Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Followup on taxes = theft

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 348
  1. #1

    Default Followup on taxes = theft

    I'm impressed with the quality of this video. It's a short Socratic-method survey conducted by a philosophy professor on the logic used to justify the morality of force.



    Some key lines:

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue shirt guy
    Even though intuitively, I wanted to say "yes" (that it is moral for government to coerce), given what we understand government is, I just couldn't say yes. I followed my logic over there (that it is immoral for individuals to coerce) and brought it over here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Survey conductor guy
    It's okay for the government to use force when it's okay for you to use force, so when it's not okay for you to use force, maybe it's also not okay for the government to use force.
    Quote Originally Posted by Survey conductor guy
    If you don't vote, you still have to do it. If you vote for the person who loses, you still have to do it. So, is it really an agreement (the social contract) if there's no way to opt out of the agreement?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-30-2015 at 06:44 PM.
  2. #2
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    How to trick people into answering the way you want, a montage.
  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    How to trick people into answering the way you want, a montage.
    What is the trick about trying to get people to recognize logical inconsistencies? Did each interviewee not explain their thoughts? All they had to do is say 'I disagree with the connection you've made. Here's why." Some did. I don't see how your claim is any different than, say, what lawyers do.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-30-2015 at 09:16 PM.
  4. #4
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    It's not an incomsistancy. The questions could be re framed as

    Are dictatorships ok?
    Are dictatorships ok?
    Are democracies ok?

    The answers to the first two are irrelevant to the third.

    By the time you get to the third question, he's established that he's going to challenge your view significantly as well, and that it's easier if you answer a certain way. He gets you into a pattern of saying no, no, so the third answer is already primed to be no. It's also disguised heavily I'm that he's asking about charities...which his audience believes to mean the red cross, where he means taxation for the general welfare.

    Hes also asking college kids, who are more prone to care about what he thinks of them. They're also likely to be uneducated on the subject itself,like how other college students in a different unrelated video voted to end women's rights.

    Then he's asking college kids not for their opinion, he's asking because a video showing college kids agreeing with him willcause other college kids who watch it to fall in line.

    Then his examples are incredibly misleading. Like how he talked about friends forcing you to pay for their entire meal. It's an irrelevant point, because the government can't do that either.

    The whole thing is scewed, and he's someone in a field that knows how to do that. It seems deliberate, and purposefully misleasing. Or he's an idiot, which his credentials don't support.
  5. #5
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Lawyers are different btw, because there's a battle between two experts. Like doctors arguing about the best medical procedure.

    This is onesided. A doctor could convince people that vaccines cause autism of he wanted to, but he'd have tough luck pulling that against another doctor.
  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post

    Then his examples are incredibly misleading. Like how he talked about friends forcing you to pay for their entire meal. It's an irrelevant point, because the government can't do that either.
    I think this is the crux of why you think his tactics are misleading or wrong.

    Why do you think that the government forcing you to pay for some peoples' meals (it certainly does this) is philosophically different than somebody forcing you to pay for your friends' meals?
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Lawyers are different btw, because there's a battle between two experts. Like doctors arguing about the best medical procedure.
    Oh I agree that it certainly is an unbalanced representation. The video is like if a debate presented to an audience was instead a lecture.

    But that doesn't negate the points made or the explanations given by the interviewees. I'm sure if another expert was on the other side, the interviewees would have had more robust opinions, but the point of the video wasn't to wring out the truth of the matter so much as to show discrepancies in logic. I mean, the interviewees were allowed to fully explain the social contract, but they were unable to do so in a way that didn't contradict their logic in contrasted individual circumstances. This doesn't show which side is right, but it does show the positions are not held for entirely logical reasons.
  8. #8
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    The government isn't forcing "me" . That's unconstitutional. It's forcing "us". Just like it forces us to restrict our liberty by not murdering people. It's not that I personally can't murder, it's that no one can.

    That's why his example fails. Because the rule he created doesn't apply to everyone. You might say that the rule doesn't apply to the poor, but if they ever actually stop being poor, it would. If I wanted those same benefits that the poor gets, all I have to do is abandon the pretty good thing I got going right now. Seems like a bad deal though.

    As far as what the video shows, it doesn't show that social contract theory fails, or that it's illogical to have taxes. It shows that college kids are stupid; which isn't surprising.
  9. #9
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    The government isn't forcing "me" . That's unconstitutional. It's forcing "us". Just like it forces us to restrict our liberty by not murdering people. It's not that I personally can't murder, it's that no one can.

    That's why his example fails. Because the rule he created doesn't apply to everyone. You might say that the rule doesn't apply to the poor, but if they ever actually stop being poor, it would. If I wanted those same benefits that the poor gets, all I have to do is abandon the pretty good thing I got going right now. Seems like a bad deal though.

    As far as what the video shows, it doesn't show that social contract theory fails, or that it's illogical to have taxes. It shows that college kids are stupid; which isn't surprising.
    Cliff notes: If the government is stealing from everybody, that's okay.
  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    The government isn't forcing "me" . That's unconstitutional. It's forcing "us". Just like it forces us to restrict our liberty by not murdering people. It's not that I personally can't murder, it's that no one can.
    I get your us and me distinction. It's a good one to make. But I think what you think is "me" is still "us".

    To borrow the example used in the video, the government forces us to pay for things we do not want to pay for. Scale this down to friends eating dinner. Let's say the friends take a vote on who pays what. Three vote for one thing and one dissents. In this example, the rule applies to every member of the group (the "us") no differently than when scaled up.

    That's why his example fails. Because the rule he created doesn't apply to everyone.
    The rule does apply to everyone. Even if it's that one person pays while three don't, the rule applies to all four. However, your point does make it apparent that a better analogy should be used, one that involves a more complex agreement where it's obvious that a rule applies to all. A great example of this is if the three friends agree (with one friend dissenting) that the bill payment will be based on how much money each individual makes. Now I think we have a highly applicable analogy. How fair do you think it would be for you to eat dinner with your friends and find that they decided that majority rules and everybody will pay the bill based on a criteria that you don't agree with? Sometimes this happens, but what if they have more guns than anybody else and you don't have a choice? Sure, some of the time you were a dickhead who didn't want to pay for what you ordered or what you said you would at some earlier time, so their coercion would result in something positive, but most of the time it would not. We would get a situation eerily analogous to the current society.
  11. #11
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    @spoon, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    A great example of this is if the three friends agree (with one friend dissenting) that the bill payment will be based on how much money each individual makes. Now I think we have a highly applicable analogy. How fair do you think it would be for you to eat dinner with your friends and find that they decided that majority rules and everybody will pay the bill based on a criteria that you don't agree with?
    It's a good thing laws can't be made that penalize past acts then. The government in this example couldn't make such a rule.

    It's also a good thing that we have the freedom to not attend this dinner, and thus not pay. You have that option too. You are more than welcome to move to a country with laws you agree with. You also have the option to ask your friends to consider otherwise. You can do that here too.

    But i think it's odd that the solution argued is instead to go to dinner anyway, knowing of the rule, and then deciding the rule doesn't apply even after your friends thought you were on board.

    -----

    Why aren't we calling this what it is though? This isn't abut paying for your 3 friends lobster. It's about making sure your neighbor doesn't starve himself to death, and the people who are given the most responsibility to do that just so happen to be the ones who will be the least affected by it. They're also the ones who just so happen to have the most power to lobby for change.
  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    It's a good thing laws can't be made that penalize past acts then. The government in this example couldn't make such a rule.

    It's also a good thing that we have the freedom to not attend this dinner, and thus not pay. You have that option too. You are more than welcome to move to a country with laws you agree with. You also have the option to ask your friends to consider otherwise. You can do that here too.

    But i think it's odd that the solution argued is instead to go to dinner anyway, knowing of the rule, and then deciding the rule doesn't apply even after your friends thought you were on board.
    Then make it my own dinner, where people showed up without my consent. You say I have the option to ask my friends to consider otherwise, but that doesn't matter because I'm overruled by their majority. You say I can move to another country, so would you suggest that as a solution to find food if my government went full USSR and nationalized farms and everybody started starving? Would we say that gays should just move to a country that allows them to be who they are? If they had the luxury, then sure, but most gays don't, and I don't think anybody believes it's reasonable to say that gays who don't like laws that criminalize their sexuality should just move or vote to get them changed. The point of a law market is to make it far easier for people who don't have the luxury to get away from oppressors to finally do so.

    Why aren't we calling this what it is though? This isn't abut paying for your 3 friends lobster. It's about making sure your neighbor doesn't starve himself to death, and the people who are given the most responsibility to do that just so happen to be the ones who will be the least affected by it. They're also the ones who just so happen to have the most power to lobby for change.
    What if the best way for my neighbor to be fed is to not force him to be fed? It sounds illogical, but there's ample evidence for this and economic theory to back it up. We do not have government mandates to thank for why food is abundant today. The regions that suffered from food scarcity by unforced error had government mandates to thank.

    I agree with your argument that people with the most power have the moral obligation to help the most, but I do not agree that coercion is the best means to achieve this end. I try to not support markets on ideological grounds. I support them because I think they result in greater utility than monopolies. If I thought that your position was about feeding the unfed and mine was not (or some other dogma), I'd certainly not be arguing for it.
  13. #13
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Then make it my own dinner, where people showed up without my consent. You say I have the option to ask my friends to consider otherwise, but that doesn't matter because I'm overruled by their majority.
    You consented by merely being in that dinner, just like you consent to a no-liability clause by parking in a garage. You are not a maverick, that plays by his own rules.

    Let me ask you something. If you vacation to Italy, whose laws do you have to abide?
    A) The United States's Laws
    B) Italy's Laws
    C) Only Your own laws

    This answer is obvious, right? By going to Italy, you agreed to comply with their laws. The same is true here.

    Think of it like a business. The United States owns the land the restaurant is on. Its theirs. Sure, maybe you have a deed, and maybe its been in your family for generations, but its not really your land. Its the nations. The map isnt divided by residential property lines, its divided by national ones.

    So if I own a restaurant, I think we both agree that by being in it...you're to obey my rules. Else, get out, right? You couldnt order a steak and decide "you know what, I'm gonna pay half price today". Because your rules are irrelevant. Its my place, on my land, so my rules. But I'm the government, so I call my rules "laws". It just so happens that I create these laws by majority vote, and that this idea of majority vote is a founding principle upon which I built my restaurant.

    You say I can move to another country, so would you suggest that as a solution to find food if my government went full USSR and nationalized farms and everybody started starving? Would we say that gays should just move to a country that allows them to be who they are? If they had the luxury, then sure, but most gays don't, and I don't think anybody believes it's reasonable to say that gays who don't like laws that criminalize their sexuality should just move or vote to get them changed. The point of a law market is to make it far easier for people who don't have the luxury to get away from oppressors to finally do so.
    Moving is an option, yes. The other option is changing the laws. Whats simply not on the table is ignoring them. Not even the president gets to do this, why should you? (with some exceptions) A great thing about the US is that we have the freedom to leave though. Going back to the business idea; you dont like America's laws and feel like you cant do anything to change them? Leave. Its the equivalent of choosing not to buy from them. The country loses whatever benefits you would otherwise have brought them. I realize you dont want to do that, but everyone else agrees to obey the laws except for the people in prison.

    What if the best way for my neighbor to be fed is to not force him to be fed? It sounds illogical, but there's ample evidence for this and economic theory to back it up. We do not have government mandates to thank for why food is abundant today. The regions that suffered from food scarcity by unforced error had government mandates to thank.
    Great. You should compile that evidence, put it in a presentable form, then contact your representative. You should actively participate in social media, and disseminate this information to the public as well. You should attempt to get on the news, and debate the issue with various hosts, including John Oliver. You might want to check in with the Joint Economic Committee and other congressional groups that specialize in these kinds of things too, because I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.

    Or, you could pay the $36/year and make sure your fellow Americans can afford to eat each month.

    I agree with your argument that people with the most power have the moral obligation to help the most, but I do not agree that coercion is the best means to achieve this end. I try to not support markets on ideological grounds. I support them because I think they result in greater utility than monopolies. If I thought that your position was about feeding the unfed and mine was not (or some other dogma), I'd certainly not be arguing for it.
    There is no coercion. You agreed to the laws, you agreed to the penalties, and you have fair and reasonable means to change those laws or leave.

    I had a professor who campaigned for 20 years to get Victim's Rights to become a thing. He just missed getting a constitutional amendment for it; but has succeeded in getting State Constitutional Amendments. Change isnt impossible, its just hard. As it should be.
  14. #14
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Theres a 3rd option.

    You could also willfully violate that law, then contest the law in court when Uncle Sam comes knocking. if you're argument is good, you might win. There was a District Court that was largely responsible for invalidating some anti-gay studies; and this helped a ton in shaping public opinion. So I mean, this is an avenue; but its easily the worst of the three.
  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    You consented by merely being in that dinner, just like you consent to a no-liability clause by parking in a garage. You are not a maverick, that plays by his own rules.

    Let me ask you something. If you vacation to Italy, whose laws do you have to abide?
    A) The United States's Laws
    B) Italy's Laws
    C) Only Your own laws

    This answer is obvious, right? By going to Italy, you agreed to comply with their laws. The same is true here.

    Think of it like a business. The United States owns the land the restaurant is on. Its theirs. Sure, maybe you have a deed, and maybe its been in your family for generations, but its not really your land. Its the nations. The map isnt divided by residential property lines, its divided by national ones.

    So if I own a restaurant, I think we both agree that by being in it...you're to obey my rules. Else, get out, right? You couldnt order a steak and decide "you know what, I'm gonna pay half price today". Because your rules are irrelevant. Its my place, on my land, so my rules. But I'm the government, so I call my rules "laws". It just so happens that I create these laws by majority vote, and that this idea of majority vote is a founding principle upon which I built my restaurant.
    I'd love to think of it as a business, but in order to do so it would have to no longer receive tax revenue. The key difference between business and government is that business revenues do not come by mandates. This one small change makes a world of operational difference.



    Moving is an option, yes. The other option is changing the laws. Whats simply not on the table is ignoring them. Not even the president gets to do this, why should you? (with some exceptions) A great thing about the US is that we have the freedom to leave though. Going back to the business idea; you dont like America's laws and feel like you cant do anything to change them? Leave. Its the equivalent of choosing not to buy from them. The country loses whatever benefits you would otherwise have brought them. I realize you dont want to do that, but everyone else agrees to obey the laws except for the people in prison.
    I don't think you believe this. Moving to a different country is not an option, it is an undue burden. You're saying that if I don't like something I should change every aspect of my life and move to, say, Britain. But you would NEVER say that if I had trouble finding food because of USSR-style government policy, I should just move. You would also not say that for a relatively small grievance, like schools having shitty union policy and the teachers are a little worse than a thousand miles down the road. You would say the government needs to fix its shit and moving is an undue burden.

    Moving short distances can be realistic, and in a law market it would likely be a facet. But that's already a pretty big burden and you're asking for something far greater.

    Great. You should compile that evidence, put it in a presentable form, then contact your representative. You should actively participate in social media, and disseminate this information to the public as well. You should attempt to get on the news, and debate the issue with various hosts, including John Oliver. You might want to check in with the Joint Economic Committee and other congressional groups that specialize in these kinds of things too, because I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.

    Or, you could pay the $36/year and make sure your fellow Americans can afford to eat each month.
    Sidestep.

    I AM trying to do what I can just by trying to get people to look at these things differently. There is no "or you could just pay..." if that paying actually makes things worse.

    There is no coercion. You agreed to the laws, you agreed to the penalties, and you have fair and reasonable means to change those laws or leave.
    When was this? When did I agree that pot should be illegal, filling in wetlands on your own property should be illegal, prostitution should be illegal, education should become a pseudo-monopoly, or companies should be denied access to building new internet infrastructure? Of the million things I didn't agree to, how many of them will change during my lifetime? One? Two? Three at most? But what if I were able to choose them the same way I can choose which store to shop at? Isn't it reasonable to think we'd see hundreds and thousands of those things change to meet demand no differently than how every other facet of our lives that has been market-ized has done so?

    I had a professor who campaigned for 20 years to get Victim's Rights to become a thing. He just missed getting a constitutional amendment for it; but has succeeded in getting State Constitutional Amendments. Change isnt impossible, its just hard. As it should be.
    Why should change be hard? We wouldn't suggest this in our personal lives. The notion that change in government should be hard appears to emerge from the incredible power that government has, which means that if change is easy, it is easy to make bad change. This doesn't mean change should be hard, it means giving an entity too much power is bad.

    Theres a 3rd option.

    You could also willfully violate that law, then contest the law in court when Uncle Sam comes knocking. if you're argument is good, you might win. There was a District Court that was largely responsible for invalidating some anti-gay studies; and this helped a ton in shaping public opinion. So I mean, this is an avenue; but its easily the worst of the three.
    If the food was monopolized, we could do the same thing. We may get results and they would come at great cost. But hey, that's better than just turning food into an industry, resulting in great abundance?
  16. #16
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'd love to think of it as a business, but in order to do so it would have to no longer receive tax revenue. The key difference between business and government is that business revenues do not come by mandates. This one small change makes a world of operational difference.
    Not true. Landlords collect rent when you live on their property, on their land. The government receives taxes when you live on their property, on their land. If you dont pay your rent, you get evicted. I guess you could argue that being ostracized is better than going to jail, but thats kinda moot.

    You cant just decide not to pay rent, so if you want to stop your options are 1) Move (find a new place), or 2) convince the landlord to change the lease.

    I don't think you believe this. Moving to a different country is not an option, it is an undue burden. You're saying that if I don't like something I should change every aspect of my life and move to, say, Britain. But you would NEVER say that if I had trouble finding food because of USSR-style government policy, I should just move. You would also not say that for a relatively small grievance, like schools having shitty union policy and the teachers are a little worse than a thousand miles down the road. You would say the government needs to fix its shit and moving is an undue burden.

    Moving short distances can be realistic, and in a law market it would likely be a facet. But that's already a pretty big burden and you're asking for something far greater.
    If its important enough to you, yes, you should. Isnt this what libertarians say about businesses? Dont raise taxes, else business will move to another country where its less burdensome? They cant choose to ignore the tax, and neither can you. Its leave, change, or deal with it.

    If you have trouble finding food in one country, why in the hell wouldnt you move to one where food was easier to come by? You'd rather starve to death? Thats not a wise choice. Bring your family and friends with you, its better than dying. Seek a better life for yourself. Our country was built on people doing just that, it continues to have immigrents (legal or not) who are doing just that.

    And yeah, I would say that for the school issue too. Your options havent changed. 1) Move, 2) change it, or 3) deal with it. You dont get to ignore it. I know homeowners who have to deal with HOA's. There are several places near me that do not have HOAs. What are the homeonwers to do? 1) Move, 2) Change it, or 3) deal with it. There is no "ignore it" option.

    America has some specific things that are special about it though. We place heavy limits on the government, and what it can do. We cant have laws that benefit whites only, for example. But we can have laws that benefit the poor, because you can always bring yourself down to their level if you wanted to.

    Sidestep.

    I AM trying to do what I can just by trying to get people to look at these things differently. There is no "or you could just pay..." if that paying actually makes things worse.
    Change is hard. But if change fails, you arent the one who gets to decide that their situation is worse, and then act on that assumption. The courts invalidate laws, not you. Your option is still move, change, or comply.


    When was this? When did I agree that pot should be illegal, filling in wetlands on your own property should be illegal, prostitution should be illegal, education should become a pseudo-monopoly, or companies should be denied access to building new internet infrastructure? Of the million things I didn't agree to, how many of them will change during my lifetime? One? Two? Three at most? But what if I were able to choose them the same way I can choose which store to shop at? Isn't it reasonable to think we'd see hundreds and thousands of those things change to meet demand no differently than how every other facet of our lives that has been market-ized has done so?
    These are the rules of the land. Move, change, or comply. You agree to the rules by living here, just as you agree to any country's rules by living there, and any business's rules by entering their doors.


    Why should change be hard? We wouldn't suggest this in our personal lives. The notion that change in government should be hard appears to emerge from the incredible power that government has, which means that if change is easy, it is easy to make bad change. This doesn't mean change should be hard, it means giving an entity too much power is bad.
    Change is hard because it effects hundreds of millions of people. Change is easier when it only effects you, but even then...its still hard. Choosing where the best place to work, where to live, who to marry. Change isnt something that comes easy, and for a country its magnified by the millions.

    But the change isnt hard because government is oppressing you. Its hard because you need to get people to agree with you. Thats not a states thing, thats a persuasion thing.

    ---------

    How do you respond to the notion that by living here, you are accepting this places laws? You cannot chose to pay half of your meal at a restauraunt. You cant choose to live in an apartment, without paying your rent. You cant tell the electric company that you're going to start investigating and making improvements to their systems without their permission.

    Its the government's land.
  17. #17
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    JKDS, you seem to be forgetting the crucial element of choice that is the key difference between the state and your examples of a restaurant tab and an apartment lease. As for the electric company, it is an easily made case of an extremely harmful government monopoly that doesn't need to exist.

    Your comparisons suck. There is no universal possibility to emancipate one's self from the state if one disagrees with it's policies. Flight is prohibitively costly for the large majority of people. The U.S. forces you to pay income and social security / medicare taxes even if you leave the country, unless you renounce citizenship. Renouncing citizenship isn't a practical option because the vast majority of countries require a valid passport, and many do not feasible pathways to citizenship.

    In a restaurant, you order things from a menu voluntarily if you find something suitable for your palate. Otherwise you order nothing and leave. Obviously you are expected to pay the listed price for food you order. You shop for an apartment before you finally choose to sign a lease. Obviously once you sign the lease you are expected to follow the terms of that lease. There exists no such contract in dealings with the state. No one is able to shop for a state to move into.

    It isn't even accurate to say that we sign an implicit contract when we are born. By borrowing, the government takes from the unborn to give goodies to the living. That's the only way to keep the illusion alive that the government is creating value for the people. The babies that are being born in Greece will pay a heavy toll for their parents' profligacy, whether they agree to the contract or not. The balanced budget is politically infeasible. Something like 95% of developed nations deficit-spend. A state of budget balance is known as "austerity," and tends to crash the economy when countries try to maintain bloated entitlement programs without going further into massive debt.

    If you see a role for the state as most people do, that's perfectly fair. Just don't try to paint it as a voluntary contract. Every aspect of the state is coercion, and to believe the state should have a hand in things is to believe that coercion is better than the alternatives.
    Last edited by Renton; 08-01-2015 at 02:25 AM.
  18. #18
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    You want a better analogy? I'll give it to you.

    You pay taxes via two ways.

    1) you immigrate, and then find a job.

    2) you are born here, and then post age 16, you find a job. Note, you probably don't actually have to pay anything until you're in your twenties.

    In both scenarios, you are aware that entering the work force means paying taxes. It's part of the deal. You aren't being coerced, you knew exactly what you were getting into. You chose to work here, instead of doing anything else.
  19. #19
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Is that supposed to be a choice? Pay your taxes or crawl into a hole and starve to death? Describe "anything else."

    Aren't being coerced? What about mandatory public school? What about mandatory health insurance? Even people who don't work are subject to coercion. What about property taxation? A land owner can do absolutely nothing, be a comatose invalid, and still get his ass dragged to jail if he doesn't pay his taxes. Same with capital gains. Just having something that goes up in value requires that you pay taxes on the difference.

    So yeah I guess a person can choose not to do anything or have anything (including a heartbeat) to avoid the contract.
  20. #20
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Your comparisons suck.
    Yeah so does his entire argument, but it's hilarious watching you two type paragraph after paragraph on this shit.
  21. #21
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Still ignoring the point that it's the government's land, and they control what you do on it. It's the same thing as entering any other business, you follow their rules because it's their stuff. This is just on a huge scale.

    By simply being in this country, you agree to their rules. Find some land that isn't already owned, and live by your own rules on that if you'd like. Good luck though, because all the land is already owned by other people in the form of nations. That's unfortunate for you, but you have a core view about property rights, so I doubt you're going to physically take land away from someone else.

    If you don't like it, move, or effect change.

    I can't believe the only response to this is "wah, moving coss money".

    I guess the electric company is coercive too, because it's really inconvenient not to have power, and it would cost a lot to make your own.
  22. #22
    How is it the government's land?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #23
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I don't disagree with the characterization that it's the government's land. In fact, that's precisely the point I've been trying to make. It's pretty fucked up that one can't truly own land. If you buy a piece of land in America, with enough time you'll pay enough in property taxes to eclipse the value of the land, which basically makes all land ownership a form of glorified leasing. I'm actually not even sure what you're disagreeing with me about at this point. Why not just accept that it is coercive and be finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I guess the electric company is coercive too, because it's really inconvenient not to have power, and it would cost a lot to make your own.
    Why is it such a herculean task for the private sector to produce power in a free market? It isn't as if the government is currently giving all the poor people free power. State based utilities will always be more expensive, lower quality, and less efficient than what would be produced privately.
  24. #24
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Look at a map. Find where it says ongbonga's property.

    Then, look to instances where countries have bought, and sold, or conquered land. Those transactions weren't soley over deserted land. People lived there, presumably, with government issued title. Then, when it got sold, they didnt.
  25. #25
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    It's pretty fucked up that one can't truly own land.
    #reality
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  26. #26
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Or really, you can truly own land. Fight a war, win, and become King.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  27. #27
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Yup, a country without property taxes: UNIMAGINABLE LIBERTOPIA amirite?
  28. #28
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Now you're getting it.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 08-01-2015 at 07:04 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  29. #29
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Last post got eaten, if this is mostly a repost, sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I don't disagree with the characterization that it's the government's land. In fact, that's precisely the point I've been trying to make. It's pretty fucked up that one can't truly own land. If you buy a piece of land in America, with enough time you'll pay enough in property taxes to eclipse the value of the land, which basically makes all land ownership a form of glorified leasing. I'm actually not even sure what you're disagreeing with me about at this point. Why not just accept that it is coercive and be finished?
    Its not fucked up though. If the land belongs to the government, then they get to decide what rules attach to it. I get to decide how people drive my car. If I say "you can only drive my car, if you wear clothes and fill my tank", you aren't being coerced. If I owned all the cars in the entire world, I still get to decide and condition the use of my property. The "have-nots" dont get to decide how the "haves" use their property. Thats a core libertarian belief, isnt it? My property, my rules? That applies to land as well, its just that the government already has it all. Its not coercion, when all someone does is condition the use of their stuff.

    You might say that its unfair that the government owns all the land...but property owners would say "so what?". At this point, you either have to kill property rights, or argue for land redistribution.

    And then...we'd have to reconcile how that meshes with your stance against income redistribution.

    Why is it such a herculean task for the private sector to produce power in a free market? It isn't as if the government is currently giving all the poor people free power. State based utilities will always be more expensive, lower quality, and less efficient than what would be produced privately.
    I was speaking about you personally here. Regardless of who could produce electricity cheaper, it is still prohibitively expensive for you yourself to do it. Your option is contract with the electric company on their terms, or invest thousands of dollars (that most people dont have) to make it for yourself. But just because you dont really have a choice here, that doesnt mean you were coerced.
  30. #30
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Its not fucked up though. If the land belongs to the government, then they get to decide what rules attach to it. I get to decide how people drive my car. If I say "you can only drive my car, if you wear clothes and fill my tank", you aren't being coerced. If I owned all the cars in the entire world, I still get to decide and condition the use of my property. The "have-nots" dont get to decide how the "haves" use their property. Thats a core libertarian belief, isnt it? My property, my rules? That applies to land as well, its just that the government already has it all. Its not coercion, when all someone does is condition the use of their stuff.
    This is all perfectly fine except for the fact that the less-despotic states like the U.S. claim to give people the rights to own things. To own land. To own one's labor. To own one's self. And none of those things are totally true. Again I completely agree with your assessment of state power, I just think it is fucked up. And it is coercion. Again, it is coercion because there is no alternative. If you're in my house and don't like my rules, it's nothing for you to leave. That is a key distinction. If you were unable to leave, then my enforcement of my rules would be coercive to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    You might say that its unfair that the government owns all the land...but property owners would say "so what?". At this point, you either have to kill property rights, or argue for land redistribution.

    And then...we'd have to reconcile how that meshes with your stance against income redistribution.
    The government is perfectly capable of selling off the land it no longer needs (edit: and probably will do so as it goes into further into massive debt). As for private property, it just shouldn't be taxed, that's all. Very simple and reasonable request. All taxes are coercive, but the fewer of them there are, the freer people are, and this is all that libertarians are asking for. The state can still go around eminent domaining the land it needs, and at least the vast majority of people will retain their private property rights at any given time.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I was speaking about you personally here. Regardless of who could produce electricity cheaper, it is still prohibitively expensive for you yourself to do it. Your option is contract with the electric company on their terms, or invest thousands of dollars (that most people dont have) to make it for yourself. But just because you dont really have a choice here, that doesnt mean you were coerced.
    Not "the electric company." In a free market there are generally competing options that are reasonable. Multiple companies. Multiple sources of power. Generators and solar panels can even be competitive with the state grid in corrupt 3rd world countries with absurdly expensive power, like Cambodia (where I currently live). There's also the ability to conserve power and pay less, or even to do without. The electric company example doesn't compare at all with what we are discussing.
    Last edited by Renton; 08-01-2015 at 07:24 PM.
  31. #31
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Again I completely agree with your assessment of state power, I just think it is fucked up.
    I too hated my parents when they told me life's not fair.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  32. #32
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I dunno about you but my parents taught me a lot of shit that turned out to be really fucked up.
  33. #33
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    What exactly is the purpose of these appeal to tradition arguments anyway? I'm well aware that what I propose tends to be contrary to what currently exists.
  34. #34
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Yeah, and then I drew the common conclusion. Life doesn't operate on a "not fucked up" level. It follows a much lower standard.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  35. #35
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    What exactly is the purpose of these appeal to tradition arguments anyway? I'm well aware that what I propose tends to be contrary to what currently exists.
    You understand part of the loopholes in personal understanding. Appeals to tradition, status-quo bias, etc... but you don't get the common thrust. You'd like a few books I've read: Influence, Thinking Fast and Slow... give 'em a try.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  36. #36
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    You're arguing for the rights then, meaning you're arguing to actually own the property. That means you're arguing for land redistribution. Giving from the have nots, to the haves. But libertarians are incredibly opposed to this idea, so I don't think that's really what you want.

    As far as the government holding out that you own it, they dont do that at all. You gotta pay taxes, you gotta warn those who enter your property of dangers (else be liable, under law), you gotta not murder in your home.

    No one pulled the wool over your eyes, and gave you the impression that you could do whatever you wanted on the land.

    But it's obvious that the rules regarding the land...depend on which country it's in. No one thinks the French control what you can't do in your home...but no one debates that the US can and does.
  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Look at a map. Find where it says ongbonga's property.
    I checked. It doesn't say "property of the British Government" either. It says United Kingdom. That's a country, not a government. The government here is the Conservative Party. They own shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #38
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I checked. It doesn't say "property of the British Government" either. It says United Kingdom. That's a country, not a government. The government here is the Conservative Party. They own shit.
    Im being loose with the term 'government'. Its the nation that owns the shit, and the nation is run by its government.
  39. #39
    Yes, but it's government that imposes tax, not nations.

    The nation owns the land, and the nation is run by government. But government is elected by the population. So ultimately, it's the people who are the de facto owners of the land. The people choose who manages it. I don't even know what point I'm trying to make in relation to this discussion, I just have a problem with the concept that the goverment owns the land on which the people live on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #40
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    It's the same thing.
  41. #41
    No it's not. There's a distinct difference between government and nation. We can vote to change our government, we can't vote to change our country. The point is that the government do not own the land they are taxing. They merely control the land. I rent a room off a friend. He owns the house but I control my room. He has the power to evict me for any reason. I don't have the power to evict him. I have to pay him rent. He doesn't have to pay me anything. I'm a tenant.

    Just like the government is a tenant.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #42
    !Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Location
    Under a bridge
    Ownership is a human construct, government allows one to have some amount of certainty about ownership. I for one am a big fan of not having to use guns to defend "my" land and for that I follow rules and luckily so do most of society. It's a social contract.
  43. #43
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by !Luck View Post
    Ownership is a human construct, government allows one to have some amount of certainty about ownership. I for one am a big fan of not having to use guns to defend "my" land and for that I follow rules and luckily so do most of society. It's a social contract.
    In the information age it's probably not smart to defy the division of labor and insist on DIYing your security. Again, anarchist scholars have no interest in a world without police and laws. They just want to be able to choose whether to have protection or not, and who protects them. Also, again, private property is compatible with a state. The most economically successful countries tend to be ones with governments that protect private property rights the most.

    If you want to argue that the state has a critical role to play in our lives, fine, just don't call it a social contract.

    In common law legal systems, a contract (or informally known as an agreement in some jurisdictions) is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them.
    Voluntarily is a crucial part of the definition of contract, and babies being born in a state have no ability consent to the contract that will rule their lives.
  44. #44
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No it's not. There's a distinct difference between government and nation. We can vote to change our government, we can't vote to change our country. The point is that the government do not own the land they are taxing. They merely control the land. I rent a room off a friend. He owns the house but I control my room. He has the power to evict me for any reason. I don't have the power to evict him. I have to pay him rent. He doesn't have to pay me anything. I'm a tenant.

    Just like the government is a tenant.
    Sure you can. We could vote to have our country's name changed to Pancakes, and to sell Alaska back to Russia if we wanted. We could vote to get rid of government entirerly, and could vote to make Tuesday Ice Cream Day. It's unlikely any of these would succeed, buy that doesn't mean we can't change our nation.
  45. #45
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Why are you so idealistic about the political system? There's barely any sense of being able to change anything about the American government through the democratic process. The electoral college disenfranchises the majority of the country. Iowans have probably a few orders of magnitude of more voting capital than Texans or Californians and are essentially the sole reason why deeply unpopular farm subsidies will never be repealed. Wyomingans have more representation per capita than any other state

    The state elections are broken in the exact same ways with gerrymandering. That's probably a big reason why the congressional approval rating has been in single digits for years now.
  46. #46
    Been gone for a while. Will try to condense.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Still ignoring the point that it's the government's land, and they control what you do on it. It's the same thing as entering any other business, you follow their rules because it's their stuff. This is just on a huge scale.
    You're selectively viewing (perhaps not intentionally) a market of competing businesses as instead one business, then comparing it to the government. There would be very little difference between a government and a single business for which there is no competition. They're both monopolies.

    By simply being in this country, you agree to their rules. Find some land that isn't already owned, and live by your own rules on that if you'd like. Good luck though, because all the land is already owned by other people in the form of nations. That's unfortunate for you, but you have a core view about property rights, so I doubt you're going to physically take land away from someone else.
    Sorry dude you just argued for why slavery is okay. By simply being on a plantation, you agree to their rules...

    You brush aside prohibitive aspects of circumstances. You keep saying if we don't like something, we can just move or change. But given the reality of what that entails, your argument is not serious. I have no comparative advantage to effect the kind of change you say I should. Attemping to do so would come at an enormous opportunity cost. Even if I was as successful as realistically possible, the amount of change would be tiny and it would come at a whole upheaval of every aspect of my life. I think you're lawyering here. Saying if I don't like it I can just go to Costa Rica or some shit is an obviously wrong argument, and you would never prescribe it as a means for how society should function.

    If there is value in "leave or change", it means there is even more value in my position, since that is entirely focused on making a system that makes leaving or changing more reasonable. You say If I don't like my laws, I should throw everything out the window and bend over backwards. I'm saying that if I don't like laws, I should be able to walk down the street to a competitor and pay for ones I do like. We do this with everything except a handful of things, and the things we do it with are AMAZING while the things we don't do it with operate like shit. This is not a coincidence.

    Not true. Landlords collect rent when you live on their property, on their land. The government receives taxes when you live on their property, on their land. If you dont pay your rent, you get evicted. I guess you could argue that being ostracized is better than going to jail, but thats kinda moot.
    That isn't moot. Ramifications always matter because they affect incentives and margins, which are integral to how a society works. Regardless, it needs to be clear that you're equating a monopoly with a not-monopoly. Landlords do evict if certain rules are not met, but eviction from one landlord only finds a whole bunch of other options. This is not the case with government. There are uncountable competing property owners within walking radius. There are ZERO competing tax regimes within walking radius.

    America has some specific things that are special about it though. We place heavy limits on the government, and what it can do. We cant have laws that benefit whites only, for example. But we can have laws that benefit the poor, because you can always bring yourself down to their level if you wanted to.
    So you agree with me?

    But the change isnt hard because government is oppressing you. Its hard because you need to get people to agree with you. Thats not a states thing, thats a persuasion thing.
    What a weird thing to say on a poker forum. Millions of people agree with us, yet because of how the state naturally works, small special interests made what millions of us agree on illegal. Besides, in a market you don't have to change the opinions of the many. I'm not interested in making everybody like me. I'm interested in letting people make their own decisions.

    How do you respond to the notion that by living here, you are accepting this places laws? You cannot chose to pay half of your meal at a restauraunt. You cant choose to live in an apartment, without paying your rent. You cant tell the electric company that you're going to start investigating and making improvements to their systems without their permission.
    Freedom of choice isn't the freedom for all choices. It's GOOD that I can't choose to pay half price for something, but it's also good that I can negotiate or walk down the street to a competitor. When the thing I want is owned by a monopoly, I am no longer reasonably allowed choice.
  47. #47
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    We are free to "walk down the street" to "another competitor," though. I mean... it's a long walk from St Louis to another nation, but I am free to do so. It is still a trade from one "local monopoly" to another, if you like.

    Doesn't the notion that emigration is an undue burden presume all emigrants (legal or otherwise) come from an economic elite class to which you have no access?

    Doesn't the notion that the amount of change you can exact is "small" concede the point that you are an active agent of the change you envision?
    Doesn't this boil down to a statement of your own desire to have more power to force other people to do what you want them to do with less discussion?

    Is it not a reflection on humanity that these "local monopolies" seem to crop up wherever humans hang out?
    How shall these monopolies be compelled to be transparently acting on the behalf of their constituents?

    I agree with you that children are born into a pre-existing society which has a complex system of social contracts upon which it operates.
    How shall a society deal with the inherent problem of children?
  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    We are free to "walk down the street" to "another competitor," though. I mean... it's a long walk from St Louis to another nation, but I am free to do so. It is still a trade from one "local monopoly" to another, if you like.
    I think it's common for people to say "free" when they mean "free within reason". Technically speaking, we're "free" to do basically anything, but such an extreme use of the word doesn't convey insight in the contexts we're discussing. North Koreans are technically free to leave, but nobody would put it that way because the burden to do so is egregious. If we were to supplant this logic onto the food industry, I don't think anybody would say we have freedom to eat what we want when we would have to travel up to thousands of miles to do so just because of a government law.

    Doesn't the notion that emigration is an undue burden presume all emigrants (legal or otherwise) come from an economic elite class to which you have no access?
    No, because burden is not the only factor involving emigration. To some, it is the opposite of a burden, but they're also emigrating for different reasons than living under new laws. We have our own case study here, where the vast majority of people who really wanted to keep playing online poker did not leave the country. The higher the cost a freedom is, the less of a real freedom it is, so to speak.

    Doesn't the notion that the amount of change you can exact is "small" concede the point that you are an active agent of the change you envision?
    I am an active agent, just not one with enough power to achieve what JKDS suggests the solution is. If you have a problem that is mountains above your pay grade, it is not sufficient to say "just solve it." The goal should be to have a system where the largest number of problems are fixable by the largest number of pay grades. So if "just moving" is too high of an opportunity cost to somebody to solve a specific problem they have (like a working class family moving to a legal weed state because the head of household likes to relax on the weekends), a law market would bring the cost to choose what they believe should be legal to much more reasonable levels.

    Doesn't this boil down to a statement of your own desire to have more power to force other people to do what you want them to do with less discussion?
    Let's say we started a new country from scratch and we're figuring out what policies it will begin with. One person says "all farms and factories should be owned and operated by the government", and somebody else says "the government should not intervene into farms and factories at all." We have reason to believe the former would result in food scarcity and the latter would result in food abundance. The former would create a food industry where there is very little freedom for producers and consumers, while the latter would result in great quality and quantities of freedom. Is it reasonable to say that both of these people are trying to force others to their will? Or is it instead reasonable to say that the former person wants a food industry that works a specific way while the latter person wants a food industry that works whatever way participants themselves mold it to?

    Semantically, it can be said that doing something to allow people more capacity to make their own decisions is forcing something upon them, but I think the word loses its meaning when used like that.

    Is it not a reflection on humanity that these "local monopolies" seem to crop up wherever humans hang out?
    Well my personal theory is twofold: (1) states exist today mostly due to legacy. I think that if they were to disappear, we have enough technology now to keep them from arising again; whereas if this was just 200 years earlier or a non-modern region, I think the state would reappear quickly. (2) I think it is very normal for people to hold religious-type beliefs, i.e., all of us, without exception, believe lots of things that we never came to through robustly evaluated logical reasons.

    I agree with you that children are born into a pre-existing society which has a complex system of social contracts upon which it operates.
    How shall a society deal with the inherent problem of children?
    I'm not sure what you mean by the problem of children, but I think I see what you're getting at.

    I think the solution is to increase freedom of choice. This doesn't mean that having more options is always better (it's not, by itself), but that having an option in the first place is better. If I'm hungry, I have the option to buy from a handful of groceries and cook for myself, buy from fast food, buy from a non-franchise ethnic family run restaurant, or buy from a higher end sit down restaurant. The prices and varieties are all super competitive. Contrast this to if I want to play poker. I have the option to produce my own home game or go to a casino. The prices and variety are not competitive at all. The reason why the poker industry sucks compared to the food industry is because of laws and regulations that millions of people do not agree with, yet there is pretty much nothing reasonable we can do about it since doing so is way too high an opportunity cost for all of us except a handful of people who get greater opportunity cost by not doing something drastic like leaving the country.
  49. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Sure you can. We could vote to have our country's name changed to Pancakes, and to sell Alaska back to Russia if we wanted. We could vote to get rid of government entirerly, and could vote to make Tuesday Ice Cream Day. It's unlikely any of these would succeed, buy that doesn't mean we can't change our nation.
    Ok this has the potential to get very silly and pedantic, so I'll nip that in the bud now and concede that yes, America could change to Pancakes and as such I'm wrong about that point. That doesn't mean that government and nation are the same entity, or that they should be treated as such. Nation is a constant. Nation is land and people. Government is a representative of the people that is dispensable.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #50
    !Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Location
    Under a bridge
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    If you want to argue that the state has a critical role to play in our lives, fine, just don't call it a social contract.

    Voluntarily is a crucial part of the definition of contract, and babies being born in a state have no ability consent to the contract that will rule their lives.
    I was thinking more in terms of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

    "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. "

    Either way the more
    interesting question, to me, is given the structure of the world and/or the country you so happen to reside in, what course of action will yield the greatest benefit for yourself.

    I occasionally find discussion such as this
    interesting but it seems a lot of the time previous philosophers (locke, Hugo, Kant) have done a more rigorous job of analyze the under pinnings of the argument at hand.

    From skimming this thread and others like it a lot of this ends up devolving to semantics. It sure is fun, but i'm not sure if it's anything more than that. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, I like good ole mental masterbation as much as the next guy.
  51. #51
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I don't think its excessively semantic to invoke the definition of contract to dispel the notion of a social contract. Particularly when the social contract definition you posted dispels itself. There is no consent, tacit or otherwise. It's not just a misnomer, it's a misconception.
    Last edited by Renton; 08-05-2015 at 12:04 AM.
  52. #52
    A lot has happened since the 17th Century and early 18th
  53. #53
    "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. "
    I haven't consented explicitly, and if they wish to consider my agreement to be implied, let me explicitly revoke that consent right fucking now.

    I do not consent to a "social contract" with the government, or any other agency.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #54
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,876
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I haven't consented explicitly, and if they wish to consider my agreement to be implied, let me explicitly revoke that consent right fucking now.

    I do not consent to a "social contract" with the government, or any other agency.
    Make sure you post that to your Facebook wall to make it notarized.


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  55. #55
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    This is the open question in the thread:
    What do you propose solves the problem of children?

    To clarify:
    People make laws for their society. The people like the laws, or at least like the compromise that the law embodies.
    Then they have children. The children had no say in the laws, but they are under the care of their parents, who like the laws. So all is OK so far. Eventually, the children grow up and find themselves in the society of laws they didn't choose.
    There is an element of injustice in this predicament.

    So now what?

    What system or mechanism do you propose which is more just?

    ***
    @OngBonga: OMG, staaaahp!

    You receive benefits from the state by filling out forms and you have the gall to say that you do not (even tacitly) approve of the state?
    They're not making you do public service or serve in the military or forcing you to do anything. You lie to them that you are actively trying to improve yourself and that's enough for them to keep sending you money. The most likely scenario is that they know it's statistically a given that you're lying to them and they pay you anyway.

    ...and
    ... and you said

    ... you said you opted out

    ...of the social contract

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
  56. #56
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Once you agree that the Government owns the land, I'm not sure how this conversation doesnt just stop. Surely, the libertarians arent arguing for the destruction of property rights.

    Say I owned every single car in the entire world. You wouldnt say that it was unfair that this was the case, nor would you ever argue that I willingly relinquish my property in the name of fairness. Change that to a necessity. I own all the water in the world. You would never argue that I should be forced to give it out for free. Supply and demand and free markets and what not. (Its a monopoly, fine, myself and lets say Toby Kieth own all the water in the world, and we're competing. Same issue, you wouldnt argue we should give it out for free). You also wouldnt argue that the water companies needed to provide you with transportation to get to it; regardless of how burdensome ti may be for you to get to the water.

    So why does this change with land? All the land is split up between 195 competing countries. Each of those countries has a distinct set of laws; some have so many laws you would need multiple libraries to fit them all; some have so few it could fit on a single page. The fact is, the land isnt yours. I dont personally like that; but of course I dont. Im a have not, and want what the have has. It is natural for me to want to increase my own self worth, and hearing that I dont own land and probably never could. But its economically fair.

    Now lets talk more about the cost of moving. When I was a kid, I got a job. I elected to pay 0% in taxes, and then when I filed my tax return, surprise, I owed nothing. So children, who are arguably the least capable of the tacit agreement, clearly have the option to save money and prepare to move elsewhere. This assumes you have no money though, or started at a low paying job. If you somehow made more than that, and did have to pay taxes, then moving isnt really a financial burden to you, is it. By choosing to stay anyway, you've agreed to pay your taxes. Yes, moving sucks, you lose friends, family, the place you grew up, but those are just benefits to staying in one place and detriments to moving. Dont force your own drama onto others in this way, someone else could easily value these things minimally, and move to a place with laws more in line with what they agree with. Hell, didnt a few people on this forum do just this when the online poker shitstorm happened? They made an economic choice. They had the freedom to make that choice.

    The children issue brought up by MMM is another huge point. Even in libertopia, there would be restrictions on how children can live. But there wouldnt be a contract signing ceremony of voluntariness every time a mother brutally restricted their freedom to keep them from becoming street pizza.
  57. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Once you agree that the Government owns the land, I'm not sure how this conversation doesnt just stop. Surely, the libertarians arent arguing for the destruction of property rights.
    We argue for the creation of individual property rights. If you're looking for a "gotcha", yes, libertarians like me argue for the destruction of state property rights. There's no contradiction here because we believe property should only be owned by people, and the state is definitively not owned by people. The state is an institution that allows some people to participate. Very different things.

    Say I owned every single car in the entire world. You wouldnt say that it was unfair that this was the case, nor would you ever argue that I willingly relinquish my property in the name of fairness. Change that to a necessity. I own all the water in the world. You would never argue that I should be forced to give it out for free. Supply and demand and free markets and what not. (Its a monopoly, fine, myself and lets say Toby Kieth own all the water in the world, and we're competing. Same issue, you wouldnt argue we should give it out for free). You also wouldnt argue that the water companies needed to provide you with transportation to get to it; regardless of how burdensome ti may be for you to get to the water.
    Actually I would argue for what you say I wouldn't in those situations. A monopoly on water is a disaster. Where the analogy breaks down, however, is that it's fantasy to think it's even possible for somebody without a violence and law monopoly to own all the water. Even then, he would technically own it all but wouldn't control it all. Markets work because resources distribute themselves in a decentralized fashion. Monopolies in markets are a fiction.

    Now lets talk more about the cost of moving. When I was a kid, I got a job. I elected to pay 0% in taxes, and then when I filed my tax return, surprise, I owed nothing. So children, who are arguably the least capable of the tacit agreement, clearly have the option to save money and prepare to move elsewhere. This assumes you have no money though, or started at a low paying job. If you somehow made more than that, and did have to pay taxes, then moving isnt really a financial burden to you, is it. By choosing to stay anyway, you've agreed to pay your taxes. Yes, moving sucks, you lose friends, family, the place you grew up, but those are just benefits to staying in one place and detriments to moving. Dont force your own drama onto others in this way, someone else could easily value these things minimally, and move to a place with laws more in line with what they agree with. Hell, didnt a few people on this forum do just this when the online poker shitstorm happened? They made an economic choice. They had the freedom to make that choice.
    I addressed this in my previous post. The amount of change this creates is marginal because the costs to make change are too high. The people from this forum who moved to Asia for poker are an example of why this system is so bad, not why it's a reasonable method for change. The vast majority of people who want change did not move because the costs were enormous. Only those whose opportunity costs of not moving were so high were the ones who moved. The irony is that the current system favors the most well off while further suppressing the least well off, something pro-statists say the state is meant to avoid.

    If you wanted to design a system that unreasonably thwarts change, you would make one like what we have. I'm arguing for a system that doesn't do this. It's as simple as arithmetic. How many burgers would people buy if the minimum price was $30? Very few. How many would people buy if the minimum was $0.25? Tons. Law is the same. The amount of people who moved to Thailand for poker is super low because the costs are super high, but if the law was competitive like all of our other thriving industries are competitive, probably hundreds of thousands of poker enthusiasts would have changed companies (poker wouldn't have been outlawed by any big companies in the first place, but that's a different discussion). When a freedom has prohibitive costs, it's not a freedom. When a luxury has low costs, it is a freedom.

    The children issue brought up by MMM is another huge point. Even in libertopia, there would be restrictions on how children can live. But there wouldnt be a contract signing ceremony of voluntariness every time a mother brutally restricted their freedom to keep them from becoming street pizza.
    It seems you think I think the dichotomy is either law or chaos. If this caricature was how markets work, nobody but the delusional would support them.

    We choose our food with our dollars. It is far from chaos. It works immensely better than the legal system works, which we don't choose with our dollars. Why not choose law with our dollars instead and experience an amazing legal system too?
  58. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    There is an element of injustice in this predicament.

    So now what?

    What system or mechanism do you propose which is more just?
    Whichever one has the lowest costs for choice.

    @OngBonga: OMG, staaaahp!

    You receive benefits from the state by filling out forms and you have the gall to say that you do not (even tacitly) approve of the state?
    They're not making you do public service or serve in the military or forcing you to do anything. You lie to them that you are actively trying to improve yourself and that's enough for them to keep sending you money. The most likely scenario is that they know it's statistically a given that you're lying to them and they pay you anyway.

    ...and
    ... and you said

    ... you said you opted out

    ...of the social contract

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
    FWIW he would likely choose to opt out if it meant the government opted out of his life.

    I can't think of any other instances where we use the same kind of wacky logic that we use to defend the mythical social contract.
  59. #59
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is the open question in the thread:
    What do you propose solves the problem of children?

    To clarify:
    People make laws for their society. The people like the laws, or at least like the compromise that the law embodies.
    Then they have children. The children had no say in the laws, but they are under the care of their parents, who like the laws. So all is OK so far. Eventually, the children grow up and find themselves in the society of laws they didn't choose.
    There is an element of injustice in this predicament.

    So now what?

    What system or mechanism do you propose which is more just?
    Anarchy is the most just system, in terms of that that would have the least amount of force, theft, etc. An honest argument for government's role in our lives should recognize that some amount of coercion is necessary, only as much as to maximize the health of a society based on whatever metrics for societal health are important to you. Those metrics could be median wealth, median life expectancy, individual liberty, etc. That's the social "contract." The only point I've been trying to make is that it cannot be voluntary.

    If we're talking about pragmatically making improvements to the American system to make it more just, then that just involves basic libertarian principles. Minimize taxes. Allow failing businesses to fail. Don't regulate aspects of business or every day life except as a last resort to tackle the worst problems. De-centralize power. Empower the state and local governments. If there is a diverse array of government flavors all over the U.S., then the concept of social contract isn't (as much of) a lie anymore. If someone wants to live in a Jacque Fresco arcology with extremely limited freedom but every basic need addressed, then they can catch a train to San Francisco. If someone wants to live in a place with the most limited government footprint, they can go to Auburn, AL.

    Autonomous city-state-like entities would be much more capable of addressing the vast array of preferences in a large society. Votes would actually matter. I think there's a strong argument that the Euro governments are much more functional than the U.S. simply because they are smaller and more homogeneous. Federal governments just aren't a great idea in countries with the size and diversity of the U.S. or India.
    Last edited by Renton; 08-05-2015 at 05:53 PM.
  60. #60
    my speculation is that in a law market, there would be less legal text (but not by a lot), far less lawbreaking, and more legal experts.

    could be wrong about the first and last, but defo believe the middle would be true.
  61. #61
    Monsieur Gorilla might like this, the math-backed logic for why each company in a duopoly has more incentive to create more abundance than otherwise.



    Cool to note that this assumes no new entrant competitors, which is a bad assumption to make with regards to the real world since there are kinda always new entrants.
  62. #62
    !Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Location
    Under a bridge
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    If we're talking about pragmatically making improvements to the American system to make it more just, then that just involves basic libertarian principles. Minimize taxes. Allow failing businesses to fail. Don't regulate aspects of business or every day life except as a last resort to tackle the worst problems. De-centralize power. Empower the state and local governments. If there is a diverse array of government flavors all over the U.S., then the concept of social contract isn't (as much of) a lie anymore. If someone wants to live in a Jacque Fresco arcology with extremely limited freedom but every basic need addressed, then they can catch a train to San Francisco. If someone wants to live in a place with the most limited government footprint, they can go to Auburn, AL.
    sounds awesome.
  63. #63
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    On the original topic, I just want to point out that there is no consent with coercion. Without consent, the taking of taxes is theft. That's all there is to it.
  64. #64
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Choosing to stay where the taxes are (when you are not coerced to stay) is to consent to being taxed.
  65. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    (when you are not coerced to stay)
    I've never been much of a fan of the use of "coerce" in this topic because it allows people to say things like you just said and not be technically wrong.

    You may not be forced to live where you do, but you do not have much of any better options since every place you could go has the same institutions.

    When the government owns all the important roads, it is not contextually reasonable to say that you are not being forced to drive on their roads. The irony of this whole debate is that people with opposing arguments use this exact logic to say why the market is bad (because they fear private entities would own the important roads then use economic power to oppress). But that view is not theoretically or factually sound. I'm left scratching my head. If people think letting people choose things is bad because it could create some monopolies, how does that mean the answer is to create the biggest baddest most powerful monopoly in order to keep those other mythical ones away?
  66. #66
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    So Spoony's right, and I'm not wrong, so here we are.

    The same thing is going on everywhere, so your choice is moot? I admit some there's truth to that.

    However, until you can answer what is the alternative with more than, "Whichever one has the lowest costs for choice." Then we're really no step closer to anything than the notion that your opening statement presumes coercion.
  67. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So Spoony's right, and I'm not wrong, so here we are.

    The same thing is going on everywhere, so your choice is moot? I admit some there's truth to that.

    However, until you can answer what is the alternative with more than, "Whichever one has the lowest costs for choice." Then we're really no step closer to anything than the notion that your opening statement presumes coercion.
    I gave an answer to far greater depth than that when you first asked.

    The answer is markets. We treat the vast majority of things we care about like they're markets. It's only with a handful of things that we don't, and it's not a coincidence that those things work quite a bit worse than everything else.

    Markets are what turned food from scarce to abundant. They're how food became so varied and delicious and distributed to the ends of the earth. Markets can do the same for any other necessities like security, shelter, education, and employment. We've already run the experiments. It's now just about embracing the results.
  68. #68
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Aren't the markets in this case the various world governments?
  69. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Aren't the markets in this case the various world governments?
    There are some tiny elements of markets in competition between world governments, but it's so small it's hardly even a thing. Pretty much the only type of migration we get for the purposes of different governments is by a small number of the extreme poor and an even smaller number of the extreme wealthy. A good >99% of people do not participate in choosing one government over another. If we compare this to how many people choose between competing producers of other things, like food or transportation, the ratio is reversed. The market loses its definition if it's so non-competitive as governments are.
  70. #70
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    People choosing to not participate is still a choice they are not forced to make. It is their own decision.
  71. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    People choosing to not participate is still a choice they are not forced to make. It is their own decision.
    The lack of participation does not come from people deciding to not choose to participate. The problem would exist in food if the food system was set up the same way as law is. If food worked the same way as law and the costs to getting more food or a different variety were so extreme that only the most poor or the most wealthy have the incentive to do so, would you say "people are choosing to not participate in food selection"? I don't think you would.

    Let's say it's really hot out and I want to buy an AC unit. Let's say the closest place that sells an AC unit is 1000 miles away and the unit costs 40 grand. Clearly, I am not going to buy an AC unit. Is it then reasonable to look at my situation and say "he had reasonable choice and chose to not participate"? Contrast this to if there were tons of AC units sold at several locations near me and they go for just a few hundred dollars. Now it is reasonable for me to buy one. Now I actually have a choice to make.

    It can be said that people technically can choose just about anything. Contextually and realistically, that's not true.
  72. #72
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The lack of participation does not come from people deciding to not choose to participate.
    Unless they are being coerced, or under duress, etc. Then the choice is theirs. The pros and cons of that choice are theirs to evaluate.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The problem would exist in food if the food system was set up the same way as law is.
    The food system is set up that way, though. There are many foods available world-wide which are not available within thousands of miles of me. It is my choice to not care about those options. It's not like Sri Lanka is oppressing me by not offering deep fried scorpion from a street cart in St Louis.
    (I don't know what they eat in Sri Lanka.)

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If food worked the same way as law and the costs to getting more food or a different variety were so extreme that only the most poor or the most wealthy have the incentive to do so, would you say "people are choosing to not participate in food selection"?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't think you would.
    I'd be surprised if you could accurately guess my opinion on any of the topics you discuss. I guard my ignorant opinions as much as possible. I ask questions to elucidate your points so I can at least understand your point of view while I consider the strengths and weaknesses of my own.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Let's say it's really hot out and I want to buy an AC unit. Let's say the closest place that sells an AC unit is 1000 miles away and the unit costs 40 grand. Clearly, I am not going to buy an AC unit.
    This is not clear to me, but OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Is it then reasonable to look at my situation and say "he had reasonable choice and chose to not participate"?
    Isn't it? This is your market at work, right? The supply and demand are such that you would prefer not to pay the cost associated with that product.

    Are you saying it's unfair (in an eggregious ethical way) that not all products are sold near you or within your price range?

    Isn't the seller just as free to locate himself thousands of miles from you and set his price as he sees fit?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Contrast this to if there were tons of AC units sold at several locations near me and they go for just a few hundred dollars. Now it is reasonable for me to buy one. Now I actually have a choice to make.
    It's just the same choice with different pros and cons, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It can be said that people technically can choose just about anything. Contextually and realistically, that's not true.
    I'm not convinced that people aren't opting to avoid making choices, which is their right, and a choice in itself.
  73. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Unless they are being coerced, or under duress, etc. Then the choice is theirs. The pros and cons of that choice are theirs to evaluate.
    When the option is an unreasonable choice, there is no option in the first place.

    The food system is set up that way, though. There are many foods available world-wide which are not available within thousands of miles of me. It is my choice to not care about those options. It's not like Sri Lanka is oppressing me by not offering deep fried scorpion from a street cart in St Louis.
    Freedom to choose is not freedom to choose all/any. The vast majority of foods desired are available to you, brought by a lack of government intervention and an engagement of markets. The vast majority of desired laws are not.

    Yes.
    Doesn't your argument suggest that no matter the facts on the ground, no matter the prohibitive costs, people are omnipotent. The AC unit example is relevant.

    I'd be surprised if you could accurately guess my opinion on any of the topics you discuss. I guard my ignorant opinions as much as possible. I ask questions to elucidate your points so I can at least understand your point of view while I consider the strengths and weaknesses of my own.
    That's the best way to do it. I've enjoyed how many question marks you use.

    This is not clear to me, but OK.
    In what way?

    Isn't it? This is your market at work, right? The supply and demand are such that you would prefer not to pay the cost associated with that product.
    Yes that is one aspect of the market at work, but it takes more than just isolated benefit-cost analyses to have a robust market.

    Are you saying it's unfair (in an eggregious ethical way) that not all products are sold near you or within your price range?
    Nope. I'm not worried about fairness. Life isn't fair. The universe isn't fair. Nothing is fair except what we say is fair, and that's just subjective. I'm more interested in how things work, which I know you are too.

    Isn't the seller just as free to locate himself thousands of miles from you and set his price as he sees fit?
    Yep. As he should be. But that doesn't change the fact that if a choice is cost prohibitive, it's not reasonable to say it's a choice in the first place. Oftentimes, analogies should be extreme so that the point made is more obvious than otherwise, so I'll use North Korea. North Koreans are "free" to leave. They are "free" to make the choice. But they really aren't free because the likelihood of getting caught is extremely high and the punishment is ungodly. Does it strike you as wrong to say that the freedom North Koreans have is philosophically the same as the freedom you and I have to purchase food?

    It's just the same choice with different pros and cons, isn't it?
    But that's exactly it, it's NOT the same choice. This is why I'm so intrigued by economics and its insightful principles. The state of being of something itself informs what that thing is. At least semantically this isn't unlike quantum physics. Resources are limited. This means everything has a cost and a benefit, which means that the benefit-cost analysis is dependent on context. If you're taking care of your family on a limited budget and you would have to trade necessary food or clothes for an AC unit, the costs of the AC unit are too high and you don't really have much choice since, well, your children would starve. But if you have enough resources (or the AC unit is cheap enough), you no longer have to trade food and clothing for a pleasant temperature.

    I'm not convinced that people aren't opting to avoid making choices, which is their right, and a choice in itself.
    This is still benefit-cost. Every decision that could possibly be made is informed by surrounding factors. I choose to not even think about starving people because the costs are too high compared to the benefit. But if they were my neighbors, then the benefits to help them would far outweigh the costs.

    Governments rely heavily on increasing the costs of reform so much that not enough people have much incentive to engage reform.
  74. #74
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Choosing to stay where the taxes are (when you are not coerced to stay) is to consent to being taxed.
    This is untrue. Coercion is not subject to leaving the situation by definition.
  75. #75
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I don't see the difference in the choice vis a vis the metaphor of the AC units.

    Whether the cost is prohibitive is based on each individual's current wealth and goals. Perhaps some business acumen is involved, too. If they can turn the 40k investment into a 100k profit, then the price of 40k is a steal, and they'd be willing to travel much farther to obtain it.

    I don't think we need metaphors to discuss the topic.

    ***
    The burgeoning of food production and availability worldwide is almost exclusively due to the invention of the combine harvester (as I understand it). Whatever markets have done to get combine harvester technology available worldwide is where the praise should fall in the food metaphor.

    Note that combine harvesters run in excess of $250,000 (a low-ball estimate on a used combine) and are not necessarily sold within 1,000 miles of everyone who could use one.

    ***
    When I said "fairness," my use of parenthesis to indicate egregious ethical wrongdoing was important.
    I guess I meant justice and not fairness. Does that change your answer?

    I don't know how you can say anything is an "undue" burden without bringing at least one of { fairness, ethics, justice } into it.

    ***
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    Does it strike you as wrong to say that the freedom North Koreans have is philosophically the same as the freedom you and I have to purchase food?
    No. I see active coercion in N. Korea. I see the "threat of duress" on a grand scale.
    People are not free to make a choice if making the choice creates immediate peril for themselves or their family.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    Governments rely heavily on increasing the costs of reform so much that not enough people have much incentive to engage reform
    This statement is too open to carry weight. Not all governments fall under this banner (I'm not even convinced it's prevalent in American governance).

    I encourage you to attend your local city council meeting. At the very least, write a letter (using paper) to your local representative. I can almost promise you that they will respond to you in person. Those people represent their constituents and when they receive one letter, they give it the weight of many voices. They assume that you represent a strong viewpoint of multiple constituents. I think you'd be surprised at how much change you can affect if you become actively involved.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •