The slavery in taxation

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Were any of the shareholders forced into buying shares?

No more so than citizens in a liberal democracy are forced to move to a country or to remain there.

You claimed that a contract is invalid unless all the contracting parties agreed to it. I have shown this is false (as an absolute rule).

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No more so than citizens in a liberal democracy are forced to move to a country or to remain there.

You claimed that a contract is invalid unless all the contracting parties agreed to it. I have shown this is false (as an absolute rule).

Again your skipping ahead , see the image again in the second circle all of the individuals are not in agreement and some are being forced into submitting therefore the social contract is invalid.

Similarly if google went to Iraq and told everybody that they had to buy a share in google or leave or be imprisoned then it would be invalid.

Look at this stage I feel you are deliberately skipping ahead past the initial phase where people are not in agreement in the second circle its and I get it that its a tough fact to swallow , It took me a long time to digest it and its implications. But theres no need to be dis honest about it Id rather if you just said you weren't comfortable with it, you said that you do charity work so it shows that you care about society so I can understand how supporting the positions I am highlighting would go against your values. But if I'm mistaken and you haven't seen it yet I will keep trying as I believe it is one of the most important facts that people need to see.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Yeah I suppose a business owner would just refuse to sell bread to anybody wouldn't pay a premium that would be genius business practice...:rolleyes:

A business owner sells bread to customers. The customers pay for the bread. One customer decides not to pay for the bread - breach of contract (also known as "stealing").

Assuming the customer is better armed than the boulanger, if the business owner wants to be sure his contracts are enforced, he'll have to enter into another contract with an enforcement agency who are, in turn, better armed than the wayward customer. Of course, this is an expense which will have to be passed on to the customer, so the price of bread increases by a small percentage. So a percentage of the price of bread is collected by the business owner from the customer and used to pay for the business owner's security. Which is, of course, better in every way than a tax, right?

You've argued that the business owner wouldn't refuse to sell bread to a customer who refused to pay the security premium, being a shrewd business owner and all. But clearly, any customer who had the option of whether or not to pay it simply wouldn't pay it, which would leave the business owner absorbing the cost from profits. Which wouldn't do at all.

So he wouldn't mention the premium, and instead would just jack up his price to include the premium without actually making it clear that the customer was paying for the contract enforcement.

Which is, of course, much better than the customer being aware that they are being charged a tax as part of the price.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Again your skipping ahead , see the image again in the second circle all of the individuals are not in agreement and some are being forced into submitting therefore the social contract is invalid.

Not skipping ahead, you tried to claim that a contract is invalid if the contracting parties aren't unanimously agreed to it. Which isn't the case as I've already shown.
The point being that contracts need not be unanimous. Usually yes, but not always.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Similarly if google went to Iraq and told everybody that they had to buy a share in google or leave or be imprisoned then it would be invalid.

Yes, as Google has no sovereign rights to the Iraqi people. If the Iraqis sought Google to replace their government then it's a different kettle of fish.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Look at this stage I feel you are deliberately skipping ahead past the initial phase where people are not in agreement in the second circle its and I get it that its a tough fact to swallow , It took me a long time to digest it and its implications. But theres no need to be dis honest about it Id rather if you just said you weren't comfortable with it, you said that you do charity work so it shows that you care about society so I can understand how supporting the positions I am highlighting would go against your values. But if I'm mistaken and you haven't seen it yet I will keep trying as I believe it is one of the most important facts that people need to see.

Not really a case of skipping past the circle: liberal democracies come about through the consent of the citizens. Yes there are some dissenters but agreeing to it after it's creation (by taking a citizenship oath for example) creates an inherent legitimacy for citizens.


I just find the social contract a fascinating subject so I like debating it.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

A business owner sells bread to customers. The customers pay for the bread. One customer decides not to pay for the bread - breach of contract (also known as "stealing").

Assuming the customer is better armed than the boulanger, if the business owner wants to be sure his contracts are enforced, he'll have to enter into another contract with an enforcement agency who are, in turn, better armed than the wayward customer. Of course, this is an expense which will have to be passed on to the customer, so the price of bread increases by a small percentage. So a percentage of the price of bread is collected by the business owner from the customer and used to pay for the business owner's security. Which is, of course, better in every way than a tax, right?

Your argument goes like this: "I believe it is better for my business that a government forcefully decides what premium I pay my goods when and how they like"

As opposed to: " I believe it is better for my business that I decide if I want protection or how much protection I want"

This of course is ridiulous and why not stop there if the government can provide a better service under the threat of force for no compliance then give them control of everything.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've argued that the business owner wouldn't refuse to sell bread to a customer who refused to pay the security premium, being a shrewd business owner and all. But clearly, any customer who had the option of whether or not to pay it simply wouldn't pay it, which would leave the business owner absorbing the cost from profits. Which wouldn't do at all.

So he wouldn't mention the premium, and instead would just jack up his price to include the premium without actually making it clear that the customer was paying for the contract enforcement.

Which is, of course, much better than the customer being aware that they are being charged a tax as part of the price.

No need for the sarcasm your point looks just as ridiculous without it.

1. Taxation is theft claiming that stealing is a better form of interaction simply because people are aware of it is the same as claiming rape is better then consentual sex if the victim is made aware of the rape beforehand.

2.So what ?businesses pass on the cost of operation now as a standard , if one shop has a tank parked outside and f16s in the back and they are charging 10,000 per slice of bread then go to a different shop.

3. This is what I dislike most about government supporters , they see people as to stupid to be able to make a decision with their own wallet. If you really believe that the person is to incompetent to distinguish between a fairly priced loaf of bread and an expensive one ,then surly you must believe that voting for someone else to mange other areas of their lives is equally as insane.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not skipping ahead, you tried to claim that a contract is invalid if the contracting parties aren't unanimously agreed to it. Which isn't the case as I've already shown.
The point being that contracts need not be unanimous. Usually yes, but not always.

