Negative vs. Positive Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would love to know how someone as delusional as yourself actually function on this planet.
[/quote]

I see the delusion from a different perspective.

It’s delusional to support coercive institutions and wonder why things don’t go according to plan as they gobble up more power.

It is even more delusional to believe this can be changed by enabling a political class that gets its power from whoring to special interests and winning a popularity contest made up of moronic voters.

122

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Bull shit, you have no clue. Insurance has existed since long before this arbitrary tax code was established.[/quote]

I’ve only studied business and taxation for the last 15 or so years, have letters after my name to that effect, and recognized the world over for those letters, and have ten years experience working in business.

You’re right, I have no clue. You don’t even know WTF a LLC is, nor how it differs from a General Partnership, Limited PArtnership, S or C corp… But you’re right, I have no clue.

The reason this is obvious is your rebuttal lacks any semblance of understanding of basic economics, business function or history.

Protip: Corps are older than this “arbitrary” tax code.
Also Protip: the IRC is anything but arbitrary. [/quote]

It’s simple logic.

If people would not risk their entire investment without any hope to get some of it back industry would never have started.

Whether it’s pooled risk or individual risk it makes no difference. People have been mitigating risk since the problem was ever conceived.

Let’s not pretend the government tax codes props this up. It is a product of voluntary exchange.

I don’t care about your pedigree or letters because you fail logic.

124

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If people would not risk their entire investment without any hope to get some of it back industry would never have started.[/quote]

No shit. That isn’t what we’re talking about though.

You’re insisting the protection a corp or LLC in this instance of limiting an owner’s liability to their INVESTMENT, isn’t right and is exploitive. Now you’re moving your goal posts. You originally said the PERSONAL assets of the own shouldn’t be shielded by business formations because “like, we don’t need da govermentz man”. Now you are using that VERY protection to try and prove with “logic” I’m wrong, when I’ve been nothing but correct this entire time.

You do understand the difference between investment and personal assets right?

[quote]Whether it’s pooled risk or individual risk it makes no difference. People have been mitigating risk since the problem was ever conceived.

Let’s not pretend the government tax codes props this up. It is a product of voluntary exchange.[/quote]

At this point you are just tossing words into a post hoping they make sense.

I don’t “fail logic”, I actually fully understand and operate in the subject matter on a day to day basis.

Honest questions: were you even aware that the corporate veil can be pierced, has been and will be, quite often? DO you know what that means? Do you know the conditions that need to exist for that to happen?

126

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.[/quote]

Yes, I agree but just because someone can pay a mercenary’s salary to guarantee business transactions are always in his favor doesn’t make them free market transactions.[/quote]

No doubt. A free market is an unachievable ideal.[/quote]

Actually, it becomes more achievable everyday.

The internet has been able to spread these ideas that no one would ever have been able talk about in such a large and open forum.

Technology will eventually enable us to completely subvert coercive institutions altogether.[/quote]

If a free market becomes more achievable everyday, then a totalitarian world government also does. Knowing how fucked up we are, my money is on totalitarianism.

127

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The “private insurance will solve it” angle is hogwash. Insurers already do cover certain business losses, but only up to a point, amd only amid a ton of qualifications. No insurer is going to step entirely into the shows of a business to protect an individual in whole from having all his assets taken by creditors. Even reinsurers wouldn’t go that far. Even assuming it made business sense to do so - and it doesn’t - the price for the insurance would be so prohibitive that no business could afford to buy it.

Just think - I raise a bunch of capital and start a new business selling gizmos across the United States. I am personally liable for all debts the business incurs and any judgments against. Having started the business with that risk on the table - which I would never do - I seek an insurer who will insure me up to 100% of all claims against the business and me from the business. 100%.

The insurer would not. Most businesses fail, and not long after they start, which means that an insurer wouldbtake in almost no premiums before the risk of huge payouts starts accruing. It isn’t like health insurance, where you can actuarially predict payouts based on the health and age of the insured. No, an insurer is basically going to start paying from the inception of these policies, and the risk - 100% of all claims, and they keep going to cover personal assets - it’s bad business.

But after the insurer stops laughing at my request, he says sure he’ll write such a policy - and the premiums are so astronomically high that I can’t afford to run the business I started.

So, no insurer would offer such insurance, and no one could afford if they did, libertarian fantasies - a theme here at PWI lately - notwithstanding.[/quote]

If the market doesn’t address this “problem” - as you see it - then maybe government shouldn’t either.

There is no getting around risk and distributing it to taxpayers is not really a solution but rather a recipe for a whole new problem.[/quote]

Forming a limited liability entity doesn’t redistribute risk to taxpayers - it shifts it to creditors who will be limited in what they can recover. Taxpayers don’t absorb the losses.

Are you ever struck by irony when you accuse people of failing logic?

128

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Are you ever struck by irony when you accuse people of failing logic?
[/quote]

That’ll be the day…

129

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Forming a limited liability entity doesn’t redistribute risk to taxpayers - it shifts it to creditors who will be limited in what they can recover. Taxpayers don’t absorb the losses.

Are you ever struck by irony when you accuse people of failing logic?
[/quote]

Either you are right or countingbeans is right but you cannot both be.

Either insurance covers some of the risk or government must do it. According to cb, no one would take that risk upon himself and you seem to think government does not redistribute it at all.

Either insurance companies are fully on the hook for their losses or they are protected by taxpayers.

130

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.[/quote]

Yes, I agree but just because someone can pay a mercenary’s salary to guarantee business transactions are always in his favor doesn’t make them free market transactions.[/quote]

No doubt. A free market is an unachievable ideal.[/quote]

Actually, it becomes more achievable everyday.

The internet has been able to spread these ideas that no one would ever have been able talk about in such a large and open forum.

Technology will eventually enable us to completely subvert coercive institutions altogether.[/quote]

If a free market becomes more achievable everyday, then a totalitarian world government also does. Knowing how fucked up we are, my money is on totalitarianism.[/quote]

A free market is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

Look up the term “agorism”. It’s the idea that government can ultimately be ignored under the right circumstances and that it will go away of its own accord through noncompliance.

Think about technologies like the internet, cryptography, bitcoin, 3D printing, etc. These things allow us to interact outside of regulation making government essentially nonexistent.

These things are eventually going to work together and bring us even more sophisticated means of subversion.

Totalitarianism can only happen when people give absolute compliance.

Just don’t do it.

131

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Either you are right or countingbeans is right but you cannot both be.

Either insurance covers some of the risk or government must do it. According to cb, no one would take that risk upon himself and you seem to think government does not redistribute it at all.

Either insurance companies are fully on the hook for their losses or they are protected by taxpayers.[/quote]

You literally don’t understand even the bare bone basics of the conversation you are trying to have. Not even the 101, high school level.

And for the 300th time, I was speaking to your fantasy world where an entity formation wouldn’t provide limited liability when I spoke about insurance.

Either you are trolling by intentionally confusing the specifics, or you are so out of your element discussing business and economics it is embarrassing.

132

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If people would not risk their entire investment without any hope to get some of it back industry would never have started.[/quote]

No shit. That isn’t what we’re talking about though.

You’re insisting the protection a corp or LLC in this instance of limiting an owner’s liability to their INVESTMENT, isn’t right and is exploitive. Now you’re moving your goal posts. You originally said the PERSONAL assets of the own shouldn’t be shielded by business formations because “like, we don’t need da govermentz man”. Now you are using that VERY protection to try and prove with “logic” I’m wrong, when I’ve been nothing but correct this entire time.
[/quote]

Who protects the holder of an LLC from having his assets seized above the initial investment? What if the initial investment does not cover damages or other financial losses?

On one hand you say no one would take absolute risk to form an insurance company to cover risk and on the other hand you say government does not protect such entities either. This is where my confusion is. The logic fails.

133

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Either you are right or countingbeans is right but you cannot both be.

Either insurance covers some of the risk or government must do it. According to cb, no one would take that risk upon himself and you seem to think government does not redistribute it at all.

Either insurance companies are fully on the hook for their losses or they are protected by taxpayers.[/quote]

You literally don’t understand even the bare bone basics of the conversation you are trying to have. Not even the 101, high school level.

And for the 300th time, I was speaking to your fantasy world where an entity formation wouldn’t provide limited liability when I spoke about insurance.

Either you are trolling by intentionally confusing the specifics, or you are so out of your element discussing business and economics it is embarrassing. [/quote]

There is nothing fantasy about what I describe. Businesses demanded from risk protection and these institutions emerged in the market. They exist now so it’s nothing I have dreamed up.

The question is whether or not an LLC (or whatever) is really necessary considering free market institutions already solved these things long ago.

You insist that an LLC, specifically, is not taxpayer supported protection but ultimately when it comes to needing protection who is providing it?

134

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.[/quote]

Yes, I agree but just because someone can pay a mercenary’s salary to guarantee business transactions are always in his favor doesn’t make them free market transactions.[/quote]

No doubt. A free market is an unachievable ideal.[/quote]

Actually, it becomes more achievable everyday.

The internet has been able to spread these ideas that no one would ever have been able talk about in such a large and open forum.

Technology will eventually enable us to completely subvert coercive institutions altogether.[/quote]

If a free market becomes more achievable everyday, then a totalitarian world government also does. Knowing how fucked up we are, my money is on totalitarianism.[/quote]

A free market is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

Look up the term “agorism”. It’s the idea that government can ultimately be ignored under the right circumstances and that it will go away of its own accord through noncompliance.

Think about technologies like the internet, cryptography, bitcoin, 3D printing, etc. These things allow us to interact outside of regulation making government essentially nonexistent.

These things are eventually going to work together and bring us even more sophisticated means of subversion.

Totalitarianism can only happen when people give absolute compliance.

Just don’t do it.[/quote]

If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.

135

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Forming a limited liability entity doesn’t redistribute risk to taxpayers - it shifts it to creditors who will be limited in what they can recover. Taxpayers don’t absorb the losses.

Are you ever struck by irony when you accuse people of failing logic?
[/quote]

Either you are right or countingbeans is right but you cannot both be.

Either insurance covers some of the risk or government must do it. According to cb, no one would take that risk upon himself and you seem to think government does not redistribute it at all. [/quote]

Ah, no.

[quote]
Either insurance companies are fully on the hook for their losses or they are protected by taxpayers.[/quote]

Ah, no.

Jesus fucking Christ we are talking about RISK.

136

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.

137

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If people would not risk their entire investment without any hope to get some of it back industry would never have started.[/quote]

No shit. That isn’t what we’re talking about though.

You’re insisting the protection a corp or LLC in this instance of limiting an owner’s liability to their INVESTMENT, isn’t right and is exploitive. Now you’re moving your goal posts. You originally said the PERSONAL assets of the own shouldn’t be shielded by business formations because “like, we don’t need da govermentz man”. Now you are using that VERY protection to try and prove with “logic” I’m wrong, when I’ve been nothing but correct this entire time.
[/quote]

Who protects the holder of an LLC from having his assets seized above the initial investment? [/quote]

Regulation aka the government. This does not mean tax payers are on the hook though.

[quote]
What if the initial investment does not cover damages or other financial losses? [/quote]

I don’t know why you are concentrating only on the initial investment…

If the assets of an LLC don’t cover damages or financial losses upon liquidation than creditors or those damaged eat those losses. The magic government fairy doesn’t swoop in an bail them out with tax payer dollars.

We are talking about RISK here…

138

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jesus fucking Christ we are talking about RISK.[/quote]

I know.

Who is responsible for liability above the initial investment?

Does having an LLC mean I cannot be sued and if so how is this not a taxpayer supported scheme?

139

710×256 29.2 KB

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

There is a bitcoin fee. You are literally giving an organization money to use their money. Basically a use tax.

"Increasing Scrutiny

Bitcoinâ??s main benefits of decentralization and transaction anonymity have also made it a favored currency for a host of illegal activities including money laundering, drug peddling, smuggling and weapons procurement. This has attracted the attention of powerful regulatory and other government agencies such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the SEC, and even the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In March 2013, FinCEN issued rules that defined virtual currency exchanges and administrators as money service businesses, bringing them within the ambit of government regulation. In May that year, the DHS froze an account of Mt. Gox â?? the largest Bitcoin exchange â?? that was held at Wells Fargo, alleging that it broke anti-money laundering laws. And in August, New Yorkâ??s Department of Financial Services issued subpoenas to 22 emerging payment companies, many of which handled Bitcoin, asking about their measures to prevent money laundering and ensure consumer protection."

Good luck with that whole keeping governments out of it.

140

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jesus fucking Christ we are talking about RISK.[/quote]

I know.

Who is responsible for liability above the initial investment?

Does having an LLC mean I cannot be sued and if so how is this not a taxpayer supported scheme?[/quote]

The LLC is responsible for liability up to their net assets to the point of liquidation. You can be sued, but the members of an LLC can not be sued, ie, they are not personally liable for damages / losses. If DumbAss, LLC blows up a neighborhood, Mr. DumbAss the sole shareholder won’t lose his personal assets to cover damages.

This does not mean taxpayers are on the hook for any remainder.