Brexit

[wufwugy]

Y'all doing it or what?

[Savy]

Probs not.

Think I'm going to vote leave though. Just have to weigh up how much I think a leave vote would prop up parties who are absolute vile cunts. If it gives them some sense of power to the general public it's probably not worth it, especially when most predictable short term effects will be bad (most likely not very).

[wufwugy]

Probs not.

Think I'm going to vote leave though. Just have to weigh up how much I think a leave vote would prop up parties who are absolute vile cunts. If it gives them some sense of power to the general public it's probably not worth it, especially when most predictable short term effects will be bad (most likely not very).

what are the vile cunt elements you're referring to?

[spoonitnow]

[wufwugy]

I like how politicians changed things to a point that this change created a colossus of a problem, then turn around and now say that if that change is reformed, it's doomsday.

Britain getting its ass out of Brussels would be godly work. The short term negatives would be very mild and very short. The benefits would be high and gradually rising as time passes by.

If Brexit happens, I think this would end up being one of the most important (in a positive way) votes of the 21st century. If the EU remains, it's likely to be a federal government by the 22nd century. If you think the US is a mess, we'd be pristine in comparison to the disaster that a federalized Europe would be.

[wufwugy]

I'd totally like to discuss specific issues anybody has on this.

[spoonitnow]

they're all cucked in sharia law by 2050 so it doesn't really matter

[Savy]

they're all cucked in sharia law by 2050 so it doesn't really matter

Referencing this?

[spoonitnow]

Referencing this?

lol that's pretty funny, i just pulled the number out of my ass, but i'm glad to see great minds think alike and statistics don't lie

[The Bean Counter]

Polls have it as close at the moment, with 43% exit, 40% stay in and 17% undecided. I was definitely in the stay in camp, as most people that work for big companies are, but I'm coming round to considering the leave option more. My concern is that your average Joe Retard who's scared of anybody that doesn't look and sound like them will vote purely on the basis of some bs "facts" they've read in the national rags, rather than considering a more balanced argument.

The ideal for me would be to have a free trade area with the geopolitical benefits, but with greater control over economic migration and none of the other stupidity e.g. Allowing Greece to join and the agricultural policy.

[OngBonga]

Out.

Sovereignty etc.

[OngBonga]

Britain won't be majority Muslim in 2050. We'll have too many Polish, Albanians, Romanians, and whateverelseanians tipping the balance in favour of whites.

[oskar]

Why is Brexit a word? Is it so I have to google it?

It seems like the more complex and unnknowable the outcome of a particular political action is, the more confident the public opinion on it is.

I can't get over how dumb of a word Brexit is.

[wufwugy]

youda loved grexit.

[oskar]

You know what really pisses me off is that in europe I can't be for immigration but violently against organized religion. I don't care if half the people in the country are not native. I do care being stuck between two smelly burkas (and they do stink,) in a crowded market but I can't say a fucking word without committing social suicide.

[oskar]

youda loved grexit.

I love how newspapers use it with complete an utter confidence as if everyone obviously knows what grexit and brexit is. Who needs that word? Is it a clickbait thing? If you put a question in the head of the person who reads the title, they're more likely to click the article, right? brilliant. You won't believe what these 7 countries with 14 languages call their 3 ways of getting out of these economic-political unions!

[OngBonga]

It's a stupid buzzword for the morons. Why does this surprise you?

[rong]

I'm voting in.

I get the impression that leaving would be bad economically but I haven't really put in the required effort to have any real idea of how it would effect us.

But my reasons for wanting to stay are based on a belief that things are better when we try to work together and that when we spend our time focusing on why we're different and what we don't agree on we tend to alienate each other and find reasons to not get along, where as when we spend time looking at what we have in common and working towards doing things together we tend to find that do get along.

Anything that makes us feel closer and more unified is broadly a good thing. I like the idea of finding shared values and common ground and ways to feel part of a wider community and leaving the EU would be the exact opposite of that.

Plus, when my business takes off and I'm rich I intend to spend most of my time in southern France, Italy and Spain working remotely and staying in the EU makes that a lot easier.

[Savy]

Plus, when my business takes off and I'm rich I intend to spend most of my time in southern France, Italy and Spain working remotely and staying in the EU makes that a lot easier.

Almost no country in the world is going to stop people with money coming into their country. Even those countries with points based systems etc are all for letting rich people in. I also can't really see movement around Europe being that big of an issue whether we're in or out. They don't expect English people living in other countries in Europe to go through any real change whether we're in our out.

what are the vile cunt elements you're referring to?

Just go look up some of the big names behind the leave campaign & the big parties associated with the ideas more generally. They only want out as they think they'll get more power from it they couldn't give a fuck if people were generally worse off. They are a bunch of backward inbred racists who would love to go back to some fuedal system.

[wufwugy]

But my reasons for wanting to stay are based on a belief that things are better when we try to work together and that when we spend our time focusing on why we're different and what we don't agree on we tend to alienate each other and find reasons to not get along, where as when we spend time looking at what we have in common and working towards doing things together we tend to find that do get along.

FWIW I think leaving would help that. Look at the US and the UK for example. Our countries have a seriously fantastic relationship yet it's not predicated on the political will of our governments. In fact, if we didn't have our independence, it is likely that we'd still have a toilsome relationship.

I don't think the idea that people should be responsible for their own houses detracts from the positive pursuit of togetherness. I don't like the idea of London being told what to do by Brussels. London should be responsible for London.



Briefly, on the economics of this, the EU has three main factors of unity: monetary, fiscal, and regulatory. When this thing started, it had a monetary union without a fiscal union. Economists screamed bloody murder. They said this cannot work and it would spell doom in the future, but the political will was too great; Europe's collectivist ideals were too great. This monetary-but-not-fiscal union showed no problems for several years, but at the first hiccup (2008 financial crisis), the gargantuan flaw in a monetary-but-not-fiscal union revealed. The EU economy has been garbage ever since. Note that the UK economy has been better than the continental EU economy during this time. This really is because the UK retained its own currency. The technical reasons for why the monetary-but-not-fiscal union has created this disaster are unimportant, but the short is that the union disallows the two main ways for a country to escape economic doldrums: (1) currency devaluation and/or (2) regional fiscal redistribution.

For the EU to work over the long run, a fiscal union is required. Make no mistake, if this thing keeps together, it will eventually be a federal government and the UK will be just a subservient state to the federal government. It's gonna take a while for it to get there, but that's the direction and it's a necessary consequence of the monetary union. The US federal government didn't have tax power for a long time too. Brussels is gonna do the same thing to London.

The third factor, the regulatory framework, is already a mess. I don't remember specific details, but I've read of many different really silly regulations imposed by Brussels. These aren't "keep people safe" regulations, but "only this type of product, only this region, only this producer, etc." type regulations. Why is it important that Brussels be in charge of huge swaths of land and peoples that they know nothing about? Is Brussels better at regulating London than London is?


I'll end by saying the EU economy is remarkably bad and the reason is the EU. Politicians say things like Europe has been peaceful because of the EU. That is false. Europe has been peaceful for a mix of reasons that include Germany no longer wanting to start wars, central banks no longer causing deflation, America (fuck yeah) having a military that ain't nothing to fuck with and having many troops stationed in Germany. Additionally, Germany is finally getting its wish and taking over the continent. Germany controls EU policy, and the policy curiously reflects the wishes of Germany.

The negatives of leaving would be very short-lived. The future doesn't end in a few months.

[OngBonga]

words

Well done for having a much better grasp of this subject than 95+% of UK.

[rong]

That bit wasn't the main reason for staying in, but you're right, if I ever get rrich I'm fine regardless.

[Savy]

That bit wasn't the main reason for staying in, but you're right, if I ever get rich I'm fine regardless.

I was going to add the rest of your quote and say how I mostly agree with you but I couldn't be arsed. I was only saying what I did because you said you hadn't looked into it much (may have misread re economics part of your post) so may have thought it'd make things a pain. Whereas everything I've read about the topic tends to say they're not really sure on the details of how things will change but it's unlikely to affect individuals in any noticeable way.

Even people with reasonable money wouldn't really have any problems retiring in other countries.

[rong]

I expect the cost of borrowing to go up as it tends to when faced with uncertainty. And that's a bad thing for my line of work. Most businesses strive with greater certainty and struggle with uncertainty, so that alone makes me think leaving would be bad initially. I'm sure a few wealthy folk who are no doubt pushing for an exit will profit considerably from it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Q: What have you learned from teaching World history for a year?

A: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.

[OngBonga]

Q: What have you learned from teaching World history for a year?

A: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.

Found a commie.

[wufwugy]

Q: What have you learned from a year of teaching a World History class that includes America?

A: That the world made very little progress towards the betterment of humans until America embraced Enlightenment ideology and others followed.


It should be noted that regardless of what you choose, you're choosing an ideology.

[MadMojoMonkey]

My quote was from an actual Q&A with a college professor of history. Was yours?

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure why that matters.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not sure why that matters.

I don't believe this is a true fact.

The appeal to authority may be a signal to be skeptical about the "facts" presented, but you (wufwugy) definitely know the importance of letting the experts in their fields set the landscape for the discussion.

Questioning those presented "facts" is important, but knowing the context of the speaker is equally important.

***
Claiming that you're notions of history hold equal weight as a professional historian is silly.
EDIT: not necessarily wrong, but still silly to just throw out your opinion behind a professional's and no further data or argument than your opinion.

***
The point of the quote was to add a historical frame of reference to this dialogue rather than everyone speculating at some unknown future outcomes without context. Or at least.. to hint in the direction of context.

[spoonitnow]

madcuckmonkey at it again

[MadMojoMonkey]

You (spoon) only waste your time name-calling when you don't have anything intelligent to add, but still disagree with someone.

Look back at your crystal ball and tell me more about 2050.

[OngBonga]

Look back at your crystal ball and tell me more about 2050.

I see wasteland and cockroaches.

Oh wait, it's just my bedroom floor. Glad to see I'm still alive in 2050.

[wufwugy]

I have a feeling the professor had the same opinion before he was a professor.

For fun, let's dissect his statement.

humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate

Ah, the good ol correlation equals causation that academic essays teach one to employ.

when we collaborate

A top notch outcome indeed. What incentivizes people to collaborate but shared ideals?

miserable

This outcome's the dumps, yo. What deflects this outcome but shared ideals of the type that constructs a sustainable system that diverges from the outcome of misery?

when we choose ideology over actual humans

My ideology is that humans come first. Checkmate, professors!

[OngBonga]

How wuf plays Sicilian...

1. e5 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4 mate

[MadMojoMonkey]

I have a feeling the professor had the same opinion before he was a professor.

Even if your feeling is correct, what's your point? That when someone has an opinion, then they study the facts on the matter, which support their opinion, that they're only holding that conclusion because of bias?

Does this mean that your notions of free markets are all biased because the more you learn about free markets, the more you like them? You like them to begin with, but then you learned more and your opinion didn't change, so... obv. bias?

Of course not.

For fun, let's dissect his statement.

Ah, the good ol correlation equals causation that academic essays teach one to employ.

A top notch outcome indeed. What incentivizes people to collaborate but shared ideals?

This outcome's the dumps, yo. What deflects this outcome but shared ideals of the type that constructs a sustainable system that diverges from the outcome of misery?

My ideology is that humans come first. Checkmate, professors!

So... you're saying you agree with the sentiment, then?

[wufwugy]

Even if your feeling is correct, what's your point? That when someone has an opinion, then they study the facts on the matter, which support their opinion, that they're only holding that conclusion because of bias?

Does this mean that your notions of free markets are all biased because the more you learn about free markets, the more you like them? You like them to begin with, but then you learned more and your opinion didn't change, so... obv. bias?

I was majorly against free markets until I learned about them.

My comment about the professor probably believing his line before he was a professor is because the line reads to me like something that isn't learned from studying history. It reads like an ideal confirmed by his view of reality.

So... you're saying you agree with the sentiment, then?

I am in stark disagreement with his sentiment. I am claiming he misunderstands what ideology is and its role in history. I am also claiming that it's the embrace of Enlightenment ideologies that has resulted in what he considers the positive aspects of history.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was majorly against free markets until I learned about them.

My comment about the professor probably believing his line before he was a professor is because the line reads to me like something that isn't learned from studying history. It reads like an ideal confirmed by his view of reality.

I don't even know where to begin with this. The level of assumptions you've made about this person based on one sentence out of context is pretty huge.

Your argument seems to be, "I disagree, therefore he's biased."
Come on, man.

Besides, what you said about what you think on this topic is pretty much in line with what this person has had to say beyond this quote.

I am in stark disagreement with his sentiment. I am claiming he misunderstands what ideology is and its role in history. I am also claiming that it's the embrace of Enlightenment ideologies that has resulted in what he considers the positive aspects of history.

Tell me what he misunderstands about ideology and its role in history. Please reference the quote I used to make your case.

I must learn how you glean so much about someone from a single sentence taken w/o context.

[wufwugy]

Tell me what he misunderstands about ideology and its role in history. Please reference the quote I used to make your case.

I must learn how you glean so much about someone from a single sentence taken w/o context.

It is impossible to "choose ideology over humans" because "choosing humans" is an ideology.

Historically, ideologies are at the root of that which he considers the positive-for-humans developments. These ideologies are mostly the ones from the Enlightenment that the West embraced. Even with the sledge hammer of the anti-Enlightenment education system adopted by the West, academic historians still cover this a bit.

[OngBonga]

I would just like to say that I have every right to troll this thread because I'm British and am bored fucking shitless of discussing this subject on social media.

I'm voting out. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else is doing.

[wufwugy]

How wuf places Sicilian...

wtf is Sicilian?

[Savy]

How wuf places Sicilian...

wtf is Sicilian?

My thoughts after playing it as black a few times the other day.

[OngBonga]

My thoughts after playing it as black a few times the other day.

1... c5 is practically a reflex for me when facing 1.e4. It's black's strongest defence, this claim can be backed up by any sizable database.

I can't be fucked to learn all the different openings, but I recognise the value of Sicilian.

[Savy]

Try the Accelerated Dragon, it's easy to learn and fairly easy to play with clear-cut plans, plenty of videos on it on YouTube that are of decent quality as well

I just played a few blitz games with it to see how it felt & the games didn't go great but that was always going to be the case when I don't know the main ideas & playing 3|2 I'm not exactly going to work out anything decent. That being said the level I play at people are hardly that clued up themselves. But ye I should look into it.

1... c5 is practically a reflex for me when facing 1.e4. It's black's strongest defence, this claim can be backed up by any sizable database.

I can't be fucked to learn all the different openings, but I recognise the value of Sicilian.

At the same time though there's also a lot to learn. I reply with e5 & know the basics of the italian & spanish so I get playable positions out of the opening which is all I really want.

Strangely (as an e4 player) I always seem to do reasonable when people play it against me when I don't really know what I'm doing, maybe it's because my tactics are the only somewhat reasonable part of my game so I should probably look to learn some nice open tactical openings.

I hope no one minds this is now the chess thread.

[OngBonga]

I hope no one minds this is now the chess thread.

The idea of Americans discussing our referendum while we talk chess amuses me.

Generally, against weaker players, open games are better. As white, I like open games. When facing 1... e5, I tend to castle quickly and then offer pawns in the hope I can develop while black isn't castling. That can make for very open games where I need to win by middlegame because I won't stand a chance in endgamde. In a recent game, I ditched four pawns in the opening before using the space to punish black's greed.

You might be able to view the game if it interests you... https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1605679422#

(might be login required access, idk)

As black, I don't like open games unless I've nullified white's opening advantage. I'm happy with Sicilian because often white castles queenside, for allows for exciting counter attacks. If white castles kingside, I tend to move quickly and conservatively to put white under time pressure, knowing that closed Sicilian positions often get settled at endgame.

[spoonitnow]

My thoughts after playing it as black a few times the other day.

Try the Accelerated Dragon, it's easy to learn and fairly easy to play with clear-cut plans, plenty of videos on it on YouTube that are of decent quality as well

[wufwugy]

I'm confused on what the guy would actually teach. Every in-depth history class I've had teaches history as a bunch of ideological movements.

His statement is remarkably similar to the same kind I've seen probably a hundred times on the internet, where one group of people thinks of themselves as believing in bettering peoples' lives while groups they oppose are just "ideological."

[wufwugy]

how dare you carnies turn a perfectly good wuf-gets-to-talk-economics thread into this barmy shit.

[OngBonga]

how dare you carnies turn a perfectly good wuf-gets-to-talk-economics thread into this barmy shit.

I really don't care about the economics of staying or leaving, I'm interested in soverignty. Like fuck should our laws be trumped by European laws. The referendum debate isn't an economics debate for me.

[wufwugy]

I really don't care about the economics of staying or leaving, I'm interested in soverignty. Like fuck should our laws be trumped by European laws. The referendum debate isn't an economics debate for me.

Evarthing is economics homey.

[OngBonga]

Evarthing is economics homey.

Chess isn't.

[wufwugy]

Chess isn't.

Then why don't you rush in with your queen at the start?

[spoonitnow]

www.lichess.org is pretty good

[Savy]

www.lichess.org is pretty good

I use that for most of my chess analysis, chess.com for most of my games, chess24 (and a little chess.com) for viewing & I'm going to start using chesstempo for my tactics training.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wuf: I believe taxation is theft. I haven't mucked my words on this.

MMM:Let the mucking begin!

Wuf: The concept of theft does not require legal codification.

MMM: Muck! The "concept of theft" is not the "definition of theft."
The concept is subjective and the definition is objective. We may disagree about whether the legal part of the definition is central to the concept, because we all put different weight on the different aspects of any idea when we conceptualize it.

Wuf: By law, taxation is not theft, but by fundamental concept, theft and taxation do not diverge.

MMM: Muck!
If the fundamental concept is "taking," then any exchange of materials is theft. If there's a sense that there is "rightful taking" and "wrongful taking" then you need to state the moral authority making this distinction between right and wrong.

Wuf: The word "theft" is used instead of "wrongful taking" because nobody (except when arguing against me on the internet) believes that something is only theft because the law says so.

MMM: Muck!
I'm not interested in what "nobody" or "everybody" believes. I place 0 value on these things. I am interested in what you believe and why. Furthermore, I don't believe that you are authorized to speak for "nobody" or "everybody," anyway.

Wuf: If the government passes a law that says it now gets to take all the stuff you and nobody else uses, you're gonna describe their actions as theft and not give two shits what the law says.

MMM: Again with telling me what I think and even what I will feel, thought it's directly at odds with what I've told you I do think and feel. You've done this before, and I've pointed it out before, so I wonder: Does the fact that you keep saying this mean that you're ignoring the obvious - that we don't know what each other thinks and feels?

It seems like you aren't interested in understanding my point of view on this. It seems that you're demanding that I share your point of view, no matter what I say. It seems like when I disagree, you assume that I'm judging you.

So, again, and it's not a troll, nor is it any judgement:
I'm particularly curious if you find value in trying to pause and understand what someone means rather than pedantically telling them that something they don't mean is wrong. If so, can you tell me what that value is. If not, do you think that I'm mischaracterizing your tendencies on this? (FYI, I've told you that I consider paying federal taxes a privilege and that I do so willingly and proudly, yet you insist that I'm being robbed. I have told you that I believe that the legal framework which acts as the moral authority is something we are all invited to be a part of, but you insist that the government is something that happens to me, and not by me.)

[wufwugy]

Wuf: If the government passes a law that says it now gets to take all the stuff you and nobody else uses, you're gonna describe their actions as theft and not give two shits what the law says.

MMM: Again with telling me what I think and even what I will feel

So you're saying that it's okay if somebody takes everything that you use that nobody else does and calls it the law?

It seems that you're demanding that I share your point of view, no matter what I say. It seems like when I disagree, you assume that I'm judging you.

I'm particularly curious if you find value in trying to pause and understand what someone means rather than pedantically telling them that something they don't mean is wrong.

...

If so, can you tell me what that value is. If not, do you think that I'm mischaracterizing your tendencies on this? (FYI, I've told you that I consider paying federal taxes a privilege and that I do so willingly and proudly, yet you insist that I'm being robbed. I have told you that I believe that the legal framework which acts as the moral authority is something we are all invited to be a part of, but you insist that the government is something that happens to me, and not by me.)

Well government is something that happens to you instead of by you, but your embrace of it using your capital does mean that in your case you're not being robbed. This was included in my original point from way back when. Taxation has been culturally accepted, but that doesn't change the fact that if somebody does not accept it, they are being robbed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So you're saying that it's okay if somebody takes everything that you use that nobody else does and calls it the law?

No... and I know you've heard this before, so I'm confused as to why you need to ask again.

I'm saying that my statement that it's not OK that their statement that it is OK are on equal footing until and unless some authority is cited to make that distinction. I'm saying that their appeal to their moral code which says they're entitled to the things is no different from my appeal to my moral code which says that I'm entitled to the things. We are at an impasse.

I'm saying that we can both cry "theif!" but there is simply no objective way to resolve the situation without calling on another party to intervene. That party will be tasked to define who is the thief and who is not. Whether or not this is a government is kind of moot beyond the notion that, in the modern world, we have assigned the burden of adjudication to governments. (Jedi would be a better choice, I think.)

This illustrates that saying, "Taxation is theft." is assigning a moral quality to taxation. Taxation is not just "taking;" it's "wrongful taking." However, as a society, we have ceded the right to determine the moral high ground to the gov't. Also, we have empowered the government to collect taxes. We can't at the same time say that the gov't gets to decide who is a thief and who is not and then also say that the government doing what we have empowered them to do (make laws and collect taxes) is thievery. We can say, "Oops. That was a bad move. Let's change the laws." if we made a mistake, though. 'Cause this is America. (Other people are cool like, us, too.)

...

Well, I wont be holding my breath for an answer, now that you've dodged the question 3 times. I can only guess and hope that someday I meet someone who shares your opinion, but is more outspoken about it.

Well government is something that happens to you instead of by you

This is not true in the USA and (last you said) you live in the USA. Since you ignored me last time I did so, let me again formally invite you to be a part of the government of the USA. All you need to do is show up at any government function at any level (community, city, state, national) and then keep showing up. Welcome! We've been long in need of your voice, here.
In fact:
Please. I'm begging you, for all of our sakes. Please become active in the government and let your love of humans and human achievement become a greater part of what we do, here.

If you still insist that the gov't is something that happens to you and not by you, then that is your own choice, and not a reflection of the reality of your situation.

but your embrace of it using your capital does mean that in your case you're not being robbed. This was included in my original point from way back when. Taxation has been culturally accepted, but that doesn't change the fact that if somebody does not accept it, they are being robbed.

So you're saying taxation is theft if it "feels" like it is? That leaves us at my point at the top of this post. One party says they feel like the things are theirs and another party says otherwise and who gets to decide which claimant gets their wish?

Your definitions leave us with no actual framework to resolve this. You've stripped any meaning by the word "wrongful" in wrongful taking by leaving it up to each individual to define on their own terms.

[wufwugy]

No... and I know you've heard this before, so I'm confused as to why you need to ask again.

I'm saying that my statement that it's not OK that their statement that it is OK are on equal footing until and unless some authority is cited to make that distinction.

The authority was cited. In the hypothetical, it became the law to take everything that only you use. Would this be okay with you? If it would not, why would it not?

Well, I wont be holding my breath for an answer, now that you've dodged the question 3 times. I can only guess and hope that someday I meet someone who shares your opinion, but is more outspoken about it.

I'm not interested in answering your judgments of my character and motives.

Since you ignored me last time I did so

An example of the above.

If you still insist that the gov't is something that happens to you and not by you, then that is your own choice, and not a reflection of the reality of your situation.

List all the things the government does that affects you that you did not have a choice in and then list all the things you did that altered something about the government. The first list will be endless and the latter will include a handful tops.

Your definitions leave us with no actual framework to resolve this. You've stripped any meaning by the word "wrongful" in wrongful taking by leaving it up to each individual to define on their own terms.

I'm not looking for any reasoning from the individual. I ask people to apply the elements of theft and taxation onto each other.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The authority was cited. In the hypothetical, it became the law to take everything that only you use. Would this be okay with you? If it would not, why would it not?

If "the law" was my community's law, then I abide.
After, I may decide that this is OK, as it reflects my own standards, or I may decide that this is not OK and I would appeal to the community to change the law. If this failed, I would know that this community's standards are not my standards, and I would leave the community, as we made a poor fit.

If "the law" is some community of which I am no voluntary part, then I would appeal to them to change their law. If they refused, I would be aggrieved and appeal to my community for help. If no help were viable, I would leave or fight, but probably just leave. Leaving is almost always lower risk for nearly equal outcome.

When we spoke of this before, you said that leaving was not viable. Then later, in an entirely different thread and on a different topic, you were musing on the subject of moving to another state for socio-economic benefits. Do you still think that leaving is not viable?

I'm not interested in answering your judgments of my character and motives.

An example of the above.

First of all, my saying you ignored me is not a judgement. I don't understand why you assume so. When you keep asking me the same questions, and I keep telling you the same answers, and it keeps going in the same conversation, then why are you ignoring my answers? I'm trying to understand you, here. I'm not messing with you. I don't have the time to mess with you.

I do troll spoony a bit from time to time, now, because if you want an example of judgement, just read spoony's posts to me. And on that note... I could maybe care less about spoony's contempt, but not much, so I also don't even understand why you would be apprehensive about my judgement.

I mean.. I'm judging you for NOT answering the question just as much as I'd be judging your answer. I'm a person. I can't help but judge things as I come across them.
Here's my judgement on you, since you're so worried about it:
wufwugy is a cool guy who says odd things that I think at first sound dumb, but I know he's quite clever. He makes me think about things in a new and interesting light. Also, he's pretty funny when he wants to be, but will wall-of-text your ass without warning if you get him on certain topics. I've come to learn that he's passionate and caring and ultimately concerned about making the world generally less bad. And stubborn as a boulder, kinda like me in that regard.

That's it. The parts that sounds negative about you are more of a statement about me and how I perceive your approach to thinking.

It's interesting to me that you persist in assuming that I am judging you any more than my always-for-everyone-judging, even though I assure you that I'm only trying to learn about you and understand other people in the world who think like you do. It is different from the way that I think. I get it that in our culture that can lead to harsh judgement and childish name-calling, but that is not my interest.

I got over calling you names years ago... has it been years? anyway... a long time ago. I realized that my judgement was just a weird kind of self-reflection and that I was really angry about parts of myself that I didn't understand. Which I think I told you at the time when I apologized. I was being dumb and short-sighted and not introspective. The opposite of now. Well... prob still dumb, but trying to not be, so...

whatever. I'll respect your boundaries.

List all the things the government does that affects you that you did not have a choice in and then list all the things you did that altered something about the government. The first list will be endless and the latter will include a handful tops.

Seriously, dude. You get harsher judgement from me for *asking someone to share their perspective then telling them what it is before they respond* than about anything else you could do. How bad is it to be judged be me? Does it burn? Do you even notice? I would never let that single (what I perceive to be a) flaw overshadow the greater man. I'm far from flaw-free.

I'm not looking for any reasoning from the individual. I ask people to apply the elements of theft and taxation onto each other.

You seem to assume that everyone perceives "the elements of theft and taxation" the same way you do. Yet, when confronted with someone like myself who voluntarily and willingly pays taxes, you agree that it is not theft. The elements that I focus on are different than the elements you focus on, and it makes all the difference in the truth of your statement.

Ultimately, you're talking about feelings. You're saying that if taxation feels like theft, then taxation is theft. If it doesn't feel like theft, then it isn't.

But that's not as easy and cutting as saying, "Taxation is theft." so you open up the doorway to the conversation by gently misleading the nuance of your actual belief in the introduction. Which I don't judge as positive or negative unless your motives are known. If you're engaging in an open and respectful exchange of ideas, then great. If not, then boo.

[spoonitnow]

the aspie is strong itt

[OngBonga]

Ong 2 ImSavy 1 in case anyone is interested.

ImSavy beat me when I was black and didn't play Sicilian... out of my comfort zone!

[Savy]

Ong 2 ImSavy 1 in case anyone is interested.

ImSavy beat me when I was black and didn't play Sicilian... out of my comfort zone!

A 1600 should never lose to someone rated 900 though really, should they?

http://en.lichess.org/fLhCGJYp/white#69

Masterclass!

I really don't care about the economics of staying or leaving, I'm interested in soverignty. Like fuck should our laws be trumped by European laws. The referendum debate isn't an economics debate for me.

My issue with this is the people in charge pushing for this want EU laws to not exist so they can basically attempt to repeal peoples human rights and so they can wank over the queen a bit more whilst taking away peoples rights to do things. If they were pushing it through as some libertarian issue I'd be much more on board but they just want the power for themselves not so they can give it to us.

