[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 07:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 07:09 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But, assuming you were born in the US, you will ALSO have to pay US taxes, even if you never go back to the US..

That's the deal I signed when I used tax-deferred dollars to build up my retirement pot.

Girly, come on, you know that's not true. The laws we're talking about apply to EVERYBODY born in the US, and have nothing to do with tax-deferred dollars. I never signed any deal, nor did I take tax-deferred dollars. Heck I expatriated from the US when I was in my early 20's and hadn't even thought about retirement.

What happened is that Clinton ran for office on a pledge to raise income taxes. And when his opponents said that raising income taxes will change people's behavior in a negative way, such as stopping working and/or expatriating, the liberals said it was utter nonsense and that tax rates could go as high as 70% or so before people started changing their behavior. Naturally, all the Keyensian economists claimed to have proof of this. So Clinton came in and raised taxes, and gosh, what a surprise, the Keynesians were flat out wrong, the rates DID change behavior: Americans started expatriating in droves. But, the democrats, rather than saying "Sorry, we were wrong. Ooops.", instead they all labeled the expatriates as 'benedict arnolds'. Yes, the democrats insisted people would accept their new laws, and when the didn't, and the people started leaving, the democrats called them traitors. Typical. So they embedded laws in the 1996 HIPAA to make it difficult to expatriate. And, naturally, like all tyrants, it was applied retroactively. It didn't apply only to people born in the US after 1996 when the law passed, so parents could decide if they wanted to bring a child into the world in a country knowing he'd be trapped. No, the law applied to all US citizens.

That's the history. Nothing to do with 'tax-deferred retirement'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 09:56 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 07:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 07:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's the deal I signed when I used tax-deferred dollars to build up my retirement pot.

Girly, come on, you know that's not true.

Dude I got a TSP (read IRA) where I put tax-deferred dollars into my retirement pot. Deal is when I draw it out I'm gonna be taxed.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 06:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But what rule do you use to determine whether a law needs to be at the federal level? I have an established, pragmatic standard: when one jurisdiction is causing direct, physical damage to property in another jurisdiction (like air and water pollution), fine, there needs to be some remedy from a larger jurisdiction.

But I don't see you applying a standard other than that it's your opinion. For example, why do drug laws need to be federal? The US locks up millions of its citizens, destroying millions of lives, ruining their chances for any sort of future, just because they grew an unapproved weed in their back yard. If Colorado says "Hey, we think is crazy. Kids do stupid things and grow out of it. We want our minority youth to be in college, building a future to become productive members of society, not wallowing in prison so they end up broke, uneducated, unemployable and dependent on welfare." Is it directly hurting the other 49 states if Colorado has their own drug laws? Of course not. It doesn't "need" to be at the Federal level. Florida can still ban pot, and if they light up in Colorado it isn't going to destroy Florida's everglades. You "want" it to be at the federal level. What's missing in your statement is that while YOU may have opinions on things like drugs and consumer protections, OTHERS have equally valid differing opinions, and by making the laws at the Federal level you are only allowing one set of opinions to exist, and everybody else forced to deal with it. Whereas what I'm saying is "Sure, like you, I have an opinion on drugs, etc. BUT, I recognize other people have a different opinion that's just as valid, so we need a way for both opinions to coexist." Why is that offensive to non-libertarians? Why is it called "selfish"?

And why can't you see that when you don't apply a pragmatic, measurable standard to determine what MUST be a federal law, then really there is no standard. "Because I think so" isn't a standard. If we let voters all decide what laws should be local vs. universal, OF COURSE, everybody is going to say their laws need to be universal because everybody thinks they're right, everybody else is wrong, and they need universal laws to save the other morons from their own stupidity. That's the whole point of a constitution. It uses logic and reason to determine what MUST be done at the federal level (ie the enumerated powers) and mandates that everything else must be done at the state level so you don't have this barbaric "might makes right, winner takes all" system we have now that allows for only one set of opinions and everybody else has a gun to their head.

(16-05-2014 06:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  However, if you were free to leave the country with no strings attached, it doesn't really matter whether the laws are local or national, does it?

Of course it does! The city of Boston does NOT have a military and the power to force, say, Costa Rica, to monitor all former Bostonians, report back to Boston their whereabouts and all their activity, and send back any former Bostonians in Costa Rica who don't obey Boston municipal codes. The national government however does have that power and they do just that, such as FATCA, and what happened to Bobby Fischer. So, yes, even though I live in Switzerland and don't expect to ever move back to the US, it DOES have a huge effect on me whether Americans pass laws at the state or national level. State laws have no impact. But I break federal laws, like say Bush's executive order against Fischer playing chess in Yugoslavia, then the US will apply unbearable pressure to foreign governments until they force them to send me back.