Yes they must be because an element of a contract is disclosure and all parties must have knowledge of the contract. If this was not true then I can form a contract with bob down the road without his knowledge and then sue him for not fulifing but then he could just create another one out of thin air and sue me and quickly it becomes a logical contradiction to say "usually yes but not always"
When you buy a share in a company you are accepting the process of how directors are elected there is full disclosure.

Can you show me again I dont follow your logic?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, as Google has no sovereign rights to the Iraqi people. If the Iraqis sought Google to replace their government then it's a different kettle of fish.

So how is it different weather individuals are under the banner of a government or google? Both are just concepts.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not really a case of skipping past the circle: liberal democracies come about through the consent of the citizens. Yes there are some dissenters but agreeing to it after it's creation (by taking a citizenship oath for example) creates an inherent legitimacy for citizens.


I just find the social contract a fascinating subject so I like debating it.

So do you agree that there is not full consent by all parties at the beginning of the contract?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Yes they must be because an element of a contract is disclosure and all parties must have knowledge of the contract. If this was not true then I can form a contract with bob down the road without his knowledge and then sue him for not fulifing but then he could just create another one out of thin air and sue me and quickly it becomes a logical contradiction to say "usually yes but not always"

The important thing to note is that there are fairly broad lines in contract law. Many of the common assumptions of contract law (need for it to be signed, need for it to be unanimous etc) are not absolutes.

Your contract with Bob is not a contract as, once again, there are different types of contract. Contracts usually rely on the Reasonable Man test (basically, is it objectively reasonable). Your contract falls short of this.

The example I used was that of a board of directors contract. Not all shareholders agree but it is still a valid contract (and the norm within cimpany law

simplistic2 wrote: »

When you buy a share in a company you are accepting the process of how directors are elected there is full disclosure.
Can you show me again I dont follow your logic?

Yes, and when you enter into the social contract, you are accepting the fundamentals of government.

simplistic2 wrote: »

So how is it different weather individuals are under the banner of a government or google? Both are just concepts.

You misunderstand me. If the Iraqis want Google as their government, then that's their business.

simplistic2 wrote: »

So do you agree that there is not full consent by all parties at the beginning of the contract?

Yes, it is possible, in company law as well as in liberal democracy.
However, once the contract is formed, then it is voluntary to opt in/out.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Your argument goes like this: "I believe it is better for my business that a government forcefully decides what premium I pay my goods when and how they like"

My argument goes nothing whatsoever like that. If you feel the need to caricature my position in order to disagree with it, perhaps you should check your premises.

As opposed to: " I believe it is better for my business that I decide if I want protection or how much protection I want"

This of course is ridiulous and why not stop there if the government can provide a better service under the threat of force for no compliance then give them control of everything.

Am I to take it that you are incapable of grasping the simple concept that a government may be an efficient provider of some services, while not being an efficient provider of others?

You are arguing against the existence of government. Your thesis is that a government can never have any legitimacy, and that everything - everything - must be provided through privately-negotiated contracts, and that any individual who hasn't explicitly signed up to a contract can't validly be bound by it. Ergo, you reject the concept of a social contract, because people haven't explicitly signed up to it.

There's the bones of an interesting conversation to be had on the topic. Your position is - by its nature - an extreme one. Are you incapable of getting your head around the concept that anyone who doesn't join you on your extreme fringe isn't necessarily on the opposite fringe?

1. Taxation is theft...

You're arguing from your conclusion. That's a logical fallacy. From your way-out-there extreme perspective, taxation is theft. From other way-out-there extreme perspectives, property is theft.

From here in the middle, both perspectives look ridiculous.

2.So what ?businesses pass on the cost of operation now as a standard , if one shop has a tank parked outside and f16s in the back and they are charging 10,000 per slice of bread then go to a different shop.

No need for the hyperbole, your argument looks just as ridiculous without it.

3. This is what I dislike most about government supporters , they see people as to stupid to be able to make a decision with their own wallet. If you really believe that the person is to incompetent to distinguish between a fairly priced loaf of bread and an expensive one ,then surly you must believe that voting for someone else to mange other areas of their lives is equally as insane.

You seem incapable of having a discussion on the topic, because - apparently - anyone who doesn't share your rather extreme worldview lacks intelligence.

That's not a useful foundation for a discussion, so I'm going to bow out and leave you foaming at the mouth with inchoate rage at the idea that someone as utterly stupid as me has the temerity to challenge your clearly perfect ideology. When you're interested in accepting the possibility that someone who disagrees with you isn't ipso facto an idiot, come back to me.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The important thing to note is that there are fairly broad lines in contract law. Many of the common assumptions of contract law (need for it to be signed, need for it to be unanimous etc) are not absolutes.

Your contract with Bob is not a contract as, once again, there are different types of contract. Contracts usually rely on the Reasonable Man test (basically, is it objectively reasonable). Your contract falls short of this.

The example I used was that of a board of directors contract. Not all shareholders agree but it is still a valid contract (and the norm within cimpany law

All shareholders agreed to the rules by buying the shares.
In contrast with the establishment of a state(see the second picture again) were not everybody agreed and they where given a choice to leave or accpet.

This creates the situation known as being "under duress" meaning that the contract is invalid since some of the parties where threatened with violence.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You misunderstand me. If the Iraqis want Google as their government, then that's their business.

Ok then if Google then says you have a choice to either leave or accept is it a valid contract or are the people who do not agree with google under duress?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, it is possible, in company law as well as in liberal democracy.
However, once the contract is formed, then it is voluntary to opt in/out.

No its not possible no company can create a contract with a customer without their consent.

This is why there is no contracts with a government just ex post facto justifications to avoid the uncomfortable reality that no government was formed with the full consent of the people meaning that people are in a constant state of duress.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

My argument goes nothing whatsoever like that. If you feel the need to caricature my position in order to disagree with it, perhaps you should check your premises. Am I to take it that you are incapable of grasping the simple concept that a government may be an efficient provider of some services, while not being an efficient provider of others?