Can you imagine a parliament led by Boris Johnson with a large proportion of UKIP. I dread to think.

Then why don't you rush in with your queen at the start?

I do?

[wufwugy]

I do?

Then why do you?

[OngBonga]

My issue with this is the people in charge pushing for this want EU laws to not exist so they can basically attempt to repeal peoples human rights and so they can wank over the queen a bit more whilst taking away peoples rights to do things. If they were pushing it through as some libertarian issue I'd be much more on board but they just want the power for themselves not so they can give it to us.

Can you imagine a parliament led by Boris Johnson with a large proportion of UKIP. I dread to think.

Have you noticed that over the last decade or so, companies have started employing people on zero hour contracts? Europe is doing fuck all to protect worker's rights. People are afraid to take a shit break for fear of losing their job.

I couldn't give a monkeys about Boris and UKIP, they can be booted out in 2 years or whatever. If we're gonna have to wait until 2050 until the next EU vote, well it's a really easy decision to be quite honest. We fucked up in the 70's by joining, and anyone who actually voted in that referendum will tell you that it was sold purely as a trade bloc, that there was no hint of political and legal integration. We were lied to then. I know many people who intend to vote out based purely on that lie in the 70's... what are they lying about now? This is our last chance to get out before it's too late.

[OngBonga]

At the risk of talking about non-EU stuff nor chess, I'd like to know...

What is the alternative to tax? Privatisation of everything? Who's gonna pay for the military?

[wufwugy]

At the risk of talking about non-EU stuff nor chess, I'd like to know...

What is the alternative to tax? Privatisation of everything? Who's gonna pay for the military?

Security payments would be voluntary just like most peoples' payments for food, clothes, and shelter are voluntary today.

Look at it this way, governments' desire for security doesn't arise because there's something unique about governments; the desire arises because people have it. Without governments to allocate capital towards security, people would do so voluntarily just fine. If governments paid for everybody's food, nobody would voluntarily pay for food, but that doesn't mean that people need governments to pay for food. If governments paid for food long enough, lots of people would probably think that they need governments to do so in order to survive. There has yet to be an identified reason why the same wouldn't be true of security.

[OngBonga]

If governments paid for everybody's food, nobody would voluntarily pay for food, but that doesn't mean that people need governments to pay for food. If governments paid for food long enough, lots of people would probably think that they need governments to do so in order to survive.

But food is an essential need. Military is not. People will pay for food if it is not given to them, because they know they have to. Who is going to voluntarily pay for the military?

I get that bin collections can be done by private companies, and anyone who wants their bin emptied will have to pay. But I can't see people being happy to pay a direct charge for the military. If it's an enforced payment, it's tax, and if it's not enforced, noone will fucking pay it and we won't have a military. Instead we'll have a bunch of muppets with guns who think they're a military.

I asked who pays for the military for a reason. It's probably the best example of something that people will not pay for in an economy without tax.

[OngBonga]

I asked who pays for the military for a reason. It's probably the best example of something that people will not pay for in an economy without tax.

To add to this... let's assume wuf waves his magic wand and suddenly we live in a world without tax. Everything that tax used to pay for becomes privatised, and citizens have to pay to have their bins emptied, or to call the fire brigade. Well, the military became privatised too, because tax isn't paying for it. So how does the military operate when it has no funding from government? It will need to find a proftable way to operate. Yeah, that sounds pretty tasty to me. A military that needs to find money somehow.

Tax would be replaced by extortion. And you'd still have to pay to get your bins emptied.

[wufwugy]

To add to this... let's assume wuf waves his magic wand and suddenly we live in a world without tax. Everything that tax used to pay for becomes privatised, and citizens have to pay to have their bins emptied, or to call the fire brigade. Well, the military became privatised too, because tax isn't paying for it. So how does the military operate when it has no funding from government? It will need to find a proftable way to operate. Yeah, that sounds pretty tasty to me. A military that needs to find money somehow.

Tax would be replaced by extortion. And you'd still have to pay to get your bins emptied.

Fantastic news! That means the companies would have to compete to please the customer.


To understand this more deeply, note that governments have their power from legitimacy. It is not strictly because of their use of force, but because the people legitimize them. I'm not making this up; it's one of the first taught principles in polisci. This means that it is not reasonable to extrapolate the behavior of a non-legitimized force company. If security was put entirely on the markets overnight and they needed to find a way to profit, they couldn't just band together and force people to give them enough money because that behavior would bankrupt them.

If a government shows up to your door, looking to take you to prison, it doesn't matter how costly you make it for them, because their revenue stream is mandated and that mandate is legitimized by the society at large. They can hardly lose. Your home could be a fortress and you could cause millions in damage to them, yet it would negatively affect their balance sheet in no way. But when there is no legitimized force entity, these costs matter and if they ignored them they would lose. These private companies you think would become extortionists would simply not. This model has played out pretty much billions of times before.

Security is not unique. The same principles apply to all other goods and services.

[wufwugy]

But food is an essential need. Military is not. People will pay for food if it is not given to them, because they know they have to. Who is going to voluntarily pay for the military?

I get that bin collections can be done by private companies, and anyone who wants their bin emptied will have to pay. But I can't see people being happy to pay a direct charge for the military. If it's an enforced payment, it's tax, and if it's not enforced, noone will fucking pay it and we won't have a military. Instead we'll have a bunch of muppets with guns who think they're a military.

I asked who pays for the military for a reason. It's probably the best example of something that people will not pay for in an economy without tax.

Security is equally essential as food.

How can it be the case that millions of people willingly pay billions annually for catastrophe insurance or tithes or to activism, yet they couldn't do the same for security?

[wufwugy]

A quote from an alleged criminal defense attorney in reddit thread I'm reading:

In my jurisdiction, if over $25k is seized, no criminal conviction is necessary for the DA to keep the money, which is entirely backwards. We will still have the civil trial, but it's by a lesser standard than a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. clear and convincing evidence). There was a movement to reform the asset forfeiture laws, but the DA's association opposed it and effectively killed the reform, their reasoning being that DA offices and police departments allocate and rely on asset forfeiture for a part of their budgets, which is essentially admitting that they have a cash incentive to rob people.

Hmmmm. Here we have a man of da law claim that a situation in which da law takes more than that which is implied to be fair is robbing people. Yet it's legal. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I hmmmmmmmmmmmed enough? Maybe I should hmmmmmmmmmmmmm some more.

[spoonitnow]

A quote from an alleged criminal defense attorney in reddit thread I'm reading:



Hmmmm. Here we have a man of da law claim that a situation in which da law takes more than that which is implied to be fair is robbing people. Yet it's legal. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I hmmmmmmmmmmmed enough? Maybe I should hmmmmmmmmmmmmm some more.

some people are just never going to get it

[OngBonga]

A quote from an alleged criminal defense attorney in reddit thread I'm reading:



Hmmmm. Here we have a man of da law claim that a situation in which da law takes more than that which is implied to be fair is robbing people. Yet it's legal. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I hmmmmmmmmmmmed enough? Maybe I should hmmmmmmmmmmmmm some more.

Are you really pretending that you don't know the difference between what you describe here and tax, in order to prove a point that has been refuted several times already?

[wufwugy]

Are you really pretending that you don't know the difference between what you describe here and tax, in order to prove a point that has been refuted several times already?

What's the difference?

[OngBonga]

Economics is not only when money is involved.

I didn't say it was. I said when anything of real value is involved.

There is no real value. All value is perceived. In a monetary market economy, "real" does not mean "true," but "perceived non-inflation value." The "real value" of gold can be zero.

If the real value of gold is zero, then it has zero economic value. Just like the queen.

You're crossing two different economies: the economy of your chess game and the monetary market economy.

The "economy" of my chess game is pseudoeconomics. There is no production, no distribution of wealth. That's what economics is. The only similarity to my game of chess and the real world of economics is that a chess piece has a perceived value... but that value cannot be transfered. Thus, it's value is "perceived", while money has "real" value in that it is fiat currency... it has real value because other people are willing to accept is as payment. Can I send you a "worthless" wooden queen through the post in exchange for ten bucks? It's exactly as worthless as the ten bucks, according to your economics, because both have the same "real value" - zero.

You wouldn't survive without security.

I could suvive without military protection, which is the context I was thinking of when discussing "security".

These are two different levels of security.

There are many more than two.

So you don't think it's fair that only those who pay for food have access to it?

Now I didn't say that. You're missing the point, once again. If there are people who don't pay into the privatised police, then they are not entitled to protection from criminals, right? So, the world just got better for criminals. This is the consequence of a privatised police force, which happens when tax is taken out of the picture. Society is negatively impacted upon.

Is this claim not specious in a world where millions voluntarily devote their lives and many billions in overall capital annually to global security? You'd be hard-pressed to find an issue cared more about than security.

Are you assuming that EVERYONE will willingly pay into the military? Here's news for you... I wouldn't. So what's the military going to do about that? How is it fair that I continue to be protected by them when I don't pay?

You answered your own question when you claimed you're probably covered by landlord's insurance.

Bollocks. I might not be insured. I literally do not know and it doesn't matter. If I'm not, that's my own tough luck, I won't get a payout if I lose all my stuff. How does this apply to the military? You've totally dismissed my point here with absolute crap.

Both the forfeiture and tax laws in that scenario apply equally to all.

Nope. Is there a requirement that anyone with $25k sat around has to hand it in to the police? No. So the only people at risk are those who get investigated by police... therefore, in order for it to be fairly applied to all, one is totally reliant on the impartial nature of the police.

Tell me why it's important to denounce the lessons of economics?

YOUR lessons of economics. I denounce these lessons because they are utter crap.