asaris

But the government IS superior to common criminals. It's not like the government just takes our taxes; even on an assumption of minimal government, we pay taxes so that the government can provide us with services which we could not provide ourselves. Someone has to provide roads, for example, and roads work a lot better if someone's overseeing the whole thing and making sure they all connect. I'm not trying to say that the government necessarily has my best interests in mind, but they're not simply out to get me, either. You get at least some use from the taxes you pay, even if some of those taxes go to services which you happen not to use (welfare's probably a decent example of this).

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Master_Shake

But you get stuff from the mafia when you pay protection money too. They make sure no other gangs burn down your store or threatens you.

And if you don't think the roads in this country are constructed by a form of insider-old-white-boy's-club very similar to the mafia, well, you've probably never been to a local township planning meeting.

And the mafia isn't simply out to get people either, rather it feeds off the work of others, taking a little here and there, returning a little to prevent people from getting too upset.

I'm not saying the analogy is perfect, obviously the government is a lot larger than any "criminal organization" that exists beneath it, it's the nature of the government to prevent competition.

I think Hobbe's "Leviathan" touched on some of these points.

Also, please don't take offense to my use of the word mafia as an Italian slur. I meant it only in the most generic way of the word. Please feel free to substitute "criminal organization" in place of mafia.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

flstf

I think it goes something like this.

To the current political ruling class, from an unwilling subject:

I was born here, I had no choice in the matter.
You tell me that I am a slave to the state I had no choice in selecting.
You tell me I have to follow rules I had no choice in making.
You tell me I have to pay taxes (slave labor) to polititians I had no choice in selecting.
You tell me I have to pay for roads etc.. I don't want.
You tell me I can't hire anyone I want for my business.
You tell me I can't even live in the house I was born in unless I pay you taxes.
You tell me I have a say in what you do but we both know that is false.

When I complain about the above things you tell me to either pay up, go to jail or leave the country.
Well I have every right to be here and just want to be left alone, it is you who insists on enslaving me for being born.

asaris

The problem, with both flstf's and Master_Shake's arguments, is that, we are not slaves, we are free and we have a say in which politicians we choose, which means we have a say in what rules those politicians make. If there's any problem in contemporary government, it's that it's TOO responsive to the desires of the citizens. You (flstf) say you don't want roads; well, how do you expect to be able to get to work?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Master_Shake

I guess this is just where you and I differ. I admit that our slavery may not be the same slavery that American blacks experienced, but I am a slave nontheless.

Slave:
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence.

I don't go to work because I choose to, I do it because I have to, and Iwould die or be killed if I didn't. I work to make others rich and happy. I am subservient to the laws and lawmakers in this country. How is that not a slave?

Being able to choose which Overseer will watch you as you work does not make you free.

I don't doubt that you actually believe this, but I think that only shows just how insidiously we are controlled. That you think you have power does not mean you have power.

If by citizens you mean the rich people that control this country then I would agree that it's too responsive to that group of people.

This strikes me as the ultimate justification for the whole system of bullshit that we have created. Kind of like the guy who uses cocaine to work longer hours to earn more money to buy more coke to work longer hours to earn more money to buy more coke. He needs to get to work to support the rich people and the ridiculous system that has been created. He works to build roads to get to work to build roads to get to work...

Look, I'm not suggesting that we build something else, I don't know of an alternative. People always have been exploited and probably always will be exploited, and I accept that. I am one man who cannot hope to change things, and honestly the risks are so high (of being imprisoned or killed) that I don't have the courage to change them. You want me to work at a shitty job for shitty wages so you can buy a yacht, fine. I don't have any other real choice.

But don't try to justify this shit to me as being good for me, or being in my best interests. I'll do the shitty jobs for the rich fucks that run this place, but I won't do it with a smile on my face, and I won't cheer them on as they rape other people.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Yakk

If you do not work, and do things for others, others will not feed you. Is this slavery?

If, in addition to this, you do not feed yourself, you will starve.

This is slavery, but it is slavery to the laws of nature. Enthropy happens, in our case via shit.

You can break any law you want. You can leave the Nation, and all it's benefits, behind you. You arrived with nothing, and can choose to leave with nothing.

Strangely, it does.

First, are you treating 'free' as a matter of shades of grey, or as a matter of black and white? As demonstrated above, the laws of nature enslave you. So if it is black and white, you are already doomed.

Selecting your overseer makes you more free.

You where born in a house. This gives you no rights over the house, you where just born there.

Fixed taxes, or head taxes, are analagous to slave labour. Marginal taxes are far less analagous. If you had to pay 500$/year, period, that would be (effectively) slave labour.

You have to realize, all the land has been claimed. You have to justify your existance. Existance isn't a free lunch. If you wish to no longer exist, feel free.

Exploitation, in and of itself, is neutral. At the very least, it matters far less than many other things.

Building society to remove exploitation is a poor choice. That is the trap that Marx fell into.

I consider money and wealth to be a wonderful way to get rich people to work for me. Yes, work for me.

They work hard to figure out how to serve me. I live a nice, casual, stress-free life, with all my important needs delt with. Meanwhile, people work there asses off making sure I live in safety, providing me with amusement and goods.

And all they get out of it is a big number in some computer somewhere, and slightly fancier toys.

Service isn't slavery. People serve each other.

In our society, take a look at the rich people. A bunch of them are entertainers, another bunch are business people. Entertainers exist to amuse me. Business people exist to provide me with whatever I want.

Are they my slaves?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Master_Shake

Right, and if the blacks didn't work in the cotton fields they wouldn't get fed. That was slavery, and so is this.

Slavery exists not where there's simply an exchange of currency or property or work, I recognize that as the capitalist system and I don't object to it. Slavery exists when one side has all the power in the relationship and can dictate the terms to the other. Yes, I'm not being told I have to work in the cotton fields, but I am being told what to do, I'm being taxed while I work, and my work enriches other people to an extent far greater than it enriches me.

Damn, that's always the refuge of people defending the system, "If you don't like it, leave!" Please understand, I am not trying to wreck your system. I', not going to deny you your yacht. You may continue to exploit people here and abroad without worry from me. But don't expect me to like it.

Only in the most techinical sense. A better way to put it might be it makes you less of a slave (maybe, I'll get to that) but saying it makes you more free is disingenuous.

And that's only a maybe. You assume that the overseer you choose will be the one that will treat you better, whip you less, etc. The problem arises when the overseers and politicians lie to you anyway, then it's no better than flipping a coin. What you need to recognize is that although the overseers all have a different style, they are all the same person, with one goal in mind, to get you to work for them. Some may be more pleasent about it (others may say they're going to whip you less but actually be the cruelest) but they're all there to take from you.

Exactly wrong. Paying a fixed tax would be a better system, then you're only paying a fee for the services provided. Paying depending on how hard you work is just like slave labour. What the slaves worked for was given directly to the plantation owner, granted, in that case it was 100% of the slave's work, whereas here it's 33% or so.