To me it is irrelevant as to weather they can provide a more efficient service. The only thing that matters is there is no initiation of force in providing the service. Although there is ample evidence to show that individuals engaging in voluntary trade would produce a far more efficient services in every area when they are unrestricted. But thats not a debate I want to get into because all we are doing is arguing how best to spend stolen money

oscarBravo wrote: »

You are arguing against the existence of government. Your thesis is that a government can never have any legitimacy, and that everything - everything - must be provided through privately-negotiated contracts, and that any individual who hasn't explicitly signed up to a contract can't validly be bound by it. Ergo, you reject the concept of a social contract, because people haven't explicitly signed up to it.

There's the bones of an interesting conversation to be had on the topic. Your position is - by its nature - an extreme one. Are you incapable of getting your head around the concept that anyone who doesn't join you on your extreme fringe isn't necessarily on the opposite fringe? You're arguing from your conclusion. That's a logical fallacy. From your way-out-there extreme perspective, taxation is theft. From other way-out-there extreme perspectives, property is theft.

Property is theft is the logical fallacy, who owns your body? By using your fingers to type you are exercising ownership over your body thus invalidating the argument by engaging.

oscarBravo wrote: »

From here in the middle, both perspectives look ridiculous. No need for the hyperbole, your argument looks just as ridiculous without it. You seem incapable of having a discussion on the topic, because - apparently - anyone who doesn't share your rather extreme worldview lacks intelligence.

That's not a useful foundation for a discussion, so I'm going to bow out and leave you foaming at the mouth with inchoate rage at the idea that someone as utterly stupid as me has the temerity to challenge your clearly perfect ideology. When you're interested in accepting the possibility that someone who disagrees with you isn't ipso facto an idiot, come back to me.

Since when is the notion that people should not be aggressed against extreme?? I think you'll find that anyone that holds the position that supports the initiation of aggression is actually on the extreme side.

Honestly did you really expect me the answer respectfully when both your posts were condescending , don't create rules and place yourself outside them.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

...all we are doing is arguing how best to spend stolen money

[...]

Property is theft is the logical fallacy, who owns your body?

Like I said, arguing from your conclusion.

When you're interested in a discussion - which involves an open mind - let me know.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

All shareholders agreed to the rules by buying the shares.
In contrast with the establishment of a state(see the second picture again) were not everybody agreed and they where given a choice to leave or accpet.

Yes but given that the people have sovereignty over their own land, it is they who must make the choice, I can see few examples better than shareholder contracts in that both cases involve persons choosing who they want to govern an entity (State/company) especially that both recognise that unanimity is overly utopian when it comes to group decisions.

simplistic2 wrote: »

This creates the situation known as being "under duress" meaning that the contract is invalid since some of the parties where threatened with violence.

First of all, duress doesn't mean that the contract is automatically invalid. Secondly, there is no violence involved with the SC, any more than there is with any other type of contract.

If by 'duress' you mean 'enforcement of the contract' then yes. This duress is also present with pretty much every contract around.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ok then if Google then says you have a choice to either leave or accept is it a valid contract or are the people who do not agree with google under duress?

No, as that's nothing close to what I said. Again, you're using strawmen.

If the Iraqis decide to exercise their sovereignty to put in GOogle as their government, that's their own business.
If Google swoops in and starts fighting with a democratically elected government then that's not on.

simplistic2 wrote: »

No its not possible no company can create a contract with a customer without their consent.

With their customers, no. However, I've already given examples of people being bound by non-unanimous contracts (union contracts, employment contracts) but you choose to skate over these.
And so you see that unanimous consent isn't a prerequisite for contract law, especially with multiple parties.

simplistic2 wrote: »

This is why there is no contracts with a government just ex post facto justifications to avoid the uncomfortable reality that no government was formed with the full consent of the people meaning that people are in a constant state of duress.

No, they are not in a state of duress.
An example of duress is holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to sign. States don't do this: if you choose to opt out of the contract, then the State won't initiate violence against you (in liberal democracies)

simplistic2

With the formation of a company all parties are in agreement. Nobody is forced to buy a share in the company. If you are forced to buy a share in company you are being coerced against your will thus invalidating the contract.

With the formation of a state all parties are not in agreement. This is proven because:

1. people are given the choice to leave,vote or be imprisoned.(they do not have a choice to reject the contract)

2. There is never 100% voter turnout at the inception meaning that the contract is forced on the people that do not vote thus placing then under duress and invalidating the contract.

I apologise I can't make it any simpler, I'm going to stop debating I feel like Im repeating myself .

optocynic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You seem to be under the assumption that all nations are close to the same. You aren't forced to live in Ireland so it is hardly fair to act is if there is a gun being held to your head, compelling you to stay.

What compels me to stay is my family, and my wife's family. This is my country. And that is the 'gun to my head' compelling me to stay.

When it comes to emigration, it should a gun to your head compelling you to leave!! When all hope is gone, and we are almost there now anyway!

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The Irish citizen is free in that we keep electing in the same useless, self-serving politicians and paying inflated prices for low-quality goods and services. We have the chance to buy stuff off the internet or set up our own companies and run for office ourselves. But we don't do so. We get the government we deserve.

I agree, we do keep electing the same gombeens, but who would be different?
Is there any party out there who would champion the studious and hardworking? Who would strive to set Ireland apart, as a smart and progressive nation. Rewarding success?

If anything, the continous poor choices the Irish people make (a certain Kerry TD comes to mind) is a very strong argument against democracy!

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

With the formation of a company all parties are in agreement. Nobody is forced to buy a share in the company. If you are forced to buy a share in company you are being coerced against your will thus invalidating the contract.

With the formation of a state all parties are not in agreement. This is proven because:

1. people are given the choice to leave,vote or be imprisoned.(they do not have a choice to reject the contract)

2. There is never 100% voter turnout at the inception meaning that the contract is forced on the people that do not vote thus placing then under duress and invalidating the contract.

I apologise I can't make it any simpler, I'm going to stop debating I feel like Im repeating myself .

