Good is Evil
Options
High Revolutionary
Members Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
Video exposing the hypocrisy of the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddq8FwIfw7w&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w&index=172&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddq8FwIfw7w&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w&index=172&feature=plpp_video Comments
-
they would call this a conspiracy theory video
There's no conspiracy theory in this video whatsoever.
This video is explaining basic moral principles and how the state (i.e. government) transgresses them. -
By default, I'd say that since "good" and "evil" are subjective; "good" can easily be "evil" and vice versa.
-
nothing new really.
-
I see what he's saying, but there was a problem with part of his argument.
First, taxation is not the same of stealing. If something is stolen, it's taken from you against your will. If you live in a place, you're pretty much accepting whatever taxes are associated with that location. On top of that, your tax money by and large goes to services that support you. People whine about bad roads, well tax money goes to fixing them. When your house is burning town, firemen that are partially funded through tax money will come to your rescue. This is not an example of thievery.
Second, "Thou shalt not ? " is an oversimplification of the commandment. The actual commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder." Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Since wars are regulated by laws and agreements, killings that occur within them according to those laws are not murders. Killings that are lawful such as mass shootings of civilians are considered murders and those people are taken to justice.
Lastly, there is no universal moral law that says violence is wrong. Of course many feel that it is unsavory and the world would be better if it didn't exist, but most people feel that there are issues and circumstances in this world that can only be solved through violence. So it's a bit off to paint it as though people using violence on behalf of the state are somehow skirting some prime moral law. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I see what he's saying, but there was a problem with part of his argument.
First, taxation is not the same of stealing. If something is stolen, it's taken from you against your will. If you live in a place, you're pretty much accepting whatever taxes are associated with that location. On top of that, your tax money by and large goes to services that support you. People whine about bad roads, well tax money goes to fixing them. When your house is burning town, firemen that are partially funded through tax money will come to your rescue. This is not an example of thievery.
Second, "Thou shalt not ? " is an oversimplification of the commandment. The actual commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder." Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Since wars are regulated by laws and agreements, killings that occur within them according to those laws are not murders. Killings that are lawful such as mass shootings of civilians are considered murders and those people are taken to justice.
Lastly, there is no universal moral law that says violence is wrong. Of course many feel that it is unsavory and the world would be better if it didn't exist, but most people feel that there are issues and circumstances in this world that can only be solved through violence. So it's a bit off to paint it as though people using violence on behalf of the state are somehow skirting some prime moral law.
Taxation is the same as stealing if it's done against your will. I doubt any one of us wants to pay taxes. Well if you don't like it leave, right? Wrong. The government will not likely allow you expatriation (renounce citizenship or permanent residency) until you can attain citizenship in another country which is easier said than done. Even then they may still pursue you. Remember Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook who renounced his citizenship to become a Singaporean citizen? Well government officials are now pursuing him over taxes that haven't even accrued. In addition the government is in talks to pass the Ex-patriot act which will allow it to pursue US expats for 'tax evasion' (emphasis on air-quotes) as well as disbar them from re-entering the US even to visit.
Also on average only about 5% of our tax dollars go towards fixing roads. And probably not much more than than that for things like firemen and such. These things could be privatized anyway. However a decent portion of our tax dollars are being used to pay the salaries of bought-out politicians and other frivolous government positions.
Also 'thou shalt not ? ' or 'commit murder' is a biblical principal and thus shouldn't be confused with contemporary war agreements issued by governments.
Lastly, yes there is no universal moral law that says killing is wrong but the point is what's 'good for the goose is good for the gander'. If you agree that some random guy going to his local mall and shooting up the place is wrong then that shouldn't change because it's a group of guys sent under the order of another groups of guys under the ambiguous umbrella called the government. Especially when said latters groups intentions have been proven to be less than noble. -
I believe the problem with this is that people have made morality the standard in which to define anything and everything; that morality is looked to as the thing that will save us from ourselves. But, we are finding that in most cases it doesn't. Most people who do good, find themselves not reaping the rewards of it and makes people want to question every trying to do good.
Robbing, killing and stealing are wrong but it doesn't have the same "authority" as it once did. Government no longer has that type of respect as an authority. And if government can't be respected, then there is reason to think there is no need to do what government considers as good or take heed of any consequences. -
First off the government can not stop you from renouncing your citizenship at least not the US. You can waive your citizenship rights at anytime.
In the case of Mr. Saverin, he had accrued enormous capitol gains as a US citizen. When you renounce you citizenship you have to pay capitol gain tax on existing stock or bond assets. Since he renounce prior to the IPO these gains where much less than after the IPO.
Taxation is not done against your will at least not in the US. You elect representatives to establish laws on your behalf, in fact the Republican party core principle is to reduce taxes to the minimum level needed to run the country. Based on their success we now pay taxes at a rate lower than any point in the last 50 years.
For the record I want to pay taxes. I want a police force, fire department, and ambulance services. I want roads and highways. I want to maintain a military at the very least to defend the country I call home. I want scientific research conducted by these taxes. I want artist to receive commissions from these taxes even if I think they suck. I want to ensure the basic safety and health of the elderly. I want eduction to be available to my fellow citizens. I want courts that settle disputes and arbitration. So yes, please put me down as wanting to pay taxes. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »
Taxation is the same as stealing if it's done against your will. I doubt any one of us wants to pay taxes. Well if you don't like it leave, right? Wrong. The government will not likely allow you expatriation (renounce citizenship or permanent residency) until you can attain citizenship in another country which is easier said than done. Even then they may still pursue you. Remember Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook who renounced his citizenship to become a Singaporean citizen? Well government officials are now pursuing him over taxes that haven't even accrued. In addition the government is in talks to pass the Ex-patriot act which will allow it to pursue US expats for 'tax evasion' (emphasis on air-quotes) as well as disbar them from re-entering the US even to visit.
I don't have a problem paying taxes. Taxes are an unavoidable consequence of living in a society. If you don't want to pay taxes, go off the grid and live in the woods somewhere. As long as you never really pop up in civilization again, you won't get caught, and if you're good with renouncing any and all perks associated with civilization why would you have a need to come back? And there is a difference between trying to leave the country to avoid taxes you technically already owe and leaving to avoid future taxation.Also on average only about 5% of our tax dollars go towards fixing roads. And probably not much more than than that for things like firemen and such. These things could be privatized anyway. However a decent portion of our tax dollars are being used to pay the salaries of bought-out politicians and other frivolous government positions.
Tax money goes to roads, school, services such as firemen and police, some politician salaries, and a bunch of other things. And no, you don't want those things privatized. The last thing you want is firemen waiting to see if you paid your fire service bill before they attempt to put the fire at your house out.Lastly, yes there is no universal moral law that says killing is wrong but the point is what's 'good for the goose is good for the gander'. If you agree that some random guy going to his local mall and shooting up the place is wrong then that shouldn't change because it's a group of guys sent under the order of another groups of guys under the ambiguous umbrella called the government. Especially when said latters groups intentions have been proven to be less than noble.
Believe me I'm not the type to defend the government, but comparing any action the government has taken with the military to a spree killing is silly. Yes, government motivations are often less than noble, but their motivations have never been to ? for the sake of killing.
-
First off the government can not stop you from renouncing your citizenship at least not the US. You can waive your citizenship rights at anytime.
In the case of Mr. Saverin, he had accrued enormous capitol gains as a US citizen. When you renounce you citizenship you have to pay capitol gain tax on existing stock or bond assets. Since he renounce prior to the IPO these gains where much less than after the IPO.
Taxation is not done against your will at least not in the US. You elect representatives to establish laws on your behalf, in fact the Republican party core principle is to reduce taxes to the minimum level needed to run the country. Based on their success we now pay taxes at a rate lower than any point in the last 50 years.
For the record I want to pay taxes. I want a police force, fire department, and ambulance services. I want roads and highways. I want to maintain a military at the very least to defend the country I call home. I want scientific research conducted by these taxes. I want artist to receive commissions from these taxes even if I think they suck. I want to ensure the basic safety and health of the elderly. I want eduction to be available to my fellow citizens. I want courts that settle disputes and arbitration. So yes, please put me down as wanting to pay taxes.
To renounce your citizenship requires a lengthy process that the government can choose to grant you or not grant you at their own discretion.
