|
On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary?
Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract??
I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic.
Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community.
|
On May 03 2012 05:53 Dekkers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 05:52 JohnMatrix wrote:
Obama had no experience of politics before he got elected. A president is not about the character (look Merkel) but the proposals made... A US President has way way less power than a French one.
And US is a much bigger and difficult country to rule than France.
|
Hollande is a terrible orator...
Weak and undecisive, the allegory of the "gauche bobo".
|
On May 03 2012 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 05:53 Dekkers wrote:On May 03 2012 05:52 JohnMatrix wrote:
Obama had no experience of politics before he got elected. A president is not about the character (look Merkel) but the proposals made... A US President has way way less power than a French one. And US is a much bigger and difficult country to rule than France.
I definitely agree.
Something that annoys the FUCK out of me is that Hollande wants to remove the troops from Afghanistan, but he isn't saying WHY he wants to do it (aside from the obvious "war sucks" argument). What the bloody hell? At least Sarkozy is explaining why he'd have the troops remain rather than just blather something about "get the troops out asap herp derp".
Maybe Hollande will explain himself. Ok now he is and honestly his argument is just that. War sucks. Trollolol, herp derp, fuck da foreign lands, let's just let the USA mop up all alone shall we? We already have a reputation as cowards (unwarranted) and I'm strictly against France not having a presence where work needs to be done. Iraq was retarded, Afghanistan is necessary. I'm against war, I know it's a terrible thing but the work isn't finished.
|
On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:58 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 05:55 Hider wrote:
[quote]
I just described what slave in this context mean. You can change it with any kind of workd.
Lets even say that I as your lord refers to you as "citizens" instead of slaves. Maybe we could even go further and I (as your lord) give you a small wage and allow you to own private property.
When do you become a voluntary "slave"/"citizen"? What are the requirements? No, you did not define the word. You have to define the word before any argument can be made. Your missing the point. Im not asking whether you are a slave or not. Im asking whether you are a voluntary part of this system. The question you could be asking (if you find it nessacary) is how "voluntary" should be defined (because that is what is being discussed as Billtheunderstudy apparently finds that taxes are voluntary as he happily pays his taxes). If you read my post you will see that I never asked whether taxes makes you a slave or not. No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it. Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica.
Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions).
But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?)
So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary?
|
Does Francetv usually post their debates/videos onto youtube once they're finished? I can't acess the stream from the U.S.
|
|
|
On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community.
I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary?
And if they aren't, why not?
|
On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:58 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you did not define the word. You have to define the word before any argument can be made. Your missing the point. Im not asking whether you are a slave or not. Im asking whether you are a voluntary part of this system. The question you could be asking (if you find it nessacary) is how "voluntary" should be defined (because that is what is being discussed as Billtheunderstudy apparently finds that taxes are voluntary as he happily pays his taxes). If you read my post you will see that I never asked whether taxes makes you a slave or not. No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it. Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary?
Ok we got your ultra right wing anarchist argument. See nobody in this debate and basically nobody in this country is an Ayn Rand supporter.
No, taxes are not theft and you are the only one here to consider state as an evil organization conspirating to keep people in slavery.
|
On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:58 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you did not define the word. You have to define the word before any argument can be made. Your missing the point. Im not asking whether you are a slave or not. Im asking whether you are a voluntary part of this system. The question you could be asking (if you find it nessacary) is how "voluntary" should be defined (because that is what is being discussed as Billtheunderstudy apparently finds that taxes are voluntary as he happily pays his taxes). If you read my post you will see that I never asked whether taxes makes you a slave or not. No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it. Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary?
No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes.
|
On May 03 2012 06:41 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community. I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary? And if they aren't, why not?
Look, you miss the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract
That will really help you to understand what the word citizen means and why your analogy is a huge fallacy.
|
But, oh my god, Laurence Ferrari you're are SO beautiful.
Does anyone else agree with me with how beautiful she is? If we disagree politically can we all agree on how hot she is?
|
On May 03 2012 06:45 Incognoto wrote:
But, oh my god, Laurence Ferrari you're are SO beautiful.
Does anyone else agree with me with how beautiful she is? If we disagree politically can we all agree on how hot she is?
She's decent but certainly not very professional. When she told François Hollande "Stop !", it made me laugh out loud :D
|
On May 03 2012 06:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:41 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community. I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary? And if they aren't, why not? Look, you miss the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_ContractThat will really help you to understand what the word citizen means and why your analogy is a huge fallacy.
I am only asking questions. Is it involuntary for the slaves if they can't "exit" their contracts? But if they have the abillity to join another slave lord, then it becomes voluntary?
|
On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Your missing the point. Im not asking whether you are a slave or not. Im asking whether you are a voluntary part of this system.
The question you could be asking (if you find it nessacary) is how "voluntary" should be defined (because that is what is being discussed as Billtheunderstudy apparently finds that taxes are voluntary as he happily pays his taxes).
If you read my post you will see that I never asked whether taxes makes you a slave or not. No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it. Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes.
4) Poverty 5) Imprisonment
Don't forget those options 
|
On May 03 2012 06:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community. I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary? And if they aren't, why not? Look, you miss the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_ContractThat will really help you to understand what the word citizen means and why your analogy is a huge fallacy. I am only asking questions. Is it involuntary for the slaves if they can't "exit" their contracts? But if they have the abillity to join another slave lord, then it becomes voluntary?
You realize that you're still using the word "slave", right?
|
On May 03 2012 06:37 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:53 Dekkers wrote:On May 03 2012 05:52 JohnMatrix wrote:
Obama had no experience of politics before he got elected. A president is not about the character (look Merkel) but the proposals made... A US President has way way less power than a French one. And US is a much bigger and difficult country to rule than France. I definitely agree. Something that annoys the FUCK out of me is that Hollande wants to remove the troops from Afghanistan, but he isn't saying WHY he wants to do it (aside from the obvious "war sucks" argument). What the bloody hell? At least Sarkozy is explaining why he'd have the troops remain rather than just blather something about "get the troops out asap herp derp". Maybe Hollande will explain himself. Ok now he is and honestly his argument is just that. War sucks. Trollolol, herp derp, fuck da foreign lands, let's just let the USA mop up all alone shall we? We already have a reputation as cowards (unwarranted) and I'm strictly against France not having a presence where work needs to be done. Iraq was retarded, Afghanistan is necessary. I'm against war, I know it's a terrible thing but the work isn't finished.
Yeah, war suck, deal with it.
Also there is this thing about not raping other countries from their ressources.
|
On May 03 2012 06:50 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:07 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, you used the word "slave" for a very clear purpose, and that's why I'm asking you to define it.
Regarding the voluntary character of paying taxes, it can be argued that if you don't want to pay taxes you can always move elsewhere, for example to Antarctica. Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world. But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes. 4) Poverty 5) Imprisonment Don't forget those options
They were in the third option. "Accepting taxes" meant accepting to live in a society in which paying taxes is compulsory and not paying them can result in punishments.
|
On May 03 2012 06:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:39 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 05:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:
If its willingly, then its not a tax.
That's such a logical fallacy, I'm speechless. I have to pay my taxes anyway, but I could fight to pay less through my opinions and my vote, and support people who want to lower my taxes. Sorry but the government is, as a citizen, my government. The public school are my schools, the hospitals, my hospitals, the police, my police. The police is there to protect me, the hospital to take care of my health if something goes bad, the schools to educate my children. Sorry to still believe in democracy and that the word Republic (Res-publica) are not empty words. Assume this world. I have 20 slaves. You are one of them. I give all the slaves different "benefits". Those who are really lazy/handicaped by nature/doesn't work alot still gets food everyday and can sleep in a bed. Whether this is justified or not is not my question. But lets assume I actually have an election each year. If 11+ slaves agrees to be released I will release them. However for different reasons the slaves dont wanna be released (again the specific reasons on why they do not wanna be released is not up to to debate). However you want to be released, but through this democratic election you can't. Your slave lord (me) gives you the option to different places, but you will always be a slave (just under another lord). My question is: Is this slavery voluntary? Have you read Rousseau? Ever heard of social contract?? I am not a slave, I am a citizen of a Republic. Seriously. And yes, I can't change everything by myself. That's what it is to be part of a community. I dont think that really answered my question? Im not saying your a slave. Im asking that in the above scenario if the "slaves" (or citizens - whatever you call them), are "slaves" voluntary? And if they aren't, why not? Look, you miss the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_ContractThat will really help you to understand what the word citizen means and why your analogy is a huge fallacy. I am only asking questions. Is it involuntary for the slaves if they can't "exit" their contracts? But if they have the abillity to join another slave lord, then it becomes voluntary?
Suppose you lived in the woods with no civilization or government. Your options are to hunt/gather for food or to starve to death. Since your options are work or death, does that mean you are a slave? And if so, aren't all living beings born into slavery, except for the wealthy?
|
On May 03 2012 06:52 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 06:50 liberal wrote:On May 03 2012 06:41 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:38 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:32 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:21 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:19 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:13 Hider wrote:On May 03 2012 06:12 kwizach wrote:On May 03 2012 06:11 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Yeh the reason I used "slave" is purely for a psychological reason (as most people will be more inclined to answer that it isn't voluntary), and the it would be compltely obivous that taxes aren't voluntary as well as a lot of premises in that world were the same as in the real world.
But if you can look at this from a purely rational perspective, its compltetely irrational if I use "slave" or not. Just look at that scenario I gave you, and answer whether you are a voluntary part of it or not. It's funny, you still have not defined "slave". Why can't you? I already answered. I already told you 100000 tiems, because its pointless. I am not interested in whether you are a slave or not. The term pops up in every single discussion about the state that you participate in. You use it as an argumentative tool. The most elementary necessity for a discussion is to have an agreement on the terms used, otherwise there is no way to understand each other. If you refuse to define slave, please do not use the term ever again in discussions on this site. Yes but we are not discussing the term slave. I think btw you missed my editted post: "Regarding moving away, I actually gave the option of one moving to other "slave lords". But does taxes become voluntary if one has the oppurtunity to move to another place where one isn't going to be taxed, even though there is no thereotical way of living a decent life?" EDIT: I actually never use the word slave lol. I think you must be mistaken me. I distinctively remember you and Wegandi using the term in a discussion in the "Republican nominations" thread. To answer your question - yes. We do not have an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the environment we can live in. Replace for example "taxes" by "getting looked at by other people". Imagine I want to live in a society where I can have as high a standard a living as I have now, but without anyone EVER looking at me, even by accident. Is that possible? No. I could choose to move to a place where nobody will ever see me, but chances are that my standards of living won't be as high as they are now. The bottom-line is that there are numerous choices underlying you living in a society, and one of these choices is acknowledging the existence of taxes and the requirement to pay them. Again, if the grass on the other side looks greener to you, nobody's preventing you from leaving to go live where there are no taxes, like Antarctica. Well I've been in similar discussions, but I dont think I ever really talked about taxes as slavery (probably used the term "theft" though which comes according to my definitions as a consquence of being forced into involuntary transactions). But I understand your POV as that taxes are voluntary as long as you can avoid them by moving to another place (?) So if we imagine a hypothetical world where government taxes land (and sea) all over the world, does that make taxes involuntary? No, that makes your options 1) leaving the world through space 2) killing yourself 3) accepting taxes. 4) Poverty 5) Imprisonment Don't forget those options They were in the third option. "Accepting taxes" meant accepting to live in a society in which paying taxes is compulsory and not paying them can result in punishments.
Considering this topic its's quite simple: Patriots will stay and pay taxes, traitors will not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
