Only in libertarian fantasies. In reality anarchy is "the strongest survive." If you can kill your neighbor to make another dollar - you do it. Throughout history that has happened uncountable times. Once that happens often enough, reality starts to take hold and people think "you know, we should band together to prevent people from killing each other for a dollar." And they start to do so. They form associations, and those associations have leaders. Thus politicians are born. And they collect money from everyone to enact their policies, and thus taxes are born. And as soon as taxes are born, there are people who think "I won't pay any taxes; everyone else will and I will just benefit from being associated with them." And thus mandatory taxes are born, to prevent freeloaders.
I would rather be forced to pay money for roads, schools, healthcare and supersoilders that protect me from sand n****rs, then be forced to work picking cotton 60 hours a week, paid nothing, living on land and off food that is provided at the masters convenience and whip for any failing or sign of disobedience... so no I don't think taxation is like slavery, heck if taxation is slavery than being required to do or provide anything is a form of slavery.
Fair enough, but that's not what you said. Let's review: See the difference? The more apt analogy would be "Being born in the geographical location that is Michigan adn saying "I'm American" is the same as being born in the geographical location that is Saudi Arabia and saying "I'm a Saudi!" Your overarching point that these distinctions are fictional is still wrong, but at least your analogy would be correct. I would disagree with that. While not everyone's interpretation of what it means to be American (or Muslim) is correct, it doesn't mean they don't have a well-defined perspective. How bigoted of you to juxtapose a "USA" chant with a chant of "Allahu Akbar." Clearly the implication is that, by association with the former, the USA chant is menacing and mindless. But again, they're not superstitious. They are very real concepts. Again, this isn't apples-to-apples. The concept of taxing people for being Christian is not at all the same as taxing people for being a citizen. Taxation in the US applies to everyone, and you're not going to be burdened more because of your faith or your race or your gender. Also, putting "America" in quotation marks doesn't mean it's not a real thing. It is. You live there. That straw man was never the rationale given for income taxes. The reason it was adopted was one of necessity; to raise funds for things like war and roads and other things we all need or want, the government needed to increase income. Income tax served that purpose. Straw man. We're not paying for the right to work, we're paying to fund the things we all need and use. If you disagree, vote for a candidate that shares your philosophy. If there is no such candidate, run for office yourself. See, that's the beauty of this apparently-imaginary place you live in: You have those rights. I'm pretty sure you don't know what "superstition" means. Yes, I know, because the only way anyone could disagree with you is if they were blind sheep just braying along to the way they were raised, right? Well, there is an alternative: the way things are, at least in principle, are the way they should be. Actually, the belief that thinking for oneself can only result in dissent is a very popular trope amongst the unthinking masses. I actually agree with income tax. I believe, philosophically, that we should all pay our fair share. That obviously doesn't mean I agree with every tax, or even the percentages, but in principle, I agree with the concept. I think I already have. Now why don't you tell me why they shouldnt'.
Again, it was a misrepresentation of my position, and against site rules. You used my words and replaced key words to make it sound as if I was supporting slavery. Whether in quotes or not, you were intentionally misrepresenting me. And now you're insulting me by calling me "thick," so I'll be reporting this post as well. Two more insults, and now you can't even stand your ground and support the things you claimed in your previous post. I do count myself lucky. Things aren't perfect, but unlike you so-called Libertarians (you aren't even that), I don't pretend that there's some kind of utopia possible. My belief is pragmatic, yours is religious. By all means, rage-quit now that your points have been soundly defeated.
You're not using the word anarchy correctly. What you're describing is NOT anarchy but something else. You say all throughout history the strong have survived. OK, this I agree. And for most human history we did so by cooperation. Only recently did we start forming groups and killing each other. Maybe 10,000 years ago. But even that isn't my point. Anarchy is free FROM rulers not free of rules. Let me repeat that last bit - NOT free of rules. For most of your life you've lived it anarchically. Even now, when you agree to have dinner or a coffee with a friend - THAT IS anarchy. You live most of your life through Anarchy. The only time you come in contact with government is every now and again - and probably it's not at all pleasant. Either waiting in line to pay for a licence (rent seeking on the government's part) or maybe a traffic violation. Other than that, your life is pretty much lived within the rules and you rarely if ever seek court justice. Imagine that, here you've been living a perfectly prosperous peaceful anarchic life and didn't even know it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Most people use the word Anarchy to refer to MadMax gangland warfare - no, that if you recall, was a gang, or as we like to call them today: The Government. Funny how a lifetime of Government Education and people walk away thinking what is Anarchy is Government and what is Government is Anarchy.
When you have a boss at work telling you want to do and not do, that not anarchy is it? When your partner tells you what s/he wants out of this marriage and you comply, that not anarchy is it? When your parents tell you want to do and rise you was that anarchy? Who makes the rules? We need someone or something to make rules for us to follow to live what you call anarchy, how do we do that without putting someone or something in the position of rule maker, aka ruler? My idea of achieving your ideal of anarchy is to have strong AI decide all the rules for us, and control an automaton labor force that does all work for us while we sit back and do what ever we want like royalty, but sadly technology is a long LONG way from making that possible.
Dear Leo, There are two other distinctions. 1. Taxpayers get public benefits for the tax they are forced to pay, and slaves dont. 2. Taxpayers get to vote for the tax collectors, and slaves dont. If taxation is stealing, then so is benefiting from public services and the military defence of the realm without paying for it.
Anarchy is, by definition, the absence of government and law. You can postulate a form of government (or a self governing society) and call it the Anarchy State or whatever. But you'd have to make it clear that you are talking about something other than the definition of the word. So your argument is that we did not have violence before we had civilization? Since every other primate out there has developed aggression as a means of survival, that would be very difficult to argue. Correct! That's because most people are brought up (you'd probably use the word "indoctrinated") with the idea that we live in a lawful society, so that you cannot see a woman you like, hit her over the head and have sex with her. Instead you chat with her, buy her dinner etc because we have decided, as a society, that that is an acceptable way of doing things. We codify that behavior (or more accurately codify the extremes of unacceptable behavior) into laws. Yep. And the reason you can live like that is that someone else, who you pay via your taxes, is preventing someone else from taking what you own. I've only been mugged once - and that was by someone who wanted what I had. You may not be able to imagine people like that exist, but they do. Fortunately in our society people don't get away with that very often, because we have a system of law. Yep. And imagine - you think laws have nothing to do with that.
Interest, in this context, is a rent for money. It is not the price of money. Interest is not the price for money any more than an apartment or home rental is not a mortgage payment. I suggest instead of making up your own definitions you visit the dictionary more often. You think it takes gall to point out a fact, to mention that China has pegged the value of the Renminbi to the value of the dollar? I only mentioned China as an exception to the "freely traded" commentary, noting that all currencies are fiat currencies and almost all are freely traded every market day across the globe. You are the one casting around labels and attempting to diverty the conversation to avoid facts you find unpleasant and are inconsistent with your world view and political ideology. And the unpleasant fact, a fact that has been pointed out to you many times by many people, is that despite your repeated denials, currencies are traded freely each and every market day on foreign exchange markets domestically and across the globe. No this is you making stuff up again Michael. No one is complaining about China producing IPhones - nice attempt at diversion. The issue at hand is the errors in fact and reason you previously posted. The facts are that the post-Keynesian period has been more stable with virtually no depressions and much more moderate periods of inflation, as has been proven to you many times before. And you are advocating going back to the monetary and fiscal policies that were characterized by frequent periods of severe inflation and depressions. No matter how hard you try to avoid recognizing fact, those facts are not going away.
Saddam was king, he ran his country. It consisted of a bunch of oil. He only needed to sell the oil and he needed no taxpayer support. So suppose you have a country that is oil rich. And that is all it is good for. Suppose you sold small plots of land and everyone had a little bit. How would you go about that? Or you could just declare oil a nationally owned resource. You could have the people operate a government run oil operation, use the profits to run hospitals transportation and such. That would leave most people in service jobs. In any case, taxation would have created democracy. You own the government. Not Saddam. Saddam needed no taxpayers.
Immanuel Kant on anarchy The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated "Anarchy" in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic. As summary Kant named these four kinds of government: A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy) B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism) C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism) D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic) Here are the classical definitions, why on earth would anyone WANT as the GOAL to live with Violence? That makes no sense. Sure, you may say: I just can't see how we're going to live in a society without violence. Good, you can't see it - THAT is NOT a valid argument. It's like saying I just can't see how we're going to get the crops picked without Slaves to do the picking. Or, you may say: Well, you're so smart, describe exactly what this Anarchy will look like and if you can't describe to me exactly what it's going to look like, then it isn't going to ever exist. This is ALSO NOT a valid argument. An abolitionist would never have guessed satellites would orbit the earth and run machinery to pick the crops that ran off saurian juice so that one man could do the work of tens of thousands. But, THAT IS what has happened. Even appealing to Kant isn't an argument. From my POV this day 12/11/12 I think the only true answer is to raise children peacefully and that way in 5 generations we might just have Anarchy. I'm fairly certain people are beginning to see through the facade that is our so-called Republic and what they see they don't like. The problem is, our intellectual tools, AKA our language, has been co-opted so as to make it difficult to question the State. Thus, people often confuse Anarchy WITH Government. Hence this notion of Mad-Max (which actually if you re-call the movie was an example of Government!). The first step is to begin to shrink the cancer - let's go for less than 5% GDP as a goal.
I think it's worth starting a thread on what interest is and is not. I noticed you qualified your statement with a sneaky 'in this context' but didn't really explain what you meant by that. Bankers TRY to make it SEEM like the entire banking system is 'oh so complicated' and you little peons should leave it to your betters to handle all things monetary. Which is why they LOVE to make up child-like termenology like Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations. Seriously, that sounds like something a 8 year old would make up as they try to pass off a lie as the truth or in some elaborate story they're concocting. But don't worry Joe, this little game of fraud will end. It might take another 15-20 years, but I doubt it'll make it past 2030. Either that of the Union itself will break. A store has little blueberries, thus, the price of blueberries goes up (supply is low) A store has lots of blueberries, thus, the price of blueberries goes down (supply is high) Anyone can see this for themselves as blueberries go into and out of season. A bank has little money, thus, the price of money goes up (supply is low): The bank offers a higher rate of interest to attract savings. A bank has lots of money, thus, the price of money goes down (supply is high): The bank offers a lower rate of interest. This is NOT what happens when the Federal Reserve slashes interest rates to meet some political mandate and so that politicians can buy voters and feather their nests (now a negative rate of interest when inflation is taken into a account). Soon the Federal Reserve will outright make savers PAY to put their money into a bank! THAT just would never happen in a free-market. These sociopathic Keynesians and psychopathic Politicians are destroying the very Capital that is the bases of our Civilization. AND it's not even the first time. They do this over and over, time and time again. Anyone here who thinks the Politicians in Washington are going to cut Warfare before cutting Welfare is in for a rude awakening. Let's see.... um, we could cut the Fascist Production model holding up the entire economy ... AND spend more money on the non-productive class. OR cut welfare and leave the poor destitute. I can tell you right now, through inflation and in some cases out-right default, Welfare will be cut and the poor will be sent to the slaughterhouse one way or the other. You can thank the Government for that. Don't blame Apple Inc. Don't blame some Chinese working their asses off making you a cheap iPhone. Take a really good look in the mirror. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the World. Don't think these sociopaths would lose a wink of sleep sending you and your kids off to die for the State. They'd like nothing better.
Go ahead. And you know what? I really don't care. All you've succeeded in doing is bullying me enough such that I don't want to respond to you. I knew when you attempted to paint me as a kid who didn't like to share (aka: greedy, like some little greedy rich kid) you were more than likely going to act dubious. AND you didn't disappoint. I grew up on $40 a week in a trailer and had very very few toys. Those I did have I loved to share - as this is pretty natural for kids who grow up in trailer parks. You'll find poor, very poor, aren't really concerned about money as they just don't have much of it. Footballs and the such are really only fun WITH other kids. But, you're right in that I didn't share, as I usually couldn't afford the toy. They shared with me. I usually just talked a lot and did lots of walking in the woods and thinking. I recall finally getting my first bike. Sadly, the only one we could afford was an old used girls bike. Which, I painted black and road around with kids that had much nicer bikes than mine. Better than nothing. So, do whatever is that makes you happy.
These are only Kant's definitions...only Aristotle can claim 'classical' definitions, which are different than Kant. Ideally, we should not want to live with violence, but rather with the THREAT of violence. Without it, there could be no law and thus no order.
You know, I thought this very same thing. But, I've since come to the conclusion that the free-market would work better. It's just we've never really lived in a free-market. I mean, if this AI is being fair, isn't it just going to ensure the Law is upheld, property rights are enforced and those that are productive are rewarded? Also, how can an AI know what is a good way to go about living life? Suppose I have an idea for a new way to learn Japanese.... how is the AI going to know to give me access to resources and access to societies capital? Where's the AI's risk? How is it rewarded? I mean, as it is I'd have to make the case to people who do have capital and through agreement we'd all be rewarded according to each of our risks. If the AI is the thing relegating capital, then it must own all Capital. Thus, why do 'I' want to do anything anyway? I just means my capital, once produced, is taken by the AI. I guess I don't see how the AI can justly weigh risk and reward to allocate capital. And, I'm presuming this AI has actually accumulated Capital along the way (it must have out competed all the other AIs and humans and now owns all of it [note: this AI is conscious as well - what's to say It doesn't use Its' capital to support other lesser AI's?). And, maybe an AI thinks learning Japanese is of no use (to It). And that a better use of resources would be to build a hydroelectric damn to power back up generators ..... you know, just in case :S Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What if I want to use a different currency based on something "I" consider capital - what's it going to do? Let me? Not let me? I'm guessing it has determined what will and will not be used as currency - If I come up with something new, then I wonder what it's going to do? I'm not saying it wouldn't work, as I said before, me not being able to envision it doesn't mean it can't exist and couldn't solve all these problems. But, I think a free-market would solve them now. Maybe the AI can just arbitrate. Or maybe we can agree to use AI if we want to and if we don't, that's OK too. It just means people who agree to do so, can use an AI to arbitrate legal disputes. And otherwise go about their lives.
Well, to be fair, Slaves did. I mean, THAT actually was one of the arguments for Slavery. They got to ... you know, use the roads. Suppose you are paying for Government School. It costs you $10,000 per year. You pay from property tax. By force. But, you have a child, so, you do get a service. You find out your neighbor is homeschooling. He pays $5000 a year and keeps the other $5000. Because, he says, his child learns everything he needs to learn (AND MORE) with $5000 worth of resources. Are you still happy to pay $10,000 a year AND have a lower service provided? See, I actually think this one is true. And, as people stop using Government Schools and go to mixed schooling, and as they find it's cheaper (but they're still paying $10K) they'll probably start to question why they have to be forced to pay for a service that isn't money for value... Three wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner, isn't exactly the height of equity now is it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sure, the electorate gets to vote to take from their neighbors this magical thing called 'money' and give it to themselves. I find that when this happens, the neighbors suddenly become werry werry interested in politics. Thus, they start paying a lot of money in support of the politicians. THEN, and this is the really interesting thing, THEY start making sure they take what was taken.... and some. Hence, we see 93% of the gains, going to the wealthy top 1%. I personally think, given that the Capital doesn't change (roads, bridges, iPhones, etc...) why not, instead of 'taxing' just use competing currencies? This of course means we need to get rid of income tax. Interestingly, on that Tom Woods lecture I linked, he mentions a Senator who was complaining about taxes being paid using certain notes, as this then gave those notes an advantage over other notes. You see, back in the day and *gasp* even without internet, Americans were able to handle currency competition perfectly well. Most rapid growth period in our history Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Agreed. Public services would of course be privatized. I mean, no one, even now, thinks Citizens should have usage of the mail for 'Free'. As for the military, this is trickier, but doable. As an example, if you do not volunteer to pay a portion to support the military, then you don't get given a card to shop at a privately owned grocery store. Only members get to go to Walmart as an example. You can try and grow your own food - OR you can volunteer to pay something towards the defense. Ever SEE the defensive budget? It's sickening. We could have cured aging with all that money. Instead we destroyed Vietnam, Korea (north), Iraq, etc... etc... etc... not to mention the US military is the largest polluter in the history of humanity.
A free-market rule run by humans will be subject to the faults of humans, in short it will collapse into feudalism or totalitarianism! Only a machine lacking greed and selfishness could make such ideal possible and even that is a gamble (as we have to assume the machine is built that well). Depends on what is programed to used for judging, it will likely do so with fair greatly fidelity and without bias. A machine would hypothetically be more fair and more informed judge then any human operated legal system. Moonspeak?, fuck'em! Everyone is given a stipend by the machine to do with what ever they want, more capital can be gained if others are willing to finance and or pay you for a service you want and can provide. Machines don't care about risk or reward, they merely run program, hypothetically a strong AI would operate the same. A machine does not desire anything other then what we program it to desire. If a machine is programed to follow commands it can't disobey anymore then a car can decide to ignore you pressing on the accelerator. Of course a variety of paradoxes could arise from machines with strict programing, but we will really have to see what can be done once and if the technology becomes available. Really depends on the kind of economic model AI rule is implement with. I assume AI labor being used to provide all basic essentials to humans, basic food, basic shelter, medical care, and maintenance; Humans by their own leisure can choose to do more. Say you like to build decorative hand crafted chairs, the machine only builds plastic utilitarian chairs which a limited number a given out for free to people... people buy your chairs with their stipend and you make more money to do with what ever you want, say buy a sexbot, instead of having to wait in line at the machine's sex bot houses like all the others. Again it depends how we program the thing and how it comes into being. I assume that up to you and other humans.
