Interview Game Banshee does Fallout and Wasteland Revisited

[Bradylama]

There is no way an average person with a full time job can know how everything about how a country should be run.

I didn't claim that I knew how the government should be run (actually I have, but for the sake of argument on taxation and coercion...), but that I knew best what to do with my money. It'd be different if I gave the government my money willingly as part of a transaction, but through taxation the principle is that the money the government uses is still mine. It's what makes me a taxpayer, the problem is that I have no effect on what my tax money is used for, because as soon as it's collected, it becomes siphoned off.

I'm not saying it's simple or your fault as an individual. The fact people keep electing bad representatives is the result of deeper social and cultural problems.

The problem with this reasoning, though, is that you could elect a good representative that's bad for the country. That bridge I mentioned before was a pet project for an Alaskan senator notorious for bringing in undeserved money to Alaska. He brought Federal money in, though, so people kept voting for him. The shit hit the fan, however, when he chose to make a stand for that bridge over Katrina funding.

You can have crooks that don't simply pocket money.

For the record, I'm not American.

Ah, I see. So Putin's still doing pretty good, huh? Opposition Party? Who needs 'em?

 

[Sarvis]

You don't need a governing authority to establish something as your property. Pioneers established their property with the barrel of a gun.


Something becomes your property when you claim it as yours, and others recognize it as so. You don't need a governing authority for that.

I thought force was bad? Talk about coercion, you can't get much more coercive than saying this is my land because I'm pointing a gun at your face.

In your little libertarian wet dream does everything you own just become mine if I shoot you?

No? In fact, you've stated a couple times that government should enforce contracts and property rights, right?

Guess what, you just contradicted yourself.

 

[Sarvis]

At school, where you obviously didn't learn Government. Money being funnelled into Senator's projects and other programs don't actually represent a reduction of government but a re-focusing.

Bullshit. If you cut programs you are cutting the size of government, not the amount of money it uses. Consider eliminating the FCC, but putting the money towards the Iraq war. How could you make any sane argument that the government did not get smaller?

Right, so even in the case of a small military they'd still be paranoid about it, because the number of actors haven't actually reduced. Thus rendering this whole thing pointless.

No, just showing that you still haven't learned to follow a conversation. We're talking about building a military without taxes, remember? You wanted these guys to support that military when clearly they wouldn't, no matter the size.

Wake the fuck up. The government is only accountable to those that put the cash in treasury, which means bond holders (the wealthy), bribes (the wealthy), and campaign financiers (the wealthy). The voting bloc has been divided for centuries now based on a trivial Red vs. Blue mentality where the end result is a choice between parties whose only difference is posturing.

The government is accountable to the people. The fact that so many vote party lines, or don't vote at all does not change that. It simply means that no side is doing anything so disagreeable that makes us want to properly exercise that power. Just like shareholders in a company aren't going to say shit as long as the profits keep rolling in.

The opposite would hold true for a business which is not only accountable to its stock holders, but its customers. If a business abuses its customers they'll begin buying elsewhere, and the same would be doubly so in the case of government operated business.

A monopoly is not accountable to it's customers, especially if it is the only way to provide specific needs. Your national bank would quickly become the only bank, and controlling the military would give it de facto police power as well meaning they control everything.

You might want a dictatorship in exchange for no taxes, but I don't. Get together with Walks with the Snails and cry about "mob rule."

The idea that people would support a domestic service raising its own private army is ludicrous,

Are you <i>completely</i> retarded? You are proposing the government run as a domestic service <i>as a means of raising an army!</i> Jesus, you can't even follow your own fucking argument at this point!

The government is already controlled by "investors," the difference becomes, then, that the government actually has to work for its funding as opposed to extracting it. Government businesses also can't have State monopolies, since it eliminates any incentive to compete with private industries, and lands us back at a point where programs are bloated and ineffectual.

You have a strange definition of "can't." You mean to say that, following proper libertarian ideals they <i>shouldn't</i>. But we both know they very quickly would.

Which is the justification for roads. However, I was arguing on the basis of roads being a pay-to-use service than something funded through extraction.

Which would still be funded by extraction, as the prices would be added into the price of anything you bought. Again, it is the exact same thing... it just wouldn't appear on a separate line of the receipt.

How would you justify, though, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, any other New Deal dinosaurs that don't benefit anybody until there's a need to use them? Is it right to force somebody to pay for a service that they don't use?

Are you trying to bring a straw man into this? We are not arguing about those specific programs, but the practice of taxation itself.

However we can look back to the beginning of the thread for the answer. When you pay rent i nan apartment building, do you think it's unjustified for them to charge all tenants the same price even if they don't use all the complex's services? For instance, if they have a pool and you don't swim, is it reasonable to expect paying less for rent.

Nope, so why is it suddenly unjustified when it's the government, when you have a choice to live in a different country where, even if the taxes are still there, they are much less due to the lack of those services? (That is, of course, ignoring the countries that DarkUnderlord pointed out as not having taxes.)

Other than the fact that paying for roads becomes an act of consent, and that funding road maintenance is no longer a practice of coercion. The whole fucking point of having people pay to use roads.

If paying for roads through prices added into a project is consent, then so is sales tax. It's the same thing either way, just a difference of a line on your receipt.

The point of the whole process is that I'm not being forced to pay for roads.

Yes you are, since the prices are added into any product you buy. Either that or sales tax is not coercive under the same logic.

How so?

They can't even debunk a half-truth.

What does that have to do with being inconsistant?

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Holy shit, Sarvis, are you autistic, seriously? I'm starting to actually pity you. Is it really this hard for you to follow separate trains of thought, or are you just trying to grasp at whatever straws you can find in hopes of pulling the old-fashioned filibuster until the other side decides to quit bothering? (Hint, hint, Bradylama, one way or another this is how this is going to end no matter what. The boy will happily keep going for 20 pages and beyond on "inconsistencies".)

You're making up "inconsistencies" where they don't exist. Saying government isn't necessary to enforce property rights is simply true, it's not a value statement. One can say frontier justice is capable of existing while not suggesting that's the optimal situation. There's no contradiction in maintaining both statements. And what's up with this cutting funding somewhere necessarily means funneling it somewhere else? You keep stating that as the only possible outcome, but you can also cut a program and simply not end up requisitioning that amount of money. This isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp. We don't see it much thanks to both parties' tendency to spend like drunken sailors, but it actually is possible to not spend as much and as a result not need to tax as much. It would be better to pay off the fucking debt first, but one thing at a time.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Measuring the government in terms of spending or number of employees are both fairly valid. Increases in spending pretty much inevitably result in increased hiring, although it might be less than where the money was going before. Cutting government programs could result in a reduction in both employees and spending. If spending can go up with more programs, it would seem sensible that it could go down as well.

I'm a bit stunned by sheek. We're all idiots so the government needs to make our decisions for us? Are you sure the people in government aren't idiots? The private sector gets the cream of the crop because it gives extra rewards for what people put out at their jobs, government jobs offer plenty of shitty co-workers with guaranteed job security that make just as much as the naive idealists in the office next door that think they're working toward a better world before they get burned out. While Microsoft and Google basically disqualify for many of their positions anyone who isn't it in the upper range IQ-wise, government gets the lowest scorers. Now, even if we imagined that the government isn't full of idiots like any other organization of that size, how do we define what is "good for" someone? I've yet to see anybody make a case against the subjectivity of value, and given that it's impossible to tell before-hand what is good for someone. We don't have a good-o-meter measuring waves of benefit, we just have people who prefer some situation to others. I can't prove that Fallout is better than Halo, and some people will just always like it more and I'll never be able to convince them otherwise. That works out okay because I don't have to buy Halo and they don't have to buy Fallout. Making something like that the responsibility of government is inevitably going to piss a bunch of people off who don't agree with the government's beliefs on what is good, and some people who might agree with the governments permission are still going to be irritated that they don't have a choice.

 

[Sarvis]

Holy shit, Sarvis, are you autistic, seriously? I'm starting to actually pity you.

Considering you are once again putting words in my mouth and purposefully misconstruing my argument...

Is it really this hard for you to follow separate trains of thought, or are you just trying to grasp at whatever straws you can find in hopes of pulling the old-fashioned filibuster until the other side decides to quit bothering?

What the fuck are you talking about? He goes from trying to say you can build a military with a bake sale to stating militia nuts will be afraid of any size military, and asking what the point is and <i>I'm</i> the one who lost track? Or how about the part where he suggests a National Bank for raising military funds, only to say that the populace wouldn't allow a government organization to raise a military three fucking posts later!

Once again you've shown that you pay less attention to the actual arguments than to the name on the post.

You're making up "inconsistencies" where they don't exist. Saying government isn't necessary to enforce property rights is simply true, it's not a value statement. One can say frontier justice is capable of existing while not suggesting that's the optimal situation.

There's no property rights if I can just kill you and take the property. I'm not arguing that you cannot take and keep land by force, I'm arguing that doing so does not grant you rights to that property. <i>Contracts</i> grant rights, right <b>GreatGodPan</b>? Since you cannot have a contract signed with every other person in a country, there needs to be an intermediary to contractually gaurantee you actually own your property so that I can't simply kick you off of it and start calling it mine.

And what's up with this cutting funding somewhere necessarily means funneling it somewhere else?

Wait for it...

