It used to be a great fun sandbox, but WoW showed most players didn't want a sandbox they wanted a straight forward game of progression. So they blew up the fun little niche that SWG had become and replaced it with a generic grindfest.
But who can honestly say those who pirate rampantly are going to buy the damn games anyway? Most of them I assume are kids who don't even have an income in the first place.
So if you don't have income you can decide to not follow the rules? Does that mean kids should be allowed to sneak into theaters or into concerts? The problem really isn't that people who normally wouldn't buy the product, it's that if they allow those people to pirate, many of those who would buy will also pirate.
ething that still confuses me are the kids nowadays that come in chanting copyright slogans and poo-pooing on people who bit torrent stuff. That grade-school brainwashing really does work wonders...
Unfortunately, like other complex issues we end up with people moving to debate to the extremes. The industry with their "any copying is illegal" and copyright infringers with their "information should be free." The economic reality is somewhere in the middle, and people with moderate interests like you who use unauthorized copying for a valid reason get stuck in the middle. People who media shift, preview, or backup are getting their existing rights taken away because of the extremists.
There's a pretty successful company that decides they'll just release all their products as "Beta," despite the expectation that it can be used commercially
Having said that, I'm afraid that Upper Management will soon be engaged in a massive rebranding exercise as they find that the market shuns a certain software product from a particular company that displays "1.0 quality" when the version number reads 5.x or something. They will probably have to completely rename and rebrand the product and perhaps even see damage to the name of the company as a whole.
Mentioning the idea of "1.0 quality" just shows that the business folks actually know what they are doing in terms of marketing. One company's "3.11 quality" is another's "0.9 quality," a bad product is a bad product, doesn't matter how it's labeled. The marketing folks are responsible for getting the software in the door, the rest of the business is responsible for what exactly it is that gets in the door.
A good salesperson can "honestly" answer these questions
1) "What are the new features in this version as compared to the previous version?" - Just list improvements from a previous build. version 1.0 doesn't always mean commercial release, it usually means a version that is fit for business use; many companies develop software for their own business then later decide they can make money by providing it to the industry at large.
2) Or, "We want to compare the new release to the previous release. How can we get a copy of the previous release?" - Previous versions are not supported, and we cannot provide copies due to potential legal & commercial issues.
3) Or, "We'd like to contact current users of the package. Can your company provide a list of current customers whom we can contact?" - Previous versions were only used internally. It is only with this latest version that we have decided to provide the software to the market in general
4) Or, "Please provide a list of all of the service packs and patches released for the previous version, the time from when the problem was identified to when the update was made available and whether the update resolved the issue." - Again, previous versions are not supported and cannot be provided for for commercial and legal concerns.
I could go on but I think everyone sees a pattern here. Making the first release of a product version 5.0 or some such nonsense works as well as most lies. The only way to maintain the lie is to tell more lies which then beget a need for still more lies. Eventually, it all unravels although current management may be under the impression that they can take the money and run before they're found out.
It's not necessarily lies. Who cares if something is marked 0.5 or 5.0? The version number is no more a lie than somebody calling their software "Cougar" and implying speed and power.
Except gold master status is the very definition of being ready to release, as far as the software is concerned. (That obviously doesn't apply to duplication, packaging, etc.)
It's ready for replication, not necessarily ready for general release. Commercial problems can creep up that require changes to software even after it's gone gold. Besides, release terminology are just guidelines, just look at the Google perpetual beta.
Making it available ASAP won't hurt the profit unless it's a crappy game, though. And in that case, they'd be better off fixing it so they can sell more copies over time instead of hoping that a bunch of people buy it day one before any reviews hit.
Unless there is a major bug found that could result in a lawsuit. Look back at the Myth 2 install bug, it was found after gold but before significant distribution. Why is it wrong for a company to release it when they are ready to?
The school is conducting a trial with a piece of hardware, maybe students will find interesting new ways to use it. Sure the majority will use it to goof off, but it's possible a couple resourceful students come up with something useful and everybody gains. Is it the absolute best way to use resources, maybe not; but it's quite a neat capable platform and only time will tell what interesting things students can come up with.
I guess I should be grateful to the military for all the improvements in my life through their research such as: a 2000lb bomb, space-based nuclear missiles, Kevlar(oops that was NASA), Velcro(oops NASA), aircraft(again, NASA), tanks, APCs, 50 caliber rifles with armour piercing rounds, you get the idea.
Yup all the military does is make bombs and shoot bullets - it's not like the military ever funds NASA, medical, or computer projects, or that a big reason NASA exists is because the government knew the same technology to put a guy in space could put a nuke in Moscow. Just because the advances being made by military spending aren't in your area of expertise doesn't mean those projects are any less worthy than slinging around a couple of particles. Any large project will be economically inefficient, the small amount of research done on the space station hardly justifies its cost, just as the cost of the war doesn't justify the various technology advancements associated with it. The war in Iraq is bad policy, the poor economics is a side-effect; leaders don't go against war because it costs too much.
The culture in the USA has not just changed in the last 5 years, it's more like the last 50 years. The change has been so slow that we barely notice it. In the last 5 years, the change for the worse has accelerated.
The last 50 years have led to an increase in the focus of academics - reading isn't just for the bible anymore, and more people are involved with technology than manual labor.
Again, it seems that all of the "brilliance" is imported talent. In business school, you just "learn" how to implement it most cynically and to maximum personal gain.
Again personal gain does not come at the expense of public loss. And applying learnings to a real world setting is not something that anybody can stumble upon. Replaceable parts, mass production, lean manufacturing, just-in-time, quality systems are all advances that have improved the means of production and led to on overall economic gain, not just personal one.
Where does the whole "give away the razors, sell the blades" thing factor into this? It's the only innovation I've noticed in business, which is not just an application of statistics or machine learning, and it does nothing except exploit people's inability to gauge long-term payouts.
There may actually be a long term gain from opportunity cost, even if the long term payouts are higher, so it's not necessarily exploitive. In a society of mass production its cheaper to dispose of something (like razor blades, shoes, clothes) than to have it refurbished to a new-like condition. The proper application of statistics, ergonomics, automation, etc are where the brilliance in business lies. Improvements in business have led to the expansion of productivity, so consumers can get a higher standard of living.
The problem is that we try to squeeze every kid into a category. There might be kids who are actually interested in basketweaving, who have a passion for it - unfortunately there is no basketweaving class and they are forced into sitting through a bo-ring stats class.
The problem isn't a lack of math/science, the problem is trying this one size fits all with emphasis on college.
I feel very lucky to have attended a public high school for gifted students that fostered all different kinds of students - and it made for an amazing culture being around different kinds of smart people. Not just the engineers who talked about D&D, but the music buffs, and the buisness/politics folks. Too often on this site the focus is math/science like it's the cure all for society's ills, when there are so many more aspects and we lack programs to foster genius of any kind and try to shoehorn people into a mold that serves mediocrity.
Its a lottery mentality at its worst that they can only see the exaggerated success of that 0.01% and not the corresponding failure of the other 99.99%.
I guess you fell into that media trap. In reality 0.01% succeed, probably 1% fail (the ones who really thought they could succeed), and the rest lie somwhere in the middle. Just because kids idolize athletes/entertainers when they are young, doesn't mean they spend their entire developmental years with that sole goal in their mind. Pretty much by puberty most students know they aren't going to be big, that doesn't mean necessarily that they want to give up the fun and competition of athletics. Athletics becomes a part of their life, but not the focus of their career path. To make a slashdot analogy, do you think that it's a waste that a kid dreams of being astronauts given that such an incredibly small number can ever achieve it? The overwhelming number of "astronaut dreamers" are failures by your definition, yet almost all of them find ways to be strong contributors to their society - more than likely not even related to the space program.
Brilliance in business tends to involve removing as much money as possible, generally from those without very much.
That's generally bad business. Brilliance is fostoring growth without zero-sum over the long-term. The richest people didn't get there because they collected money from poor people, they got there because they were able to have poor people produce more wealth and take a cut of it - making both parties better off. Sure you may have a couple get rich quick schleps who gather money, but long-term unless they are growing the economy and helping everybody, their potential gains are limited.
Amazingly it seems there is as much an anti-business attitude on slashdot as there is an anti-intellectual attitude elsewhere. In both cases it comes from short-sidedness and ignorance, focusing on the bad aspects rather than the good potential.
The US could spend their military budget on higher education and have had an LHC 10 years ago. Or space programs, or materials science, etc.
The same could be said about AIDS research, or highway budget So what if you have an LHC? Yes I do recognize the importance of basic research, at the same time there needs to be a balance of potential and present needs. Just as we shouldn't abandon cutting edge science to provide everybody with food and water, we also shouldn't sacrifice basic services for pie-in-the-sky science projects. And don't forget that military budget doesn't go into a vacuum, advances in communications, logistics, health care, etc. have come out of military spending. Maybe it's not as sexy to you as interesting particles, but there are tangible advances that are going on and improving technology and quality of life.
When I go looking for a job with my Physics degree my choices are largely Boeing(Warplanes), Lockheed(Missiles), or Raytheon(Radars). If priorities were academic, my choices would be: Physics Teacher, Lab Tech, Research, etc. Instead of joining the military to pay for college, I could do a post-grad post at NIST or OSHA or something like that.
I'm sure there is an Art History and Classical Music student who feel the same, and think it would be better if priorities were more around art and culture than technology. More importantly you're very short sided with your degree, a Physics is very portable and usable in almost any engineering R&D department. Sounds like you just face a situation where you can't get exactly the job you wanted.
Elitism is bad. People who consider themselves members of the ruling class are elitists (among other things). A ruling class is bad because people should not be "ruled", rather they should be free.
Freedom is a matter of degrees, you can have freedom (as conventionally defined) with a ruling class. Most people aren't leaders, they prefer to follow because they are risk averse.
Desirable, yes. Many things are desirable. But I would rather have a stupid President who wanted people to be free than a genius who decided he deserved to be my king.
If you truly wanted freedom then you wouldn't want a president. What most people want is somebody they can trust with guiding them. Give up a bit of independence and allow somebody else to make decisions that the individual doesn't have either the will or time to make.
Until US society gets its priorities straight, we will continue to decline.
This phrase is so overused. There are other cultural factors that foster success that aren't necessarily linked to academics. It's not like the US culture suddenly changed over the last 5 years and is falling apart because of it; the culture was pretty much the same in the 90's when the US led the internet tech boom. Entreprenuership, independent thinking, charity, and hard work have long been a greater part of US culture than academics, and that's not necessarily a horrible thing. While it would be nice if there was more promotion of academics, claiming that it's the root cause for the decline of the US is shortsided.
Maybe some specialties should really no go to the U.S. anymore. That's kind of sad for the human networking and the free exchange of ideas, don't you think?
Why is this limited to the US, the same can be applied to pretty much every country. Just because the US is in the spotlight, doesn't mean there aren't additional ZOMG Terristz screenings going on elsewhere. In my experiences the US isn't any better or worse than going to any other country.
There is no right answer, it all depends on the state of the business, relationships, and opportunities. Sometimes it's better to spinoff, other times it's better to merge - one size doesn't fit all
It's equal in that the majority decides. Too bad they decided against you. If it helps they all chip in some of their own money as decided by vote but I don't see how that makes it less wrong. You don't get to chose whether to be taxed or how your tax money is spent. That is the very point of taxes.
But you get a say in how the taxes are collected and used and are not disproportionally burdened, which makes a difference.
In more or less the same way they are now but on a smaller scale and dealing with smaller things. Instead of infrastructure you get a communal washing machine.
The relative "fairness" of getting a washing machine again depends on the system by which it was paid for, and the overall impact to the society. For example if the washing machine reduces disease, then the gain for the individuals may outweight the individual burden. Social structures typically are formed because there are some aspects of society which cannot be handled individually. If buying everybody a car resulted in a net gain of commerce whereby in the long run individual taxes decreased, then the argument could be made that it is a good way to spend tax money
I'm guessing that we both agree that someone who violates another persons rights lose their own rights. Exactly which of them and for how long is up for debate. The fact that they have forfeited some of their rights is not (i hope).
What I'm saying is that the "fairness" of taxation is an extension of the "fairness" of the justice system, which is something for social debate. What are people's rights? Is copyright, really a right, or the right to an attorney? In some social systems there is no idea of individual property rights, which negates the question of does taxation=theft. Also, by what system does somebody lose their rights? Does the person whose rights were violated get to decide and exact punishment? Just as we frown upon vigilantism - an individual deciding how best to exact justice, theft - an individual deciding for themselves how to best reallocate money is also frowned upon.
You seem unable to explain how something goes from robbery to being taxes and how one can delegate a right one does not have. I on the other hand can tell you exactly when taxation goes ceases to be robbery which is never. I could also tell you why I think so. I'd really appreciate it if you'd try again with a different argument or rephrase if I misunderstood it completely.
What I am arguing is that there is no exact point, and that it's a decision made by individual societies with many answers. Getting back to the justice arguement, when is it unfair for one person to suspend the rights of another? Look at all the hoops that have been established in the US to establish "fairness" - lawyers, due process, citizens assigned for that duty. That doesn't necessarily mean that not having all those things in place makes it completely unfair. If you look through history, the idea of taxation has generally been held as something that is fair. There is a recognition that there are things beyond the means of the individual that are needed for an orderly society, so people forfeit a part of their property to support those things. There also is a recognition that there is a point that the individual burden greatly outwieghs the individual gain, where people no longer willingly forfeit their property. Societies have come up with various ways to establish a fairness boundaries, early English society created the Magna Carta, in the US we use a Constitution.
There is no flat tax in the US so why should my hypothetical example require flat tax to be applicable?
It doesn't. Equal application does not necessarily mean equal coverage. eg everybody is equally subject to car registration if they have car, if sombeody doesn't have a car they aren't covered by the requirement.
I specified that you would get some or most of it back in goods decided on by your neighbors and I. It's not necessarily the goods you'd buy if you were to keep your money but gosh darnit we voted on it fair and square.
It all depends on how the decisions are made, how they are applied, and the relative social burden and reward.
When does theft go from being theft to taxation? If three people were to take money from a forth and buy something the fourth didn't want most would call it theft. But when it's millions voting and then delegating a right they don't have to the IRS it's suddenly not theft (rather armed robbery)but taxation and fine. Can you tell me exactly when it changes form theft to taxation and when the right to decide over other peoples money appears?
I'm quite serious in asking this and I'd really like an honest answer. I've asked this question before but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on when it changes from robbery to taxes and why. Imagine ten people living under anarchy or whatever and then imagine creating taxation from nothing. Does it still seem that different from robbery?
There is no easy answer, and it's a question that gets answered differently by each society. Socialism, feudalism, and free markets are all forms of stable econimic policy, the "rightness" of each is a matter for social debate. Further the question you ask isn't one just of taxation, but one of rule of law in general. The same discussion can be applied in criminal cases. At what point do the "12 angry men" go too far taking a person's freedom away. It was also something examined during the fight for equal rights in the 60's. In the US the debate goes back to the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, where the Anti-Federalists feared the power of the state granted by the Constitution. This was answered by the Bill of Rights, and has been expanded in subsequent amendments. The ultimate answer comes to what individuals are willing to accept to be included as part of society, and what level of return they feel they get.
Can I and some of your neighbors vote on what to do with part of your paycheck and give some (or most) of that back to you as things we decide you should have?
Only if those decisions are equally applied to you and the neighbors, and have reasonable logic and not merely punitive in nature.
Would you call that illegal taxation or retarded democratic theft? I'd go for the latter but that's just my cognitive dissonance speaking.
If you're just trying to take my money it's called mobocracy.
The car analogy is a straw man. It is a ridiculous idea; the underlying thought really is the need for transportation - where in many communities money is already used to subsidize public transportation, roads, and bridges.
If you think a car-less person "needs" to have a free car provided by government, then I guess you don't mind if Congress passes a law requiring YOU to pay for it. (Yes all $20,000 of it; collected via taxation of your paycheck.)
You can replace car with roads, education, health care etc. Intelligent people can disagree on a subject without having to resort to extremist thinking like taxes for unpopular spending = stealing/slavery.
Do you still think such a law is not stealing? Not immoral?
Stealing? Immoral? No. Short-sided and poor use of resources, Yes. Given there is a longstanding process, and that decision includes your inputs on multiple levels, then I don't see the immorality or slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be a great fun sandbox, but WoW showed most players didn't want a sandbox they wanted a straight forward game of progression. So they blew up the fun little niche that SWG had become and replaced it with a generic grindfest.
So if you don't have income you can decide to not follow the rules? Does that mean kids should be allowed to sneak into theaters or into concerts? The problem really isn't that people who normally wouldn't buy the product, it's that if they allow those people to pirate, many of those who would buy will also pirate.
Unfortunately, like other complex issues we end up with people moving to debate to the extremes. The industry with their "any copying is illegal" and copyright infringers with their "information should be free."
The economic reality is somewhere in the middle, and people with moderate interests like you who use unauthorized copying for a valid reason get stuck in the middle. People who media shift, preview, or backup are getting their existing rights taken away because of the extremists.
Yup, no nerds ever do that
There's a pretty successful company that decides they'll just release all their products as "Beta," despite the expectation that it can be used commercially
Mentioning the idea of "1.0 quality" just shows that the business folks actually know what they are doing in terms of marketing. One company's "3.11 quality" is another's "0.9 quality," a bad product is a bad product, doesn't matter how it's labeled. The marketing folks are responsible for getting the software in the door, the rest of the business is responsible for what exactly it is that gets in the door.
1) "What are the new features in this version as compared to the previous version?"
- Just list improvements from a previous build. version 1.0 doesn't always mean commercial release, it usually means a version that is fit for business use; many companies develop software for their own business then later decide they can make money by providing it to the industry at large.
2) Or, "We want to compare the new release to the previous release. How can we get a copy of the previous release?"
- Previous versions are not supported, and we cannot provide copies due to potential legal & commercial issues.
3) Or, "We'd like to contact current users of the package. Can your company provide a list of current customers whom we can contact?"
- Previous versions were only used internally. It is only with this latest version that we have decided to provide the software to the market in general
4) Or, "Please provide a list of all of the service packs and patches released for the previous version, the time from when the problem was identified to when the update was made available and whether the update resolved the issue."
- Again, previous versions are not supported and cannot be provided for for commercial and legal concerns.
It's not necessarily lies. Who cares if something is marked 0.5 or 5.0? The version number is no more a lie than somebody calling their software "Cougar" and implying speed and power.
It's ready for replication, not necessarily ready for general release. Commercial problems can creep up that require changes to software even after it's gone gold.
Besides, release terminology are just guidelines, just look at the Google perpetual beta.
Unless there is a major bug found that could result in a lawsuit. Look back at the Myth 2 install bug, it was found after gold but before significant distribution. Why is it wrong for a company to release it when they are ready to?
The school is conducting a trial with a piece of hardware, maybe students will find interesting new ways to use it.
Sure the majority will use it to goof off, but it's possible a couple resourceful students come up with something useful and everybody gains. Is it the absolute best way to use resources, maybe not; but it's quite a neat capable platform and only time will tell what interesting things students can come up with.
Yup all the military does is make bombs and shoot bullets - it's not like the military ever funds NASA, medical, or computer projects, or that a big reason NASA exists is because the government knew the same technology to put a guy in space could put a nuke in Moscow.
Just because the advances being made by military spending aren't in your area of expertise doesn't mean those projects are any less worthy than slinging around a couple of particles. Any large project will be economically inefficient, the small amount of research done on the space station hardly justifies its cost, just as the cost of the war doesn't justify the various technology advancements associated with it.
The war in Iraq is bad policy, the poor economics is a side-effect; leaders don't go against war because it costs too much.
The last 50 years have led to an increase in the focus of academics - reading isn't just for the bible anymore, and more people are involved with technology than manual labor.
Again personal gain does not come at the expense of public loss. And applying learnings to a real world setting is not something that anybody can stumble upon. Replaceable parts, mass production, lean manufacturing, just-in-time, quality systems are all advances that have improved the means of production and led to on overall economic gain, not just personal one.
There may actually be a long term gain from opportunity cost, even if the long term payouts are higher, so it's not necessarily exploitive. In a society of mass production its cheaper to dispose of something (like razor blades, shoes, clothes) than to have it refurbished to a new-like condition.
The proper application of statistics, ergonomics, automation, etc are where the brilliance in business lies. Improvements in business have led to the expansion of productivity, so consumers can get a higher standard of living.
The problem is that we try to squeeze every kid into a category. There might be kids who are actually interested in basketweaving, who have a passion for it - unfortunately there is no basketweaving class and they are forced into sitting through a bo-ring stats class.
The problem isn't a lack of math/science, the problem is trying this one size fits all with emphasis on college.
I feel very lucky to have attended a public high school for gifted students that fostered all different kinds of students - and it made for an amazing culture being around different kinds of smart people. Not just the engineers who talked about D&D, but the music buffs, and the buisness/politics folks.
Too often on this site the focus is math/science like it's the cure all for society's ills, when there are so many more aspects and we lack programs to foster genius of any kind and try to shoehorn people into a mold that serves mediocrity.
I guess you fell into that media trap. In reality 0.01% succeed, probably 1% fail (the ones who really thought they could succeed), and the rest lie somwhere in the middle. Just because kids idolize athletes/entertainers when they are young, doesn't mean they spend their entire developmental years with that sole goal in their mind. Pretty much by puberty most students know they aren't going to be big, that doesn't mean necessarily that they want to give up the fun and competition of athletics. Athletics becomes a part of their life, but not the focus of their career path.
To make a slashdot analogy, do you think that it's a waste that a kid dreams of being astronauts given that such an incredibly small number can ever achieve it? The overwhelming number of "astronaut dreamers" are failures by your definition, yet almost all of them find ways to be strong contributors to their society - more than likely not even related to the space program.
That's generally bad business. Brilliance is fostoring growth without zero-sum over the long-term. The richest people didn't get there because they collected money from poor people, they got there because they were able to have poor people produce more wealth and take a cut of it - making both parties better off.
Sure you may have a couple get rich quick schleps who gather money, but long-term unless they are growing the economy and helping everybody, their potential gains are limited.
Amazingly it seems there is as much an anti-business attitude on slashdot as there is an anti-intellectual attitude elsewhere. In both cases it comes from short-sidedness and ignorance, focusing on the bad aspects rather than the good potential.
The same could be said about AIDS research, or highway budget
So what if you have an LHC? Yes I do recognize the importance of basic research, at the same time there needs to be a balance of potential and present needs. Just as we shouldn't abandon cutting edge science to provide everybody with food and water, we also shouldn't sacrifice basic services for pie-in-the-sky science projects.
And don't forget that military budget doesn't go into a vacuum, advances in communications, logistics, health care, etc. have come out of military spending. Maybe it's not as sexy to you as interesting particles, but there are tangible advances that are going on and improving technology and quality of life.
I'm sure there is an Art History and Classical Music student who feel the same, and think it would be better if priorities were more around art and culture than technology. More importantly you're very short sided with your degree, a Physics is very portable and usable in almost any engineering R&D department. Sounds like you just face a situation where you can't get exactly the job you wanted.
Freedom is a matter of degrees, you can have freedom (as conventionally defined) with a ruling class. Most people aren't leaders, they prefer to follow because they are risk averse.
If you truly wanted freedom then you wouldn't want a president. What most people want is somebody they can trust with guiding them. Give up a bit of independence and allow somebody else to make decisions that the individual doesn't have either the will or time to make.
This phrase is so overused. There are other cultural factors that foster success that aren't necessarily linked to academics. It's not like the US culture suddenly changed over the last 5 years and is falling apart because of it; the culture was pretty much the same in the 90's when the US led the internet tech boom. Entreprenuership, independent thinking, charity, and hard work have long been a greater part of US culture than academics, and that's not necessarily a horrible thing.
While it would be nice if there was more promotion of academics, claiming that it's the root cause for the decline of the US is shortsided.
Why is this limited to the US, the same can be applied to pretty much every country.
Just because the US is in the spotlight, doesn't mean there aren't additional ZOMG Terristz screenings going on elsewhere. In my experiences the US isn't any better or worse than going to any other country.
There is no right answer, it all depends on the state of the business, relationships, and opportunities.
Sometimes it's better to spinoff, other times it's better to merge - one size doesn't fit all
But you get a say in how the taxes are collected and used and are not disproportionally burdened, which makes a difference.
The relative "fairness" of getting a washing machine again depends on the system by which it was paid for, and the overall impact to the society. For example if the washing machine reduces disease, then the gain for the individuals may outweight the individual burden. Social structures typically are formed because there are some aspects of society which cannot be handled individually. If buying everybody a car resulted in a net gain of commerce whereby in the long run individual taxes decreased, then the argument could be made that it is a good way to spend tax money
What I'm saying is that the "fairness" of taxation is an extension of the "fairness" of the justice system, which is something for social debate.
What are people's rights? Is copyright, really a right, or the right to an attorney? In some social systems there is no idea of individual property rights, which negates the question of does taxation=theft.
Also, by what system does somebody lose their rights? Does the person whose rights were violated get to decide and exact punishment? Just as we frown upon vigilantism - an individual deciding how best to exact justice, theft - an individual deciding for themselves how to best reallocate money is also frowned upon.
What I am arguing is that there is no exact point, and that it's a decision made by individual societies with many answers. Getting back to the justice arguement, when is it unfair for one person to suspend the rights of another? Look at all the hoops that have been established in the US to establish "fairness" - lawyers, due process, citizens assigned for that duty. That doesn't necessarily mean that not having all those things in place makes it completely unfair.
If you look through history, the idea of taxation has generally been held as something that is fair. There is a recognition that there are things beyond the means of the individual that are needed for an orderly society, so people forfeit a part of their property to support those things.
There also is a recognition that there is a point that the individual burden greatly outwieghs the individual gain, where people no longer willingly forfeit their property.
Societies have come up with various ways to establish a fairness boundaries, early English society created the Magna Carta, in the US we use a Constitution.
It doesn't. Equal application does not necessarily mean equal coverage. eg everybody is equally subject to car registration if they have car, if sombeody doesn't have a car they aren't covered by the requirement.
It all depends on how the decisions are made, how they are applied, and the relative social burden and reward.
There is no easy answer, and it's a question that gets answered differently by each society. Socialism, feudalism, and free markets are all forms of stable econimic policy, the "rightness" of each is a matter for social debate.
Further the question you ask isn't one just of taxation, but one of rule of law in general. The same discussion can be applied in criminal cases. At what point do the "12 angry men" go too far taking a person's freedom away. It was also something examined during the fight for equal rights in the 60's.
In the US the debate goes back to the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, where the Anti-Federalists feared the power of the state granted by the Constitution. This was answered by the Bill of Rights, and has been expanded in subsequent amendments.
The ultimate answer comes to what individuals are willing to accept to be included as part of society, and what level of return they feel they get.
Only if those decisions are equally applied to you and the neighbors, and have reasonable logic and not merely punitive in nature.
If you're just trying to take my money it's called mobocracy.
The car analogy is a straw man. It is a ridiculous idea; the underlying thought really is the need for transportation - where in many communities money is already used to subsidize public transportation, roads, and bridges.
You can replace car with roads, education, health care etc. Intelligent people can disagree on a subject without having to resort to extremist thinking like taxes for unpopular spending = stealing/slavery.
Stealing? Immoral? No. Short-sided and poor use of resources, Yes.
Given there is a longstanding process, and that decision includes your inputs on multiple levels, then I don't see the immorality or slavery.