The slavery in taxation

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

So tell me when people either have the choice to accept the contract or leave? And when you see that youll see it is an invalid contract because there will never be acceptance by every individual thus making it an immoral act of aggression towards those who do not accept it.

They have the choice to accept the contract or leave once there is a democratic government voted into office, with the acceptance of the majority of citizens. At this point, the citizens who disagree can either accept the contract, seek to alter it or leave to a State that's more in keeping with what they want.

Noone is involuntarily aggressed against any more than we are agressed against for renting houses or buying cars.
I decide that I no longer want to be part of the Residents' Association or pay rent but still want to remain in the apartment. Would you see the RA reaction as being an immoral act of aggression?

You seem to have an obsession with trying to point out the contract as being invalid based on arbitrary differences that are always part and parcel of normal contract law (pre-existing contracts for example)

simplistic2 wrote: »

The stock market is a concept used to describe the groups of individuals buying and selling. It does not exist outside our minds neither does capitalism or private property.

Willing states into existence is no different than willing gods into existence.

And the State consists of a defined territory with a permanent population and institutions like a government, judiciary etc. Noone is willing them into existence, their existence is recognized de-facto.

You're saying these don't exist?

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

They have the choice to accept the contract or leave once there is a democratic government voted into office, with the acceptance of the majority of citizens. At this point, the citizens who disagree can either accept the contract, seek to alter it or leave to a State that's more in keeping with what they want.

So what you are saying is that a majority of people in an area have the right to use force against individuals that do not agree with the idea of democracy?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Noone is involuntarily aggressed against any more than we are agressed against for renting houses or buying cars.

Why would they be?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I decide that I no longer want to be part of the Residents' Association or pay rent but still want to remain in the apartment. Would you see the RA reaction as being an immoral act of aggression?

Not if you entered the contract voluntarily this is different compared to democracy where it is forced immorally on people who did not agree to it. And by supporting democracy you are supporting acts of aggression against your fellow man.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You seem to have an obsession with trying to point out the contract as being invalid based on arbitrary differences that are always part and parcel of normal contract law (pre-existing contracts for example)

Arbitrary differences?????:D Like not agreeing to it in the first place???

kickoutthejams wrote: »

And the State consists of a defined territory with a permanent population and institutions like a government, judiciary etc. Noone is willing them into existence, their existence is recognized de-facto.

You're saying these don't exist?

The State is a concept also it is not based in reality. If it was you would be able to show me a picture of it? But you cant because its not real.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that a majority of people in an area have the right to use force against individuals that do not agree with the idea of democracy?

Noone is forcing them to do anything. They can disagree with democracy all they wish (anti-democratic groups like the KKK are tolerated unless they actively veer into hate speech)
You're a prime example. You live in a democracy and yet fundamentally are arguing against it. I don't see any men in dark suits coming to take you away in the middle of the night.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Why would they be?

Because the only violence involved is for the enforcement of the contract. As with the social contract.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Not if you entered the contract voluntarily this is different compared to democracy where it is forced immorally on people who did not agree to it.

Noone is forced to agree to democracy. As already stated, the minority are free to campaign, run elections, form political parties, lobby and so on.

Noone is forcing them to remain within the system.

simplistic2 wrote: »

And by supporting democracy you are supporting acts of aggression against your fellow man.

Dude....seriously?
Liberal democracy is the system of the will of the majority, combined with the protection of the minority.
What is your alternative to democracy? Anarchism?
Hardly something with a good track record.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Arbitrary differences?????:D Like not agreeing to it in the first place???

*head desk*
You tried to claim that contracts can't exist until a party has accepted it. These exist all the time (I gave the example of trade union contracts).
I find this a very common trait when arguing with anarchists: they pick out random, arbitrary attributes of the social contract and claim this makes it invalid: that it's unilateral (no more so than a tenancy agreement), that it existed before an individual accepted it (the same as with a trade union or RA contract) or that it's unsigned (the same as a contract with a restaurant owner)

As I've repeatedly stated during this thread, we accept the social contract through various methods: oaths of alliegances, pledges when becoming naturalized citizens, voluntarily moving to a state and so on.

