This seems like a lot of bureaucracy, compared to just buying exactly which goods and services you want.
greatest police badge number ever
- Thread starter ayzo
- Start date
This seems like a lot of bureaucracy, compared to just buying exactly which goods and services you want.
I can't predict how markets would solve the problem of not having "unanimous consent" for any particular project, just like I couldn't have predicted probably anything amazing that the market has done in the past few hundred years.
I'm not really sure what we're disagreeing on at this point. But you said that the majority voted for the millages and now they have been enacted. Well, obviously the people that didn't want them are now being forced to pay as a result of basic mob rule. And if they don't pay, it's not that they "can't live in that community anymore," it's that they'll be forced to pay or imprisoned if they don't comply (and potentially murdered if they try to defend themselves).
The conditioning comes into play when people passively accept new laws or "millages" without any outrage or serious objection because they believe they actually have a choice and that they're participating in a system based on something that is supposed to resemble liberty. When you grow up going to public school, the law is law. And America is the home of the brave, land of the free, and there are glorious eagles and beautiful stars and stripes waving in the breeze on your textbooks. I don't think most people who rally for new taxes have ever looked behind the curtain and examined what it really is they're supporting.
It doesn't somehow make it a moral exercise to lobby for millages just because people decide to take advantage of doing so. If I'm kidnapped and held captive and after a couple days I petition the kidnapper for something to eat, does that make me complicit in his crime? I don't think so. If he says I can only have a hamburger if I shoot the neighbor cat with his bb gun, should I be held accountable for that? It might make me sort of a dickhead, I guess. But ultimately he would be the one that I think most people would agree is liable for whatever evil I do to survive while in captivity.
The government, or more specifically, the acceptance of and/or belief in the government, is what I believe is at the root of this evil.
Hang on let me find a quote...
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
That and voluntary taxes != competitive market. It's still a monopoly, you just get to choose beef burger or chicken burger. Whoopity doo. You're still eating at McDonalds.
Not at all. In fact, it would force every citizen to really think about what kind of services they want from the government.
The ones that had majority support from the public would thrive. Those that didn't pass a benchmark(say, 25% of public support) would not. You would actually get much less bureaucracy, a much leaner government, since taxpayers would have 100% control over the funding choices.
It would cause citizens to drastically rethink their relationship with their government, and how their taxes go towards specific services.
Certain ones(military, police) would be mandatory, but all others would be optional. Think about how that would affect the healthcare market, etc..
Except that we know exactly how the markets handled it - they created governing bodies to administer this shit. There didn't used to be governments. Everything was free market voluntaryist societies, until the markets decided governments were needed.
That's not how property taxes work. Income taxes, yes, but not property taxes. Remember we're talking about property taxes because our disagreement lies in whether or not people would voluntarily pay taxes without the threat of violence, and millages (which is what property taxes are based on) are an example of where that is not the case.
People will overwhelmingly vote to pay taxes and even raise their own taxes if they can tangibly see what they're getting. My guess is because property taxes and the things they fund are on a much more local level people feel better about paying them. I can see how good the schools are in my neighborhood, and how well the police and fire do their job.
The flip side of that is the example I gave earlier where a lot of people in Detroit (almost 50% I believe) decided to stop paying property taxes because they could tangibly see their schools, police and fire were shit. That forced the EFM in the city to recalculate millages and tax rates to better represent the level of service they're getting in the city.
No disagreement there.
I'd say that's a flawed analogy because things like schools and fire and police are not REQUIRED to be funded with millages. Some neighborhoods hire private security. Private schools aren't funded through millages. Even fire protection isn't compulsory in every neighborhood. There was a thread on here awhile back about how some farmer decided not to pay for fire protection and when his shit caught fire the guys came out and watched it burn, rather than put it out. They were only there to make sure the fire didn't spread to his neighbors who had paid for the fire protection.
So in some neighborhoods they have decided not to fund these things in a compulsory manner, and in others they have decided to. Shouldn't that be their choice?
"I am living thin right now, practically paycheck to paycheck, and I don't have the money to pay for increased taxes this year, but I don't care. I'm voting to raise this town's mill rate because our schools have been improving and they're on the rise and our children deserve it and I encourage others to do the same."
