Reddit Declares Itself A ‘Government’

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Nope, I'd say living someplace and taking advantages of services funded through tax dollars means you consent to paying your share of those services.....
Click to expand...
Being forced to use something does not equate to consent. Nor does it justify using force to make me pay for it.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Most of the people that don't steal from me personally now would not steal from me without government. Many of those that would will also try to now, even with a government in place. They are but a small aggregate, where as the people that currently do steal from me via government proxy is nearly 100%. Keeping a government in place give a mathematical certainty that people will steal from me.

Isn't math great?
Click to expand...

WAT

Listen, I am a big fan of that government which governs best, governs least and opposition to the Tyranny of the Majority and all, but the naive belief that "Most of the people that don't steal from me personally now would not steal from me without government"... no dude, that's not true at all.

You can't use experience derived from living in a lawful, structured, prosperous society as a basis for your understanding of human nature. Take a look at all of recorded history. What we have here in the United States is a huge exception to the status quo, which is rooted largely in the strong preying on the weak and human misery.

When I was young I was an Anarchist and believed in no government. After having lived in several countries and several different governments - including a revolution, with the mob trying to burn down the building with me, my wife, and out infant son in it - that whole "people are generally capable of self-regulation" belief smashed head-first into reality.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Nope, I'd say living someplace and taking advantages of services funded through tax dollars means you consent to paying your share of those services. You know, like sending kids to school, paying for public utilities, being protected by police, living in a place that has a military around that can project national power...that kinda junk. If you gain any advantage because of those services, then you should pay a portion of the expenses those services require..unless you plan to build and maintain your own road system and utility poles or satellites. :p
Click to expand...

Plenty of people take lots of advantage of those things but don't pay a dime. Are they not paying "their fair share"? Of course they aren't but you don't argue for them being denied the things they aren't paying for, are you?

And people build and maintain their own road systems all over the place. Just because you were born in a US that already had the Eisenhower interstate system - built in the 1950's for military purposes - doesn't mean that all roads were publicly built or maintained throughout US history. It's just plain not true. As for satellites - well who do you think paid for Telstar? It wasn't the government.
 
spintroniX said:
Being forced to use something does not equate to consent. Nor does it justify using force to make me pay for it.
Click to expand...

So we go back to you not being forced to live here. No one is stopping you from moving someplace else if you don't want to deal with taxes.
 
h5D7A98F9
 
flashoverride said:
Plenty of people take lots of advantage of those things but don't pay a dime. Are they not paying "their fair share"? Of course they aren't but you don't argue for them being denied the things they aren't paying for, are you?
Click to expand...

I actually do think that people really shouldn't get out of pay taxes through loopholes, but as long as they're obeying tax laws, then whatevs. It's not a big deal.

And people build and maintain their own road systems all over the place. Just because you were born in a US that already had the Eisenhower interstate system - built in the 1950's for military purposes - doesn't mean that all roads were publicly built or maintained throughout US history. It's just plain not true. As for satellites - well who do you think paid for Telstar? It wasn't the government.
Click to expand...

Yup, they do build and maintain their own roads, but if they use them exclusively and don't use public roads, thats fine. I think you know that's not true. Even if they don't travel on them, they still depend on the benefits created via the infrastructure including national trade, commerce, and shipping. Seriously, these surface-level thoughts for the sake of presenting a rational sounding argument using an irrational basis are getting old. Use your brain.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I actually do think that people really shouldn't get out of pay taxes through loopholes, but as long as they're obeying tax laws, then whatevs. It's not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people where I live simply don't pay taxes - either they work under the table while drawing on public benefits, or they don't work. I suppose it's true that they pay sales taxes, but they are in a steep negative when it comes to taxes paid/benefits received.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yup, they do build and maintain their own roads, but if they use them exclusively and don't use public roads, thats fine. I think you know that's not true. Even if they don't travel on them, they still depend on the benefits created via the infrastructure including national trade, commerce, and shipping. Seriously, these surface-level thoughts for the sake of presenting a rational sounding argument using an irrational basis are getting old. Use your brain.
Click to expand...

What? What's your point? That people should pay for roads? We do. Already done. Didn't know that was an argument, sounded like an obvious statement of fact. What I said is that's not always the way it's been done, which is also true and a statement of fact.
 
flashoverride said:
Plenty of people where I live simply don't pay taxes - either they work under the table while drawing on public benefits, or they don't work. I suppose it's true that they pay sales taxes, but they are in a steep negative when it comes to taxes paid/benefits received.
Click to expand...

Report them to a law enforcement agency if you're concerned about it. They clearly don't live in enough fear of consequences and need the purifying fires of righteous governmental justice forever burned into their tiny, criminal minds!

What? What's your point? That people should pay for roads? We do. Already done. Didn't know that was an argument, sounded like an obvious statement of fact. What I said is that's not always the way it's been done, which is also true and a statement of fact.
Click to expand...

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because things were done a certain way, doesn't imply that the previous way should have remained the status quo. (It didn't, after all.) And since we agree that people pay for roads, which was yet another example of what taxes do for people and of one of the services that they should pay for as opposed to a sticking point that you're now dismissing since it isn't gaining you any argumentive traction, let's just let the matter drop. :p
 
heatlesssun said:
And for 99%+ percent of the Americans on this board, government probably never got into their shit, at least not to any outrageously overt way in the last few decades. Sure there's complains about things like taxes, the ACA, the NSA and so forth. But these burdens are a far cry from the truly outrageous and oppressive burdens that many Americans have had to carry.
Click to expand...

Seriously? This has to be sarcasm.
 
Solution to all of your woes - anarchist and statists of all types. Panarchy. You do what you want, just don't force it on me. I do what I want, and I won't force it on you. Different communities self-governing however they please.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Math is great (well if you get that stuff, but I don't so whatever). However, English confusing. Taxation isn't theft so no one who levies taxes that you pay is stealing from you. You're free to move to a place that doesn't charge you taxes and, becuase you don't, you're paying them of your own free will without coercion. Dictionaries totally would help you feel less angry.

The other point though, you've still failed to prove that fear is not fundamental in the adherence to social constructs. Anyone can claim "my friend this" or "Robert that" but you fail to account for the many people you don't know that live in close proximity to you who will happily take things from you if they're not otherwise afraid of a higher power's involvement.
Click to expand...

Taxation is theft. The fact that the government "gives" us something for it is irrelevant.

Tomorrow I will take $500 from you, but give you a happy meal on Friday. So its not stealing. You got something (you didnt consent to) for your money. Its exactly the same thing, no matter how anyone spins it.

I dont believe you would steal from me in the absence of a higher authority. Perhaps you don't trust yourself. Not to say I trust you, I don't. But I will simply light your ass up if you broke into my house. An armed populace is a peaceful populace. Of course I would hire contractors and/or delegate that to an insurance company to handle on my behalf. I would save money and get to choose whom I do business with. I am of course told that this is a bad thing and that having money taken from me and spent without my consent is better than market competition...
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Taxation is theft. The fact that the government "gives" us something for it is irrelevant.

Tomorrow I will take $500 from you, but give you a happy meal on Friday. So its not stealing. You got something (you didnt consent to) for your money. Its exactly the same thing, no matter how anyone spins it.

I dont believe you would steal from me in the absence of a higher authority. Perhaps you don't trust yourself. Not to say I trust you, I don't. But I will simply light your ass up if you broke into my house. An armed populace is a peaceful populace. Of course I would hire contractors and/or delegate that to an insurance company to handle on my behalf. I would save money and get to choose whom I do business with. I am of course told that this is a bad thing and that having money taken from me and spent without my consent is better than market competition...
Click to expand...

You want a reason to be angry, have invented one (or, more to the point, bought into someone else's ideas) and are doing it. I applaud you for at least pretending to stick to it to save face to all the internet people you preach to, but I betcha you don't live the life you advocate. If you did, it's pretty much a given that your perspective would be different and align more closely with reality and human nature.
 
How do you prevent people from stealing the absence of police. Simple a sign that says "I shoot looters on sight" pretty easy fix really.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Math is great (well if you get that stuff, but I don't so whatever). However, English confusing. Taxation isn't theft so no one who levies taxes that you pay is stealing from you. You're free to move to a place that doesn't charge you taxes and, becuase you don't, you're paying them of your own free will without coercion. Dictionaries totally would help you feel less angry.

The other point though, you've still failed to prove that fear is not fundamental in the adherence to social constructs. Anyone can claim "my friend this" or "Robert that" but you fail to account for the many people you don't know that live in close proximity to you who will happily take things from you if they're not otherwise afraid of a higher power's involvement.
Click to expand...
Doing something as a private individual would be considered stealing but if done by a government is called taxes is pure arbitrary semantics. Basically its sounds a lot like the justification for king's & queen's and lords and lady's exploitation of their subjects. "When the king does it... you think of England...". There we go with that regression back to serfdom thing.

Anyway the stealing was legitimized by the notion that as a republic we voted on it, or our representatives voted on it. That magically didn't make it not stealing. That made it legal, but not necessarily inherently moral.

The morality of it was made more pallettable at the time because of this supposed return you alluded to. But the return at the time were in a small handful of core functions and many of them were tangible and cronism was limited by the small size and reach of government at the time. Right now people making the biggest sacrifice (middle middle class to upper lower class) aren't getting those returns. Things like better roads are what 'New Taxes' are for. The money is going off in a bunch of obscure directions that few are forthcoming and honest about where. Not only is it like a black box but the government is doing new things with the money long since the initial agreement and there really hasn't been a renewel of that agreement.

The alleged morality of the agreement only declines more and more as the current government drifts further and further away from being our representatives.

This is why tolerance is wearing thin. Unlike some who want to pay zero taxes, I actually want a national defence but I don't want my money used to turn the US into a economic lifeboat for Mexico's problems. I'm not alone in fact I represent the majority opinion on those things but in both respects the government is doing as it pleases.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Taxation is theft. The fact that the government "gives" us something for it is irrelevant.

Tomorrow I will take $500 from you, but give you a happy meal on Friday. So its not stealing. You got something (you didnt consent to) for your money. Its exactly the same thing, no matter how anyone spins it.
Click to expand...

This is a vast oversimplification. Whatever one's view of government is, EVERY civilization has to have a certain amount of infrastructure and services in order to function. There have to roads and bridges, educational system, law creation, enforcement and adjudication, at least basic regulatory systems that help deal with waste, food and product safety, wanton financial corruption and collusion, etc. There's simply a cost to having a civilization that functions. Perhaps these goods and services shouldn't be provided by governments and should all be handled privately. Perhaps costs would be lower but there's still going to be bills to pay for these things and it still won't be cheap.
 
jpm100 said:
Doing something as a private individual would be considered stealing but if done by a government is called taxes is pure arbitrary semantics. Basically its sounds a lot like the justification for king's & queen's and lords and lady's exploitation of their subjects. "When the king does it... you think of England...". There we go with that regression back to serfdom thing.

Anyway the stealing was legitimized by the notion that as a republic we voted on it, or our representatives voted on it. That magically didn't make it not stealing. That made it legal, but not necessarily inherently moral.

The morality of it was made more pallettable at the time because of this supposed return you alluded to. But the return at the time were in a small handful of core functions and many of them were tangible and cronism was limited by the small size and reach of government at the time. Right now people making the biggest sacrifice (middle middle class to upper lower class) aren't getting those returns. Things like better roads are what 'New Taxes' are for. The money is going off in a bunch of obscure directions that few are forthcoming and honest about where. Not only is it like a black box but the government is doing new things with the money long since the initial agreement and there really hasn't been a renewel of that agreement.

The alleged morality of the agreement only declines more and more as the current government drifts further and further away from being our representatives.

This is why tolerance is wearing thin. Unlike some who want to pay zero taxes, I actually want a national defence but I don't want my money used to turn the US into a economic lifeboat for Mexico's problems. I'm not alone in fact I represent the majority opinion on those things but in both respects the government is doing as it pleases.
Click to expand...

The difference here is Lawful Good versus Lawful Neutral. Personally, I don't care about what's considered moral because you can't really codify morals and they really don't belong in a discussion about laws. Sure they're worth thinking about, but morals aren't laws and as long as it's law, I don't care of Her Majesty made up the law or a bunch of old guys who disappointingly have those silly southern accents. They're still laws. Questioning them by using personal opinions about right and wrong (morals) just creates a slew of different, equally meaningless opinions.
 
heatlesssun said:
This is a vast oversimplification. Whatever one's view of government is, EVERY civilization has to have a certain amount of infrastructure and services in order to function. There have to roads and bridges, educational system, law creation, enforcement and adjudication, at least basic regulatory systems that help deal with waste, food and product safety, wanton financial corruption and collusion, etc. There's simply a cost to having a civilization that functions. Perhaps these goods and services shouldn't be provided by governments and should all be handled privately. Perhaps costs would be lower but there's still going to be bills to pay for these things and it still won't be cheap.
Click to expand...

