No Taxation...Donation! - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:43:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:39:06 PM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:36:53 PM

Quote

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Would you rape a prostitute?

I wouldn't rape anyone.

If you wouldn't force a prostitute to provide her service without pay, why would you force anyone else?

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:39:06 PM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:36:53 PM

Quote

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Would you rape a prostitute?

I wouldn't rape anyone.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:36:53 PM

Quote

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Would you rape a prostitute?

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 01:29:27 PM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:02:01 PM

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

You want to lock people in cages for being 'an ass'?

There are some real shits on this planet, many of whom I would like nothing to do with. This doesn't mean I get to lock them in cages, just because I don't like them.

Oh yes, I want to.
At least the real big ones like mass murderers as a protection from let them continuing being that.

Quote

Can you define 'good things' objectively? Will everyone share the same opinion? If this was the case, you wouldn't need taxation at all - people would be willing to make the sacrifices without force.

As soon as you use force, to implement some subjective 'good', you are on a slippery slope to tyranny.

It's difficult but I try it by defining "suffering" and "loss of work" as bad things.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 01:28:15 PM

You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.

I don't ignore it, I know they have to be paid for this, but we are discussing about the way to do so.
Btw: Their time was already spent in that example.

Quote

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"

Quote

What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.

Yes, because this payment model is awful there was a big loss.

Quote

The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.

I disagree. While there are many bad things in states that can end up in a kind of slavery-state it's not the taxation itself.
If done right, it doesn't enslave anyone (my personal opinion).

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:24:18 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:11:43 PM

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:
*picture*

Thank you, Penn Jillette.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

Quote

There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

This is not entirely true, you could go to another state, if you don't like yours.
It's difficult though due to different languages and some regulations.

Can you define 'good things' objectively? Will everyone share the same opinion? If this was the case, you wouldn't need taxation at all - people would be willing to make the sacrifices without force.

As soon as you use force, to implement some subjective 'good', you are on a slippery slope to tyranny.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:24:18 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:11:43 PM

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:

Quote from: Penn Jillette

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

Thank you, Penn.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

Indeed. As Penn says, there is great joy in helping others. I object not to the helping, but to you pointing a gun in my face and telling me I have to help.

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:02:01 PM

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

You want to lock people in cages for being 'an ass'?

There are some real shits on this planet, many of whom I would like nothing to do with. This doesn't mean I get to lock them in cages, just because I don't like them.

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 12:38:53 PM

Quote

If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.

community wealth - 1 house. And it will not be the only one.
"If's" aren't gonna change that.

Quote

You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?

It's the job they accepted to do and are paid for (at least in our society), so it's not slavery.

You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.

Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.

What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.

The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:11:43 PM

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:
*picture*

Thank you, Penn Jillette.

Guess we can stop here, because I don't think one of us is going to convince the other.
I think he is kinda wrong, as long as the force used is not doing worse things than the good things it accomplishs, it's ok.
I see nothing wrong with forcing people to care at least a bit about others.
But you also should do some help yourself.

Quote

There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

This is not entirely true, you could go to another state, if you don't like yours.
It's difficult though due to different languages and some regulations.

Traktion

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 12:41:32 PM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 12:02:30 PM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 11:38:25 AM

...snip...

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.

Its inefficient on 2 levels:

1. The value of the house has been lost - for all you know the owner had senile dementia or was illiterate or had some other perfectly valid reason for sucking at paperwork. So wealth has been destroyed for no good reason.
2. its cheaper to collect things like the costs of police, roads, fire service, schools and health through the tax system than to have separate bureacracies for each. So even if everyone pays the $75, its still inefficient.

1. If they had paid their $75, they wouldn't have lost their house. If they needed advice, they should have requested it - even the state could help them to pay their voluntary $75, rather than just demanding it.

2. Stealing stuff may be easier for the thief, but it removes the choice of the victim. It may be more efficient for me to come and take your car, rather than earning + buying one from a dealer too. I assume you are against such actions?

BTW, there are many inefficient state departments which would never survive in a voluntary model. I don't know where you get the idea from that the state is efficient, tbh.

Again, there may have been a valid reason for the person not paying $75. You want to make this a morality play - it's not.

Taxation is the most efficient way to pay for services like police, fire, defence and the like. Unless you are a bureaucrat yourself, you would have no interest in creating parallel billing systems for such services.

Someone may have a valid reason for not paying a tax, but that doesn't stop the state throwing them in jail.

If someone can't figure out how to pay £75 a year for insurance, they have bigger problems... such as buying food. Let's stop with this silly excuse.

Taxation is not an efficient way to pay for monopolistic services. There is no competition for said departments, which gives little pressure for them to improve their service.

Even if they were more efficient, it doesn't justify using force to make everyone pay for them, whether they use/want them or not.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:05:16 PM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:02:01 PM

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?

I guess it's at least one of the basic beliefs that lead me to it.

And this is one of the basic beliefs that lead me to the opposite conclusion:

Thank you, Penn Jillette.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: Equilux on April 26, 2013, 12:48:46 PM

"Thank you ... for not neglecting a very obvious responsibility you have, unlike some that try to uphold some very childish beliefs about radical freedom"

or maybe

"Thank you ... for have the mental capacity to figure out that if action or inaction has such grave consequences you do have an obligation and it being "forced" has nothing to do with anything"

Try again, this time without the intellectual dishonesty.

intellectual dishonesty ... that's rich coming from you, holy shit.

"You're not obligated, legally or morally, to risk your life, limb, or property to save another's, unless you voluntarily accept that obligation" ... really ... good luck with your friends and family ...

Word of warning to all; myrkul is what happens when you try to apply economic theory to other fields where it obviously does not belong. Fields like ethics for example. Grow the hell up man, really.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:05:16 PM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:02:01 PM

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?

I guess it's at least one of the basic beliefs that lead me to it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:02:01 PM

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

I suppose you support taxation for the same reason?

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 01:02:01 PM

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

This law basically says "don't be an ass" and I'm fine with a law forcing this.
So yes, that's where the difference between our opinions is based on.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 12:57:15 PM

The question is not whether the fire department should have been obliged to put the fire out as they were at the location anyway.

The question is whether taxation would be a better way of funding that fire department.

In my opinion the answer is yes because its cheaper to tax and spend on essential services than it is to create expensive parallel bureaucracies.

You assume that there would be parallel bureaucracies. How hard is it to keep track of a subscriber list?

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 12:59:44 PM

Quote

That is my point. If someone does something they're obligated to, there's no need to thank him. You don't owe him anything. I'd bet you anything that the first thing you would say is "Thanks, I owe you one," or words to that effect. If he was obligated to save you, you wouldn't owe him.

Technically you are right. But why exactly do we need to change that?
It does no good whatsoever.
People will be grateful to the ones that rescued them, this is true even with those rules.
It's good if people rescue someone else (this is a personal opinion).

I happen to share that opinion. Where we disagree is that you think it is also good if people are forced to rescue someone.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote

That is my point. If someone does something they're obligated to, there's no need to thank him. You don't owe him anything. I'd bet you anything that the first thing you would say is "Thanks, I owe you one," or words to that effect. If he was obligated to save you, you wouldn't owe him.

Technically you are right. But why exactly do we need to change that?
It does no good whatsoever.
People will be grateful to the ones that rescued them, this is true even with the rules that obligate you to do so.
Also it's good if people rescue someone else (this second statement is a personal opinion, with overpopulation you may very well state otherwise).

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

The question is not whether the fire department should have been obliged to put the fire out as they were at the location anyway.

The question is whether taxation would be a better way of funding that fire department.

In my opinion the answer is yes because its cheaper to tax and spend on essential services than it is to create expensive parallel bureaucracies.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 12:46:07 PM

Yes. That's why they are only used for small communities.

I thought that had more to do with the agency in question wanting to keep it's monopoly.

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 12:47:18 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 26, 2013, 12:40:53 PM

So, where you live, men with guns force people to accept obligations they don't have to. Your point?

They have to. That's the point. If you watch someone die and could have helped without problems you can be taken to court for it.
And I have no problem with this, because basically you are an asshole if you do so.
Would you let some random stranger die, if there was no risk involved in rescuing him?

Probably not. But I'm not obligated to do anything.

Quote from: Birdy on April 26, 2013, 12:47:18 PM

Quote

Kindly answer the question I have posed: What is the first thing you would say to someone who flipped the switch to save you?

I would thank him. What's your point?

That is my point. If someone does something they're obligated to, there's no need to thank him. You don't owe him anything. I'd bet you anything that the first thing you would say is "Thanks, I owe you one," or words to that effect. If he was obligated to save you, you wouldn't owe him.

Quote from: Equilux on April 26, 2013, 12:48:46 PM

"Thank you ... for not neglecting a very obvious responsibility you have, unlike some that try to uphold some very childish beliefs about radical freedom"

or maybe

"Thank you ... for have the mental capacity to figure out that if action or inaction has such grave consequences you do have an obligation and it being "forced" has nothing to do with anything"

Try again, this time without the intellectual dishonesty.

Topic: No Taxation...Donation! - page 5. (Read 4595 times)