Right, all the land has been claimed by rich people. They own it, because they say they do and because they have weapons which can kill me if I don't respect their property boundary. That they will continue to own it forever doesn't make it right, it just means they have a bigger leviathan than me. (and again, I have no desire to kill or be killed, so please don't take this the wrong way).

I understand I have to work to survive in nature, it can be cruel and unforgiving. But you telling me I have to work and support rich people in addition to myself is what makes me a slave.
And I consider this quite a bit, but then I drown my sorrows in alcohol and hookers and my pain is dulled.
Well, if you mean it matters less than genocide or something, sure, but it does matter to me, since I'm the one being exploited for other's pleasure.
I admit, I don't know what you do for a living, perhaps you're a porn star or something, but I think you have the flow chart upside down. Money and resources are how you purchase things, how you employ others, and how you make life easier for yourself. When you have a lot of money, you can do this a lot. When you have very little, you have to purchase the cheap vodka, or do these things to a lesser extent than the rich people do. Also, in this country (America) the system is designed so that the rich people stay rich without having to continue to work. When someone owns a factory, he doesn't even have to work in it to make money. He makes money because other people pay him to use his stuff, which is only his because he says it is.

Yeah, those are the children working in sweatshops in Thailand, or the illegal immigrants brought over to serve as prostitutes. I'm glad you're so happy at the idea of exploiting others.

When it's an equal exchange, bargained for consideration, both parties gain something and both parties lose something, then you're right, it isn't slavery. But when one has all the power in the relationship, and can dictate the terms, that is slavery.

? Rich people don't provide anything to society, they leech off of it. They claim ownership over everything, and because they employ the cops and the army they prevent you from doing anything with "their" property. Rich people exist to take your money, not to give you anything. That they throw some bones back your way to prevent revolution isn't because they like you or care about your well-being, it's because they have nothing but contempt for you. The slaveowners let the slaves get drunk on Christmas after all, it wasn't because they liked the slaves, it was because the one night of partying blew off some steam and prevented revolution, and because the resulting hangover showed the slave he was a worthless creature who needed to be controlled.

Enjoy your yacht.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

flstf

Well, first of all let me preface this with the understanding that the list of facts in my original post are from a fictional unwilling subject and are simply meant to encourage further discussion. I am not an anarchist, at least not yet, LOL. That being said let's go on from there.

You say I have no rights over the house I was born in and given to me by my parents. I guess they were under the false impression that they owned it (and the land) to give. But if I refuse to pay tribute (property taxes) to the current polititians in power, they will take it from me, kick me out and auction it off. So I guess you are right even though I think I have every right to stay here they don't unless I pay them what they want this year.

I have to eat so if I grow crops on my land and sell what I don't eat I have to pay tribute or they will throw me in jail. They will only let me keep a portion of what my labor has wrought. I feel like a sharecropper which is just about like slavery.

You say I have to justify my existence but why? My existence is justified by the fact I was born. I am not asking for anything from the ruling class but they are asking plenty from me and threatening to imprison me if I don't comply. Why can't they just leave me be to live in peace instead of forcing me to work for them? They have the same approximate physical makeup as me, let them work for themselves.

Even if I wished to pay a share of the road cost the corrupt polititians have rigged the costs to be hundreds of times higher because of all the kickbacks and nepotism involved. I didn't ask for the road to be put between me and my neighbors and I have no other way of getting there now that the polititian's brother in law has built this million dollar concrete path. If the overpriced road wasn't in my way my neighbors and I would get togather and build our own when we had time. Besides it was here long before I was born and had no say in it.

Lebell

To be born means to be a "slave" to the necessities of life until one dies.

The yokes of our particular system of "slavery" make life longer and more pleasant for everyone.

Without them, life would be short and brutish.

Complaining about it makes no sense.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Yakk

I don't care if you object to it, unless you are qualifying your definition of slavery to be "and, I don't object to it".

You work for other people, or you starve to death, in modern society. You can't support yourself. This, if you get anal about it, is slavery.

How are you being told what to do?

For the most part, laws are property laws and harm-laws.

There are a pile of morality laws, ranging from drug laws on down -- are you talking about those? I find them regrettable and avoidable.

Or just tax law?

When you work, as a personal trainer, for a gym, the gym takes a cut of your pay from the people you train. Is the personal trainer a slave of the gym?

A fixed tax says 'you must do X for us, or we put you in jail'. A marginal tax makes no such demands.

By rich, you mean 'North Americans'? You don't have to be that rich to own a small plot of land.

The people here before you own the land. Do you feel that you are owed the land simply because you where born near it or on it?

If you are exploited, and better off, is this evil? Ie, they offer you a job for 1$ an hour. They earn 3$ an hour. If they didn't offer you the job, you would be able to earn 0.50$ an hour. Now, is that exploitation evil?

Laugh, why would I care how expensive my vodka is?

I make life easier for myself by living an easy life. I'm no porn star. I just don't bother needing shit.

I don't need to employ others, other than in the abstract: people already build roads for me, serve me food whenever I want it, and serve me when I need it. And it's cheap.

If others can employ others more, well, more power to them. Jealosy is stupid.

Or, my Brother, who works as a consultant, and works 60-70 hour weeks. He's working fucking hard, and in general makes the rest of the world a slightly better place for me.

Heh, well, then, nobody has 'all the power in the relationship' when dealing with me. So, by your definition, I'm not a slave.

I'd suspect anyone with any marketable skills has some power in every employment relationship. Even in a democracy, you have your vote, which is a very small amount of power, but some power. You also have your voice, yet more power.

Lets start with one rich person. Bill Gates.

Now, the company he build does lots of not nice things. But it also works extremely hard to build a computer operating system that serves the needs of the people.

Lets take a less rich person. A random hollywood star. They spend their lives working on movies whose purpose is to entertain the masses.

Even people who just trade money generate information that makes the economy run smoother.

There are flaws. You can make money in a way that fucks everyone. But, they aren't all that common. Usually they involve things like pollution and the like. (meme: corperations are externalizing machines)

I suspect your problem is you don't understand the mathematics of a well designed market capitalist economy.

And the west has reasonably well designed market capitalist economies.

The point of a MCE is that the easiest and best way to advance your own self interest is to benefit everyone else. How do you get rich? You provide something that many people want.

Even people who just live off investments are doing that, in a small way. Their capital is deferred consumption -- resources that someone had managed to get, and decided they'd rather invest. Those investments generate wealth, and generate things that people want.

There are times it breaks down. But I'd be surprised if our MCE was more than an order of magnatude off the ideal.

Market Capitalism and Democracy are wonderful tricks to pull on the 'powerful'.

They both subvert the will to power, and turn it into something somewhat benefitial to the masses. MCE makes the easiest way to wealth be making everyone else better off. Democracy makes the easiest way to social power finding out what is best for people, and telling them you'll do it.

It's a wonderful judo trick. It isn't perfect -- and, to me, your complaints look like someone spotting a crack in a window, and then saying 'the draft coming in is so bad, there might as well not be a window!'

