Quote
Still talking about government? No.
My interpretation is more accurate. Your payment of the fee to the homeowner's association is not voluntary, unless you opt to not reside within the geographical boundaries of their domain.
Topic: Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands - page 2. (Read 5511 times)
Still talking about government? No.
My interpretation is more accurate. Your payment of the fee to the homeowner's association is not voluntary, unless you opt to not reside within the geographical boundaries of their domain.
Quote
Still talking about government? No.
inherit the property
Property.
apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth
Not property.
Big difference.
Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.
A builder can do what he wants with his land because he owns it. The government does not own the entire country so cannot.
Irrelevant.
What are you not understanding? I'll summarize:
An organization requires you to pay a fee on a regular basis based on your footprint within the boundaries of a geographical region in which you live and which provides services to you and your fellow residents within that geographical region. You may or may not agree in totality with the efficiency or results of all those services. You can try and change things through meetings, votes, etc. In the end, if you are dissatisfied and don't care to pay those fees anymore, you will have to move.
Now, am I talking about a homeowner's association, or a government? To be honest, I can't tell.
inherit the property
Property.
apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth
Not property.
Big difference.
Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.
A builder can do what he wants with his land because he owns it. The government does not own the entire country so cannot.
You have to agree before you own it.
Hawker already pointed out to you that you might inherit the property. If you don't agree to it, then I suppose you can sell. The same situation applies to citizenship. You either apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth. If the former, you're the one agreeing. If the latter, you can opt out and leave, exactly as in the inheritance situation.
Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.
Owned him.
You have to agree before you own it.
Hawker already pointed out to you that you might inherit the property. If you don't agree to it, then I suppose you can sell. The same situation applies to citizenship. You either apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth. If the former, you're the one agreeing. If the latter, you can opt out and leave, exactly as in the inheritance situation.
Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.
That is what immigrants do when they land on US soil and apply for US citizenship (or another nation). The US owned the land hundreds of years ago, and slowly granted property rights to citizens, and those citizens knew full well the laws of the nation. It is exactly like the homeowner's association analogy.
You have to homestead land to own it. You can't just say "I own all the land". However, I was born here, not immigrated so that wouldn't even apply to me.
When you buy a house and there is a homeowner's association, you're the owner of the house, but the homeowner's association was setup by the former owner of the land your house resides on - the developer.
No, you can't buy the house unless you sign the contract first. You aren't the owner UNLESS you agree to the rules. It's not the same at all.
The homeowner's association essentially knocks on your door every month and demands a fee, even though you own the land and house.
You have to agree before you own it.
If homeowners are not happy with the situation, they can organize, vote, or leave. Again, this is like government.
That's because they entered into the situation by agreeing to a contract. The builder owns the land and therefore gets to set the terms of whoever moves there. That kind of private ownership is exactly not like the government which claims to set rules on property that I own.
That is what immigrants do when they land on US soil and apply for US citizenship (or another nation). The US owned the land hundreds of years ago, and slowly granted property rights to citizens, and those citizens knew full well the laws of the nation. It is exactly like the homeowner's association.
What it is decidedly not like is a decentralized idealistic libertarian society.
It is though. It's a private owner dictating the rules of his own property. That's perfectly compatible with libertarianism which is why libertarianism wouldn't be utter chaos.
No, it isn't. When you buy a house and there is a homeowner's association, you're the owner of the house, but the homeowner's association was setup by the former owner of the land your house resides on - the developer. The homeowner's association is dictating to you rules you must abide by and fees you must pay, even though you own the house, and possibly the land. In the case of a condo, you don't own the land. Either way, it's a mixed scenario in which the original owner of the land (developer or nation) is stipulating to you rules you must abide by and fees you must pay to insure the well being of the community.
The point is, organized tax collecting institutions which collect a fee to render a prescribed set of services to a population are generally inevitable and will arise from any society, even your libertarian society.
I'm not against paying fees. I'm against being physically forced to do so against my will. If I don't like the rules a builder lays down, then I don't have to buy it. It's his land so he gets to do what he wants with it. Knocking on my door, of a house I own, and demanding I pay a fee is completely different.
The homeowner's association essentially knocks on your door every month and demands a fee, even though you own the land and house. If you don't like it, move. If you don't like the nation you live in, move.
Not voluntarily. If you inherit the property, you are still governed by the home-owners association.
The owner of the property voluntarily entered into it. The fact you inherit something with conditions is irrelevant. The rightful owner entered into the contract. If you don't like it, that's too bad. It wasn't your house at the time the decision was made. If you don't like it then you don't have to accept the gift. If that's your only argument you must know that's pretty weak.
It's not a weak argument. If you were born into a nation with a set of preexisting rules, then as you say, too bad.
If homeowners are not happy with the situation, they can organize, vote, or leave. Again, this is like government.
That's because they entered into the situation by agreeing to a contract. The builder owns the land and therefore gets to set the terms of whoever moves there. That kind of private ownership is exactly not like the government which claims to set rules on property that I own.
What it is decidedly not like is a decentralized idealistic libertarian society.
It is though. It's a private owner dictating the rules of his own property. That's perfectly compatible with libertarianism which is why libertarianism wouldn't be utter chaos.
The point is, organized tax collecting institutions which collect a fee to render a prescribed set of services to a population are generally inevitable and will arise from any society, even your libertarian society.
I'm not against paying fees. I'm against being physically forced to do so against my will. If I don't like the rules a builder lays down, then I don't have to buy it. It's his land so he gets to do what he wants with it. Knocking on my door, of a house I own, and demanding I pay a fee is completely different.
Talk with me long enough without insulting me and see if I insult you, then your point will be made.
Quote from: bitcoin2cash
jgraham is a loudmouthed douche that tries to make up with posturing what he lacks in intelligence and he'll never convince me that stealing is justifiable and doesn't require restitution in kind
Out of curiosity. I went back though my posts and found this. It's interesting that there is no real use of invective directed at our beloved bitcoin2cash from me (except for the term "jerky" for which an apology was offered and accepted). Unless. Unless again we aren't talking about insults but criticism. Which is sort of the point.
QED baby.
Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents?
You mean those things that you have to voluntarily enter into or they won't sell you the home? Yes, that's a contract which should be enforced.
A homeowner's association exists to ensure benefit to all residents by maintaining a set of rules, usually having to do with the following:
- The appearance of one's house and yard
- The allowed modifications one can make to the house
- Security
- Landscaping and maintenance of land in and around the neighborhood, but not the property of any single homeowner
- Safety, especially for children
Homeowner associations are not governmental organizations, but private operations put in place by the developer of the tract. However, it is a classic example of micro governance at work. The association dues are basically the analogue of taxes, and the services rendered are the analogue of public services. The homeowners can vote on new regulations.
If homeowners are not happy with the situation, they can organize, vote, or leave. Again, this is like government. What it is decidedly not like is a decentralized idealistic libertarian society. The point is, organized tax collecting institutions which collect a fee to render a prescribed set of services to a population are generally inevitable and will arise from any society, even your libertarian society.
Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents?
You mean those things that you have to voluntarily enter into or they won't sell you the home? Yes, that's a contract which should be enforced.
As for your quotes of my comments. I was simply giving that user the same treatment I was given in order to show them how it feels. He's constantly abusive so I see no reason not to show him the same disrespect. After seeing it changed nothing, I'm just going to start ignoring these people. Talk with me long enough without insulting me and see if I insult you, then your point will be made. These quotes taken out of context prove nothing.
Not voluntarily. If you inherit the property, you are still governed by the home-owners association.
Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents?
You mean those things that you have to voluntarily enter into or they won't sell you the home? Yes, that's a contract which should be enforced.
As for your quotes of my comments. I was simply giving that user the same treatment I was given in order to show them how it feels. He's constantly abusive so I see no reason not to show him the same disrespect. After seeing it changed nothing, I'm just going to start ignoring these people. Talk with me long enough without insulting me and see if I insult you, then your point will be made. These quotes taken out of context prove nothing.
So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.
No, I'm not. You're an idiot. Consider yourself ignored.
One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws.
I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.
Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make?
I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?
What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.
You're an idiot. Please stop talking to me.
Your original post still makes absolutely no sense. You need to articulate your point better, because extreme examples are useless if no one understands wtf point you're even trying to make.
Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.
Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.
You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.
Posting that you want to make threats to do stuff you are entitled to and that you want to be able to demand people kill themselves is just bizarre. Have you considered talking to someone in real life about whatever it is that is getting you in this state?
Oh I get it. You're one of those idiots that can't tell the difference between arguing that one should be able to do something and arguing that one wants to or should do something. I think people should be able to do heroin but I personally wouldn't want to do it and I would urge everyone not to do it at all. You really need to work on that.
You could have responded to the criticism here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/personal-responsibility-38341 before crapping on us with another shitty thread.
There was no criticism. Just a bunch of people agreeing with me and the usual trolls. If you want to quote something in that thread that you thing I should respond to then go for it but right now you're just trying to be an insulting little douche as usual.
You are a very strange person.
You're a piece of shit troll.