I appreciate contract law isn't exactly common knowledge but basing your opinions around something you know little about isn't very wise.

simplistic2 wrote: »

The State is a concept also it is not based in reality. If it was you would be able to show me a picture of it? But you cant because its not real.

I can't show you a picture of the free market. But you can't because it's not real.
Ditto for the contract between me and the proprietor restaurant. But you can't because it's not real.

Etc.

Cróga

simplistic2 wrote: »

Other have argued that government is a projection caused by childhood trauma and the institution of family (The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause) and (On Truth by Stefan Molyenux)

I believe that people only accept coercive and hypocritical systems of power as adults because they were subjected to them as children. Because children are dependent on their caregivers, they must idealize their caregivers and the way that they were treated by them, and so they grow up psychologically blocked to anything that would challenge the manner in which authority was inflicted upon them, voluntaryism being such a challenge. Therefore, the only way to have enough people reject coercion as a viable way to solve complex social problems as adults, is to raise our children in a peaceful, moral, and rational way.

Humiliations, spankings and beatings, slaps in the face, betrayal, sexual exploitation, derision, neglect, etc. are all forms of mistreatment, because they injure the integrity and dignity of a child, even if their consequences are not visible right away. However, as adults, most abused children will suffer, and let others suffer, from these injuries. This dynamic of violence can deform some victims into hangmen who take revenge even on whole nations and become willing executors to dictators as unutterably appalling as Hitler and other cruel leaders. Beaten children very early on assimilate the violence they endured, which they may glorify and apply later as parents, in believing that they deserved the punishment and were beaten out of love. They don't know that the only reason for the punishments they have ( or in retrospect, had) to endure is the fact that their parents themselves endured and learned violence without being able to question it. Later, the adults, once abused children, beat their own children and often feel grateful to their parents who mistreated them when they were small and defenseless.

This is why society's ignorance remains so immovable and parents continue to produce severe pain and destructivity - in all "good will", in every generation. Most people tolerate this blindly because the origins of human violence in childhood have been and are still being ignored worldwide. Almost all small children are smacked during the first three years of life when they begin to walk and to touch objects which may not be touched. This happens at exactly the time when the human brain builds up its structure and should thus learn kindness, truthfulness, and love but never, never cruelty and lies.

simplistic2

I still don't think your getting it Ill try another image.

Lockstep

I see; your argument seems to be that a contract is invalid unless all members agree to it from the outset.

Let's take the example of a symbol of capitalism: the public limited company.
In a PLC, the director is appointed by a vote of the shareholders. Let's say 90% of the shares vote for John but 10% vote for Jack (meaning John is appointed director) Does this mean that John's employment contract is invalid as not all contracting parties were in agreement from the beginning?

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I see; your argument seems to be that a contract is invalid unless all members agree to it from the outset.

Let's take the example of a symbol of capitalism: the public limited company.
In a PLC, the director is appointed by a vote of the shareholders. Let's say 90% of the shares vote for John but 10% vote for Jack (meaning John is appointed director) Does this mean that John's employment contract is invalid as not all contracting parties were in agreement from the beginning?

Was anybody forced into the contract ? Or did all parties engage voluntarily?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Was anybody forced into the contract ? Or did all parties engage voluntarily?

In a shareholder contract, even if you don't accept the new contract you're options are limited. As with the social contract, if you're unhappy with how the director decision goes, you have 3 choices.
Accept that the vote didn't go the way you wanted it go.
Try to change other shareholders' minds
End your contract (selling on your shares): vote with your feet.


As you can see, even if all parties don't want to be bound by a contract from the outset, contract law still holds some contracts as valid.

simplistic2

Were any of the shareholders forced into buying shares?

simplistic2

Here a video that explains it better than I ever could...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOGq_1710U4

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" ?