Logic for what? The only logic of taxes is for the statesmen to take as much money as possible or to gain as much power as possible. Maybe in that case a unique federal tax is more logic, I don't know.
Taxes are pure economic waste because they are pure coercion. Also what exactly is being "optimized" other than the welfare of the regulators, please be precise.
Also why would you need to pay a toll at every road you take without taxes anyway... you gave the answer yourself, you can use a subscription service.
Even if pure money grab was sought, by controlling people, you can grab money more easily from them. Think public education for example.
The problem with your fiend's system is that if you give people that kind of relief, they will probably resist taxes much more and thus the treasury will end up making less.
You could be driving on a private circuit, you could be using gas for private electricity generation... Same for property taxes, when did you require fire department service, how does the tax asses the precautions you take to avoid fire, etc.
Either you oppose taxes or your don't. There's no middle-ground, every tax is irrational. Taxing dividends, gas, the internet, cheese consumption is ethically similar. If you complain about email/internet taxes but think income tax, wealth tax, consumption taxes or social security are OK, you are just bitching for your own petty particular situation. If you want to be consistent (and ethical), you should reject *any* tax.
This story is just another example that the government will try and tax whatever it can for the purpose of ever increasing its power. Not only does it allow them to 'legally' control the internet, it provides them with the financial mean to do so...
Wiggum: My bad! Can't work my answering machine, either. Now I
need a new informant. Say, Lisa, people trust you. How'd
you like to be a snitch? The pay stinks, but...
Legitimacy derives from rights, which have nothing to do with whatever positive law is in fashion among the men who form the government. You are right in pointing out that copying information when one is not restricted by an NDA is not immoral and it is not illegitimate either.
is it worth saving someone who lifted the habeas corpus, started a war, used conscription, established income taxes...
This guy was a disgusting criminal.
What do you know about my opinion on the nature of man? Morality, natural law, requires that rights be respected, this is always true, in a statist society or in an anarchist one. The important question is: by what mean are those rights to be enforced. The statist construct offers the idea of a geographical monopoly of law enforcement, I myself reject the morality of such a monopoly and its efficiency. I strive to derive my conclusions from a few trivial axiomatic observations on man's nature. If you are suspicious about the morality of some men, as you should, why would you advocate putting men in power? Power corrupts and only effective check and balances can provide a truly free society. It is my opinion that anarchy offer better check and balances than constitutional democracy by granting the legitimate right to ignore the state.
Lord of the flies doesn't deal with men but children. You'll notice that them having a state don't do them any real good.
One problem with copyrights (after legitimacy) is that their infringement is a consensual crime. When a theft, a rape is perpetuated, the victim is generally going to complain... however, if I share a music file with someone, we are both happy with this, the producer doesn't know about it, he cannot report the transaction. There is no effective way to enforce copyrights - this is more obvious every day -... there's little point in arguing for copyright law when the law is doomed to fail.
Since you describe yourself as a geek of jurisprudence and you seem to care about the constitution, I think you will highly enjoy Spooner's "The constitution of no authority" (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)
Your doctor agrees not to disclose the information. If he releases your information (or you find someone has it) you can sue him for breach of contract. The **AA can't simply do that because only the guys ripping and sharing CDs are liable, the people copying from the copier don't infringe on anybody's rights.
I can choose not to disclose that information, I can choose to disclose that information under a NDA although only the initial discloser will be liable then since he is the only one bound by contract.
Funnily Hans Herman Hoppe made the point that only anarchists can coherently argue:) However since you decided not arguing with me it must mean that
a) You believe anarchists are not able to respect the rules of presenting coherent arguments in a discussion, will be dishonest, or try to use force on you => I won't do that
b) You believe anarchism is so flawed it should be obvious that is pointless arguing against it => in that case there is probably an "obvious" argument you can oppose anarchism that will close the debate.
Not only didn't I help draft it, I never agreed to it.