You keep stating that as the only possible outcome, but you can also cut a program and simply not end up requisitioning that amount of money. This isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp. <b>We don't see it much thanks to both parties' tendency to spend like drunken sailors,</b>

Exactly. I never said it was impossible,I'm simply stating that it's highly unlikely politicians would simply give up that cash. Again you've simply colored my argument with what you want me to have said, when I'm pretty much just pointing out exactly what you just did. Sure it's possibly to cut spending and reduce taxes, it's just not going to happen.

It would be better to pay off the fucking debt first, but one thing at a time.

True, and of course doing so would be the first excuse for not lowering taxes once the FCC was gone.

Or do you think the politicians will magically become responsible?

 

[Bradylama]

He goes from trying to say you can build a military with a bake sale to stating militia nuts will be afraid of any size military, and asking what the point is and I'm the one who lost track?

Yeah, you're the one that brought it up and stated that militia nuts would be afraid of any military.

Or how about the part where he suggests a National Bank for raising military funds, only to say that the populace wouldn't allow a government organization to raise a military three fucking posts later!

Which was a response to your bringing up the East India Company's private army. The conclusion I drew from that was that you were implying that a State Bank would raise its own private army, as opposed to its funds being used to raise a national military.

The idea that people would support a domestic service raising its own private army is ludicrous,

A domestic service does not equal government as a whole. Any organization that provides service in the United States, and is based in the United States is a domestic service. I guess verbage isn't something they taught you in school, either.

The right to property is a fundamental understanding of human territoriality. Simply because somebody can take my property by force doesn't mean that it wasn't my property, and that people wouldn't still consider my property my own, even after it was stolen. Cattle rustlers and horse thieves were considered the worst criminals in the Old West, and yet there was no government presence to ensure that one's cattle and horses were insured or that they'd be returned. More often than not, people would form posses to go out, hang them, and return the cattle to the ranch that branded them.

Contracts only guarantee a deal, or ownership, they don't guarantee a right. The idea that rights are fundamental stipulates that government or collectives can take away rights, not grant them.

Exactly. I never said it was impossible,I'm simply stating that it's highly unlikely politicians would simply give up that cash.

Which is irrelevant. I was arguing on the basis of reducing the size of government, not cutting programs only to have the money be siphoned into others.

True, and of course doing so would be the first excuse for not lowering taxes once the FCC was gone.

Or do you think the politicians will magically become responsible?

So we should trust our inherently irresponsible politicians to handle our money?

Geez, Sarvis, make up your mind.

 

[Sarvis]

Yeah, you're the one that brought it up and stated that militia nuts would be afraid of any military.

No, you brought it up when you said they would fund the military. Sorry, they would supplement the funding of the military which is primarily done with bake sales, right?

Which was a response to your bringing up the East India Company's private army. The conclusion I drew from that was that you were implying that a State Bank would raise its own private army, as opposed to its funds being used to raise a national military.

Oh right, I guess if a corporation raises a public army the ywouldn't abuse the fact that they fund it at all.

A domestic service does not equal government as a whole. Any organization that provides service in the United States, and is based in the United States is a domestic service. I guess verbage isn't something they taught you in school, either.

So now are you trying to claim a National Bank is not a domestic service? Verbiage does not mean changing what you meant after the fact.

The right to property is a fundamental understanding of human territoriality. Simply because somebody can take my property by force doesn't mean that it wasn't my property, and that people wouldn't still consider my property my own, even after it was stolen. Cattle rustlers and horse thieves were considered the worst criminals in the Old West, and yet there was no government presence to ensure that one's cattle and horses were insured or that they'd be returned. More often than not, people would form posses to go out, hang them, and return the cattle to the ranch that branded them.

That's not property rights, it's tribalism. There is no natural allowance for ownership, it is an invention of our species.

Contracts only guarantee a deal, or ownership, they don't guarantee a right.

Nothing truly gaurantees a right. There is no such thing, that's why rights can be violated. The rights defined in our Constitution were granted to us by the founding of our country, nothing more.

The idea that rights are fundamental stipulates that government or collectives can take away rights, not grant them.

So there is a natural right to fair trial then?

Which is irrelevant. I was arguing on the basis of reducing the size of government, not cutting programs only to have the money be siphoned into others.

You can argue based on fantasy all you want, but we're talking about the real world here.

So we should trust our inherently irresponsible politicians to handle our money?

Geez, Sarvis, make up your mind.

I've said all along, in every argument on these and other boards, that we need to cut wasteful government spending before touching any of the other government services that are out there.

I never, ever said the politicians were perfect. However as it stands they are putting money towards programs I consider useful, and I think we only need to work on curbing their spending on crap like bridges to nowhere. I argue for taxes because without them the <i>useful services</i> would go away.

Sorry if you can't understand a philosophy that goes beyond "taxes bad, freedom good."

 

[Bradylama]

Using the term military nuts would have been a bit confusing, which is why I clarified for you the difference between a military enthusiast and paramilitaries. I'm sorry, though, if you didn't pick up on that.

I didn't say that a corporation wouldn't abuse the use of its own military, but that the government should be run like a business. I guess if your simple mind can't wrap around the concept that the government already abuses the power of our military, then I guess that's another one of your problems. Doubly so when you don't understand that if the government was run like a business, everyone would be a constituent as opposed to the wealthy.

So now are you trying to claim a National Bank is not a domestic service?

You are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

A domestic service does not equal government as a whole. Any organization that provides service in the United States, and is based in the United States is a domestic service.

A national bank would be one such organization. Am I going to have to assume that you don't understand logic or context and explain every little goddamn thing to you?

The fact of the matter is that there has always been a concept of ownership. Acient man would own things like crops or tools. Even in Native American societies that lacked the concept of private property, the tribes still had a concept of collective ownership and territory.

Territoriality is not a human invention, it's an animal trait. If a bear operates his own hunting grounds, those grounds are his, and any other bear or predator that intrudes on them is invading what he perceives to be his.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, but defined what freedoms the government has no ability to encroach upon, until recently, when Ammendments have begun to define what freedoms the government can encroach upon.

People do have a fundamental right to justice, but what that justice involves is a societal construct. A "fair trial" in the United States may not particularly be a fair trial in other societies, particularly when we think conscripting random citizens to serve on juries makes them a defender's peer. The perception of a fair trial has changed over the centuries, not whether or not one is entitled to a fair trial.

Furthermore, I am talking about the real world. If programs have been cut under the pretext of reducing the size of government, then representatives will come under incredible scrutiny when people notice that taxes aren't getting lower, or that the National Debt isn't being payed off. Representatives are only accountable to financial backers because their voting blocs are ignorant of relevant issues. Why do you think Gay Rights and Abortion keep coming up every election year? Because every other year, they're non-issues. They're political tools used to distract people from their real problems during the voting season, and so long as voters are distracted and ignorant, then Representatives can get away with whatever shit they please.

There are such things as Watchdog Groups, Sarvis. Organizations keep track of government funds both externally and internally in an effort to minimize corruption. If people know they're being lied to, then the results would be catastrophic for a politician.

People might buy the lack of WMDs in Iraq as a mistake, but they won't buy it when their taxes aren't getting any lower.

I understand your perceived need for taxation and the supposed benefits it provides, what I don't understand is how you keep formulating arguments that have no actual basis on anything that we've said in this thread. You aren't just making straw men, you're arguing points that simply aren't there. In the psychological world, they call that schizophrenia.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Considering you are once again putting words in my mouth and purposefully misconstruing my argument...

No, that's your calling card, just like you're doing here. Mergers never happen ring a bell?

What the fuck are you talking about? He goes from trying to say you can build a military with a bake sale to stating militia nuts will be afraid of any size military, and asking what the point is and <i>I'm</i> the one who lost track? Or how about the part where he suggests a National Bank for raising military funds, only to say that the populace wouldn't allow a government organization to raise a military three fucking posts later!

Yeah, poor miserable folks capable of having two separate trains of thought.

Once again you've shown that you pay less attention to the actual arguments than to the name on the post.

I don't really know Bradylama from shit at this point. And your arguments here are absurd no matter who said them.

There's no property rights if I can just kill you and take the property. I'm not arguing that you cannot take and keep land by force, I'm arguing that doing so does not grant you rights to that property. <i>Contracts</i> grant rights, right <b>GreatGodPan</b>? Since you cannot have a contract signed with every other person in a country, there needs to be an intermediary to contractually gaurantee you actually own your property so that I can't simply kick you off of it and start calling it mine.

You're so close. Does your intermediary even have to be a government? If the answer is no, that's the end sheek's tangent. For your part of this, in any case did anyone here say they don't want a nominal government to at least recognize property claims? I think you missed the point tripping over yourself trying to get a quick "Gotcha!" You're trying to set a trap based on someone else's separate argument to tie up three different people, and it ain't really working.

Exactly. I never said it was impossible,I'm simply stating that it's highly unlikely politicians would simply give up that cash. Again you've simply colored my argument with what you want me to have said, when I'm pretty much just pointing out exactly what you just did. Sure it's possibly to cut spending and reduce taxes, it's just not going to happen.

You were certainly talking like it's impossible, going on like everyone swallowed your line of bullshit and then were being ridiculous and contradictory for disagreeing with something they never agreed to. Even in the present climate, do you think it's etched in stone that we'll run a $653 billion budget deficit and federal spending will increase 13.83% or whatever? Congress pretty well spends what they want, and then goes oopsie, we went over once it's all over, and prints more bonds. Cutting a program doesn't mean the money absolutely must be spent elsewhere, it can equally likely mean we only go $650 billion over and federal spending only increases 13.75% and everyone goes home happy and points out their triumph in "cutting government waste".

True, and of course doing so would be the first excuse for not lowering taxes once the FCC was gone.

Or do you think the politicians will magically become responsible?

Meh, no excuse needed, they already lower taxes without cutting shit. I still wouldn't mind getting rid of the FCC on general principle, though, and that would still one way or another mean either less money to pay now or later when China starts calling in our treasuries. Those salaries aren't coming from nowhere.

 

[Sarvis]

Considering you are once again putting words in my mouth and purposefully misconstruing my argument...

No, that's your calling card, just like you're doing here. Mergers never happen ring a bell?

What you had written at the time was a direct fucking response to the question "What would prevent mergers from happening?" yet you STILL cling to the belief that you meant something else?

Fuck the fuck off.

What the fuck are you talking about? He goes from trying to say you can build a military with a bake sale to stating militia nuts will be afraid of any size military, and asking what the point is and <i>I'm</i> the one who lost track? Or how about the part where he suggests a National Bank for raising military funds, only to say that the populace wouldn't allow a government organization to raise a military three fucking posts later!

Yeah, poor miserable folks capable of having two separate trains of thought.

That contradict each other? No, please explain how saying militia nuts who are afraid of even a small national military qualifies as "two separate trains of thought" rather than inconsistant.

Do the same for saying a National Bank should raise and fund the army when the populace wouldn't allow them to.

Because that's his two trains of "thought."

Once again you've shown that you pay less attention to the actual arguments than to the name on the post.

I don't really know Bradylama from shit at this point. And your arguments here are absurd no matter who said them.
[/quote]

Which part, the one where I claim that a government backed company could become a dangerous monopoly in much the same way the East India company did?

Yeah, craziness to think that history could repeat.

There's no property rights if I can just kill you and take the property. I'm not arguing that you cannot take and keep land by force, I'm arguing that doing so does not grant you rights to that property. <i>Contracts</i> grant rights, right <b>GreatGodPan</b>? Since you cannot have a contract signed with every other person in a country, there needs to be an intermediary to contractually gaurantee you actually own your property so that I can't simply kick you off of it and start calling it mine.

You're so close. Does your intermediary even have to be a government? If the answer is no, that's the end sheek's tangent. For your part of this, in any case did anyone here say they don't want a nominal government to at least recognize property claims? I think you missed the point tripping over yourself trying to get a quick "Gotcha!" You're trying to set a trap based on someone else's separate argument to tie up three different people, and it ain't really working.

For the record, I'm not trying to get a quick "gotcha!" on three of you, I'm not even paying attention to the discussion you, GGP and Sheek have been having. Sorry to burst your bubble, and once again point out how you make assumptions about what I'm saying rather than just fucking reading it.

Actually, looking back the whole property rights thing was brought in by Oarfish and Claw... not sure how I got into it.

You were certainly talking like it's impossible, going on like everyone swallowed your line of bullshit and then were being ridiculous and contradictory for disagreeing with something they never agreed to.

If you say so. I'll just quote you again:

"We don't see it much thanks to both parties' tendency to spend like drunken sailors,"

It's funny that you're trying to villify me for using an argument you yourself made.

Meh, no excuse needed, they already lower taxes without cutting shit.
I still wouldn't mind getting rid of the FCC on general principle, though, and that would still one way or another mean either less money to pay now or later when China starts calling in our treasuries. Those salaries aren't coming from nowhere.

You're right, I forgot taxes can be cut as an election ploy as long as you don't mind borrowing the difference.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

When did I say rights came from contracts? You being prohibited from killing me is the default. If we decide to duel or you're Dr. Kevorkian and I hire you to help me die, that changes things. No matter how many kids you pop out, none of them have any claim on anything I (or anyone else) own UNTIL I contract with them.

The British East India company was not an example of what happens when there isn't enough government to make sure a corporation doesn't become a military force. It was an example of an old-style mercantilist corporation performing governmental functions under the express command of the government. It was given a monopoly from its earliest days and "By a series of five acts around 1670, King Charles II provisioned it with the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas...From 1698 the company was entitled to use the motto "Auspico Regis et Senatus Angliae" meaning, "Under the patronage of the King and Parliament of England".". In that article you might want to check out this section which points out the murky nature of the seperation between the company and the state.

 

[Sarvis]

Last reply for you. Sorry, but really arguing with you is becoming more painful than arguing with KC.

Using the term military nuts would have been a bit confusing, which is why I clarified for you the difference between a military enthusiast and paramilitaries. I'm sorry, though, if you didn't pick up on that.

Ok fine, but I doubt you'll find many of the guns&ammo crowed who would side with the military over the militias.

I didn't say that a corporation wouldn't abuse the use of its own military, but that the government should be run like a business. I guess if your simple mind can't wrap around the concept that the government already abuses the power of our military, then I guess that's another one of your problems. Doubly so when you don't understand that if the government was run like a business, everyone would be a constituent as opposed to the wealthy.

So let me get this straight. You want to havea government, but basically have it run like a private business... and that is supposed to be more accountable than a public corporation or democratically elected government is?

Does that make sense to anyone? <b>Walks with the Snails, GreatGodPan</b>? Hell, <b>KingComrade</b> this is kind of up your alley... do you get it?

I guess we're supposed to believe that a government run <i>as a business</i> would somehow magically be more responsible than both the government you're currently arguing against, and the corporation that you admit would abuse it's military power.

In any case, as a business it will need investors which will mean it will be even more beholden to the wealthy than it is now. Right now the only real control the wealthy have is campaign contributions, which completely relies on our inability to see what is going on. As a private business, the government becomes dependant on the funding of the wealthy the common citizen loses any say at all.

So now are you trying to claim a National Bank is not a domestic service?

You are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

In other words yes, but you'd rather insult me than admit you contradicted yourself.

A domestic service does not equal government as a whole. Any organization that provides service in the United States, and is based in the United States is a domestic service.

A national bank would be one such organization. Am I going to have to assume that you don't understand logic or context and explain every little goddamn thing to you?

But your argument was that the public would not allow a domestic service to raise a military. You are still contradicting yourself and just fucking dancing around the issue. National Bank is supposed to earn money to raise the military. It is a domestic service. You said the public would not allow a domestic service to raise a military.

Make up your fucking mind.

In any case yo ustill want to run the government as a business, with a National Bank as it's means of earning money instead of taxation. This is nothing but an invitation to outlaw other banks so that the National Bank can be gauranteed to earn money. Plus case the National Bank has de facto control over the military because they control it's funding.

So, even if it were possible to raise money for the military through a National Bank it's probably the worse idea ever. This, of course, ignores the fact that the National Bank has to have capital in the first place and that you are placing funding of the military on the shoulders of what could be a risky venture.

The fact of the matter is that there has always been a concept of ownership. Acient man would own things like crops or tools. Even in Native American societies that lacked the concept of private property, the tribes still had a concept of collective ownership and territory.

Even assuming you're right, which is bullshit, how well did that work out for the Native Americans? Oh right, we own all their territory now and have relegated them to small communities.

Yep, they sure had a "right" to own that property.

Territoriality is not a human invention, it's an animal trait. If a bear operates his own hunting grounds, those grounds are his, and any other bear or predator that intrudes on them is invading what he perceives to be his.

But we're talking about property rights, not territoriality.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, but defined what freedoms the government has no ability to encroach upon, until recently, when Ammendments have begun to define what freedoms the government can encroach upon.

People do have a fundamental right to justice, but what that justice involves is a societal construct. A "fair trial" in the United States may not particularly be a fair trial in other societies, particularly when we think conscripting random citizens to serve on juries makes them a defender's peer. The perception of a fair trial has changed over the centuries, not whether or not one is entitled to a fair trial.

So are you saying that we don't have a right to a fair trial? Or are you saying that a mob going out and stoning the wrong person, in absence of a trial, is justice? Ooh I know! How about we start drowning people to determine if they were a witch or not? That's "justice" isn't it? That's what we have a right to?

Furthermore, I am talking about the real world. If programs have been cut under the pretext of reducing the size of government, then representatives will come under incredible scrutiny when people notice that taxes aren't getting lower, or that the National Debt isn't being payed off. Representatives are only accountable to financial backers because their voting blocs are ignorant of relevant issues. Why do you think Gay Rights and Abortion keep coming up every election year? Because every other year, they're non-issues. They're political tools used to distract people from their real problems during the voting season, and so long as voters are distracted and ignorant, then Representatives can get away with whatever shit they please.

I thought people were incapable of affecting the government? something about only the wealthy having a say right? Right?

There are such things as Watchdog Groups, Sarvis. Organizations keep track of government funds both externally and internally in an effort to minimize corruption. If people know they're being lied to, then the results would be catastrophic for a politician.

Yeah, and? Maybe you should stop being so scared of the government then.

People might buy the lack of WMDs in Iraq as a mistake, but they won't buy it when their taxes aren't getting any lower.

I understand your perceived need for taxation and the supposed benefits it provides, what I don't understand is how you keep formulating arguments that have no actual basis on anything that we've said in this thread. You aren't just making straw men, you're arguing points that simply aren't there. In the psychological world, they call that schizophrenia.

If you say so. I'm still waiting to find out how you can realistically fund the military with bake sales.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

What you had written at the time was a direct fucking response to the question "What would prevent mergers from happening?" yet you STILL cling to the belief that you meant something else?

Fuck the fuck off.

You know, it's not like other people seem to have an especially hard time understanding my meaning. It's not like everyone else in this argument regularly resorts to telling other people they have discussions with they really need to follow their train of thought to its logical conclusion rather than immediately jumping to the conclusion that makes them appear most absurd.

At some point you really need to figure out the common factor in all of your various frustrations is you and not the fact that everyone but you is stupid and crazy, and then maybe there will be some hope for improvement. Or just keep lashing out wildly at the world and develop a martyr complex at your constant persecution, not like there's anything I can do about it.

 

[Bradylama]

Ok fine, but I doubt you'll find many of the guns&ammo crowed who would side with the military over the militias.

In theory, if that ever became an issue, then all citizens would be obligated to side with the militias since the military would be used as a tool of oppression.

So let me get this straight. You want to havea government, but basically have it run like a private business... and that is supposed to be more accountable than a public corporation or democratically elected government is?

A government that runs its services like business can still be representative. The end result is one in which all voters behave like stockholders.

I guess we're supposed to believe that a government run as a business would somehow magically be more responsible than both the government you're currently arguing against, and the corporation that you admit would abuse it's military power.

Considering how it would have to work and compete for funding instead of merely taking it, then yes, it would have to be more responsible.

The only thing I admitted to was that the use of an army leads to abuse. Our own national miltary is abused as it is, which was my basis for arguing that people wouldn't support the National Bank raising its own private military.

In any case, as a business it will need investors which will mean it will be even more beholden to the wealthy than it is now. Right now the only real control the wealthy have is campaign contributions, which completely relies on our inability to see what is going on. As a private business, the government becomes dependant on the funding of the wealthy the common citizen loses any say at all.

This whole argument is conceptually confusing. If the government were run as a business, then it would have to be accountable to its constituents (customers) and not just those who invest in it. People invest in a business because they expect a return, and the only way to generate those returns is by maintaining profits, and the way you generate profits is by keeping or attracting more customers. Hiking prices to generate a higher profit/cost ratio will cause one to lose business as people buy from private alternatives with lower prices.

Then you go on to imply that common citizens have a say when it comes to deals we're entirely unaware of. That's supposed to make sense, how?

But your argument was that the public would not allow a domestic service to raise a military. You are still contradicting yourself and just fucking dancing around the issue. National Bank is supposed to earn money to raise the military. It is a domestic service. You said the public would not allow a domestic service to raise a military.

I said that the public would not allow the National Bank to raise it's own military. I.e., a military that is loyal not to the United States, but the National Bank.

When I said "a domestic service," I was referring to a singular entity, that being, in context, the hypothetical National Bank. I did not say that people wouldn't support that the funds generated by the National Bank be used to invest in a national military. I said, very specifically:

The idea that people would support a domestic service raising its own private army is ludicrous

In this sentance, the subject is the domestic service. Since I said that it'd be raising its own army, its takes on a possessive connotation, i.e., the army in question is that of the domestic service. Since I referred to "a" domestic service, the subject is singular, as in, not a part of a collective, or plurality, which would include all services of government, or an industry. Since I was referring to the hypothetical National Bank, in context, the implication was that I said people wouldn't support the National Bank raising its own private army, i.e., an army loyal to the National Bank.

Grammar, was also something you apparently didn't learn in school, and it appears that I do, in fact, have to explain every goddamn thing to you.

In any case yo ustill want to run the government as a business, with a National Bank as it's means of earning money instead of taxation. This is nothing but an invitation to outlaw other banks so that the National Bank can be gauranteed to earn money.

At which point it wouldn't actually be a business, but a State Monopoly, which in the context of a Libertarian society, would be Unconstitutional.

Plus case the National Bank has de facto control over the military because they control it's funding.

That's like saying that the IRS and the Treasury Department have de facto control over the military. The fact of the matter is that it simply isn't so, since the military budget is set by Congress, and the military itself is commanded by the President.

This also discounts other sources of funding from any number of government-run businesses, such as State hospitals and schools.

This, of course, ignores the fact that the National Bank has to have capital in the first place and that you are placing funding of the military on the shoulders of what could be a risky venture.

The source of capital for the National Bank would come from the pre-existing treasury, after which the bank would be run based on the interest it makes on loans. In the case of there being no pre-existing treasury, i.e., a new country, then original capital can be generated through the sale of bonds, or quite simply, through the donations of those who are interested in the enterprise of the new nation.

Even assuming you're right, which is bullshit, how well did that work out for the Native Americans? Oh right, we own all their territory now and have relegated them to small communities.

The domination of the Native Americans by European settlers is dependant on a number of factors outside of the lack of a pre-existing concept of private ownership.

It's like attributing the American victory in the Revolution solely to French intervention.

Yep, they sure had a "right" to own that property.

They did have a right to their property, which is why they agreed to sell it in exchange for European goods. In the case where white settlers simply came in and didn't recognize the land as belonging to Native Americans, it bread resentment, and caused backlashes in the form of most Native American tribes siding with the French. Simply because Europeans didn't recognize their property did not mean that the Native Americans hadn't perceived it as theirs, and that their rightful lands were being unjustly infringed upon.

Because you are being forcefully denied a right does not mean that it isn't inherent.

But we're talking about property rights, not territoriality.

They are ultimately one in the same. Property is ultimately that which is attributed to the ownership by an individual or collective. In the case of a territory, one attributes the control of land to an entity. We cannot simply attribute private ownership of land to territory anymore, however, since as people surrendered sovereignty to the state, one had to call the land they owned property in order to avoid confusion.

My point being, that the "right to property" is an extension of the animalistic desire to own things and territory, and an inherent trait in all people.

That's probably very poorly worded. I couldn't really think of a good way to put my thoughts into words, so forgive for any confusion.

So are you saying that we don't have a right to a fair trial? Or are you saying that a mob going out and stoning the wrong person, in absence of a trial, is justice? Ooh I know! How about we start drowning people to determine if they were a witch or not? That's "justice" isn't it? That's what we have a right to?

Yes, that's exactly what people have a right to. While one can claim the right to "justice" or a "fair trial" both concepts are subjective, and can only be defined by a collective. One can have a trial by one's peers in the absence of government.

Ultimately, one can only be denied a fair trial, not granted one. Take, for instance, the state of courts in the Southern United States following the Reconstruction. Would black defendents have claimed that an all-white jury represented a body of his peers?

I thought people were incapable of affecting the government? something about only the wealthy having a say right? Right?

What I said was that the wealthy only have a say in representative government when voters are kept ignorant of relevant issues. Which is the case right now, in this country.

Yeah, and? Maybe you should stop being so scared of the government then.

That's just it, Sarvis. I'm not afraid of the government. What I fear is how the government chooses to excercize its powers, and how in the current state of politics, Representatives have no actual accountability. This precipitates the need for a Watchdog Group to exist, in order to inform society of the inner workings of government, so that negative trends can be avoided.

That is how we reduce the size of government, by making representatives accountable to voters through scrutiny.

If you say so. I'm still waiting to find out how you can realistically fund the military with bake sales.

The bake sale was a joke. That said, a military is still capable of raising its own funds through donations, or by rendering other services, such as escort protection of shipping lanes and air ways. In any case, the end result is that the security of a nation depends on a people's willingness to maintain its security. If people aren't willing to fund a military willingly, then they would be held accountable in the natural fashion. (i.e. exploitation by foreign power)

 

[Sarvis]

You know, it's not like other people seem to have an especially hard time understanding my meaning. It's not like everyone else in this argument regularly resorts to telling other people they have discussions with they really need to follow their train of thought to its logical conclusion rather than immediately jumping to the conclusion that makes them appear most absurd.

At some point you really need to figure out the common factor in all of your various frustrations is you and not the fact that everyone but you is stupid and crazy, and then maybe there will be some hope for improvement. Or just keep lashing out wildly at the world and develop a martyr complex at your constant persecution, not like there's anything I can do about it.

Tell me again about how "I said" some corporation should hold a coup. Or how "I said" it was impossible to end programs without cutting taxes. Or any of the other things you like to believe I said, when I really didn't.

Was I making an argument based on politicians not cutting taxes? Yes. That doesn't mean I said it was impossible.

Just like when I said a corporation could raise a military, <i>like the East India company <b>did</b></i>, I did not in any way state that they should hold a coup. In fact, if I had known about the East India company at the time I would have linked to it as an example of what I was talking about... but we had to end up doing 3 pages of argument about starting a coup because you chose to put words in my mouth.

I may be a common element in all my frustrations, but so are you.

But no, I'm sure the guy who just equated the Right to a Fair Trial with a mob throwing a suspected witch into a lake to see if she floats or drowns is the sane one.

In any case not one of you has done a thing to prove that you are forced to pay taxes, especially in light of DarkUnderlord pointing out that there are a few countries with no taxes.

Another thing I could point out is that you enjoy the protections given by the Constitution, despite having never signed any agreement to abide by or to fall under it. Why is the constitution valid for you buy default, if taxes are not?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Speaking of the Constitution, have you read Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner? I'm not a full-blown anarchist like him, but I do think the articles of confederation were preferable to the Constitution.

Running the government like a business would likely make it more efficient and coherent. However, that might not necessarily be a good thing. I am interested in Robin Hanson's idea on how to run government modeled on betting.

 

[kingcomrade]

Great God Pan you are always full of interesting links, good on you

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

This thread gets my "off-topic discussion of the year" award. No competition.