Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General / Libertarian statists have it right.

« on: February 12, 2015, 09:50:43 PM »

Libertarian statists have it right . . .

. . . if "state" refers to a NAP modeled constitutional minarchy which is funded only by corporation taxes.

2

General / Re: Income Tax...do you pay them? Do you file?

« on: February 12, 2015, 09:44:27 PM »

#1 - Everyone must pick their own battles. No one has the time, or the energy, or the resources to fight every battle.
                 150 years ago, maybe. Today, not even close.

If you are seeking to have the most impact that you personally can.
then you weigh the potential impacts your fighting will have.

How much affect would not paying taxes have even if EVERYONE stopped paying ?
Since the Federal Reserve long ago bankrupted(by fraud) the government(1933) and implemented its own credit/currency controls and has a fraudulent printing machine, the government will feel virtually no impact, IMO

Would it cause the debt to grow faster? Minimally, since the debt already increases multi-fold of what is collected from individual taxpayers.

Not saying this battle is off the table for some . . . and for those who do choose this battle,
publicizing the non-payment is what has way more impact than the just not paying.

3

General / Re: Cops are satan,...

« on: February 09, 2015, 07:04:28 PM »

Ok, I'm with you, painting with too broad a brush can mischaracterize folks.
But the premise is sound, if one uses violence to attain their goals they are jerks and do satan's work.

By and large, any good cop that doesn't speak up about his bad cop knowledge is a bad cop, too.

I think I already covered the logic problem in the premise of equating use of violence and satan.
Even if I appear as an angel of light in order to coax a person to do violence, it is still that person's choice, not satan's.
( mind control being an exception of sorts as that can basically render a person to be without free will for a period of time )

But I whole heartedly agree with the first and the last statements there.
As to the last, there are some jurisdictions which have only good cops.
Those are generally smaller towns where all the cops know each other and many in the community have personal experience with all of the officers.

It's harder to infiltrate a family than an organization :-0)

4

General / Re: Cops are satan,...

« on: February 08, 2015, 04:17:10 PM »

I think linking aggression and non-aggression to groups (team satan and team god) is not really meaningful
and maybe blurs that each individual person (regardless of teams) has an individual choice  - - to choose aggression or choose non-aggression.

Similar to the blurring that can occur by saying "Cops are team satan." when that group includes some who . . .

if cops stop you from raping people then they are not violating the non-aggression principle and their use of force is positive in nature and they bat for team god.

5

General / Re: Cops are satan,...

« on: February 08, 2015, 03:09:39 PM »

The whole premise is that being forced, and not freely choosing, is satanic.

Correct, and I disagree with that premise because satan does not force you.
He coaxes, lures, entices, yes. But that is not force.  A person still freely chooses to succumb to the enticements.

6

General / Re: Why does God allow EVIL ?

« on: February 08, 2015, 03:05:45 PM »

>>> Wouldn't it be team satan causing evil in the world?

>> Only if you don't believe that you(regardless of team satan) have free will to choose good or evil.

> Why would free will alter anything?

Because having free will means it is the person's choice, not satan making the choice.



>> If each does have free will to choose good or evil do all of those who choose evil become part of team satan ?

> They are, at least, batting for team satan.
> How could it be any other way?

It could be another way because of this combination . . . freewill and imperfect

And imperfect is a result of choice by man.

7

General / Re: Cops are satan,...

« on: February 07, 2015, 07:29:49 PM »

As is anybody that forces you to do anything you don't want to do.

That's a negative. (ie I do not agree)

When someone uses defensive force against you when you are using offensive force (aggression) that is not even close to being like the alleged satan.

if we have established that god doesn't force anybody to do anything, then the only alternative left to force people to do things is satan.

This is a false dichotomy.
That is, it presumes there must be something forcing you rather than you choosing of your own will.

8

General / Re: Why does God allow EVIL ?

« on: February 07, 2015, 07:24:47 PM »

Wouldn't it be team satan causing evil in the world?

Only if 1) you believe in team satan
and 2) you don't believe that you(regardless of team satan) have free will to choose good or evil.


Personally, I believe each has free will to choose good or evil.

If each does have free will to choose good or evil
do all of those who choose evil become part of team satan ? :-0)

9

General / When does taking a person against their will constitute kidnapping ?

« on: February 04, 2015, 09:32:30 PM »

When an agent of a government brings someone to court against their will, is that kidnapping ?
When a private DRS (Dispute Resolution Services) agent brings someone to DR against their will, is that kidnapping ?


When someone WITH a badge, or WITHOUT  badge,
 uses force against someone alleged to have used aggression,
. . . . . .
    is that  offensive force   (aggression)
or is that defensive force (non-aggression) ?



PS
Under common law it depended on the outcome.
That is, if the accuser who authorized the agent(s) to seize a person
was correct (able to prove a wrong) then it was not kidnapping
but if they were unable to prove a wrong,
the accuser was then liable for committing a wrong. ( table turned )

10

General / Re: Why does God allow EVIL ?

« on: February 03, 2015, 08:27:01 PM »

who is this GOD person?

This is not a question/answer that applies only to a certain organized religion.

This is based on the hypothesis that . . . God is Love.

If anyone wants to call Love a who, a what, a why, or whatever,
then okay, but I see that as a distinction without a difference..

Personally, if God is not Love, then I want nothing to do with God.

11

General / Why does God allow EVIL ?

« on: February 02, 2015, 08:24:18 PM »

( This is not a question/answer that applies only to a certain organized religion )

Question:  Why does God allow EVIL ?

