If you want to delegate your responsibilities to your fellow human beings to someone else, go for it. — NOS4A2
But I don’t think that favoring a piece of legislation—in other words sitting around and doing nothing—is any sign that you’re helping anyone but yourself. — NOS4A2
The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law. — NOS4A2
Yah. Somebody's work - not necessarily the diner's.All food is acquired with work, buddy. — NOS4A2
Communism violates one of the most basic rights of human beings that of ownership such as your own property or farm. — invicta
Private business does that, too.Republicans in the 2015-17 state budget expanded the types of oil pipeline business structures granted eminent domain power in Wisconsin.
A mildly socialistic government or even a Scandinavian version of socialism would be preferred to outright communism for the simple reason that shelter should be a basic human right in the face of homelessness and the discomforts of natures harshness. — invicta
So he made a choice: comply with the laws of one country - at least until he can use the legislative process to change them, move to another country, or stop doing business.
You have the same choice.
Such like suggests (to me at least) that anti-taxers go by (dogmatic) ideology, but I could surely be wrong. — jorndoe
The true anarchist/individualist is always outnumbered. Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? Or will they be alone? Choosing the "least bad" is rational. — jorndoe
You can opt out of the social contract in several ways: — Vera Mont
Or, it could do so whilst you're in (since the same proscription applies to you - you can't use violence against them to make the stop). — Isaac
What you are describing is the state using its extraordinary power to put the individual in a position where they are unable to resist. — Tzeentch
That in itself could be seen as an act of violence (or at the very least belonging in the same category), however it's probably useful to understand that the state's violence is a direct reaction to this act of resistance. — Tzeentch
That the state has means to put the individual in a position where resistance is impossible, is not a redeeming factor to the way states operate. — Tzeentch
I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force. — Tzeentch
There are ways other than physical violence against persons with which one could resist, and they would be met swiftly with actual violence against your person by the state. — Tzeentch
Not at all. Many individuals are capable of the sort of hacking, or deception needed to extract money from a bank account. It happens all the time, it doesn't require extraordinary state power, an ordinary thief could do it. — Isaac
I just said the state could take your money non-violently. You could try and take it back non-violently too. We could oppose violence entirely. It wouldn't stop people taking the property they thought was theirs. The best hacker/thief/con-man would have all the money. No violence needed. — Isaac
We have way bigger fish to fry than the state. — Isaac
If physical violence was off the table completely, protecting one's belongings would be easy enough. I could chain myself to my belongings so that any attempt to seperate me from them would result in an act of physical violence and voilá. — Tzeentch
I can protect myself from a hacker or a thief easily enough. — Tzeentch
While I agree that ever more powerful corporations are a problem on the same line as states, I view states as being equally responsible for that problem, and not as a viable alternative. They're two sides of the same rotten coin. — Tzeentch
Then there's the added dimension that states are actively trying to make me complicit in their misdeeds by forcing me to contribute to their purse. — Tzeentch
I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force. — Tzeentch
What about your money? Any land you think you own? Possessions like boats, cars, buildings...? — Isaac
...that describes most of the world's larger corporations. In Indonesia, for example, it is impossible to get insurance without using a company majority owned by Black Rock. They've simply bought out (quite legally) all competition.
Google, Black Rock, Vanguard, Microsoft...
All for exactly that to an extent that is larger than most governments. The US government might still come out as public enemy number one, but we'd come to Black Rock way before the majority of the rest if the world in terms of "tak[ing] things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist" — Isaac
I'm not a particularly materialistic person. — Tzeentch
I consider all of that to be unethical as well. But I view physical violence a degree worse than the coercive power of powerful corporations (if only by a little), which is why the physical violence of states is, in my view, not an actual alternative. — Tzeentch
big pharma is problematic, but it becomes inescapable when states start mandating their product. — Tzeentch
The point I'm making here is that what we can rightfully possess (what it would be 'theft' for the government to take) is a separate issue from the means by which government takes it.
Using violence (or threat of it) might be wrong in all cases, but it doesn't in any way preclude the current distribution of property - including your tax burden - it just changes the means by which it can be collected. — Isaac
As above, I'm not unsympathetic to this view but I'm struggling to see an argument as to why violence (as opposed to cunning) creates a somehow less tolerable inequality. — Isaac
The state might make someone take a product by threat of violence, the physically weak would comply.
The company might do so by clever advertising and psychological manipulation, the mentally weak comply.
What's the difference? — Isaac
Assuming I understand your point correctly, I would argue that the way people should distribute property is through voluntary means. — Tzeentch
Simply put, the state maintains a monopoly on violence, which means any act of resistance will be further cause for violence. Resistance is forbidden.
The thief holds no monopoly on cunning, and I can (fairly easily, I would argue) use my own wits to protect myself against it. Without a monopoly on violence the thief can't stop me from resisting their efforts.
The company holds no monopoly on manipulation, and I can use my mental capacity however I wish to resist the company's influence. — Tzeentch
I distinguish between actions against one's body and action's against one's belongings. The body is the one belonging that irrevocably belongs to the individual, while there can be a debate about the rest. — Tzeentch
Depriving people of their basic life needs, for instance, is in my view on par with actual physical violence, and I would judge it just as harshly. — Tzeentch
So, we can draw a line at someone literally extracting your possessions from you by force. that's clearly not voluntary. But what about them taking your possessions when you're out? Is that voluntary (you left them insufficiently guarded)? If not, then we have any possession taken without consent being 'involuntary'. So If I think I own the river from which some company is extracting water, they're taking that possession of mine without my consent, yes? — Isaac
I don't see any justification for calling the fact that the government tops the 'violence' list a 'monopoly', but saying that the fact that a small cabal of corporations top the 'manipulation' list as not a monopoly. — Isaac
I therefore also don't see how removing one form of power has any relation to property. It will simply be distributed according the the remaining forms of power. — Isaac
Tax comes under 'the rest' since it can be extracted by means other than violence (theft, deception, market manipulation, psychological manipulation...) — Isaac
That's a good foundation for agreement. Can we agree, further, on what constitutes "basic life needs?" — Isaac
And people have the choice not to exploit their fellow man. Stop taking another’s stuff. Quit forcing another to labor for you. Find other means to satisfy your wants that do not involve exploiting others. — NOS4A2
I don't believe in the legitimacy of a "contract" that has been unilaterally imposed. — Tzeentch
Why are you wasting your time complaining on an internet forum? — Tzeentch
There is a difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority. — NOS4A2
One's status as an official, or employment within a bureaucracy, is not good enough to justify the legitimacy of their own authority. — NOS4A2
Society should be vigilant but delegating that vigilance to some job-holding bureaucrat, subject to the whims of a political class, is to be the opposite of vigilant. — NOS4A2
What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something — you know, your wages are going down, etc. — you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.