Start a thread on interest if you like, but it is pretty clear. Interest is a rent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest “Interest is a fee paid by a borrower of assets to the owner as a form of compensation for the use of the assets. It is most commonly the price paid for the use of borrowed money,[1] or money earned by deposited funds.[2]” – Wikipedia “ a charge for borrowed money generally a percentage of the amount borrowed” - Websters That is all nonsense, incoherent paranoid ramblings. You keep confusing things Michael, inventing new meanings for words that are inconsistent with their well-established meanings. Interest is a rental; it is a fee for the use of money; it is not the price of money. Webster’s couldn’t be clearer. You don’t seem to be able to understand the difference between a rental and a purchase. If I want to buy a Euro today it will cost me $1.27. That is the price of money Michael. The interest rate is a fee paid for the use of money. It is not the price of money. You don’t want to admit this because it blows a big hole in your notions about the Federal Reserve. Additionally, the Fed is isolated from the political process by design. They don’t have political mandates. This too has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. The Federal Reserve does not set interest rates for private industry. The Fed can influence interest rates but it doesn’t fix interest rates. The Fed sets the discount rate, the rate it loans money to banks. But it doesn’t fix the rate banks charge their customers. And it certainly doesn’t pay bank depositors, period. There are basically 5 components used by commercially to determine the interest rates they charge to clients: - The risk-free cost of capital (the yield on government debt) - Inflationary expectations - Default Risk - Maturity Risk - Transaction Costs So interest rates are much more complicated than you seem to think and the Fed doesn’t control interest rates for commercial enterprises. The Fed can only influence the risk-free cost of capital and to some degree inflationary expectations with Fed policy. And your commentary about “sociopathic Keynesians” is just nonsensical gibberish. You don’t like the facts, but the facts show the post-Keynesian world to be much more stable and much more prosperous than the pre-Keynesian world. LOL, this is more right wing paranoid fantasy Michael.
@ Michael, You act as if societies without governments have not existed or been tried. The Dark Ages is replete with many populations bowing to the strongest sword. A Society with a republic means that decisions are made based upon majority rule. It cannot get any fairer. A republic also has many faults. Let's pretend the world was going to end if we did not stop using gas within 5 years. A popular leader banning gas may become instantly unpopular and not make another term as leader. The person with the favorable policies will always win despite if it is beneficial long term. The point is that a leader must be very charismatic to convince the populations of any needed changes, otherwise they will just be sent packing. You think the government does not provide Police and housing/welfare? Maybe you just think we would be better off without police? Maybe some would. We would soon see the rise of brutal gangs that protect their own. That would also be a form of government and likely a dictatorship. If you dislike normal society there are plenty of areas where governments are meaningless. Try Serbia, or Libya, or Egypt, even Mexico. This should be retitled "The Sore Losers" thread for those who are upset the best man won the election. I'd almost expect relief from the Sciforums crowd that a Mormon didn't win, and set policies back 50 years. I guess he shouldn't have called half the population moochers (LMFAO). I don't know where you got that definition, but it would be anything but peaceful as long as there remained at least a handful of people. As long as there is a big guy and a little guy there will always be rulers and laws, so Anarchy must include such horrible situations (law of the biggest or biggest gun). @ Michael, Based on your quotes I must assume you are not taking all of your medication. You seem to regard a lack of government/police as a safer environment, so I question the sanity of this thread. It was not merely a "sore loser" thread. I cannot understand your viewpoint, so this will be my last post. Billions have fought and died dreaming of a democracy or a republic instead of the various rules they have been subjected to throughout history. It is a sign of a very advanced society, and is not common. The idea of Slavery in relation to The American Population is again lacking sanity. Many people can live happy productive lives within their system, and if someone chooses to work hard they can rise above others and become rich with servants of their own. Slavery is a harsh word to use. Man up. Suck it up and pay your income taxes. @ Michael, You totally disrespect Republics and Democracy. You lightly toss the word Slavery despite how good Americans now have it. It is my opinion that you are seriously crazy and should seek professional help, I hope you qualify under Obamacare for the help you require.
No such thing? I like the implications of his theory for "illegal immigration". Or is there really any such thing?
