Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2013, 05:45 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Happy to.

http://www.livescience.com/1257-study-re...anked.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly" would be just a blatantly incorrect statement,"

Really? Look, I don't expect anyone to just take my opinion on things. In fact, I want people to go out and find the evidence themselves. Or, at the very least, find other opinions. To wit:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...force.html

To further explain how it works... regardless of whether it is a monarchy, a democracy, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, a fascist, communist or socialist nation state, when the rules of the state are broken, the state reserves the ultimate right to murder the rule breaker in the event that rule breaker doesn't comply with them. That means that if I refuse to pay property taxes because from a strictly moral point of view, I view the uses of my money by the state to be harmful, immoral or otherwise illegitimate and... I ignore the letters they send me and... I fail to show up in court and... I defend my property from the men who come to kidnap me, in the same manner I would defend it from a would be burglar, they will shoot me fucking dead. And it's because they have people brainwashed into thinking they are a legitimate, benevolent group of philanthropists rather than the tyrannical, murderous band of thieves they actually are, that they get away with murdering the people they are supposed to protect every single day.

You can disagree, but you cannot change a thing by not understanding it.


"However, you can't label them as libertarians either, because it's not
taking into account the context of the circumstances they were in."

Oh, right. And you also can't call the people in the Bible murderers, child rapists, slave traders, etc. For the same reasons, obviously.

Makes perfect sense now. Blink
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
18-02-2013, 06:30 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2013 06:37 PM by bemore.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 06:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  ...... it's because they have people brainwashed into thinking they are a legitimate, benevolent group of philanthropists rather than the tyrannical, murderous band of thieves they actually are, that they get away with murdering the people they are supposed to protect every single day......
+ 1,000,000

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 08:23 PM
Re: RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 06:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly" would be just a blatantly incorrect statement,"

Really? Look, I don't expect anyone to just take my opinion on things. In fact, I want people to go out and find the evidence themselves. Or, at the very least, find other opinions. To wit:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...force.html

To further explain how it works... regardless of whether it is a monarchy, a democracy, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, a fascist, communist or socialist nation state, when the rules of the state are broken, the state reserves the ultimate right to murder the rule breaker in the event that rule breaker doesn't comply with them. That means that if I refuse to pay property taxes because from a strictly moral point of view, I view the uses of my money by the state to be harmful, immoral or otherwise illegitimate and... I ignore the letters they send me and... I fail to show up in court and... I defend my property from the men who come to kidnap me, in the same manner I would defend it from a would be burglar, they will shoot me fucking dead. And it's because they have people brainwashed into thinking they are a legitimate, benevolent group of philanthropists rather than the tyrannical, murderous band of thieves they actually are, that they get away with murdering the people they are supposed to protect every single day.

You can disagree, but you cannot change a thing by not understanding it.


"However, you can't label them as libertarians either, because it's not
taking into account the context of the circumstances they were in."

Oh, right. And you also can't call the people in the Bible murderers, child rapists, slave traders, etc. For the same reasons, obviously.

Makes perfect sense now. Blink

A monopoly of violence and a violent monopoly are not the same things by any means.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 12:47 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"A monopoly of violence and a violent monopoly are not the same things by any means."

Do you mind demonstrating that syllogistically?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 02:01 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2013 02:04 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(17-02-2013 10:03 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  So, the transitional stage is what is important. You would either assume that it would be through a governmental, political process, or some sort of violent, revolutionary war, that would not promise favorable results, as history has shown. Ruling out the latter, the goal would have to be toward getting the wheels rolling on the political process, realizing that if you're not going to violently overthrow a government, you have to, at least currently, work with what you have.

I think we all realize that education, information and exposure, are the keys to get people to lean toward progressive/liberal ideas and to the left, and those are really the keys to get society in general, democracy in general, working. That would bring up the hard part of actually getting enough political power to influences people's education, and getting enough exposure to effect people's views with objective information, and get them introduced and exposed to good ideas and the reality of certain situations.
Looks like neither. The people of Iceland made a peaceful revolution without political parties and without trashing the government buildings. They had to endure some police violence, but they were successful. But certainly, it requires educated people. My people are still stupid, afraid of powerless Communists (who would be as easily bought as the current government, should it come to that) and apathetic. Not realizing, that this apathy is, what keeps them working and paying still more.

That being said, I don't look forward to violence at all. I'm not a fighting type, a single policeman's blow would likely take me out and I couldn't hit one with a paving stone even if I wanted.

You're right, working with what we have, I emphasized that very point recently - too many liberals have pipe dreams of "if only we had already removed all obstacles to free market" and they get left behind in activism with the dirty instruments of today - like suing the bad people.
You're right, people are leaning left and progressive, at least those who have nothing to lose or think ahead. People want to do what they like, not to do something to get money to do what they like. Capitalism is not a goal, it's just a way to the goal. People don't want to put the cart in front of the horse anymore, the work in front of life.

Yay, but I'm ranting again! Better look at this video, how protestant religion gave rise to capitalism. The prosperity gospel is not quite a modern invention. However, industriousness needs rationality and rationality will undermine religion. Is it possible that without religion we return back to the leftist values, enjoying life here and now? I hope so!



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 06:02 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(19-02-2013 12:47 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "A monopoly of violence and a violent monopoly are not the same things by any means."

Do you mind demonstrating that syllogistically?
I didn't care to initially since everything in this thread is just falling off either ignored or slipping into other varying topics of discussion, but alright.

In the sense of controlling what goes and doesn't, government does have a monopoly on violence.

There isn't one government offering a commodity... no government is a monopoly in a world where one has the ability to uproot and attempt to be under the service of another government or none in the varying areas the situation exists. You can survive and exist in functioning locations without government; So in whatever way it's meant in that statement, there are options opposed to governments. The seas, secluded areas with reasources, and islands... The frontier is not without existence. Plus Glenn Beck-istan is soon to be formed, supposedly.

I'm not going to say government isn't a violence system, but I don't see it as being a monopoly or any particular current government as such. I supposed it could boil down to what you would declare your "services" of government to be... security and sustainability is what I would be seeing as the basis standings of your claims.

By that thinking I suppose one could say government has a monopoly on societies; others would probably argue that government creates or equals society.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"There isn't one government offering a commodity... no government is a
monopoly in a world where one has the ability to uproot and attempt to
be under the service of another government or none in the varying areas
the situation exists."

If that's true then there is no such thing as monopoly. After all, if Nike is the only shoe you can buy in North America, you can always go to Malaysia or Pakistan to get shoes. Thus... no monopolies exist.


"I supposed it could boil down to what you would declare your "services" of government to be..."

My declaration is that government does not provide any services to me. It takes my money under the threat of murder and spends it in ways that I would not. Moreover, it has absolutely no obligation to either protect me or ensure that, if I am harmed, I receive restitution from the perpetrator. Yet money is taken from me, ostensibly, for those purposes.

"By that thinking I suppose one could say government has a monopoly on
societies; others would probably argue that government creates or equals
society."

Government is a concept that can create nothing. People create and equal governments and societies. Therefore, if I cannot expect my fellow human to care about me if I voluntarily contract him for services, what should make me think I can expect him to care about me if I make him my master?


Syllogistically, your argument that monopolies on violence can not be violent monopolies can be refuted as such:

1. Violence is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

2. Monopoly is exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

3. A monopoly on violence compels the monopolist to use violence.

4. Therefore, a monopoly on violence must necessarily be a violent monopoly.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(18-02-2013 06:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly" would be just a blatantly incorrect statement,"

Really? Look, I don't expect anyone to just take my opinion on things. In fact, I want people to go out and find the evidence themselves. Or, at the very least, find other opinions. To wit:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...force.html

To further explain how it works... regardless of whether it is a monarchy, a democracy, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, a fascist, communist or socialist nation state, when the rules of the state are broken, the state reserves the ultimate right to murder the rule breaker in the event that rule breaker doesn't comply with them. That means that if I refuse to pay property taxes because from a strictly moral point of view, I view the uses of my money by the state to be harmful, immoral or otherwise illegitimate and... I ignore the letters they send me and... I fail to show up in court and... I defend my property from the men who come to kidnap me, in the same manner I would defend it from a would be burglar, they will shoot me fucking dead. And it's because they have people brainwashed into thinking they are a legitimate, benevolent group of philanthropists rather than the tyrannical, murderous band of thieves they actually are, that they get away with murdering the people they are supposed to protect every single day.

You can disagree, but you cannot change a thing by not understanding it.


"However, you can't label them as libertarians either, because it's not
taking into account the context of the circumstances they were in."

Oh, right. And you also can't call the people in the Bible murderers, child rapists, slave traders, etc. For the same reasons, obviously.

Makes perfect sense now. Blink

Saying something that is incorrect, over and over to yourself, and blatantly ignoring any argument, point or contrary opinion, doesn't make it correct.

A murderer is a murder-- by definition. Same thing would apply to a rapist being a rapist, a slave trader being a slave trader.

However, you can not say X is A, without providing how, unless it is self-evident and accepted; that is called begging the question, or you may provide a circular argument. You have to provide a definition for A, and show that X fits within the realm of that definition. It's called logic.

Beyond just begging the question, you have made another legitimate, logical fallacy by simply posting something by Max Weber. Do you think I care about Max Weber's irrelevant opinions? Some random guy had a idea, named in such a way that it fits with something I agree as being an actual definition, therefor my definition is correct, is not a legitimately valid argument.

A government by definition includes absolutely nothing, in any definition that I've heard, in my entire life, that makes it a requirement, that a government is violent. That is because it's not required for government, specifically the people a part of it, to be violent, or use violence, or force.

And a government is also, not a monopoly, even using the term outside of the traditional, economical sense. There is always and will always be a separation between civil society and the governmental system applicable to the state. Using the word legitimate, doesn't make it legitimate, and it doesn't make it exclusive.

If you are a slave, you are choosing to be a slave, through free-will (if it exists) or just naturally. If you don't want to be a slave, you fight and kill, if you can't fight and kill, or do so unsuccessfully, die. If you don't want to die, then stop bitching about it, and get back to being a slave.

A uniform doesn't change the fact that you can't fight and kill. If you can't fight and kill a person, or group of people, pledging allegiance to a state, you can't fight and kill a person, or people, pledging allegiance to the fact that they want what you have and are deciding to take it by force.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
You seem to be quite keen on trying to point out fallacies in the arguments of others. Perhaps you should apply that same scrutiny to your own.

Good day.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: