Page 5 of 8 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

06 Apr 2013, 6:30 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Taxes are the dues you pay for being a member of the State.


Or they'll kick your ass.


Not so sure about that, there are likely some legal consequences of evading taxes but not sure getting your ass kicked is one of them.


Nope, threat of violence underlies ALL legal action. For example, let's say you don't pay your taxes. You get arrested under federal law. If you resist being arrested, then the police will tackle you, probably literally kick your ass, and put you in handcuffs. Then you're in jail awaiting trial. There's armed guards there making sure you don't escape, and of course if you don't get shot, the guards will kick your ass if you try to escape. Same situation if you go to prison after trial.

As ruveyn said, the threat of violence underlies all government action.



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

06 Apr 2013, 6:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I'd like to add here, if taxation is indeed theft, then theft through taxation by the government is allowed by the United States Constitution. And that would make the founding fathers just a bunch of thieving sons-of-bitches.
Is the founding fathers worshiping right going to concede that?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Since I'm more of a crazy anarcho-libertarian, I think the founding fathers for the most part were that. Maybe noble in some aspects, but yes. Ethan Allen for example, was going to side with the British because they were going to let Vermont be an independent commonwealth with him as the governor. It was only when the US started winning he sided with US.

Also, this country is built pretty much on Masonic principles, not Christian principles.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,300
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Apr 2013, 6:38 pm

1000Knives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Taxes are the dues you pay for being a member of the State.


Or they'll kick your ass.


Not so sure about that, there are likely some legal consequences of evading taxes but not sure getting your ass kicked is one of them.


Nope, threat of violence underlies ALL legal action. For example, let's say you don't pay your taxes. You get arrested under federal law. If you resist being arrested, then the police will tackle you, probably literally kick your ass, and put you in handcuffs. Then you're in jail awaiting trial. There's armed guards there making sure you don't escape, and of course if you don't get shot, the guards will kick your ass if you try to escape. Same situation if you go to prison after trial.

As ruveyn said, the threat of violence underlies all government action.


Then I suppose having no government is the best solution....which I am not entirely opposed to. But eliminating taxes and the public services they pay for in the current system would serve no useful purpose.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,613
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Apr 2013, 6:49 pm

1000Knives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'd like to add here, if taxation is indeed theft, then theft through taxation by the government is allowed by the United States Constitution. And that would make the founding fathers just a bunch of thieving sons-of-bitches.
Is the founding fathers worshiping right going to concede that?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Since I'm more of a crazy anarcho-libertarian, I think the founding fathers for the most part were that. Maybe noble in some aspects, but yes. Ethan Allen for example, was going to side with the British because they were going to let Vermont be an independent commonwealth with him as the governor. It was only when the US started winning he sided with US.

Also, this country is built pretty much on Masonic principles, not Christian principles.


To be sure, the founders were hardly perfect individuals, if not down right contemptible in certain cases. Hardly worthy of the deification right wing populists want to thrust upon them. You'd think they believe the founding fathers to be the equivalent of Old Testament Prophets, or New Testament Apostles.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,334
Location: Reading, England

06 Apr 2013, 7:35 pm

I got very tired halfway through writing this reply, so sorry if it is terrible.

Steinhauser wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
You have taken that quote out of context. I mean genuine "free markets" can probably never exist.

You didn't exactly provide a context other than the literal one in the statement. Why can't a free market exist?

Sorry, I must have imagined context in your post that wasn't there. I thought you were saying that I was saying that there were no free markets in these countries for education. What exists there would probably pass for a free market if you asked most people.

Genuine free markets don't work because price wars will reduce profit. The businesses involved therefore try and reduce genuine competition so that they do not have to drive down prices so much. They create brand loyalty and similar concepts to convince people that their products are much more different from their competitors than they think they are.

Free markets would not work in the context of schools because businesses are constantly trying to get away with unethical practices in order to maximise profits, which is something we could not allow with schools. We would need to regulate them. Sure, there would be an element of self regulation, but again, the poorest cannot afford to pay for education, so they'd have to take whatever was on offer, or resort to home education.
Quote:
Quote:
I have definitely learned more from schooling that from the idiot. For a start, reading and writing...

It's unfair to draw your conclusions from your personal experience. You couldn't possibly have learned to read and write on your own if you spent your youth locked in a school.

Firstly, let me apologise for that embarrassing Freudian slip :oops:

Countries with comprehensive education have higher rates of literacy than those that do not. The hyperlexic people who learn to read and write naturally are the anomalies.
Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, much of the science on the internet is kept behind a paywall

Wikipedia has as much material on the hard sciences as any high-school-level textbook I've seen, and at similar comprehension levels, for free.

Yes, Wikipedia is a godsend for science, but it isn't structured as well for learning as a text book, nor is it obvious what information it is necessary to learn. How would a student who had learned exclusively from the internet and a few popular science books demonstrate to an employer or a university that they have the in depth knowledge required? How would they know what they needed to know?
Quote:
Quote:
much of the philosophy on the internet is as incomprehensible for a child as the source material

Much of the philosophy taught in schools is incomprehensible to thinking adults. (*snarky comment quota reached)

I think most thinking adults could understand A.J. Ayer's take on Logical Positivism from a single high school level lesson. The SEP is incomprehensible: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/
Ayer's Wikipedia article might lead you on a link dump all the way to Language Games, but you'd miss out on much of the detail a high school lesson or two would teach you. For example, it would be hard to encounter Anthony Flew and his famous Allegory of the Gardener.
Quote:
Quote:
and the internet has a lot of garbage, often prominently displayed.

Teaching children to identify and ignore garbage - critical thinking - is an essential life skill, and one that public school doesn't teach.

It does teach it to a degree. I wouldn't be able to pass any of my A Levels without critical thinking, and I am sure that is true for a majority or at least large minority of A Level course. Even disparaged, "soft" subjects like Sociology and Media Studies require selection and criticism of sources, or knowledge of devices used to manipulate us.
Quote:
Quote:
Believe me, right now it isn't very good for learning from.

I'm not suggesting the internet, as-is, is a perfect or even a great tool for educating children. But I stand by my assertion that the public schools are worse.

I would have to disagree- teachers are really important. Until we have a piece of software that teaches, then the internet alone isn't good enough. Even then, it is likely to remain sub-par for teaching skills. There is no wikiHow for making small amounts of nylon in the lab (this sprung to mind as an example of a practical I did recently). The internet cannot tell you what it is important to learn, or teach you how to learn! Some aspects of schooling are irreplaceable.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Apr 2013, 8:06 pm

dionysian wrote:
Property is theft.

And how is property theft?
:roll:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

06 Apr 2013, 8:12 pm

Raptor wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Property is theft.

And how is property theft?
:roll:


I think he is referring to the commodification of labour and the extrapolation of capital.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

06 Apr 2013, 8:21 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Taxes are the dues you pay for being a member of the State.


Or they'll kick your ass.


Not so sure about that, there are likely some legal consequences of evading taxes but not sure getting your ass kicked is one of them.


Nope, threat of violence underlies ALL legal action. For example, let's say you don't pay your taxes. You get arrested under federal law. If you resist being arrested, then the police will tackle you, probably literally kick your ass, and put you in handcuffs. Then you're in jail awaiting trial. There's armed guards there making sure you don't escape, and of course if you don't get shot, the guards will kick your ass if you try to escape. Same situation if you go to prison after trial.

As ruveyn said, the threat of violence underlies all government action.


Then I suppose having no government is the best solution....which I am not entirely opposed to. But eliminating taxes and the public services they pay for in the current system would serve no useful purpose.


Not really, anarchy is totally utterly impossible. Whenever a group of people get together, leaders are chosen, or leaders take power by force. You see this even in, say, school, with popularity. You can't not have a government, the only thing that happens is smaller governments become bigger, and then bigger governments become smaller. To get bigger, you either persuade more people to side with you, or you force them to (war.) It's the same as on the schoolyard just on a bigger level.

Anyway, as far as anarchy goes, in places with weak national or state governments, control just gets taken by gangs, basically. Like Mexico for example, has gangs literally ruling entire regions of the country right now. Gangs with homemade tanks, grenades, etc. Pablo Escobar got so powerful he was elected to congress in his country. Which goes back to my first comment, about governments basically just being bigger more organized versions of street gangs/mafias. In some sense, it's not "bad" even, as a stable government that sucks is for the most part better than an unstable place like Mexico at the moment.

Kraichgauer wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'd like to add here, if taxation is indeed theft, then theft through taxation by the government is allowed by the United States Constitution. And that would make the founding fathers just a bunch of thieving sons-of-bitches.
Is the founding fathers worshiping right going to concede that?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Since I'm more of a crazy anarcho-libertarian, I think the founding fathers for the most part were that. Maybe noble in some aspects, but yes. Ethan Allen for example, was going to side with the British because they were going to let Vermont be an independent commonwealth with him as the governor. It was only when the US started winning he sided with US.

Also, this country is built pretty much on Masonic principles, not Christian principles.


To be sure, the founders were hardly perfect individuals, if not down right contemptible in certain cases. Hardly worthy of the deification right wing populists want to thrust upon them. You'd think they believe the founding fathers to be the equivalent of Old Testament Prophets, or New Testament Apostles.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Which is something I find a bit odd about Evangelicals as a whole. They think venerating the Saints as a strange thing, and then don't find it odd to "venerate" say, George Washington, in the same way.

dionysian wrote:
Property is theft.

Image



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,613
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Apr 2013, 11:48 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Property is theft.

And how is property theft?
:roll:


I think he is referring to the commodification of labour and the extrapolation of capital.


I thought he was just being facetious.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Apr 2013, 11:58 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Property is theft.

And how is property theft?
:roll:


I think he is referring to the commodification of labour and the extrapolation of capital.


I thought he was just being facetious.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Property in any form and/or the acquisition of it isn't "theft".
One party sells property the other buys it at an agreed price.
Those against private property ownership usually don't have much of it and have little hope of getting any.
The exception to that rule is those that have property but didn't have to earn it themselves.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,613
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Apr 2013, 12:08 am

Do you know what I meant by facetious?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Apr 2013, 12:14 am

Of course but I didn't know whether you were talking about me or dionysian who has displayed obvious leftist tendancies here.
Whatev....... :roll: :roll:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,292
Location: Minnesota, United States

07 Apr 2013, 12:27 am

1000Knives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Taxes are the dues you pay for being a member of the State.


Or they'll kick your ass.


Not so sure about that, there are likely some legal consequences of evading taxes but not sure getting your ass kicked is one of them.


Nope, threat of violence underlies ALL legal action. For example, let's say you don't pay your taxes. You get arrested under federal law. If you resist being arrested, then the police will tackle you, probably literally kick your ass, and put you in handcuffs. Then you're in jail awaiting trial. There's armed guards there making sure you don't escape, and of course if you don't get shot, the guards will kick your ass if you try to escape. Same situation if you go to prison after trial.

As ruveyn said, the threat of violence underlies all government action.


Then I suppose having no government is the best solution....which I am not entirely opposed to. But eliminating taxes and the public services they pay for in the current system would serve no useful purpose.


Not really, anarchy is totally utterly impossible. Whenever a group of people get together, leaders are chosen, or leaders take power by force. You see this even in, say, school, with popularity. You can't not have a government, the only thing that happens is smaller governments become bigger, and then bigger governments become smaller. To get bigger, you either persuade more people to side with you, or you force them to (war.) It's the same as on the schoolyard just on a bigger level.

Not all leaders are rulers. In anarchy, everyone is a leader.
1000Knives wrote:
Anyway, as far as anarchy goes, in places with weak national or state governments, control just gets taken by gangs, basically. Like Mexico for example, has gangs literally ruling entire regions of the country right now. Gangs with homemade tanks, grenades, etc. Pablo Escobar got so powerful he was elected to congress in his country. Which goes back to my first comment, about governments basically just being bigger more organized versions of street gangs/mafias. In some sense, it's not "bad" even, as a stable government that sucks is for the most part better than an unstable place like Mexico at the moment.

Gangs have rulers. Gangs are subordinative and hierarchical, they not anarchist.



Last edited by RushKing on 07 Apr 2013, 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,613
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Apr 2013, 12:35 am

Raptor wrote:
Of course but I didn't know whether you were talking about me or dionysian who has displayed obvious leftist tendancies here.
Whatev....... :roll: :roll:


Dionysian, as he had made the comment that I had taken to be facetious.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

07 Apr 2013, 1:22 am

RushKing wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Taxes are the dues you pay for being a member of the State.


Or they'll kick your ass.


Not so sure about that, there are likely some legal consequences of evading taxes but not sure getting your ass kicked is one of them.


Nope, threat of violence underlies ALL legal action. For example, let's say you don't pay your taxes. You get arrested under federal law. If you resist being arrested, then the police will tackle you, probably literally kick your ass, and put you in handcuffs. Then you're in jail awaiting trial. There's armed guards there making sure you don't escape, and of course if you don't get shot, the guards will kick your ass if you try to escape. Same situation if you go to prison after trial.

As ruveyn said, the threat of violence underlies all government action.


Then I suppose having no government is the best solution....which I am not entirely opposed to. But eliminating taxes and the public services they pay for in the current system would serve no useful purpose.


Not really, anarchy is totally utterly impossible. Whenever a group of people get together, leaders are chosen, or leaders take power by force. You see this even in, say, school, with popularity. You can't not have a government, the only thing that happens is smaller governments become bigger, and then bigger governments become smaller. To get bigger, you either persuade more people to side with you, or you force them to (war.) It's the same as on the schoolyard just on a bigger level.

Not all leaders are rulers. In anarchy, everyone is a leader.
1000Knives wrote:
Anyway, as far as anarchy goes, in places with weak national or state governments, control just gets taken by gangs, basically. Like Mexico for example, has gangs literally ruling entire regions of the country right now. Gangs with homemade tanks, grenades, etc. Pablo Escobar got so powerful he was elected to congress in his country. Which goes back to my first comment, about governments basically just being bigger more organized versions of street gangs/mafias. In some sense, it's not "bad" even, as a stable government that sucks is for the most part better than an unstable place like Mexico at the moment.

Gangs have rulers. Gangs are subordinative and hierarchical, they not anarchist.


And what if I decide I wanna lead more people...?



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,292
Location: Minnesota, United States

07 Apr 2013, 2:49 am

1000Knives wrote:
And what if I decide I wanna lead more people...?

There isn't a simple answer to this question. What kind of leader are you? What are the social dynamics of the group? This guy does a good job at distinguishing between authoritarian leadership, and non-authoritarian leadership.

http://anarchy101.org/1463/anarchist-ef ... horitarian