10% Unemployment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:bad analogy.

if you resisted to pay taxes AND resisted going to join, “they will” point the guns at your head.

now, if you take your capitalist shit and resist to pay it, “they” will immediatly point the guns at your head.

in the first case, it’s cause fraud
in the second case, it’s called theft.

both are answered with armed force.

because in both cases, you don’t pay what you owe.

and yes, you owe taxes. no matter what you may think about it, not matter how bad they may be.

don’t forget we live in democratic countries.
if “we the people” vote for taxes (and we do), “we the people” have to pay them.
[/quote]

Good post.
[/quote]

x2

142

His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

143

[quote]kamui wrote:
because in both cases, you don’t pay what you owe.

and yes, you owe taxes. no matter what you may think about it, not matter how bad they may be.

don’t forget we live in democratic countries.
if “we the people” vote for taxes (and we do), “we the people” have to pay them.
[/quote]

No, “we the people” don’t vote for taxes. We by-and-large consider them legitimate, but none of us ever get the option to vote against or for taxes directly. We also cannot choose whether or not to pay them. Furthermore, subjugating a minority to a majority’s decision does not = “we the people”. Sure, we have to pay them or else force will be used against us (after a process, of course, to make us give in before violence must be used), but that doesn’t necessarily justify taxation as something that people innately “owe”. It’s simply the current circumstances.

But, yes, I hope people aren’t delusional enough to think that there is no force involved in capitalism. Any sane economic system has some aspect of force built in. Without some form of legitimized force, there would be chaos.

144

[quote]orion wrote:
His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

[/quote]

Now this is a good post.

145

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

[/quote]

Now this is a good post.
[/quote]
x2

Ryan P. is one of the most inconsistent posters on the TNATION.

146

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

[/quote]

Now this is a good post.
[/quote]

no, it just confirms the antidemocratic nature of libertarianism.

on the other hand, this :

[quote]No, “we the people” don’t vote for taxes. We by-and-large consider them legitimate, but none of us ever get the option to vote against or for taxes directly. We also cannot choose whether or not to pay them. Furthermore, subjugating a minority to a majority’s decision does not = “we the people”. Sure, we have to pay them or else force will be used against us (after a process, of course, to make us give in before violence must be used), but that doesn’t necessarily justify taxation as something that people innately “owe”. It’s simply the current circumstances.

But, yes, I hope people aren’t delusional enough to think that there is no force involved in capitalism. Any sane economic system has some aspect of force built in. Without some form of legitimized force, there would be chaos. [/quote]

is actually a good counterargument.
it points to the inherent flaws of our current implementation of representative /indirect democracy.
which is exactly what we should be trying to fix.

the “force is bad → taxes are bad → state is bad” mantra is not only naive. it’s counterproductive.

147

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

[/quote]

Now this is a good post.
[/quote]

no, it just confirms the antidemocratic nature of libertarianism.

on the other hand, this :

[quote]No, “we the people” don’t vote for taxes. We by-and-large consider them legitimate, but none of us ever get the option to vote against or for taxes directly. We also cannot choose whether or not to pay them. Furthermore, subjugating a minority to a majority’s decision does not = “we the people”. Sure, we have to pay them or else force will be used against us (after a process, of course, to make us give in before violence must be used), but that doesn’t necessarily justify taxation as something that people innately “owe”. It’s simply the current circumstances.

But, yes, I hope people aren’t delusional enough to think that there is no force involved in capitalism. Any sane economic system has some aspect of force built in. Without some form of legitimized force, there would be chaos. [/quote]

is actually a good counterargument.
it points to the inherent flaws of our current implementation of representative /indirect democracy.
which is exactly what we should be trying to fix.

the “force is bad → taxes are bad → state is bad” mantra is not only naive. it’s counterproductive.
[/quote]

Hey, aren’t you that French atheist?

148

[quote]kamui wrote:
no, it just confirms the antidemocratic nature of libertarianism.
[/quote]

We never claimed to care about democracy.

Nature doesn’t care about your lame majority either.

149

The Great Crash of 2011 draws closer…

http://www.zerohedge.com/node?page=1

When the market crashes, real estate will follow, and that’ll be about it for the banks. The FDIC won’t be able to cover everything and most americans know it. Bye bye banks and bye bye the economic ‘recovery’.

This soon be followed by an explicit National Socialist state, led by a charismatic leader (not Obama, he’s too stupid).

150

[quote]kamui wrote:
…
the “force is bad → taxes are bad → state is bad” mantra is not only naive. it’s counterproductive.
[/quote]

Everything has the potential to be bad. Big government has the most potential to do great harm and this has been proven time and again.

Government is a necessary evil and we must watch it constantly to make sure it does not abuse its power. The best way to do this is to minimize its power.

151

[quote]
Government is a necessary evil and we must watch it constantly to make sure it does not abuse its power. The best way to do this is to minimize its power.[/quote]

and the best way to do this is to maximize ours.

152

[quote]kamui wrote:

Agreed. The bill of rights is a great template. Choosing how to spend our money instead of sending it to the government to spend is another.

153

[quote]kamui wrote:

no, it just confirms the antidemocratic nature of libertarianism.
[/quote]

Was that a secret?

You can either have a constitutional republic or a democracy, but not both.

Plus, it is not possible to make a counterargument to your post, because it was so flawed to demonstrating its weaknesses is really more than enough.

154

[quote]orion wrote:
His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

[/quote]

You voluntarily live in the country, and then you benefit from the actions of the state.

It’s no different from those books companies will send you saying, “Return this if you don’t want it. Otherwise, it $29.99.” A little inconcvenient, perhaps even sneaky. But it’s still volunatary.

155

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
His post is nonsense.

Not only is he postulating that someone can bestow a debt on me against my wishes, making me “owe” something to him, he is then equating that with contracts I willingly enter into and he is topping it all of with the myth that the a majority has any right to make anyone else do anything which is as absurd as the doctrine of the divine right of kings and I could easily come up wit several cases where he would very arbitrarily and inconsistently not accept a demcratic majority.

Just because someone piles bad analogies on inconsistencies does not mean that he actually has a point.

[/quote]

Now this is a good post.
[/quote]
x2

Ryan P. is one of the most inconsistent posters on the TNATION.[/quote]

Except that the post in question wasn’t mine. You simply assumed it was, and attacked me for it, because that is your goal, not honest debate.

You’re still a joke.

156

8 to 15% unemployment has been the norm in Europe for a while and will be the norm in the USA as well.