The soldiers abandoned by leadership; the weapons, aircraft, and ammunition left behind for the Taliban; the utter failure that was the withdrawal. 20 years, unfathomable tax-dollars, and many lives for nothing.

When Biden told allies, “America is back”, he wasn’t kidding. It’s more of the same piffle that got us into this mess in the first place.

You can’t even fathom such an idea. What a drone.



Confusing having a vote with ownership, control and autonomy is little more than casuistry in my mind. In practice you own and control nothing, and your autonomy extends as far as the mark you make on a piece of paper, the parameters of which are decided without you.

The problem is, unlike yourself and 180proof, I am incapable of envy and don’t feel entitled to owning someone else’s business.

My opinion hit quite the sore spot. Sour grapes, no doubt.

I don’t conform to anyone’s decision unless I agree with it. If authority cannot justify itself and its efforts I refuse to obey, whether it is a boss or some collection of human beings. If I don’t like the situation in the workplace I bargain for different conditions, find preferable conditions, or better, make my own. That’s how autonomy works. Your autonomy, on the other hand, extends only as far as your vote, a mere entitlement for signing up, which is discarded the moment it conflicts with the majority. With no one to bargain with, no one to appeal to but some vote-tallying machine, you’ll pay lip-service to democracy and be content that your choice was treated like rubbish, no doubt. Meanwhile your conditions are decided by others.

It is a viable system of corporate management, but it suffers the same pitfall of political democracy: mob rule.

Personally I wouldn’t want to work at a cooperative because I would have to conform to the decisions of the majority, whether I agreed with them or not. That, to me, isn’t “by the people, for the people”, but “by the majority, for the majority”.

But I’m sure it would be a nice place to work for the conformist.

I see it as a problem of identity. You are “wired up to receive the world”, which is presumably hidden beyond your vat, the skull. In this story you identify as the brain or some locus within. If you expand your identity to include the rest of you, you’ll find that you are in direct contact with the rest of the world. From there the “essential epistemic connection to make out there come in here” falls apart.

In this case the soldiers are there to enforce the state’s orders.

The police minister said, “As I have said previously, support from the Army will add another line of defence to the NSW Government’s crackdown on COVID-19 compliance.”

You may evoke euphemisms about keeping me safe, but it’s untrue.

An unvaccinated person cannot be a threat if he doesn’t have a virus.

The assumption is that something exists between perceiver and perceived, that some kind of medium makes what appears to be direct observation of the world, indirect observation. So what is it exactly that prohibits you from directly observing the world? What is it, exactly, that exists between you and what you perceive?

I was talking about military knocking on people’s doors, enforcing compliance orders. You’re talking about…me.

I love knowing I upset you more than the jackboot.

They have military policing the streets in Sydney, Australia, stopping people from doing things like going to their beach houses. Nanny-state gonna nanny.

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/another-500-australian-defence-force-personnel-to-hit-sydney-streets-as-part-of-nsw-covid-19-compliance-crackdown-c-3656569

If one’s identity is expanded to include the entire body, beyond the surface of the brain and nervous system to the surface of one’s skin, observation of the external world is direct. There is no longer some medium or veil between perceiver and perceived.

So perhaps the compromise is, anyone has a right to refuse to be vaccinated, but by so doing they forfeit the right to move freely in society.

What if they do not have the virus and present no risk to anyone?

The ethical implications of quarantining Typhoid Mary are one thing—her activities infected others—but removing the right for the healthy to move freely in society, where no one is at risk for interacting with them, could never be more than a policy premised on the ignorance and fear of those in power. In short, you would be discriminating against the wrong people.

Besides, it’s far better to protect oneself than expect everyone else to protect you. That way lies tyranny.

His words were a defence of freedom of speech and thought. The quote was a reason he gave for refusing to hold his tongue. By censoring yourself you are unable to discourse about virtue and approach the greatest good of man.

The gestapo checking your vaccine papers while you eat. France has fallen.

Such is the paradox. They apply racism to fight racism. Hence the term in the US “positive discrimination”. It’s good racism, the kind of racism that benefits the racialized groups we prefer, whether they are victims of racism or not.

Which inquiry?

Nope.

I’m also not shooting or doing backflips over human beings. I don’t know where we’re going with that.

Many things determine wage— job requirements, pay standards in your industry, the size of the company, geographic location, supply and demand—but this is the first time I’ve hear income tax was a determining factor. It’s an interesting argument but I’ll just have to disagree.

They apply it.

I just don’t see how that works. If the income tax is the product of a tax rate times the taxable income, it is impossible for an employer to know what I will be paying in income tax in order to factor it into my hourly wage.

If I miss a day, have less income to tax, and therefor have less tax to pay, should the hourly wage change to reflect that?

If I miss a day, and therefor have less income, should my wage go down as well?

Do you hold that an employer includes what I will inevitably owe in income taxes into the wage? I don’t see how that can work.

I don’t agree that the “agreed upon wage” includes some implicit condition that I pay a percentage of it in taxes. If I refuse to pay taxes I don’t owe the employer a percentage of my wage. The exchange of tax between me and the government has nothing to do with the employer.

The government sees what I make in income, it takes a percentage of that income. That’s the exchange.

I certainly ignore the concept of “the Other” and of race, but only because I think they collectivist crutches for people incapable of individuation, who cannot see past their skulls for the things outside of them. Your value for people does not seem to extend beyond your conceptions and categories to real being. I do not ignore, nor cannot ignore, how these ideas are used to justify the nonsense that is the consequence of this thinking.

Just to be clear, I’m not an abolish the government kind of guy. People are too dependent on it, that to abolish it would be cruel. I’m not even into civil disobedience. I much rather make fun of it and let it go it’s own direction. I just think that taxation is immoral and unjust and maybe, even piecemeal, it can become just.

Bear with my layman’s understanding, but in your scenario I would expect the full pay. Income tax and deductions come from my gross income, my full earnings according to the agreed-upon wage multiplied by the sum of hours I work. By “fruits of my labor”, at least as it pertains to this kind of employment, I mean my gross income. If the tax system was abolished I would expect my employer to pay me everything I earned, including the money the government commonly deducts from this exchange.

I say that the gross income is mine because it was traded to me, exchanged, given to me, gifted, for my work.

I’m aware of how the income tax system works. It applies to most forms of income, not just what employers pay in wages. But the question of whose income, properties, sales, estates, inheritances, benefits, money they are taxing is explicitly stated by governments themselves.

Force and confiscation aren’t legitimate forms of acquiring property for me, so reiterating that the state claims a right, therefor it has the right, to the fruits of my labor isn’t good enough for me.

Yeah, I've actually had this exact conversation with @NOS4A2 before. we reached...https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/509272...then Nos walked away unable to defend his position.

I walked away because you’re boring and difficult to read. That’s not something to be proud of.

You've still not provided any grounds on which the money is the property of the tax-payer. I'll ask again, on what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?

I already did. It was the agreed-upon wage for the labor I provide. On what grounds is it the state’s property?

The “appropriate proportion” is defined by the state, and is added to the cost at the expense of the consumer, in other words, people like myself. It’s not like the employer is giving the state their own money back. It’s taken from the tax-payer at every point.

So once more, on what grounds is it the state’s property?

Build your own road and use that.

I would have to go through the state to do it.

No one uses all roads, though. Not only that but it cannot be shown that one’s taxes go to any specific road, or if they go to Raytheon missiles, or some other “service”.

Are you saying your employer is unaware of the taxation system?

No, of course he is aware. Whose property is my wage?

Obviously if you don't like the system you need to present the alternative.

There is no alternative to present. The monopoly is total.

So your grounds for ownership is that it was given to you? Is everything given to you automatically yours? I'd hate to lend you a lawnmower.

No, I’m not borrowing it. It was given to me on the assumption that I get to keep it. If it’s not my property, whose property is it?

Moral integrity?

Not only should my money be stolen for the construction of roads, but I should refrain from using them? That sounds like a double loss.

That's not what I asked. On what grounds is it your property?

It was given to me. Is it someone else’s property?

Then don't use the roads. You've no argument so long as you're using them.

Why would I not use something that I’ve already helped to fund?

Great, then we'll start again. On what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?

A wage is payed to me for my labor. Do you think it should be payed to someone else?

Then you've seriously misunderstood the arrangement. Do you get chucked off a lot of fairground rides too? The roads aren't free, they're there for you to use on the assumption that you (or others in your community on your behalf) pay for them. If you don't agree to this, don't use them.

I am well aware that roads aren’t free, and I use them because I pay taxes. What I don’t agree to is the coercive and involuntary arrangement.

Absolutely. No one should be vaccinated, ever! After all, they're not sick. Right?

That’s not what I said.

I don’t remember the argument but sure I’ll try to defend it.

Wow. So you've never used a road? Do tell us how.

I use roads all the time.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11514/mask-vaccination-and-the-delta-variant/p1

With the corona virus making a comeback with the Delta variant and the struggle with misinformation.

Should we mandate mask wearing to the same degree as at least wearing a seat belt? And be fine if caught not wearing one. As well as make the corona vaccine mandatory for everyone?

Or should the public have the right to choose to wear a mask and vaccinate or not. Regardless of the risk of public safety?

Which should come first safety or freedom of choice?

At what point should we wait till we decide that safety takes precedence over freedom of choice?
12 hours ago

People without the virus won’t spread the virus. So why would we force them to wear masks? Why would we force them to do anything? Because we are ignorant and scared, two frames of mind that should never set policy.