Saverin owed no taxes. What he did was skirt the capital gains tax on the profits he was looking to make when Facebook went public by renouncing his US citizenship and exclusively becoming a Singaporean citizen (Singapore has no capital gains tax). He did nothing wrong.
What people were up in arms about was the implications of what he did and why. Because people have been bred to have such a statist, crab in the bucket mentality they felt he owed America that money (estimated to be about 67 million dollars) as he and Zuckerberg developed the Facebook software in America at an American institution. But so what? He footed the bills, put in the time, made the sacrifices and reaped the benefits. Now the leviathan known as the US government feels slighted and wants to punish any one who may follow Saverin's example in the future by passing the Ex-patriot act. So now we'll have a Patriot Act and an Ex-patriot Act. So much for "by the people, for the people."
And we may elect representatives to establish laws on our behalf but that doesn't mean they are going to follow through on their end of the bargain. You can look at all the senators who supported the SOPA bill that was shot down to see one example of that.
As for your last paragraph, you want those things, fine. Pay for them. You want to help people donate to charity. But don't impose your desires on to everyone else. I like having a gym membership. It doesn't mean I think the government should pass a law requiring all its citizens to hold gym memberships.
-
i'm curious how he's going to pay taxes to get highways and you're going to be prevented from using those highways you didn't pay for.High Revolutionary wrote: »As for your last paragraph, you want those things, fine. Pay for them. You want to help people donate to charity. But don't impose your desires on to everyone else.
-
I have yet to hear a good argument on the constitutionality of the property tax.
If one has to pay a direct tax' to the state on what they own then they don't own it.
In principle they are only licensing it.
w/o even watching the vid I know that the government hustles, harangues, and shanghais its
people into paying money for or into things that don't work for their benefit. Subsequently,
this makes the people subservient to the state instead being in accordance to the spirit of the
thing which is a state subservient to the people. -
So my only choices are to get with the program or live in the wilderness with bigfoot? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Besides because the government has laid claim to all land within the countries borders there really is no where I could legally reside.The Lonious Monk wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »
Taxation is the same as stealing if it's done against your will. I doubt any one of us wants to pay taxes. Well if you don't like it leave, right? Wrong. The government will not likely allow you expatriation (renounce citizenship or permanent residency) until you can attain citizenship in another country which is easier said than done. Even then they may still pursue you. Remember Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook who renounced his citizenship to become a Singaporean citizen? Well government officials are now pursuing him over taxes that haven't even accrued. In addition the government is in talks to pass the Ex-patriot act which will allow it to pursue US expats for 'tax evasion' (emphasis on air-quotes) as well as disbar them from re-entering the US even to visit.
I don't have a problem paying taxes. Taxes are an unavoidable consequence of living in a society. If you don't want to pay taxes, go off the grid and live in the woods somewhere. As long as you never really pop up in civilization again, you won't get caught, and if you're good with renouncing any and all perks associated with civilization why would you have a need to come back? And there is a difference between trying to leave the country to avoid taxes you technically already owe and leaving to avoid future taxation.Also on average only about 5% of our tax dollars go towards fixing roads. And probably not much more than than that for things like firemen and such. These things could be privatized anyway. However a decent portion of our tax dollars are being used to pay the salaries of bought-out politicians and other frivolous government positions.
Tax money goes to roads, school, services such as firemen and police, some politician salaries, and a bunch of other things. And no, you don't want those things privatized. The last thing you want is firemen waiting to see if you paid your fire service bill before they attempt to put the fire at your house out.Lastly, yes there is no universal moral law that says killing is wrong but the point is what's 'good for the goose is good for the gander'. If you agree that some random guy going to his local mall and shooting up the place is wrong then that shouldn't change because it's a group of guys sent under the order of another groups of guys under the ambiguous umbrella called the government. Especially when said latters groups intentions have been proven to be less than noble.
Believe me I'm not the type to defend the government, but comparing any action the government has taken with the military to a spree killing is silly. Yes, government motivations are often less than noble, but their motivations have never been to ? for the sake of killing.
And where do we stop placing things into the public sector? When it comes to who we marry? What kind of car we can drive?
Like I said roads, firemen, can all be privatized. There is extensive info on how this can be done. As for firemen refusing to put out your fire because you haven't paid the bill, I doubt it. Healthcare in America has been privatized all this time and they still accept people without insurance. They are willing to work with you if you're willing to pay. Trust me I've done it.
And you're right you can't compare the government to a killing spree because when a killing spree occurs the perpetrator is brought to justice. The government invaded Iraq under false pretenses and slayed 400,000 people and no one was brought to justice. -
i'm curious how he's going to pay taxes to get highways and you're going to be prevented from using those highways you didn't pay for.High Revolutionary wrote: »As for your last paragraph, you want those things, fine. Pay for them. You want to help people donate to charity. But don't impose your desires on to everyone else.
There's a plethora of ways outside of taxes, but a simple answer is tolls.PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I have yet to hear a good argument on the constitutionality of the property tax.
If one has to pay a direct tax' to the state on what they own then they don't own it.
In principle they are only licensing it.
w/o even watching the vid I know that the government hustles, harangues, and shanghais its
people into paying money for or into things that don't work for their benefit. Subsequently,
this makes the people subservient to the state instead being in accordance to the spirit of the
thing which is a state subservient to the people.
This is the core principle everyone seems to forget. -
sounds to me like we're getting into the hair-splitting of "well, fees and tolls aren't TAXES..." granted, it's different, but either way you're talking about paying the government to create and maintain a road.High Revolutionary wrote: »There's a plethora of ways outside of taxes, but a simple answer is tolls.
except that i believe this actually HAS happened.High Revolutionary wrote: »Like I said roads, firemen, can all be privatized. There is extensive info on how this can be done. As for firemen refusing to put out your fire because you haven't paid the bill, I doubt it. -
sounds to me like we're getting into the hair-splitting of "well, fees and tolls aren't TAXES..." granted, it's different, but either way you're talking about paying the government to create and maintain a road.High Revolutionary wrote: »There's a plethora of ways outside of taxes, but a simple answer is tolls.
Difference is the money isn't automatically taken from you. If you want to use the road you pay for it. Simple as that. If I walk everywhere I need to go why am I paying for something I don't even use? And who said the government has to oversee that process?except that i believe this actually HAS happened.
That fire fighting company wasn't privatized though. In a truly free market there would be competing fire fighting companies to breed efficiency. Much like there are competing pizza businesses. If you have a bad experience with one you can pass it on to any would-be customers, and take your business elsewhere. In this particular example, if my house is burning down and a firefighting company decides to sit there because I haven't paid my bill I can immediately call a competing fire fighting company who works on credit to put out the fire. -
because the government is supposed to be functioning as a neutral body in this circumstance. whether or not they are by whatever standard, that's the concept.High Revolutionary wrote: »If I walk everywhere I need to go why am I paying for something I don't even use? And who said the government has to oversee that process?
depending on where you live and what the economics are, i am not sure you ALWAYS have competing pizza businesses. but i think fire-fighting is a LITTLE more important than selling pizzas.High Revolutionary wrote: »That fire fighting company wasn't privatized though. In a truly free market there would be competing fire fighting companies to breed efficiency. Much like there are competing pizza businesses.
bear in mind that in this particular example, you're presuming a best-of-all-possible outcomes scenario where a) fire-fighting is entirely privatized and yet b) even though you have not paid your bill and can't get service, you're IMMEDIATELY able to get it from a competitor. what if you do not have the means to pay that competitor? what if the competitor does not exist? what if the competitor exists, but does not function in accordance with the rules of paying them you have established? -
High Revolutionary wrote: »So my only choices are to get with the program or live in the wilderness with bigfoot? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Besides because the government has laid claim to all land within the countries borders there really is no where I could legally reside.
I don't get it. I can understand arguing about whether taxes are too high or not. That's fair, but how can you expect to be part of a society and not think you have to pay anything towards it's upkeep and functioning. Are you one of t hose dudes that buys a car and thinks there is only the car note to worry about? No, you have to maintain the ? . The same goes for the civilization you live in. We all have to play our part in contributing to make sure the system stays afloat. If you don't want to do that, then yes, the only fair thing to do is refrain from taking part in what that civilization has to offer.And where do we stop placing things into the public sector? When it comes to who we marry? What kind of car we can drive?
This is pretty much just the standard illogical slippery slow argument.Like I said roads, firemen, can all be privatized. There is extensive info on how this can be done. As for firemen refusing to put out your fire because you haven't paid the bill, I doubt it. Healthcare in America has been privatized all this time and they still accept people without insurance. They are willing to work with you if you're willing to pay. Trust me I've done it.
Anything can be privatized, that doesn't mean it's the best way to go. And there has already been similar cases. There was an article a while back where a company of fireman let a house burn because it was just outside of the area that the company served. If they would do that, what makes you think they wouldn't do what I suggested. And most hospitals will do certain things for people without insurance, but there are only select hospitals that will take people in an do surgeries and other things like that if you don't have insurance. I've got a cousin now who isn't financially stable. Whenever, he has a problem he goes to one hospital because it's the only one that will take him in without giving him grief. And guess what, that hospital receives state funds, which comes from what? Tax money.And you're right you can't compare the government to a killing spree because when a killing spree occurs the perpetrator is brought to justice. The government invaded Iraq under false pretenses and slayed 400,000 people and no one was brought to justice.
What is justice in that situation? There are people in Iraq right now who are happy Saddam is gone. And can I get a link for the proof that the US killed 400,000 people as opposed to 400,000 people being killed by the war? I'm not a fan of that war either, but acting like US soldiers personally killed everyone that died as a result of the war is disingenuous. -
To renounce your citizenship you sign a waiver in a US Consulate. As of 2010 you pay a $450 fee but if you can not afford it you can still sign and pay the fee over time. The US delegate will warn you to have citizenship established in a second nation prior to renouncing. If you do not you may end up in a stateless situation which sucks. The process is not lengthy.
Regardless of renouncing your citizenship you are still bound by US law. One of the laws state that any US stock you own at time of your renouncing you must pay capitol gains. This is the case with Mr. Saverin. While he renounced his citizenship he still had to pay capitol gains on the Facebook stock he owned. This was much less though since that value was calculated prior to the IPO rather than after. (Though with the meltdown of the Facebook IPO this may no longer be true.)
The first fire departments where created in Rome and were used to produce profit. They would often not put out fires until their owner had purchased the buildings near the fire for dirt cheap. In New York similar events occurred. In fact in modern times several homes have burned down when the fire department refused to respond because a $75 fee had not been paid by the home owner. And the utter stupidity of one police for rich people and an other for poor simply dies on the face of it. There already exists too much advantage to class and money in our judicial system we do not need to increase it.
Each of the things I mentioned are used universally. Your gym membership is a personal item. Take scientific research the greatest results have come from pure research rather than profit driven research. Currently work is being done on quantum computers. Perhaps someone will figure this out perhaps not but if they do it will again redefine our lives. While these people will make enormous money none will go to the researchers that laid the basic foundation supporting quantum computing. -
because the government is supposed to be functioning as a neutral body in this circumstance. whether or not they are by whatever standard, that's the concept.High Revolutionary wrote: »If I walk everywhere I need to go why am I paying for something I don't even use? And who said the government has to oversee that process?
depending on where you live and what the economics are, i am not sure you ALWAYS have competing pizza businesses. but i think fire-fighting is a LITTLE more important than selling pizzas.High Revolutionary wrote: »That fire fighting company wasn't privatized though. In a truly free market there would be competing fire fighting companies to breed efficiency. Much like there are competing pizza businesses.
bear in mind that in this particular example, you're presuming a best-of-all-possible outcomes scenario where a) fire-fighting is entirely privatized and yet b) even though you have not paid your bill and can't get service, you're IMMEDIATELY able to get it from a competitor. what if you do not have the means to pay that competitor? what if the competitor does not exist? what if the competitor exists, but does not function in accordance with the rules of paying them you have established?
We can trade what if scenarios until the end of time.
