@sirgold:
Having to fight legally against taxation is proof taxation is currently theft. See my previous posts where I explained why freedom does not depend upon agreement and why an agreement of a majority only applies to the members of that majority not outside the group.
for most people your point is not valid enough, not factual enough to ask for a change
That's an assumption. For
some people it might not be valid enough just like you say. But that is the nice thing with freedom. If you have it, you have the freedom to pay taxes or not pay taxes. Hence my question: why do you need to force me to pay taxes if you actually believe the statement I quoted from you? If for any amount or % of people my point is not valid or factual, why is taxation (and other things) enforced? Clearly if most people are like you say, having taxation an optional thing you voluntarily subscribe to would not change a single thing - they'd still pay taxes because that's what they want.
But you know what I think? And BTW, just to be clear this is a personal opinion/belief. I think if tomorrow taxation becomes an optional things, most people will stop paying taxes. Why? The same reason when you have a really bad hosting provider you stop paying him and go to a different hosting provider. The same reason why when there is one single hosting provider and he has monopoly and then another better provider comes, the monopolist crappy host goes belly up because everybody moves to the other one.
I'm from Eastern Europe. In my country as in others from this region there have been monopolies in many industries, telecom included. So, for a long long time, there was no affordable internet in my country. Going online would cost an arm and a leg. Besides the price the service would disconnect often, have low speed, etc. But that was the ONLY telecom service (a state monopoly company). They were the only ones for a number of factors, including certain legal issues that would make it very hard for any other company to try to go into this industry. But one day, this state monopoly got sold to foreign investors (privatized), and that implicitly required some legal changes too, etc. So things changed and another private company started to offer same services plus a bunch of other services, using modern technology and building new infrastructure. It was a massive investment. For the first few months, they went pretty slow, had small coverage but even then they had a superior service at a better price. But, within less than 18 months they got to have the highest market share in the telecom services they were offering. At that time, the internet speeds provided by them were not only cheaper but about 5 times faster then the ex-monopoly who actually only improved their speeds because they knew they'd get crushed if they don't (otherwise would have been 100 times faster). So, 1 years ago I had 56kb/s dial-up internet which would cost me a shitload of money to stay online just 1hour/day. Now after 10 years you can get 1Gb/s (that's 1000Mb/s or the equivalent of 18285 dial-up lines) for a fraction of the cost, always on. You know what else happened? There are now multiple companies in telecom competing with eachother and they have to keep improving and making their services better otherwise the others overtake them. You know who wins from this? Me and the other few million end users (a.k.a. regular citizens).
No matter how much time you try to twist the term or try hard to demonstrate how "lexically evident" it is you're getting defrauded to serve some sort of supposedly pocket "factual" / "logical" demonstration... That's a futile exercise.
Is not about lexical stuff. Is about logic. I gave logical arguments and analogies. Cool thing with analogies is how they logically prove that applying same logic you thought was good to sex, results in proving that rape is ok as long as you have a majority of rapists and a minority of victims.
It's NOT a problem for most and it's NOT considered a "theft" based on your loose definition of it. Plain and simple: it's at best considered a social contract you already know how to rescind from should you opt to do that.
It is a problem for
everybody whether they realize it or not. It is theft whether you approach it lexically or logically. The fact some don't consider it theft and just see it as a de-facto thing does not change what it is. Perception and factual are not the same thing. You can in fact demonstrate this mathematically if you want and there are economists who have done it.
We, the majority that are choosing not to change this system, understand your statements very well but -oh, so inexplicably- decided with our vote your argument is not what serves WHAT WE CONSIDER BEING the best interest of our community, now make your call... The hypocrisy of your position about this point is not even funny: you wanna stay inside this club BUT at the same time, even if you had a chance to try changing it, you don't accept the rules a vast majority considers to be what they want... Because this is the real point and there's an underlying reason for that and we'll get to it in a sec.
I will never accept something just because everybody else accepts it. I will accept it because it is true, logical and makes sense, and most importantly because I WANT IT. I have absolutely no problem with you paying taxes if you want to pay taxes. I have absolutely no problem with you preferring monopolist state education, healthcare, wars sponsored out of your own pocket, etc. I have a problem with you demanding me to pay for your expenses. If we go in a bar and I drink Jack Daniels and you drink tap water you find it ok if I demand we split the bill? Didn't thought so. I do not ask you to give up your opinions or not fund what you consider to be good for you. So why do you ask me to do that for you? This is what you folks fail to get - freedom of choice works both ways. And you think certain services like police, infrastructure, schools, medical, etc. depend on forced taxation. They don't. That is a logical aberration. They depend on
demand. As long as there is a demand, you will have somebody to want to supply for that demand.
Considering the vast, solid literature about these political arguments
Don't know about you but there is nothing political about freedom. And I made zero political arguments. Taxation is not political but something of principles and logic because of its implications on free will. Again for the 100th time, I have no problem with taxes. Pay them if you want. I have a problem with being forced to do something, regardless of what that thing is. I would pay for all the services I would use, wouldn't expect you to pay for me. I just want to pay the provider that is best for me and only for services I need, not to support corruption, multi-million/billion USD stealing, wars and inferior services.
