The world is insane

[xxthebeastxx]

there has to be a starting point.

That is a paradox. Something has to be infinite.

 

How is anything here. Evolution you say? There had to be something to evolve from if you claim evolution. Something had to be created.

That is a paradox. Something has to be infinite.

There's a bit of equivocation going on here. Normalcy, please clarify your position first. Are you saying 'god' must also have a starting point?

 

[Schnell]

Taxation is theft, and income taxation is chattel slavery.

Public healthcare is funded through violence and enforced via violence.

I wouldn't call it theft, as the money isn't yours to begin with. I would rather call it interest on a loan that are forced on you. I agree on the slavery part though.

Public healthcare is good, the way I see it. I'm glad to live in a Socialist country where I know I'll be taken care of if need be, and I don't mind that I'm currently taking care of others who can't help being in a bad situation.

There is no such thing as empirically wrong ethics, so don't waste your time calling me out on my political views.

 

I wouldn't call it theft, as the money isn't yours to begin with. I would rather call it interest on a loan that are forced on you. I agree on the slavery part though.

Assuming I understand your argument, you are making the claim that because 'the government' issues the 'money', it is theirs to take back.

Ignoring the fact that the 'money' is counterfeit and that it is 'legal tender' (nullifies debts) only by fiat, it remains the case that, like any other object, ownership does not remain with the originator after ownership is transfered.
That is: if you print a book and exchange it with me for a loaf of bread, the book is no longer yours, just as the loaf of bread is no longer mine.

Taxation is the forceful taking of property from individuals, and as such remains equivalent in all respects to theft, regardless of what the property might be.

Public healthcare is good, the way I see it. I'm glad to live in a Socialist country where I know I'll be taken care of if need be, and I don't mind that I'm currently taking care of others who can't help being in a bad situation.

It's funded through violence by the same people who run endless wars, steal your money on a daily basis, and lie perpetually through the media. It's not free, and it's provided at gun point, by the mafia. There's nothing good about it. And you'd be an absolute fool to believe good will come of this evil.

There is no such thing as empirically wrong ethics, so don't waste your time calling me out on my political views.

This is irrelevant.

Any code of ethics must still be logically internally consistent (correct assuming its own premises) in order to be valid. And in so far as a code of ethics is not internally consistent, it is self-defeating. (Having inconsistent ethics is the same as having no ethics.)

Your ethics clearly aren't logically consistent. For example, you believe that one individual has a right to use violence to take property, and another individual does not. (Taxation.)

 

[Schnell]

Assuming I understand your argument, you are making the claim that because 'the government' issues the 'money', it is theirs to take back.

Ignoring the fact that the 'money' is counterfeit and that it is 'legal tender' (nullifies debts) only by fiat, it remains the case that, like any other object, ownership does not remain with the originator after ownership is transfered.
That is: if you print a book and exchange it with me for a loaf of bread, the book is no longer yours, just as the loaf of bread is no longer mine.

Taxation is the forceful taking of property from individuals, and as such remains equivalent in all respects to theft, regardless of what the property might be.

Yes, you can argue that possession=ownership, and I can agree to a certain extent. My response to that is that you were never given the money. Someone may have handed you the money with the intent of giving it to you, but it wasn't theirs to give.

My point is: The central bank of a given country (in your case Federal Reserve) prints paper and assign a fictional value to this paper (so far we agree). They then hand it out to people with an inherent debt, taxation, of which the current possessor of the paper (or bank accounts which take the fictive nature to a new level) have to pay interest on an annual basis.

So when you claim ownership of your money, I'm calling you a thief.

Edit:
To elaborate on your example: I'm giving you the book on the condition that you give it back to me page by page over time, and keep giving me pages even after I've got the entire book back. And I eat the loaf of bread.

It's funded through violence by the same people who run endless wars, steal your money on a daily basis, and lie perpetually through the media. It's not free, and it's provided at gun point, by the mafia. There's nothing good about it. And you'd be an absolute fool to believe good will come of this evil.

I'd say it is funded through mass suggestion and the violence is a product of this mass suggestion, as I said it's not my money, and I know they lie through the media. I still see the actual healthcare as a good though, it does bring a higher general standard of living when public healthcare is available.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

Public healthcare is good, the way I see it. I'm glad to live in a Socialist country where I know I'll be taken care of if need be, and I don't mind that I'm currently taking care of others who can't help being in a bad situation.

That's great, I'm glad you're happy with your situation. Question for you though: would you support the use of violence against people in Norway who would prefer not to be a part of your collectivized medical system?

My response to that is that you were never given the money. Someone may have handed you the money with the intent of giving it to you, but it wasn't theirs to give.

My point is: The central bank of a given country (in your case Federal Reserve) prints paper and assign a fictional value to this paper (so far we agree). They then hand it out to people with an inherent debt, taxation, of which the current possessor of the paper (or bank accounts which take the fictive nature to a new level) have to pay interest on an annual basis.

So when you claim ownership of your money, I'm calling you a thief.

post of the year
you realize you are forced to use this money - in the usa the feds have shut down competing currencies (google liberty dollars) and "stated that the “Liberty Dollars” are meant to compete with the circulating coinage (currency) of the United States and such competition consequently is a criminal act." (http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=press_release&id=710)



why then are we also taxed on the value of goods we own? surely the central bank doesn't own my house as well, even if it might "own" the 200 odd dollars of cash I have on my person.

I still see the actual healthcare as a good though, it does bring a higher general standard of living when public healthcare is available.

compared to what? the mostly public system we have in the usa? well sure switching solely to public will be better - less administrative costs. but you miss the point, if there was real competition and no government interference, you'd probably see a vast rise in the average standard of living, quality of care, and a vast decrease in average cost of care.

