Democrats Pass 1.9 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I don't want to equate them to theft, taxes are definitionally theft.
Look up the definition. Me and Rob just did this. Imposition is in the definition of taxation. Pretty sure cuomo is getting in trouble for sexual imposition, no ?

I agree we're social creatures, hence why I support the division of labor under a free market.
As opposed to the division of labor under the state or workers.
One is the choices of free people, one is not.

No, libertarianism doesn't. I could give you quotes from human action, which is the magnum opus of ludwig von mises.
It goes into great detail about how the division of labor is critical to the creation of society, so that we may all pursue our goals free or violence.
But even von mises takes the state as a given, as he was under the misconception that negative rights could only be upheld by a monopolization of force.
Lucky for us, rothbard recognized the contradiction between civilization requiring non violence, while being controlled by one of the most violent entities on the planet; the US government.

The free market doesn't always work and leaves many people vulnerable.

The idea you don't need a counter active force to it shows a lack of knowledge of reality.

Originally posted by Klaw
I don't have the specifics, but I would think you would have to sign up for either a public or private plan when you have a job.

Similar to how you fill out tax forms when you get a job, you'd do the same for your retirement.

Also I'll be honest with you. It sounds like basically you want the current system to a degree you just want to include a private option.

I find that mostly when people are asking for a private option on something it's more useful for well off people to keep their funds out of the communal circle which allows them to gain even more money and power. Which in turn shrinks the capabilities of the public options. Which let's be honest the average person ends up relying on the public option more.

Edit: I forgot to quote you, newjak

I wouldn't know how else to use language, so sure ?

I think the problems you're referring to are problems not actually of a free market, but rather from a increasingly socialized one.

A counter active force to what ? Not playing dumb, Im asking for specification.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Edit: I forgot to quote you, newjak

I wouldn't know how else to use language, so sure ?

I think the problems you're referring to are problems not actually of a free market, but rather from a increasingly socialized one.

A counter active force to what ? Not playing dumb, Im asking for specification.

It would be like me saying selling goods is theft. After all by saying someone needs to pay me money for my service I have now imposed a means access to it...

It's a bit of a stretch to make a lazy point imo.

As to the rest of your points you can't pretend the free market exists outside of society or will ever exist outside of society since are social creatures.

And you definitely need to counter act the greed of people who take advantage of success in the free market. Traditionally it has had to be the government that has done so.

Child labor laws, fair pay laws, disability workforce laws, and a bunch of other ones.

Originally posted by Newjak
Language is a weird construct. So unless the person who created the definition meant to specifically state tax is theft as part of that definition then trying to employ such a simple tactic to boil down a complex construct seems laughable at best.

It would be like me saying selling goods is theft. After all by saying someone needs to pay me money for my service I have now imposed a means access to it...

It's a bit of a stretch to make a lazy point imo.

As to the rest of your points you can't pretend the free market exists outside of society or will ever exist outside of society since are social creatures.

And you definitely need to counter act the greed of people who take advantage of success in the free market. Traditionally it has had to be the government that has done so.

Child labor laws, fair pay laws, disability workforce laws, and a bunch of other ones.

Imposition or levy is part of the definition of taxation in a way it isn't in the definition of selling.
I'm saying levy or impose both imply that it's not mutually exclusive, which is by definition what selling something is.
I could explain it other ways, or send you articles on it, but I thought a simple dictionary check would suffice.
Or the fact that artol agreed and is probably further left than you.

As long as there's state interference in the economy, it wot be a free market. This doesn't erase the fact that there's gradation.
For example america is more free (less state interference in the economy) than north korea and our economy is way stronger.
As north korea incorporates grey markets their economy gets stronger, as the state cracks down to expropriate their wealth the whole economy gets weaker.

The lockdowns (state interference/totalitarianism) really hurt the american economy, and the fed pumping in money via inflation will only cause the bust to be that much worse.
You can check out peter schiff on the boom bust cycle.
He's famous for predicting the 2008 crash in 2002, but in reality he was just following the work of the austrians on the boom/bust cycle.

I don't think we exist outside society, in fact civilization is key for anyone to achieve their ends. So if you keep saying that's what I'm saying you're putting words in my mouth.

1.) When people are in a society, does it function more smoothly with or without violence ?

Answer:without

2.) What is the most violent entity on the planet ?

Answer: the state

3.) See question 1.

All the stuff you listed is state regulation on business and has only hurt the economy.

Making it illegal for children to work makes it impossible for children to leave an abusive situation.
The alternative to legal work is illegal work, therefore child labor laws promote things like child prostitution.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Imposition or levy is part of the definition of taxation in a way it isn't in the definition of selling.
I'm saying levy or impose both imply that it's not mutually exclusive, which is by definition what selling something is.
I could explain it other ways, or send you articles on it, but I thought a simple dictionary check would suffice.
Or the fact that artol agreed and is probably further left than you.