If I provide examples of state based fire departments accidentally destroying peoples homes and jeopardizing lives does that make my argument stronger? No, because that would be anecdotal evidence. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »
because the government is supposed to be functioning as a neutral body in this circumstance. whether or not they are by whatever standard, that's the concept.High Revolutionary wrote: »If I walk everywhere I need to go why am I paying for something I don't even use? And who said the government has to oversee that process?
depending on where you live and what the economics are, i am not sure you ALWAYS have competing pizza businesses. but i think fire-fighting is a LITTLE more important than selling pizzas.High Revolutionary wrote: »That fire fighting company wasn't privatized though. In a truly free market there would be competing fire fighting companies to breed efficiency. Much like there are competing pizza businesses.
bear in mind that in this particular example, you're presuming a best-of-all-possible outcomes scenario where a) fire-fighting is entirely privatized and yet b) even though you have not paid your bill and can't get service, you're IMMEDIATELY able to get it from a competitor. what if you do not have the means to pay that competitor? what if the competitor does not exist? what if the competitor exists, but does not function in accordance with the rules of paying them you have established?
We can trade what if scenarios until the end of time.
If I provide examples of state based fire departments accidentally destroying peoples homes and jeopardizing lives does that make my argument stronger? No, because that would be anecdotal evidence.
Yes, it would make your argument stronger, but it wouldn't make you definitively right.
If someone is basically saying that no group of firefighters would let a house burned because their haven't paid their fees (this was basically said in this thread), and you give an example where something like that has already happened, anecdotal or not, that strengthens your argument. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »So my only choices are to get with the program or live in the wilderness with bigfoot? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Besides because the government has laid claim to all land within the countries borders there really is no where I could legally reside.
I don't get it. I can understand arguing about whether taxes are too high or not. That's fair, but how can you expect to be part of a society and not think you have to pay anything towards it's upkeep and functioning. Are you one of t hose dudes that buys a car and thinks there is only the car note to worry about? No, you have to maintain the ? . The same goes for the civilization you live in. We all have to play our part in contributing to make sure the system stays afloat. If you don't want to do that, then yes, the only fair thing to do is refrain from taking part in what that civilization has to offer.
This is pretty much just the standard illogical slippery slow argument.
Anything can be privatized, that doesn't mean it's the best way to go. And there has already been similar cases. There was an article a while back where a company of fireman let a house burn because it was just outside of the area that the company served. If they would do that, what makes you think they wouldn't do what I suggested. And most hospitals will do certain things for people without insurance, but there are only select hospitals that will take people in an do surgeries and other things like that if you don't have insurance. I've got a cousin now who isn't financially stable. Whenever, he has a problem he goes to one hospital because it's the only one that will take him in without giving him grief. And guess what, that hospital receives state funds, which comes from what? Tax money.
What is justice in that situation? There are people in Iraq right now who are happy Saddam is gone. And can I get a link for the proof that the US killed 400,000 people as opposed to 400,000 people being killed by the war? I'm not a fan of that war either, but acting like US soldiers personally killed everyone that died as a result of the war is disingenuous.
The problem is only a small percentage of our tax dollars are going towards society up keeping and functioning. Only 3% of our tax dollars go towards transportation infrastructure or supplying the roads everyone is so worried about. Compare that to 20% going to Defense and International Security Assistance or funding endless wars and keeping multiple military bases around the world operational.
You do know the government is in talks to make black box recorders mandatory in newer vehicles, right? Suddenly that slope isn't looking so slippery.
And like I told janklow the examples you cite of fire fighters allowing houses to burn for whatever reason are not adequate examples because they do not exist within a free market. Those are still state based fire-fighting companies. A truly free market would breed competition and allow for multiple fire-fighting companies to exist or even allow fire-fighters to volunteer without having to go through excessive red tape to do so.