- Parent of a student in my last middle school at a town school budget hearing
Whatever you think of people like this, they are definitely not few and far between.
Wouldn't the Government continually claim that more and more services were mandatory?
Agreed. There are tons of people who can't do math, and who correlate causation.
This is the world we live in. That's why I prefer the company of my dogs. They will never vote to raise taxes they themselves cannot pay.
the fact that statements like that are not fewer and further between is the only unfortunate part.
Well that's tricky. I could be, or if I am able to defend my "possession", it then becomes ownership.
Sovereignty. People have claimed sovereignty over the US. These people are able to defend this sovereignty, therefore they keep it.
No one is arguing we walked over here and politely asked the indians to give us their land. Some people just like to think the laws put in place after taking ownership of this land were good and "just" laws. Especially compared to the laws put into place by other nations.
Stop posting shit like this as if I or others here are not directing the conversation towards your question. You haven't liked any of the answers, but don't act like we're dodging the question.
Because you have no authority. No one consents to your laws and you do not have the power to force them to.
You can rule by force or by consent. The US uses a mixture of both.
"bad" - "good" , not enough room here to allow for this discussion.
ok.
The authority of the law is derived by consent or force. Who says a law has to be "just" to be a law?
Certain laws could be unjust while others are just. I doubt anyone is saying all laws are just. They are probably saying "having law is just".
Off Topic:
If you are actually interested in communicating in a way which gets people to question their beliefs and change their minds, you need to enact less ego.
I never said the one made the other ok. I simply said the one was good.I'd let this one slide. The only point you can make here, is that one offsets or whitewashes the other. And it doesn't. It's not ok for me to murder you if I feel bad later. It's not ok for me to steal from you if I give you a hug everyday.
No. I'm saying you can argue the laws are just while also maintaining the authority used to enforce the law is unjust.
You conflate and pull out my points from so many different parts of the argument... No. Like I've said, you can agree a nations sovereignty was gained unjustly while also agreeing the laws they enacted are just. You can agree some things they do are bad, while others are good. You can't just paint a brush over all of it like you do.
I posted once, in one of the bitcoin threads simply stating the arguments pointed against bitcoin were rather weak. I can say this without it meaning I support or oppose bitcoin. Just as I can sit here and argue with you about why the law "applies" to you without it meaning I support statism or oppose it. You assume too much.
You keep on conflating what we should be doing with what the current system is. We can either argue about "how do we currently live" OR we can argue "how should we live". When you ask "how are the laws applicable to me", we say because you cannot defend your sovereignty. You then go into arguments on whether or not this is "just". Those are two different arguments/discussions. The law applies to you, whether or not it should is another argument. You constantly do this in all of your arguments. Constantly flipping back and forth between what we should do and what the reality of the current system is.
So which is it? Are you asking "should the laws be applicable to me?" or are you asking "are the laws applicable to me?".
If you are asking "are", address the above. If you are asking "should", then meh, I don't think we should get into that discussion when we're already 5 pages deep in.
I've been wondering about this.
What if, in this scenario, someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to steal that man's wallet. Is that theft wrong?
In effect, I am asking: do anarchists (I'm not sure whether to say that or libertarians) believe there are absolute morals?
Yes.
Moral relativism, a black hole of intellectualism, is the enemy of rational behavior.
Ownership is the notion of "mine and thine" it isn't dependent upon defence if there is a mutual understanding.
If all sovereignty is based on violence as you assert, then isn't it implicit that consent has no value?
What if people think they were bad?
American law is based on British common law.
I don't think you're dodging it. I think judges dodge it when asked in court.
I don't think there is a good answer, and so we're going to spend a lot of time talking about off topic stuff.
The fundamental issue here, is that many people cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion. I am playing along with a lot of opinions, but really, I just came for the facts.
Well I didn't consent to the masters' laws, so we have to assume they rule me by force. I agree. The system is based on violence.
No one is saying that. I think it's just very important to make clear that the law is based on violence and has nothing to do with justice. Now we're on the same page.
Not sure I understand the distinction.
