It’s an anti-social and even sociopathic view. — Xtrix

Yes it is. Monstrous.

utter contempt — Xtrix

Yep, utter contempt for the unskilled laborer. "Fuck those parasites."

I'm not excusing it. I've just given a perfectly clear argument justifying it using foundational principles you and I have just agreed on. We agreed on the need to manage common resources and we agreed that the current crop of humanity (for whatever reason) cannot be trusted to manage those resources voluntarily.

If you want to go back and dispute one of those points then do so.

You didn’t justify taxation.

It's not passive. As ↪Xtrix has pointed out. Just as you can change corporations if you don't like their service, you can change countries if you don't like their deal. The government of the country are the legal owners of the legal entity and they offer a deal to anyone born into (or moving into) their country. If you don't like the deal, move out of their country.

Deal? With which official did you make a deal with on the date of your birth?

I have changed services, changed corporations, and changed countries. One was significantly more difficult and life-altering, taking years to become official and involving much effort and zero negotiation. There was no deal. It was as if running from one plantation to the next. The rest were easy.

Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. — Benkei

It’s interesting that in the age of “Government is the problem,” of small government— getting the state out of the way through deregulation — not only has wealth inequality soared, but consolidation/monopolization has increased. There are less corporations in various markets, not more. (E.g., telecommunications, meat, agriculture, energy, retail, entertainment.)

Apologists want to convince us not to believe our lying eyes. The results of neoliberalism are right in front of us. This is what comes of approaching “laissez faire.”

The closer you get to that “ideal,” the shittier everything becomes.

Keep fighting the good fight against social institutions and democracy while minimizing and defending the most egregious private injustices.

“I can do whatever I want with my slaves — they’re private property.”

The results of neoliberalism are right in front of us. This is what comes of approaching “laissez faire.” — Xtrix

Exactly.

Laissez faire takes us back to the jungle.

I fear laissez faire because........ there are people like NOS4A2. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You didn’t justify taxation. — NOS4A2

With which point do you now disagree?

Deal? With which official did you make a deal with on the date of your birth? — NOS4A2

Whomever the Prime Minister was, Harold Wilson in my case.

I have changed services, changed corporations, and changed countries. One was significantly more difficult and life-altering, taking years to become official and involving much effort — NOS4A2

I don't see how the amount of effort is someone else's problem. Can you explain why the rightful owner of a country should make arrangements to make it easier for you to enter/leave?

zero negotiation — NOS4A2

When was the last time you negotiated on your gas bill? For Christ's sake, you're clutching at straws here. The company says "here's the terms, here's the price - take it or leave it", that's it. You don't get to fucking negotiate the terms and conditions of your utility bill.

It was as if running from one plantation to the next. — NOS4A2

Which is exactly how it feels for someone dissatisfied with all of the available utility companies, for example, or all of the available banks.

The rest were easy. — NOS4A2

Again, explain why the owner of a country should make it easy for you to enter/leave.

:up:

“State bad.”

These fucking libertarians are totally, 100% OK with corporate tyranny that rules over when you can literally go to the bathroom between 9am and 5pm but will get mad about having to pay taxes.

I mean if I were American I would also think paying taxes is a rort because it all goes to builidng bombs to kill childen in Palestine or Ukraine anyway, but that is not the libertarian issue.

Recent US government votes:

Senate votes:
78-17 for a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos
90-5 for a $125 billion corporate tax break
87-6 for $53 billion to corporate outsourcers
88-11 for $780 billion to war profiteers
58-42 against a $15 minimum wage

So yeah, there is absolutely a problem with taxes but that's what happens when a state is a corporate subentity with a military.

I’m not sure I’ve seen your justification for taxation in this thread, or I have forgotten. If you wouldn’t mind reiterating it or linking to it I can provide a response.

I don’t think you made any deal with Harold Wilson, but such a thought brings new meaning to the phrase “cradle-to-grave”.

I don’t think anyone can own a country and I have given no group of people or any institution the right to dictate how I conduct myself. The opposite is true when I sign employment agreements. One dictates my behavior by threat and force, the other by agreement. Do you think both are similar?

I have never negotiated a public utility bill because I am not allowed to. I am unable to negotiate or find a competitor because the state has a monopoly on such utilities.

I don’t think a government should make it easier for me, and never expressed anything like that. I have only said the relationship is immoral, employs compulsory cooperation rather than voluntary cooperation.

I’m not sure I’ve seen your justification for taxation in this thread, or I have forgotten. If you wouldn’t mind reiterating it or linking to it I can provide a response. — NOS4A2

I gave it in the quote - there's a need to manage common resources, experience has shown that in our current hierarchical society people do not do so voluntarily. You agreed with both of those principles. Hence it follows there's a need to manage common resources without relying on spontaneous voluntary action.

One justification among many, but the one whose premises you agreed with.

I don’t think you made any deal with Harold Wilson — NOS4A2

Of course I did, same deal you made when you buy a phone, open a bank account, drive over a toll bridge, get on a train... Not every deal is in the form of a signed contract, not every deal is made with the relevant party's agreement (those involving children, for example).

I don’t think anyone can own a country — NOS4A2

Neither do I, I'm following your logic. If no-one can own a country then I shouldn't have to pay for any property, right? Since no-one can own it? Why do you think no-one can own a country, but people can own a factory?

I have given no group of people or any institution the right to dictate how I conduct myself. — NOS4A2

Yes, you have. You're living in their country and those are the rules. If you don't like those rules, move. How is this any different to employment? Say your boss changes your working hours, you didn't agree to that change, you no longer like the new working hours, so what do you do?

One dictates my behavior by threat and force, the other by agreement. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't you're completely free to leave. They're not using any threat or force to compel you to stay. Of course, if you do stay, then you're agreeing to their rules, one of which is that they can throw you in jail if you break any of the rules. If you don't like that rule, move.

I don’t think a government should make it easier for me, and never expressed anything like that. — NOS4A2

Yet the only counter-argument you offered to the suggestion that countries are no different to corporations is that it's hard to leave. If you're now saying they're under no obligation to make it easier for you to leave, then what remains?

Your argument fails because you cannot invoke any substantive reason why a government should not own a country that doesn't also apply to a corporation owning a utility (or land, or mining rights, or whatever...). Absent of this, it is exactly as legitimate for a country to specify the rules you must abide by to make use of it's land, air, water etc, as it is for a corporation to. If you don't like those rules, move.

I have only said the relationship is immoral, employs compulsory cooperation rather than voluntary cooperation. — NOS4A2

There's no compulsion at all. You're free to leave any time you like.

...a state is a corporate subentity with a military. — Streetlight

Exactly.

NOS is (willfully?) confused about the power hierarchy of the modern world. Horns for the state and halos for the corporations. What a mess of illogic.

NOS is (willfully?) confused — ZzzoneiroCosm

He is not confused. He likes corporate power. He sees no issue with it. Do not be charitable with fucks like him.

Do not be charitable with fucks like him. — Streetlight

While I agree he's a fuck, I think ignorance is at the heart of it. He wholeheartedly hates the state. That's correct, to my view. If he would pick up a (fucking) book on the subject he would see that...

...a state is a corporate subentity with a military... — Streetlight

...and expand his hate to the corporate sphere.

He likes corporate power. He sees no issue with it. — Streetlight

He sees no issue with it because he doesn't understand that...

...a state is a corporate subentity with a military. — Streetlight

He doesn't understand it because he's been careful not to read a book about it. There's no excuse for his ignorance, as he's apparently capable of educating himself. That's why I agree he's a fuck: His ignorance is willful. But I still chalk it up to ignorance.

It's possible I'm being too charitable. I think Hanlon's razor is a pearl:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by [ignorance]."

I'm very tired of people putting down to ignorance what can be explained by the fact that some people are genuinely horrible people. I think it is a self-comforting move made to imagine that the world has some good arc or something. It doesn't, and NOS in particular is a fascist, so I will disagree. He does not need an education. He needs to be treated like the tumor he is.

I'm very tired of people putting down to ignorance what can be explained by the fact that some people are genuinely horrible people. — Streetlight

You may be right. I've called him a monster above, and I stand by that. What you see as my charity aligns neatly with Nietzsche's caveat:

"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...”

I gave it in the quote - there's a need to manage common resources, experience has shown that in our current hierarchical society people do not do so voluntarily. You agreed with both of those principles. Hence it follows there's a need to manage common resources without relying on spontaneous voluntary action.

It doesn’t follow for me that a compulsory tax or compulsory cooperation is required to manage common resources.

Neither do I, I'm following your logic. If no-one can own a country then I shouldn't have to pay for any property, right? Since no-one can own it? Why do you think no-one can own a country, but people can own a factory?

By and large people come to own a factory by legitimate means, states do not acquire a territory by legitimate means. Factories deal with their employees through legitimate means, utilizing contract and voluntary cooperation, states do not, and utilize force and compulsory cooperation.

No it doesn't you're completely free to leave. They're not using any threat or force to compel you to stay. Of course, if you do stay, then you're agreeing to their rules, one of which is that they can throw you in jail if you break any of the rules. If you don't like that rule, move.

I feel I shouldn’t need to compare immigration to changing jobs, but this is quality of argument we’ve resorted to.

I don’t require a passport to leave a job and find another. I don’t need to pass through a border and have my motives questioned if I leave a job and find another. I do not need to sell my property and sever ties with the people I know to change jobs. I do not need to become an immigrant and go through any immigration process to change jobs. I do not need to learn new languages, customs, laws, just to fit in a new job. I do not face deportation if I find a new job. The comparison is so outlandish as to be false.

You may be right. I've called him a monster above, and I stand by that. What you see as my charity aligns neatly with Nietzche's caveat:

"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...”

Cringeworthy. You lot have resorted to fashioning fantasies in your head. But I love reading you guys seethe about it.

I love reading you guys seethe... — NOS4A2

Something only a monster would say.

Take care.

Enjoy your thraldom.

It doesn’t follow for me that a compulsory tax or compulsory cooperation is required to manage common resources. — NOS4A2

OK. How else?

By and large people come to own a factory by legitimate means, states do not acquire a territory by legitimate means. Factories deal with their employees through legitimate means, utilizing contract and voluntary cooperation, states do not, and utilize force and compulsory cooperation. — NOS4A2

You're just using 'legitimate' here to mean 'means I agree with'. On what grounds are the means by which factory owner come by their factories 'legitimate' which then excludes the means by which, say, Queen Elizabeth came by England?

states ... utilize force and compulsory cooperation. — NOS4A2

They do not. You are free to leave.

I don’t require a passport to leave a job and find another. I don’t need to pass through a border and have my motives questioned if I leave a job and find another. I do not need to sell my property and sever ties with the people I know to change jobs. I do not need to become an immigrant and go through any immigration process to change jobs. I do not need to learn new languages, customs, laws, just to fit in a new job. I do not face deportation if I find a new job. — NOS4A2

You've not answered why the state should care how difficult you find it to emigrate. If you don't like the rules, move. If you find moving onerous, how exactly is that my problem, or the state's problem, or anyone's problem but yours?

If I personally find emigration a breeze, but am terrified of job interviews, do I get to claim corporations are immoral for making move jobs every time they change my employment terms?

Enjoy your thraldom. — NOS4A2

Also monstrous.






Monstrous corroboration.

OK. How else?

I thought you were going to justify taxation.

You're just using 'legitimate' here to mean 'means I agree with'. On what grounds are the means by which factory owner come by their factories 'legitimate' which then excludes the means by which, say, Queen Elizabeth came by England?

This is turning into an interview. I feared as much.

There are two means by which man can satisfy his needs, through one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, or through robbery and confiscation. The private citizen, whether factory owner or factory worker, engages in the former, the state engages in the latter.

You've not answered why the state should care how difficult you find it to emigrate. If you don't like the rules, move. If you find moving onerous, how exactly is that my problem, or the state's problem, or anyone's problem but yours?

If I personally find emigration a breeze, but am terrified of job interviews, do I get to claim corporations are immoral for making move jobs every time they change my employment terms?

