Interview Game Banshee does Fallout and Wasteland Revisited

[Bradylama]

"Don't like paying for our social security programs? Well you kin giiiiit out."

It should be noted that if people who don't use social services that they help pay for, leave, then the funding goes down.

People don't choose where they're born. They also don't choose their income, or whether or not they can afford a passport and the time it takes to learn how to live in a foreign country with strange languages and customs. But no, sure, Citizenship is totally an opt-out.

Coercion doesn't cease when the government leaves, the difference is that it becomes collectives who are coercing. The consumer replaces the jailor, essentially.

Unless of course you think that boycotts are considered an "initiation of aggression" for Libertarians, which is hoho so funny.

 

[stargelman]

If people like Avallone turn into gunk-heads like that, what hope is there?

 

[Sarvis]

"Don't like paying for our social security programs? Well you kin giiiiit out."

It should be noted that if people who don't use social services that they help pay for, leave, then the funding goes down.

People don't choose where they're born. They also don't choose their income, or whether or not they can afford a passport and the time it takes to learn how to live in a foreign country with strange languages and customs. But no, sure, Citizenship is totally an opt-out.

Look, every day you decide to stay in this country is a day you've decided to pay taxes in it. That is it. Libertarians have CHOSEN to do that, far more than a poor person has chosen to be poor... and that's part of their fucking mantra.

Coercion doesn't cease when the government leaves, the difference is that it becomes collectives who are coercing. The consumer replaces the jailor, essentially.

Unless of course you think that boycotts are considered an "initiation of aggression" for Libertarians, which is hoho so funny.

No, I just consider them to be rarely effective. The power of coercion does not go to the people in the absence of government, it goes to the wealthy.

 

[Bradylama]

Coercion is already in the hands of the wealthy. Governments can be bought as easily as they're elected.

Look, every day you decide to stay in this country is a day you've decided to pay taxes in it.

Paying taxes isn't a decision, it's a constant. No matter what you do, no matter what you buy or make, you're paying taxes... or else. That's coercion. Unless your argument is that we decide not to go to prison every day.

 

[Sarvis]

Coercion is already in the hands of the wealthy. Governments can be bought as easily as they're elected.

Look, every day you decide to stay in this country is a day you've decided to pay taxes in it.

Paying taxes isn't a decision, it's a constant. No matter what you do, no matter what you buy or make, you're paying taxes... or else. That's coercion. Unless your argument is that we decide not to go to prison every day.

No, you decision is to move to a different country.

Of course, you won't do that because all the choices which would involve fewer taxes would also involve a much, much lower standard of living. Gee, I wonder if there's some relation there.

 

[Gambler]

No, you decision is to move to a different country.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

...

What did they do with real Chris Avellone?

 

[Sarvis]

Oh right, I forgot that it's impossible to move or change your citizenship. Immigration must be a fevered dream brought on by too much whiskey.

 

[Bradylama]

Of course, you won't do that because all the choices which would involve fewer taxes would also involve a much, much lower standard of living. Gee, I wonder if there's some relation there.

Alright, let's play on this concept for a second. If I left the country to live in a place with little to no taxes, chances are I'd be incredibly well off to just pack up and go like that. Considering how shitty the conditions in such a country would have to be, I'd be living like a King.

Even if the material standards aren't up to snuff as they would be in the United States, I'd still possess, and probably make an income well above the cost of living in this hypothetical nation. That creates a lot of social and political benefits that I wouldn't possess in the states.

You're also assuming that the only reason I'd leave the country was for money. How selfish. What if I wanted to stay in the United States because of friends, family, and ideology? So because I oppose the income tax, that means that I should leave the country instead of making political headway to abolish it?

What a fabulous system you've thought up for us. The whole world is just an opt-out situation. Don't like it? Put a bullet through your skull. There's the opt-out.

 

[Claw]

You're missing a very important part of Prisoner's Dilemma, which is that an outside agent whose duty is to protect people from the actions of the "prisoners," is the only thing preventing them from communicating and coming to an agreement.

Eh, no. Or in short, one choice is clearly superior in theory, yet if both make the same choice, the alternative would be better. That is the dilemma.
It's not limited to prisoners, that is just an example really.

Yeah, that's why no countries, businesses or even people have EVER allied with each other... right?

Nonsense. Of course they do - otherwise there would be no dilemma, and it'd be called Prisoner's Obvious Choice.

You're taking the Prisoner's Dilemma, which all but gaurantees no benefit for cooperation, and expecting it to apply to every possible situation in which you can choose cooperation or competition. That is far beyond the scope of what the Dilemma is meant to illustrate.

Not really. The question of trust takes the place of the outside agent preventing communication, if you will, but the choices and possible outcomes are equivalent.
The only way I could make it clearer is by comparing it to the Prisoner's Dilemma on a case by case basis, but that's too trivial to bother.

 

[Sarvis]

Of course, you won't do that because all the choices which would involve fewer taxes would also involve a much, much lower standard of living. Gee, I wonder if there's some relation there.

Alright, let's play on this concept for a second. If I left the country to live in a place with little to no taxes, chances are I'd be incredibly well off to just pack up and go like that. Considering how shitty the conditions in such a country would have to be, I'd be living like a King.

Even if the material standards aren't up to snuff as they would be in the United States, I'd still possess, and probably make an income well above the cost of living in this hypothetical nation. That creates a lot of social and political benefits that I wouldn't possess in the states.

You're also assuming that the only reason I'd leave the country was for money. How selfish. What if I wanted to stay in the United States because of friends, family, and ideology? So because I oppose the income tax, that means that I should leave the country instead of making political headway to abolish it?

What a fabulous system you've thought up for us. The whole world is just an opt-out situation. Don't like it? Put a bullet through your skull. There's the opt-out.

You're completely missing the point.

You do have the choice, and you make the choice to stay here. Therefore you are not being coerced into paying these taxes, you are choosing to do so. You want to argue that taxes should be lessened? Fine, good even. Spect-fucking-tacular.

<i>Just don't tell me it's fucking theft, or that you're being forced. </i>

The situation is no different than paying rent in an apartment building and choosing to stay there because they have larger rooms/your friends are there/it's close to work.


<b>Claw</b>

Don't forget that I was pointing out how Human Shield had misinterpreted it, not necessarily how I saw it. He would count on contracts to handle everything, and without that middle agent preventing such a contract could be drawn up between the two "prisoners" that would allow them to come to the best possible choice.

HS is trying to use it to show that people cannot cooperate with each other, when this is not at all what the dilemma is meant to show.

 

[voodoo1man]

the "Prisoner's Dilemma" (bad, quick explanation - it's a theorem

As a mathematician, I want to punch Chris Avellone in the head right now.

 

[Claw]

HS is trying to use it to show that people cannot cooperate with each other, when this is not at all what the dilemma is meant to show.

Really? That's not how I understood it. He just seemed to translate the Prisoner's Dilemma to an outside world situation, where "both sides tries to get the other to do all the fighting and they both end up losing" equals mutual non-cooperation or both prisoners betraying each other.

I don't see how it shows they can't cooperate. It just shows how a strategy that seems good for each is actually bad for both.

 

[Bradylama]

The situation is no different than paying rent in an apartment building and choosing to stay there because they have larger rooms/your friends are there/it's close to work.

That's entirely different. People move into apartments of their own accord. You sign a lease with the apartment owner, and you agree upon the terms of rent. I didn't choose to live in this country when I was born, and yes, while I may be able to choose where I want to live, there is no government in the world that would not force me to pay taxes.

Of course, I suppose I could be living in Somalia, but then I'd just be paying off warlords.

Taxation is never an opt out. If I opted out of paying taxes here, I'd just be opting-in to paying taxes in some other Hell Hole.

Anytime you force somebody to perform an action, that is an act of coercion. It's not a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

According to your reasoning, I'd have to travel to some mystical land of Nod where there is no government, and short of buying my own island or living on the moon, that's a practical impossibility.

 

[Sarvis]

That's entirely different. People move into apartments of their own accord. You sign a lease with the apartment owner, and you agree upon the terms of rent. I didn't choose to live in this country when I was born, and yes, while I may be able to choose where I want to live, there is no government in the world that would not force me to pay taxes.

There's also no apartment buildings in the world that would not "force" you to pay rent.

What's your point?

Of course, I suppose I could be living in Somalia, but then I'd just be paying off warlords.

Taxation is never an opt out. If I opted out of paying taxes here, I'd just be opting-in to paying taxes in some other Hell Hole.

Anytime you force somebody to perform an action, that is an act of coercion. It's not a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

According to your reasoning, I'd have to travel to some mystical land of Nod where there is no government, and short of buying my own island or living on the moon, that's a practical impossibility.

In this country all taxes are based on income, if you really don't want to pay taxes then just go live in the desert somewhere as a hermit.

You chose not to do that for the same reason you chose to pay rent for an apartment, so that you can have a standard of living and be around other people.

You didn't chose to live in this country? Well guess what, people don't chose to be born to poor parents in sihtty school districts either, but every time a subject like that comes up Libertarians leap to the fore with the "they chose to be poor" bullshit. Nothing like a taste of your own medicine, eh?


<b>Claw</b>

Keep in mind the post he was replying to. Context makes all the difference.

 

[Claw]

Well, I think what he's trying to say is that the benefit of cooperation with one party doesn't contradict the benefit of competition in general.

I think he's suggesting the competition between the two parties with the "baddie" as the motivation for both parties to cooperate in the first place.

If they are good at cooperation, they win against the baddie, if they fail to cooperate, they lose against the baddie.
In other words, two parties have to cooperate to successfully compete against a third party.

 

[Sarvis]

That may be what you want him to have said, but what he DID say was that it would only be realistic if the two groups both lost because they had no contract forcing them to cooperate meaningfully:

Without being able to confer and enforce contracts groups perform subpar.

So the correct use would be trying to ally with another group to defeat big badie without detailed contracts but both sides tries to get the other to do all the fighting and they both end up losing.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

The difference between "voluntary vs coercive" and "individual vs collective" is that a bunch of individuals could voluntarily agree to form a collective and abide by certain rules. A condominium could be something like that. Governments are not condominiums. I was born in this country, I never entered into any sort of agreement with the government. I can't build my own government like I might with a condo, some libertarians tried to do that with Minerva but it got invaded. I believe the only land mass that is currently ungoverned is Antartica, but if it ever got habitable enough for people to start their own town or even just a business they might commute to, you can bet your ass a government will butt in. Government, unlike a condominium, is not constrained by the physical area contained within its walls, but how far it can extend its power without other governments pushing it back. Whereas non-governments aquire through homesteading and voluntary transactions the government simply declares at its whim that was yours is its as well as all that it sees.

The poor don't always choose to be poor. A mentally retarded person simply doesn't have the option to be rich. No Paris Hilton jokes.

 

[Sarvis]

The difference between "voluntary vs coercive" and "individual vs collective" is that a bunch of individuals could voluntarily agree to form a collective and abide by certain rules. A condominium could be something like that. Governments are not condominiums. I was born in this country, I never entered into any sort of agreement with the government. I can't build my own government like I might with a condo, some libertarians tried to do that with Minerva but it got invaded. I believe the only land mass that is currently ungoverned is Antartica, but if it ever got habitable enough for people to start their own town or even just a business they might commute to, you can bet your ass a government will butt in. Government, unlike a condominium, is not constrained by the physical area contained within its walls, but how far it can extend its power without other governments pushing it back. Whereas non-governments aquire through homesteading and voluntary transactions the government simply declares at its whim that was yours is its as well as all that it sees.

The poor don't always choose to be poor. A mentally retarded person simply doesn't have the option to be rich. No Paris Hilton jokes.

GGP, you can replace every instance of Government in that paragraph with Corporation. You just have to change "it got invaded" to "CorporationX staged a hostile takeover."

You're right that a condominium is limited by it's actual land area, but it also isn't. If that condo buys out another one, then it's increased it's area in just the way a government staging an invasion would have. If the condominium is owned by a large corporation, then that corporation has power and influence in regions possibly far larger than any one government. Consider what effects Sony has on OUR country from half a world away, or what effects Microsoft has on them!

The pursuit of power is not limited to governments, nor to corporations, but rather is the sole province of man and will therefore manifest in ANY organization.

Where our government wins out over other organizations is that it was set up to be beholden to the people in a way that other organizations, from corporations to churches, never have and never will be.

Oh, and you can set up your own government. You just have to get elected, and enact laws as you see fit. Well, ok... you have to get it all passed through congress and all, but you get the idea.

America, and I almost shudder to say this, has the government it wants. Sorry if you're in the extreme minority, but bitching that taxes are theft is like living in an area where the rents are all the same and refusing to move to a cheaper community. Of course, I know how hard that choice is to make... I'd LOVE to move back to Rochester, where I had an apartment that cost like half what apartments do here in Buffalo... but it's a choice I make every day to stay here.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Do you actually know what a hostile takeover is? Stupid quesion, I know.

It's really only possible for a publicly traded company. You sell shares of your condo for money, the people holding the shares get a better offer from CorporationX, they sell, CorporationX now has a contolling interest and decides they don't want you as chairman anymore. Hostile takeover accomplished. That's just the risk you take with selling off part of your business to go public. Don't want to take the risk, keep the business private as the great majority of are. Or at least retain 50.1% of the voting shares. It doesn't involve guns and missiles outside of Bond movies and Shadowrun. So what does this have in common with invasion? If you own the condo yourself, CorporationX's "hostile takeover" involves paying you enough to be willing to sell. Oh noez, the injustice.

Okay, education complete. I know it will just bounce off as usual since it's so much more convenient for "hostile takeover" to remain forever a sinister corporate trick involving ninjas and fat dudes with briefcases full of money meeting in darkened alleys.

 

[Voss]

The governments beholden to the people? Huh. I bet all those subcomiittees on ethics and fraud and whatnot would be very surprised if the people suddenly horned in on their action.

And by the way, staying in Buffalo is one of those things that does, in fact, make you a dumbfuck. Have some standards.

 

[kingcomrade]

In this country all taxes are based on income

Really? That's news to me. Those bastards at the grocery store have been telling me that I need to add some percentage of my total to my total. Sales tax, pah, I should've known I was being hoodwinked.

 

[Sarvis]

In this country all taxes are based on income

Really? That's news to me. Those bastards at the grocery store have been telling me that I need to add some percentage of my total to my total. Sales tax, pah, I should've known I was being hoodwinked.

There is no federal sales tax. Also, since the only way not to pay income tax is to not earn any money, you won't be buying anything anyway.

<b>Walks with the Snails</b>

The fucking point being that the person who started a business and wanted to run it his way is no longer in control. Fine, it's not publicly traded? Buy the surrounding properties and devalue the area until the manager is running a fucking tenement full of crack whores instead. The price he'll be agreeable too will go down real fast. Or hell, just buy it outright without any shady tactics. Either way the high minded Libertarian is no longer running the show, a more powerful business/corporation is. The end result is the same, even if you choose not to recognize financial force as agression.

 

[Faustus]

Just don't tell me it's fucking theft, or that you're being forced.

Encarta definition of the word "Extortion"

Extortion – Getting something by force. The acquiring of anything through the use of force or threats.

Question: What happens to you when you "opt-out" of income taxes?

 

[Voss]

So, what state governments aren't real governments and state taxes aren't real taxes? You can just ignore those? Neat.

Financial force as agression? If you're benefiting from it, it doesn't qualify as aggression.

Why do you give a rats ass about Libertarians anyway? They've got 0 weight in the US political structure anyway. They can posit impractical political theories as much as they want... the same way a scabby homeless fuck on a bus can go on about he's the fucking richest man in LA, because he has a bus pass.

 

[Jim Kata]

We can't have just one news topic that doesn't turn into a twisted debate on libertarianism?

Not one new post on topic. Shit - obviously everyone here sucks if they didn't find this topic interesting....