greatest police badge number ever

[guerilla]

I'm reluctant to answer that questions because your definition of 'control' is so vague.

Do you believe you can direct your body? Do you believe you are using your body to type, and express thoughts in this thread?

By control, I ask if you're self-directed. Yes, you'll reply that you cannot control you farts and this somehow undermines the idea that you choose to talk, to walk, to think, to eat etc.

You're playing with words, and either way 'self-ownership' does not follow, or as you'd say: it's a non sequitur. Furthermore, as I argued before, 'self-ownership' is redundant.

So again, you're saying you're not the one writing your posts? You're not the one articulating ideas? You're not acting purposefully by taking a particular and consistent stance in this thread?

If not you, then who? Can I make you type your posts? Surely if I could, your posts would reflect my POV, wouldn't they?

I am not speaking of property in the literal sense of course, and I think you're smart enough to know that, but clever enough not to argue it.

Would you describe an apple falling down from a tree as randomness?

I wouldn't. I also wouldn't say a lightning bolt hitting you is the same as you choosing to make a post. I don't think trees are rational actors, ymmv.

You must assume some kind of precondition in order to answer that question.

I exist.

Do you debate that I exist? If I don't exist, you should stop posting to me, n'est-ce pas?

We need some sort of proposition in order to have an argument. I picked one we *should* all be able to agree upon.

Now someone comes along and says, "You just hit me in the face."

Why is he right or wrong?

It would depend on whether I hit him in the face. He's the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on him.

If you claim he's wrong, you're assuming he didn't do it. If you claim he's right, you're assuming he did do it.

I'm not claiming either. I am asking him for proof of his claim.

I think the question is disingenious

It's not. It's that people simply cannot (and perhaps, will not) answer the question.

In lack of evidence, the "natural conclusion" or gut feeling if you like, would be to say "it's wrong", although you're subconsciously or consciously actually making an assumption.

That hasn't been my tact in this discussion at all.

If you claim something, show proof. Without proof, I can't believe it. I would (and have) question why YOU believe something you cannot prove.

 

[guerilla]

I don't think I can make a better post than that ^^ in this thread.

If you get it, great. You win a prize.

If you don't get it, no worries. You probably have bigger problems to deal with.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

The closest to proof is to conduct a nation wide survey.

They do it every year in the form of ballot proposals for millage increases. People vote to RAISE their own taxes for different shit every year in this country.

Sometimes it's to give more money to an existing service, sometimes it's to begin funding a new service. It is 100% voluntary, and if a simple majority decide against it, then it isn't instituted.

Many proposals for millage increases do not pass. Some do. The ones that do were 100% voluntarily voted in (with no threat of force) by a simple majority of the poeple in the community.

Therefore the assertion that people only participate in the "taxes for services" system due to the threat of force is demonstrably false.

If anybody would like to submit some evidence to the contrary backing up the assertion (repeated in this thread over and over with zero proof) that people only pay taxes due to threat of force, please do so.

For the record, I'm also still waiting on proof to back up the assertion that taxation is even theft, since you have to have a claim on something for it to be stolen. I readily hope this proof does in fact exist, but I've yet to see it posted here.

 

[kingofsp]

When do they have the option to vote for no taxes at all?

 

[dreamache]

For the record, I'm also still waiting on proof to back up the assertion that taxation is even theft, since you have to have a claim on something for it to be stolen. I readily hope this proof does in fact exist, but I've yet to see it posted here.

It's very simple. Do you own your body? Yes, you do, even if you say "No"; see argumentative ethics and self ownership

So if you own your body, then logically, you own anything that results from your body, including the fiat dollars that an other insidious group of individuals called the state like to steal.

 

[drave]

So if you own your body, then logically, you own anything that results from your body

that's a logical fallacy.

kids result from their parents bodies. so who owns you?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

It's very simple. Do you own your body? Yes, you do, even if you say "No"; see argumentative ethics and self ownership

So if you own your body, then logically, you own anything that results from your body, including the fiat dollars that an other insidious group of individuals called the state like to steal.

See now you're getting into sovereignty though. If your body could produce something independent of the land you're currently living and working on then I would agree that nobody else has a claim to that which you produced. For instance, if you were working from Pluto, or somewhere in space that nobody has claimed sovereignty over.

This is why property rights are so important to this discussion. You have to be able to make (and defend) a claim of ownership on something for it to be stolen.

For instance, if you had sovereignty over a piece of land, then you would have a right to charge (we'll call it a tax, but it can be called anything really) someone that wanted to work on your land. Let's say they planted crops, or raised cattle on your land. You would have a claim to a percentage of their work since the land is yours, even though "your body" did not do any work or produce anything.

Why though, if they did all the work? What right do you have to charge them a percentage when it was their body (labor) that produced the goods? Well, because it's not their land, it's yours. As long as you maintain your property rights and your sovereignty over your land then you have a right to charge those that wish to work on or live on your land. This is the position of the state (not that I agree with it, but this is the crux of the issue).

You can not own land in this country for that very reason, for if you did the state would have relinquished sovereignty, and with it, all claims on the product of your labor.

 

[hellblazer]

it's impossible to say that people consent...

No, it's impossible to say that they don't consent.

You can't hyperfocus on the "gun" in the room without hyperfocusing equally on the "carrot" as well, i.e. the many services government provides. Ahh yes, we all noticed that was conspicuously absent from your anti-government tirades.

You would have everyone believe the government is a mere robber on the street, taking everything and providing nothing in return.

Do people pay taxes for the services they provide or because of the penalties for non-payment? The evidence suggests they do it for the services.

The citizenry are pleased with what they are receiving in return; the army, the police, the infrastructure, etc...

UG made an excellent point in that citizens will voluntarily increase their tax rate in order to receive greater services. This suggests they have zero problem with taxes.

Similarly, states will decrease their rates in order to receive fewer services(see any state with zero income tax rate).

Additionally, some citizens who are displeased with the tax rates they're paying choose to relocate to a lower tax state(i.e. TX). Some relocate out of the country. Some work only in cash. Some work the system(see Apple or GE) to pay no tax at all. Choice abounds.

In fact, there is so much more evidence to suggest that citizens do not have the problem with taxes that the fanatical wing of the libertarian movement says they do, than there is to suggest that they are secretly longing to destroy their governments for the glorious purpose of forfeiting a couple bucks in taxes.

But again, that's where their argument collapses in on itself. And what's the point of fighting a war for people who don't really even care that much about it? The entire motivation behind the radical anarcho-libertarian crusade would disintegrate overnight. They can't stop. Now now.

 

[Jokerr]

Do you believe you can direct your body? Do you believe you are using your body to type, and express thoughts in this thread?

By control, I ask if you're self-directed. Yes, you'll reply that you cannot control you farts and this somehow undermines the idea that you choose to talk, to walk, to think, to eat etc.

So again, you're saying you're not the one writing your posts? You're not the one articulating ideas? You're not acting purposefully by taking a particular and consistent stance in this thread?

If not you, then who? Can I make you type your posts? Surely if I could, your posts would reflect my POV, wouldn't they?

I am not speaking of property in the literal sense of course, and I think you're smart enough to know that, but clever enough not to argue it.

Within that very limited definition, yes, I do 'control' my body.

I am writing my posts, etc. Correct.

Please define 'self-ownership' then. And please correct me if I'm wrong: control -> ownership?

I wouldn't. I also wouldn't say a lightning bolt hitting you is the same as you choosing to make a post. I don't think trees are rational actors, ymmv.

Mind is a function of the brain. The brain consists of materia, which are governed by the laws of nature. What part of this do you have any control over? You'll probably say that you're a rational being, but your rationality stems from your mind which is a function of the brain. In essence, you're no more in control over your body than a tree is in control over its branches.

I didn't honestly even wanna get into the whole "free will" debate, because the topic can get quite lenghty. If you're genuinely interested, you can check out Sam Harris.

Do you debate that I exist? If I don't exist, you should stop posting to me, n'est-ce pas?

We need some sort of proposition in order to have an argument. I picked one we *should* all be able to agree upon.


It would depend on whether I hit him in the face. He's the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on him.


I'm not claiming either. I am asking him for proof of his claim.


It's not. It's that people simply cannot (and perhaps, will not) answer the question.


That hasn't been my tact in this discussion at all.

If you claim something, show proof. Without proof, I can't believe it. I would (and have) question why YOU believe something you cannot prove.

You misunderstood what I was saying. "I exist" is axiomatic. We're on the same page here.

When I wrote "You must assume some kind of precondition in order to answer that question." it was with regards to the hypothetical question you raised. In order to give you an answer, I'd have to assume some kind of precondition, e.g. you do not owe him money, thus he's wrong. If you want me to answer the question without making an assumption, then my answer would be I don't know since he has not met his burden of proof. Is he right? Don't know. Is he wrong? Don't know.

 

[-joe-]

So if you own your body, then logically, you own anything that results from your body, including the fiat dollars that an other insidious group of individuals called the state like to steal.

I have just built a robot. That robot is mine.

Today, I plan to send that robot in to grab some stuff from a store and run out.

Who owns that stuff the robot grabbed, me, the robot, or the store owner?

 

[guerilla]

Who owns that stuff the robot grabbed, me, the robot, or the store owner?

 

[guerilla]

No, it's impossible to say that they don't consent.

Let's change the words around.

Taxes = rape. People get raped. I say it's impossible to say they consented to sex because there was violence. You say, it's impossible to say they didn't consent (it's possible to say they did consent).

That's how you test your argument. You take the method you draw your conclusion, and you apply it to an extreme. If it still works, you might be onto something. If it doesn't then you need to question the consistency of your conclusion.

The fact is, once violence is introduced, free choice disappears. You will make different choices with a gun to your head, or the heads of your loved ones, than if you didn't. That's my argument.

You can't hyperfocus on the "gun" in the room without hyperfocusing equally on the "carrot" as well, i.e. the many services government provides. Ahh yes, we all noticed that was conspicuously absent from your anti-government tirades.

If a robber steals from you, then buys you a cheeseburger, is he providing a market service?

By your rationale, the Communist state is the most successful, because it provides every service. I already knew you made pro-Communist arguments, but I wanted to point this out.

WRT the carrot, I don't think you understand free market economics at all. Why is that?

You would have everyone believe the government is a mere robber on the street, taking everything and providing nothing in return.

If they aren't robbers, they don't need to use force.

You're arguing for a donation based government (assuming you're correct about service utility). Great. So you oppose the current system! Good enough for me!

The citizenry are pleased with what they are receiving in return; the army, the police, the infrastructure, etc...

You can only know this if you remove the gun in the room.

UG made an excellent point in that citizens will voluntarily increase their tax rate in order to receive greater services. This suggests they have zero problem with taxes.

It's not voluntary because the system is based on violence. It's like saying I will voluntarily increase the amount of rape that occurs to receive more sex.

TSimilarly, states will decrease their rates in order to receive fewer services(see any state with zero income tax rate).

No such thing exists.

Additionally, some citizens who are displeased with the tax rates they're paying choose to relocate to a lower tax state(i.e. TX). Some relocate out of the country. Some work only in cash. Some work the system(see Apple or GE) to pay no tax at all. Choice abounds.

They try to avoid violence. This is also a consequence of violence being in the system. Decisions are skewed.

In fact, there is so much more evidence to suggest that citizens do not have the problem with taxes that the fanatical wing of the libertarian movement says they do, than there is to suggest that they are secretly longing to destroy their governments for the glorious purpose of forfeiting a couple bucks in taxes.

Then make taxes donations. If your theory is correct, then we should get just as much "revenue" without violence.

That's ultimately what your argument equals. Donation based revenue to "government". You're only one step away from basic anarchy, and that's breaking the monopoly and allowing anyone to provide "services" based on donation or free choice.

The entire motivation behind the radical anarcho-libertarian crusade would disintegrate overnight.

This has nothing to do with changing the world. We're making mindless chit chat on Wickedfire.

Honestly, do you really think anything we're talking about here changes anything, anywhere? I don't.

 

[guerilla]

Please define 'self-ownership' then. And please correct me if I'm wrong: control -> ownership?

Control + highest claim to ownership = ownership.

Mind is a function of the brain. The brain consists of materia, which are governed by the laws of nature. What part of this do you have any control over? You'll probably say that you're a rational being, but your rationality stems from your mind which is a function of the brain. In essence, you're no more in control over your body than a tree is in control over its branches.

Not sure what argument you're making here. Free will doesn't exist?

In order to give you an answer, I'd have to assume some kind of precondition, e.g. you do not owe him money, thus he's wrong.

I asked "why", not whether he was right or wrong.

You don't have to assume any precondition except that "I exist". I specifically laid it out that way, to keep it as simple as possible.

It seems to me, you're trying to introduce value judgments where none are required.

If I ask you, "how does gravity work" do you have to assume any preconditions beyond gravity existing? I don't believe so.

Likewise, I was asking a question about process, not judgment. How did I come to owe someone taxes?

If you want me to answer the question without making an assumption, then my answer would be I don't know since he has not met his burden of proof. Is he right? Don't know. Is he wrong? Don't know.

I agree.

People (myself included) believe in things that don't meet the burden of proof all of the time. I like to think it's because we're taking mental shortcuts that save us time. We simply don't have the luxury of doing deep cognitive analysis of every aspect of reality.

But that said, when we do stop to analyze something, and it doesn't meet the burden of proof, I think as rational, honest people, we need to either pull back our confidence and/or look much harder for proof.

 

[JakeStratham]

I hope I'm not muddying the waters with this post, but I'm a simpleminded guy (I'll let guerilla, kingofsp, and dreamache do the heavy thinking.). Maybe there are other simpleminded guys around here who can relate to the following...

I live in the U.S.

I hate the idea of taxation, not merely because it leaves me with less money at the end of each quarter, but because I consider it to be outright theft.

I have great disdain for those who collect taxes.

I have great disdain for those who vote to raise taxes.

Yet I pay taxes.

Why? Because I do not want to spend my life in prison. Nor do I want to be murdered while defending myself.

I may be the only person in the U.S. who feels this way. But I suspect lots of others feel exactly the same.

We pay taxes to avoid imprisonment and murder.

Period.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I hate the idea of taxation, not merely because it leaves me with less money at the end of each quarter, but because I consider it to be outright theft.

Why do you consider taxation to be theft? Not saying I agree or disagree, but people keep making that assertion without any proof of ownership. You live and work on someone else's land, that's why they charge you taxes. It's their land, not yours (or mine).

I wish we had individual sovereignty, but we don't. Therefore we have no property rights, except those which are granted to us in THEIR system of laws which further binds you to their system of taxation.

 

[JakeStratham]

Why do you consider taxation to be theft? Not saying I agree or disagree, but people keep making that assertion without any proof of ownership.

You're asking me to get involved in that ongoing debate?

"Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

You're asking me to get involved in that ongoing debate?

"Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

Yeah I've noticed nobody wants to address that. It's very "problematic" to your viewpoint, to say the least.

 

[MSTeacher]

Jake's an intellectual cocktease. He once promised me a reacharound by PM and still has yet to deliver.

2/10 would not argue

 

[JakeStratham]

2/10 would not argue

I have 3 superpowers.

One is the uncanny ability to identify time sinks. There was a time when I limited my arguing to offline, a venue in which I could employ my other 2 superpowers toward achieving my ends. These days, I don't argue at all, at least not in the context of a typical conversation. Epiphanies and the type of intellectual growth that triggers lasting change seldom come from losing an argument. They usually sprout from reading, thinking, and testing.

Jake's an intellectual cocktease. He once promised me a reacharound by PM and still has yet to deliver.

Now, this has me completely stymied. I usually come through on my reacharounds. Leaving customers satisfied is a big thing for me. So, accept my apologies and shoot me a PM if you'd like to rub my face in it.

 

[thehobbster]

You guys keep arguing over the big important stuff so you can continue to ignore the true problem of your addiction to arguing over the big important stuff on the internet from your mom's basement.