Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

A Perspective On Taxes and Rights

DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
--I wish to contribute to the thread on taxes and rights, but I did not wish to deal with the clutter. So here it goes.

--To Liberatarians: It may be helpful for you to think of taxes as a user fee. You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in. Ignoring for now the concept of this societal debt, in many governments individuals may leave that system if they choose not to pay these 'user fees', they may leave that system. The problem is, that system includes a large geographical area of protection from violence as well as infrastrure and any number of public goods. This may make it physically more difficult to leave that society or system, but this is not the problem of those within it.

--The reason why taxes are not voluntary is to avoid the free rider problem. Whether or not this is "fair" in some twisted interpretation of the word is irrelevant. If taxes were not mandatory to *all* members of that society, then that society would either fail and cease to exist in that form, or it would face significant drawbacks that to date have not been fully solved.

--Imagine a gym where all those who wished to work out *must* pay a membership fee. If someone does not pay this fee, and they have not used the gym facilities, then they may simply refuse so enter that gym and use its equipment. However, what about if an individual had been using the gym for say, 18 years while everyone else was paying? Even if they never agreed to pay anything, is it so wrong that the gym ask them to begin paying a membership fee (or leave)??

--If the gym left it open to its members whether or not they would pay membership fees, then it may collect enough donations to fund its continued operation, or it may not. Since it is in the favor of the majority of those who are a part of said gym to keep it running and continue to provide services, they require all members to pay. Government is little different.

--It may be objected that nobody in the gym was born there and that if they had been, they didn't choose to be and so they shouldn't be required to pay. I must point out though that I have yet to hear of a case of an individual who, after turning 18, emigrated completely to say, Italy, and was still taxed by the U.S. If this does indeed happen, then I will concede this particular point. Just because it doesn't cost a plane ticket to leave the gym doesn't mean that it is different in this reguard.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 6:52:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
--Reguarding an individuals rights, I believe that they do exist, insomuch as something equally abstract as currency exists. Even if currency and rights "exist" outside of society, they are equally meaningless if any individuals you encounter don't value them.

--Like currency, we have invented rights for the convenience of those who participate in or societal organization. Just because all (or most) societies have them, doesn't mean that they objectively exist in the same way that mathematical concepts exist.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--To Liberatarians: It may be helpful for you to think of taxes as a user fee
The whole concept of a tax is that you have to pay it no matter wtf you use or don't use.

You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in.
No one lives in "The entire system." I attend college, I don't drive, some people have the opposite situation, one must be worth more fees than the other at a given time.

Ignoring for now the concept of this societal debt
Concept?

in many governments individuals may leave that system if they choose not to pay these 'user fees', they may leave that system.
"Tsup, we just mowed your lawn without permission. Pay up."
"What? We didn't consent to your services or their costs."
"Well, you can leave your house..."

--The reason why taxes are not voluntary is to avoid the free rider problem.
No, the reason why taxes are not voluntary is so that states don't have to provide services worth paying for. There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Foremost among which, not giving a ride to freeloaders.
In the present system lots of people free ride on the government, they are called welfare recipients.

Whether or not this is "fair" in some twisted interpretation of the word is irrelevant. If taxes were not mandatory to *all* members of that society, then that society would either fail and cease to exist in that form, or it would face significant drawbacks that to date have not been fully solved.

--Imagine a gym where all those who wished to work out *must* pay a membership fee. If someone does not pay this fee, and they have not used the gym facilities, then they may simply refuse so enter that gym and use its equipment. However, what about if an individual had been using the gym for say, 18 years while everyone else was paying? Even if they never agreed to pay anything, is it so wrong that the gym ask them to begin paying a membership fee (or leave)??
A gym was built by somebody, a country has never been so legitimately acquired.

--It may be objected that nobody in the gym was born there and that if they had been, they didn't choose to be and so they shouldn't be required to pay. I must point out though that I have yet to hear of a case of an individual who, after turning 18, emigrated completely to say, Italy, and was still taxed by the U.S.
No, they were then taxed by Fellow Member of the International Cartel, Italy
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:19:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whether or not this is "fair" in some twisted interpretation of the word is irrelevant. If taxes were not mandatory to *all* members of that society, then that society would either fail and cease to exist in that form, or it would face significant drawbacks that to date have not been fully solved.

This ought of course have been in quotes or removed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 8:14:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--To Libertarians: It may be helpful for you to think of taxes as a user fee
The whole concept of a tax is that you have to pay it no matter wtf you use or don't use.

--The U.S. does not collect taxes on people who aren't citizens, or do not live here. If you live here.. at all, then you are using a service provided by the government, or the society that it makes possible.

You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in.
No one lives in "The entire system." I attend college, I don't drive, some people have the opposite situation, one must be worth more fees than the other at a given time.

--Oh really? So you mean that those groceries you eat didn't arrive using public transportation? You aren't using grammatical skills to write this that were taught to you in school? And you aren't protected in the least by the United States military?

--As far as the inequitable distribution of the tax burden on individuals even when they use *fewer* services paid for or supported by taxes in some way, this is regrettable and I doubt anyone will say that the current taxing scheme is absolutely perfect. In any case, this does not provide a basis for an attack on taxes in general, only the imperfect application of them.

Ignoring for now the concept of this societal debt
Concept?

--Yes, concept. It was discussed at length in the other thread.

in many governments individuals may leave that system if they choose not to pay these 'user fees', they may leave that system.
"Tsup, we just mowed your lawn without permission. Pay up."
"What? We didn't consent to your services or their costs."
"Well, you can leave your house..."

--If all the government did was mow your grass, then this might hold water. But the government does in fact make sure that you have a road to get to your house, it makes sure that it doesn't burn down, and it makes sure that it isn't bombed in the night. Now change it to a raging fire which the government puts out saving your wife and kids and then has you pay for the firemen to clothe and feed theirs. How unjust.

--The reason why taxes are not voluntary is to avoid the free rider problem.
No, the reason why taxes are not voluntary is so that states don't have to provide services worth paying for. There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Foremost among which, not giving a ride to freeloaders.
In the present system lots of people free ride on the government, they are called welfare recipients.

--I would like to see you invent a scheme to keep people who don't pay these "unjust" annual user fees from living in our militarily protected land and walking down our government financed streets, and breathing our government mandated (relatively) clean air. Maybe you could suggest that in any future wars, we let the enemy come over and slaughter those who don't pay taxes without attempting to protect them. Seems plausible enough right? (before anyone misquotes me that last part was dripping with sarcasm.)

Whether or not this is "fair" in some twisted interpretation of the word is irrelevant. If taxes were not mandatory to *all* members of that society, then that society would either fail and cease to exist in that form, or it would face significant drawbacks that to date have not been fully solved.

--Imagine a gym where all those who wished to work out *must* pay a membership fee. If someone does not pay this fee, and they have not used the gym facilities, then they may simply refuse so enter that gym and use its equipment. However, what about if an individual had been using the gym for say, 18 years while everyone else was paying? Even if they never agreed to pay anything, is it so wrong that the gym ask them to begin paying a membership fee (or leave)??
A gym was built by somebody, a country has never been so legitimately acquired.

--So nobody ever built a country? Be careful with your absolutist statements and over-generalizations. There was always a first people to settle any land. In any case, there are people of Native American descent who use this government's infrastructure. You still did not provide a very satisfactory rebuttal to my scenario. In fact, you didn't even scratch it with your attack on the convenient strawman of the "just" or "unjust" founding of my hypothetical establishment.

--It may be objected that nobody in the gym was born there and that if they had been, they didn't choose to be and so they shouldn't be required to pay. I must point out though that I have yet to hear of a case of an individual who, after turning 18, emigrated completely to say, Italy, and was still taxed by the U.S.
No, they were then taxed by Fellow Member of the International Cartel, Italy

--The absence of a tax haven which has an airport for this individual to fly to is not the moral fault of the U.S. Government. Anyways, Antarctica is just a short swim away! (no taxes there.. or services)
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:43:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 8:14:09 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--To Libertarians: It may be helpful for you to think of taxes as a user fee
The whole concept of a tax is that you have to pay it no matter wtf you use or don't use.

--The U.S. does not collect taxes on people who aren't citizens, or do not live here.
Use or don't use, not exist in a location or don't exist in a location.

If you live here.. at all, then you are using a service provided by the government, or the society that it makes possible.
If I walk through Wal-Mart, am I therefore buying goods?


You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in.
No one lives in "The entire system." I attend college, I don't drive, some people have the opposite situation, one must be worth more fees than the other at a given time.

--Oh really? So you mean that those groceries you eat didn't arrive using public transportation?
They arrived by private trucks, wtf are you talking about? They arrived on public roads, true, but that's for the TRUCKS to pay, and they did. Do I pay the Rubbermaid factory if I want a Rubbermaid container? No, I pay Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart already paid the factory.

You aren't using grammatical skills to write this that were taught to you in school?
I'm using grammatical skills to write this that I learned from reading books, furthermore, I was forced into school by law.

And you aren't protected in the least by the United States military?
The task of the military is to protect law enforcement jurisdiction.
I do not own any law enforcement jurisdiction.
If I wish for protection from law enforcement (which should be optional,) I should pay law enforcement. Law enforcement can then pay the military. The US military does not exist to protect private citizens. The US military is of no value to citizens who choose not to purchase the protection of the law.


--As far as the inequitable distribution of the tax burden on individuals even when they use *fewer* services paid for or supported by taxes in some way, this is regrettable and I doubt anyone will say that the current taxing scheme is absolutely perfect. In any case, this does not provide a basis for an attack on taxes in general, only the imperfect application of them.
It is part of the nature of taxes. User fees solve the problem. Plain and simple, taxes are the problem. By definition, applying taxes at all instead of actual user fees distorts the proportion of service to payment.

Ignoring for now the concept of this societal debt
Concept?

--Yes, concept. It was discussed at length in the other thread.
Sounds more like an anti-concept. "It was discussed" is a horrid conceptualization incidentally.


in many governments individuals may leave that system if they choose not to pay these 'user fees', they may leave that system.
"Tsup, we just mowed your lawn without permission. Pay up."
"What? We didn't consent to your services or their costs."
"Well, you can leave your house..."

--If all the government did was mow your grass, then this might hold water. But the government does in fact make sure that you have a road to get to your house, it makes sure that it doesn't burn down, and it makes sure that it isn't bombed in the night.
You're using a quantitative argument to try to prove a qualitative conclusion. This is stupid, don't. "It does more s***" does not change the fact that I didn't consent to pay for all that s***.

Now change it to a raging fire which the government puts out saving your wife and kids and then has you pay for the firemen to clothe and feed theirs. How unjust.
I don't even have a wife or kids, so this is obviously unjust.
If I wish not to have the protection of the fire service, I should have that option and not have to pay for the fire service.


--The reason why taxes are not voluntary is to avoid the free rider problem.
No, the reason why taxes are not voluntary is so that states don't have to provide services worth paying for. There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Foremost among which, not giving a ride to freeloaders.
In the present system lots of people free ride on the government, they are called welfare recipients.

--I would like to see you invent a scheme to keep people who don't pay these "unjust" annual user fees from living in our militarily protected land and walking down our government financed streets
The military doesn't protect land, it protects jurisdiction, which is owned by the government.
I can walk on ****ing dirt, you only need streets if you're going to drive. And if you drive less, you pay less share for the roads. Tolls.

and breathing our government mandated (relatively) clean air.
That's what class action lawsuits are for. Pay the court if you want in on them.

Maybe you could suggest that in any future wars, we let the enemy come over and slaughter those who don't pay taxes without attempting to protect them.
It doesn't matter, they are already dead because they didn't pay for the law to protect them from their neighbor, unless of course they don't need the law to do so, in which case the military provides no value because enemy armies are not interested in indiscriminate slaughter of private individuals, they are interested in taking jurisdiction, which is only of value to people needing the protection of the law. Either they are dead and hence not free riding or they don't need it and hence not free riding.

--So nobody ever built a country?
Yes. Nobody ever built a country.

Be careful with your absolutist statements and over-generalizations. There was always a first people to settle any land.
There is a great deal of unsettled land in the US that the US govt claims as its property (its land property, not its jurisdiction property-- distinct concepts) for no particular reason
There is no country in which all land had the labor of government officials mixed with it qua land, there never has been such a country.

--It may be objected that nobody in the gym was born there and that if they had been, they didn't choose to be and so they shouldn't be required to pay. I must point out though that I have yet to hear of a case of an individual who, after turning 18, emigrated completely to say, Italy, and was still taxed by the U.S.
No, they were then taxed by Fellow Member of the International Cartel, Italy

--The absence of a tax haven which has an airport for this individual to fly to is not the moral fault of the U.S. Government Anyways, Antarctica is just a short swim away! (no taxes there.. or services)
The International Cartel has created this thing called the "Antarctic Treaty System" which forbids feasible settlement of Antarctica, despite having no right to do so whatsoever.
Islands? Marines get sent if you don't kiss the a** of the major powers hard enough.
It has nothing to do with airports, they are actively prevented from doing so.
Even if they were not, that still would not justify the notion that the US govt has total ownership of all land in the United States, which is necessary to your argument for taxes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 5:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 1:43:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 8:14:09 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
If you live here.. at all, then you are using a service provided by the government, or the society that it makes possible.
If I walk through Wal-Mart, am I therefore buying goods?

--If you are in Wal-Mart, then you are enjoying its air conditioning or heating services. Wal-Mart is a bad comparison.


You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in.
No one lives in "The entire system." I attend college, I don't drive, some people have the opposite situation, one must be worth more fees than the other at a given time.

--Oh really? So you mean that those groceries you eat didn't arrive using public transportation?
They arrived by private trucks, wtf are you talking about? They arrived on public roads, true, but that's for the TRUCKS to pay, and they did. Do I pay the Rubbermaid factory if I want a Rubbermaid container? No, I pay Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart already paid the factory.

--The roads are mostly paid for through a local property tax actually, as well as a sales tax in most states (this is different in several states). Highways are paid for through a gas tax, but that's hardly the entirety of the transportation network.

You aren't using grammatical skills to write this that were taught to you in school?
I'm using grammatical skills to write this that I learned from reading books, furthermore, I was forced into school by law.

--And I suppose you taught yourself how to read?

And you aren't protected in the least by the United States military?
The task of the military is to protect law enforcement jurisdiction.
I do not own any law enforcement jurisdiction.
If I wish for protection from law enforcement (which should be optional,) I should pay law enforcement. Law enforcement can then pay the military. The US military does not exist to protect private citizens. The US military is of no value to citizens who choose not to purchase the protection of the law.

--This is complete and total disregard for reality. That is indeed one of the tasks of the military, but it is far from the only one. There would be no way for the military to selectively protect only those who "subscribe" to its services. It would also be a nightmare for the police to only protect those who pay.

Operator: "911 what is your emergency?"
Caller: "Someone just broke into my house and has one of my children hostage down stairs. He has a gun."
Operator: "What is your I.D. number? I need to see if you are a subscriber."
Caller: "I don't have one, we can't afford it. I don't have any money."
Operator: "I'm sorry, we cannot help you at this time."

--Does this look desirable to you?


--As far as the inequitable distribution of the tax burden on individuals even when they use *fewer* services paid for or supported by taxes in some way, this is regrettable and I doubt anyone will say that the current taxing scheme is absolutely perfect. In any case, this does not provide a basis for an attack on taxes in general, only the imperfect application of them.
It is part of the nature of taxes. User fees solve the problem. Plain and simple, taxes are the problem. By definition, applying taxes at all instead of actual user fees distorts the proportion of service to payment.

--I think that user fees should take the place of taxes in sectors that this would work well in. The military is not one of those areas. Neither is law enforcement.

--If all the government did was mow your grass, then this might hold water. But the government does in fact make sure that you have a road to get to your house, it makes sure that it doesn't burn down, and it makes sure that it isn't bombed in the night.
You're using a quantitative argument to try to prove a qualitative conclusion. This is stupid, don't. "It does more s***" does not change the fact that I didn't consent to pay for all that s***.

--Yet you continue using it in full knowledge that you will be forced to pay for it if you do not leave. If you walk into a buffet restaurant and begin eating large amounts of food, then the waiter comes and give you a bill, then do you owe them the money? You never expressly agreed to pay? It was implied, just like every time you walk down a road. Oh wait, I forgot that you've never set foot on a road in your life. Is that correct?

I don't even have a wife or kids, so this is obviously unjust.
If I wish not to have the protection of the fire service, I should have that option and not have to pay for the fire service.

--The U.S. tried pay for service fire fighting. It didn't work. At all. In fact, they didn't like it so much, we got a new system. One in which if your neighbors house catches on fire it is put out before it spreads to yours (not just if they paid for the service).

--I would like to see you invent a scheme to keep people who don't pay these "unjust" annual user fees from living in our militarily protected land and walking down our government financed streets
The military doesn't protect land, it protects jurisdiction, which is owned by the government.
I can walk on ****ing dirt, you only need streets if you're going to drive. And if you drive less, you pay less share for the roads. Tolls.

--The military protects the entire nation and anything inside it's borders. You are really confusing the purpose of the military.

--Tolls are okay. I like the idea of tolls. But they aren't perfect either. Try to collect tolls on every city street.

and breathing our government mandated (relatively) clean air.
That's what class action lawsuits are for. Pay the court if you want in on them.

--Class action lawsuits cannot prevent an action from happening, it only corrects it after the fact (if your lawyer is skilled enough).

--I'm going to ignore your entire comment on the dead free rider because not only did it add *literally* no value to the discussion, it was riddled with false assumptions.

There is a great deal of unsettled land in the US that the US govt claims as its property (its land property, not its jurisdiction property-- distinct concepts) for no particular reason
There is no country in which all land had the labor of government officials mixed with it qua land, there never has been such a country.

--The government officials in a representative democracy represent the people who did mix their labor with the land. This is, however, a flawed view of the concept of property. Property is simply a claim on something. There are no such qualifications.

--The absence of a tax haven which has an airport for this individual to fly to is not the moral fault of the U.S. Government Anyways, Antarctica is just a short swim away! (no taxes there.. or services)
The International Cartel has created this thing called the "Antarctic Treaty System" which forbids feasible settlement of Antarctica, despite having no right to do so whatsoever.
Islands? Marines get sent if you don't kiss the a** of the major powers hard enough.
It has nothing to do with airports, they are actively prevented from doing so.
Even if they were not, that still would not justify the notion that the US govt has total ownership of all land in the United States, which is necessary to your argument for taxes.

--I have a feeling that they don't have to try too hard to prevent such settlement. And yes, the United States (which includes the government) does "own" all of the land in the United States.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 12:29:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
--To Liberatarians: It may be helpful for you to think of taxes as a user fee. You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in. Ignoring for now the concept of this societal debt, in many governments individuals may leave that system if they choose not to pay these 'user fees', they may leave that system.:

I don't see anything wrong with taxes so long as they apprortioned appropriately and within defined parameters. The problem is that those parameters are constantly being pushed to greater extent by people who "make the rules." That's a problem.

The reason why taxes are not voluntary is to avoid the free rider problem.:

That problem exists now as an involuntary system. Bum doesn't have a job, gets sick, goes to hospital... Who pays? The bum? No. The tax paying citizen pays for someone who contributes absolutely nothing.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:45:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--To Liberatarians: It may be helpful for you to think of taxes as a user fee
The whole concept of a tax is that you have to pay it no matter wtf you use or don't use.

You pay taxes in order to support the entire system you live in.
No one lives in "The entire system." I attend college, I don't drive, some people have the opposite situation, one must be worth more fees than the other at a given time.

Ignoring for now the concept of this societal debt
Concept?

in many governments individuals may leave that system if they choose not to pay these 'user fees', they may leave that system.
"Tsup, we just mowed your lawn without permission. Pay up."
"What? We didn't consent to your services or their costs."
"Well, you can leave your house..."

--The reason why taxes are not voluntary is to avoid the free rider problem.
No, the reason why taxes are not voluntary is so that states don't have to provide services worth paying for. There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Foremost among which, not giving a ride to freeloaders.
In the present system lots of people free ride on the government, they are called welfare recipients.

Whether or not this is "fair" in some twisted interpretation of the word is irrelevant. If taxes were not mandatory to *all* members of that society, then that society would either fail and cease to exist in that form, or it would face significant drawbacks that to date have not been fully solved.

--Imagine a gym where all those who wished to work out *must* pay a membership fee. If someone does not pay this fee, and they have not used the gym facilities, then they may simply refuse so enter that gym and use its equipment. However, what about if an individual had been using the gym for say, 18 years while everyone else was paying? Even if they never agreed to pay anything, is it so wrong that the gym ask them to begin paying a membership fee (or leave)??
A gym was built by somebody, a country has never been so legitimately acquired.


--It may be objected that nobody in the gym was born there and that if they had been, they didn't choose to be and so they shouldn't be required to pay. I must point out though that I have yet to hear of a case of an individual who, after turning 18, emigrated completely to say, Italy, and was still taxed by the U.S.
No, they were then taxed by Fellow Member of the International Cartel, Italy

It is entirely possible to live despite society and thus, effectively live without paying them.

You are not a victim.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 3:37:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 5:40:52 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/10/2011 1:43:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 8:14:09 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
If you live here.. at all, then you are using a service provided by the government, or the society that it makes possible.
If I walk through Wal-Mart, am I therefore buying goods?

--If you are in Wal-Mart, then you are enjoying its air conditioning or heating services. Wal-Mart is a bad comparison.
Wal-Mart works because even though you are free riding on some legit things and it does have property, it still doesn't collapse.

--The roads are mostly paid for through a local property tax actually
Which is ****ing MORONIC.
You realize I was speaking hypothetically of their "already did" right?

--And I suppose you taught yourself how to read?
I did most of the work, my parent helped some. The school system was not a contributor to this, as it did not interact with me before I knew how to read.

This is complete and total disregard for reality.
That's not an argument

That is indeed one of the tasks of the military, but it is far from the only one.
Nor is that.

There would be no way for the military to selectively protect only those who "subscribe" to its services
Military protection only applies to jurisdictions, QED, there's no way for a military to NOT do so.

Does this look desirable to you?
Yes (except insofar as the cell phone should already register their customer identification number once they are calling 911, a simple technical issue). If a few people aren't competent to live in a free society so be it, that is no reason to trash the free society.

If you walk into a buffet restaurant and begin eating large amounts of food, then the waiter comes and give you a bill, then do you owe them the money? You never expressly agreed to pay? It was implied, just like every time you walk down a road.
Roads cage you in from all directions, furthermore, they are of no value to a pedestrian, they exist to serve automobiles. It is impossible not to walk down a road, it is possible not to walk into a buffet, where the prices are not IMPLIED, they are clearly posted at the front of the restaurant when you consent to walk onto their property.

The U.S. tried pay for service fire fighting. It didn't work.
You have no evidence of this statement.
In fact, just recently in Tennessee when there was an outcry in the media over such a system, the outcry was because the system worked. The house of the non-payers burned down, the fire was contained afterwards, no problem.

--The military protects the entire nation and anything inside it's borders. You are really confusing the purpose of the military.

No, you are. The military CLEARLY does NOTHING of the sort. If I am robbed, can I call the military? NO. The military exists to protect jurisdiction, nothing more.

--Tolls are okay. I like the idea of tolls. But they aren't perfect either. Try to collect tolls on every city street.
GPS exists. A device to detect which road you are on, warn you when you are switching to a different owner's road with different terms, is quite technologically feasible I'm sure if there was a market for it. All you need is an industry standard and a few good engineers.
In times of simpler technology-- the roads were simpler too.

Class action lawsuits cannot prevent an action from happening, it only corrects it after the fact (if your lawyer is skilled enough).
Clean air regulations do not prevent pollution, they deter it, just like lawsuits do.

--I'm going to ignore your entire comment on the dead free rider because not only did it add *literally* no value to the discussion, it was riddled with false assumptions.
This statement is evidence of nothing.

--The government officials in a representative democracy represent the people who did mix their labor with the land
They do not and cannot, people are not some homogenous collective, and the government claimed it long before most of the land that is presently mixed with labor had any labor mixed with it. Much claimed land still has no labor mixed with it.

This is, however, a flawed view of the concept of property. Property is simply a claim on something. There are no such qualifications.
If I claim your head, is it therefore my property?

--I have a feeling that they don't have to try too hard to prevent such settlement.
Then why DID they try so hard?

And yes, the United States (which includes the government) does "own" all of the land in the United States.
Absurd and totalitarian.

It is entirely possible to live despite society and thus, effectively live without paying them.
What do you mean and what do you think that entails?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 6:10:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 3:37:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you mean and what do you think that entails?

I mean precisely that. It is possible to live despite society and thus, live without paying taxes.

If you do not have a job and live independently (construct your own shelter, obtain your food without buying it, etc.), you do not need to pay taxes, whether or not you live on American soil.

If you intend to participate with the construct that is American society, you must pay the American government taxes.

Don't like the prospect of living independently?

Then, it's money well spent.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 11:06:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 6:10:27 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/13/2011 3:37:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you mean and what do you think that entails?

I mean precisely that. It is possible to live despite society and thus, live without paying taxes.

If you do not have a job and live independently (construct your own shelter, obtain your food without buying it, etc.), you do not need to pay taxes, whether or not you live on American soil.
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, for example, at one point growing enough wheat to feed one's family was illegal.
Also, regulations rule otherwise, as the federal gov't claims the land on which it is possible to do such things.

Furthermore, such would not be a justification of taxes, as it would imply that the US gov't owns "society," which is slavery considering the components of "society."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 6:28:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 3:37:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/10/2011 5:40:52 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/10/2011 1:43:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 8:14:09 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:48:20 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--The roads are mostly paid for through a local property tax actually
Which is ****ing MORONIC.
You realize I was speaking hypothetically of their "already did" right?

--I had no idea. I must have missed the subtle change in tone of your voice.

--And I suppose you taught yourself how to read?
I did most of the work, my parent helped some. The school system was not a contributor to this, as it did not interact with me before I knew how to read.

--And your parents taught themselves as well?

This is complete and total disregard for reality.
That's not an argument

--And that's not reality.

There would be no way for the military to selectively protect only those who "subscribe" to its services
Military protection only applies to jurisdictions, QED, there's no way for a military to NOT do so.

--Wrong. If another nation carpet bombs a city, it does not care who the subscribers are. They do not even bother to check (how rude), and they certainly haven't ever done so in the past. Oh wait, maybe you are right.. I did hear about something like this happening in WW2...

Does this look desirable to you?
Yes (except insofar as the cell phone should already register their customer identification number once they are calling 911, a simple technical issue). If a few people aren't competent to live in a free society so be it, that is no reason to trash the free society.

--So, by competent, you mean able and willing to pay? What about orphans? I suppose you also have some technical fix for that too. Free service to orphans? Then what about children who's parents didn't pay? Should they be unprotected just because their parents are morons?

If you walk into a buffet restaurant and begin eating large amounts of food, then the waiter comes and give you a bill, then do you owe them the money? You never expressly agreed to pay? It was implied, just like every time you walk down a road.
Roads cage you in from all directions, furthermore, they are of no value to a pedestrian, they exist to serve automobiles. It is impossible not to walk down a road, it is possible not to walk into a buffet, where the prices are not IMPLIED, they are clearly posted at the front of the restaurant when you consent to walk onto their property.

--I was going to link to a picture of an Alaskan mountain range (with no roads), but I thought that would be a bit too mean. *Furthermore* annual nation usage fees (some like to call them taxes) are not that hard too find. Taxes, in other words, are not "implied" either. Besides, when you stay in the United States after your 18th birthday, you are "consenting" both to pay taxes and receive services. When you buy property here, you are consenting. When you rent property here, you are consenting. When you sleep inside of a cardboard box under an overpass, you are consenting. Don't like it? Leave.

The U.S. tried pay for service fire fighting. It didn't work.
You have no evidence of this statement.
In fact, just recently in Tennessee when there was an outcry in the media over such a system, the outcry was because the system worked. The house of the non-payers burned down, the fire was contained afterwards, no problem.

--What about all of the pollutants inside of the house? There are many toxic chemicals that would be released. What about the neighbor kid who was staying the night? Forgot about her. Maybe it was a whole slumber party.. maybe they are still alive trapped in a room.. maybe the owner of a nursing home was trying to cut costs.. sucks for them right?

--The military protects the entire nation and anything inside it's borders. You are really confusing the purpose of the military.

No, you are. The military CLEARLY does NOTHING of the sort. If I am robbed, can I call the military? NO. The military exists to protect jurisdiction, nothing more.

--First off, it is *clearly* not that clear if it is so confusing for you. Secondly, the police deal with crime here at home. Thirdly, these people were protected:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

--Tolls are okay. I like the idea of tolls. But they aren't perfect either. Try to collect tolls on every city street.
GPS exists. A device to detect which road you are on, warn you when you are switching to a different owner's road with different terms, is quite technologically feasible I'm sure if there was a market for it. All you need is an industry standard and a few good engineers.
In times of simpler technology-- the roads were simpler too.

--If that could be made to work, then great. Realize I'm not against fee for service, its just impractical in some cases. If its made practical, then all the better.

Class action lawsuits cannot prevent an action from happening, it only corrects it after the fact (if your lawyer is skilled enough).
Clean air regulations do not prevent pollution, they deter it, just like lawsuits do.

--Actually they do routine checks to ensure that regulations are being followed. Some of the effects of these pollutants are never noticed until you have a kid with two left arms and a libertarian tendency.

--I'm going to ignore your entire comment on the dead free rider because not only did it add *literally* no value to the discussion, it was riddled with false assumptions.
This statement is evidence of nothing.

--This nothing is evidence of nothing.

--The government officials in a representative democracy represent the people who did mix their labor with the land
They do not and cannot, people are not some homogeneous collective, and the government claimed it long before most of the land that is presently mixed with labor had any labor mixed with it. Much claimed land still has no labor mixed with it.

--Can I come mix my labor with your lawn? How big is the radius that this labor goes out from? If I plow a field, do I get a two-foot buffer? What if I miss a spot and a hobo comes over and mixes his labor all up on my land? What if somebody dies and leaves his house that he built to his widow but I come mix my labor with it before she does?

This is, however, a flawed view of the concept of property. Property is simply a claim on something. There are no such qualifications.
If I claim your head, is it therefore my property?

--Yes. If you can enforce it.

And yes, the United States (which includes the government) does "own" all of the land in the United States.
Absurd and totalitarian.

--No, just totalitarian.

--For the record, if I were ever to write a peace of tax legislation, I would create an exemption for poor hermits who don't walk on roads.. or in Wal-Mart.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 7:08:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
--And your parents taught themselves as well?
How am I supposed to know?


This is complete and total disregard for reality.
That's not an argument

--And that's not reality.
In fact, it is reality that your statement was not an argument.


There would be no way for the military to selectively protect only those who "subscribe" to its services
Military protection only applies to jurisdictions, QED, there's no way for a military to NOT do so.

--Wrong. If another nation carpet bombs a city, it does not care who the subscribers are.
And the military doesn't care whether you're in that city. The military does not stop you from being bombed. You want not to be bombed, construct a bomb shelter.

Does this look desirable to you?
Yes (except insofar as the cell phone should already register their customer identification number once they are calling 911, a simple technical issue). If a few people aren't competent to live in a free society so be it, that is no reason to trash the free society.

--So, by competent, you mean able and willing to pay? What about orphans?
Orphans are no more entitled to slave labor on their behalf than anyone else. They are free to attempt to earn money if they wish to.

Then what about children who's parents didn't pay? Should they be unprotected just because their parents are morons?
See above.


If you walk into a buffet restaurant and begin eating large amounts of food, then the waiter comes and give you a bill, then do you owe them the money? You never expressly agreed to pay? It was implied, just like every time you walk down a road.
Roads cage you in from all directions, furthermore, they are of no value to a pedestrian, they exist to serve automobiles. It is impossible not to walk down a road, it is possible not to walk into a buffet, where the prices are not IMPLIED, they are clearly posted at the front of the restaurant when you consent to walk onto their property.

--I was going to link to a picture of an Alaskan mountain range (with no roads), but I thought that would be a bit too mean.
I don't see the relevance.

*Furthermore* annual nation usage fees (some like to call them taxes) are not that hard too find. Taxes, in other words, are not "implied" either. Besides, when you stay in the United States after your 18th birthday, you are "consenting" both to pay taxes and receive services.\
This nonsense is already addressed, you do not consent to robbery merely by not leaving an area you have the right to be on and the robber does not own.

When you buy property here, you are consenting.
Are you also consenting to rape? Why not? I declare that I own what you are buying, what say you about that declaration?

The U.S. tried pay for service fire fighting. It didn't work.
You have no evidence of this statement.
In fact, just recently in Tennessee when there was an outcry in the media over such a system, the outcry was because the system worked. The house of the non-payers burned down, the fire was contained afterwards, no problem.

--What about all of the pollutants inside of the house? There are many toxic chemicals that would be released.
Sue the owners of the house if you like. Frankly house fires are probably a miniscule contribution to pollution.

What about the neighbor kid who was staying the night?
Unlike a taxpayer, the neighbor kid consented to stay the night there.

--The military protects the entire nation and anything inside it's borders. You are really confusing the purpose of the military.

No, you are. The military CLEARLY does NOTHING of the sort. If I am robbed, can I call the military? NO. The military exists to protect jurisdiction, nothing more.

--First off, it is *clearly* not that clear if it is so confusing for you.
It's not confusing.

Secondly, the police deal with crime here at home.
Which is what is of value to domestic persons.

Thirdly, these people were protected:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Those weren't people in the United States. Also, they were saved by diplomacy, not the military, also, they, not the taxpayers, consented to be in Iran.

--If that could be made to work, then great. Realize I'm not against fee for service, its just impractical in some cases. If its made practical, then all the better.
Note that a fee for law enforcement, fees out of which the military can come being that the military provides services necessary to the function of law enforcement, is perfectly practical. Most of your objections have not been practical but humanitarian-- questions about what will happen to the nonpayers. To which I summarize response: I do not believe in sacrificing innocent beings upon the altar of incompetence, whether that incompetence is induced by childhood or something else.


Class action lawsuits cannot prevent an action from happening, it only corrects it after the fact (if your lawyer is skilled enough).
Clean air regulations do not prevent pollution, they deter it, just like lawsuits do.

--Actually they do routine checks to ensure that regulations are being followed.
And if they aren't being followed, they punish.

Some of the effects of these pollutants are never noticed until you have a kid with two left arms
That's not even physically coherent.

--This nothing is evidence of nothing.
Ditto.

--Can I come mix my labor with your lawn?
No, you have to mix it with nature-- i.e. something that isn't already property.

How big is the radius that this labor goes out from?
If your use interferes with my preexisting use, my claim has priority.

If I plow a field, do I get a two-foot buffer?
Depends whether someone building something within two feet interferes with your use.

What if I miss a spot and a hobo comes over and mixes his labor all up on my land?
They'd have to trample your crops to get to it no? That would make it illegitimate.

What if somebody dies and leaves his house that he built to his widow but I come mix my labor with it before she does?
As a practical matter, she needs to file a claim more quickly than an actual user or legal chaos results, but he did have the right to bequeath it.


This is, however, a flawed view of the concept of property. Property is simply a claim on something. There are no such qualifications.
If I claim your head, is it therefore my property?

--Yes. If you can enforce it.
You're equivocating might and right. Unless you believe that it is RIGHT for 6 million Jews to have died in the Holocaust, you have no standing for such an argument, and if you do believe it-- you have a premise on which few will agree with you, and since it's a premise rather than an argument they don't have to in order to be logical.


And yes, the United States (which includes the government) does "own" all of the land in the United States.
Absurd and totalitarian.

