After I became an adult, I left the club. So I don't have to pay the club fee.
I have not left my home, so I pay whatever is due from me for that.
So you recognize that the club had no right to ask you to leave your house in order to stop paying fees.
I have not left my country, so I will continue to pay the taxes in that country.
Why do you believe club USA has the right to ask you to leave the country if you do not want to pay taxes? I don't have this right, your parent club doesn't have it, why on earth would club USA have it.
You own the land when you buy it from a previous owner, when you receive it as a gift, or when you homestead it. Homesteading means you work the land, mix your labor with it and eventually make it your own by this process. Club USA is just a bunch of people who used force to say : hey we really own everything.
I can leave my country for another country
That is completely beside the point. The question is: why do you have to?
I don't know where you are living, or what you did, but I can freely leave my country, pack my bags, and leave.
I'm going to send you a poem by email every week. Since I believe it is a valuable service, I will take $100 from you every week. Of course you are free to opt out, just leave the USA.
Does that sound honest to you? Exactly why is it ok for the government to do it and not for me? Why do they have a right to force their services over what is known as the USA?
I think if you move your entire house, and land top soil to some other country or middle of the ocean, I think your government won't stop you, or at least it won't be legal to do so (as long as you respected the environment impact laws etc, have fully paid for the house etc).
You're completely missing the point. Read my lips. WHY - DO - I - HAVE - TO - PHYSICALLY - MOVE.
What makes your land 100% yours?
What makes your kidney 100% yours? Here, let me have it.
Just because you say so?
Because I bought it and no one successfully challenged my ownership claim.
Sure you can, so can I. So what happens if we both make claims on the same piece of land?
We would probably find an arbiter who would examine our claims to the land and help us find out who the rightful owner is.
Well, before you took "ownership" of your land, there were lots of people who came before you, who have said it's not 100% yours, that the Government has say over it no matter what. So they said so _first_ before you.
So ?
It's very easy to say "This land is mine, mine, all mine!". Despite some of the land having been taken from the Native Americans (and other people) years ago
Actually big junks of land were bought, but, granted, some was stolen. If a native American can challenge that I am the rightful owner by proving he has a better claim than I to that particular piece of land, let him do so. So far it hasn't happened.
Lastly, as a Christian I personally believe it's all God's, so it's easier for me to not kick up a big fuss if it's taken away (being human I bet I'll still kick up a fuss:) ). So maybe that's why my perspective is a lot different from yours
Well I'm not a Christian but I certainly know a lot of Christians who share my views.
- I find it hard to kick up a big fuss over paying taxes:
1) It's required - because enough other people believe it is required.
Other people believe it is required to worship Allah. Do you do that?
2) You can pay it in money - which only has value because enough other people believe it has.
Nope. Assume I have a farm, I produce carrots and exchange them for all kind of foods (it's legal). One day the tax collector comes, he asks me for money. I don't have the government's money to pay him, so he takes away my tractor (IRS will seize proper
My parents are members of a private club. While I was a child I enjoyed the benefits of a member without paying the membership fees. I did not sign any contract. When I grew up, I decided I didn't want to be a member, so I left and now I don't get to enjoy the benefits (except occasionally as an invited guest).
When you left your parent's club, did they ask you to leave your home as well ?
Assuming that you have grown up and are now an adult, you can now decide for yourself whether you want to be a member or not (read on for legitimacy of monopoly/government).
No, the government will use force and prevent me from doing it.
Club USA has monopoly over its territory because 100-300 million "members" living there say it has. As long as it has some form of democracy I will assume there is some legitimacy to its claims. That being said, the low voter turnout and the diebolded elections do lower the legitimacy level.
If every property owner in the US willingly gave to the government a monopoly of law over his land, you would be right, but it hasn't happen and wouldn't happen (I for one would not). The fact that many people believe the government to be legitimate does not make it so. Democracy is beside the point, if someone does not grant the US government jurisdiction over his land, his neighbors can't do it for him.
When enough people say they prefer to be ruled over by a particular entity, then if you wish to continue to live amongst those people you have to respect that.
No I don't, they may exclude me from there club, but they cannot legitimately exclude me from my own property. Landowners do not have a right to refuse US jurisdiction. The only way the US government could be "like a club" would be if it granted the right to secede from it (leave the club). Obviously it does not.
That pretty girl you enjoyed looking at might have voted for the "wrong party", and because of her evilness you have to pay that evil tax and endure that evil government, as long as you still want the opportunity to admire her beauty in person.
Indeed if she lives in a place where the property owners have voluntarily surrendered jurisdiction to the US government, then I don't believe I have a right to be there.
That's the "price" you pay for living with other people.
I never asked the government to help me live with other people. I can manage to do that by myself. If the government let a landowner leave Club USA, it could set up a city on its land and would obviously not be alone.
So I admit taxes and Government are evil but only in the same way the whole world is evil (and it is).
Governments steal, murder and enslave people. That's much much more evil than any evil you and I can imagine committing in our lives.
If a Government demands taxes from poor people who cannot afford to even "leave the club", if so then that Government is rather evil. Mine doesn't - in fact poor people get subsidies, and prices of basic necessities are controlled. The ones who pay tax can afford to leave.
Won't you leave poor people out of it? Poverty is not a badge of morality or merit. Why should morality be based around "poor people" rather than "rich people", "bearded people" or "people with earlobes" ?
Well they are, and the only argument you have come up with, so far is the mere assertion that "without taxes there would be chaos" which, per se, does not even contradict that taxes are theft.
I say people who don't pay taxes (though required to) but enjoy the benefits of being in a country (which requires them to be taxed), they are the thieves.
Enjoying a benefit is not theft. You are enjoying the benefit of talking to me, but I have no right to charge you for it because there is no existing contract between you and me. Similarly I enjoy the benefit of pretty girl wearing short skirts in the street when the spring comes, it doesn't make me a thief, etc. The simple truth is, government provides some services and then say: hey, I've given you this service, now pay me... Uh, I didn't ask for any service, no thanks. I do pay taxes because I fear the government, but if I didn't, it wouldn't make me a thief at all... if the government doesn't want me to use its services for free, let it not provide them to me, I don't want them. Maybe it can't not provide it to me... too bad but that's it's problem, I want to have nothing to do with this organization, period.
It is a bit like being member of a club, and saying the membership fee is theft. If you use any of the club facilities without paying the fees, then who is doing the stealing? Even if you just sit in the club premises to talk to your member friends, you are benefiting from the past membership fees and the legacy of it all (club rules created by the committee, infrastructure, contracts with 3rd party suppliers). Even the fact that it's harder for outsiders to wander in and hassle you is a benefit.
It's quite different, there's a contract when you're a member of the club. What you are implicitly assuming is that living in North America between the 49th parallel and the Rio Grande implies suscribing to the services of the United States government. You are assuming the United States government has a legitimate monopoly of jurisdiction over that territory, which is precisely equivalent to what I am denying, you're merely assuming the consequent.
Whether there is or not an alternative doesn't make it less evil. A woman faced with an aggressor offering to kill her or to rape her may have no other alternative and may make a choice. That doesn't mean she *accepts* what is going to happen to her. The original discussion is about tax-funded healthcare. Not taking taxes from people to fund healthcare does not and will not result in dictatorship or degenerate into chaos.
You raise another question, which is, is it possible to have a society free of institutionalized violence (such as taxation). Police and courts are a useful service, but they should and can be provided by private companies. Actually, most courts and most police force, today, in the US are already private. Private arbitration is extremely common, faster and cheaper than the state run judicial system, and rent-a-cop, security forces outnumber the civil servants.
The idea that police and courts have to be state provided is merely a hobbesian myth. Furthermore, it is not up to me to prove that such a system can and does work. You are advocating a system relying on theft, you have the burden of proof, it is up to *you* to prove that it is unavoidable.
Whether I am benefiting or not is subjective and actually irrelevant. Theft is theft, even when the thief claims he acts for the own good of his victim. I have a right to live my life according to my own judgment, respecting the other's right to do so as well.
Once again you are assuming that people working for the government are somehow subject to distinct moral rules. How would you react if a company started charging you (at gunpoint) for unrequested services.
