Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28864. (Read 26611078 times)

Strawman is more fun! But I hear your "tax is theft" mantra. Instead of complaining, be the change you want. Go make flying cars so we don't need roads. Whew, imagine having to pay for that! Talk about a tax!

If you're not talented enough to make flying cars then consider one of these many other options to deal with the tax:
1) pay the tax and enjoy that you live in a wonderful country with roads, or
2) Have a Boston Tea Party -- don't pay tax plus risk jail, or
3) start an organization whose goal is the repeal of road taxes, or
4) move to a country without road tax, or
5) start your own country and learn firsthand why we have road taxes, or
6) opt out of life. After death and estate taxes you should be pretty well tax-free after that.

You have choices. Why sit in a barely known internet forum and rail on a poorly constructed fantastical argument when you could actually be out making the world tax free?

Y'know, if we're not going to trim followups, what this thread really needs is a cascade.

Yeah... let's get on a tangent...

Frequently, a central reason for adding lanes or roads is a perceived need b/c of population growth or traffic congestion.

I do NOT know about the circumstances or the rationale for the road in your non-rural tennessee location, except for your proclamation (one citizen's assessment) that it was NOT necessary b/c they could have substituted flying cars in that location. 

I do NOT want to minimize the importance of your input, but I am sure that there was more than one person that decided that the road was going to be a benefit to the community and that is why it was built.  And, also with public projects there are opportunities for community stake holders to comment regarding the necessity or lack thereof of the project.

I believe he used "literally" in it's literal, or, perhaps I should say "original" meaning.

Again, you miss the point. It is not about the roads directly, it is about government control of the roads. Now, you will say that the government has to be in control of the roads and that, indeed, is the point of contention. That centralized control reduces the opportunity for a wider range of solutions.

Literally?    I do not want to get caught up in the meaning of literally. 

Anyhow, part of the reason that we have some of this back and forth communication on this topic is b/c we have differing understandings on some terms, including the term coercion.  So, at this point, I am a little unclear about the point that you are making Dreamspark?  Did you want to chime in to clarify what is so clear about coercion and why living in society is coercion? 

There are people from third world countries who are fighting for the chance to live in america, in spite of all its supposedly "coercive" taxes.

It is NOT about making things up. 

We have already seen several times that terms are thrown out with some baggage or some meaning that differs from one side to another.  If we remain unclear about our terms, then we are going to have more difficulties communicating our ideas.  Anyhow mandatory and coercion are NOT the same even though they are similar concepts, and I explained to some extent, the context for my distinguishing mandatory and coercion. 

Explanation

Yes... it may be a little unfair for me to attribute fuzzy logic to all libertarians - b/c certainly, some of the libertarian ideas are decent ones.

I am NOT opposed to getting value from ideas that can make us move in a better direction to improve personal liberties and even to improve voluntariness under current systems, to the extent those kinds of fixes are feasible.

  A problem, however, in this discussion is that the vision of no government or little government gets so preoccupied with criticizing government but comes up with few if any realistic solutions to address public concerns and the roads example is a good one, especially if we are going to describe the proposed solutions systematically. 

I really do NOT understand the point of arguing about our supposedly being in a better position (possibly) if we did NOT have roads.  That makes very little sense (even if it were true).   Currently we have roads, and that is our starting point.. NOT some hypothetical fantasy land world without roads, and that life without roads may be more of a Richy_T argument rather than attributable to other libertarians.   

Anyhow, I do NOT mean to insult anyone (including you Richy_T) with any guilt by association type assertions; however, I had been using some of the labels, such as attributing certain kinds of ideas to libertarians) to simplify to some extent...  b/c there is a common theme that seems to be, but I also find that labels do NOT always quite capture various nuances in what is being proposed (apart from the less government angle)

anyone missed clarkmoody?

Why is it not using other exchanges data?

I like clarkmoody alot more than bitwisdom

New readers can click on the "Quote from" link if they want more context. In the old days, people used threaded newsreaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Trimming_and_reformatting

Where did you get "rural" from? Could you stick to what's written? It's a two lane interstate that takes 20 minutes to go 5 miles for mostly unnecessary commutes. There's your central planning.

Here's another example of near incomprehesiveness, describing a conclusion and then putting a label on some created scenario that makes little to no sense - b/c both the previous arrived conclusion and the comment regarding the conclusion are quite separated from reality.

Here also is an example in which the context should have NOT been snipped... b/c a new reader is NOT going to understand the conclusion or the comment b/c too much of the context has been snipped.

The more you explain, the more we should be able to recognize how detached you are from reality. 

Roads are NOT going to be built in any kind of efficient way without public funding.  Surely, there may be better ways to go about accomplishing the same objectives, but roads are within the community desires about the solution.  If you want another solution, besides roads, you have to convince the community to move in that direction.  In your rural Tennessee example, that is converting to a less rural existence, the community seems to have decided that it wants more roads.... b/c they see that as the solution to the issue of having more people in the area.

He literally just told you why being part of a community is coercion, what dont you understand...

That is why this back and forth communication with you is getting NO WHERE - b/c you keep insisting that your being part of a community is coercion... and you give way too much weight to this coercion aspect - to the extent that taxes are mandatory and a part of civil society, and almost anywhere in the world has some taxes.. though there is variation.  If you are an American (or another western country), you have won the lottery, b/c you can move almost anywhere in the world with your passport and find some haven that has little to no taxes.  What country are you from?   You seem to want the benefits of being part of a community, but you do NOT want to pay into that community's rate of taxation.

No sh*t, Sherlock

Explanation

No private institution will be able to resist controlling the currency, probably by tying it to the dollar. Ask Norman Lamont how that kind of thing goes (though it seemed to work for the Chinese).