(1) In most democracies, my friend, the governing logic, exactly what you call the "bullshit of general consensus", is -evidently- the very thing that over time found its way and, all things considered, seemed to various generations as the most acceptable way to run a governance so that it came to this day in a reasonably good shape, I would say...
(2) Along the way there have been a lot of technical discussions on the quantities of the key elements, but rarely about the ontological nature of them because after all the most ppl enoyed this system based on what the majority wanted, this is pretty clear... And for the MOST people to enjoy something is critical to achive a reasonable expectancy of peace, prosperity, yada, yada...
(3) We could now speculate theoretically on an infinite number of paradoxes of who legitimized the legitimizing strategy governing the system, things mathematicians like to do a whole lot, but it wouldn't take us far in the real world...
(4) There are alternatives that -evidently- haven't achieved any major interest while being on the table for quite a while so it would be mere speculation thinking it's just because "we haven't reached that kind of evolutionary step" yet, as you seemed to imply in a previous post, since most people don't identify a "problem" where you and just a few others do based on the aforementioned "loose definition".
(5) It's even palusible to dare think we *might* have reached a stall point, some sort of "social equilibrium of the system", if you will...
(6) Certainly the factual observation confirms this point WAY MORE than a vague theoretical forecast of what a "free market system" *should* / *could* bring, but here I'd digress... And it's not your simple corner case crafted ad hoc among the vast variety of use-cases this logic is considered by the majority to work sufficiently well that will end up invalidating it. Ain't that so so, so sad?
On a deep, narrative tone: By this point in sirgold's post, the happy octopus suddenly came to the realization he was in front of would end up a very long writing.
Here we go...
(1) What democracies? The theoretical democracy is a rather novel thing in history. Used to be tribes, kingdoms and empires. Essentially a hierarchical ruling system that took resources from the many (tribute) and stack them to fund their extravagances and wars. Obviously, all this was not done in a chaotic way but they had laws that clearly stated this was legal, hence ok. They also had laws that if you don't pay the king's men can kill you and in some places that the king can essentially fuck your woman. Am I the only one to see that which has been for hundreds and thousands of years as very similar to what happens today? I guess I am. Now, leaving aside the fact that the age of democracy is rather small, and even assuming that what we live in is an actual democracy not an illusion of a democracy, you're reaching the conclusion that we came to this day in a reasonably good shape. Of course this is a personal belief of yours and I accept it. And even in an objective/factual way, we are better off than we were earlier in history at any point. But, why would you assume this is the result of "the governance"?
(2) Most people enjoyed the system? Really? I think they just did their best to manage to live in it with minimum pain. And what the majority wanted? The majority wanted slavery - killing male slave boys at birth, turning girls into whores in brothels, having 85% death rate across Sahara Desert being acceptable and still profitable. And that was not in USA, because slaves in USA had an awesome life compared to those in other places. What the majority wanted? The majority wanted NOT to go and chase slaves that escaped because they had better things to do and didn't liked the idea of having to hurt or kill the slaves when found and the fact the slave would be punished. But you see, it was illegal to not participate in slave catching teams and you would end up in prison or something like that. And that was the majority. But guess what... they had these laws, that somehow paradoxically, the majority votes for. But, let's say they wanted it, let's say the majority wanted slaves and to hurt them and make all that stuff. Let's say the majority wanted the Holocaust or whatever. How the fuck is that an argument? Do you know why WWI existed? Taxes. WWII? Taxes. Any other war you can think of in history? You've guessed it - taxes (tribute). Do you know why? Because nobody would fucking volunteer to take money from his pocket and give it to somebody who tells him "i'm gonna take your money and use it to go kill people and you have to come help me too and you have a big chance to die - but i will live because i stay back here to manage things - and at the end we are very likely going to be in ruins with no food or clothes. Yes, yes, you've got it, we are going to totally fuck up everybody's life on both sides because we think the enemy is evil and they think we are evil."
(3) Just study history. No need to go in depth. Things become clear quite fast if you look at everything as a single plan and not dispersed events.
(4) Because most people are sheep who don't think. They just let others think for them and do as instructed. Most people when need to decide on who to vote will watch talk shows for hours, of which the factual information is under 10% and the relevant factual information is under 0.1%. And then most will vote on gut feeling. And guess what!? Gut feeling can be engineered, that's why you have advertising and marketing for. And because most people are sheep, I think is important not to allow the opinions of most people to become rules and enforcement that rule my life. I think my free will is important and I should have the say in who's ideas I want to follow and not follow some ideas just because they are of the majority.
Oh, and I didn't came up with a "loose definition". I gave you a dictionary definition and logical arguments. That's not "loose".
(5) Absolutely. We have equilibrium. Then again we always had. Depends how you define this equilibrium. Let's see... I think that it might be the result of what the following facts combined, together with others, end up producing:
1. You send a war machine to Afghanistan. Get to do on average 50 drone attacks/day which by any standard is a very high level of productivity. The fact a missile costs more than a sports car is not an issue because the people it kills are evil and must die.
2. At the same time, somehow paradoxically and with no apparent connection to the point above, Afghanistan ends up having a record high production of opium (which is processed chemically to produce heroin, 2nd most destructive drug).
3. Again, with no apparent connection, you have a war on drugs, world-wide but with significantly more focus in USA where they pour in several billions USD a year.
4. I repeat myself, but again, with no apparent connection, drugs are illegal, by democratic means because the masses want so. This of course is mathematically and economically demonstrable that it inherently keeps price of drugs very high. Because otherwise, if it weren't for the laws and masses' wishes and amazingly deep understanding of all things drugs, based mainly on inaccurate and misleading information, you'd have a free market system when it comes to drugs. Of course, that would naturally lead to economic supply/demand and efficiency and you'd have drugs selling for pennies. And that's obviously bad because as we all know (from the inaccurate and misleading anti-drug campaigns), that would result in "things being far worse".
5. Yet, again paradoxically, alcohol (most dangerous drug of all - scientists say it, not me) and smoking (6th most dangerous) are legal. Also, mortality and side effects from prescription drugs is actually higher by an order of magnitude compared to many illegal drugs. But that's ok, because they're legal and everybody knows you can die from aspirin and that certain regularly prescribed drugs can make you suicidal, depressive and maniacal. So they're cool.
6. Also, in US jails are privately owned and in the contractual terms the government obligates itself to keep them over 90% capacity. Interesting, right? So, shitload of money from jails. We will ignore the fact you can get in jail for smoking a joint and that in several publicly known cases teenagers have been thrown in jail for possession or even for deeds that were later considered abuses of the judges. And also the fact those judges have some sort of monetary connection with the jail dudes is not important. Because drugs are evil and kill, especially marihuana which killed a record zero people since the dawn of time. But alcohol is safe because nobody drives drunk or kills his wife while drunk.
Note 1: Drug harm chart -
http://download.thelancet.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673610614626.gr4.lrg.jpg - there's an entire study, Google for it if you want more details.
Note 2: Any similarity with real world is accidental and any connections between the above things are purely apparent. As we know the world is in equilibrium and all is fine and dandy.
(6) Free market is not a theoretical/conceptual thing. All the positives you have in the market today come from the "free market" aspects of it, despite the fact overall we do not have a completely free market system.
No there's no need for *ALL* members to agree as you implied it's simply one of the possible ways to administer a system.
Administration of the system has nothing to do with all members agreeing. About the rest of that paragraph... can't even touch it... my brain simply does not compute that. About what you said most people agree to majority of consent - you're making an observation; read my 100 arguments about why it is bullshit.
So you say you want to see a change so that a decision is taken only when all ppl agree on something instead of the majority or so that your little request about not getting taxed individually (irrespective of what the others do) can be taken into account? Fine, you go ahed, you have a legal instrument to do that by starting your political party suggesting this brilliant idea and see how it goes... And certainly it doen't elude you that "what people consider fair" != "fair as an ojective intrinsic fact of nature" that only an idiot could have stated, so I'm sure you perfectly got my point...
Of course if you don't consider fair/right/acceptable/reasonable/fine [insert your most accurate terminology here] what the majority of people does in a system in which this is accepted as the governing logic, well, I'm afraid the joke's on you bro -very practically so- and there's little complaining about a "problem" you and only a minority of ppl recognize as such, it's not factual, it's still just a point of view, the point of view of a minority...
It is impossible for all people to agree on something. About what follows in the above quote, is exactly what Trepanated is saying is a "choice" - based on your assumption that freedom requires majority consensus. "objective intrinsic fact of nature" - there is no such thing as objectivity in an absolute/intrinsic way. Objectivity exists only within a group of people where most if not all see things the same way. In other words objectivity implies agreement. Something is objectively red because both of us agree to call that visual stimuli "red". If it is just us two, and I have an eye illness that makes me see both red and blue the same, we will have a problem agreeing on some things - you will say a tomato is not the same color as a blueberry and I will say they are just the same - hence we will have subjective views.
Also, thank you for calling me an idiot. I appreciate it. As you see, I am quite limited compared to you, so I thank you for taking the time to explain me how things are and how logic works.
A majority does not imply "factual". Jazzc was the first to explain this to you guys. The earth is round - it is round factually, regardless of the percentage of people that think it is flat.
The rest of the stuff you say I already gave my arguments for.
Thank you for the chat, oh great enlightened, genius. I actually feel more normal now that I read your post, more part of society, more integrated, more in agreement with the beliefs of the masses and this (il)logic way of doing things. Oh wait... no I don't... I think it was some kind of fluke. Oh well, good chatting with you.