Taxation is not the same as stealing.
Of course it is. What makes you think when people employed by the government do something it enjoys a different moral standard that when ordinary people do it ?
Every business is a monopoly if you look at a sufficiently small market niche. Theoretical competition generally assumes that the goods produce are perfect substitutes, which is never true. The good news is, in our rich society, almost all the demand is elastic as most goods and services are to some extent substitutes. Satellite radio does not only compete with broadcast radio or mp3 players, it competes with your beach vacation, the nearby steakhouse you're considering going to, this movie you're unsure about going to, etc.
The inquirer tries to discover if he is talking to a machine or not. Being undetected during casual conversation (and I can bet even this is far far from reaching that, they're just making PR) is one thing, being undetected when tried is different.
Ultimately, the Turing tests tests much more than the ability of conversation. You can describe problems in a conversation and ask the computer to solve them, this is what makes the Turing test a true A.I. test.
I think the best solution would be to make wikipedia entirely distributed, where anyone can host any kind of edit to any page. Displaying a page becomes a matter of polling neighbor nodes in the network for information. Edits can be signed by various parties for validity, etc. The main cost then becomes a cost of development, there is no hosting cost.
I think you're summing up the issue nicely. Both are equally delusional, but the former implies much more gullibility and the later, at least encompasses some interesting philosophy of life.
...a linux box, xine and bittorrent. I mean, HD-DVDs ? Physical disks ? Dust ? Uuuh.
Besides, frankly speaking, this early adopter rush probably has nothing to do with a taste for high quality and everything to do with a pissing contest with your neighbors.
What you should do in that case depends on your value, but ultimately it's your choice. Although I love free software, I wouldn't turn down a job offer because I have to use windows, I know some people who definitely would though.
You always have the *choice* not to use proprietary software, using proprietary software is always *voluntary*. Whether their are alternatives with similar functionality is beside the point and has nothing to do with the use of force or volition.
But I use elinks and no online banking site support it... and and and... don't I deserve that the banks support my favorite browser ? Don't I deserve that people work for me so that I have what I need ?
Why would that be? You can sue someone for the part of the harm that he has caused. If a girl was gang banged raped, she can definitely sue one of the aggressor.
This is in fact very good news, if global warming causes damage to some people, they should sue the person responsible (provided of course responsibility can be proven, which is imho still dubious). This provides a decentralized and ethical way to fight eventual problems arising from release of CO2. Government regulations do not.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it can, if you're not a penniless hippie.
After I became an adult, I left the club. So I don't have to pay the club fee. I have not left my home, so I pay whatever is due from me for that.
So you recognize that the club had no right to ask you to leave your house in order to stop paying fees.
I have not left my country, so I will continue to pay the taxes in that country.
Why do you believe club USA has the right to ask you to leave the country if you do not want to pay taxes? I don't have this right, your parent club doesn't have it, why on earth would club USA have it. You own the land when you buy it from a previous owner, when you receive it as a gift, or when you homestead it. Homesteading means you work the land, mix your labor with it and eventually make it your own by this process. Club USA is just a bunch of people who used force to say : hey we really own everything.
I can leave my country for another country
That is completely beside the point. The question is: why do you have to?
I don't know where you are living, or what you did, but I can freely leave my country, pack my bags, and leave.
I'm going to send you a poem by email every week. Since I believe it is a valuable service, I will take $100 from you every week. Of course you are free to opt out, just leave the USA. Does that sound honest to you? Exactly why is it ok for the government to do it and not for me? Why do they have a right to force their services over what is known as the USA?
I think if you move your entire house, and land top soil to some other country or middle of the ocean, I think your government won't stop you, or at least it won't be legal to do so (as long as you respected the environment impact laws etc, have fully paid for the house etc).
You're completely missing the point. Read my lips. WHY - DO - I - HAVE - TO - PHYSICALLY - MOVE.
What makes your land 100% yours?
What makes your kidney 100% yours? Here, let me have it.
Just because you say so?
Because I bought it and no one successfully challenged my ownership claim.
Sure you can, so can I. So what happens if we both make claims on the same piece of land?
We would probably find an arbiter who would examine our claims to the land and help us find out who the rightful owner is.
Well, before you took "ownership" of your land, there were lots of people who came before you, who have said it's not 100% yours, that the Government has say over it no matter what. So they said so _first_ before you.
So ?
It's very easy to say "This land is mine, mine, all mine!". Despite some of the land having been taken from the Native Americans (and other people) years ago
Actually big junks of land were bought, but, granted, some was stolen. If a native American can challenge that I am the rightful owner by proving he has a better claim than I to that particular piece of land, let him do so. So far it hasn't happened.
Lastly, as a Christian I personally believe it's all God's, so it's easier for me to not kick up a big fuss if it's taken away (being human I bet I'll still kick up a fuss :) ). So maybe that's why my perspective is a lot different from yours
Well I'm not a Christian but I certainly know a lot of Christians who share my views.
- I find it hard to kick up a big fuss over paying taxes: 1) It's required - because enough other people believe it is required.
Other people believe it is required to worship Allah. Do you do that?
2) You can pay it in money - which only has value because enough other people believe it has.
Nope. Assume I have a farm, I produce carrots and exchange them for all kind of foods (it's legal). One day the tax collector comes, he asks me for money. I don't have the government's money to pay him, so he takes away my tractor (IRS will seize proper
Riiiht. And mathematical research is just finding a Hamiltonian cycle in a graph defined by the set of axioms used.
When you left your parent's club, did they ask you to leave your home as well ?
No, the government will use force and prevent me from doing it.
If every property owner in the US willingly gave to the government a monopoly of law over his land, you would be right, but it hasn't happen and wouldn't happen (I for one would not). The fact that many people believe the government to be legitimate does not make it so. Democracy is beside the point, if someone does not grant the US government jurisdiction over his land, his neighbors can't do it for him.
No I don't, they may exclude me from there club, but they cannot legitimately exclude me from my own property. Landowners do not have a right to refuse US jurisdiction. The only way the US government could be "like a club" would be if it granted the right to secede from it (leave the club). Obviously it does not.
Indeed if she lives in a place where the property owners have voluntarily surrendered jurisdiction to the US government, then I don't believe I have a right to be there.
I never asked the government to help me live with other people. I can manage to do that by myself. If the government let a landowner leave Club USA, it could set up a city on its land and would obviously not be alone.
Governments steal, murder and enslave people. That's much much more evil than any evil you and I can imagine committing in our lives.
Won't you leave poor people out of it? Poverty is not a badge of morality or merit. Why should morality be based around "poor people" rather than "rich people", "bearded people" or "people with earlobes" ?
Well they are, and the only argument you have come up with, so far is the mere assertion that "without taxes there would be chaos" which, per se, does not even contradict that taxes are theft.
Enjoying a benefit is not theft. You are enjoying the benefit of talking to me, but I have no right to charge you for it because there is no existing contract between you and me. Similarly I enjoy the benefit of pretty girl wearing short skirts in the street when the spring comes, it doesn't make me a thief, etc. The simple truth is, government provides some services and then say: hey, I've given you this service, now pay me... Uh, I didn't ask for any service, no thanks. I do pay taxes because I fear the government, but if I didn't, it wouldn't make me a thief at all... if the government doesn't want me to use its services for free, let it not provide them to me, I don't want them. Maybe it can't not provide it to me... too bad but that's it's problem, I want to have nothing to do with this organization, period.
It's quite different, there's a contract when you're a member of the club.
What you are implicitly assuming is that living in North America between the 49th parallel and the Rio Grande implies suscribing to the services of the United States government. You are assuming the United States government has a legitimate monopoly of jurisdiction over that territory, which is precisely equivalent to what I am denying, you're merely assuming the consequent.
I am well aware of the arguments in the link you provide, none of them are correct. Let me point you to these arguments, http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
Whether there is or not an alternative doesn't make it less evil. A woman faced with an aggressor offering to kill her or to rape her may have no other alternative and may make a choice. That doesn't mean she *accepts* what is going to happen to her. The original discussion is about tax-funded healthcare. Not taking taxes from people to fund healthcare does not and will not result in dictatorship or degenerate into chaos.
You raise another question, which is, is it possible to have a society free of institutionalized violence (such as taxation). Police and courts are a useful service, but they should and can be provided by private companies. Actually, most courts and most police force, today, in the US are already private. Private arbitration is extremely common, faster and cheaper than the state run judicial system, and rent-a-cop, security forces outnumber the civil servants.
The idea that police and courts have to be state provided is merely a hobbesian myth. Furthermore, it is not up to me to prove that such a system can and does work. You are advocating a system relying on theft, you have the burden of proof, it is up to *you* to prove that it is unavoidable.
Then how on earth does this become acceptable when it is done by the government ?
Whether I am benefiting or not is subjective and actually irrelevant. Theft is theft, even when the thief claims he acts for the own good of his victim. I have a right to live my life according to my own judgment, respecting the other's right to do so as well.
Once again you are assuming that people working for the government are somehow subject to distinct moral rules. How would you react if a company started charging you (at gunpoint) for unrequested services.
Terrorists are people outside a formal government, so no it is not terrorism.
Very convenient definition... uh. I'll place it on my bookshelf along with
- It's not fascim when we do it
- It's illegal so it's wrong
- The government can do it because it said it was legal
Barter is taxed.
Taxation is not the same as stealing.
Of course it is. What makes you think when people employed by the government do something it enjoys a different moral standard that when ordinary people do it ?
Why can't we do as all the other industrialized countries have done?
Because stealing is wrong?
much worse apparently. He has what it takes to be a nice little tyran.
Every business is a monopoly if you look at a sufficiently small market niche. Theoretical competition generally assumes that the goods produce are perfect substitutes, which is never true. The good news is, in our rich society, almost all the demand is elastic as most goods and services are to some extent substitutes. Satellite radio does not only compete with broadcast radio or mp3 players, it competes with your beach vacation, the nearby steakhouse you're considering going to, this movie you're unsure about going to, etc.
So do transistors. What's your point ? Analog computation ? Yurk.
The inquirer tries to discover if he is talking to a machine or not. Being undetected during casual conversation (and I can bet even this is far far from reaching that, they're just making PR) is one thing, being undetected when tried is different.
Ultimately, the Turing tests tests much more than the ability of conversation. You can describe problems in a conversation and ask the computer to solve them, this is what makes the Turing test a true A.I. test.
The software is copyrighted, duh.
I think the best solution would be to make wikipedia entirely distributed, where anyone can host any kind of edit to any page. Displaying a page becomes a matter of polling neighbor nodes in the network for information. Edits can be signed by various parties for validity, etc. The main cost then becomes a cost of development, there is no hosting cost.
I think you're summing up the issue nicely. Both are equally delusional, but the former implies much more gullibility and the later, at least encompasses some interesting philosophy of life.
...a linux box, xine and bittorrent.
I mean, HD-DVDs ? Physical disks ? Dust ? Uuuh.
Besides, frankly speaking, this early adopter rush probably has nothing to do with a taste for high quality and everything to do with a pissing contest with your neighbors.
What you should do in that case depends on your value, but ultimately it's your choice. Although I love free software, I wouldn't turn down a job offer because I have to use windows, I know some people who definitely would though.
You always have the *choice* not to use proprietary software, using proprietary software is always *voluntary*. Whether their are alternatives with similar functionality is beside the point and has nothing to do with the use of force or volition.
Actually claimed that the sun was the center of the universe, which is what *really* put Galileo in trouble in the first place.
But I use elinks and no online banking site support it... and and and... don't I deserve that the banks support my favorite browser ? Don't I deserve that people work for me so that I have what I need ?
Funny? 99% of people think that way.
Why would that be? You can sue someone for the part of the harm that he has caused. If a girl was gang banged raped, she can definitely sue one of the aggressor.
This is in fact very good news, if global warming causes damage to some people, they should sue the person responsible (provided of course responsibility can be proven, which is imho still dubious). This provides a decentralized and ethical way to fight eventual problems arising from release of CO2. Government regulations do not.