 

[Schnell]

That's great, I'm glad you're happy with your situation. Question for you though: would you support the use of violence against people in Norway who would prefer not to be a part of your collectivized medical system?

I tend to turn to a blind eye to it to be honest. I realize people have different opinions, ranging from individualists to confused "communists" who want the state to control everything, and I don't claim that I see our current system is ideal. But my opinion is that the collective will not care for each other out of their own kindness, so there needs to be a system in place to enforce this practice. Yes, I do support using force to enforce it.

post of the year
you realize you are forced to use this money - in the usa the feds have shut down competing currencies (google liberty dollars) and "stated that the “Liberty Dollars” are meant to compete with the circulating coinage (currency) of the United States and such competition consequently is a criminal act." (http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=press_release&id=710)

I do realize this. That doesn't change they fact that every dollar transferred from Federal Reserve to the American society is given on the condition that it be paid back with interest. When money change hands, the debt follows.

why then are we also taxed on the value of goods we own? surely the central bank doesn't own my house as well, even if it might "own" the 200 odd dollars of cash I have on my person.

That is a slightly different case. The question is "who owns the goods?". You say that surely you live in your own house that you own. I disagree. You pay taxes annually because you "own" that house. If you don't pay taxes for the house, the police come to kick you out and the house goes up for "sale". To me that sounds like your house is on a lease.

To be clear I don't support this, just stating the facts.

compared to what? the mostly public system we have in the usa? well sure switching solely to public will be better - less administrative costs. but you miss the point, if there was real competition and no government interference, you'd probably see a vast rise in the average standard of living, quality of care, and a vast decrease in average cost of care.

Poor people are poor. A purely market-run health service would ensure that most good doctors would treat upper-class citizens who can afford them, and the bad doctors treat the poor because the rich don't want them.

We do have private clinics in Norway, though on a smaller scale than you, and the tendency is already there that the "best" doctors want to work for whoever pays them the most. I remember some time ago there was a big media case about politicians who publicly praised public healthcare, but as soon as their kid had a cough it was straight to the private clinic. Damn hypocrites...

 

Yes, you can argue that possession=ownership, and I can agree to a certain extent. My response to that is that you were never given the money. Someone may have handed you the money with the intent of giving it to you, but it wasn't theirs to give.

My point is: The central bank of a given country (in your case Federal Reserve) prints paper and assign a fictional value to this paper (so far we agree). They then hand it out to people with an inherent debt, taxation, of which the current possessor of the paper (or bank accounts which take the fictive nature to a new level) have to pay interest on an annual basis.

This is a fallacy. If party A borrows money from party B, then subsequently hires someone to perform services, or uses the money to buy goods, thus transferring it to party C, party C is under no obligation to repay party A's debt.

So when you claim ownership of your money, I'm calling you a thief.

This is another fallacy.
If you equate ownership with theft, then you have neither.

I'd say it is funded through mass suggestion and the violence is a product of this mass suggestion, as I said it's not my money, and I know they lie through the media. I still see the actual healthcare as a good though, it does bring a higher general standard of living when public healthcare is available.

This is irrelevant (as well as untrue). Working for the mafia also brings a higher standard of living.

 

[Schnell]

This is a fallacy. If party A borrows money from party B, then subsequently hires someone to perform services, or uses the money to buy goods, thus transferring it to party C, party C is under no obligation to repay party A's debt.

Don't tell me it's a fallacy, tell the IRS.

This is another fallacy.
If you equate ownership with theft, then you have neither.

I didn't equate ownership with theft, if you read my post I equate claiming ownership of something that has not been given to with theft.

 

Don't tell me it's a fallacy, tell the IRS.

Irrelevant. Also a masked fallacy: appeal to force. (Argumentum ad Baculum.)

I didn't equate ownership with theft, if you read my post I equate claiming ownership of something that has not been given to with theft.

Well either you were trying to equate the two or you were trying to claim the property was not the property of the owner, despite him having earned it. Either way it didn't make sense.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

This is irrelevant (as well as untrue). Working for the mafia also brings a higher standard of living.

I believe he means as a whole.

 

[Schnell]

Irrelevant. Also a masked fallacy: appeal to force. (Argumentum ad Baculum.)

I'm appealing to the fact that this happens in the real world, all around you. Are you denying that tax exists, or are you not getting my point?

Well either you were trying to equate the two or you were trying to claim the property was not the property of the owner, despite him having earned it. Either way it didn't make sense.

My point is that the central bank doesn't give away money, it lends out money. Every dollar in circulation is the formal property of Federal Reserve.

 

I'm appealing to the fact that this happens in the real world, all around you. Are you denying that tax exists, or are you not getting my point?

Now you are invoking another fallacy (red herring fallacy).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Your argument that taxation is acceptable under contract law was refuted. Now you claim that your argument was actually simply that taxation happens in the real world. -- Which it wasn't.

My point is that the central bank doesn't give away money, it lends out money. Every dollar in circulation is the formal property of Federal Reserve.

Third parties do not receive 'dollars' under contract; No contract is signed between third parties and 'the fed'.

The fed has no contractual claim over 'dollars' when they are transfered outside of the 'banking system'.

'The banking system' being defined as the web of contracts between individuals and other individuals doing business as 'the federal reserve bank.'

 

[distracted]

There's a bit of equivocation going on here. Normalcy, please clarify your position first. Are you saying 'god' must also have a starting point?

By definition of those who believe in God, is that God is eternal.

Oh and I LOVE your use of fallacy's! Partially because I just learned them in my A.P. class.