Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2014, 02:10 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 01:59 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Did I miss some link earlier in the thread? Why do you keep saying people get shot for not paying taxes? Has this actually happened? Where?

His reasoning not mine:

- Person decides not to pay taxes
- Police come around to arrest said person (because they didn't show up to court or whatever)
- Person tells Police to not enter his property
- Police have warrant so do so anyway.
- Person defends property and shoots cops.
- Cops shoot back and kill person.

Thus (remember, his logic not mine), person was shot for not paying taxes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 03:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 01:59 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Did I miss some link earlier in the thread? Why do you keep saying people get shot for not paying taxes? Has this actually happened? Where?
I think I described it once. The state has a monopoly on violence. Some people decide that you must pay. If you don't, and I mean really don't pay, no matter what, not much happens at first. You get a lot of scary letters. But the state keeps upping the number until it is enough to raid your home with a SWAT team. If you treat the raid like you would treat any armed band of burglars, that is, with a defensive fire, in the intent of not paying taxes, you get shot.
With not paying taxes no matter what, you don't get shot immediately, but there is a direct causal chain of you getting shot. It's not if, it's when. So let's not pretend there is some sort of debate called "social contract", there isn't. There's a gun in the room.
Oh, they may throw you in jail, or freeze your bank account, but if you act to get your money back, as you would from robbers, you still get shot.
A debate about that is like a bunch of blacks having a slavery debate 200 years ago.

Also, please let's not pretend to have a capitalism debate, we all enjoy capitalism very much, it's all what we have. If we decide to buy or sell something, we do it without a debate about capitalism - and we do not want anyone to tell us what we can or can't sell or at what price. That's our business, it's called liberty.
Everybody is a genius, everybody knows what I'm talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 03:36 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 04:16 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 01:59 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Did I miss some link earlier in the thread? Why do you keep saying people get shot for not paying taxes? Has this actually happened? Where?
I think I described it once. The state has a monopoly on violence.

And in a democratic state, they are answerable to the citizens. Remember that the motto of the police is to 'serve and protect' the citizens.


(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Some people decide that you must pay.

'Some people' = the general consensus that realizes that government serves an important and vital function, and needs a way to raise revenue to continue doing so.


(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you don't, and I mean really don't pay, no matter what, not much happens at first. You get a lot of scary letters. But the state keeps upping the number until it is enough to raid your home with a SWAT team.

Unless you pose an imminent threat, they don't use SWAT. They're intended for intervention in situations with armed individuals, like hostage situations and standoffs with armed individuals or groups. SWAT aren't traffic cops or debt collectors.


(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you treat the raid like you would treat any armed band of burglars, that is, with a defensive fire, in the intent of not paying taxes, you get shot.

You shot at people carrying out the law in the course of their duties, as a part of their job. Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't grant you the right to use violence and expect it to not be returned in kind you fucking dumbass.


(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  With not paying taxes no matter what, you don't get shot immediately, but there is a direct causal chain of you getting shot.

You make yourself an outlaw and advocate shooting at those whose job is to carry out the law, and act surprised when they don't take kindly to being shot at. You are that fucking stupid...


(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not if, it's when. So let's not pretend there is some sort of debate called "social contract", there isn't. There's a gun in the room.
Oh, they may throw you in jail, or freeze your bank account, but if you act to get your money back, as you would from robbers, you still get shot.
A debate about that is like a bunch of blacks having a slavery debate 200 years ago.

Your head is shoved so far up your ass, I'm surprised you can see daylight.


(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Also, please let's not pretend to have a capitalism debate, we all enjoy capitalism very much, it's all what we have. If we decide to buy or sell something, we do it without a debate about capitalism - and we do not want anyone to tell us what we can or can't sell or at what price.

Fuck you. I want regulation to encourage the public good, such as preventing the selling of poisonous or obviously harmful food. By employing government oversight, we can go to a supermarket fairly confident that the food won't poison us. It allows us to spend less time and effort vetting all of our food ourselves, allowing more time and effort to be spent in other pursuits. We don't all need to be experts screening all of our own food, making sure it doesn't contain rat poison; we get the government to have an organization of trained professionals and the power to enforce regulation to do that for us.

(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's our business, it's called liberty.
Everybody is a genius, everybody knows what I'm talking about.


No, they are not. And your liberty ends when it starts interfering with other's people's liberty; and you've still never adequately explained or provided evidence for your assertion that we'll all magically stop being ignorant, greedy, assholes as soon as we get rid of the state... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-08-2014, 04:30 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 04:38 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And in a democratic state, they are answerable to the citizens. Remember that the motto of the police is to 'serve and protect' the citizens.