You don't understand what I am doing then. Whenever I have talked about marketing, I have tried to point out that the 98% that don't convert, are probably not your clients anyway. 100% conversion rates are a pipe dream, and instead it may be wiser to focus on taking 2% conversion to 2.5% conversion.
I am using the people I argue with to make points, which people will read here for some time, and those arguments made by you and by me, will affect and alter their outlook. In my case, I am not trying to get them to like me, or to agree with me. I simply want to point out the gun in the room. Once they know it is there, or they have heard it suggested as being there, they can't stop incorporating that the system is based on violence and arbitrary authority into their world view, even if it is subconsciously.
I would rather live in an anarchist world where everyone hates me than a statist world where everyone loves me for never questioning their delusions. I stopped being worried about trivial shit like popularity a long time ago.
Also the perception of ego that comes across in text isn't the best representation of me. If you've talked to me or come to one of my webinars, I'm a pretty chill dude. But when we're discussing ideas, it's important to paint bright lines. To take strong stances and argue with conviction.
If you don't believe and try to understand at a relatively high level that which you're arguing, then it's probably better not to argue at all, but maybe to listen. I do my share of listening around people who are much smarter, much wiser and much more knowledgeable than me on tons of topics.
This topic however, I feel I have put in the time, the effort, the research etc to speak about it at a level as high as almost anyone. There are lots of things I am a dumbass about, but this is not one of them.
That said, I am also a pretty terrible communicator, and struggle to articulate my ideas into words which are easily understood.
Actually, you were really hostile with me in that thread, which is why I ignored your posts. I am fairly certain I have the facts about Bitcoin on my side, and it will turn out the way I think it will turn out.
I don't oppose Bitcoin any more than I oppose a thunderstorm when I am out in a t-shirt. Again, people overreact emotionally to topics and then get angry at me. Which is also why I can't afford to be worried about popularity when I make my posts. If I was concerned with upsetting people, I'd never be able to post a word of what I believe to be the truth (facts).
That's what any discussion about ethics and morals has to be about. The current system 300 years ago was slavery. Some men spoke out about it. It changed.
The system 200 years ago for women was atrocious. Some men and women spoke out about it. It changed.
The guys who sit on the sideline and say "this is the system, this is how it is" never change anything. They aren't contributors to human progress.
I don't care what the reality of the current system is unless we're discussing facts. You and I got to a place with facts. We agree the current system is based on violence. Cool.
That's what I was hoping to achieve.
Now knowing that the cop in the OP video was acting with the force of violence against a bunch of young douchebags who had not committed violence against anyone, why are people still taking that man's position?
It's an interesting question I think.
The latter, but I don't think you grasp the distinction.
I have consistently and persistently asked for facts, proof that the law is applicable to me, the same way you could prove I signed a contract, or agreed to get married, or engaged in a market transaction with you.
What you have proven (and to a great degree I agree with) is that anyone who can exert more violence over me than I can use to defend myself, is the law and can make laws that "affect" me. I guess implicit in this is that I won't fight back even with less force. That I will always acquiesce to more force than I can bring to defend myself, which I am not sure is what many people do. There are a lot of people in Afghanistan who won't accept the law of the USG. There were a lot of those people in Vietnam too.
At the end of the day, no one has provided any evidence that these laws work on consent and that's because they don't.
I really don't want to keep this wall of text stuff going. Let's try to really cut down the discussion either after your next post or before it. It can't be fun for anyone else to see this stuff on their screen.
To reinforce what Jake wrote, if you don't believe morals are absolute, then it's pointless for anyone, anywhere, anytime to make any moral argument (anything about right and wrong).
A key element of ethical thought is universality. An ethical idea must be applicable to everyone, or it cannot be ethical. Similar to (but not the same as) the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Moral universalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Chomsky quote is a better way of saying what I am trying to say.
The notion that anything is enforced by violence is an example of something not universal, and thus not moral.
The part I struggle with is how absolute morality is (in my mind) equivalent to saying "my opinion is objective".
For example, what if someone believes that hurting others to get what they want is fine? I might not like it and although I would defend myself, I may not be able to change their opinion. Their logic might be as simple as:
A: I want stuff. B: I can't feel what anyone else feels, therefore C: I will take it by any means to satisfy A.
Ultimately, where does absolute morality come from, and who decides what it is?