The fact that we need things does not escape me.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The difference here is Lawful Good versus Lawful Neutral. Personally, I don't care about what's considered moral because you can't really codify morals and they really don't belong in a discussion about laws. Sure they're worth thinking about, but morals aren't laws and as long as it's law, I don't care of Her Majesty made up the law or a bunch of old guys who disappointingly have those silly southern accents. They're still laws. Questioning them by using personal opinions about right and wrong (morals) just creates a slew of different, equally meaningless opinions.
Click to expand...

You ignore morals because taking a statist position is usually inconsistent with your own moral code.

Most people who want a government would never consider robbing their neighbors directly. They are tricked into violating their own moral code with sophistry and normalcy bias.

The anarchist position is constant, which is why it is always greeted with such anger. We are hated by everyone because we would hold service providers to the same standards we place on ourselves. It makes people uncomfortable to learn that an entire system they grew up around has always been a lie.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
So we go back to you not being forced to live here. No one is stopping you from moving someplace else if you don't want to deal with taxes.
Click to expand...

the opposite of being in a cage isn't being in a different cage, it's being free.

I am free, at the consent of my government and the government of other countries, to move - but I will still be taxed. I will also still be taxed by the U.S., even living on foreign soil.

The love it or leave it mentality is so horribly broken that nobody would apply it to any other area of their life.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
The fact that we need things does not escape me.
Click to expand...

But we can't need something and then claim that we're being completely robbed when much of that money is being used to pay for the things we need. Maybe the monies are excessive or not being spent as efficiently as could be, but that's a different issue.

The interesting thing about government spending is that at all levels, from local to state to federal, while often criticized in the general or small specific things, is overwhelming popular on the specific big ticket items across the political spectrum. In other words, whenever money is involved for goods and services, we tend to like the goods and services, we just don't like to pay for them.
 
heatlesssun said:
But we can't need something and then claim that we're being completely robbed when much of that money is being used to pay for the things we need. Maybe the monies are excessive or not being spent as efficiently as could be, but that's a different issue.

The interesting thing about government spending is that at all levels, from local to state to federal, while often criticized in the general or small specific things, is overwhelming popular on the specific big ticket items across the political spectrum. In other words, whenever money is involved for goods and services, we tend to like the goods and services, we just don't like to pay for them.
Click to expand...

No. We can claim we're being robbed, because we are.

If I hear a crying baby in the mall, I can't slap a bottle of coke into their mouths and take money from the mother's purse at gunpoint. That's stealing.

I'm thrilled you happen to enjoy services paid for with my labor and collateral of the politically unborn.
 
spintroniX said:
that's not an argument, but nice try.
Click to expand...

How can I make an argument when you provide no evidence to refute?

Saying that 'war requires government' is a blatantly false claim. Our pre-human ancestors have been killing each other, both alone and in groups, both defensively and aggressively, for millions of years before a 'government' appeared. If you're saying war is specifically violence condoned by a government then it's a completely arbitrary redefinition of violence sanctioned by any group.

aardvark sandwich said:
Most people who want a government would never consider robbing their neighbors directly. They are tricked into violating their own moral code with sophistry and normalcy bias. The anarchist position is constant, which is why it is always greeted with such anger.
Click to expand...
It's also possible that people don't like it because it's not an evidence-based position. Why do you assume they've been tricked? We have lots of examples of awful, violent places with no governance and what happens when government breaks down (even in the western world it gets ugly). There aren't too many examples of anarchist utopias.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that regular non-criminals would band together to establish some sort of system to prevent and punish criminal behavior. You lose absolute control over your domain as an individual, but not being murdered by wandering bands of armed thugs seems like a nice benefit, among other things. Sure, there's baggage that comes with that, but I'll take representative democracy and it's flaws over any example of anarchism I've ever seen.

It makes people uncomfortable to learn that an entire system they grew up around has always been a lie.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I was very uncomfortable when I started to unravel the conservative/libertarian political views I grew up with. It gets better though.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
It's also possible that people don't like it because it's not an evidence-based position. Why do you assume they've been tricked? We have lots of examples of awful, violent places with no governance and what happens when government breaks down (even in the western world it gets ugly). There aren't too many examples of anarchist utopias.
.
Click to expand...

