Why are so many college students far-left liberals or socialists?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from any tax obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what?

Here's what I read there: "United States citizens living abroad are required to file annual U.S. income tax returns and report their worldwide income if they meet the minimum income filing requirements for their filing status and age."

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have "accidentally" missed the second next sentence. It was even in the same paragraph you're incompletely quoting. Crazy how those little "accidents" happen, eh?

"For the United States income tax return, you will have several options available to you regarding claiming a foreign tax credit or excluding some or all of your foreign earned income."

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. "You might be able to exclude some of your income" = "released from tax obligations".

Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're misremembering what we're talking about. Let me refresh your memory. You said:
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from <u>any</u> tax obligations

[/ QUOTE ]
So once again, you are wrong. Please man up and say so. (I should save this to a word doc so I can copy/paste it.) As always, I won't hold my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, rules nit. Except, not nitty enough.

Go back one more level, to what you said, which I was responding to:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must also leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying, obviously, that moving out of the US would exempt you from *all* obligations. So yes, I used a wrong word. But you still haven't backed your claim.

As you might say, "me being technically incorrect =/= you being right."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't describe a "government" in any common usage of the word. It's a business.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, it describes every single local and State government in the United States. Welcome to the nation.

The reason I, like most libertarians, prefer decentralized government is to enable citizens the maximum opportunity to vote with their feet.

[ QUOTE ]
So, let me get this straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why start now?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be able to opt-in, pay taxes, get subsidies, etc, then, at any time, and with no further obligation, stop paying in, stop getting the subsidies, and just walk away? Any time I want to? This is an interesting business model. I welcome such entreprenurial experiments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. Sounds like you enjoy community government, anyway. As people find "exploits" on a federal level, various systems would have to adapt, EG the college student who says, "gosh, I'm in!!!1", accepts 4-5 years of subsidies whilst not working (or working minimally), then bails promptly out. (Of course, the simplest solution in this instance would be decoupling colleges/universities from state funding, possibly excepting research grants.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But this isn't like local governments. I just called my local government and told them "I'm out" and they said they didn't care, they were still going to send me a tax bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your local government is available at 10:00 on a Sunday morning, you shouldn't just pay your taxes, you should send them a tip as well.

PS - "vote with your feet" doesn't mean "vote with your phone". "Let your fingers do the walking" is only an advertising slogan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Platitudes are cute, but they don't bolster your position.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new morally-acceptable opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
This question contains enough erronious assumptions that I'll not answer as asked. Fix it, ask again, and I'll respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Dodge the question, blame the question asker. I'm just going to use that for every question you ask from now on. If you're going to claim the question is flawed, you should be able to explain why it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course I can, and in this one case I will, if only to rebuff your implication that my reply was a "dodge". But for future reference, I'd just as soon you try to get the question right in the first place. Here are its flaws:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't new.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it's here now? Where?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
morally-acceptable

[/ QUOTE ]
To whom? Government in its present form is morally acceptable as well, as I've noted repeatedly, notwithstanding your presumption that your moral code is somehow "the" moral code.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, rules nit, where are ye? We're not talking about present government. Whether present government is "morally acceptable" (to you) or not doesn't matter, because we're talking about your proposed "government". Bait-and-switch?

Your present government is NOT universally morally acceptable, obviously. And this new one, if it is truly voluntary, would be.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm

[/ QUOTE ]
Government =/= an insurance agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nit. You can call it whatever you want to.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets

[/ QUOTE ]
They aren't ill-gotten, since the actions of the previous government are moral, as noted above and elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have asserted it "elsewhere" but it has never been actually demonstrated. Not by you, not by anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your morality =/= "the" morality, as noted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to be "the" morality. As has been noted "elsewhere".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your proposal depends on granting amnesty for past transgressions,

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I disavow your claim that government in its current form is a transgression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. I disavow your claim that the earth orbits the sun. But it still does.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"moving on" with the status quo defined as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
The status quo is legitimate already. "Sub-optimal" does not (necessarily) mean illegitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

More bait-and-switch. I said nothing about "optimal" qualities. And more unbacked assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't have any authority to grant that amnesty on my behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is meaningless, as no amnesty is required.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You folks need to calm down. It doesn't seem to me like what Jogger is saying is that hard to understand (or refute). As I read it, he's saying "Well if you don't like it, you shouldn't use it, that way you're staying consistant". It's similar to non-violent protest. You should all stop paying taxes and get thrown in jail because you're doing what's right.

That said, I think the defense here is "Uhhh I don't want to go to jail for tax evasion" and on a smaller scale "Given where I live, it's not as if I can walk 40 miles to work".

Both are rational expressions. If you believe something you should act in such a way that there's little doubt (also known as the "talk is cheap" theory). On the flip side, if you really don't like being in jail, and all the goodies that come along there, that's fine too (also known as the "I really enjoy my anal virginity" defence).

I don't think Jogger is trolling here anymore then you guys are by responding. He's just expressing an opinion about his perceived lack of consistancy in disliking something but still using it. Either way, I don't see either side as being particularly trollish.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
To be specific, I agree that your response, "I really don't want to go to jail for tax evasion" is a reasonable one.

There is some level of hypocrisy that, for practical purposes, ACists will find difficult to avoid if they choose not to leave. The roads, for instance, are subsidized by blind people, and clearly those ACists who elect to drive on them are indeed accepting a subsidy they describe as "coersion at gunpoint". Is it hypocritical for ACists to drive on public roads despite this coersion? Yes, but on a level that can, to some extent, be written off as unavoidable.

The hypocrisy takes on a different cast, though, when ACists start actively seeking out subsidies, and that's why I've deliberately given examples that are nothing like driving on public roads to get to work or paying taxes to avoid jail time.

There's a world of difference between:

1. "wanting to stay out of prison"
and
2. "applying to state schools in preference to private ones"; or
3. "applying for government grants and loans"; or to
4. "seeking out, applying for, and accepting jobs at public-sector or largely subsidized institutions, EG state schools, government contractors", Congress, etc.

No. 1 above is about pain avoidance and practical necessity. Nos. 2-4 are not. They're about wanting (decidedly not needing) something you believe is wrong, and going ahead and taking it anyway.

I chose my examples specifically because they are not defensible with arguments of "Well I don't really have any practical choice now, do I?". (Of course, that hasn't stopped various ACists from making ludicrous claims like "You made me go to state school at gunpoint!!1", but then, what did I expect, right?)

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it would be good to revisit this post since jogger is claiming he didn't "exempt" the "class 1" hypocrites, though if you read this post in its entirety, it's pretty clear that he's saying that he's saying he's been arguing against 2-4 specifically, and is differentiating that from type 1. He "chose [his] examples specifically" to attack types 2-4.

He's accused me specifically of hypocrisy, he's explicitly stated what he's talking about when he uses that word, but he hasn't shown any evidence that I actualy meet his criteria.

Put up or shut up, nit.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I exempted class 1? Really? Show me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it hypocritical for ACists to drive on public roads despite this coersion? Yes, but on a level that can, to some extent, be written off as unavoidable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize that "Yes, but..." doesn't mean "No", right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so all this hullabuloo about hypocrites was over "unavoidable" stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't answer the question. You've said I exempted some ACist hypocrisy. I did not. I'm asking you to simply confirm that you understand what I've written. I don't care whether or not you agree with it, yet. It should not require 20 clarifying posts to convey this rather simple point.

I ask again: do you realize that "yes, but..." doesn't mean "no"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all semantical games to you, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Words mean things, a fact that is both frequently overlooked (or rather, underappreciated) and incredibly important, especially when one wishes to have an accurate discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
"Don't worry about the actual points, did Mr. X notice the math error?"

[/ QUOTE ]
In the post you are refering to, the math error was the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I realize that "yes, but... " doesn't mean "no". Happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm almost always happy. I should post about that sometime actually. I'm glad you now understand my post though.

[ QUOTE ]
I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, *assuming* that you, as a reasonable person (haha) wouldn't make a huge issue out of people who are in your own words "unavoidably" hypocritical and instead would be focusing on the real hypocrites, who were hypocritical because of the *avoidable* *choices* they made, not because of the force arrayed against them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, that is exactly what I was doing. You are conflating a tangent with the "main sub-thread" (to coin a new oxymoron).

Many posts ago, someone said (I'm paraphrasing here) "I hate when college communists spout off about hating capitalism while eating a Big Mac and listening to an iPod."

I responded, asking if he also hated it when ACists spewed anti-government vitriol whilst attending public university.

I spent the next 15 or 20 posts (at least) trying to explain that attending university is a hypocritical, avoidable choice of precisely the order you are describing above. During the course of that discussion, somebody asked me if ACists using the roads were hypocrites. I replied that they were, which caused another flood of posts during which my "voluntarily attending public college" and "driving to work on public roads" positions were equated. (Among other things. It also spawned a few truly silly posts about statists forcing ACists to attend public university at gunpoint.) But, I don't view the "driving" hypocrisy and the "college subsidy/government job" hypocrisy as equal, and I said so, indicating that although both activities were hypocritical, driving (EG - I mentioned tax-paying as well) was a less egregious example of hypocrisy, largely for practical reasons.

You understood the distinction I made, but incorrectly interpreted it as more than it was, claiming I "exempted" driving from my charge of hypocrisy. I contradicted you, re-explaining that my assertion (that I viewed driving as less hypocritical than accepting university subsidies) did not mean I had given driving a pass, merely that it was the lesser of two hypocrisies.

You have now refocused on the driving issue, and once again incorrectly believe it to be my major focus. It is not. My question, and its point, were very simple: If OP recognized a type of hypocrisy in people whose politics he neither likes nor respects, but overlooks it in others whom he finds more politically acceptable, he has a moral blind spot that he ought to examine.

The funny thing is, I don't think I ever got a response from OP on my question.

[ QUOTE ]
I get it now. You're a rules nit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly. In some senses I surely am. But the content I've synopsized above has nothing to do with rules nittiness. It is simply a reflection of my general preference for accuracy over inaccuracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I [censored] up. You win the thread. Congrats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. More importantly: do you now understand the point of my initial post on this topic? Also, do you agree with it?

[ QUOTE ]
But I've learned my lesson. I won't give you the benefit of the doubt or assume you're a reasonable person again.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll do my best to live with this.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You folks need to calm down. It doesn't seem to me like what Jogger is saying is that hard to understand (or refute). As I read it, he's saying "Well if you don't like it, you shouldn't use it, that way you're staying consistant". It's similar to non-violent protest. You should all stop paying taxes and get thrown in jail because you're doing what's right.

That said, I think the defense here is "Uhhh I don't want to go to jail for tax evasion" and on a smaller scale "Given where I live, it's not as if I can walk 40 miles to work".

Both are rational expressions. If you believe something you should act in such a way that there's little doubt (also known as the "talk is cheap" theory). On the flip side, if you really don't like being in jail, and all the goodies that come along there, that's fine too (also known as the "I really enjoy my anal virginity" defence).

I don't think Jogger is trolling here anymore then you guys are by responding. He's just expressing an opinion about his perceived lack of consistancy in disliking something but still using it. Either way, I don't see either side as being particularly trollish.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
To be specific, I agree that your response, "I really don't want to go to jail for tax evasion" is a reasonable one.

There is some level of hypocrisy that, for practical purposes, ACists will find difficult to avoid if they choose not to leave. The roads, for instance, are subsidized by blind people, and clearly those ACists who elect to drive on them are indeed accepting a subsidy they describe as "coersion at gunpoint". Is it hypocritical for ACists to drive on public roads despite this coersion? Yes, but on a level that can, to some extent, be written off as unavoidable.

The hypocrisy takes on a different cast, though, when ACists start actively seeking out subsidies, and that's why I've deliberately given examples that are nothing like driving on public roads to get to work or paying taxes to avoid jail time.

There's a world of difference between:

1. "wanting to stay out of prison"
and
2. "applying to state schools in preference to private ones"; or
3. "applying for government grants and loans"; or to
4. "seeking out, applying for, and accepting jobs at public-sector or largely subsidized institutions, EG state schools, government contractors", Congress, etc.

No. 1 above is about pain avoidance and practical necessity. Nos. 2-4 are not. They're about wanting (decidedly not needing) something you believe is wrong, and going ahead and taking it anyway.

I chose my examples specifically because they are not defensible with arguments of "Well I don't really have any practical choice now, do I?". (Of course, that hasn't stopped various ACists from making ludicrous claims like "You made me go to state school at gunpoint!!1", but then, what did I expect, right?)

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it would be good to revisit this post since jogger is claiming he didn't "exempt" the "class 1" hypocrites, though if you read this post in its entirety, it's pretty clear that he's saying that he's saying he's been arguing against 2-4 specifically, and is differentiating that from type 1. He "chose [his] examples specifically" to attack types 2-4.

He's accused me specifically of hypocrisy, he's explicitly stated what he's talking about when he uses that word, but he hasn't shown any evidence that I actualy meet his criteria.

Put up or shut up, nit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure.

Since you began opposing government education funding (whether you were an out-and-out ACist at the time or not) have you deliberately sought or accepted government subsidies, and/or a government job?

Do you acknowledge that ACists who do so are hypocrites?

If the respective answers are "no" and "yes", I withdraw my claim.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from any tax obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what?

Here's what I read there: "United States citizens living abroad are required to file annual U.S. income tax returns and report their worldwide income if they meet the minimum income filing requirements for their filing status and age."

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have "accidentally" missed the second next sentence. It was even in the same paragraph you're incompletely quoting. Crazy how those little "accidents" happen, eh?

"For the United States income tax return, you will have several options available to you regarding claiming a foreign tax credit or excluding some or all of your foreign earned income."

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. "You might be able to exclude some of your income" = "released from tax obligations".

Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're misremembering what we're talking about. Let me refresh your memory. You said:
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from <u>any</u> tax obligations

[/ QUOTE ]
So once again, you are wrong. Please man up and say so. (I should save this to a word doc so I can copy/paste it.) As always, I won't hold my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, rules nit. Except, not nitty enough.

Go back one more level, to what you said, which I was responding to:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must also leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying, obviously, that moving out of the US would exempt you from *all* obligations. So yes, I used a wrong word. But you still haven't backed your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
I implied nothing of the sort. Moving out of the territory of the US relieves you of a large portion, but not all, of your tax burden just as it removes a large number, but not all, of your benefits. (For example on the reduced benefits side, while traveling abroad, you may or may not be entitled to an attorney if you're accused of breaking the law, but if you are, it won't be a benefit of being a US citizen; it will be a function of the laws of the place in which you're traveling. However, you do retain some benefits: you can consult with US embassies and consuls under many conditions, not to mention having the priviledge of returning to the US when you decide that France (or wherever) sucks. On the reduced cost side, while abroad you do not pay US sales taxes, local taxes, State taxes, or most federal taxes.)

If you want to relieve yourself of ALL obligations, you must relieve yourself of ALL benefits. In the present state of things, this means that in addition to leaving the country, you would need to renounce your citizenship as well, thereby giving up all benefits of the (US) State.

[ QUOTE ]
As you might say, "me being technically incorrect =/= you being right."

[/ QUOTE ]
True but not relevant in this case, since you read something into my assertion that was not there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't describe a "government" in any common usage of the word. It's a business.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, it describes every single local and State government in the United States. Welcome to the nation.

The reason I, like most libertarians, prefer decentralized government is to enable citizens the maximum opportunity to vote with their feet.

[ QUOTE ]
So, let me get this straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why start now?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be able to opt-in, pay taxes, get subsidies, etc, then, at any time, and with no further obligation, stop paying in, stop getting the subsidies, and just walk away? Any time I want to? This is an interesting business model. I welcome such entreprenurial experiments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. Sounds like you enjoy community government, anyway. As people find "exploits" on a federal level, various systems would have to adapt, EG the college student who says, "gosh, I'm in!!!1", accepts 4-5 years of subsidies whilst not working (or working minimally), then bails promptly out. (Of course, the simplest solution in this instance would be decoupling colleges/universities from state funding, possibly excepting research grants.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But this isn't like local governments. I just called my local government and told them "I'm out" and they said they didn't care, they were still going to send me a tax bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your local government is available at 10:00 on a Sunday morning, you shouldn't just pay your taxes, you should send them a tip as well.

PS - "vote with your feet" doesn't mean "vote with your phone". "Let your fingers do the walking" is only an advertising slogan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Platitudes are cute, but they don't bolster your position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually platitudes usually aren't cute. Fortunately I didn't offer one here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new morally-acceptable opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
This question contains enough erronious assumptions that I'll not answer as asked. Fix it, ask again, and I'll respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Dodge the question, blame the question asker. I'm just going to use that for every question you ask from now on. If you're going to claim the question is flawed, you should be able to explain why it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course I can, and in this one case I will, if only to rebuff your implication that my reply was a "dodge". But for future reference, I'd just as soon you try to get the question right in the first place. Here are its flaws:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't new.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it's here now? Where?

[/ QUOTE ]
You said "your new...", as if I had developed a new position. It isn't new to me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
morally-acceptable

[/ QUOTE ]
To whom? Government in its present form is morally acceptable as well, as I've noted repeatedly, notwithstanding your presumption that your moral code is somehow "the" moral code.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, rules nit, where are ye? We're not talking about present government. Whether present government is "morally acceptable" (to you) or not doesn't matter, because we're talking about your proposed "government". Bait-and-switch?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I understood "your new" as a modifier for "morally acceptable position", as though you were saying my preferred, more libertarian government were moral whereas the present form was not.

[ QUOTE ]
Your present government is NOT universally morally acceptable, obviously. And this new one, if it is truly voluntary, would be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Talking about government in terms of morality is your playground, not mine. To the extent I view morality as entering into the equation at all, I approach the question as a utilitarian. There are (I assume) true-believing communists out there someplace, and they'd argue that free markets aren't "moral"; but do you care? I'm personally an agnostic on both questions; I simply want to live under systems of government and economics that are as effective as possible at maximizing gain and minimizing harm to their citizens in particular and humanity in general.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm

[/ QUOTE ]
Government =/= an insurance agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nit. You can call it whatever you want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Question: "How many legs has a calf got, if you call his tail a leg?"
Answer: "Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
-attributed to Abraham Lincoln


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets

[/ QUOTE ]
They aren't ill-gotten, since the actions of the previous government are moral, as noted above and elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have asserted it "elsewhere" but it has never been actually demonstrated. Not by you, not by anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
You make the allegation that of a crime, you bear the burden of proof.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your morality =/= "the" morality, as noted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to be "the" morality. As has been noted "elsewhere".

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're a moral relativist, why bother talking about morality at all?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your proposal depends on granting amnesty for past transgressions,

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I disavow your claim that government in its current form is a transgression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. I disavow your claim that the earth orbits the sun. But it still does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, and scientists can prove it. Do me a favor and give me a comparable proof of the injustices you're claiming.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"moving on" with the status quo defined as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
The status quo is legitimate already. "Sub-optimal" does not (necessarily) mean illegitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

More bait-and-switch. I said nothing about "optimal" qualities. And more unbacked assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you mean by "'moving on'" with the status quo defined as legitimate"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't have any authority to grant that amnesty on my behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is meaningless, as no amnesty is required.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because you've failed to prove your allegation that government is illegitimate. You have a moral code that says it is, I have a moral code that says it isn't. Now what?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you began opposing government education funding (whether you were an out-and-out ACist at the time or not) have you deliberately sought or accepted government subsidies, and/or a government job?

Do you acknowledge that ACists who do so are hypocrites?

If the respective answers are "no" and "yes", I withdraw my claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and yes.

Interesting how you make claims first, then try to actually figure out if they're true later.

And of course, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not. But you gotta fight where you gotta chance, right?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since you began opposing government education funding (whether you were an out-and-out ACist at the time or not) have you deliberately sought or accepted government subsidies, and/or a government job?

Do you acknowledge that ACists who do so are hypocrites?

If the respective answers are "no" and "yes", I withdraw my claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and yes.

Interesting how you make claims first, then try to actually figure out if they're true later.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I made my claim on the basis of my belief that you attended state school while opposing government subsidies to education. (And let's be fair: I didn't assume this, I deduced it, in part on the basis of the fact that I asked you several times whether you had done so, and you repeatedly dodged the question.)

[ QUOTE ]
And of course, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously wrong. All other things being equal, if someone behaves in a way that he argues against (IE, if he is a hypocrite), his arguments are less likely to be true than are the arguments of someone who practices what he preaches.

[bkholdem]

Not really true. It is not a measure of his argument's trueness, it is a measure of his purity of character. IMO there is also a matter of degree in measuring hypocricy. Additionally, people change over time. Is a reformed thief a hyppocrite if he argues that theft is wrong? Who is more of a hypporcite, a reformed thief that admits he was a thief and that argues against theft currently, or an active thief who denies being a thief and also argues against theft?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from any tax obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what?

Here's what I read there: "United States citizens living abroad are required to file annual U.S. income tax returns and report their worldwide income if they meet the minimum income filing requirements for their filing status and age."

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have "accidentally" missed the second next sentence. It was even in the same paragraph you're incompletely quoting. Crazy how those little "accidents" happen, eh?

"For the United States income tax return, you will have several options available to you regarding claiming a foreign tax credit or excluding some or all of your foreign earned income."

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. "You might be able to exclude some of your income" = "released from tax obligations".

Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're misremembering what we're talking about. Let me refresh your memory. You said:
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from <u>any</u> tax obligations

[/ QUOTE ]
So once again, you are wrong. Please man up and say so. (I should save this to a word doc so I can copy/paste it.) As always, I won't hold my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, rules nit. Except, not nitty enough.

Go back one more level, to what you said, which I was responding to:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must also leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying, obviously, that moving out of the US would exempt you from *all* obligations. So yes, I used a wrong word. But you still haven't backed your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
I implied nothing of the sort. Moving out of the territory of the US relieves you of a large portion, but not all, of your tax burden just as it removes a large number, but not all, of your benefits. (For example on the reduced benefits side, while traveling abroad, you may or may not be entitled to an attorney if you're accused of breaking the law, but if you are, it won't be a benefit of being a US citizen; it will be a function of the laws of the place in which you're traveling. However, you do retain some benefits: you can consult with US embassies and consuls under many conditions, not to mention having the priviledge of returning to the US when you decide that France (or wherever) sucks. On the reduced cost side, while abroad you do not pay US sales taxes, local taxes, State taxes, or most federal taxes.)

If you want to relieve yourself of ALL obligations, you must relieve yourself of ALL benefits. In the present state of things, this means you in addition to leaving the country, you would need to renounce your citizenship as well, thereby giving up all benefits of the (US) State.

[ QUOTE ]
As you might say, "me being technically incorrect =/= you being right."

[/ QUOTE ]
True but not relevant in this case, since you read something into my assertion that was not there.

[/ QUOTE ]

"you can stop paying" + "you need to remove yourself". For a rules nit, you use incredibly impercise language. Words mean somehting, you know.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't describe a "government" in any common usage of the word. It's a business.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, it describes every single local and State government in the United States. Welcome to the nation.

The reason I, like most libertarians, prefer decentralized government is to enable citizens the maximum opportunity to vote with their feet.

[ QUOTE ]
So, let me get this straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why start now?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be able to opt-in, pay taxes, get subsidies, etc, then, at any time, and with no further obligation, stop paying in, stop getting the subsidies, and just walk away? Any time I want to? This is an interesting business model. I welcome such entreprenurial experiments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. Sounds like you enjoy community government, anyway. As people find "exploits" on a federal level, various systems would have to adapt, EG the college student who says, "gosh, I'm in!!!1", accepts 4-5 years of subsidies whilst not working (or working minimally), then bails promptly out. (Of course, the simplest solution in this instance would be decoupling colleges/universities from state funding, possibly excepting research grants.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But this isn't like local governments. I just called my local government and told them "I'm out" and they said they didn't care, they were still going to send me a tax bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your local government is available at 10:00 on a Sunday morning, you shouldn't just pay your taxes, you should send them a tip as well.

PS - "vote with your feet" doesn't mean "vote with your phone". "Let your fingers do the walking" is only an advertising slogan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Platitudes are cute, but they don't bolster your position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually platitudes usually aren't cute. Fortunately I didn't offer one here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. They're RIGHT THERE. And they don't even make any sense. Calling some government bureaucrat to see if I can opt out = "voting with your phone"???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new morally-acceptable opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
This question contains enough erronious assumptions that I'll not answer as asked. Fix it, ask again, and I'll respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Dodge the question, blame the question asker. I'm just going to use that for every question you ask from now on. If you're going to claim the question is flawed, you should be able to explain why it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course I can, and in this one case I will, if only to rebuff your implication that my reply was a "dodge". But for future reference, I'd just as soon you try to get the question right in the first place. Here are its flaws:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, by the way, is your new

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't new.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it's here now? Where?

[/ QUOTE ]
You said "your new...", as if I had developed a new position. It isn't new to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, for a rules nit, you don't read very well.

"Your new" wasn't followed by "position". It was followed by "morally-acceptable opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm". Did you have trobule differentiating "position" from "organizational entity"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
morally-acceptable

[/ QUOTE ]
To whom? Government in its present form is morally acceptable as well, as I've noted repeatedly, notwithstanding your presumption that your moral code is somehow "the" moral code.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, rules nit, where are ye? We're not talking about present government. Whether present government is "morally acceptable" (to you) or not doesn't matter, because we're talking about your proposed "government". Bait-and-switch?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I understood "your new" as a modifier for "morally acceptable position", as though you were saying my preferred, more libertarian government were moral whereas the present form was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Words mean something. Perhaps you should read them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your present government is NOT universally morally acceptable, obviously. And this new one, if it is truly voluntary, would be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Talking about government in terms of morality is your playground, not mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, *you* said the present government was morally acceptable. I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
To the extent I view morality as entering into the equation at all, I approach the question as a utilitarian. There are (I assume) true-believing communists out there someplace, and they'd argue that free markets aren't "moral"; but do you care?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But I'm not looking to force them into any such market. If they want to live in a command economy, I'm all for letting them do that.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm personally an agnostic on both questions; I simply want to live under systems of government and economics that are as effective as possible at maximizing gain and minimizing harm to their citizens in particular and humanity in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. I have no problem with you doing that. Have fun.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
opt-in minarchist mutual collective insurance firm

[/ QUOTE ]
Government =/= an insurance agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nit. You can call it whatever you want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Question: "How many legs has a calf got, if you call his tail a leg?"
Answer: "Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
-attributed to Abraham Lincoln

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, totally oblivious to the actual issue. Words mean something... except when they are not particularly convienient for you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
going to divest itself of all the ill-gotten assets

[/ QUOTE ]
They aren't ill-gotten, since the actions of the previous government are moral, as noted above and elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have asserted it "elsewhere" but it has never been actually demonstrated. Not by you, not by anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
You make the allegation that of a crime, you bear the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. And I've already addressed this "elsewhere." But instead of just claiming this, I'll cut and paste from the previous thread:

==========
I would *definitely* argue that governments have no legitimate basis to acquire land resell them. I believe I've addressed this in a previous thread. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the nature of government makes it impossible for a state to have a property right: states acquire land either by buying it (with stolen funds), by decree (which does not confer a legitimate property right) (also note escheat would fall into this category), by conquest (effectively robbery), by emminent domain (a subset of conquest), or by "working" the land (which would not confer property rights in the case of government, since they are working the land either with conscripted labor or they are purchasing labor with stolen funds).
==========

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it acquired when operating as a morally-unacceptable coercive regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your morality =/= "the" morality, as noted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to be "the" morality. As has been noted "elsewhere".

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're a moral relativist, why bother talking about morality at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not. Where did you get that? You are the one claiming that "my morality" isn't "the morality". All I did was say that it doesn't *have* to be. I didn't agree that it *isn't*.

Words mean something.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your proposal depends on granting amnesty for past transgressions,

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I disavow your claim that government in its current form is a transgression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. I disavow your claim that the earth orbits the sun. But it still does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, and scientists can prove it. Do me a favor and give me a comparable proof of the injustices you're claiming.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. Since states cannot legitimately own property, the entire house of cards, built on the foundation of violence and coercion, collapses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"moving on" with the status quo defined as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
The status quo is legitimate already. "Sub-optimal" does not (necessarily) mean illegitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

More bait-and-switch. I said nothing about "optimal" qualities. And more unbacked assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you mean by "'moving on'" with the status quo defined as legitimate"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Planting a flag, declaring that the status quo is legitimate - that past transgressions will not be addressed. Resetting the scoreboard.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't have any authority to grant that amnesty on my behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is meaningless, as no amnesty is required.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because you've failed to prove your allegation that government is illegitimate. You have a moral code that says it is, I have a moral code that says it isn't. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

We can easily show that your "moral code" is inconsistent. And I make no claims to impose my moral code upon you. My "claim" is, effectively, that your moral claim is not backed. I don't have to prove that, you have to back your pre-existing claim.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since you began opposing government education funding (whether you were an out-and-out ACist at the time or not) have you deliberately sought or accepted government subsidies, and/or a government job?

Do you acknowledge that ACists who do so are hypocrites?

If the respective answers are "no" and "yes", I withdraw my claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and yes.

Interesting how you make claims first, then try to actually figure out if they're true later.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I made my claim on the basis of my belief that you attended state school while opposing government subsidies to education. (And let's be fair: I didn't assume this, I deduced it, in part on the basis of the fact that I asked you several times whether you had done so, and you repeatedly dodged the question.)

[/ QUOTE ]

More "making claims then trying to figure out whether they're true or not later."

And you have no idea when I starting "opposing government subsidies to education". But since you're already assuming I attended a state school (for the record, I didn't), you might as well assume that I did so "WHILE opposing government subsidies to education".

Smear, smear, smear.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously wrong. All other things being equal, if someone behaves in a way that he argues against (IE, if he is a hypocrite), his arguments are less likely to be true than are the arguments of someone who practices what he preaches.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure that?