  Answer:   GOD is LOVE.


LOVE is the greatest GOOD.

The greatest GOOD for humanity is accepting GOD’s LOVE.
The greatest  EVIL  for humanity is rejecting GOD.

Genuine LOVE requires FREE CHOICE.

FREE CHOICE must allow all of the possible choices.  <-- core immutable point in answer to the question

To stop EVIL is to stop FREE CHOICE.
To stop FREE CHOICE is to stop LOVE.
To stop LOVE is to stop the greatest GOOD.
To stop the greatest GOOD is the greatest EVIL.

12

General / Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?

« on: November 07, 2014, 02:25:56 PM »

What are the corporations getting ?

business opportunity and access to other legal benefits

Vague

Not vague.  General, to give a reasonable short answer, but not vague.
In fact, I even listed an example to assist understanding those phrase/terms.

-- for example, limited liability protection,

So wiggle room to violate people's rights without repercussions?

What rights ?

preferred status in bidding on government contracts, etc

The only money government has for contracts is what they've collected from corporate taxes.

Erroneous conclusion.
The government can implement/create currency without any taxes.
Of course, that becomes a major problem if the government allows
a PRIVATE corporation to provide a currency instead ( END THE FED ).

When the profit derived from the business opportunity and legal benefits
exceeds the amount paid in taxes, everyone can clearly see succe$$ by the math.

Well, of course. This is the perfect example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Begging what question ?

There is nothing fallacious about this response to the comment, "That just seems like a basic math failure."
I simply identified how math does not fail.

Still not doing anything to inspire my confidence in this idea.

I'm not trying to inspire confidence. I am stating a potential way to fund building a fire house . . . without STEALING.
Alternatives do exist. A community of people could make private donations, etc.

You're making corporations pay not just for benefits for them but for benefits for everyone.

Not really.
I don’t mean benefit as in “free benefit”.
I mean benefit as in “receive something that is desired”.

The people offer (business opportunity) and desire (fire house).

The corporations pay (taxes) to the government for (business opportunity).
The government uses (taxes) to  fund (fire house).

The people and corporation have simply traded/bartered
and government was just the vehicle for accomplishing the trade.



basic netiquette ?
aRE YoU tHE NeT PoLIcE ?

obnoxious attention-whoring text style?
You are free to express your fallacious opinion. That’s liberty :-0)

13

General / Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?

« on: November 07, 2014, 09:58:33 AM »

What are the corporations getting ?

business opportunity and access to other legal benefits
-- for example, limited liability protection, preferred status in bidding on government contracts, etc


What is the math ?

When the profit derived from the business opportunity and legal benefits
exceeds the amount paid in taxes, everyone can clearly see succe$$ by the math.

That said, both business opportunity and legal benefits can be difficult to quantify
       as they can be valued differently (ie fuzzy value) by each person/corporation.
To someone outside of the corporation, this "fuzzy math" may make it look like failure even when it is success.

Also, a corporation may intend to suffer losses short term for longer term gain, etc.
Those who give up in business because their start-up cost put them in the red, don't understand business.

14

General / Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?

« on: November 06, 2014, 02:57:54 PM »

I think it's kind of a fantasy to think you have figured out a way for people to get "free" stuff through governments.

It's not "free" stuff.

It's the natural people "giving up some of their business opportunity"
(using government as the transfer vehicle - "society wide corporation" to effectuate that)
in return for "funding(taxes) for benefit of the people".

The premise on funding without stealing is sound.
It's the implementation(people's actions) that can fail.
And for the super majority of history, people's actions in implementing don't fail.

That said, the failure by people in their civic duty to keep government in proper bounds can happen.

So yes, history shows that near the fall of empires,
(after people have failed in their civic duties )
most corporations(the non-insiders) may no longer benefit,
and further, the people no longer benefit from the arrangement either,
but those times are very thin slices of history.

Arguably, yes, we are nearing one of those thin slices now, so I can understand skepticism too.
But the skepticism is misplaced.
The funding idea is sound (no need for skepticism of the idea)
but yes, the idea only works when civic duty has not failed and
it is NOT misplaced to be skeptical that people are failing in their civic duty
to keep government to its proper role.


PS many people who really do just want "free" stuff . . .
 are often the same ones who fail in their civic duties.


Liberty is not "free".
Liberty comes with responsibility.
Part of that responsibility is civic duties.

15

General / Re: want to fund government without any "stealing" so gov can build a fire station ?

« on: November 06, 2014, 10:26:52 AM »

You build a premise based on assumptions.  I then make assumptions on how corporations will react.

Hmm, let's look.
my Premise = There should be no tax on people ( no individual income tax, etc )
            and regardless of what some courts say, corporations are not people.

my assumptions are what ?
#1 people own themselves <-- clearly inherent properties are self evident
#2 corporations are not people <-- clearly non-inherent properties are self evident

your assumption = corporations will stop paying taxes
There is nothing self evident in that assumption as I pointed out it.
Is not self evident that relinquishing benefits that outweigh taxes is something that
a corporation would do (and historical evidence of corporation behavior suggests same).

If  you have evidence (to make up for not being self-evidenced) for your assumption, then please provide it.

Even though my assumptions are self evident, I can still provide you with evidence . . .

#2 corporations are not people
I can show an autopsy of a corporation in which there were no traces of human remains.

#1 people own themselves
If you need evidence that you own your self, then I agree you don't own yourself and I OWN YOU ;-0)