Reactions to AC

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
B) paying a few grand in taxes and then making use of some of the best road, defense, education, fire protection, police and sewer systems in the world, all th while recognizing the incredible value you're receiving but simultaneously and cynically griping disingenuously about how you're put upon by the government(s) and not even bothering to vote?


[/ QUOTE ]

this has got to be the most misguided statement from an intelligent person that I have heard all year. "a few grand"?? "incredible value"???

man WTF? have you been to the planet earth? you know.. the blue green planet where in the USA taxes generally exceed 40-50% of your annual income. Where even the simplest thing attempted by our government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare sucking out all hope of success much less "value"

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all property is owned, any labor you do necessarily takes place on someone else's property, thereby either entitling them to some measure of control over your labor or entitling *you* to ignore their right to control the fruits of their past labors.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? When I was born, basically the entire planet was already owned. Since then, I've managed to buy my own little piece of it. Most of the time I've been working, though, I've done it on someone else's property - at their request. What they're controlling is my *presence* on their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
More conflation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, on your part. Your labor, purchases, etc, have taken place under a system that does not recognize or pretend to operate according to your syllogism. If AC were implemented under the syllogism you proposed, the conflict would become apparent once all real estate becomes owned.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be different? The entire planet, for practical purposes, is and has been owned. Where's the conflict?

If everything is owned, where am I going to be born? It's not like people just appear out of the ether.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In what way is the state coercing you? As to justification, I've attempted to provide it at your request, probably in error. Your response is better than mine was: the existance of some form of government needs no justification where an explanation will do just fine: it's a (human) biological mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. I will remember this. When I'm stabbing granny, I'll reminder her that I need no justification when an explanation will do just fine. It's a biological mandate.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually in your example, it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the institutionalized violence of the state is a biological mandate, why isn't my violence one, too?

[/ QUOTE ]
This reply very nearly got you blocked. If you want to engage in intellectually honest discussion or debate, either for fun or profit, I'm more than game. If you want to waste time with patently specious argument, however, I am decidedly not.

Here's the (stunningly obvious) answer: social hierarchies are in fact biological mandates. Stabbing granny in fact is not. As you know, in both cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH NOES DON'T BLOCK ME.

You've dodged the question by merely re-asserting.

What is a "biologically mandated" about "social hierarchies"? People are biologically capable of surviving without charges to order about and bosses to recieve orders from. The fact that some want to impose such orders, even feel an irresistible urge to do so, is no different than the fact that some people want to stab granny, and may even feel a "biological mandate" to do so.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have public education for free too. Obviously private schools can't possibly compete, except: they can and do compete, and their results generally outstrip their publically funded competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which shows what? That publicly provided services are inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]
These two responses (this and the one below) actually made me sigh out loud.

No, PVN, this shows that private concerns can and sometimes do compete successfully against the public sector, even when the service the public sector provides is "free", and in the process debunks the AC myth that government "monopolies" prevent competition. This is also true of private security firms (such as Brinks or Tenable ), private military organizations (such as these), private mediators and arbitrators, et al.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So whoever starts off with the most money buys the roads, and then charges however much they want for 'em until alternatives are constructed

[/ QUOTE ]

So the government hasn't supplied enough roads?
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
No PVN, alternatives roads would be constructed by desparate and/or profit-minded folks because the roadopolists who bought the pre-existing roads would in many areas be able to charge literally anything they wanted until alternative roads were built, thus providing near-infinite incentive for the construction of those alternative roads (and, of course, for theft and violence by individuals desparate to buy groceries but unable or unwilling to pay the roadopolists' exhorbitant rates).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have public education for free too. Obviously private schools can't possibly compete, except: they can and do compete, and their results generally outstrip their publically funded competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which shows what? That publicly provided services are inferior?

[/ QUOTE ]
These two responses (this and the one below) actually made me sigh out loud.

No, PVN, this shows that private concerns can and sometimes do compete successfully against the public sector, even when the service the public sector provides is "free", and in the process debunks the AC myth that government "monopolies" prevent competition. This is also true of private security firms (such as Brinks or Tenable ), private military organizations (such as these), private mediators and arbitrators, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! The state-provided services are SO bad (because there's zero incentive for them to improve, since you have to pay for them regardless) that people will pay for them AND a private alternative because they are THAT DESPARATE for a viable solution. True, in a sense, this isn't "monopoly" but the state has a guarnateed revenue stream that it maintains by force. The fact that there are private alternatives doesn't excuse coercive funding for the state-provided "solution". If anything, it makes the crime that much more obvious. The fact that government isn't quite bad enough in some particular markets to engender private alternatives, or that those markets are *so* oppressively distorted that private competition *cannot* arise also does nothing to excuse or justify the state action.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So whoever starts off with the most money buys the roads, and then charges however much they want for 'em until alternatives are constructed