What is justice? Justice isn't over 400,000 people losing their lives as a result of US intervention. And that's not even counting US soldiers. There are people who are happy Saddam is gone, sure, but that is no justification. Whether US soldiers killed every last Iraqi or not is irrelevant, those people are dead as a result of the Iraqi war. Do me a favor and look up causation in law when you get a chance.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »
because the government is supposed to be functioning as a neutral body in this circumstance. whether or not they are by whatever standard, that's the concept.High Revolutionary wrote: »If I walk everywhere I need to go why am I paying for something I don't even use? And who said the government has to oversee that process?
depending on where you live and what the economics are, i am not sure you ALWAYS have competing pizza businesses. but i think fire-fighting is a LITTLE more important than selling pizzas.High Revolutionary wrote: »That fire fighting company wasn't privatized though. In a truly free market there would be competing fire fighting companies to breed efficiency. Much like there are competing pizza businesses.
bear in mind that in this particular example, you're presuming a best-of-all-possible outcomes scenario where a) fire-fighting is entirely privatized and yet b) even though you have not paid your bill and can't get service, you're IMMEDIATELY able to get it from a competitor. what if you do not have the means to pay that competitor? what if the competitor does not exist? what if the competitor exists, but does not function in accordance with the rules of paying them you have established?
We can trade what if scenarios until the end of time.
If I provide examples of state based fire departments accidentally destroying peoples homes and jeopardizing lives does that make my argument stronger? No, because that would be anecdotal evidence.
Yes, it would make your argument stronger, but it wouldn't make you definitively right.
If someone is basically saying that no group of firefighters would let a house burned because their haven't paid their fees (this was basically said in this thread), and you give an example where something like that has already happened, anecdotal or not, that strengthens your argument.
http://www.gtinewsphoto.com/ElectionFraud.html
Here's an example of firefighters (and police) defrauding taxpayers of millions of dollars.
Anecdotal evidence is flawed because its based on isolated examples.
-
wait, so an example of what you're talking about failing is anecdotal evidence (fair enough, as it is) and should be discounted (even though it's the closest example to this we can probably find right now, strictly speaking in terms of it being a model where you're paying for service), but i have to assume your best-of-all-possible outcomes scenario is to be taken exactly as you state it? come on, nowHigh Revolutionary wrote: »If I provide examples of state based fire departments accidentally destroying peoples homes and jeopardizing lives does that make my argument stronger? No, because that would be anecdotal evidence.
the problem here is that you're assuming a truly free market will AUTOMATICALLY resolve the problems we mention, but when i point out why this might not be the case, you're tossing out my questions on the grounds that you won't exchange what-if scenarios.High Revolutionary wrote: »And like I told janklow the examples you cite of fire fighters allowing houses to burn for whatever reason are not adequate examples because they do not exist within a free market.
here's the thing: your notion of a truly free market functioning better is a what-if scenario, so why are we discussing it? if the theory's worth discussing, theoretical problems with it should be as well. if not, why not stick to addressing the ACTUAL firefighters we actually have?
-
High Revolutionary wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »So my only choices are to get with the program or live in the wilderness with bigfoot? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Besides because the government has laid claim to all land within the countries borders there really is no where I could legally reside.
I don't get it. I can understand arguing about whether taxes are too high or not. That's fair, but how can you expect to be part of a society and not think you have to pay anything towards it's upkeep and functioning. Are you one of t hose dudes that buys a car and thinks there is only the car note to worry about? No, you have to maintain the ? . The same goes for the civilization you live in. We all have to play our part in contributing to make sure the system stays afloat. If you don't want to do that, then yes, the only fair thing to do is refrain from taking part in what that civilization has to offer.
This is pretty much just the standard illogical slippery slow argument.
Anything can be privatized, that doesn't mean it's the best way to go. And there has already been similar cases. There was an article a while back where a company of fireman let a house burn because it was just outside of the area that the company served. If they would do that, what makes you think they wouldn't do what I suggested. And most hospitals will do certain things for people without insurance, but there are only select hospitals that will take people in an do surgeries and other things like that if you don't have insurance. I've got a cousin now who isn't financially stable. Whenever, he has a problem he goes to one hospital because it's the only one that will take him in without giving him grief. And guess what, that hospital receives state funds, which comes from what? Tax money.
What is justice in that situation? There are people in Iraq right now who are happy Saddam is gone. And can I get a link for the proof that the US killed 400,000 people as opposed to 400,000 people being killed by the war? I'm not a fan of that war either, but acting like US soldiers personally killed everyone that died as a result of the war is disingenuous.
The problem is only a small percentage of our tax dollars are going towards society up keeping and functioning. Only 3% of our tax dollars go towards transportation infrastructure or supplying the roads everyone is so worried about. Compare that to 20% going to Defense and International Security Assistance or funding endless wars and keeping multiple military bases around the world operational.
This is an argument for more responsible usage of tax money, not against the concept of taxes to begin with. And I'm not a fan of pointless wars either, but the idea that putting tax money towards Defense is wrong is a bit silly.You do know the government is in talks to make black box recorders mandatory in newer vehicles, right? Suddenly that slope isn't looking so slippery.
Do you know what a black box recorder is in the context of a vehicle? It will basically record the speed, direction, breaking, etc... of the car during an accident. Am I supposed to be afraid or wary of something like that? It's not some high level spy device that will let the government monitor and control your every action.And like I told janklow the examples you cite of fire fighters allowing houses to burn for whatever reason are not adequate examples because they do not exist within a free market. Those are still state based fire-fighting companies. A truly free market would breed competition and allow for multiple fire-fighting companies to exist or even allow fire-fighters to volunteer without having to go through excessive red tape to do so.
They are good counter-examples because you suggested that it was unlikely that firefighters would refuse to fight a fire if the resident hadn't paid their bill. He gave you an example of it happening over a $70 fee, that pretty much debunks your point. If it can happen over that small an amount of money, think about what would happen when people hadn't paid their firefighter bill for months. And what is this nonsense about a free market automatically breeding competition. Last time I checked electricity and gas utilities are privatize, and in most places in this country, you don't really have a choice. I got screwed over by the gas company in my area. I couldn't say "? you" and go to another gas company because they were the only ones. Say what you want about government beauracracies. At least they will pretend like they care when you complain. When you complain to a private company that knows you have no choice but to stick with them, they will basically laugh in your face.What is justice? Justice isn't over 400,000 people losing their lives as a result of US intervention. And that's not even counting US soldiers. There are people who are happy Saddam is gone, sure, but that is no justification. Whether US soldiers killed every last Iraqi or not is irrelevant, those people are dead as a result of the Iraqi war. Do me a favor and look up causation in law when you get a chance.
It was a war. It's not like the ? just happened one day. As wrong as I think the war was, they went through a process that ended in a declaration of war. Saddam didn't surrender. The people in the country didn't surrender. They fought back. Again, I think the Iraqi war was BS, but it was still a war. It was two sides fighting. Comparing that to a spree killing is just stupid. There is no way you can justify that kind of misrepresentation.
-
wait, so an example of what you're talking about failing is anecdotal evidence (fair enough, as it is) and should be discounted (even though it's the closest example to this we can probably find right now, strictly speaking in terms of it being a model where you're paying for service), but i have to assume your best-of-all-possible outcomes scenario is to be taken exactly as you state it? come on, nowHigh Revolutionary wrote: »If I provide examples of state based fire departments accidentally destroying peoples homes and jeopardizing lives does that make my argument stronger? No, because that would be anecdotal evidence.
No system is without flaws. You point out firefighters allowing a house to burn down due to a homeowners non-payment. I just pointed out an example of two public institutions defrauding taxpayers of millions. I just ? for tatted you, but that's beside the point. The point is that these are both examples of anecdotal evidence because they are isolated examples. Only when they are strung together with other examples to reveal a pattern do they have merit. If I cite one example of police brutality does that mean that we should do away with police altogether?the problem here is that you're assuming a truly free market will AUTOMATICALLY resolve the problems we mention, but when i point out why this might not be the case, you're tossing out my questions on the grounds that you won't exchange what-if scenarios.
As I said no system is without flaws. What if rather than saving the money for us the government has taxed through social security they spend it instead? What if politicians use privileged information to buy and sell investments prior to the information being made public? What if politicians take more cues from special interest groups than us, the people that have elected them. These aren't what-ifs, btw, these things have happened under our government.here's the thing: your notion of a truly free market functioning better is a what-if scenario, so why are we discussing it? if the theory's worth discussing, theoretical problems with it should be as well. if not, why not stick to addressing the ACTUAL firefighters we actually have?
Because firefighters are a side-issue. The overall point which is being lost in the minutiae is this: killing is wrong, stealing is wrong. Just because someone puts arbitrary labels on them like a declaration of war and taxes doesn't change the issue.