Take a second and try to figure who devised what should be taught in those "civics classes". ZOMG1111!!one!!! the government. You might want to take a step back from those and realize rights are natural, not "granted" by the government or the constitution. I read Locke, now you may want to read Spooner, you might be able to understand that my contribution entails more than "copytheft$ sux00rz"
Well you may be a 'criminal' in regards to the arbitrary whim of the US law, but how does that matter? We may be all criminals in regards to the constitution of the soviet union or the sacred tribal rules of Atlantis but it doesn't really matter. Being a criminal makes sense only in regards to inalienable rights.
Copies of a good song are not scarce. What is really scarce is production of good songs, and a property right of disclosure can of course be applied to that.
You are free to say anything you want precisely because that does not alter those resources nor anyone's life against its will (which also is a scarce resource, I don't have copies of my mind)
"Society" doesn't grant anything, society has no purpose, no will, no existence, it is just a collection of individuals. The US constitution is just a piece of paper written by some individuals and agreed to by some other individuals. Not "society" and certainly not me.
Being a criminal means infringing on someone's rights. Rights are defined as to determine how scarce resources are to be controlled. Information is not a scarce resource, by copying music from someone, I am not invading anyone's property, or if you prefer infringing on anyone's right.
Because you have a free option on money. You don't want it? Don't use it. You want it? Use it. It's plain simple.
I see people complaining about money in the movie business. Well I saw plenty of expensive movies which I enjoyed very much, and plenty of inexpensive which I enjoyed as well. Some good things need money to be done, some don't. Money is just a tool of exchange, it has no intrinsic characteristic, it merely reflects that of his owner. Someone despising money is really despising his own goals and thus is very self.
You hateful hating haters, I hate you with hatred!
Rights disappear whenever people stop using them. So I suggest we let go on the hate speech in this specific thread and have a hateful conversation (you fucking nerdy retards)
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, they have been for a long time now...
Logic for what? The only logic of taxes is for the statesmen to take as much money as possible or to gain as much power as possible. Maybe in that case a unique federal tax is more logic, I don't know.
Taxes are pure economic waste because they are pure coercion. Also what exactly is being "optimized" other than the welfare of the regulators, please be precise.
Also why would you need to pay a toll at every road you take without taxes anyway... you gave the answer yourself, you can use a subscription service.
Even if pure money grab was sought, by controlling people, you can grab money more easily from them. Think public education for example.
The problem with your fiend's system is that if you give people that kind of relief, they will probably resist taxes much more and thus the treasury will end up making less.
You could be driving on a private circuit, you could be using gas for private electricity generation... Same for property taxes, when did you require fire department service, how does the tax asses the precautions you take to avoid fire, etc.
Hum trade-unionist use force and physical abuse to prevent people from working, they're basicaly bullies, how can they be put in a *good* light?
Either you oppose taxes or your don't. There's no middle-ground, every tax is irrational. Taxing dividends, gas, the internet, cheese consumption is ethically similar.
If you complain about email/internet taxes but think income tax, wealth tax, consumption taxes or social security are OK, you are just bitching for your own petty particular situation. If you want to be consistent (and ethical), you should reject *any* tax.
This story is just another example that the government will try and tax whatever it can for the purpose of ever increasing its power. Not only does it allow them to 'legally' control the internet, it provides them with the financial mean to do so...
Wiggum: My bad! Can't work my answering machine, either. Now I ...
need a new informant. Say, Lisa, people trust you. How'd
you like to be a snitch? The pay stinks, but
Legitimacy derives from rights, which have nothing to do with whatever positive law is in fashion among the men who form the government. You are right in pointing out that copying information when one is not restricted by an NDA is not immoral and it is not illegitimate either.
ILLEGAL doesn't matter. Marijuana is ILLEGAL, it doesn't make it illegitimate.
X country's courts also upheld the actions of the dictator X. Criminality with regard to positive law is meaningless, especially for statesmen.
is it worth saving someone who lifted the habeas corpus, started a war, used conscription, established income taxes... This guy was a disgusting criminal.
Apology accepted.
... there's little point in arguing for copyright law when the law is doomed to fail.
