celeron300
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 514
Reddit should have a /hardocp page
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Being forced to use something does not equate to consent. Nor does it justify using force to make me pay for it.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.....
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?
government is the exact opposite of peace, prosperity and stability.
War is only possible through government.
You've got to be kidding me...
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.
Being forced to use something does not equate to consent. Nor does it justify using force to make me pay for it.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly if Reddit symbolizes the future of the internet I have only one thing to say.
I Utterly despise reddit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Reddit should have a /hardocp page
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.
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.
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.
The fact that we need things does not escape me.
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.
that's not an argument, but nice try.
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.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.
It makes people uncomfortable to learn that an entire system they grew up around has always been a lie.
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.
.
Reddit is very left wing, so they want more government.
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.
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.
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.
You cannot treat cultures as equal. They are not. Each will react differently when faced with disorganization.
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.
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.