But not all parties are in agreement at the formation of a company contract
either. Even if all the shareholders don't turn up, this doesn't negate the formation of a contract, as long as there is a quoram, this is sufficient. Likewise, all the voters had the chance to vote. If they didn't bother, then that's their own problem. How is this duress? This isn't Australia or Belgium; noone is forcing you to vote.
As with noone is forcing you to join the company, noone is forcing you to be a member of the State or to remain here. Just as you are free to end your shareholders contract, you are free to end your social contract.

Now, if you are forced to buy shares and can prove this, you can easily get out of this contract, freeing you from membership with the company. Likewise, if you feel forced to remain as part of the Irish state, you are free to leave. Noone is stopping you.

optocynic wrote: »

What compels me to stay is my family, and my wife's family. This is my country. And that is the 'gun to my head' compelling me to stay.

When it comes to emigration, it should a gun to your head compelling you to leave!! When all hope is gone, and we are almost there now anyway!

That's your prerogative to stay. It's your country as either:
a) Your parents used their custody to enter you into the social contract on your own behalf (as you're now old enough to get married, you are old enough to leave if you have a problem with the existance of the State)
b) You voluntarily emigrated here.

It's no more your country than it is mine, or the rest of the Irish citizens.

No State is holding a gun to your head, forcing to to leave. That's banishment.

optocynic wrote: »

I agree, we do keep electing the same gombeens, but who would be different?
Is there any party out there who would champion the studious and hardworking? Who would strive to set Ireland apart, as a smart and progressive nation. Rewarding success?

If anything, the continous poor choices the Irish people make (a certain Kerry TD comes to mind) is a very strong argument against democracy!

Then form a party yourself. The PR:STV is one of the most small-party-friendly voting systems in existence, if you're a decent/responsible candidate you should get in due to all the voters who are sick to the back teeth of all the crap we're currently putting up with.

If you have such a problem with democracy, what system do you want in its place?
Dictatorship?
Oligarchies?
Etc

optocynic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But not all parties are in agreement at the formation of a company contract
either. Even if all the shareholders don't turn up, this doesn't negate the formation of a contract, as long as there is a quoram, this is sufficient. Likewise, all the voters had the chance to vote. If they didn't bother, then that's their own problem. How is this duress? This isn't Australia or Belgium; noone is forcing you to vote.
As with noone is forcing you to join the company, noone is forcing you to be a member of the State or to remain here. Just as you are free to end your shareholders contract, you are free to end your social contract.

Now, if you are forced to buy shares and can prove this, you can easily get out of this contract, freeing you from membership with the company. Likewise, if you feel forced to remain as part of the Irish state, you are free to leave. Noone is stopping you.



That's your prerogative to stay. It's your country as either:
a) Your parents used their custody to enter you into the social contract on your own behalf (as you're now old enough to get married, you are old enough to leave if you have a problem with the existance of the State)
b) You voluntarily emigrated here.

It's no more your country than it is mine, or the rest of the Irish citizens.

No State is holding a gun to your head, forcing to to leave. That's banishment.


Then form a party yourself. The PR:STV is one of the most small-party-friendly voting systems in existence, if you're a decent/responsible candidate you should get in due to all the voters who are sick to the back teeth of all the crap we're currently putting up with.

If you have such a problem with democracy, what system do you want in its place?
Dictatorship?
Oligarchies?
Etc

Well, I find all this waffle counter-productive, but a form of government based on rationality.
Self development, and governance.

Where when we say vulnerable people we actually mean vulnerable people, like Blind kids, and Down Syndrome people.. people who NEED support.
A form of governance where all ARE equal, and as such measured by the same yard-stick of achievement.
If you're lazy, you suffer.
If you endevour, you succeed..

Dreaming I know... but I call it Honest Socialism.


And the 'gun to my head' forcing me to leave was obviously a metaphor for financial necessity.
But you knew that, you just being pedantic (I hope)

ISAW

simplistic2 wrote: »

Slavery can equal as much as 1% or 100% taxation the amount is irrelevant because slavery is being under constant threat of violence for not complying with your masters.

So the old tax = slavery argument?

One wonders without tax who will look after the old the sick and the
handicapped?

Or hw wil you stp the country being invaded when you have no Army paid for by tax?

optocynic

ISAW wrote: »

So the old tax = slavery argument?

One wonders without tax who will look after the old the sick and the
handicapped?

Or hw wil you stp the country being invaded when you have no Army paid for by tax?

Well, I don't equate tax to slavery, that is frankly a bit silly.

But as for looking after the old, the sick and the handicapped? The current and previous governments have done very little on this. Particularly the handicapped. Maybe because the mentally handicapped don't usually vote. (despite what the nations previous choices may suggest!).

The handicapped are who are truly vulnerable. The blind, the deaf, the mentally handicapped. That is where our taxes need to go. Helping those that actually NEED help. Unfortunately, our taxes are squanderd on pandering and vote buying (or social partnership if you believe that!).

And as for the army. That made me laugh. Who is envading us in this scenario? Is it the UK again? I hope so!

ISAW

optocynic wrote: »

Well, I don't equate tax to slavery, that is frankly a bit silly.

Read the thread title please

But as for looking after the old, the sick and the handicapped? The current and previous governments ...

Off topic! Read the title!

And as for the army. That made me laugh. Who is envading us in this scenario? Is it the UK again? I hope so!

The point isn't about Ireland! It is a general point about tax being slavery. this is promulgated usually by libertarian US neocons Republicans. The same people that want their own buddies military contracts paid for out of taxation! The same people who support the US having the most expensive Military ion the world and tie it to "bringing freedom" and stopping WMD when in fact it does neither and they just made that up! So don't believe the tax=slavery nonsense either.

ISAW

simplistic2 wrote: »

So how is it different weather individuals are under the banner of a government or google? both are just concepts.

You seem not to be able to distinguish between the Army of a government regulated by law and Private mercenaries operating in their country. There is a difference.

You tax=slavery argument does not stand up!

does a government/State have the right to use force and aggression in
getting what it needs or wants? Is this consistent with the "rule of law" ?

optocynic

ISAW wrote: »

Read the thread title please


Off topic! Read the title!





The point isn't about Ireland! It is a general point about tax being slavery. this is promulgated usually by libertarian US neocons Republicans. The same people that want their own buddies military contracts paid for out of taxation! The same people who support the US having the most expensive Military ion the world and tie it to "bringing freedom" and stopping WMD when in fact it does neither and they just made that up! So don't believe the tax=slavery nonsense either.

I was agreeing with you, and still managed to annoy you. Amazing!

ISAW

optocynic wrote: »

I was agreeing with you, and still managed to annoy you. Amazing!

Im not annoyed and I dont want people to just agree with me. the point has to make sense. arriving at the right conclusions for the wrong reasons is fallacious! Validity and soundness of argument are two different things.

optocynic

ISAW wrote: »

Im not annoyed and I dont want people to just agree with me. the point has to make sense. arriving at the right conclusions for the wrong reasons is fallacious! Validity and soundness of argument are two different things.

Validity and soundness of arguement are two different things?
I'm sure there is a (pointless) semantic agruement to made there, but here in the real world where agruements happen every day in business meetings etc. the only thing that lends your arguement soundness, is Valididty.

Either way, blah blah. Yeah whatever! I can see where this is all going.

I don't like paying taxes, so they can be squandered on union pandering. I like paying taxes for useful services, Law enforcement, education, etc.
But, I feel it is safe to say, we would all prefer to stop letting FF spend our taxes. But since I'm in the Potitical Theory section, you can go ahead and do your thing with me.

sparkling sea

The most sophisticated versions of the Social Contract Theory relies on the assumption that people are free to organise themselves under a government but it this the reality of the situation in somewhere like Ireland?
In reality we as citizens may not have that freedom or there may be vested interests vying for control, we have little or no control now as to how our money (taxes) are spent - if we have no control over something that belongs to us and something that we or someone else is forced to work for, does that make Irish workers partial slaves?

simplistic2

ISAW wrote: »

So the old tax = slavery argument?

One wonders without tax who will look after the old the sick and the
handicapped?

Thats a good question, I'm not entirely sure how they would be looked after?
But let's just for sake of argument say there is no government and people got to keep all of their money because there was no taxes. Would it be possible to look after the old, sick and handicapped?

Just for fun, if you were an entrepreneur what ideas would you propose to solve those problems?

ISAW wrote: »

Or hw wil you stp the country being invaded when you have no Army paid for by tax?

Again good question, say you are a businessman and your pitching a business plan to your local community ensuring them protection against outside aggressors, how would you approach selling them the service? Lets just say that people in this area are looking for protection and are willing to pay good money for your services if you can make them feel safe?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Thats a good question, I'm not entirely sure how they would be looked after?
But let's just for sake of argument say there is no government and people got to keep all of their money because there was no taxes. Would it be possible to look after the old, sick and handicapped?

Just for fun, if you were an entrepreneur what ideas would you propose to solve those problems?

I'd set up a business to look after the needs of old, sick and handicapped people who could afford to pay me. Poor people wouldn't get any help from me, but that's OK, they're not my target demographic anyway.

Again good question, say you are a businessman and your pitching a business plan to your local community ensuring them protection against outside aggressors, how would you approach selling them the service? Lets just say that people in this area are looking for protection and are willing to pay good money for your services if you can make them feel safe?

The people who can afford protection get protected. The people that can't afford it get killed. Everyone's a winner.

(Except the poor people, but they're not the target demographic anyway.)

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd set up a business to look after the needs of old, sick and handicapped people who could afford to pay me. Poor people wouldn't get any help from me, but that's OK, they're not my target demographic anyway.

Thats a nice business plan you got there , but you know as a customer I'd rather do business with companies that care about helping the poor so I think I'll have to pass on the offer and do business with a company that is poor friendly unless , you can come up with a better proposal that is?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The people who can afford protection get protected. The people that can't afford it get killed. Everyone's a winner.

(Except the poor people, but they're not the target demographic anyway.)

I'm not sure I'd invest in your business plan for a protection service that kills those that don't have protection. I'm sure none of my neighbors would either maybe you could come back with a better offer?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Thats a nice business plan you got there , but you know as a customer I'd rather do business with companies that care about helping the poor so I think I'll have to pass on the offer and do business with a company that is poor friendly unless , you can come up with a better proposal that is?

Nope. I have plenty of business from customers who don't care about helping the poor. I'm making more money than companies who care, which means I'm in a better position to reinvest in providing a better product. Sorry, but the poor are someone else's problem. I'm sure the market will provide... something for them.

I'm not sure I'd invest in your business plan for a protection service that kills those that don't have protection. I'm sure none of my neighbors would either maybe you could come back with a better offer?

So you and all your neighbours would pay for a protection service that also protects the people who don't pay? What's the incentive for you or them to pay?

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. I have plenty of business from customers who don't care about helping the poor. I'm making more money than companies who care, which means I'm in a better position to reinvest in providing a better product. Sorry, but the poor are someone else's problem.

Its great that your company is doing so well and turning over a healthy profit. All that extra untaxed wealth that you are producing is having a great effect on the standard of living of all of your workers. In fact the harder you guys work the more jobs that are created for the poor!

Still though, I like to know that I am definitely helping the poor so I'm going to spend my wages on companies that have a heart and at least have the understanding that they are helping the poor in best way possible by creating jobs. I'm incredibly wealthy now that I no longer have to support that parasite political class so I can spend my money on job creation rather than cash handouts.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure the market will provide... something for them. So you and all your neighbours would pay for a protection service that also protects the people who don't pay? What's the incentive for you or them to pay?

No, I didn't say that. I'm not exactly sure what type of protection I would need it depends on many factors. I may not even need any. Any ideas for a decent protection product ?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Its great that your company is doing so well and turning over a healthy profit. All that extra untaxed wealth that you are producing is having a great effect on the standard of living of all of your workers. In fact the harder you guys work the more jobs that are created for the poor!

Standard of living? I dunno. I pay them enough to survive, I guess. They don't complain.

Well, there were some who complained, but I fired them. The rest have learned to keep their mouths shut.

Still though, I like to know that I am definitely helping the poor so I'm going to spend my wages on companies that have a heart and at least have the understanding that they are helping the poor in best way possible by creating jobs. I'm incredibly wealthy now that I no longer have to support that parasite political class so I can spend my money on job creation rather than cash handouts.

I'm sure there are statues to you in the workers' ghettos.

No, I didn't say that.

You didn't need to, it's inherent in what you did say.

I'm not exactly sure what type of protection I would need it depends on many factors. I may not even need any. Any ideas for a decent protection product ?

Depends how much you're willing to pay. That's how the free market works: you get the best healthcare you can afford, as much security as you can afford, as much education as you can afford. If you get sick and decide to spend your money on doctors, don't come crying to me when you can't pay your police bills and someone steals all your stuff.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Standard of living? I dunno. I pay them enough to survive, I guess. They don't complain.

Well, there were some who complained, but I fired them. The rest have learned to keep their mouths shut.

Wow thats an amazing business model you have there! So you keep your workers on the breadline and treat them with contempt but you still manage to provide the best product in the market and have the largest market share.

Being the greedy capitalist that I am ,I see a chance to offer your workers a much sweeter deal so I'm going to offer them more to do the same job and take a nice chunk of your market. *CHOMP*

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure there are statues to you in the workers' ghettos. You didn't need to, it's inherent in what you did say. Depends how much you're willing to pay. That's how the free market works: you get the best healthcare you can afford, as much security as you can afford, as much education as you can afford. If you get sick and decide to spend your money on doctors, don't come crying to me when you can't pay your police bills and someone steals all your stuff.

No there wouldn't be any statues in a free society, politicians build the things for ego rubbing.

So the problem is that you spend all your resources on medical bills and someone steals everything you own. I wonder how could you cover the cost of a potential sickness or robbery?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Wow thats an amazing business model you have there! So you keep your workers on the breadline and treat them with contempt but you still manage to provide the best product in the market and have the largest market share.

Being the greedy capitalist that I am ,I see a chance to offer your workers a much sweeter deal so I'm going to offer them more to do the same job and take a nice chunk of your market. *CHOMP*

If you pay them more, you'll squeeze your margins. Because I pay less I can squeeze tighter and keep my prices lower than yours. Sorry, I win.

So the problem is that you spend all your resources on medical bills and someone steals everything you own. I wonder how could you cover the cost of a potential sickness or robbery?

I guess if you can afford it, you could take out insurance. Of course, that depends on the insurance companies actually paying out in the event of a claim. It's obviously in an insurance company's commercial interest to deny claims routinely.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

this is pretty god damn pathetic people...

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you pay them more, you'll squeeze your margins. Because I pay less I can squeeze tighter and keep my prices lower than yours. Sorry, I win. I guess if you can afford it, you could take out insurance. Of course, that depends on the insurance companies actually paying out in the event of a claim. It's obviously in an insurance company's commercial interest to deny claims routinely.

Remarkable theory ! I'm finding it difficult to understand though, maybe you could explain to me why this isn't the way we live now? Is it not true that by that same logic we should all be on the minimum wage since that way every company in Ireland can squeeze their margins and keep everyone on the breadline?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Remarkable theory ! I'm finding it difficult to understand though, maybe you could explain to me why this isn't the way we live now? Is it not true that by that same logic we should all be on the minimum wage since that way every company in Ireland can squeeze their margins and keep everyone on the breadline?

Employment legislation, for one, which makes it illegal to arbitrarily fire someone without just cause. Something which is, doubtless, anathema to you.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Employment legislation, for one, which makes it illegal to arbitrarily fire someone without just cause. Something which is, doubtless, anathema to you.

Interesting, so could explain why people would not demand this protection in the form of contract with evil companies like yours?

Bullseye1

Are those troublesome families featured in last nights Prime Time receiving:

1. Accommodation through social housing
2. Social welfare benefits
3. Rent allowance
4. Childrens allowance
5. Fuel allowances?

If so how are my taxes being spent wisely? Heaping huge taxes on those who are working to maintain this form of social welfare system is slavery. People who are made redundant through no fault of their own are absolutely entitled to benefits. But there is a significant burden being placed on society looking after people who view these handouts as a god given right. Rights are earned.

The guy suspected of being the ringleader said that doing time was like a vacation with tvs in their cells. What have we become?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Interesting, so could explain why people would not demand this protection in the form of contract with evil companies like yours?

I fired the demanding ones and replaced them with workers who shut up and do what they're told.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If so how are my taxes being spent wisely? Heaping huge taxes on those who are working to maintain this form of social welfare system is slavery.

The question of how wisely taxes are spent is one of governance, and separate from the idea that any form of tax is slavery.

Bullseye1

Is it really any different from when cotton plantations kept slaves to create wealth and their standard of living. The workforce is being kept and taxed to the hilt to maintain a standard of living to people who do not contribute to society. Infact they make life miserable for those good decent people around them.

oscarBravo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is it really any different from when cotton plantations kept slaves to create wealth and their standard of living.

Yes. On almost every level.

If you really think paying tax in Ireland is equivalent to being a slave on a cotton plantation, perhaps you should try the latter for a while.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I fired the demanding ones and replaced them with workers who shut up and do what they're told.

The question of how wisely taxes are spent is one of governance, and separate from the idea that any form of tax is slavery.

You have a company that deals in healthcare , so how is that your able to decide the wages and the conditions of say your doctors who can command a huge wage because of their scarcity?

If I was a doctor that was working for you that was given no contract and paid in bread sticks why would I stay? I can command a salary of over 100,000 after all it is a totally free market and like you said I didn't even sign a contract with you?

Is it not true that wages are decided by demand for the skill? How is that you have the ability to set wages and are immune form the demands of the customers,your not a government you are at the mercy of demand and supply too?

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

You have a company that deals in healthcare , so how is that your able to decide the wages and the conditions of say your doctors who can command a huge wage because of their scarcity?

If I was a doctor that was working for you that was given no contract and paid in bread sticks why would I stay? I can command a salary of over 100,000 after all it is a totally free market and like you said I didn't even sign a contract with you?

Is it not true that wages are decided by demand for the skill? How is that you have the ability to set wages and are immune form the demands of the customers,your not a government you are at the mercy of demand and supply too?

Tell you what, you win. You're absolutely right: I would be forced to pay market rates for doctors, because they're relatively scarce.

Which means that a world without taxes would obviously be a perfect place. For doctors. Less so for janitors, but nobody cares about them anyway, so that's alright. I mean, if they want to be paid well, all they have to do is go to medical school. Assuming they can even get a secondary-level education, that is.

Lockstep

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is it really any different from when cotton plantations kept slaves to create wealth and their standard of living.

I work, pay my taxes and levies and all that jazz. I also have a decent standard of living,the freedom to come and go where I please, the ability to sell my labour and so on.

Sure sounds like living on a plantation to me.

pagancornflake

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is it really any different from when cotton plantations kept slaves to create wealth and their standard of living.

Yep, plantation owners would effectively appropriate the entire value of their worker's wealth while furnishing them with next to nothing in return other than basic accommodation and food.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The workforce is being kept and taxed to the hilt to maintain a (basic) standard of living to people who do not (currently) contribute to society.

fix'd. You are aware that we are in a period where work is scarce, yes?

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Infact they make life miserable for those good decent people around them.

This is a disgusting generalization and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for making it. Especially considering that it was high earning, tax-paying bank directors, developers, and government officials who caused the vast quantities of misery which exist in Ireland at the moment.

pagancornflake

simplistic2 wrote: »

You have a company that deals in healthcare , so how is that your able to decide the wages and the conditions of say your doctors who can command a huge wage because of their scarcity?

I wouldn't agree that the high salary of a doctor is due to their scarcity, I would say that is a result of the scope of expertise that they are required to have in order to fulfill the requisites of their demanding job.
It's also a myth that doctors routinely command a huge wage (speaking as one who has several family members in the medical field); most doctors below consultancy level typically make as much as corresponding professionals in fields such as academia and law, and there really isn't a scarcity of people gunning for those fields. Considering the likelihood that the private education in a free market society would be far more streamlined for careerist purposes (correct me if you think this presumption is wrong), and considering the huge competition that exists in these fields currently, I don't think it would be safe to assume that there would be a scarcity of aspiring medical professionals who could dictate their own terms. I would imagine that it would be a case of these people enduring under whatever terms provided in order to build up a decent profile of experience, much as the case is now.

simplistic2

pagancornflake wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that the high salary of a doctor is due to their scarcity, I would say that is a result of the scope of expertise that they are required to have in order to fulfill the requisites of their demanding job.

I am wondering could you expand on that ? I see the descriptions as being the same?

pagancornflake wrote: »

It's also a myth that doctors routinely command a huge wage (speaking as one who has several family members in the medical field); most doctors below consultancy level typically make as much as corresponding professionals in fields such as academia and law, and there really isn't a scarcity of people gunning for those fields.

Very true but why is it that people gun for positions?

pagancornflake wrote: »

Considering the likelihood that the private education in a free market society would be far more streamlined for careerist purposes (correct me if you think this presumption is wrong),

I honestly can't begin to predict what the market could produce here in terms of educational opportunities for children and adults. Based on the values of all the anarchists I know and my own, I would suggest the focus would be on the wellbeing and happiness of the child rather than churning out excellent employees. Many are interested in the concept of un-schooling, which is the idea of facilitating the child's interests with minimal structure. Since markets and communities are built on supply these values, I imagine that this would be the focus.

pagancornflake wrote: »

and considering the huge competition that exists in these fields currently, I don't think it would be safe to assume that there would be a scarcity of aspiring medical professionals who could dictate their own terms. I would imagine that it would be a case of these people enduring under whatever terms provided in order to build up a decent profile of experience, much as the case is now.

I agree , terms are set by the buyer and seller during negotiation intrusion in the negotiation with force only destroys value.

pagancornflake

simplistic2 wrote: »

I am wondering could you expand on that ? I see the descriptions as being the same?

Scarcity is an insufficiency of amount or supply, or a rarity of appearance of occurrence. Expertise is skill or knowledge in a particular area. The latter definition bears no necessary relation with the former in my opinion.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Very true but why is it that people gun for positions?

Self actualization, to support a family, interest in the field, pursuit of eminence... as many reasons to aspire as there are to act.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Many are interested in the concept of un-schooling, which is the idea of facilitating the child's interests with minimal structure.

What kind of structures would those be?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Since markets and communities are built on supply these values, I imagine that this would be the focus.

Are you still referring to the value you outlined above (the focus would be on the wellbeing and happiness of the child rather than churning out excellent employees)? I would agree that communities are built to accommodate this to some degree, but how exactly do markets relate to such ethical values?

simplistic2 wrote: »

I agree , terms are set by the buyer and seller during negotiation

The problem being that in the case of careers, people can't just wait for a better time to sell. They need to earn a living now, which may force them to accept unfair terms of employment. This often leads to a paradigm set of terms in a sphere of expertise, leaving the prospective employee without a basis to dictate these terms.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the market has an important role in determining value, but I would consider it absurd to allow this to be the only factor.

simplistic2 wrote: »

intrusion in the negotiation with force only destroys value.

How? Things still have a value if other parties and sources contribute to negotiating terms, it simply becomes the case that the negotiated terms contribute to determining the value of the thing in question.

simplistic2

pagancornflake wrote: »

Scarcity is an insufficiency of amount or supply, or a rarity of appearance of occurrence. Expertise is skill or knowledge in a particular area. The latter definition bears no necessary relation with the former in my opinion.

Sorry , what I meant was that both usually result in a higher price for the skill. A doctor with scarce knowledge and skill will command a higher wage. A doctor who is an expert in an area will also command a higher wage then those that lack expertise.

pagancornflake wrote: »

What kind of structures would those be?

Its too hard to tell what they might look like in. In the absence of central planning there will be a huge amount of variety.
From wiki -
"Unschooling is a range of educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience, and social interaction, rather than through a more traditional school curriculum. Unschooling encourages exploration of activities led by the children themselves, facilitated by the adults. Unschooling differs from conventional schooling principally in the thesis that standard curricula and conventional grading methods, as well as other features of traditional schooling, are counterproductive to the goal of maximizing the education of each child."

pagancornflake wrote: »

Are you still referring to the value you outlined above (the focus would be on the wellbeing and happiness of the child rather than churning out excellent employees)? I would agree that communities are built to accommodate this to some degree, but how exactly do markets relate to such ethical values?

I'm not exactly sure how they relate but I guess that it could be to do with demand. For instance it would be pointless to try to sell a burka in your local cornershop because a majority of Irish people value women as equals.

So in an anarchist community there would be no point in trying to sell a product like the current education system because it would be reject by the the values of the community.

pagancornflake wrote: »

The problem being that in the case of careers, people can't just wait for a better time to sell. They need to earn a living now, which may force them to accept unfair terms of employment. This often leads to a paradigm set of terms in a sphere of expertise, leaving the prospective employee without a basis to dictate these terms.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the market has an important role in determining value, but I would consider it absurd to allow this to be the only factor.

Who can decide what the fair terms are?

pagancornflake wrote: »

How? Things still have a value if other parties and sources contribute to negotiating terms, it simply becomes the case that the negotiated terms contribute to determining the value of the thing in question.

Right, value is subjective. If you take the example of banning drugs what happens?

Before the ban, I could go and negotiate a price without fear of being arrested and both the dealer and I agree on a price that affords us both the maximum satisfaction. After force is introduced into to the negotiation in the form of a law. The dealer now can make huge profits by selling shoddy products because the demand is still there only the value gained by safely trading is destroyed. The state which is the third party steals this value gained by voluntary trade.

pagancornflake

simplistic2 wrote: »

Sorry , what I meant was that both usually result in a higher price for the skill. A doctor with scarce knowledge and skill will command a higher wage. A doctor who is an expert in an area will also command a higher wage then those that lack expertise.

Agreed.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Its too hard to tell what they might look like in. In the absence of central planning there will be a huge amount of variety.
From wiki -
"Unschooling is a range of educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including child directed play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience, and social interaction, rather than through a more traditional school curriculum. Unschooling encourages exploration of activities led by the children themselves, facilitated by the adults. Unschooling differs from conventional schooling principally in the thesis that standard curricula and conventional grading methods, as well as other features of traditional schooling, are counterproductive to the goal of maximizing the education of each child."

Interesting model. I'd completely disagree, however with the "child directed" aspect of it, and many subjects require a high degree of rote learning-based fundamentals in order to be comprehensible to a child later in life and hence serve as a real passion in the subjects advanced stages.

simplistic2 wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure how they relate but I guess that it could be to do with demand. For instance it would be pointless to try to sell a burka in your local cornershop because a majority of Irish people value women as equals.

Valuing women as equals has nothing to do with burkas. Many arab women choose to wear them since they do not want to be objectified. Some do not, but I don't see that as characteristic of the entire nature of wearing the burka.
To be honest, I still don't see the link between markets and values. From where I'm sitting, communities are built on ethical values and distinctions, and markets are built on supply of goods and services, and operate without such ethics necessarily.

simplistic2 wrote: »

So in an anarchist community there would be no point in trying to sell a product like the current education system because it would be reject by the the values of the community.

Don't really think so myself. If such a child oriented learning basis fails to create individuals who can supply the tangible needs of the community (as could be the case considering the masses of goods required to sustain the world's population), then I believe that the communities tangible needs may supersede their values.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Who can decide what the fair terms are?

Democratic society.

simplistic2 wrote: »

If you take the example of banning drugs what happens?

This is a terrible example. Drugs are banned (there are exceptions, alcohol and cannabis included) due to the effect which they have on the one who ingests them, and the propensity that many of them have to create dependency issues (heroin) and encourage violent behavior (cocaine, PCP).

simplistic2 wrote: »

Before the ban, I could go and negotiate a price without fear of being arrested and both the dealer and I agree on a price that affords us both the maximum satisfaction.

And affords you an addiction which will most likely erode your ability to function as morally competent agent and act in your own best interest and the safety of others.

simplistic2 wrote: »

After force is introduced into to the negotiation in the form of a law. The dealer now can make huge profits by selling shoddy products because the demand is still there only the value gained by safely trading is destroyed. The state which is the third party steals this value gained by voluntary trade.

I honestly don't care about the dealer's profit margins. All I care about is whether or not they can be punished for making such products available.

Amhran Nua

sparkling sea wrote: »

The most sophisticated versions of the Social Contract Theory relies on the assumption that people are free to organise themselves under a government but it this the reality of the situation in somewhere like Ireland?

Yup, its 100% true, unless you're with an organisation that wants to shoot people. I can vouch for this personally. The hard part is getting people motivated to get organised. There is however no barrier to you setting up your own organisation, getting elected, and changing the laws to suit yourself, as long as you can convince enough people it's a good idea. The system is in place for you to do more than complain about it on boards, right this very second.

This is where the entire taxation as slavery thing falls apart - the government is elected and has therefore permission to levy and disburse funds from the public as it sees fit. It is a decision made by society as a whole to allow this, although some people might not want to join in. Then again murder is illegal by the consensus of society and some people do that too. If you don't want to pay any taxes at all, just get elected on that basis, change the laws, and sail off into the sunset into your blissful "utopia".

Incidentally I wouldn't agree that high taxes are required to run a modern state, merely high efficiency in how those taxes are spent, which quite often doesn't imply introducing a profit margin into the equation.