You can seek a pragmatic position, it just isn't consistent.

I never claimed to seek a utopia.
What we have now is the fantasy.
 
elite.mafia said:
Reddit is very left wing, so they want more government.
Click to expand...

Yep. They've got some areas where right-wingers are able to congregate, but in recent months they've demonstrated that left-wing sensitivities rule in common areas. They were even part of the suppression efforts in GamerGate. There are now entire subreddits devoted to exposing the hypersensitive natures of the mods.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
You ignore morals because taking a statist position is usually inconsistent with your own moral code.
Click to expand...

I there's nothing that's currently being done globally or nationally by the US government that bothers my moral code.

Most people who want a government would never consider robbing their neighbors directly. They are tricked into violating their own moral code with sophistry and normalcy bias.
Click to expand...

Most people never consider robbing their neighbors directly because they're not faced with a situation where they have to choose between basic survival and robbing someone else. If there's no governing body, the organized delivery of goods and services will cease and lives will be disrupted until someone or some organization is appointed or appoints itself into a position of authority. From anarchy, organizational structures _always_ develop to restore order and anarchy is invariably a very temporary state. If it were somehow stable, sustainable, and so advantageous, then anarchy would exist today and organized governance wouldn't. I have countless years of human history supporting the idea that someone organizes and leads and that's just how it works. Conversely, you have a nonfunctioning theory about a societal non-structure and not a single historic example that supports your claim.

The anarchist position is constant, which is why it is always greeted with such anger. We are hated by everyone because we would hold service providers to the same standards we place on ourselves. It makes people uncomfortable to learn that an entire system they grew up around has always been a lie.
Click to expand...

The anarchist position only makes people uncomfortable because it represents a fringe element that proposes the defiance of human nature. It's sort of the same way crazy people make sane people uncomfortable. As for me, I don't find you cause discomfort because 1) I know you don't actually believe you can live in what you're proposing and 2) You're far too comfortable to do more than nag endlessly on the Internet about what you don't like.
 
flashoverride said:
When I was young I was an Anarchist and believed in no government. After having lived in several countries and several different governments - including a revolution, with the mob trying to burn down the building with me, my wife, and out infant son in it - that whole "people are generally capable of self-regulation" belief smashed head-first into reality.
Click to expand...

You cannot treat cultures as equal. They are not. Each will react differently when faced with disorganization.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
No. We can claim we're being robbed, because we are.

If I hear a crying baby in the mall, I can't slap a bottle of coke into their mouths and take money from the mother's purse at gunpoint. That's stealing.

I'm thrilled you happen to enjoy services paid for with my labor and collateral of the politically unborn.
Click to expand...

LOL! So you've never driven on a public road or bridge? Never used any publicly funded transportation system? Never had your trash picked up by a publicly funded municipality? Never went to a publicly funded educational institution? Never had parents or close relatives receive Social Security or Medicare?

Unless one comes from a very wealthy family, virtually everyone here has accessed most, if not all of these publicly funded goods and services. I certainly have. And I've also been working and paying taxes, most than most, for the last 22 years. So to act as though somehow you're paying for something I use without the reverse being true is silly.
 
Stiletto said:
You cannot treat cultures as equal. They are not. Each will react differently when faced with disorganization.
Click to expand...

In the short term, they might. Eventually, they'll end up organizing into a social strata with leadership and followership, ultimately ending the disorganized state or they'll cease to exist which makes the entire matter moot. However, they'll never perpetually remain unorganized.
 
How is reddit different than a simple meta-forum? Looks- and functionality-wise, it seems no different than threaded bulletin board software out of the 1990s.
 
heatlesssun said:
LOL! So you've never driven on a public road or bridge? Never used any publicly funded transportation system? Never had your trash picked up by a publicly funded municipality? Never went to a publicly funded educational institution? Never had parents or close relatives receive Social Security or Medicare?

Unless one comes from a very wealthy family, virtually everyone here has accessed most, if not all of these publicly funded goods and services. I certainly have. And I've also been working and paying taxes, most than most, for the last 22 years. So to act as though somehow you're paying for something I use without the reverse being true is silly.
Click to expand...

I should continue to pay taxes to the mafia because the mafia has a monopoly and it would be immoral to not support the monopoly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top