[/ QUOTE ]

So the government hasn't supplied enough roads?
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
No PVN, alternatives roads would be constructed by desparate and/or profit-minded folks because the roadopolists who bought the pre-existing roads would in many areas be able to charge literally anything they wanted until alternative roads were built, thus providing near-infinite incentive for the construction of those alternative roads (and, of course, for theft and violence by individuals desparate to buy groceries but unable or unwilling to pay the roadopolists' exhorbitant rates).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old "government has [censored] things up so bad that you should just grab your ankles and keep taking it, because the alternative will be worse" justification. A classic.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B) paying a few grand in taxes and then making use of some of the best road, defense, education, fire protection, police and sewer systems in the world, all th while recognizing the incredible value you're receiving but simultaneously and cynically griping disingenuously about how you're put upon by the government(s) and not even bothering to vote?


[/ QUOTE ]

this has got to be the most misguided statement from an intelligent person that I have heard all year. "a few grand"?? "incredible value"???

man WTF? have you been to the planet earth? you know.. the blue green planet where in the USA taxes generally exceed 40-50% of your annual income. Where even the simplest thing attempted by our government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare sucking out all hope of success much less "value"

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking only for myself, I haven't paid anything like 50% of my income in taxes (in fairness though, I quit smoking before the anti-smoker demolition derby began). And while the government certainly doesn't offer the solution to everything, there are some things it really does do pretty well, EG roads. And there are other things it does whose exact value isn't directly calculable, but is quite clearly enormous, such as protecting intellectual property and thereby providing enormous incentives toward scientific and technological progress.

As an incidental aside on the topic of IP protection, patent-based monopolies are of deliberately short duration, but some of the products whose development they have incented - ibuprofin comes to mind - have had enormous lasting value. This is one of those interesting situations where I can't calculate either the cost or the benefits exactly, but I'm quite sure which of the two is larger.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume your silence on the subject means you did attend a state or state-funded university?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been silent because it's irrelevant. It's the same as asking "how old are you?" When you can't attack the arguments, look for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all property is owned, any labor you do necessarily takes place on someone else's property, thereby either entitling them to some measure of control over your labor or entitling *you* to ignore their right to control the fruits of their past labors.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? When I was born, basically the entire planet was already owned. Since then, I've managed to buy my own little piece of it. Most of the time I've been working, though, I've done it on someone else's property - at their request. What they're controlling is my *presence* on their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
More conflation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, on your part. Your labor, purchases, etc, have taken place under a system that does not recognize or pretend to operate according to your syllogism. If AC were implemented under the syllogism you proposed, the conflict would become apparent once all real estate becomes owned.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be different? The entire planet, for practical purposes, is and has been owned. Where's the conflict?

If everything is owned, where am I going to be born? It's not like people just appear out of the ether.

[/ QUOTE ]
As noted above, under the syllogism you proposed,

[ QUOTE ]
P1. The individual is sovereign.
P2. The has the absolute right of ownership over his labors.
P3. The individual has the absolute right of ownership over the products of his labors.
C. The individual has the right to possess private property.

[/ QUOTE ]

the conflict between your absolute right to control your labor (P2) and others' absolute right to control the fruits of their labor (P3) would become apparent once all real estate becomes owned, whereupon either you could not labor anywhere without being subject to the will of the property owner on whose property you wish to labor, invalidating P2, or the property owner could not exercise control over the manner and measure of (your) labor on engaged in upon his property, invalidating P3.

Consequently either your P2 or P3 (or both) is false and the conclusion that rests upon them is unsound. QED.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem at all! Tell him to start here:
link He should be able to figure out what to look at next. If you find anything not to your liking, try any of the methods I suggested above for bringing about change, or you could make your exit, per the "throwing off the chains" link, also above.

[/ QUOTE ]


cool .. since the constitution is the contract. I should have no problem holding these [censored] in breach. I cant wait to get the refund plus damages for paying them to represent me for all these years.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]

Speaking only for myself, I haven't paid anything like 50% of my income in taxes

[/ QUOTE ]


depending on your age and property it could be as low as 33% [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] and there are plenty of people who are exempt ( such as a student, a crack whore, or other democratic voter)

I am sure that you like most people are underestimating the extent to which you are taxed. Try figureing up all the added costs from tax that are added on to a Television for example.