You missed the part where I said " if you were free to leave the country with no strings attached"

But you're reading comprehension is questionable.



I said that what should be federal and what should not was a subject for discussion. How that translates "But I don't see you applying a standard other than that it's your opinion" is typical of the way you 'discuss' things. You need to stop assuming the other person's views and positions and actually ask a direct question.



I said "voting rights, consumer protection, food and drug laws, and the like." You misunderstood. I was referring to consumer protection, like the FDA. The federal government should not make laws to protect us from ourselves, such as the absurd 'war on drugs'.

And then you say "You 'want' it to be at the federal level." Just stop doing that. Really. It just makes you a fucking asshole when you do that.



"And why can't you see that when you don't apply a pragmatic, measurable standard to determine what MUST be a federal law, then really there is no standard." And there you go again. Why do you assume I don't have such a standard? Why are you such an insufferable asshole?



Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-05-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 07:02 PM)frankksj d
GirlyMan Wrote: <a href="http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-split-Ignorance-about-anarchism?pid=571519#pid571519" class="quick_jump">&nbsp;</a></cite>The fuck dude. I gotta file both Sateline=1400288956' Wrote:  tate and Federal. How many you count there?

I meant that, as a resident living in Costa Rica using government services, you would have to pay to Costa Rica obviously. But, assuming you were born in the US, you will ALSO have to pay US taxes, even if you never go back to the US.

Ain't got a problem with that, signed on to it when they made my retirement contributions tax-deferred. I am obligated.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 10:20 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 09:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Dude I got a TSP (read IRA) where I put tax-deferred dollars into my retirement pot. Deal is when I draw it out I'm gonna be taxed.

Of course. But that's got nothing to do with the law in question that says that even if live and work in Costa Rica for a local company and all your income comes from and is taxed by Costa Rica you STILL have to pay taxes to the US on top of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 10:40 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 09:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  You missed the part where I said " if you were free to leave the country with no strings attached"
But you're reading comprehension is questionable.

You're right. My bad. Sorry.

(16-05-2014 09:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said that what should be federal and what should not was a subject for discussion. How that translates "But I don't see you applying a standard other than that it's your opinion" is typical of the way you 'discuss' things.

Ok, can you propose a pragmatic, logic-based, objective, measurable rule we can use to decide what laws to pass at the federal level? I already threw out mine, which is 'whenever one state causes direct, physical damage to property in another state'. What do you propose instead?

(16-05-2014 09:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said that what should be I said "voting rights, consumer protection, food and drug laws, and the like." You misunderstood. I was referring to consumer protection, like the FDA. The federal government should not make laws to protect us from ourselves, such as the absurd 'war on drugs'.

I'm glad we agree on the futility of the war on drugs. But defending the FDA? One of the most corrupt agencies on the planet with a revolving door policy where employees of companies the FDA regulates go to work at the FDA, approve their companies' products, ban the competitors' products, then go back to the company and get a multi-million dollar signing bonus.

For example, when the FDA rejected the approval of the sweet-tasting ulcer drug aspartame (aka NutriSweet) because of studies showing it caused brain tumors, so the manufacturer, Searle, had their CEO, Donald Rumsfeld, pull strings and get a Searle shill, Arthur Hull Hayes, to head the FDA, and the first thing he did was overrule the FDA panel's ban on aspartame, and btw, later the FDA banned Stevia, a popular all-natural sweet tasting zero-calorie herb that had been used for hundreds of years without any reported negative effects and became a threat to the chemical sweeteners. And after only a year Hayes left the FDA amidst charges of corruption and got a multi-million dollar signing bonus at Searle's PR agency. That's the agency you're defending should be allowed to use force and decide what we can and cannot put in our bodies?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 12:42 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 10:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Dude I got a TSP (read IRA) where I put tax-deferred dollars into my retirement pot. Deal is when I draw it out I'm gonna be taxed.

Of course. But that's got nothing to do with the law in question that says that even if live and work in Costa Rica for a local company and all your income comes from and is taxed by Costa Rica you STILL have to pay taxes to the US on top of it.

I owe taxes to the US Government since my retirement pot was funded with tax-deferred dollars. That was the deal. And if I only get my income locally from Costa Rica and I got no assets in the US, who's gonna make me pay US taxes?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 02:08 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 06:05 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or as the case turns out to be this time, ignoring my entire post, because I royally served you your fucking ass on a silver platter with all the fixings.

You don't seriously think that. The fact that your response to my posts is always 'fuck you, you fucktard', 'you fucking delusional twit', etc., etc. just proves I __REALLY__ nailed it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to resort to name calling. You'd just laugh and point out how wrong I was.

[Image: butthurt-butthurt-everywhere.jpg]


That's because you are a delusional twit, in addition to also being wrong as I pointed out in exacting detail. You are either too stupid to realize that one can both be proven wrong and insulted at the same time, or you do realize it but would rather deflect the issue that you have no good rebuttal by instead focusing on your butthurt.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as your constant: "Misrepresentation". Not at all. Everything I said is 100% precisely what has transpired.

Nope. You keep insinuating that I support slavery, totalitarianism, and the hunting down and forceful return of expatriates; when I explicitly and repeated argued for the opposite you delusional fucktard.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  THat's why it's gotten you so upset.

No, your repeated lying is what has made me upset. I'm still waiting for you to address what I've actually said, not what you think I've said.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This _IS_ about us libertarians wanting to flee you tyrants and just be left alone, and you guys being so dependent on us that you come up with all sorts of pathetic justifications for using force to make us stay and do what you tell us to.

See that? That right there is more misrepresentation, because I do not hold this position that you are arguing against you stupid cunt.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The MOST laughable and pathetic is one you and Chas both said. When I asked 'why do you always try to draw the arbitrary jurisdictional lines for your laws precisely where they cover every square inch that your countrymen are allowed to live? Why not draw the line somewhere else, like at the state level, so people can up and move if they find your rules too oppressive?'

Some deserve or need to be national; like protection for civil rights, safety standards, taxation that supports national defense and interstate infrastructure.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Both you and Chas said 'It's because moving is too expensive and impractical.'

Which you argued against only by saying that you, as a single young man without any dependants, was able to do it; completely ignoring how you were enabled to do so by your publicly funded education, the publically funded roads, and your federally mandated minimum wage. You are so self-unaware it hurts.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Remember, we're all just people. So imagine you're in my house, I refuse to let you move out and leave, and when you ask why, my justification is "Because moving is so expensive, and I care you about so much, that I don't want to give you that option, lest you spend money you cannot afford."

More misrepresentation and false analogy, arguing against an imaginary position you think I hold.


(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ROFL. That IS what you both said. Really pathetic.

Not even close you dumb motherfucker.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 10:40 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  You missed the part where I said " if you were free to leave the country with no strings attached"
But you're reading comprehension is questionable.

You're right. My bad. Sorry.

(16-05-2014 09:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said that what should be federal and what should not was a subject for discussion. How that translates "But I don't see you applying a standard other than that it's your opinion" is typical of the way you 'discuss' things.

Ok, can you propose a pragmatic, logic-based, objective, measurable rule we can use to decide what laws to pass at the federal level? I already threw out mine, which is 'whenever one state causes direct, physical damage to property in another state'. What do you propose instead?

(16-05-2014 09:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said that what should be I said "voting rights, consumer protection, food and drug laws, and the like." You misunderstood. I was referring to consumer protection, like the FDA. The federal government should not make laws to protect us from ourselves, such as the absurd 'war on drugs'.

I'm glad we agree on the futility of the war on drugs. But defending the FDA? One of the most corrupt agencies on the planet with a revolving door policy where employees of companies the FDA regulates go to work at the FDA, approve their companies' products, ban the competitors' products, then go back to the company and get a multi-million dollar signing bonus.

For example, when the FDA rejected the approval of the sweet-tasting ulcer drug aspartame (aka NutriSweet) because of studies showing it caused brain tumors, so the manufacturer, Searle, had their CEO, Donald Rumsfeld, pull strings and get a Searle shill, Arthur Hull Hayes, to head the FDA, and the first thing he did was overrule the FDA panel's ban on aspartame, and btw, later the FDA banned Stevia, a popular all-natural sweet tasting zero-calorie herb that had been used for hundreds of years without any reported negative effects and became a threat to the chemical sweeteners. And after only a year Hayes left the FDA amidst charges of corruption and got a multi-million dollar signing bonus at Searle's PR agency. That's the agency you're defending should be allowed to use force and decide what we can and cannot put in our bodies?!

We are not discussing your opinion of the FDA, we are discussing the principles of law and governance. I am not defending the FDA. There you go again with your bullshit.

We need laws at the national level to protect citizens against products that harm, whether they are made in Weehauken or Shanghai.

I don't disagree with your principle of harm, but I think it may be too narrow.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-05-2014, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 10:04 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @EvolutionKills,

That video is AWESOME! A GREAT example of why we libertarians feel we're right. See, if you're going to create a video attacking somebody else's belief system, yet, you are unwilling to mention what that belief system is and instead make personal attacks, then you know the belief system is pretty awesome and the maker of the video is on the ropes.

But unlike you, that is a video made to poke fun at a very particular group, "Libertarianism as it is most commonly found in American politics today; consequentialist, capitalist, and individualist in character". He also specifically notes that there is a distinction between Libertarian 'thinkers' and Libertarian 'politicians'. So did you not pay attention to his qualifying remarks, or would acknowledging them be too inconvenient for you? Whoops...