As long as there's state interference in the economy, it wot be a free market. This doesn't erase the fact that there's gradation.
For example america is more free (less state interference in the economy) than north korea and our economy is way stronger.
As north korea incorporates grey markets their economy gets stronger, as the state cracks down to expropriate their wealth the whole economy gets weaker.

The lockdowns (state interference/totalitarianism) really hurt the american economy, and the fed pumping in money via inflation will only cause the bust to be that much worse.
You can check out peter schiff on the boom bust cycle.
He's famous for predicting the 2008 crash in 2002, but in reality he was just following the work of the austrians on the boom/bust cycle.

I don't think we exist outside society, in fact civilization is key for anyone to achieve their ends. So if you keep saying that's what I'm saying you're putting words in my mouth.

1.) When people are in a society, does it function more smoothly with or without violence ?

Answer:without

2.) What is the most violent entity on the planet ?

Answer: the state

3.) See question 1.

All the stuff you listed is state regulation on business and has only hurt the economy.

Making it illegal for children to work makes it impossible for children to leave an abusive situation.
The alternative to legal work is illegal work, therefore child labor laws promote things like child prostitution.

Actually the most violent entity on the planet isn't the state. It's any large groups of humans that direct violence which sometimes is focused through the state. You can also see the church or other religious groups. You can see large corporations commit to violence see how busted up riots.

The state today has the largest ability to inflict violence but that doesn't make it the most violent entity ever or current. It's just makes it a vehicle for violence. The idea you think with a truly free market that would somehow eliminate violence is a unrealistic world view considering what we've seen through the lenses of history. Especially if you think free market corporations wouldn't take it's place.

The key to stopping violence has always been shared repsonisibiy for an item.

It seems I'm a thief because I get tax revenue.

Also it's important to note here in the U.S. we lump government into some one entity style thing. The truth is it is vehicle for people to get their voices heard direct change.

We need to be able to better direct that vehicle change by not allowing greed to block it form it's intended purpose.

The tax money is a form of insurance.

Originally posted by Newjak
And I'm saying you're specially jumping to automatically equate it to theft which carries different connotations to impose or levy.

Actually the most violent entity on the planet isn't the state. It's any large groups of humans that direct violence which sometimes is focused through the state. You can also see the church or other religious groups. You can see large corporations commit to violence see how busted up riots.

The state today has the largest ability to inflict violence but that doesn't make it the most violent entity ever or current. It's just makes it a vehicle for violence. The idea you think with a truly free market that would somehow eliminate violence is a unrealistic world view considering what we've seen through the lenses of history. Especially if you think free market corporations wouldn't take it's place.

The key to stopping violence has always been shared repsonisibiy for an item.

What do you think imposition means ?
I'm highlighting that it means do what I say or else, do you think imposition means something else ?
No other exchange of capital or goods are imposed, it's contractual.
This feels like a misadventure in intentionally missing the point.

Can you give an example, outside of taxes, where an imposition is mutually consented ? Because I may be missing the point too.

Okay, I'll focus my argument through historical lens as well.
In every instance since the creation of a nation state, each particular nation state gains power.
I can't think of any instances of a state being created then receding in it's over reach.

Now, why do you think every communist state in the 20th century became violent towards it's people ?
Was that because these communist countries had booming free markets ? Or because they had totalitarian regimes that tried to centrally plan the economy ?

If a corporation, or collection of corporations, took the place of the state, why would they be violent ?
How would they control ?
To my eye corporations get money by providing value, you can't provide value to someone if your committing violence on them. So I don't understand this argument.

Also, there would still be violence in a free market, just not monopolized violence without repercussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

This shooting is an example of what I mean. Daniel shaver was murdered, while defenseless, by a cop. The cop now receives 2.5 a month from the state from his ptsd.
Look up the video if you don't believe me.

Now ask yourself, what would happen if a bouncer or security guard did This in a free market ?

1.) The bouncer/security guard would owe the murdered person's family recompensation.
The family can choose nothing and let him go free, all the way up to having him executed, or he could pay out how much the murdered man would make over a lifetime plus psycho emotional costs.

2.) If he went free his reputation would prevent from being hired in security ever again, and potentially anywhere else.

The free market alternative seems better than paying a murderer for life.

Originally posted by Blakemore
It seems I'm a thief because I get tax revenue.

No you're a victim of it.

The welfare state sets up a human version of rat park

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

The addictive drip is free government money.

It distorts values.

You're on benefits from the state, are you looking for work to get off them ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You kind of have the tendency to just nuh uh.
I don't find that to be very compelling.
If you want to gain insight, you could try asking a question.
Idk

You still havent proven who the thief is, ergo you havent proven a case for theft.

Its still tax payer money even if the government is entrusted with it. But its not in their pockets, so hasnt been stolen.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You still havent proven who the thief is, ergo you havent proven a case for theft.

Its still tax payer money even if the government is entrusted with it. But its not in their pockets, so hasnt been stolen.

What piece of evidence are you missing ? Using force to take half of a nation's income, person by person, sounds like theft to me.

If someone impositions you in an alley with a gun, they aren't really stealing from you because your money will be spent by that criminal and you'll see the benefits of your stolen money in the economy.

Does that sound like a good argument to you ?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You still havent proven who the thief is, ergo you havent proven a case for theft.

Its still tax payer money even if the government is entrusted with it. But its not in their pockets, so hasnt been stolen.

Pork barrel projects is clear cut thievery.

As is abusing funds for other purposes.

Originally posted by cdtm
Pork barrel projects is clear cut thievery.

As is abusing funds for other purposes.

All regulation, intervention, taxation, sanction, protectionism, and inflation are stealing.

Originally posted by Newjak
So it just comes out of your paycheck? And what happens if someone doesn't sign up for a plan.

Also I'll be honest with you. It sounds like basically you want the current system to a degree you just want to include a private option.

I find that mostly when people are asking for a private option on something it's more useful for well off people to keep their funds out of the communal circle which allows them to gain even more money and power. Which in turn shrinks the capabilities of the public options. Which let's be honest the average person ends up relying on the public option more.

Yes, it comes off your paycheck like CPP does.

👆

I see your point, but I think it's worth trying, CPP really has a terrible rate of return and people should be free to use their income to invest that money elsewhere.

Originally posted by Klaw
Yes, it comes off your paycheck like CPP does.

👆

I see your point, but I think it's worth trying, CPP really has a terrible rate of return and people should be free to use their income to invest that money elsewhere.

I'm completely unfamiliar with this conversation. What is it talking about ?

If it's about investment, my take is that your kids should be your biggest investment. The momentum you put into them you get out of it and if youve built a respect based relationship with your child they'll want to help you.
This is aside from investments like crypto, real estate, index funds etc.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm completely unfamiliar with this conversation. What is it talking about ?

If it's about investment, my take is that your kids should be your biggest investment. The momentum you put into them you get out of it and if youve built a respect based relationship with your child they'll want to help you.
This is aside from investments like crypto, real estate, index funds etc.

Start here http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=674494&pagenumber=9

Originally posted by Klaw
Start here http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=674494&pagenumber=9

Thank you

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Thank you for agreeing that taxes are theft.
I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't.

I just want to be clear that I did not agree that taxes are theft, but that I can understand the point of view that sees them as such, it is however not my point of view.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What would happen if there wasn't a state, or someone to sell their labor to ?
With that question answered, would you want a society with only a state ? Would you want a society with only a market ?
And again, a market is just a price matrix compromised of free(or semi free) people's choices, nothing else.

We have talked before that I see markets as a useful tool, just as I see the state as a useful tool. Both need to be limited and well designed to maximize real value for people.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What job have you worked at where the boss used coercion to get you to work there, and it wasn't you signing up ?
Because that's what coercion means.
You're kind of twisting it to say:

'we exist, therefore we will die if we don't eat. The only way to feed yourself is working, therefore business owners are using violence to force people to work for them.'

I don't agree with that line of thinking, because you would be describing slavery, not a mutually consented upon work contact.

I understand that you don't share the point of view that in a world where the commons have been split up among people, particularly a small number of people, there is a level of coercion that exceeds any free decision, but it is a valid view. Take it as a thought experiment, what if every item and every resource in the world was owned by just one person, and that person employs people by allowing them to live in houses he owns, and to eat a certain number of food that he provides them with. By a market logic that would be ok, the one person owns everything, so the other have to sell their labor for whatever he deems right.

Now if we extend that to 5 people owning everything, there is a slight degree of ability to maybe play them against each other and get a slight advantage, but certainly if they work together they can maximize their own utility again without giving anything to the people that are dependent on them.

And the world we live in is on that continuum, with the vast majority of stuff already owned by someone else (and mainly by a very small number of people). So there is a little bit of opportunity, but not much, and for most people, especially those who grew up poor, weren't educated, the only option is to sell their labor which may be incredibly limited options with no real chance of moving up.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Everyone has a cell phone, so I'm not sure how poor people don't have access to resources.
There's: uber, lyft, air bnb, instacart, etc........
All of those are digital infrastructure aka means of production.

They are all not owned by the contractors (who are de facto employees). The world we live in isn't one of endless opportunity and freedom, it is one of limited opportunity and freedom with your personal level of opportunity and freedom very much dependent on where and to whom you were born.