)
What do you know about my opinion on the nature of man? Morality, natural law, requires that rights be respected, this is always true, in a statist society or in an anarchist one. The important question is: by what mean are those rights to be enforced. The statist construct offers the idea of a geographical monopoly of law enforcement, I myself reject the morality of such a monopoly and its efficiency. I strive to derive my conclusions from a few trivial axiomatic observations on man's nature. If you are suspicious about the morality of some men, as you should, why would you advocate putting men in power? Power corrupts and only effective check and balances can provide a truly free society. It is my opinion that anarchy offer better check and balances than constitutional democracy by granting the legitimate right to ignore the state.
Lord of the flies doesn't deal with men but children. You'll notice that them having a state don't do them any real good.
One problem with copyrights (after legitimacy) is that their infringement is a consensual crime. When a theft, a rape is perpetuated, the victim is generally going to complain... however, if I share a music file with someone, we are both happy with this, the producer doesn't know about it, he cannot report the transaction. There is no effective way to enforce copyrights - this is more obvious every day -
Since you describe yourself as a geek of jurisprudence and you seem to care about the constitution, I think you will highly enjoy Spooner's "The constitution of no authority" (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6
Your doctor agrees not to disclose the information. If he releases your information (or you find someone has it) you can sue him for breach of contract. The **AA can't simply do that because only the guys ripping and sharing CDs are liable, the people copying from the copier don't infringe on anybody's rights.
I can choose not to disclose that information, I can choose to disclose that information under a NDA although only the initial discloser will be liable then since he is the only one bound by contract.
Funnily Hans Herman Hoppe made the point that only anarchists can coherently argue :)
However since you decided not arguing with me it must mean that
a) You believe anarchists are not able to respect the rules of presenting coherent arguments in a discussion, will be dishonest, or try to use force on you => I won't do that
b) You believe anarchism is so flawed it should be obvious that is pointless arguing against it => in that case there is probably an "obvious" argument you can oppose anarchism that will close the debate.
Not only didn't I help draft it, I never agreed to it. Take a second and try to figure who devised what should be taught in those "civics classes". ZOMG1111!!one!!! the government. You might want to take a step back from those and realize rights are natural, not "granted" by the government or the constitution. I read Locke, now you may want to read Spooner, you might be able to understand that my contribution entails more than "copytheft$ sux00rz"
Well you may be a 'criminal' in regards to the arbitrary whim of the US law, but how does that matter? We may be all criminals in regards to the constitution of the soviet union or the sacred tribal rules of Atlantis but it doesn't really matter. Being a criminal makes sense only in regards to inalienable rights.
The direct implication of what I've said is that leftism is completely immoral, you are way way off.
Copies of a good song are not scarce. What is really scarce is production of good songs, and a property right of disclosure can of course be applied to that.
You are free to say anything you want precisely because that does not alter those resources nor anyone's life against its will (which also is a scarce resource, I don't have copies of my mind)
"Society" doesn't grant anything, society has no purpose, no will, no existence, it is just a collection of individuals. The US constitution is just a piece of paper written by some individuals and agreed to by some other individuals. Not "society" and certainly not me.
Being a criminal means infringing on someone's rights. Rights are defined as to determine how scarce resources are to be controlled. Information is not a scarce resource, by copying music from someone, I am not invading anyone's property, or if you prefer infringing on anyone's right.
There's no point in copyrighting these keys, they are way too many, actually there are exactly [CENSORED FOR COYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT] such keys.
If everything fails they'll probably listen to Reason.
Because you have a free option on money. You don't want it? Don't use it. You want it? Use it. It's plain simple. I see people complaining about money in the movie business. Well I saw plenty of expensive movies which I enjoyed very much, and plenty of inexpensive which I enjoyed as well. Some good things need money to be done, some don't. Money is just a tool of exchange, it has no intrinsic characteristic, it merely reflects that of his owner. Someone despising money is really despising his own goals and thus is very self.
You hateful hating haters, I hate you with hatred!
Rights disappear whenever people stop using them. So I suggest we let go on the hate speech in this specific thread and have a hateful conversation (you fucking nerdy retards)