'Some people' = the general consensus that realizes that government serves an important and vital function, and needs a way to raise revenue to continue doing so.
I don't care what they say. I don't give a shit about general consensus. The general consensus 200 years ago was that evolution is a lie and that God created the world.
I care what they do. It's called empiricism.
http://policestateusa.com

(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unless you pose an imminent threat, they don't use SWAT. They're intended for intervention in situations with armed individuals, like hostage situations and standoffs with armed individuals or groups. SWAT aren't traffic cops or debt collectors.
Nope, not really. Who raided a wrong house due to suspicion of drug possesion and threw a flash grenade right on top of a sleeping baby? And nobody gets prosecuted? I tell you, they won't even do surveillance of who's in the house.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/swat-...n-playpen/

(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you treat the raid like you would treat any armed band of burglars, that is, with a defensive fire, in the intent of not paying taxes, you get shot.

(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You shot at people carrying out the law in the course of their duties, as a part of their job. Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't grant you the right to use violence and expect it to not be returned in kind you fucking dumbass.
Again, I don't give a shit about what people claim is their job. If I write a napkin saying that it's the law and my job to get your wallet, it's just as good as an argument. Napkin says it's law and my job, it says so right here on the napkin! If I'm not in it, then it's no fuckin' consensus.
You know what? Gang rape is a big majority consensus.

(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You make yourself an outlaw and advocate shooting at those whose job is to carry out the law, and act surprised when they don't take kindly to being shot at. You are that fucking stupid...
Out-what? Law is what is written on a napkin. How do I know? It says so right here on the napkin.

(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you. I want regulation to encourage the public good, such as preventing the selling of poisonous or obviously harmful food. By employing government oversight, we can go to a supermarket fairly confident that the food won't poison us. It allows us to spend less time and effort vetting all of our food ourselves, allowing more time and effort to be spent in other pursuits. We don't all need to be experts screening all of our own food, making sure it doesn't contain rat poison; we get the government to have an organization of trained professionals and the power to enforce regulation to do that for us.
If you don't want poisonous or harmful things, don't buy them. If you don't trust a supermarket, don't go buying there.
But don't support a global murder empire to check food for you. And, fuck you too, for supporting violent mobsters.

(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, they are not. And your liberty ends when it starts interfering with other's people's liberty; and you've still never adequately explained or provided evidence for your assertion that we'll all magically stop being ignorant, greedy, assholes as soon as we get rid of the state... Facepalm
You haven't explained how do you magically prevent all the ignorant, greedy assholes from massing together into the state positions, which is what they generally do. Yay, free power!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 04:39 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Quote:I don't care what they say.

[Image: 1342170168.jpg]

"But I don't wanna go to bed!!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
13-08-2014, 05:55 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 06:11 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 04:30 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And in a democratic state, they are answerable to the citizens. Remember that the motto of the police is to 'serve and protect' the citizens.

'Some people' = the general consensus that realizes that government serves an important and vital function, and needs a way to raise revenue to continue doing so.
I don't care what they say. I don't give a shit about general consensus. The general consensus 200 years ago was that evolution is a lie and that God created the world.
I care what they do. It's called empiricism.
http://policestateusa.com

Lumi, I'm going to give you ten seconds to stop, reconsider what you just wrote, and see if you don't want to retract it before I shove your point back so far up your ass it'll be knocking your teeth out of your mouth.

Done? Reconsidered? No?

Good, let's get started.

Your argument here boils down to 'only consequences matter, not principles'. Okay, let's run with that. we have plenty of examples of states that are, get this, not police states or fascist dictatorships! We have plenty of examples of states that are horribly supressive, and others that wonderfully progressive.

Here you try to single out and implicate the United States, presumable to damn the underlying principles of a democratic republic state, by pointing to the abuses of some police forces within it. Your argument being "your systems allows for some police to abuse their power, therefore the state is unjust". Okay, now let's apply the same idea but reverse it. Let's look at examples of state-less regions, and let's look at their track record for protecting human rights and freedom. Do you really want me to go there? because I don't know of any state-less, anarchy friendly region that is not consumed by war, strife, and human rights violations on a scope and scale as to me the LAPD blush.

Now here is where you might attempt to argue, "that's not fair, they're not following my principles!". Fair enough, to which I'd retort, the abuses of the police forces stem from them not abiding by the principles of a representative government and the consensus of their citizens. The police, much like elected officials, are 'public servants'; problems and abuse arise when they're no longer held accountable to that standard. I propose that the system we have is in dire need cleaning and restructuring, fist among them being election reform to attempt to regain the democratic process and make government once more accountable to the will of the people it is meant to represent. On the other hand you think we should ditch the whole thing. But whereas I can point to examples of current states that operate peacefully and well, what examples do you have of peaceful anarchy of a nation-sized region?



(13-08-2014 04:30 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unless you pose an imminent threat, they don't use SWAT. They're intended for intervention in situations with armed individuals, like hostage situations and standoffs with armed individuals or groups. SWAT aren't traffic cops or debt collectors.
Nope, not really. Who raided a wrong house due to suspicion of drug possesion and threw a flash grenade right on top of a sleeping baby? And nobody gets prosecuted? I tell you, they won't even do surveillance of who's in the house.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/swat-...n-playpen/

An unfortunate casualty of the misplaced 'war on drugs', which when combined with the 'war on terror', has seen a steady trend of abuse and the use of excessive force. I'll not deny that, because I don't condone it either. The DA and the police aren't as accountable as I would like them to be, and that can be fixed; we can change the system without burning it all down around us.



(13-08-2014 04:30 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you treat the raid like you would treat any armed band of burglars, that is, with a defensive fire, in the intent of not paying taxes, you get shot.
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You shot at people carrying out the law in the course of their duties, as a part of their job. Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't grant you the right to use violence and expect it to not be returned in kind you fucking dumbass.
Again, I don't give a shit about what people claim is their job. If I write a napkin saying that it's the law and my job to get your wallet, it's just as good as an argument. Napkin says it's law and my job, it says so right here on the napkin! If I'm not in it, then it's no fuckin' consensus.
You know what? Gang rape is a big majority consensus.

See the first point, where I absolutely ruin your shit when you attempt to argue 'only consequences matter' in your favor.

Also, that gang rape is still a violation of the consensus (at least here in the United States). Here in the US we have outlawed rape, because we have a consensus that forcing sexual intercourse upon another individual against their consent is wrong. This is put into law, a law enforce by those whose job it is to enforce the law (i.e. police). So the 'consensus' of the gang rapists is superseded by the consensus of the much larger group of people (the country) that have already weighed in on this issue with laws and regulations. If they do commit rape, they are in violation of that consensus and will be brought to justice for defying it; and no amount of crying out to libertarian principles (or statist strawmen) will save them.

Fucking hell, we should give you your own law (like Godwin's) for crying 'Rape' to justify your position... Facepalm



(13-08-2014 04:30 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You make yourself an outlaw and advocate shooting at those whose job is to carry out the law, and act surprised when they don't take kindly to being shot at. You are that fucking stupid...
Out-what? Law is what is written on a napkin. How do I know? It says so right here on the napkin.

Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't make you immune to the repercussions if you violate it in certain ways. Actions have consequences, and unilaterally defying the agreed upon consensus (laws) will have repercussions (being found in violation of said laws). And they do have the power to enforce it, with force if necessary, because enough of them agreed that they can and should. Don't like it? Try to argue for a change in the consensus; but just flat out ignoring it will bite you in the ass.



(13-08-2014 04:30 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you. I want regulation to encourage the public good, such as preventing the selling of poisonous or obviously harmful food. By employing government oversight, we can go to a supermarket fairly confident that the food won't poison us. It allows us to spend less time and effort vetting all of our food ourselves, allowing more time and effort to be spent in other pursuits. We don't all need to be experts screening all of our own food, making sure it doesn't contain rat poison; we get the government to have an organization of trained professionals and the power to enforce regulation to do that for us.
If you don't want poisonous or harmful things, don't buy them. If you don't trust a supermarket, don't go buying there.
But don't support a global murder empire to check food for you. And, fuck you too, for supporting violent mobsters.

Because the market will magically label everything perfectly (even though there is no regulation making them do so), and will never lie about the labeling (even though there is no ramification for defying non-existent regulation), and you'll never have to worry about seeking redress from the seller because they will never do wrong (even though this have never been observed and has no basis in empirical reality), and they can be trusted to never do wrong because of their reputation (even though public trust would be issue given non-perfect information availability); and all of this will work because of free-market capitalism?

Send in the magically free-market pixies, we need more pixie-dust here to hide reality!

People and corporations can, and very often will, do whatever they can get away with. You've never made a compelling case for how making it even harder to hold them accountable for their actions, will be a net positive. Arguably our biggest problem in the United States right now is the lack of accountability; corporations are not accountable to the government, the elected officials and the police are not accountable to the people. How is less accountability here going to make things better jackass?



(13-08-2014 04:30 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, they are not. And your liberty ends when it starts interfering with other's people's liberty; and you've still never adequately explained or provided evidence for your assertion that we'll all magically stop being ignorant, greedy, assholes as soon as we get rid of the state... Facepalm
You haven't explained how do you magically prevent all the ignorant, greedy assholes from massing together into the state positions, which is what they generally do. Yay, free power!

You make the government accountable to the people, and make it responsive to the consensus. There is no guarantee that things won't go 'wrong', and to demand otherwise is naive in the extreme; we are all human after all. The single, most fundamental aspect that neither of us can do away with the people themselves. I hope that by having people participate in a government that efficiently represents them, so that they can negotiate and come to terms and create agreed upon consensuses that will help them all to get alone and operate with one another. This will allow the government and the laws to change as the people change, and this is what he have (in principle, if not always in practice) in the United States. Even the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is amenable to later revisions to reflect the changes in society and the world. It has been changed in the past, and will be changed in the future. This relies on the government representing and operating on a general bell curve. Just look at marriage equality and the decriminalization of marijuana, see how things are progressing as the national consensus changes.

But no, somehow things will all magically be better when we have zero accountability and allow everyone to fend for themselves...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-08-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 01:59 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Did I miss some link earlier in the thread? Why do you keep saying people get shot for not paying taxes? Has this actually happened? Where?
You don't get shot for not paying taxes, you get shot for resisting. But between not paying and resisting and getting shot, there is a straight line of events.

(13-08-2014 02:10 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  1 - We don't have debtor's prisons in the United States. People in prison have a hard time paying back their debts (an astounding bit of logic, I know).

2 - IRS agents are not authorized to carry firearms.
1 - So how comes Al Capone got officially busted for avoiding taxes and ended up in prison? IIRC, you don't go to prison for normal debts in USA, unless it's a "debt" to the government or not paying your wife after divorce. I heard that recently about Robbie Williams, he went doing tour shows in his 60's, because he needed money for divorce settlement and could end up serving prison time if he didn't.

2 - Yes, and what does that mean, if they just can give a call to SWAT team or FBI? Nothing. One thing I can tell you about government agencies: they cooperate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 01:48 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 05:50 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Luminon, it will take a lot to convince me that your proposal could work. Allow me to provide you with a test protocol for a phase I trial:

1) Buy an island
2) Populate
3) Establish AnCap (why do I repulse at this nickname?)
4) Surpass the level of success currently enjoyed by most of the Free Western World

Then I *might* believe. However, should you claim success I will meet your results with great skepticism.

Best of luck.
Actually, there is an island very close to that! A former fishing village and a military base without any mineral resources. It's called Hong Kong Laugh out load

That wasn't true when frankksj jacked off to libertarian fantasies, and it's not true when you try.

Incidentally, there's a nearby example that is an illustration of what happens with no central authority. It turns out to be a violent criminal paradise, completely dependent on the utilities provided by the HK government. Who knew?

It's telling that fetishisation of the fantasy involves such an endorsement of colonialism; Hong Kong had no self-government under British rule. But we both know that scratching off the surface veneer of rhetoric reveals you and the likes of you to give zero shits about the rights and status of people who are not you.

But no, I'm totally sure that the status of Hong Kong as initially a refuge from and later the best entry point to mainland China has no bearing on its economy. I'm sure its role as gateway to one of the largest economies in the world has nothing to do with its success. And I'm sure the fact that the biggest boom years began in the 1970s after Deng's reforms began on the mainland is a pure and total coincidence.

And I'm also sure that contemporaneous dramatic economic growth of another city state, Singapore, under an authoritarian protectionist regime, and located at another global trade hotspot, can provide no parallels whatsoever.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 01:48 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If I lived 200 years ago. I'd want to be the guy who envisioned the end of slavery even though there was no convincing evidence that blacks are equal to whites or that cotton would get picked even without them. There was no such evidence beforehand, only a moral argument. I really wouldn't want to enter the history as a guy who was totally cheering pro-slavery unless there is some solid evidence and a sample island that non-slavery works. Trust me, people like Chas would be all with you thanks to best scientific evidence at the time that blacks have inferior cranial capacity and are generally less evolved and need regular doses of laudanum and mercury.

It's this kind of sanctimonious self-obsessed asshatery that makes you such an oblivious cunt.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 09:35 AM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 06:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 01:59 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Did I miss some link earlier in the thread? Why do you keep saying people get shot for not paying taxes? Has this actually happened? Where?
You don't get shot for not paying taxes, you get shot for resisting. But between not paying and resisting and getting shot, there is a straight line of events.

This doesn't exactly answer my question. You keep asserting things as though you are asserting from personal experience. So this was just speculation? You've never actually heard of someone being shot for not paying taxes?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: