure there are enough by levying taxes and supporting things that grow the economy to the point where the town is safe then it is surely is ethical and acceptable to do so.
Because without doing so the town dies.
Your argument justifies much greater taxing and spending than simple law enforcement.
Personally though I think it's unethical to hoard everything (while taking people to keep my hoard protected) while letting others die in the streets due to poverty.
Because of you and your kind.
My kind: the kind that doesn't want people to die en-masse and in pain from easily preventable causes. I'm happy with being of that kind.
They are oppressive and I rely on them - there is no inconsistency here.
So basically you consider life oppressive. You're oppressed if you pay taxes and you'll be oppressed by someone if you don't. That's an information-free way of looking at the world. It adds nothing ot the discussion because all paths start off equal.
They are unavoidable evil,
If it's evil then you are evil for wanting them, even for your own personal protection.
and that is why it is wrong to use them for anything, that's not essential to the very existence of the country.
That's completely arbitrary. The only reaosn the country is important is because of the people inside it. So why draw a line between borde protection and healthcare?
I'm not happy to do it, that's one. I accept the necessity - with great reluctance
You're so reluctant to steal other people's money but you do it anyway. Don't worry I'm sure they feel your reluctance with every blow of the pig-cop's truncheon.
- to fund the things, only government can do: a) protection from foreign enemies; b) protection from domestic criminals.
Private security can do the latter. You just don't want to fork out for it.
Ot of interest, do you support that taxes go towards the EPA?
You on the other hand, really are happy - jeering even - to tax some in order to "help" others (and yourself).
Jeering is a stupid way of putting it, but yes, I support higher taxes than I'm currently paying. And I vote that way at every election.
You'd be aghast over someone forced to work another's fields, but are perfectly content to see people forced to pay for others' healthcare.
So? Those two are not remotely eqivalent. And i include myself as one of those paying for other's healthcare. I'm pretty lucky in that regard: given my family history I'm likely to have decent health into my old age, and I'm currently decently paid (there's a good market for people who can write C++ right now) so the chances are I'll be a net contributor.
You just want this other vast list - that can, and therefore should, be done by non-government organizations
You say should as if it's some universal truth. You also declare "can" without evidence. There's no evidence that non governmental systems can provide anything approximating a decent transport network for example. Every industrialised country has had massive government investment in that regard.
I rely on taxes paying for a) border protection; b) domestic law-enforcement.
You said taxes were "oppressive". Now you say you *rely* on them. Make up your mind: you're so inconsistent.
I never said anything about "lawlessness" - your putting words into my fingertips is a sign of a desperation
You said taxes were oppressive. Without oppressive taxes you have no law enforcement. Unfortunately for me, I took you at your word. Naturally of course you backtracked instantly. You *rely* on taxes for various things, such as law enforcement.
So apparently they're not oppressive?
Not "charity" - whereby the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats confiscate money from Paul to pay Peter's healthcare (and food, and shelter, and education).
But you're happy to rob from Paul to pay for that slacker Peter's protection. Oh I see, everything you personally like is benevelont, moral and good. Everything other people like that you don't is evil and coercive. Wait! Isn't that black and white thinking just what SJWs are supposed to do?
Turns out you're an SJW as well! Who knew?
You concede (implicitly) that coercion is wrong
Coercion of what, specifically. I'm happy to coerce people trying to kill me into stopping, as apparently are you. And you're happy to coerce people into parting with money (i.e. taxes) to fund things I think are important (as are you).
The only thing we disagree on is what, precisely is important. With your SJW black and white thinking you're incapable of reasoning about that.
Taxes are - by their very nature - oppressive
Then why haven't you moved to a haven of non oppressiveness like the libertarian paradise of the Congo, then?
Oh that's right becase you rely on all those things that "oppressive" taxes pay for and don't want to live in the kind of lawless helhole you get when there's no functional government.
I lookforawrd to hear how they're doing lawlessness "wrong" and if only they did lawlessless right then it would be a paradise.