Also, his is a critique of a group. Whereas all you do is argue against generalities and stereotypes even while talking with individuals.


(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If there was a shred of legitimacy he would have mentioned that the one and only thing libertarians call for is letting people exercise free will and make choices without coercion. That's it.

No True Scotsman Fallacy - Only the Libertarians that follow your specific definition are True Libertarians.


(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Libertarians may write huge books justifying that position, but that is the one and only issue. So how convenient that he didn't mention it. Instead he says:

1. When libertarians say we want to be left alone to make our choices it's "selfish". You could say that if we weren't reciprocal. But since we also put the guns and clubs down and let other people exercise free will too, well it's hard to see how not threatening to beat someone over the head is selfish.

"But it all reduces to this: I want to be left alone, and I want things my own way." -Steve Shives

So Steve nailed it right on the head.


(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  2. We're anti-government. It is the exact opposite. What defines the government and what it does? The constitution. And what is the one and only group that vows to uphold the constitution (and thus the government) no matter the personal cost? Who are the only Congressmen who consult the constitution before voting on issues? Heck the ideological founder of US libertarians was Thomas Jefferson and what is Thomas Jefferson most famous for??? Oh yeah, creating a new government.

What is the modus operandi of Libertarian politicians in the United States? Less regulation, the reduction or elimination of most or all government oversight. Instead of having the government enforce protections to preserve the environment, they want to abolish the EPA and hope that the free-market doesn't rape the environment. They see government regulation as the enemy, not the solution. Nothing you've said there is a rebuttal to this simple fact.

Also, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so much for his 'Libertarian' ideals of personal freedom eh?

"But the thing is a Constitutional democratically empowered government, like the one we have in the United States, doesn't have to be the enemy of the people; it can actually be the most powerful and effective tool of the people. Unfortunately most politicians with Libertarians leanings seem like they would rather sabotage the government, than work to make it better and more effective; which is really shirtty to those of us who agree with Abraham Lincoln on the whole "of, by, and for the people" thing." -Steve Shives

So, Steve hit the nail on the head again.


(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  3. We want to roll things back to the founding father's time. Considering that what we libertarians fight is the way you liberals want to rolls things back millions of years to when the first animal crawled out of the primordial soup and killed another animal that had something he wanted, which side is really calling to roll back the clock?

"Most of the major expansions and reforms of government that Libertarians resent and wish to dismantle, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc, were brought about because there was a recognised need for them. Societies grow and evolve and so do the needs and interests of their members. Even though so many Libertarians often express a desire to roll things back to how they were once upon a time, and in some cases all the way back to the day of the founding fathers. And this is perfectly understandable as I see it, as you would have to go back that far to find a point in time in American history where their ideas would have formed the basis of a sound political system, rather than a failed and useless ideology." -Steve Shives

Right, so Steve is three for three.


(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  4. We're smug because we rely on reason, not emotion. Ok, finally he makes a good point. Guilty as charged.

'There are more people living in poverty than private charities alone can afford to help? Gee, that's too bad.'

"A Libertarian roots his ideals firmly in the soil of reason. Libertarians are not swayed by appeals to emotions, they care not for what is popular, or fashionable, or empathetic, or humane, or fair... look, you get the idea." -Steve Shives

So that's another for Steve then.


(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Great video there.

Indeed.


But why are you not responding to all of the video? You know it's called '5 Stupid Things about Libertarianism', not 4, right? Oh, is this another instance of you hoping that by ignoring part of the critique that the rest of us would forget it too? Not so fast there jackass...


5 - It's naive.

"Yes, besides being outdated and buffoonishly pompous, Libertarianism is also inescapably naive. Since it assumes that given maximum personal and economic freedom individuals would just sort of work out an ideal, or at least improved, society for themselves. Never mind that democratic government represents an attempt to do exactly that sort of thing. Suppose not everyone in this minimally governed free-market society was not all that ethical? Suppose, and I know this is hard to imagine but bear with me, that those with the most wealth and resources decided that their private interests were more important than those of other individuals or of society as a whole. Libertarians will often caricature government in exactly this way, describing it as 'the powerful living off of the powerless' with no concern of the welfare of those they exploit. And yet the alternative that Libertarians propose to this, which in their bitterness over having been born as members of a social species they perceive as tyranny at the hands of government, is something that amounts to tyranny at the hands of unaccountable magnates. Minimum government, maximum freedom; to those who can afford it." -Steve Shives

[Image: Letthemarketdecide.jpg]

Robber Barons - Historical Proof that Libertarianism is Full of Shit.


Libertarianism fails for the same reasons that Communism fails, in that it only works hypothetically if everyone is and remains on equal footing. But Libertarianism is even more naive, because whereas Communism sought to impose this equality from the top down, Libertarians think it'll just happen on it's own.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: