just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Politics and other such topical creams.
Post Reply
eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

"The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory ... ted_States
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

Eumaas that is abhorent obviously however I dont see the relevance of events that have happened in history to my comment that the State protects your freedom, the very fact that you can read that on line and post it here shows the level of freedom you have, others cannot even do that.

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

101Walterton wrote:Eumaas that is abhorent obviously however I dont see the relevance of events that have happened in history to my comment that the State protects your freedom, the very fact that you can read that on line and post it here shows the level of freedom you have, others cannot even do that.
1. You made a universal statement: "The State protects your freedom."
2. I have provided a counterexample where the State (and specifically the USA) forcibly sterilized people, i.e. violated their freedom.
3. History is irrelevant? History is extremely relevant. We are all the products of history. If you invest in a company, don't you want to know about its past performance?
4. Furthermore, the State continues to violate freedom. See the Prop. 8 thread for an example of this.
5. I have more exercisable freedom than others, but it does not necessarily follow that it is the result of the State's protection. Just think about it for a moment, really think. Constitutional limitations are checks on State power, not justifications of it. I'll repeat that for its importance as a concept: Constitutional limitations are not justifications of State power, but rather checks on that power.
6. Print this and read it: http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp (PDF form here for easy printing)
7. If you can adduce counterarguments, then we can talk.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Eumaas that is abhorent obviously however I dont see the relevance of events that have happened in history to my comment that the State protects your freedom, the very fact that you can read that on line and post it here shows the level of freedom you have, others cannot even do that.
1. You made a universal statement: "The State protects your freedom."
2. I have provided a counterexample where the State (and specifically the USA) forcibly sterilized people, i.e. violated their freedom.
3. History is irrelevant? History is extremely relevant. We are all the products of history. If you invest in a company, don't you want to know about its past performance?
4. Furthermore, the State continues to violate freedom. See the Prop. 8 thread for an example of this.
5. I have more exercisable freedom than others, but it does not necessarily follow that it is the result of the State's protection. Just think about it for a moment, really think. Constitutional limitations are checks on State power, not justifications of it. I'll repeat that for its importance as a concept: Constitutional limitations are not justifications of State power, but rather checks on that power.
6. Print this and read it: http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp (PDF form here for easy printing)
7. If you can adduce counterarguments, then we can talk.
and you took that statement way out out of context. Do you really believe that without the Armed Forces, National Guard, FBI, CIA, State funded law enforcement and penal systems your quality of life wouldn't be affected to the detriment ?

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

101Walterton wrote:
eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Eumaas that is abhorent obviously however I dont see the relevance of events that have happened in history to my comment that the State protects your freedom, the very fact that you can read that on line and post it here shows the level of freedom you have, others cannot even do that.
1. You made a universal statement: "The State protects your freedom."
2. I have provided a counterexample where the State (and specifically the USA) forcibly sterilized people, i.e. violated their freedom.
3. History is irrelevant? History is extremely relevant. We are all the products of history. If you invest in a company, don't you want to know about its past performance?
4. Furthermore, the State continues to violate freedom. See the Prop. 8 thread for an example of this.
5. I have more exercisable freedom than others, but it does not necessarily follow that it is the result of the State's protection. Just think about it for a moment, really think. Constitutional limitations are checks on State power, not justifications of it. I'll repeat that for its importance as a concept: Constitutional limitations are not justifications of State power, but rather checks on that power.
6. Print this and read it: http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp (PDF form here for easy printing)
7. If you can adduce counterarguments, then we can talk.
and you took that statement way out out of context. Do you really believe that without the Armed Forces, National Guard, FBI, CIA, State funded law enforcement and penal systems your quality of life wouldn't be affected to the detriment ?
If taken away immediately? No, because most people would choose immediately to create them again. If taken away gradually? Hell yes. If they had never been developed? Most definitely. Yes, I believe that.

And again, I urge you to read that link and consider it. I don't mean a cursory glance, I mean instead of reading the paper one evening, pick that up and read it.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

We were talking about you not wanting to pay tax, tax that funds the organisations I listed which protect you every minute of every day.

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

101Walterton wrote:We were talking about you not wanting to pay tax, tax that funds the organisations I listed which protect you every minute of every day.
I don't believe in paying taxes, yet I do. Why is that? Because those organizations that you say "protect" me would throw me in jail and rob me of my possessions. The protection that most resembles is Mafia protection.

EDIT: PS--would like a statement from you on whether or not you're going to read that essay.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:We were talking about you not wanting to pay tax, tax that funds the organisations I listed which protect you every minute of every day.
I don't believe in paying taxes, yet I do. Why is that? Because those organizations that you say "protect" me would throw me in jail and rob me of my possessions. The protection that most resembles is Mafia protection.

EDIT: PS--would like a statement from you on whether or not you're going to read that essay.
Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
I can say I will read it however the reality is I am lucky to have 30 minutes on a Sunday to read the Sports pages.

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

101Walterton wrote:Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
Such as?

And the burden is on the state to justify its monopoly on the legitimate use of force in this territory and its existence in general, not on me.
I can say I will read it however the reality is I am lucky to have 30 minutes on a Sunday to read the Sports pages.
Please do.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
Such as?
Western Congo, highlands of Papua New Guinnea, trouble is they are lawless due to lack of State funded protection.

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
Posts: 55432
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by Wolter »

101Walterton wrote:
eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
Such as?
Western Congo, highlands of Papua New Guinnea, trouble is they are lawless due to lack of State funded protection.
Of course. That's the only interpretation.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

Wolter wrote:
101Walterton wrote:
eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
Such as?
Western Congo, highlands of Papua New Guinnea, trouble is they are lawless due to lack of State funded protection.
Of course. That's the only interpretation.
Yes they have other issues too but I was struggling to come up with too many countries where you dont have to pay any form of tax yet can live a reasonably safe protected life. Any suggestions ?

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by eumaas »

101Walterton wrote:
Wolter wrote:
101Walterton wrote:
eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
Such as?
Western Congo, highlands of Papua New Guinnea, trouble is they are lawless due to lack of State funded protection.
Of course. That's the only interpretation.
Yes they have other issues too but I was struggling to come up with too many countries where you dont have to pay any form of tax yet can live a reasonably safe protected life. Any suggestions ?
The tax thing is a bit of a wrong emphasis--believing coercive taxation to be immoral is not the foundations of my beliefs but rather a consequence of them. Taxes are a small thing--I don't really think about them much and pay them automatically, though if somebody sells me something without involving obligatory sales tax, I don't stop them.

Secondly, Wolter is not saying that they have other issues, but that your conclusion that lawlessness (read: disorder) is "due to lack of State funded protection" is assuming the conclusion based on an unstated and questionable premise--in short, it's an example of begging the question.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

Rat Patrol
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 15431
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 9:23pm
Location: A flat burning junkheap for twenty square miles

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by Rat Patrol »

101Walterton wrote:
Wolter wrote:
101Walterton wrote:
eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:Then why not live in a country where you dont have to pay tax ??
Such as?
Western Congo, highlands of Papua New Guinnea, trouble is they are lawless due to lack of State funded protection.
Of course. That's the only interpretation.
Yes they have other issues too but I was struggling to come up with too many countries where you dont have to pay any form of tax yet can live a reasonably safe protected life. Any suggestions ?
Image

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: just so 101wally doesn't lose this sentence...

Post by 101Walterton »

eumaas wrote:
101Walterton wrote:
Wolter wrote:
101Walterton wrote:
eumaas wrote: Such as?
Western Congo, highlands of Papua New Guinnea, trouble is they are lawless due to lack of State funded protection.
Of course. That's the only interpretation.
Yes they have other issues too but I was struggling to come up with too many countries where you dont have to pay any form of tax yet can live a reasonably safe protected life. Any suggestions ?
The tax thing is a bit of a wrong emphasis--believing coercive taxation to be immoral is not the foundations of my beliefs but rather a consequence of them. Taxes are a small thing--I don't really think about them much and pay them automatically, though if somebody sells me something without involving obligatory sales tax, I don't stop them.

Secondly, Wolter is not saying that they have other issues, but that your conclusion that lawlessness (read: disorder) is "due to lack of State funded protection" is assuming the conclusion based on an unstated and questionable premise--in short, it's an example of begging the question.
I suggest you are dodging the question :mrgreen:

Post Reply