You’re comparing immigration to finding a new job. It’s a false equivalency. And that’s to say nothing about states where emigration is or was illegal.

I thought you were going to justify taxation. — NOS4A2

I am. X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.

There are two means by which man can satisfy his needs, through one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, or through robbery and confiscation. The private citizen, whether factory owner or factory worker, engages in the former, the state engages in the latter. — NOS4A2

So you'd rule against inheritance then, which is neither "one’s own labor" nor "the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others". That's a good start, but it doesn't differentiate Queen Elizabeth from most factory owners.

You’re comparing immigration to finding a new job. It’s a false equivalency. — NOS4A2

Just saying it's a false equivalency doesn't make it one by magic. It's harder. That's all you've given me so far. If I find emigration easy but moving jobs hard does that make my employer immoral for changing my contract to terms I don't like?

I am. X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.

Taxes need doing. That’s a justification for taxes. Doesn’t compute.

So you'd rule against inheritance then, which is neither "one’s own labor" nor "the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others". That's a good start, but it doesn't differentiate Queen Elizabeth from most factory owners.

I would not rule against inheritance, and never implied any such thing.

A monarch is the head of state, a factory owner is a subject of the state.

Just saying it's a false equivalency doesn't make it one by magic. It's harder. That's all you've given me so far. If I find emigration easy but moving jobs hard does that make my employer immoral for changing my contract to terms I don't like?

I’ve given reasons why they are not equivalent, all of which were not addressed. You haven’t given reasons why the are equivalent. Moving to another country is not equivalent to moving to another job.

X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X. — Isaac

This seems more accurate to me:

X needs doing. Y is the only way to do X. That's a justification for Y.

Taxes need doing. That’s a justification for taxes. Doesn’t compute. — NOS4A2

The form given was... (Although, see )

X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.

...is there some reason you missed out the most important part?

I would not rule against inheritance, and never implied any such thing. — NOS4A2

So, if the Queen inherits England, she legitimately owns England.

A monarch is the head of state, a factory owner is a subject of the state. — NOS4A2

Yep. Because his factory is on the Queen's property. Her property, her rules.

I’ve given reasons why they are not equivalent, all of which were not addressed. — NOS4A2

I did address them. You just ignored it. Your list makes emigration harder than moving job, no other difference is given than the difficulty. If I find emigration easier than moving job, is my boss immoral for changing my contract unfavorably?

Or, put another way, if states made emigration easier, would they be off the hook?

This seems more accurate to me:

X needs doing. Y is the only way to do X. That's a justification for Y. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. That works better.

X needs doing, there are no alternatives. That's a justification for X.

I just want to know the justification for why taxes need doing. I was arguing that they don’t need doing, that they are immoral, that there are voluntary alternatives such as community organization.

I did address them. You just ignored it. Your list makes emigration harder than moving job. If I find emigration easier than moving job, is my boss immoral for changing my contract unfavorably?

Or, put another way, if states made emigration easier, would they be off the hook?

If you found emigration easier than changing jobs I’d say you were insane, for one.

Yes, I get it, a boss may act immorally towards an employee just like a state can act immorally towards a citizen. Yes, one has the option of quitting a state just as one has the option to quit a job. People do both all the time, for economic and moral reasons, at least when they are not fleeing because they fear for their lives. Yes, if one doesn’t like one state he should move to another.

But that’s an oversimplification because one isn’t compelled, by threat of force, to deal with anyone in the private sphere, corporate or otherwise, save for perhaps in criminal endeavors like robbery. He can liberate himself from the jurisdiction of his overlords and work as he sees fit. He can become a boss himself, start a collective, and so on. All of it, of course, under the beck and call of the state.

In a state you are compelled, by threat of force, to deal with it, just like with any criminal enterprise. The immigrant and refugee cannot liberate himself from its power and oversight no matter where he goes. Even those deemed stateless have been subjected to some of the worst state privations from states.

The relationship, the risks, the effort, the power imbalance, the scope, the coercion, the effect—none of it is equivalent between the two.