Neither are perfect. Anti-trust laws exist for this reason. Freedom of Information acts to prevent corruption. Checks and balances galore.

I don't trust the government. I use it. I don't trust the motivations of the rich. I use them.

No, I said you have no rights over it. Possibly your parents have limited rights over it, as given to them by the person they got it from. And possibly they'll give it to you.

Those limited rights could include the requirement that you pay property tax for the sundry services provided.

"Just about" isn't equality. And feels like just about has enough if, ands and buts to fill a south park genetics lab.

Because you take resources. Your existence isn't free.

I think you massively misunderstand the level of corruption in modern western society.

You where born. There where roads. All that was built was there. Much of it makes your life easier.

You want to use the net profits of human civilization, possibly. They come with a debt.

If you want to live without the net profits of human civilization, tough nuts. Human civilization is nearly everywhere. Pay your way outside of it -- there are still a few areas. I suspect you'd die very shortly.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

asaris

I'm enjoying this discussion alot, so I don't want to say much, but I did want to note that I object to property taxes. It can be reasoned that the infrastructure which the government provides is essential to being able to provide for yourself and your family through a mutually beneficial contract with your employer, so they have the right to some of those taxes to maintain said infrastructure. But the same argument doesn't apply to property.

Incidentally, I might mention that my cousin and her husband are both cops by training, and he actually works as a cop, so try to avoid saying anything too offensive about them. I haven't heard anything too bad so far, but I just thought I'd head that off.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

flstf

Nope, they squated the land when it was open country and then built the house. The crooked polititians came along later and demanded money backed by threats of violent removal and/or imprisonment.
OK, no ifs, ands or buts then. They will only let me keep a portion of my crop after they have taken all they want and it is slavery. Unless I don't wish to exist I can starve, a choice all slaves have.
I have told them to keep their overpriced resources but they still insist I pay them tribute.
I think you are naive to not see that it is everywhere in the current group of polititians. Get in office by fixed elections and get rich. They almost all increase their net worth tremendously once they are in the ruling class.
I have no problem with human civiliization but the current ruling class are not civilized. They are organized criminals and they should go, I was born on this land and have every right to be here. Let them go somewhere and work for themselves. I suspect they'd die very shortly but I'd be just fine without them.

Master_Shake

I was just trying to head off the implication that I am a communist, I'm not. The capitalist system is one thing, it's when the system is rigged to one side that I object. If you don't care about what I object to then why are you replying to me?

Again, it's only slavery when one party has all the power in the relationship. When two parties on relatively equal footing come to an agreement, that's one thing. When I am told I have to work to support rich people, that's involuntary servitude. In fairness, I suppose I'm not told I have to support rich people, I could always just die. But that was a choice the slaves had too.

It's not even a question of laws, the system is rigged to ensure that the rich stay rich.


Assuming the personal trainer comes to the gym with options and consciously chooses to pay the gym, then no. When I am taxed by the government to support rich people, when my wages remain low so as to ensure the corporation that runs things makes even more money, and when my job consists of finding ways to hurt people to ensure the rich people retain their wealth then that is a relationship where one party has a lot more power than me. Just like the mafia demanding protection money, or the pimp demanding his cut.

Unless you are forced to work in order to live (which you've already admitted we must do), then you are taxed according to how much you want to do for yourself. Your tax bears no relation to how much the government or the corporation provides for you, only to how much you work.

Yeah, tell that to the Native Americans. The people here before me stole the land from somebody else and you have the audacity to tell me it now belongs to them? Why? Because they have guns? Because they have money? They only own things because they say they do!

I don't believe in good or evil, but if I'm doing $4 worth of work and the guy keeps $3 but does no work then that is a little fucked-up. Again, I'm not going to revolt against it, but I'm not going to cheer when that fucker buys a yacht.

It's my understanding that really cheap vodka doesn't taste nearly as good as some of the more expensive vodkas.

That's great, sounds like you've got the system beat. I hope that makes it a little easier to fuck that wisconsin couple out of their insurance money. You wouldn't want to do a bad job and not have the corporation make money, would you?

That's good that you've simplified your life. If it doesn't make you angry that others are profiting off your work then that's fine, more power to you. If you think it's a good thing to pay the mob protection money so that your shop doesn't get broken into, well that's fine. Your shop won't get broken into. And you're right, there's no point in getting upset that the gangsters sit around counting the protection money all day while you have to work an extra few hours per day to earn that money. After all, we're just stupid poor people who don't know what's best for us. We'd die if we were left on our own without the government or the mob. Thankfully the leviathan is there to protect us in exchange for 1/3 of our salaries.

Really? You can choose not to pay taxes or send money to the man? Don't you understand that it doesn't matter what shitty job you're working at, you are working to make other people rich.

It's meaningless. When the game is rigged it doesn't matter who you choose. They're all there to fuck you!

Right because the American populace responds so well to reasoned argument.

Exactly, Bill isn't doing the work, he's rich now. (It can happen, however rarely that people move up or down the ladder of wealth). Who's doing the work for Microsoft? Indian computer programmers earning a third of what American programmers would pay. Why pay them less, Windows doesn't cost any less than it used to? Where does that extra money go? Certainly not into building a better Operating System (not in relation to the price anyway). That money goes into Bill's pocket, who did very little work for all that money.

Right, that keeps us sedated and docile so we don't get pissed.

Great, now that we have a system we need people to make it run smoother, so we can have a great system, so we can make it run smoother...

When business and the government consist of the same people and both are out to take your money, that's hardly a capitalist economy.

Or you just point a gun at their head and take their money. Enough with the provide something people want shit. People want marijuana, but the pharmaceutical industry works with the government to keep it illegal. That way people keep paying high prices for their painkillers.

And it doesn't hurt that the tax laws are written to enable and encourage such things.

And if we lived in a capitalist economy or a democracy it might mean something. But since we live in a representative buearacracy that's in bed with the corporations it doesn't.

No, anti-trust laws work so that the rich people can crack down on businesses it doesn't like. It's got nothing to do with protecting people.

And what a bang-up job it's doing.

It's tough to measure something like corruption, since by design it's unnoticable and hidden. But I know I pay money in taxes, and I don't receive nearly that much back in services. That money is going somewhere.

And enough with the roads make my life better. I only use the road to get to work, the only reason the government can justify spending money on roads is to ensure we all get to work to continue to make the man rich.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

flstf

asaris

I have enjoyed playing devil's advocate and appreciate you playing along with me. Many of the things I have pointed out are the result of discussions I have had with an anarchist friend of mine. However my heart is not really in it so I will resist the urge to continue. Besides I think Master_Shake is keeping you plenty busy, LOL.

asaris

flstf -- it's always fun. I've always felt that the easiest way to see philosophy's usefulness is in refuting bad philosophy.

But just because it's going somewhere doesn't mean it's going into the pockets of the politicians. There are a number of services which you don't directly use, but which are beneficial to you. Consider welfare. I'm assuming you aren't on it. But people are on it who, without it, would be living on the streets. It would be an inconvience for you to be encountering this greatly increased number of homeless, so you benefit from welfare, even if it is only in a minor and tangential way.

Also, you seem to assume that CEOs don't do any work. My uncle (yes, I have a very diverse family) runs a small printing plant, and I know for a fact that he doesn't just sit back and profit off his laborers. He works, and he works hard. I'm not going to deny that there are some CEOs who don't do any work, but those are few and far between, and tend to get fired quickly.

What would you do if you didn't work? How would you support yourself if you weren't 'forced' to work by 'the man'?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Yakk

How did squatting give them any rights to the land? We talking common law land squat+improvement, government land grants, or what? Aboriginals who pushed out previous Aboriginals?

You said 100 times more expensive due to corruption. That's a 99% corruption rate. I stand by my statement that you massively overestimate corruption.

You have no right to be here. You are not entitled to a chunk of land, security of the person, food, water, or happyness.

You can earn all of those, or recieve them unearned.

Then leave. Really, just get up and walk away. You probably have plenty of skills, there should be dozens of places around the world willing to exploit them for your mutual benefit.

I actually have a few justifications for property taxes.

First, properties require access. In cities at least, the amount of infrastructure a piece of property requires is large.

Second, land is a finite resource, unlike many others. Land not being used for the common good is something that can not be compensated by making land somewhere else.

A tarrif on land helps ensure that non-productive land gets moved to productive uses. A simular justification can be put forward for all wealth taxes.

Third, the value of land is dependant on a healthy society. A tarrif on the cost of maintaining that society seems just. This also applies to wealth tax.

Fourth, as a wealth tax, land-taxes are 'progressive' (using tax-jargon), which has certain benefits.

Why is the work worth 4$? Your work is required to generate the benefit. But so is something the other person has.

You can work for 0.50$, or you can work for this dude for 1$. The dude just doubled your salary. And your problem is, the dude takes 3$ home with him?

Your work is worth 0.50$, the next-best alternative, to you.
If the next most productive (and willing) person the dude could hire would cost 0.75$ and earn the dude 2.50$, your work is worth 1.25$ to the dude.

That's market capitalism. That dude owns the means of production. As such, your labour is worth less than the output of your labour.

The means of production aren't free. They have costs -- be it fortune or effort -- and the proper amount of means of production is a hard problem to solve. Capitalism solves this problem by putting the problem into individual hands.

Your ownership of the means of production is determined by your past production surpluses and your ability to manage means of production to generate more surpluses. You can also exchange your means of production for additional consumption, at a rate you and another find mutually benefitial.

Only to a certain extent. But Capitalism does create concentrations of wealth, yes.

The corperation wants it's wages to be as low as possible. You want your wages to be as high.

Are you worth more? If so, find a corperation that will pay you more. If you aren't worth more, you do not deserve more, under capitalism.

A corperation that won't pay someone what they are worth is harming itself.

A stable, productive society benefits you in porportion to how much you get from society.

The spiral of quality is a trap. In any case, if you want expensive vodka, buy a brita, filter your vodka 5 to 8 times, and try the result.

Based off 'blind taste tests', this turns a cheap bottle into a many-hundred dollar bottle.

/chuckle. I actually scam people into wanting things, in an abstract way (I help people who help people who help people scam you into buying things). =) Fools all of you! Fools!

Yes. I could get a job in Japan, cutting my taxes. I could move to Barbados, or many other places, where taxes are tiny to non-existant.

You said no power. Not 'little power'. If you have power, you aren't a slave.

Bill does work. Bill did work.

He 'earned' his money via capitalism the right to spend a large number of resources. More than he wanted to. Instead of buying up a tonne of stuff and destroying it (as capitalism gave him the right to), he chose to invest it in making shit for you.

Why would microsoft charge us less money? Microsoft, under capitalism, should charge the amount that maximizes it's profits. It shouldn't charge what you think it should cost.

It seems you object to ownership, when it isn't you that is doing the owning. Microsoft products are cheaper than writing the same product yourself. If you want a computer operating system, there are a large number of extremely primitive free, or nearly free, ones. There is also a few reasonably advanced free ones.

Hey man, if you want to be sedated, go ahead. They entertain. It is up to you to decide what you want to buy and what you want to watch.

The point is, they earn money in order to entertain us. There isn't a giant conspiracy of people thinking 'lets keep them docile with hollywood'. Hollywood wants money, and entertains us in order to get it.

I don't think you are using 'capitalist economy' in any way I understand.

*nod*, and people provide marijuana. If I wanted some marijuana, I could get it.

Laugh, you live in a very strange world, my friend. Are anti-trust laws used improperly? Ayep, they are sometimes. You imply they are always used improperly.

Being blind doesn't mean the world is painted black.

Stop using roads. Stop using police protection (oh wait, you cannot stop using police protection). Stop using any product produced by any company listed on any stock exchange. Stop buying any good shipped on roads. Stop eating any food that any government food agency has examined or certified. Stop living in a nation of amazing political stability partially guaranteed by their armed forces. Stop looking at random strangers as unlikely to gut you for your shoes -- hire 24 hour bodyguards to keep yourself safe from the starving masses, unfed by government programs. Stop using electricty carried on government regulated power lines. Stop using telephones which use a network which was regulated and supported by government programs. Stop using the radio waves, regulated to the point where you can recieve coherant signals. Start drinking water that other people shit in, prevented by government sanitation. Start getting infected by dozens of fatal deseases, eradicated by government programs. Start fighting wars against the people 50 miles away. Start breathing air as bad as the great smog.

Oh wait, the government doesn't do anything. Just throw it away. =p~

Every law is an evil, for it robs someone of their essential liberty. This doesn't mean that the evil they are overwealms the good they are. An accounting system that ignores the good and only counts the evil is flawed.

If you don't believe in good and evil, use functionally equivilent words, and the statement holds.

Then, go track your money -- pick 10 dollars of your money, and follow it in a random path through the government. I've even posted a breakdown of where your federal tax money goes, to this board, if you are from the USA, if you want to start.

I do not believe that out of 100$ in taxes, 99$ is lost to corruption. That is a massive overestimate of the amount of corruption in modern western society.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Master_Shake

ad hominem attack.

And the man isn't entitled to anything then either. But yet he takes it from me, how is that justified?

I'd work to support myself, not work to support another person on my back.

No, you told me the product was worth $4, and that this guy is keeping $3 of it to pay me $1. I do all the work and this guy sits back and watches. Maybe that's not slavery, but it's fucked up.

But we don't have market capitalism. When your labour is undervalued because the man chooses to pay you less and when the government takes more money out of what you earn, how can you possibly claim that is capitalism?

Right, and our system solves this problem by putting the means of production into the hands of a few, who take their property by force, who enforce their laws designed to prevent people from competing with them, and who dictate the terms of use of that property as a cartel does. That's not individuals acting, that's a gang.

Again, we don't live in a capitalist country. When the government and business are the same people, it's not capitalism.

Unless all the corporations get together and decide to restrict what they pay people.


And when you get less than you put in by a significant margin, that's not an equal relationship.

Ok, so my 10 year old Taurus can be just as reliable as the rich guy's brand new Mercedes SL600 if I run it through a filter?

I'll have to investigate that. Though why I have to move to escape such nonsense isn't clear. Would you tell a business owner that he should move to the suburbs because the mob is entitled to earn its money?

I'm not an expert on the history of the software industry, but my understanding is that Bill did a few years of real work, stole some code from Apple, and used his contacts to take over the world. That hardly seems to justify continuing to pay him. The only reason anybody continues to pay him is because copyrights create intangible property that prevents others from using his code.

I have always been of the opinion that in a true capitalist system there would be no copyrights. Bill would not continue to receive money for an operating system he himself stole 20 years ago.

Why would microsoft charge us less money? Microsoft, under capitalism, should charge the amount that maximizes it's profits. It shouldn't charge what you think it should cost.
It should charge what the market will bear. When the same corporation that makes the product makes it illegal to compete, that's no longer capitalism. Read the works of

I don't think you are using 'capitalist economy' in any way I understand.
Then please define the term. In any capitalist model I know of the parties are assumed to be on equal footing, meaning that neither party has control of the government. Maybe that's not the case, and you have no problem with government agents assigning road projects to their friends. When the standard for job selection becomes nepotism instead of "lowest price, best quality" or something similar, then that's not capitalism.


And if the government found out about it, they would throw you in jail. (or at least give you a big fine depending on how much you had)

Stop telling me what I should do. I thought I already made it clear that I've given up and I will give my money to the government, just as I would the mob. I am not courageous enough to fight it. All I'm trying to say is that I don't like it, and if another leviathan were to come along with a better deal I'd jump ship. I have no loyalty to those that steal from me.

If the whole system is corrupt than every dollar that goes to perpetuating it is lost to corruption.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Yakk

MS, don't mix attacks in with my posts willy nilly. If you do so, can you attribute them at least?

EDIT: Clarification: In your post, you included a quote by someone doing an ad homium attack, right next to quotes by me, with no indication they came from other people.

You speak of 'the man' as some being that means something. For the most part, people own that shit.

And, for the most part, the people who own that shit did things for other people to get that shit, or had ancestors who did the same.

Yes. I said the best you could get elsewhere was 0.50$.

The product was worth 4$.
The dude would pay you 1$.

Clearly you can't make the product and make 4$, or your best offer otherwise would be self-employment at 4$. Econ 101 here.

That dude has something (be it a factory, an idea, or a marketing department) that makes your labour generate a product worth 4$.

So, you can work for 0.50$. This is the best you can do.

Along comes a dude. The dude offers you a job for 1$.

It turns out that your 1$ in labour generates 3$ of profit for the dude.

Are you happy to take the job? Did the dude exploit you? Was the exploitation a bad thing?

Sally, your next door neighbour, would take the job for 0.75$. However, Sally's output would only give the dude 2.50$ in profit (after all expenses).

How much is the job worth?

What do you think capitalism is? They pay you as little as they possibly can. You earn as much as you possibly can.

The value of your labour is what you can get paid for it. That is how value is determined under market capitalism.

This word value you use, how do you calculate it?

The concentration of capital seems to be a side effect of market capitalism. To some, this is just. Others believe that this effect should be balanced with wealth redistribution.

You believe there is a giant government and corperate conspiracy to keep wages low?

You sure believe that the 'bad guys' are competent!

Second, the existance of companies such as "Microsoft", which overthrew IBM in a huge number of markets, sort of disproves your point. This 'man' you are afraid of, he does shitty work keeping people down.

Do you instantly become part of 'the man' once you economically succeed? Do they tell you the secret handshake?

Find me a definition from any dictionary (and not one written by a comedian) that supports your redefinition of the term Capitalism. Thank you.

Oh my god. You do think they are conspiring against you!

Like I have said many times -- how wealthy would you be with no social infrastructure around you?

Ok, now how wealthy are you, after taxes, with this social infrastructure?

So, you are getting taxed more than you benefit how again?

Nope. But they both get you from point A to point B. If you want to get your gut in a knot about how much richer someone else is, feel free. Just don't expect me to take such jealous complaints seriously.

Because you are blaming the entire structure of society. I like having a modern state surrounding me, and there are more of me than there are of you.

Then don't pay him. Write your own god damn operating system.

He dropped out of school, and him and his buddies put together an OS. He priced this OS really low. It also fit on a single disk, which was important. And it was for a computer system that was about to take off.

This made him money. Him and his friends took that money, and hired other people. They kept writing.

At a few points, Microsoft signed some contracts that where pretty anti-competative, but freely entered into by both sides. (example: every box you ship, you give MS 10$. But, you get to install DOS on any box. The normal price for an OS was about 30$. (prices are made up for this example))

This allowed Microsoft to massively increase market share. Then came windows, then came office, and things kept snowballing.

Microsoft's main advantage was the difficulties in making things compatable in the computer world, and economic network effects.

There would be insufficient economic incentive for creating intellectual property if there was no protection over it. Such an economy would be running at below maximium efficiency.

At the same time, I believe that the length of copyright has grown far too long.

You can compete with Microsoft. Write your own OS. There are a few out there to start with. BSD includes one you can even take and sell, hiding the source code!

Incomplete sentance?

Please say 'Ann Rand'. I could use the laugh!

Strange. The economics I've studied didn't make that particular assumption. Possibly I missed that chapter.

I don't think that capitalism is all that holy in and of itself. I believe it should be used where appropriate. So, don't project your personal valuation of 'capitalism' onto me, please.

First of all, the fact I can get it is an example of 'if you want it you can get it', which is what you where disputing, IIRC.

Second, no, the government wouldn't throw me in jail for smoking a joint. And the fine is pretty small.

Understood. I was just listing the various benefits you get from your taxes. You claimed you got less than you paid. I'm disputing that.

Maybe you are getting less out of it than someone else. But the amount it would cost you, personally, to generate the same features that government provides you, in the wilderness, is simply ridiculous.

Alright, I'll bite. Define 'corrupt' here?

Remember, I'm disputing that 100$ in government road-building could be done for 1$, with the remaining 99$ going to corruption. It was a simply ridiculous statement, as far as I can tell. For some odd reason, nobody believes that it is ridiculous.

So I'm waiting for somebody, anybody, to give some evidence that that statement isn't on Crack.

As for the leviathan -- the whale is useful, and helps me more than it hurts me.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Master_Shake

Originially Posted by Yakk
How do you attribute the quotes to someone like you've done? I don't know how to do that.

Originially Posted by Yakk
He has it only because he's allowed to have it. He didn't build the factory, and the idea, once passed to other people, is no longer his alone. But the government sends cops out to protect his plant, and makes it illegal to use the idea. That's not capitalism, that's government enforcement of that guy's wealth.

Originially Posted by Yakk
No, yes, yes. But I think you misunderstand me, I'm going to take the job because I don't have any other choice. But I'm not going to cheer for the guy, and if I had the opportunity to do something different I'm sure I would.

Originially Posted by Yakk
The value of your labour is what it is worth on the open market. When there is no open market then your labour is undervalued or overvalued depending on where you are on the system's protection list. Bill Gates, who doesn't write code anymore and probably just hangs out occasionally making some decisions doesn't put nearly as much value into the new windows OS as some other people. Yet he's paid a ridiculous amount of money because the system is set up to protect him (copyrights).

Originially Posted by Yakk
Concentration of capital among the most productive is a side effect of market capitalism. Concentration of capital among a class of people that put protections in place to a) ensure they no longer have to be productive, and b) will continue to receive revenue is not market capitalism.

Originially Posted by Yakk
How competent do they have to be?

Originially Posted by Yakk
There are occasional changes, of course, once in a while some poor people do get rich, and some rich people are tossed to the wolves as a sacrifice. But you look at Microsoft and IBM as two distinct operations. When Microsoft became the dominant computer company, it was absorbed by the industry. Where do you think the people who work for it came from? IBM (or some other similar company). It doesn't matter what name it goes by, whatever company is on top nearly always consists of the same people. Why do you think CEO's are shifted around from one company to another?

Originially Posted by Yakk
Probably not instantly, but if you do manage to improve to such a level you are absorbed into the system, yes.

Originially Posted by Yakk
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. -Dictionary.com, first entry The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I didn't redefine the term. Private ownership means that the means of production and distribution are not owned by the government. They are owned by the government here in America.

Originially Posted by Yakk
I have no idea. Sometimes I'd like to find out. And either way, I'd like to be able to make the choice to find out.

Originially Posted by Yakk
No, my 10 year old Taurus doesn't always get me from point A to point B, it often breaks down or has mechanical problems, certainly more often than that rich guy's Mercedes. That's not jealousy. And again, you make the assumption and belief that the rich guy is somehow entitled to that expensive car. The only reason he has it is because I worked to get it for him. I don't like making other people rich, it's not jealousy, it's just common sense.

When the shopkeeper drives a car not quite as good as the mobster who rips him off and he's angry about it, is that jealousy?

Originially Posted by Yakk
Certainly, I'll never dispute that.

Originially Posted by Yakk
Why write my own? There's a perfectly good OS that's already on my computer. I physically own it, I only have to pay him because he says so.

Originially Posted by Yakk
I think that's nonsense. People are always going to want to do things better or cheaper. Without copyrights they'll choose to do it because they want or need to, not because they need to think up something more expensive to convince us to buy.

Originially Posted by Yakk
Possibly you did.

Originially Posted by Yakk
I was claiming that the government makes it illegal to purchase. You can get anything, but the government tries to prevent you from getting such things by making them illegal. I hope that's clear now.

Originially Posted by Yakk
I don't know where you live, but in PA you face up to 30 days for possession of a small amount of marijuana and a $500.00 fine. Granted, most people get some form of probation the first time out, but you still face that possible penalty. And $500 isn't a small fine to me. Maybe you're rich but that's a more than a week's wages to me.
http://pcs.la.psu.edu/druglimits.pdf (section 31)

Originially Posted by Yakk
It's not ridiculous. When the roads are built as a form of corruption in the first place, then it's all corrupt.

You still haven't shown how the government is different from the mafia (other than being bigger and better organized). Do you admit they are the same thing?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

asaris

Master_Shake: Sorry about the comment, I didn't mean for it to offend you. Hell, I didn't mean for it to even particularly apply to you. If I thought you were really doing bad philosophy, I wouldn't be bothering talking with you.

I pretty much agree with what Yakk says about copyrights, so I'll leave that alone.

As far as 'the man' goes, you seem to forget a number of things. First of all, 'the man' is an abstraction. Even if 'the man' is 'keeping you down', that doesn't mean that any specific individual is acting in a corrupt manner. Second, I doubt very much that the corporations are working together in the manner you describe. Things are just too competitive -- these people are not each other's cronies, they are rivals. Even in an organization like OPEC, which is specifically designed to keep oil prices artificially high, there are problems regulating the member, since Argentina stands to make a good deal more money by selling just a little bit more oil than they're supposed. And that's in a cartel that explicit. Suppose these corporations did have an agreement like you suppose, to artificially keep wages low. How long before one of them sees that, by increasing wages just a little bit, they can get much better talent? (There's a Econ term for this, but it's been too long...) And then the spiral continues, until people are making more or less what they should.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Master_Shake

Originally posted by Asaris
Yes, the man is an abstraction, but specific individuals do act in a corrupt manner. Not any one of them constitutes the man by himself, they work together. Even if it's not intended to work together, by working toward the same goals, they keep things protected.

Originally posted by AsarisThey may compete as to which company makes a better microchip, or which company sells more oil, but they don't compete over paying high wages to employees, or keeping corporate overhead (CEO's salary) low, or freeing up national airwaves for competition, or accepting legitimate bids for government projects, or not demanding taxes.

Originally posted by AsarisYes but the sprial assumes that any one of them wants the whole structure to change. If that were the case, then Argentina would have ignored everything OPEC said long ago. Sure, it wants a little more than the other members, but not so much more that it crushes the whole system and the market is flooded.

The diamond industry is a perfect example of this. There are mines of diamonds that have been taken off the market just to protect high cost. The diamond cartel (DeBeers) only allows so much of the stuff to hit the market at any one time, and in such a way they've been able to keep prices ridiculously high in relation to their actual rarity.

And again, how is this different from how the mafia works? Sure, there are always different heads coming and going, but the structure remains the same. You think it matters to the guy at the Deli that it's a different gang shaking him down each week? Some gangs may be less violent than others, but at the end of the day, they're all demanding money from you at the point of a gun, and they produce very little for all they demand.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Yakk

Replace the {} with the square brakets:
{quote="Mr T"}You da fool{/quote}
=)

Ignoring the 'intellectual property laws are wrong' arguement:

He paid people to build the factory, or bought it off someone else. Are you claiming that property rights of any kind are slavery?

Maybe he found a magic rock on the land his great great great great^100 grandmother was born on, before mankind was civilized, and that magic rock is the means by which you can be more productive. You seem to think you own the land you are born on, maybe you'll take that as a just bit of property rights.

The exploitation was a bad thing? Justify that. Go right ahead. You are better off because you where 'exploited'.

So, you value labour, and labour only.

There is an alternative to Windows -- many of them even. Linux, *.BSD, Solaris. All of them are free. They are even set up in a way that someone can't use copywrite to 'steal' any work you contribute to it. People are free to use those operating systems, and the government won't shoot you for doing so.

At the same time, the lack of copyright and a lesser profit motive means that those operating systems don't have all the bells and whistles that Windows has. But they exist.

The protection of creative works for a limited time is in the best interests of society as a whole. I would hold the current duration of copyright is too long.

You seem to ignore the value of capital. Bill Gates earned a fuckload of money way back when. He took this money and risked it on his own company. At that point, anyone could have risked their money on Microsoft, but Bill risked a metric fuckton. Capitalism rewards you when you make bets like that properly.

Capitalism simply concentrates wealth. If you have a bunch of people equally productive, and you add in some random chance, capitalism will concentrate wealth in a few of them. It is a side effect of a capitalist market.

Conspiracies are hard to keep quiet. Especially large ones involving the hiring practices of every company in the industrialized world.

Yes, actually. They are (and where) distinct, with very different corperate cultures.

The people who work for Microsoft came from CS schools around the country.

Your position is that "the man keeps everyone down. Anyone who isn't down becomes part of the man. Thus, my statements are irrefuteable." Do I misunderstand you?

Unfalsifiable claims are weak, pointless and boring.

Strange that. I could have sworn I owned my car. Hell, I could have sworn my landlord (who doesn't charge me enough rent, heh) owned his building. But, I guess, if you are taxed 1%, that makes you own 0%. =p

There are 6 million square miles of arable land under cultivation. There are 6 billion people.

Your share is a packet of land 36 meters on a side. Bring along no tools of technology. I'm sure you could manage to buy this much land somewhere in Africa.

It was written because you would pay him. If you didn't pay him, it wouldn't have been written. There are consequences to destroying all intellectual property rights.

You believe the world would be better without them. Now, put up.

I said insufficient economic incentive. I didn't say nobody would do it. Fewer people than there should be, in order to maximize everyone's well being, would be doing it.

My location is on the left. 128$ fine, if they bother prosecuting, last I checked.

Look, it was stated that 'the government would 100$ of my money and build roads which would cost 1$ to build if it wasn't for the corruption.', or words to that extent.

I am aware you are redefining "corruption = government", but I don't have to agree with your arbitrary word redefinitions.

Both the Mafia and the Government are made out of protons. Thus they are the same.

Both the Mafia and your Grandmother are made out of protons. Thus they are the same.

You have claimed the exitance of huge conspiracies, going from the entertainment to the defence to the buearocracy to the elected officials to the corperate board room, covering every part of society, designed to keep you down, and thus enslave you.

I disagree with that, and consider it paranoia. Your attribution of motivation has been without ground.

Ice and water are the same thing. Ice and water are very different things. I claim you are looking at superficial, unimportant points, and basing your world view on them.

If you removed the government (just made it go poof), would people be better off? While we are at it, lets remove all governments. I hold the answer is no.

If you removed the Mafia (just made it go poof), would people be better off? While we are at it, lets remove all crime organizations. I hold the answer is yes.

One is a leach. The other an enabler. One is close to the best of all attempted worlds. The other is close to the worst.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Master_Shake

No, it's not evil to protect the property you own. But when the only reason you own it is because you and your cronies got together and said: "Hey, why don't you take that land and take all the oil/wood/whatever out of it and use it. You'll make a pretense of paying a couple of bucks to the government for it's use, but since we're the government, you're just paying us! And we'll use that money to protect your property and build roads so that you can get the sheep to work in your new factory."

You assume that I could only get a job that pays .50. But if that fucker wasn't sitting there with his hand up his ass, claiming he owned the land because his friends gave it to him, why couldn't I make the $4 product? I am exploited because he took that opportunity away from me. It's not that he just thought of it first, it's because he used the government to ensure he would be the only one to make that product. I can't make some new drug because he's making it and the government protects him, and punishes me if I try to make it.

No, but I don't value people accumulating wealth AND THEN using the government to protect that wealth at my expense. New drugs, or the new windows, cost more because there are no alternatives.

Right, so they are not the same thing. The government protects Bill's right to collect money.

I disagree. It stifles creativity and increases costs.

Bill's money would have been protected had he not risked anything, not due to capital, but due to government protections.

Right, but how is Bill equally as productive as the poor fuck in India churning out code?

It's not kept quiet! It's very clear. How much do you pay in taxes? That money is clearly taken from you to support the leviathan every damn week!

How is that unfalsifiable? Don't you pay taxes every week? Where do you think those taxes go?

Is your car the means of production or distribution? I guess maybe you could make a claim that it's part of the distribution network, but ownership of your car is hardly enough to impact the entire economy.

And I'm not taxed 1%. I'm taxed at least 33% that I can easily verify. The rest is hard to pin down, admittedly, since I don't keep track of lowered wages, sales tax, tolls, high product premiums, etc.

Why are you telling me what to do? Why have you determined what my "share" is? You don't sound any better than the mafia running this joint as it is now.

Put up what? I've already made it very clear that I'm a weak coward and won't follow through on any of this. Aren't I still allowed to disagree? If I'm not, that's fine, just let me know and I'll shut up. I don't want to cause any problems, I don't want to be killed, I find enough satisfaction in my alcohol and porn to get me through. But I'm not going to cheer for you (unless you force me to at gunpoint).

Well, we will never know will we, since the government is going to ensure that doesn't happen.

That actually makes sense. The pharmeceutical companies aren't lobbying Canada to keep the drugs artificially expensive, they're doing it in the US.

I don't know how much the roads would cost, but would we need all of the roads if we didn't all have to go to soul-sucking jobs that help keep the man rich?

So that's what you claim the difference is?

The mafia takes your money without your permission and spends it as it sees fit. The government does the same thing.

Both the mafia and the government throw a little back to the people it takes things from to prevent revolution or feelings of ill will.

Both threaten you with violence if you don't do what you're told.

Sorry, but aside from size I fail to see the fundamental difference.

What does the government enable you to do?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

asaris

Are you a citizen? Then you've given the government permission to take your money. And the difference is that, while the mafia throws a little back, the gov't throws a lot back. Sure, congresspeople/the president make a good bit of money. But most of these people could make a lot more money doing something else. And compared to the amount spend on, say, social security or welfare or defense, the wages paid to congress/the president is miniscule. And last time I checked, the gov't doesn't threaten people with violence if they don't pay taxes. Sure, they'll fine you and/or put you in jail, but you make it sound like you'll be shot if you don't pay up (which is what the mafia does).

Perhaps I should ask what would make a just government, on your picture? Seems to me that something like a Hobbesian picture is correct; without the government, the life of man would be nasty, brutish, and short. So we have government, to protect us from people who would want to take advantage of us. What, exactly, is wrong with this picture? (Note that I don't agree with Hobbeses conclusions about what the state should look like).

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Master_Shake

How have I given permission? If I did, I didn't mean to, and I hereby revoke such permission. Let's see what happens come payday.

They throw back very little as far as I see. You seem to think that social security, welfare and defense are throwbacks, these projects are where they make their money! This is where they give jobs to their friends, embezzle boatloads of money, get kickbacks and outright bribes.

Being forcibly taken to prison is a violent act. And the threat that's always behind the cops' authority is that they'll shoot you if you get out of line.
As small a government as possible. I wouldn't like paying the mafia, but at least they keep the other gangs in line, so if they only asked for a small amount I wouldn't object at all. But demanding at least 1/3 of my salary is too much.

What do you do when the government is run by the people who want to take advantage of you?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

zen_tom

Master_Shake, you DO have the option of going to a different government that might promise to take less of your pay-check away - I would guess that for example the tax-rate in Afghanistan is fairly low. But then you might have to hire yourself a security guard of your own - it all balances out in the end. Compromise, or go somewhere else - you still do have that choice - as you would if you were being squeezed by the Don.

I have to agree entirely with Mr Shake - In that there is very little difference between government and organised crime - both impose a form of organisation in return for a tithe. What IS different is the varying levels of size, success, acceptance, beaurocracy and 'ligitimacy' that each (and all manner of organisational structures including churches, businesses, gangs, families, herds, farms) demonstrates.

Yakk

Huh? You are saying that Bill, back in the early 80s, could have taken his money, put it in a bank, and said 'abrakadabra', and ended up being worth 10s of billions of dollars now?

I simply don't understand.

Do you understand the concept of stock prices? The unpredictability of the market?

You, or your parent, could have taken your life savings and bought Microsoft stock in the early 80s, and you or they'd be a multi-millionare right now. Buying that stock would be a risk.

It was a risk. Microsoft could have failed. Really.

Ok. Let me see if I can spell this out.

Windows is an operating system designed and written based off funding by the profit motive.
Linux is an operating system designed and written based off funding by the I like neat shit, and I need neat shit to do my work motive.

They are not the same thing. I claim that Linux is not Windows because the profit motive is stronger than the 'neat shit' motive for many things.

So, if you removed all intellectual property rights, nobody would write Windows. The motive wouldn't be there.

There are benefitial side effects to intellectual property. It provides motivation to do something. Even if you don't think IP is a good idea, can you even admit that there could be some small benefitial side effects, or would that infringe upon your dogma?

Now you are just ignoring me.

Concentrations of capital occur as a side effect of capitalism.

Capitalism assigns the means of production based off one's ability to be productive and one's ability to allocate your capital to profitable means of production.

Bill Gates gets money from three things. First, his direct productivity (probably a small contribution). Second, his massive capital accumulation. Third, directing the use of capital, which in the past he has shown to be good at. (where good means 'making capital grow')

So, taxes are the entirety of this giant conspiracy to keep wages low? Heh.

It is a means of production. Namely, I can deliver pizza. Hell, I own stock in dozens upon dozens of companies, while we are at it.

I am describing what life would be like without government. You said you wanted to try. So go try. If you believe the world would be better without government, then the would would be better.

We could to insane things like model shit. Or we could do experiments. Or we could look at situations where it doesn't apply. You know, actually figure it out.

Patent law is only somewhat different in Canada than the USA.

I'm just boggled. You don't understand why road transportation networks are useful even? *boggle*

I've listed at least 20 different things the government does for me, and for you. Didn't you read them?

That's one of the differences I listed. Don't forget:

So, one is a 'good' thing the other one is a 'bad' thing.

Lets consider a situation.

In one, someone dings your car. He leaves 1$ on your windshield, and a note saying 'sorry'.

In the other, someone dings your car. She leaves you 1,000,000$ on your windshield, and a note saying 'sorry'.

The damage to the car is about 1,000$. Note that in the first case, the person was a fucking asshole. In the second case, the person was exceedingly generous and very nice to you.

Using the system of morals you designed, both of those people are equivilent. They dinged your car, then left some money, without even negotiating the price!

You need to learn how to both add and subtract.

In the final analysis, they actually do. It is just a very extreme response that you can eventually reach.

Lets say you don't recognize the right of the government over you. So you don't pay taxes.

They send bills at you. You ignore them.

Eventually, they attempt to sieze your assets. You deal with them as you would a thief, and defend your property.

They send a few police officers to arrest you. An armed woman breaks into your house, with no justification that you recognize as valid. You shoot at her, and kill her. The next police officer shoots at you and kills you.

In general, failing to follow the customs of the society you are in, or at least pay lip service to them, is a very dangerous thing.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

asaris

You're right, of course. But, as far as I can tell (and I only really know about the mafia from movies and TV, so correct me if I'm wrong), violence is the FIRST resort of the mafia. If you don't pay, they'll burn down your store/shoot your dog/whatever. The government will first act in non-violent ways, then in ways that do not cause physical injury (necessarily at least), and only use physical force as a last resort. Perhaps it doesn't indicate a difference in kind between the mafia and the government, but it does indicate some sort of significant difference.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Master_Shake

Thanks for the advice. Does it really upset everyone so much that I don't agree with you that I have to leave?

That's just about what Bill did. Do you really think that Microsoft succeeded because of Bill? No, he was in the right place at the right time. He hired other fuckers to do things to keep him rich. He made a few head of state type decisions that could have easily gone either way, and now he's rich.

Why wouldn't the motive be there? Assuming for the moment that windows fills some purpose, that it actually does something, like make access to porn easier, then the motive would be to fill that purpose. If enough people want access to porn, then people will make software that gets them access to porn. No, they won't do it to make money, they'll do it because they really want to access porn. If they don't need the new OS, which is only being made and sold to make money, regardless of whether or not it's needed, then they won't make it and people won't have to pay up another $100 every 2 years.

I don't think there are any beneficial side effects that exceed the negative effects of IP.

Bill Gates gets money because we pay him. He doesn't directly control anything that we have to pay him for. If he died tomorrow Microsoft would keep right on going, none the worse for wear. He's not an essential part of the process, rather, he sits atop it all and oversees, collecting his money.

Not at all! The other poster asked for proof of how the man keeps wages low. It's hard to prove corruption and influence, but I pointed out that taxes are a very real and verifiable method of determining that somebody's taking your money.

I see, so you've figured it out have you? Well, I apologize for having quetioned you.

Yeah but the drug companies are located in the US, and no offense, but the US is a larger market than Canada. That's why the US government is so gung-ho about getting China to cooperate in IP law protection.

I understand why it's useful to be able to travel, but I also understand that most of those road networks are designed to get people to and from work.


I think this analogy is close, but here's a more accurate one:

In one, someone steals your car. He leaves $1 on the sidewalk.

In the other, someone steals your car. He leaves $50 on the sidewalk.

They're both fucking assholes, one may be slightly less of a fucking asshole, but they're both fucking assholes.


And throw you in jail. Tax evasion is a crime, they don't just send bill collectors after you (at least here in the US).

Depends on which gang you've got in your neighborhood. Some will threaten you at first, then you'll lose a shipment of alcohol, then some hoods will beat you up, then they'll burn your place down.

But Ok, I suppose that's another midling difference between the government and the mafia, the government is slower. So it's bigger, better organized, but a little slower. You know what, you're right, they're completely different.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

zen_tom

Master_Shake, when I said you had the option of going somewhere else, I didn't mean it to sound in any way disparaging - in fact, it's exactly what I did myself. I got annoyed paying taxes back home, and moved to an offshore location where I don't have to pay them any more. Of course tax wasn't my only reason for moving here, but the fact remains that if you don't like the country you live in, you really do have the option of finding one you do. No upset, just a statement of fact.