Interview Game Banshee does Fallout and Wasteland Revisited

[kingcomrade]

There is no federal sales tax.

You didn't said federal, you said "in this country."

 

[Sarvis]

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?

That depends, if you opt out by no longer receiving an income then nothing happens.

What happens to you when you "opt-out" of rent?

 

[Sarvis]

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

Many states do not have a sales tax, and like I said: Without an income you won't be buying anything anyway.

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

Really? So if a corporation performs a hostile takeover on your corporation you benefit?

Neat.

How about if they purposefully devalue the properties around yours to force you out? How about if they just build the same exact business across the street, but offer prices lower than you are capable of until you go out of business, then raise them higher than yours ever were?

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.

They're annoying is all...

 

[Voss]

Many states do not have a sales tax, and like I said: Without an income you won't be buying anything anyway.

Yes. No one on welfare ever buys anything. And I'd be impressed with your avoidance of the point if it wasn't a completely obvious cop out.

Really? So if a corporation performs a hostile takeover on your corporation you benefit?

Neat.

What part of 'if you benefit' was ambiguous in any way?

How about if they purposefully devalue the properties around yours to force you out? How about if they just build the same exact business across the street, but offer prices lower than you are capable of until you go out of business, then raise them higher than yours ever were?

How about you show some fucking business sense and allow yourself to be bought out before things get this bad? Or get the community to start legal proceedings (so you don't have to shell out the cash) against a company thats using these tactics (particularly the first)? I know the local community around here will pull out the lawyers if shit they get convinced not to like is even rumoured to be happening.

They're annoying is all...

Really? Political idealists always strike me as amusing rather than annoying. Its always entertaining to watch impractical people break themselves on a system that doesn't give a rat's ass about them. And some of the shit that spews from their mouths... comedy gold.

 

[kingcomrade]

Without an income you won't be buying anything anyway.

Having an income doesn't mean you will be buying anything, either. Sales tax is entirely dependant on the amount of goods you buy, not on your income.

How about if they just build the same exact business across the street, but offer prices lower than you are capable of until you go out of business, then raise them higher than yours ever were?

Er, you go back into business selling at your lower prices?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I'm still chuckling at Sarvis' "Well a hostile corporate takeover is like the same thing as a government invasion".

Have you ever heard of a rent that was based on income? All the ones I know of are dependent on the room, with utilities extra. That's why having a roommate is a good idea. Rents are always the result of contracts with the landlord. Taxes are never, otherwise they wouldn't be taxes. If you don't pay rent you lose your room. If you don't pay taxes you go to jail.

People often bring up stuff like "dumping" or "unfair competition" as if it were some sort of threat, but prices usually stay low after competitors are driven out of business. See ALCOA, which I've discussed before here. ALCOA themselves were the target of a german cartel that tried to sell at below profit rates, so ALCOA just bought everything they could from them and then sold THAT at a profit, sending the Krauts back to europe with lighter wallets. Similarly, I've never heard of an instance where someone bought all the land surrounding a person's property in order to force them into some sort of deal. The impossibility of pulling off certain projects involving stubborn individuals is usually given as justification for the government's power of eminent domain (but it's just the same thing as what a corporation would do LOLZORZ) by people who've never heard of buying options, which are now all the rage as executive perks because of rules discouraging the use of regular stocks.


Another reason libertarians are political non-entities besides being a teeny minority is that we tend to be disgusted with the political process and either have a Caplanesque dismissal of an individual vote given probability of having any effect and the utility of doing something better with our time and the lack of psychic satisfaction we derive from the act ofvoting or downright hostility to it resulting in anti-voting movements and Galambos' (a truly out-there anarcho-capitalist whose chief principle of idea ownership crippled the spread of his ideas) reversal of the usual slogan to "If you do vote, don't complain".

 

[Sarvis]

Yes. No one on welfare ever buys anything. And I'd be impressed with your avoidance of the point if it wasn't a completely obvious cop out.

Actually wouldn't welfare be taxed? I know unemployment is... so if you have welfare, you have income. The way to avoid all taxes is to have NO INCOME.

And again, for those who can't read: Many states do not have sales tax.

What part of 'if you benefit' was ambiguous in any way?

The part where you were responding to a statement about financial pressure being aggressive.

Again, for the large number of Codexers who are borderline retarded: There is a thing called context, and anything you say must be measured in terms of what you are replying to.

So ok, fine... it is not aggression or force to offer someone a fair amount of money for their business. That doesn't actually have shit to do with anything though, because I was pointing out that wealthy organizations can and do use financial force to get their way.

How about you show some fucking business sense and allow yourself to be bought out before things get this bad?

Go ahead, they still win out, and the Condo is still under different ownership. Remember that I'm comparing this to the invasion of the attempted libertarian society, and that this would essentially just be bribing the president to join your country.

Or get the community to start legal proceedings (so you don't have to shell out the cash) against a company thats using these tactics (particularly the first)? I know the local community around here will pull out the lawyers if shit they get convinced not to like is even rumoured to be happening.

Ah, but we're talking to Libertarians remember? The law must be completely hands off when it comes to business. So no, you won't be going to the lawyers, because there will be no laws to regulate that business.

 

[Sarvis]

I'm still chuckling at Sarvis' "Well a hostile corporate takeover is like the same thing as a government invasion".

In a way, it is. You used to control a country, it got invaded, now you don't. You used to run a corporation, it got taken over, now you don't. The only difference is the method in which you unwillingly lost control.

Have you ever heard of a rent that was based on income? All the ones I know of are dependent on the room, with utilities extra. That's why having a roommate is a good idea. Rents are always the result of contracts with the landlord. Taxes are never, otherwise they wouldn't be taxes. If you don't pay rent you lose your room. If you don't pay taxes you go to jail.

So you'd feel better if they exiled you instead of jailing you? (Actually, why don't we exile anymore... seems so much more cost effective than jail... ) Or is it really that big a deal to you whether or not you sign a piece of paper? You do have the choice, that's the important part I thought. You don't want to pay anyone rent? Live in a cardboard box. Don't want to pay taxes? Well, same answer really.

People often bring up stuff like "dumping" or "unfair competition" as if it were some sort of threat, but prices usually stay low after competitors are driven out of business. See ALCOA, which I've discussed before here. ALCOA themselves were the target of a german cartel that tried to sell at below profit rates, so ALCOA just bought everything they could from them and then sold THAT at a profit, sending the Krauts back to europe with lighter wallets.

In other words ALCOA had the financial might to defend itself. Maybe if Libertarian Island had a stronger military, they'd have staved off their invaders as well. I guess it's hard to raise a military if no one's paying taxes though, eh?

Similarly, I've never heard of an instance where someone bought all the land surrounding a person's property in order to force them into some sort of deal.

Well then consider it a Sarvis Original Plan. I think the trick would be to ensure you rent the surrounding houses out to scum. Prostitutes, ex-cons, drug dealers, Libertarians. He'll be wanting to move in no time.

Another reason libertarians are political non-entities besides being a teeny minority is that we tend to be disgusted with the political process and either have a Caplanesque dismissal of an individual vote given probability of having any effect and the utility of doing something better with our time and the lack of psychic satisfaction we derive from the act ofvoting or downright hostility to it resulting in anti-voting movements and Galambos' (a truly out-there anarcho-capitalist whose chief principle of idea ownership crippled the spread of his ideas) reversal of the usual slogan to "If you do vote, don't complain".

Well now, whose fault is that?

Oh, why am I asking. You'll just blame the government.

 

[Bradylama]

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?

Actually I would've blamed the plight of the Black Man on the shit poor education system. Hahaha its like we're being forced to pay money to propagate incompetence. I love this system you so adamantly defend.

Actually wouldn't welfare be taxed?

You're silly. I like you.

And again, for those who can't read: Many states do not have sales tax.

"Many states" don't have an income tax, either.

Ah, but we're talking to Libertarians remember? The law must be completely hands off when it comes to business. So no, you won't be going to the lawyers, because there will be no laws to regulate that business.

Yeah, I mean, the preservation of the judicial system couldn't be like, to let people sue for damages or something, right?

There are such things as "illegal business practice" even under a Libertarian vision of government. Though, I guess you could say that those practices wouldn't be considered a natural part of business.

The part where you were responding to a statement about financial pressure being aggressive.

The problem, though, is that whether or not a business is bought out depends on consent. There is no consent when it comes to levying taxes.

If you don't agree to be bought out, you'll lose to competition, or you'll survive and maybe even win.

If you don't agree to pay income tax, you won't just maybe lose you get sent to jail.

It might be hard for some people to tell the difference between seizure and a payoff, though.

You don't want to pay anyone rent? Live in a cardboard box. Don't want to pay taxes? Well, same answer really.

"Don't want to be poor? Then get your ass out of the ghetto and get a job."

So if people don't choose to be poor, how do they choose to pay taxes?

Getting even further into this, I don't even pay the government my taxes, it's forcefully extracted from my paycheck before I even receive it, but it's my responsibility to make sure the government isn't wrong and see if they took too much or didn't take enough.

I guess it's hard to raise a military if no one's paying taxes though, eh?

Right, because the resources available to a handful of seperatists are sure to let them oppose the might of a professional military.

 

[kingcomrade]

You used to run a corporation, it got taken over, now you don't.

Hey, a car accident is just like a foreign invasion!

Another reason libertarians are political non-entities

Neal Boortz wrote a short thing on why you shouldn't vote for the various parties. He's a liberatarian himself, but this is what he wrote:
Why your shouldn't vote Libertarian

With over 50% of the American people harboring strong libertarian feelings, they can't manage to mount a viable third-party campaign. How would they manage to govern?

Not only will they not defend America's borders, they don't really think the borders need defending.

Though philosophically they're right, they fail to see that their "legalize drugs" agenda isn't exactly a winner with the American people.

They never jumped on eminent domain abuse as the party agenda. People will react when they think their property rights are being threatened .... and the Libertarians couldn't take advantage of this.

Have you seen the way some of the people at their convention dress?


edit-
Here's the rest:
Why you shouldn't vote Republican

They have absolutely no fiscal discipline whatsoever. No congress has ever blown money on vote-buying programs quite like the current Republican congress has.
There are far too many Republicans who want to take their personal religious blueprints for behavior and make them law.
The seem unwilling to press the advantage when it is theirs to press.
They're prudes.
Stem cell research.
Donald Wildmon
The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
Democrats think that it's odd that the jails are so full while our crime rate is going down.
The Medicare Prescription Drug benefit for the Gimme Generation
If they had their way, Terri Schiavo's soul would still not be at rest.
They pay more attention to K Street than they do to the American workers and businessmen carrying the load.
They can't even protect America's borders.
Do you want your kids to come home from a government school and tell you that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Why you shouldn't vote Democrat

They clearly will not defend America from Islamic Fascism ... not now ... not until the price of that defense is catastrophic.
They think terrorism is a law enforcement problem.
Their war against individualism.
They think America is great because of its government.
They seem to think that income is distributed, not earned.
They promote class warfare.
They have almost single-handedly destroyed black culture in America.
Hillary Clinton.
They're joined at the hip with teacher's unions.
Taxes can never be too high for Democrats.
They fully intend to destroy talk radio.
Their love of mob rule.
The fully intend to turn illegal aliens into Democrat voters.
Like the Republicans; they refuse to protect America's borders

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Do game developers have absolutely no balls nowadays?

Derek Smart is the only game developer with balls these days, and he's been rather quiet.

 

[Sarvis]

Like the Republicans; they refuse to protect America's borders

I won't go into all of the Grade A Bullshit in that article, but I find it amusing that we have such a huge military when he claims that both major parties AND the alternative party of choice refuse to protect our borders...

 

[Sarvis]

Actually I would've blamed the plight of the Black Man on the shit poor education system. Hahaha its like we're being forced to pay money to propagate incompetence. I love this system you so adamantly defend.

Bulletproof vests do not completely protect the wearer, as after taking a shot the wearer will still often have broken ribs and quite possibly be incapacitated. Therefore, we should not give our cops/military any kind of body armor.

This is EXACTLY the logic you just used with education, see the flaw? Yeah, the education system isn't performing well. That shouldn't mean we ditch it, but that we should work to improve it. At this point Libertarians will start to cry that you can't fix it by throwing money at it, and they are correct. That still doesn't mean you throw out the system.

Actually wouldn't welfare be taxed?

You're silly. I like you.
[/quote]

Never provide information when you can belittle. Right?

My lunch is just about over, but I'll try to find out for sure later. Like I said, unemployment benefits are taxed so I really don't see why welfare wouldn't be.

And again, for those who can't read: Many states do not have sales tax.

"Many states" don't have an income tax, either.

If there is no federal sales tax, and no state sales tax, you have a 0% chance of paying sales tax. Therefore sales taxes are optional, even if you do magically find some way of getting an income without paying income taxes. Not to mention that even where there is a sales tax, basic necessities such as milk are not taxed.

Yeah, I mean, the preservation of the judicial system couldn't be like, to let people sue for damages or something, right?

Sue on what grounds? I own the surrounding properties, it's 100% my choice to decide what I want to do with them. That's what personal liberty is all about after all.

There are such things as "illegal business practice" even under a Libertarian vision of government. Though, I guess you could say that those practices wouldn't be considered a natural part of business.

Nope, no such thing. Anything "unethical" will magically be prevented by the fear of lost sales. Because, you know, no company has ever poisoned an entire community with toxic waste for fear of that!

The problem, though, is that whether or not a business is bought out depends on consent. There is no consent when it comes to levying taxes.

What's that got to do with anything? No one at all is comparing buying a business out to paying taxes, that is a completely separate aspect of this discussion.

"Don't want to be poor? Then get your ass out of the ghetto and get a job."

So if people don't choose to be poor, how do they choose to pay taxes?

Becoming poor, or wealthy, depends on many factors such as inherited social standing as well as the ability to make the "correct" decisions constantly, without really knowing what the true consequences are. The single mother who got had to leave school due to pregnancy is pretty much screwed, and most Libertarians will tell you she CHOSE to be poor when in fact she was probably simply never taught about safe sex. Therefore when she chose to have sex, she accidentally got pregnant and ended up poor. The point is that while her poverty is a result of her choices, it was a consequence of a separate choice rather than a choice in and of itself.

In contrast, if you want to not pay taxes you know exactly how to do it. Ironically, it is by choosing to be poor by not having any income.

but it's my responsibility to make sure the government isn't wrong and see if they took too much or didn't take enough.

Of course it is. What, do you want someone else to be responsible for your money?

Right, because the resources available to a handful of seperatists are sure to let them oppose the might of a professional military.

Right, because the resources available to a small startup are sure to let them oppose the might of a multinational corporation.

 

[Binary]

Do game developers have absolutely no balls nowadays?

Derek Smart is the only game developer with balls these days, and he's been rather quiet.

I think many game developers have balls these days. You gotta have balls to develop a bad game and have it published

 

[Bradylama]

Just like Derek Smart! :D

This is EXACTLY the logic you just used with education, see the flaw? Yeah, the education system isn't performing well. That shouldn't mean we ditch it, but that we should work to improve it. At this point Libertarians will start to cry that you can't fix it by throwing money at it, and they are correct. That still doesn't mean you throw out the system.

That isn't like any kind of logic I just used. Bullet-proof vests exist to save a wearer's life (whether or not they actually do depends on a lot of extraneous factors), and so long as a bullet strikes the vest without penetrating or the force received doesn't rupture internal organs, then the vest has worked. It's a justifiable investment because they work enough to give a payoff, now, if an education system doesn't educate, yet we're still being forced at gun point to put money into it, how is that a parallel?

We're the only nation in the world that assigns our children to schools. The practice in Europe is generally that students receive vouchers and decide which schools they want to go to based on quality, location, what have you. That way you get the benefits of private competition while equalizing opportunity.

I think it's a pretty realistic model, even though a lot of Libertarians don't believe in subsidized education period. But hey, it's like not all Socialists are crazy about Communism, what's up with that?

Nevermind, either, that the issue here is about the means of extraction, not how the government redistributes wealth.

Never provide information when you can belittle. Right?

The source

Non-Taxable Income

* Interest or dividend income
* Welfare benefits

The concept of Welfare being a taxable income is ludicrous. Even assuming you weren't receiving welfare benefits, an approximately similar amount of income would be too low to extract taxes from in a Progressive Tax System.

Therefore sales taxes are optional

No they're not. You either pay them in accordance with the laws of a state, or they don't exist.

Not to mention that even where there is a sales tax, basic necessities such as milk are not taxed.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Isn't that what adendums to the Consumtion Tax intend to accomplish in abolishing the Federal Income Tax?

Sue on what grounds?

That the owner of the surrounding property in question drove down property values by a massive amount. Devaluing one's own property is fine and dandy, but actions that devalue the properties of another essentially amount to vandalism, and that could be argued in a court of law. Whether or not it works depends on the judge you get.

Nope, no such thing. Anything "unethical" will magically be prevented by the fear of lost sales. Because, you know, no company has ever poisoned an entire community with toxic waste for fear of that!

That case wasn't just unethical, it was criminal. Selling toxic land to a private land developer without disclosing the nature of the property basically amounts to fraud, anyways.

No one at all is comparing buying a business out to paying taxes,

You just have to change "it got invaded" to "CorporationX staged a hostile takeover."

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 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'm sorry, who doesn't understand context?

Becoming poor, or wealthy, depends on many factors such as inherited social standing as well as the ability to make the "correct" decisions constantly, without really knowing what the true consequences are.

No shit? I'm trying to demonstrate to you, that you're using the same rhetoric to try and prove somehow that extraction based on income is somehow consentual, and that I choose to be taxed. I don't choose to be taxed, the decision made is that I let the government tax me because I don't want to go to jail. There's no box on an application form asking me if I'd like my income to be taxed. It's imposed on me without my consent, and no such contract exists between me and the government where I tell them it's a-ok.

Of course it is. What, do you want someone else to be responsible for your money?

No, but the government insists that they should be anyways.

Right, because the resources available to a small startup are sure to let them oppose the might of a multinational corporation.

Yeah, actually, they can. I mean, look at Stardock. They're a tiny company that exists in a market dominated by multinational corporations, and yet they're somehow capable of competing with "big name titles" like MOO3 with the second Windows Galciv, and reached the top of Wal-Mart's retail charts with Galciv 2.

Alternatively, upstarts don't have to compete, they can just be bought out and absorbed.

Minerva was mostly a joke anyways. It only has "land" at low-tide, and yet Tonga still went to the trouble of annexing it. It's not something that can really be defended.

 

[kingcomrade]

I won't go into all of the Grade A Bullshit in that article

Of course you won't, that would probably require you to back it up.

I find it amusing that we have such a huge military when he claims that both major parties AND the alternative party of choice refuse to protect our borders...

Er, what? When the Clinton was in the White House about 9 million illegal aliens entered the country. Under Bush, 11 million more have entered the country. What does the size of our military have to do with anything? I can have the biggest dick in the world but that doesn't mean I get laid all the time.

 

[Sarvis]

That isn't like any kind of logic I just used. Bullet-proof vests exist to save a wearer's life (whether or not they actually do depends on a lot of extraneous factors), and so long as a bullet strikes the vest without penetrating or the force received doesn't rupture internal organs, then the vest has worked. It's a justifiable investment because they work enough to give a payoff, now, if an education system doesn't educate, yet we're still being forced at gun point to put money into it, how is that a parallel?

The education system does educate. It's just that there is a lot of room for improvement.

We're the only nation in the world that assigns our children to schools. The practice in Europe is generally that students receive vouchers and decide which schools they want to go to based on quality, location, what have you. That way you get the benefits of private competition while equalizing opportunity.

I think it's a pretty realistic model, even though a lot of Libertarians don't believe in subsidized education period. But hey, it's like not all Socialists are crazy about Communism, what's up with that?

Well, I think the vouhcer idea has it's own problems... but that's a different discussion.

Nevermind, either, that the issue here is about the means of extraction, not how the government redistributes wealth.

Then why did you bring it up?

The source

Non-Taxable Income

* Interest or dividend income
* Welfare benefits

The concept of Welfare being a taxable income is ludicrous. Even assuming you weren't receiving welfare benefits, an approximately similar amount of income would be too low to extract taxes from in a Progressive Tax System.

Well, that applies for your city... but I can't find anything on the IRS site, so fine. Still doesn't change the fact that the choice is not to have an income... so now that even means no welfare. Shouldn't be a problem for Libertarians since they don't believe there should be welfare anyway.

No they're not. You either pay them in accordance with the laws of a state, or they don't exist.

Or you have the OPTION to move to a state where they don't exist, and you have the OPTION to only buy things which are basic necessities and therefore not taxed.

You just don't LIKE the options you have. They are still there.

That the owner of the surrounding property in question drove down property values by a massive amount. Devaluing one's own property is fine and dandy, but actions that devalue the properties of another essentially amount to vandalism, and that could be argued in a court of law. Whether or not it works depends on the judge you get.

Again, it is my property and I can do what I want with it. This is the heart of the Libertarian ideal of individual rights.

That case wasn't just unethical, it was criminal. Selling toxic land to a private land developer without disclosing the nature of the property basically amounts to fraud, anyways.

No, you misread: I was talking about instances where companies poisoned land AFTER it was owned by other people. Look up Love Canal.

No one at all is comparing buying a business out to paying taxes,

You just have to change "it got invaded" to "CorporationX staged a hostile takeover."

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 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'm sorry, who doesn't understand context?

You, as the whole invasion vs. hostile takeover thing is specifically about Minerva and meant as an illustration of how corporations are just as much of a threat to his individual liberties as governments are. Your first hint on the context thing might be that no one uses the word taxes in it.

No shit?

You may not be surprised, but I'm sure GGP or Human Shield will argue the point.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you, that you're using the same rhetoric to try and prove somehow that extraction based on income is somehow consentual, and that I choose to be taxed. I don't choose to be taxed, the decision made is that I let the government tax me because I don't want to go to jail. There's no box on an application form asking me if I'd like my income to be taxed. It's imposed on me without my consent, and no such contract exists between me and the government where I tell them it's a-ok.

The choice to not pay taxes is much clearer, more simple and easy to make than the "choice" people "make" to become poor. The thing is that no one likes the consequence of that choice, which is essentially complete removal from society. Go live in the forest as a hermit, you won't pay taxes. Go hook up with some tribe living off the land in the rainforest. Go sleep in alleys and eat out of dumpsters. Do any of those things, and you have chosen not to pay taxes.

The decision is not that you let the government tax you because you don't want to go to jail, but that you let the government tax you because you don't want to live of the land, join an ancient tribe, or eat garbage. You tell them it's a-ok every day you allow yourself to continue earning income.

Of course it is. What, do you want someone else to be responsible for your money?

No, but the government insists that they should be anyways.

You just told us that government forces you to determine whether or not you had paid the correct amount. Try not to contradict yourself, 'k?

Yeah, actually, they can. I mean, look at Stardock. They're a tiny company that exists in a market dominated by multinational corporations, and yet they're somehow capable of competing with "big name titles" like MOO3 with the second Windows Galciv, and reached the top of Wal-Mart's retail charts with Galciv 2.

Alternatively, upstarts don't have to compete, they can just be bought out and absorbed.

Umm... being bought out isn't defending against them, it's surrendering just like Minerva was lost.

Minerva was mostly a joke anyways. It only has "land" at low-tide, and yet Tonga still went to the trouble of annexing it. It's not something that can really be defended.

So maybe someday Spiderweb will buy out Stardock. Or vice versa... whichever is bigger I guess.

Is there a point to this?

 

[Bradylama]

The education system does educate. It's just that there is a lot of room for improvement.

So it's like a Pellet-proof vest.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because:

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?

You attacked me using a stereotype, that I'd insist that poor kids chose to be in a shitty school district. They don't. In fact, they don't choose their school districts at all.

Still doesn't change the fact that the choice is not to have an income...

And, if I choose to have an income, I haven't necessarily chosen to be taxed. I'll be taxed anyway. Not having an income is not opting out of the Income Tax, it means that I don't earn anything taxable.

Or you have the OPTION to move to a state where they don't exist, and you have the OPTION to only buy things which are basic necessities and therefore not taxed.

Again, moving out of state or performing non-taxable commerce isn't an opt-out.

Again, it is my property and I can do what I want with it. This is the heart of the Libertarian ideal of individual rights.

And the saying "Your rights end where my nose begins" also holds true as a Libertarian Ideal.

Look up Love Canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Use_as_toxic_waste_disposal_site

...The corporation refused to sell, but the school board pressed on, threatening expropriation. Eventually, Hooker Chemical capitulated, and sold on the condition that the board buy the entire property for a dollar. In the agreement, Hooker included a seventeen line caveat that explained the dangers of building on the site...

...t could be argued that Hooker met their obligations by warning the School Board of chemicals on the property and that the residents and city had no cause to complain after the sale was completed. However, Hooker only advised the school board that the area had been used for “plant refuse containing some chemicals” but that the central section of the property was appropriate for a school, and the rest of the property was appropriate for playgrounds. By hiding the true nature of the dumping that took place in the canal, Hooker exposed the residents of the Love Canal area to dangerous toxins for decades.

Maybe you meant some other Love Canal.

Your first hint on the context thing might be that no one uses the word taxes in it.

This whole fucking argument is about whether or not taxation is coercion.

You may not be surprised

I'm a libertarian, you think I don't know what a lot of my fellows think?

The choice to not pay taxes is much clearer

Yeah, if I don't pay taxes I'll go to jail. Not being taxed is different from not paying tax.

Do any of those things, and you have chosen not to pay taxes.

No, I would've chosen to ostracize myself.

You just told us that government forces you to determine whether or not you had paid the correct amount.

No, they force me to determine whether or not they took the correct amount. Have you even held a job before? The whole concept of choice when it comes to paying taxes is removed from the get-go.

The government insists that they should be responsible with my money by taxing me and claiming that the money is being put to a good cause. Like invading Iraq, or building Projects, or re-zoning private property, or starting Faith-based Initiatives... or Welfare.

Umm... being bought out isn't defending against them, it's surrendering just like Minerva was lost.

Sure, I guess you could argue that one "surrenders" to the pressure, but Tonga took Minerva without paying anybody for it.

Besides, there was no actual surrender, since Minerva wasn't even recognized as a sovereign nation. Tonga claimed it was theirs and the other Pacific Rim nations let them have it because Minerva was just an artificial island on top of an underwater reef.

So maybe someday Spiderweb will buy out Stardock. Or vice versa... whichever is bigger I guess.

Is there a point to this?

That an up-start company is perfectly capable of competing and surviving in a market dominated by multinational corporations.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Sarvis, I thought you had learned your lesson earlier, but I guess I need to explain to you what a corporate takeover is. A corporation is an entity which is treated by the "legal fiction" that it is an individual. While at one time they were basically an extension of mercantilists governments, nowadays you pretty much just need some initiative and you can get the government your organization as one. When you take that step and change the status of your business you must accept the fact that it is an entity apart from you and not simply your personal propery, although holding stock in it does make you part owner. When you sell stock to raise money (likely the reason you became incorporated in the first place, although the legal protection is pretty useful in a culture as litigous as ours but let's not get into that) you are selling part ownership in the company. The people that buy your stocks generally truust you to do a decent job of running the company they are now part owner of and might just accept their dividend without really checking up on you to make sure your doing a decent job, but as shareholder they have votes in proportion to their shares and if they are unsatisfied it is expected that they could shake things up. The system isn't perfect and there are agent-problems involved but you can just read the economics literature on that rather than me going over it. At any rate, sometimes someone (or multiple someones) will see that your corporation has some assets or opportunity but is not doing a good job of taking advantage of them and believes much better management could be provided. Sometimes (a lot of the time actually) you'll see that they're right and willingly let them take control. If you and the rest of management disagree, it's called a hostile takeover. You and your prospective replacements will then both be bidding over shares and attempting to woo shareholders to your side. If you do takeover what has basically occured is that you sold something to someone and then they sold it to someone you don't want to have it. These are all voluntary transactions and if you had a major problem with it you should have either not sold so much stock to people you can't trust to always stick with you or not become incorporated in the first place.

Here is how an invasion works: The government of a country sends it's military over. Those who don't cooperate get killed. The only thing you can do is either surrender or attack them. There is no decision you made that necessarily made this possible and without which this would not have occurred.

ALCOA didn't need financial power to survive the German cartel, it was an idiotic move they tried that INCREASED ALCOA's profits. It wasn't before but after the dumping that ALCOA reached near-monopoly status and got shut down by the feds for relentlessly lowering prices and increasing supply. The simple fact is that financial power is a completely different thing from military power. No matter how much money you have, if someone simply flat out refuses to do business with you there's not a thing you can do unless you get the government to engage in some thuggery or do that yourself, neither of which is financial.

Vandalism is a violation of property rights, just as theft is, and pollution to boot. Lowering property values by devaluing their own property would not be such a violation, because they would be damaging their own property and you cannot logically violate your own rights, otherwise they wouldn't really be your rights. If a property owner is housing people you are violating the property rights of others, whether or not he can be held responsible such people certainly can. If he actually instructed these people to engage in criminal activities, that usually falls under soliciation of or conspiracy to commit that crime.

Here's example I've heard before that does a good job of explaining both the libertarian conception of property rights violations and homesteading: If I have a hammer and chisel and I find a big block of marble that nobody else owns, and I then mix my labor with it by carving something out of it or even just hauling it into my basement, I have homesteaded it and now own it. If I own a hammer and chisel and find a big block of marble that someone owns and I then I carve a statue that in my opinion is just the awesome thing in existence, it doesn't matter how hard I think I worked or how much I think I improved the value of that slab of rock or that I think I can do what I choose with my own hammer and chisel, the slab was the property of someone else and I am violating that person's property rights by vandalizing his property.

The kids having kids know about safe sex. Contraceptives are farily widely available as well. The reason they don't use them is either because they want to have kids or they are careless.

Taxes are not a choice. If someone agrees to give me money but does it under the table so no taxes are paid, I get thrown in jail. If someone other than the government did that it would be kidnapping and extortion. Saying that they're a choice because you can avoid them by not having money is like saying it's a choice to pay a mugger because I could just get shot or carry a cyanide capsule around in my mouth to pre-empt them killing me. If I only want to associate with persons A, B and C and they only want to deal with me, person D has no claim on either of us.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think it's better to explain to Sarvis what a "clue" is.

 

[Sarvis]

Look, how about this: Get back to me when you figure out how to have free housing.

You can't, because there is no such thing. Yeah, you choose which housing you pay for, but you HAVE TO PAY FOR HOUSING or BE HOMELESS.

Why is this not coercion? There is no real difference other than your perception of who receives your money. Either way, if you don't pay you get punished, and either way the only way to avoid it is to be homeless.


Now with the invasion thing, you are still concentrating on the method rather than the result. The result of an invasion is that the original government no longer controls his country. The result of a hostile takeover is that the original CEO no longer controls his company. In both cases the leader was unwilling to give up leadership, but it happened anyway.

Same end result. I'm only pointing out that the method doesn't really matter a whole lot. Would you guys really feel better if Microsoft had bought out Minerva and ruled it as their own little country? Your Libertarian experiment would still have been a failure.

As for the teenage pregnancy thing, here's an interesting quote from your article in the first fucking paragraph:

“I want to be a lawyer...or maybe a teacher." - Some_Dumb_Black_Chick

Yeah, that pretty much fucking shows EXACTLY that she is not choosing to be poor. Her parents have made her believe she can have a kid in high school AND still go on to be a fucking lawyer. She did not choose poverty, she chose to have a baby without having full realization of the consequences.

Not to mention that this is basically one giant Hasty Generalization. The actual facts are that areas with sex education programs have a much lower rate of teen pregnancy, thus proving both that many these kids are accidentally becoming pregnant AND that you vastly underestimate the effectiveness of public education.

Yeah, contraceptives are effective, but you have to know you need to use them. If your knowledge of sex is limited to what your girlfriends tell you in the locker room, you might think contraceptives means jumping up and down after getting laid.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

Now with the invasion thing, you are still concentrating on the method rather than the result. The result of an invasion is that the original government no longer controls his country. The result of a hostile takeover is that the original CEO no longer controls his company. In both cases the leader was unwilling to give up leadership, but it happened anyway.

There is still a huge difference between a coorporate takeover and an invasion, regardless of the result. First, a CEO does not own a company. He is hired by the owners of a company to run it. He can be fired if he does not perform his job. It is a result of contract. The key here is that it is not HIS company. It belongs to the shareholders.

In a takeover, a company buys enough shares to control the company. It is strictly a voluntary transaction. Money is exchanged for shares . . . there is no force or violence. Noone is killed. Homes are not destroyed. Property is not taken from its rightful owner without compensation.

In an invasion, one country takes property from its rightful owners. There is force, violence, and destruction. There is no voluntary exchange.

It is the difference between going to the store to by food and robbing the same store at gunpoint. The fact that you cannot see that shows your lack of understanding of economics and the way business works.

And to address your free housing question . . . there is no need for free housing. People do not have the right to someone elses property. They have to acquire it by either A) Homesteading unowned property. or B) Trading for it (either goods or labor) or C) Find someone willing to give them their property.

Being homeless is not a punishment. It might be unpleasant, but that does not make it a punishment. Stop trying to make words mean things they do not.

 

[Bradylama]

Now with the invasion thing, you are still concentrating on the method rather than the result.

Coercion is a method. Stop trying to change the focus of this argument, because arguing whether or not people choose to be poor will get you nowhere fast.

 

[Sarvis]

So then I have a question: Can you decide not to pay taxes by eschewing any form of income and not buying anything with a sales tax?


EDIT: Where did I ever imply that coercion wasn't a method anyway?

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Realism and subdeconstructivist modernism
N. Lunch

Department of Politics, University of California, Berkeley
1. Realities of genre

If one examines subdeconstructivist modernism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Batailleist `powerful communication’ or conclude that the significance of the artist is social comment. The primary theme of Brophy’s[1] model of the textual paradigm of reality is the paradigm, and hence the absurdity, of neoconstructivist class.

However, Hamburger[2] states that we have to choose between postcultural Marxism and deconstructive desublimation. The subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of reality that includes consciousness as a totality.

It could be said that in Mason & Dixon, Pynchon reiterates subdeconstructivist modernism; in Vineland, however, he examines precapitalist narrative. Realism implies that sexual identity, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.
2. Pynchon and Lacanist obscurity

“Reality is part of the paradigm of culture,” says Sartre. Therefore, if the textual paradigm of reality holds, the works of Pynchon are empowering. Foucault suggests the use of subdeconstructivist modernism to read and analyse sexual identity.

However, in V, Pynchon deconstructs the textual paradigm of context; in Mason & Dixon he affirms subdeconstructivist modernism. Sontag promotes the use of subcultural structural theory to challenge class divisions.

In a sense, many theories concerning subdeconstructivist modernism may be found. La Tournier[3] suggests that we have to choose between the textual paradigm of reality and precultural deconstruction.

Therefore, Bataille uses the term ’subdeconstructivist modernism’ to denote not narrative, but subnarrative. If the textual paradigm of reality holds, the works of Rushdie are modernistic.
3. Semanticist discourse and Lacanist obscurity

If one examines realism, one is faced with a choice: either accept subdeconstructivist modernism or conclude that language is capable of significance. However, the premise of predialectic theory holds that the task of the poet is deconstruction, but only if culture is interchangeable with language. The main theme of the works of Rushdie is the common ground between art and sexual identity.

“Reality is intrinsically elitist,” says Debord; however, according to Reicher[4] , it is not so much reality that is intrinsically elitist, but rather the failure, and subsequent economy, of reality. In a sense, Debord uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the role of the artist as writer. The subject is interpolated into a cultural paradigm of reality that includes language as a paradox.

“Sexual identity is part of the paradigm of art,” says Lyotard. Thus, in Satanic Verses, Rushdie deconstructs realism; in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, however, he analyses neopatriarchial desublimation. An abundance of theories concerning not materialism, but submaterialism exist.

However, Sartre suggests the use of realism to read society. Many narratives concerning Lacanist obscurity may be discovered.

In a sense, Derrida promotes the use of realism to deconstruct sexism. The subject is contextualised into a capitalist feminism that includes reality as a reality.

However, Baudrillard suggests the use of Lacanist obscurity to modify and challenge art. Subdeconstructivist modernism suggests that sexuality is used to reinforce the status quo.

Therefore, Debord promotes the use of realism to attack sexism. The example of Lacanist obscurity which is a central theme of Rushdie’s The Moor’s Last Sigh is also evident in Satanic Verses, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

1. Brophy, V. ed. (1992) Expressions of Absurdity: Realism in the works of Pynchon. Harvard University Press

2. Hamburger, S. Q. C. (1984) Subdeconstructivist modernism and realism. Oxford University Press

3. la Tournier, N. ed. (1973) The Rubicon of Narrative: Subdeconstructivist modernism in the works of Rushdie. University of Oregon Press

4. Reicher, C. A. (1985) Realism and subdeconstructivist modernism. University of Illinois Press