--No, just totalitarian.
That's enough to make it absurd as a normative claim ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 7:10:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What if somebody dies and leaves his house that he built to his widow but I come mix my labor with it before she does?
As a practical matter, she needs to file a claim more quickly than an actual user or legal chaos results, but he did have the right to bequeath it.
It should also be noted that how much time she has to file a claim depends on whether you did it in good faith or had reason to believe that the house was bequeathed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 7:08:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
--And your parents taught themselves as well?
How am I supposed to know?

--Not the point.

--Wrong. If another nation carpet bombs a city, it does not care who the subscribers are.
And the military doesn't care whether you're in that city. The military does not stop you from being bombed. You want not to be bombed, construct a bomb shelter.

-- *inserts picture of anti-aircraft gun*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...

--So, by competent, you mean able and willing to pay? What about orphans?
Orphans are no more entitled to slave labor on their behalf than anyone else. They are free to attempt to earn money if they wish to.

Then what about children who's parents didn't pay? Should they be unprotected just because their parents are morons?
See above.

--Children CANNOT afford protection. You would *Literally* have all orphans be working from the day they are born to protect themselves. Child gets raped and murdered? Who cares? Right?

*Furthermore* annual nation usage fees (some like to call them taxes) are not that hard too find. Taxes, in other words, are not "implied" either. Besides, when you stay in the United States after your 18th birthday, you are "consenting" both to pay taxes and receive services.\
This nonsense is already addressed, you do not consent to robbery merely by not leaving an area you have the right to be on and the robber does not own.

--How in the world do you have some sort of conjured up right to be their? If the "robber" is your landlord, you cannot justify not paying rent simply because you were born in that apartment.

When you buy property here, you are consenting.
Are you also consenting to rape? Why not? I declare that I own what you are buying, what say you about that declaration?

--Did I have foreknowledge? Also, is it consistent with the laws that the rapist consented to? If not, then no. But it is not a hidden fact that the U.S. has taxes.

--What about all of the pollutants inside of the house? There are many toxic chemicals that would be released.
Sue the owners of the house if you like. Frankly house fires are probably a minuscule contribution to pollution.

--Sounds like a quantitative argument trying to prove a qualitative conclusion. Try again.

What about the neighbor kid who was staying the night?
Unlike a taxpayer, the neighbor kid consented to stay the night there.

--The taxpayer did consent to stay there. The neighbor kid was 4, far too young to consent.

Secondly, the police deal with crime here at home.
Which is what is of value to domestic persons.

--Getting raped by soldiers of an invading army hurts just as bad as getting raped by the wacko down the street.

Thirdly, these people were protected:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Those weren't people in the United States. Also, they were saved by diplomacy, not the military, also, they, not the taxpayers, consented to be in Iran.

--Those were citizens of the United States. Also, you are wrong here again. They militarily made a attempt at saving them. That is all I need to show to prove that the military has the protection of U.S. citizens as one of its roles.

--If that could be made to work, then great. Realize I'm not against fee for service, its just impractical in some cases. If its made practical, then all the better.
Note that a fee for law enforcement, fees out of which the military can come being that the military provides services necessary to the function of law enforcement, is perfectly practical. Most of your objections have not been practical but humanitarian-- questions about what will happen to the nonpayers. To which I summarize response: I do not believe in sacrificing innocent beings upon the altar of incompetence, whether that incompetence is induced by childhood or something else.

--The military provides services necessary for the entire country to exist. That's why we pay for them in taxes. My objections are of both natures. Living in an insecure environment with people dying around you is very unproductive.

--Actually they do routine checks to ensure that regulations are being followed.
And if they aren't being followed, they punish.

--The court takes no such proactive role, also, they do in fact oversee the construction or installation of potentially polluting projects.

Some of the effects of these pollutants are never noticed until you have a kid with two left arms
That's not even physically coherent.

--Although I was exaggerating, it appears this does happen. See the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

--Can I come mix my labor with your lawn?
No, you have to mix it with nature-- i.e. something that isn't already property.

--Where did you pull that rule out of? Making things up as we go along are we? Anyways, I will simply tunnel under your house and mix my labor with all of your dirt and rock that you haven't even touched. Then I will kindly ask you to remove your property from being on top of mine. Deal with it.

How big is the radius that this labor goes out from?
If your use interferes with my preexistent use, my claim has priority.

--No, like what if I miss a small portion of something. Can somebody come and claim it?

If I plow a field, do I get a two-foot buffer?
Depends whether someone building something within two feet interferes with your use.

--Oh really? So you "own" that two feet around it? Although there was never any mixing of labor with it? Seems inconsistent of you.

What if I miss a spot and a hobo comes over and mixes his labor all up on my land?
They'd have to trample your crops to get to it no? That would make it illegitimate.

--Jet pack.

What if somebody dies and leaves his house that he built to his widow but I come mix my labor with it before she does?
As a practical matter, she needs to file a claim more quickly than an actual user or legal chaos results, but he did have the right to bequeath it.

--Legal chaos? I don't see how the law of man applies to these obviously higher laws which we have no control over. I ask you again: Does his property become mine if I come over and mix my labor with the house before she can do any mixing herself?

--Yes. If you can enforce it.
You're equivocating might and right. Unless you believe that it is RIGHT for 6 million Jews to have died in the Holocaust, you have no standing for such an argument, and if you do believe it-- you have a premise on which few will agree with you, and since it's a premise rather than an argument they don't have to in order to be logical.

--Right, and rights are entirely made up concepts without the slightest foundation in reality. Can you prove that they even exist outside of our subjective, and made up, conceptions of them?

--No, just totalitarian.
That's enough to make it absurd as a normative claim ^_^.

--Normative =/= absurd. Try again.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--Wrong. If another nation carpet bombs a city, it does not care who the subscribers are.
And the military doesn't care whether you're in that city. The military does not stop you from being bombed. You want not to be bombed, construct a bomb shelter.

-- *inserts picture of anti-aircraft gun*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...
They do that for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction. You're just an irrelevant externality.

--Children CANNOT afford protection. You would *Literally* have all orphans be working from the day they are born to protect themselves. Child gets raped and murdered? Who cares? Right?
If they aren't old enough to be rational beings, which are creatures capable of doing something productive, they aren't old enough to matter. I care not for infants or fetuses. If their parents do, that's none of my business.

--How in the world do you have some sort of conjured up right to be their? If the "robber" is your landlord, you cannot justify not paying rent simply because you were born in that apartment.
A landlord built an apartment or bought it from someone who did.
In which case I am expelled from an apartment, not from everything within a thousand miles of it.


When you buy property here, you are consenting.
Are you also consenting to rape? Why not? I declare that I own what you are buying, what say you about that declaration?

--Did I have foreknowledge?
You can't argue that as someone does not have foreknowledge of the regime they will be born into.

Also, is it consistent with the laws that the rapist consented to?
The rapist never consented to any laws.

--Sounds like a quantitative argument trying to prove a qualitative conclusion. Try again.
See part one of the statement, which was qualitative.


What about the neighbor kid who was staying the night?
Unlike a taxpayer, the neighbor kid consented to stay the night there.

--The taxpayer did consent to stay there. The neighbor kid was 4, far too young to consent.
There is no such thing as "too young to consent" that is not also "Too young to be a rational being" and thus "Too young to have rights." I don't believe 4 falls under any of the above categories, but if a particular 4 year old does, they fall under all of them.


Secondly, the police deal with crime here at home.
Which is what is of value to domestic persons.

--Getting raped by soldiers of an invading army hurts just as bad as getting raped by the wacko down the street.
Irrelevant, the whacko down the street gets there first , rapes and murders, nothing left for the invading army to do.

--Those were citizens of the United States. Also, you are wrong here again. They militarily made a attempt at saving them.
Do I pay Mcdonald's for an attempted burger?

--The military provides services necessary for the entire country to exist.
Qua country, not qua existence. If we are occupied by China, many people still live.

--Actually they do routine checks to ensure that regulations are being followed.
And if they aren't being followed, they punish.

--The court takes no such proactive role
The court does the punishing in all cases.

also, they do in fact oversee the construction or installation of potentially polluting projects.
Only some, arbitrarily, as doing all would be infeasible. Such is optional, not necessary.


Some of the effects of these pollutants are never noticed until you have a kid with two left arms
That's not even physically coherent.

--Although I was exaggerating, it appears this does happen. See the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
lol, he reads the daily mail.


--Can I come mix my labor with your lawn?
No, you have to mix it with nature-- i.e. something that isn't already property.

--Where did you pull that rule out of? Making things up as we go along are we? Anyways, I will simply tunnel under your house and mix my labor with all of your dirt and rock that you haven't even touched. Then I will kindly ask you to remove your property from being on top of mine.
That's always been the rule, you just hadn't asked. It's known as the "First user principle." Which contradicts you tunnelling under the house endangering it when the house was there first.

How big is the radius that this labor goes out from?
If your use interferes with my preexistent use, my claim has priority.

--No, like what if I miss a small portion of something. Can somebody come and claim it?
Is there use interfering with yours?


If I plow a field, do I get a two-foot buffer?
Depends whether someone building something within two feet interferes with your use.

--Oh really? So you "own" that two feet around it? Although there was never any mixing of labor with it?
If my use is so irrevocably mixed with it that your labor in those two feet will interfere, there clearly was mixing.
If not, then I don't have any claim on what noninterfering things you do with the two feet.

What if I miss a spot and a hobo comes over and mixes his labor all up on my land?
They'd have to trample your crops to get to it no? That would make it illegitimate.

--Jet pack.
Then what's the harm if he does? Long as he understands he's liable if he misses.


What if somebody dies and leaves his house that he built to his widow but I come mix my labor with it before she does?
As a practical matter, she needs to file a claim more quickly than an actual user or legal chaos results, but he did have the right to bequeath it.

--Legal chaos? I don't see how the law of man applies to these obviously higher laws which we have no control over.
Corner cases in all possible require a little arbitration, that doesn't mean we can throw away the whole enterprise of justice.

I ask you again: Does his property become mine if I come over and mix my labor with the house before she can do any mixing herself?
Not immediately, no, as it was still her property.
If she left it long-abandoned, on the other hand (evidence of abandonment being stronger if she never came into possession in the first place...).

--Right, and rights are entirely made up concepts without the slightest foundation in reality. Can you prove that they even exist outside of our subjective, and made up, conceptions of them?
If you do not respect my right to life, liberty, and property, I am motivated to destroy you, if you do, I am motivated to respect such rights in you (which you have need of, for you must produce to live and that does you no good if someone takes away whatever you produce), so that you will continue to do so. Your own motivations work similarly. These motivations follow from the two of us being rational beings who choose to live.


--No, just totalitarian.
That's enough to make it absurd as a normative claim ^_^.

--Normative =/= absurd.
Straw man, that's not what I said.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 8:40:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 6:28:49 PM, DevinKing wrote:
When you buy property here, you are consenting. When you rent property here, you are consenting. When you sleep inside of a cardboard box under an overpass, you are consenting. Don't like it? Leave.

"He was asked which he would like the best, to be whipped six-and-thirty times through all the regiment, or to receive at once twelve balls of lead in his brain. He vainly said that huan will is free, and that he chose neither one nor the other. He was forced to make a choice; he determined, in virtue of that gift of God called liberty, to run the gauntlet six-and-thirty times." - Candide
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--Wrong. If another nation carpet bombs a city, it does not care who the subscribers are.
And the military doesn't care whether you're in that city. The military does not stop you from being bombed. You want not to be bombed, construct a bomb shelter.

-- *inserts picture of anti-aircraft gun*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...
They do that for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction. You're just an irrelevant externality.

--So in WW2 the Jews which were exterminated by Hitler were an irrelevant externality? Not all war is based solely on jurisdiction, although admittedly many are. And also, you may not think this, but the people in the army are also, well, people. Many have families and most all have close friends who live in the nation they protect. They do not solely wage war for jurisdiction.

--Children CANNOT afford protection. You would *Literally* have all orphans be working from the day they are born to protect themselves. Child gets raped and murdered? Who cares? Right?
If they aren't old enough to be rational beings, which are creatures capable of doing something productive, they aren't old enough to matter. I care not for infants or fetuses. If their parents do, that's none of my business.

--They have potential to be productive, although I see that's not what you are getting at. If you believe they are indeed not developed enough to be fully considered human, then I will grant you this point on the grounds that although I disagree, this is a matter of the subjective definition of what is truly a rational being who is fully human.

--How in the world do you have some sort of conjured up right to be their? If the "robber" is your landlord, you cannot justify not paying rent simply because you were born in that apartment.
A landlord built an apartment or bought it from someone who did.
In which case I am expelled from an apartment, not from everything within a thousand miles of it.

--What can I say? The U.S. is a really big apartment complex.

--Did I have foreknowledge?
You can't argue that as someone does not have foreknowledge of the regime they will be born into.

--They have foreknowledge by the time they are old enough to decide whether or not to leave the society. So.. yeah your point is irrelevant since you don't pay taxes as soon as you are born.

Also, is it consistent with the laws that the rapist consented to?
The rapist never consented to any laws.

--Does he live in the U.S.? Then he consented. If not, he is traveling through our lands in full knowledge that setting foot on our soil, our jurisdiction, binds him to obeying our laws while he spends his time here.

--The taxpayer did consent to stay there. The neighbor kid was 4, far too young to consent.
There is no such thing as "too young to consent" that is not also "Too young to be a rational being" and thus "Too young to have rights." I don't believe 4 falls under any of the above categories, but if a particular 4 year old does, they fall under all of them.

--Ahhh,, but is your conception of rights not a complete fabrication? Do not apply them as if they are natural laws which are absolute.

--Getting raped by soldiers of an invading army hurts just as bad as getting raped by the wacko down the street.
Irrelevant, the wacko down the street gets there first , rapes and murders, nothing left for the invading army to do.

--At this point you stopped arguing my statement. So consider this "point" of yours ignored.

--Those were citizens of the United States. Also, you are wrong here again. They militarily made a attempt at saving them.
Do I pay McDonald's for an attempted burger?

--The "diplomatic" solution never would have come about without the military.

--The court takes no such proactive role
The court does the punishing in all cases.

--Okay? So it augments the role of regulators? What is your point?

also, they do in fact oversee the construction or installation of potentially polluting projects.
Only some, arbitrarily, as doing all would be infeasible. Such is optional, not necessary.

--It serves as a far better deterrent and far better tool for enforcement since some of these pollutants are hard to link to individual polluters after the fact.

--Although I was exaggerating, it appears this does happen. See the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
lol, he reads the daily mail.

--Lol, I reads the Google Images search. Nice try.

--Where did you pull that rule out of? Making things up as we go along are we? Anyways, I will simply tunnel under your house and mix my labor with all of your dirt and rock that you haven't even touched. Then I will kindly ask you to remove your property from being on top of mine.
That's always been the rule, you just hadn't asked. It's known as the "First user principle." Which contradicts you tunnelling under the house endangering it when the house was there first.

--Always? Like forever? Cause I'm pretty sure you just read about this from somebody who did pull this out of their *** if you aren't the one who did.

--No, like what if I miss a small portion of something. Can somebody come and claim it?
Is there use interfering with yours?

--Okay, so say that the first person born into the world though it would be cool if he used the whole world for his personal nature preserve and declares it to be his (while using every inch of soil for this purpose). Is it then illegitimate for anyone else to make use of it?

--Oh really? So you "own" that two feet around it? Although there was never any mixing of labor with it?
If my use is so irrevocably mixed with it that your labor in those two feet will interfere, there clearly was mixing.
If not, then I don't have any claim on what noninterfering things you do with the two feet.

--Right, and rights are entirely made up concepts without the slightest foundation in reality. Can you prove that they even exist outside of our subjective, and made up, conceptions of them?
If you do not respect my right to life, liberty, and property, I am motivated to destroy you, if you do, I am motivated to respect such rights in you (which you have need of, for you must produce to live and that does you no good if someone takes away whatever you produce), so that you will continue to do so. Your own motivations work similarly. These motivations follow from the two of us being rational beings who choose to live.

--These speak little of the existence of rights. They are not absolute things which exist independently of people making them up. You can make them whatever you want them to be.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 6:02:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--Wrong. If another nation carpet bombs a city, it does not care who the subscribers are.
And the military doesn't care whether you're in that city. The military does not stop you from being bombed. You want not to be bombed, construct a bomb shelter.

-- *inserts picture of anti-aircraft gun*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...
They do that for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction. You're just an irrelevant externality.

--So in WW2 the Jews which were exterminated by Hitler were an irrelevant externality?
Correct, which makes sense, as they were not saved.

Many have families and most all have close friends who live in the nation they protect. They do not solely wage war for jurisdiction.
The existence of private motivations in soldiers does not alter the purpose of militaries in general.

--They have potential to be productive, although I see that's not what you are getting at. If you believe they are indeed not developed enough to be fully considered human, then I will grant you this point on the grounds that although I disagree, this is a matter of the subjective definition of what is truly a rational being who is fully human.
It's not subjective, it follows from the rational part. If they are rational, your concern is moot.

--What can I say? The U.S. is a really big apartment complex.
It plainly and obviously is nothing of the sort, look out your window.


--Did I have foreknowledge?
You can't argue that as someone does not have foreknowledge of the regime they will be born into.

--They have foreknowledge by the time they are old enough to decide whether or not to leave the society.
That's missing the "fore" part.

--Does he live in the U.S.? Then he consented.
You can't have your premise and conclusion being the same. He never consented to consent to the laws being a precondition of living or traveling through that geograpic area.

--Ahhh,, but is your conception of rights not a complete fabrication?
No, it follows from reciprocal needs of rational beings.

Do not apply them as if they are natural laws which are absolute.

--The "diplomatic" solution never would have come about without the military.
That's possible, regardless, I still have no reason to pay for that, not being a diplomat with Iran. It's also an irrelevant externality to the miltary's purpose.


--The court takes no such proactive role
The court does the punishing in all cases.

--Okay? So it augments the role of regulators?
You've got it backwards.

also, they do in fact oversee the construction or installation of potentially polluting projects.
Only some, arbitrarily, as doing all would be infeasible. Such is optional, not necessary.

--It serves as a far better deterrent and far better tool for enforcement since some of these pollutants are hard to link to individual polluters after the fact.
If they are hard to link AFTER the fact they are IMPOSSIBLE before the fact. Evidence benefits from time.

--Where did you pull that rule out of? Making things up as we go along are we? Anyways, I will simply tunnel under your house and mix my labor with all of your dirt and rock that you haven't even touched. Then I will kindly ask you to remove your property from being on top of mine.
That's always been the rule, you just hadn't asked. It's known as the "First user principle." Which contradicts you tunnelling under the house endangering it when the house was there first.

--Always? Like forever?
Like, it was the rule of my ideology before this discussion started. Context sir.
Although Rousseau did write about the notion to criticize it.

--Okay, so say that the first person born into the world though it would be cool if he used the whole world for his personal nature preserve and declares it to be his (while using every inch of soil for this purpose). Is it then illegitimate for anyone else to make use of it?
That's not a "use," and there was no mixed labor.

--These speak little of the existence of rights. They are not absolute things which exist independently of people making them up. You can make them whatever you want them to be.
Clearly you need to reread the argument. It refers to reciprocal needs. Even if you want it to be possible that you are omnipotent, it's still not true, you instead have to provide motivation for people not to kill you if you wish to survive. The fact that they also need to live and aren't omnipotent provides the means to do so.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 6:56:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 6:02:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
They do that for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction. You're just an irrelevant externality.

--So in WW2 the Jews which were exterminated by Hitler were an irrelevant externality?
Correct, which makes sense, as they were not saved.

--I was speaking on the part of the Germans. They were taking absolutely no jurisdiction by exterminating Jews.

Many have families and most all have close friends who live in the nation they protect. They do not solely wage war for jurisdiction.
The existence of private motivations in soldiers does not alter the purpose of militaries in general.

--I can live with that. However, you asserting that they exist solely to protect jurisdiction with absolutely nothing to back it up does not alter anything.

--They have potential to be productive, although I see that's not what you are getting at. If you believe they are indeed not developed enough to be fully considered human, then I will grant you this point on the grounds that although I disagree, this is a matter of the subjective definition of what is truly a rational being who is fully human.
It's not subjective, it follows from the rational part. If they are rational, your concern is moot.

--What people define as a rational being is not universal. Nor is the definition of a human being universal. Hence, what you define it as is subjective since nobody has any more claim on the English language than anyone else. However, if you wish to define those terms for the purposes of this discussion, I would be happy to hear them.

--What can I say? The U.S. is a really big apartment complex.
It plainly and obviously is nothing of the sort, look out your window.

--It plainly and obviously was a metaphor. The same logic applies to the apartment complex as the nation.

--They have foreknowledge by the time they are old enough to decide whether or not to leave the society.
That's missing the "fore" part.

--Its before they are forced to pay any taxes. Before they enter into the system more fully and formally.

--Does he live in the U.S.? Then he consented.
You can't have your premise and conclusion being the same. He never consented to consent to the laws being a precondition of living or traveling through that geographic area.

--Well the individual who walks into the buffet could say the same. Knowing that you are expected to follow those laws in exchange for passage and services rendered is enough to establish consent on.

--Ahhh,, but is your conception of rights not a complete fabrication?
No, it follows from reciprocal needs of rational beings.

--Wrong. Just because it is good social hygiene or recommended or even necessary for survival does not serve as a basis for any sort of absolute rights. Rights do not exist objectively. They are only generalized rules of conduct and can only be said to have affect when more than one person enters into some sort of agreement or understanding with another person.

--The "diplomatic" solution never would have come about without the military.
That's possible, regardless, I still have no reason to pay for that, not being a diplomat with Iran. It's also an irrelevant externality to the military purpose.

--There were five American non-diplomats taken hostage. And it is only an irrelevant externality under your strict definition of "military" which does not include the actual military of the U.S.

--It serves as a far better deterrent and far better tool for enforcement since some of these pollutants are hard to link to individual polluters after the fact.
If they are hard to link AFTER the fact they are IMPOSSIBLE before the fact. Evidence benefits from time.

--Let's apply the same line of logic you use to another situation to make things more obvious. Say there is someone in the process of drowning a small child. The Drowning of Small Children Prevention Agency does a routine check and walks in on it. This is sufficient to establish guilt and order the action be ceased. It is also far better than merely taking notes and pressing charges after the fact.

--If it is true that you have not consented to any agreements with the U.S. government or society, then you have no rights, which are only acknowledged in the constitution or other laws which don't apply to you in the absence of such agreement. Furthermore, the right to ownership of property is one of those rights, making the whole argument that taxes are stealing fall apart being that you don't have any such rights to ownership, which is strictly a societal construct.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:00:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 6:56:25 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:02:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
They do that for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction. You're just an irrelevant externality.

--So in WW2 the Jews which were exterminated by Hitler were an irrelevant externality?
Correct, which makes sense, as they were not saved.

--I was speaking on the part of the Germans. They were taking absolutely no jurisdiction by exterminating Jews.
The Germans weren't rational actors, mimicking their fascism isn't good.

--What people define as a rational being is not universal. Nor is the definition of a human being universal. Hence, what you define it as is subjective
Word choice being subjective and concepts being subjective are radically different claims.

However, if you wish to define those terms for the purposes of this discussion, I would be happy to hear them.
A rational being is one capable of acquiring, creating, and applying concepts. This happens to be a tool that makes people capable of some form of production ^_^.


--What can I say? The U.S. is a really big apartment complex.
It plainly and obviously is nothing of the sort, look out your window.

--It plainly and obviously was a metaphor.
And therefore not true, politics is not poetry.

The same logic applies to the apartment complex as the nation.
Apartment complexes were built by someone, therefore no.


--They have foreknowledge by the time they are old enough to decide whether or not to leave the society.
That's missing the "fore" part.

--Its before they are forced to pay any taxes.
They're forced to labor in schools, which is even more onerous a burden ^_^.

--Does he live in the U.S.? Then he consented.
You can't have your premise and conclusion being the same. He never consented to consent to the laws being a precondition of living or traveling through that geographic area.

--Well the individual who walks into the buffet could say the same.
True. The buffet's rules aren't premised on "Consent to the preconditions," the preconditions are set by the builder.

Knowing that you are expected to follow those laws in exchange for passage and services rendered is enough to establish consent on.
Knowing you are expected to be raped by the mafia if you do not pay up is enough to establish that you consent to them?

--Wrong. Just because it is good social hygiene or recommended or even necessary for survival does not serve as a basis for any sort of absolute rights. Rights do not exist objectively.
Rights are those sets of limits on social action which are universally proper (advisable) to rational beings.

They are only generalized rules of conduct and can only be said to have affect when more than one person enters into some sort of agreement or understanding with another person.
Everything I described functions in the absence of agreement.

--Let's apply the same line of logic you use to another situation to make things more obvious. Say there is someone in the process of drowning a small child. The Drowning of Small Children Prevention Agency does a routine check and walks in on it. This is sufficient to establish guilt and order the action be ceased. It is also far better than merely taking notes and pressing charges after the fact.
It's also absurdly, impossibly costly.


--If it is true that you have not consented to any agreements with the U.S. government or society, then you have no rights
This does not follow.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:20:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
For you guys arguing that the Military protects individuals, you should have been here when New Orleans was under martial law after Katrina.
A scary time, the military is not built for domestic squabbles, trust me, it is for blowing stuff up.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 5:39:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:00:56 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/15/2011 6:56:25 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:02:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--I was speaking on the part of the Germans. They were taking absolutely no jurisdiction by exterminating Jews.
The Germans weren't rational actors, mimicking their fascism isn't good.

--You are wrong sir. "A rational being is one capable of acquiring, creating, and applying concepts." You have made an assertion. Back it up with at least a little bit of reasoning. So I say to you again: this example was clearly not strictly based on jurisdiction. Therefore, militarise are not all based on the sole aim of protecting or fighting for jurisdiction. Please don't make another failed attempt at wit. Try to argue against it.

However, if you wish to define those terms for the purposes of this discussion, I would be happy to hear them.
A rational being is one capable of acquiring, creating, and applying concepts. This happens to be a tool that makes people capable of some form of production ^_^.

--A rather strict definition. The ability to apply concepts in the real world is not a prerequisite for being rational. Think of a brain in a jar hooked up to life support but still operating.

--It plainly and obviously was a metaphor.
And therefore not true, politics is not poetry.

--That does not follow. I was saying that the U.S. was (or was similar to) an apartment complex for the purposes of this argument.

The same logic applies to the apartment complex as the nation.
Apartment complexes were built by someone, therefore no.

--Irrelevant. And before you list off any more "labor mixing" principals, back it up. An assertion without any backing is worthless.

--Its before they are forced to pay any taxes.
They're forced to labor in schools, which is even more onerous a burden ^_^.

--Irrelevant.

Knowing that you are expected to follow those laws in exchange for passage and services rendered is enough to establish consent on.
Knowing you are expected to be raped by the mafia if you do not pay up is enough to establish that you consent to them?

--Yes, if you lived within their sphere of influence with full knowledge that they world charge you for living there. If you made the choice with full knowledge, then you show willingness to do it in the presence of an alternative.

--Wrong. Just because it is good social hygiene or recommended or even necessary for survival does not serve as a basis for any sort of absolute rights. Rights do not exist objectively.
Rights are those sets of limits on social action which are universally proper (advisable) to rational beings.

--So your argument is merely that they are (universally) a good idea? Ha.

They are only generalized rules of conduct and can only be said to have affect when more than one person enters into some sort of agreement or understanding with another person.
Everything I described functions in the absence of agreement.

--There does not need to be a government to have agreements with each other.

--Let's apply the same line of logic you use to another situation to make things more obvious. Say there is someone in the process of drowning a small child. The Drowning of Small Children Prevention Agency does a routine check and walks in on it. This is sufficient to establish guilt and order the action be ceased. It is also far better than merely taking notes and pressing charges after the fact.
It's also absurdly, impossibly costly.

--On what basis?

--If it is true that you have not consented to any agreements with the U.S. government or society, then you have no rights
This does not follow.

--Yes it does. Rights come only from such agreements. No agreements=No rights. I will amend my statement to say that you don't have any rights with them without such agreements, but that is all.

--Its just like currency. You cannot have currency in the absence of other people. You also have to enter into agreement with them directly or through a third party (like the government) in order for currency to exist. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper. Or in the case of rights, a worthless claim that people should treat you a certain way.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 4:22:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 5:39:18 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:00:56 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/15/2011 6:56:25 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:02:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--I was speaking on the part of the Germans. They were taking absolutely no jurisdiction by exterminating Jews.
The Germans weren't rational actors, mimicking their fascism isn't good.

--You are wrong sir. "A rational being is one capable of acquiring, creating, and applying concepts."
A rational being is one possessing the trait rationality, a rational actor is one making consistent use of it. Your attempt at reduction fails to notice a difference in terminology

--A rather strict definition. The ability to apply concepts in the real world is not a prerequisite for being rational. Think of a brain in a jar hooked up to life support but still operating.
Life support and jars are real.


--It plainly and obviously was a metaphor.
And therefore not true, politics is not poetry.

--That does not follow. I was saying that the U.S. was (or was similar to) an apartment complex for the purposes of this argument.
That's "analogy," not metaphor... and no, it isn't.


The same logic applies to the apartment complex as the nation.
Apartment complexes were built by someone, therefore no.

--Irrelevant. And before you list off any more "labor mixing" principals, back it up.
The principle of the mixing of labor fulfills the reciprocal need to be able to produce and consume the fruits of one's production.

--Irrelevant.
Clearly not, society's demands on them began before their choices did.


Knowing that you are expected to follow those laws in exchange for passage and services rendered is enough to establish consent on.
Knowing you are expected to be raped by the mafia if you do not pay up is enough to establish that you consent to them?

--Yes, if you lived within their sphere of influence with full knowledge that they world charge you for living there. If you made the choice with full knowledge
The matter of dispute is what was being chosen in the first place. The mere knowledge that everywhere in the world someone is going to rape you does not render failure to commit suicide an act of consent to sex. Nor does it render it an act of consent to giving up property if giving up property is the price for going to somewhere in the world one won't be raped.

--So your argument is merely that they are (universally) a good idea? Ha.
What is your objection? Is it "Ha?"

--There does not need to be a government to have agreements with each other.
Irrelevant.


--Let's apply the same line of logic you use to another situation to make things more obvious. Say there is someone in the process of drowning a small child. The Drowning of Small Children Prevention Agency does a routine check and walks in on it. This is sufficient to establish guilt and order the action be ceased. It is also far better than merely taking notes and pressing charges after the fact.
It's also absurdly, impossibly costly.

--On what basis?
Do you have any idea how many bodies of water would need to be checked, how frequently, to prevent drowning? This is blinking obvious. The ocean for one.


--If it is true that you have not consented to any agreements with the U.S. government or society, then you have no rights
This does not follow.

--Yes it does. Rights come only from such agreements.
The rights I described don't. You're equivocating.

--Its just like currency. You cannot have currency in the absence of other people. You also have to enter into agreement with them directly or through a third party (like the government) in order for currency to exist. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper.
Nobody ever agreed to fiat money, it was established by fiat.

Or in the case of rights, a worthless claim that people should treat you a certain way.
There is nothing worthless about a normative claim that appeals to someone's self-interest unless you claim it to be untrue, and have some basis for doing so.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 3:59:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 4:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:39:18 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:00:56 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/15/2011 6:56:25 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:02:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:40:41 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:39:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/13/2011 8:03:56 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--I was speaking on the part of the Germans. They were taking absolutely no jurisdiction by exterminating Jews.
The Germans weren't rational actors, mimicking their fascism isn't good.

--You are wrong sir. "A rational being is one capable of acquiring, creating, and applying concepts."
A rational being is one possessing the trait rationality, a rational actor is one making consistent use of it. Your attempt at reduction fails to notice a difference in terminology

--Okay. You know what? You got me. I didn't brush up on my terminology. But you know what else? You have been avoiding the actual issue by pricking at tiny irrelevant points this entire conversation. Now back up the claim that the military exists *ONLY* for the protection of jurisdiction in your next post, or I will simply leave you here to debate with yourself about terminology while I move on to more productive uses for my time.

--A rather strict definition. The ability to apply concepts in the real world is not a prerequisite for being rational. Think of a brain in a jar hooked up to life support but still operating.
Life support and jars are real.

--You did not understand what I said. My point is that a functioning brain in a jar would have the ability to create and/or acquire concepts, but not to apply them. That brain could still be rational. Hence, your definition was too strict.

The same logic applies to the apartment complex as the nation.
Apartment complexes were built by someone, therefore no.

--Irrelevant. And before you list off any more "labor mixing" principals, back it up.
The principle of the mixing of labor fulfills the reciprocal need to be able to produce and consume the fruits of one's production.

--I get it. It's a behavior pattern based on reciprocal needs. Nobody is arguing against that. What I am saying is, although it may benefit society or individuals to create and enforce them, they do not exist independent of people's agreements with other people. This means that without any agreement, there are no rights. Also, for clarification, I know that these needs do exist independent of society or agreements. Even though those rights are based on needs, they are created by agreements.

--Yes, if you lived within their sphere of influence with full knowledge that they world charge you for living there. If you made the choice with full knowledge
The matter of dispute is what was being chosen in the first place. The mere knowledge that everywhere in the world someone is going to rape you does not render failure to commit suicide an act of consent to sex. Nor does it render it an act of consent to giving up property if giving up property is the price for going to somewhere in the world one won't be raped.

--Nice quote tailoring. You left out a major part. I said: "If you made the choice with full knowledge, then you show willingness to do it in the presence of an alternative." If their was no alternative, then there was no choice. In your scenario, you set it up as to eliminate the choice part of the equation. If you go into a place knowing that you will be raped because of it, then you are consenting. (Btw, rape is a bad word choice since it is defined as being without a choice. In this case, I am using the word loosely to mean undesired sex, even if it is still consented to.)

--So your argument is merely that they are (universally) a good idea? Ha.
What is your objection? Is it "Ha?"

--Yes. My objection is Ha. Or perhaps more specifically, that your argument is laughable and scarcely needs to have its flaws pointed out by me. But in all seriousness, good idea =/= iron law of the universe.

--Let's apply the same line of logic you use to another situation to make things more obvious. Say there is someone in the process of drowning a small child. The Drowning of Small Children Prevention Agency does a routine check and walks in on it. This is sufficient to establish guilt and order the action be ceased. It is also far better than merely taking notes and pressing charges after the fact.
It's also absurdly, impossibly costly.

--On what basis?
Do you have any idea how many bodies of water would need to be checked, how frequently, to prevent drowning? This is blinking obvious. The ocean for one.

--Unmanned drones. Coast Guard. Tech fix. Problem solved.

--If it is true that you have not consented to any agreements with the U.S. government or society, then you have no rights
This does not follow.

--Yes it does. Rights come only from such agreements.
The rights I described don't. You're equivocating.

--Yes. Yes they do. If you are, however, defining them as existing without interpersonal agreement, then you may as well be trying to define God into existence. It doesn't work like that.

--Its just like currency. You cannot have currency in the absence of other people. You also have to enter into agreement with them directly or through a third party (like the government) in order for currency to exist. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper.
Nobody ever agreed to fiat money, it was established by fiat.

--Yes they do. Everyone who accepts fiat money as payment is agreeing to it.

Or in the case of rights, a worthless claim that people should treat you a certain way.
There is nothing worthless about a normative claim that appeals to someone's self-interest unless you claim it to be untrue, and have some basis for doing so.

--You have simply tailored this quote into meaning what you wish. I was more than obviously stating that it is worthless in the absence of other people.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.