Taxes are theft

[Sibirsky]

Living here? Voting? What if I don't vote?

So, being born means you agree?

And that is why, it is not a valid contract.

have you never been on a site where it says

"by posting on these forums you agree to these rules"
"by continuing to browse this site you accept cookies"

Yes. And I could not post on that forum.

People are not born on forums. People are not forced to post on forums.

[Conserative Morality]

Ok...

This is still a semantic argument.

Not at all. By not retaining the products of your labor in a capitalist system, your point about government not allowing you to keep the products of your labor without being opposed to the capitalist system is moot.

[Mavorpen]

No, failing to reject the government means you agree.

No, it doesn't.

So if I don't reject a contract to work for kroger, that means I don't agree? Strange logic you have there.

[Conserative Morality]

No, it doesn't.

The terms of the contract clearly express otherwise.

[Sibirsky]

Living here? Voting? What if I don't vote?

So, being born means you agree?

And that is why, it is not a valid contract.

No, refusing to reject the contract means you agree.

You have no idea what an agreement actually is.

[Mavorpen]

And what keeps one party from changing the contract without notifying the other(s)?

the contract itself?

How does a contract enforce itself?

[Mavorpen]

No, refusing to reject the contract means you agree.

You have no idea what an agreement actually is.

So basically you have no argument. Mmkay.

[Conserative Morality]

You have no idea what an agreement actually is.

I rather think you're hazy on the idea of an implicit contract.

[Pdiiek]

Americans contributed more to charity in 2006, than the US government spent on welfare. It's not like, it is impossible.

What about in or straight after the recession? And how about spending on education, healthcare, roads..? Does it include all government spending in the US, or just the federal government? Does the charity figure include charities for animals, or is it all for the benefit of disadvantaged humans? How much of that goes towards religious charities, or directly into the hands of churches? Etc.

[Sibirsky]

Bullshit.

Look at any electronic device and you understand that costs can drop, while quality improves at the same time.

You might want to actually address his post.

His point is, "things are expensive."

I argue that with things like that being provided privately, they would be reduces in cost. He argues that cost reductions cause quality reductions as well. I showed how that is not always true.

[The Black Forrest]

But but it's better because it goes to business coffers rather than the government.

Yes?

A business that will innovate and expand?

If they all did, you would have an argument. Problem is you are simply being coerced by businessmen instead of government as Neo pointed out.

Expansion is good for those at the top. Why do I care if my company expands in China and sends my job there?

[Platonic Dreams]

You have no idea what an agreement actually is.

So basically you have no argument. Mmkay.

You can't argue with an animal, it'll just sit there and stare at you without understanding what an argument is.

[Souseiseki]

the contract itself?

How does a contract enforce itself?

that would probably be the state, private law enforcement and my katana in that order

[Sibirsky]

An employer and employee agree to terms. The employer provides capital that allows the employee to be more productive. The employee is not being paid less than they are worth. The employer is being compensated for capital investments and risk taking.

yes, they are. if employees are making things that are sold for £5 but getting paid £0.50 for it, how is that not paying them less than they are worth? they are being paid 10 times less than what they are actually worth to the company.

The employee used the employer's £5,000,000 machine to make those things.

[Mavorpen]

You might want to actually address his post.

His point is, "things are expensive."

I argue that with things like that being provided privately, they would be reduces in cost. He argues that cost reductions cause quality reductions as well. I showed how that is not always true.

No, his point was that even if costs are lowered they would STILL be too expensive for a certain group of people. You apparently missed his point.

[Souseiseki]

You might want to actually address his post.

His point is, "things are expensive."

I argue that with things like that being provided privately, they would be reduces in cost. He argues that cost reductions cause quality reductions as well. I showed how that is not always true.

energy prices in the united kinSTATE DID IT

[Conserative Morality]

His point is, "things are expensive."

I argue that with things like that being provided privately, they would be reduces in cost. He argues that cost reductions cause quality reductions as well. I showed how that is not always true.

Electronics drop in cost because of the development of more efficient technology.

[Sibirsky]

Americans contributed more to charity in 2006, than the US government spent on welfare. It's not like, it is impossible.

American welfare sucks, news at 11.

Right. Because spending more is a sign of quality. Always.

[The Black Forrest]

If only social contracts were that simple.

Your argument only works between businesses, people and lawyers.

What are you going to do if I "X" out your changes because I don't like them?

What, with another person or business? Negotiate...

That's a business contract. We are talking social contracts. Small scale is easy to negotiate as it only involves small groups and limited input.

[Sibirsky]

Yes?

A business that will innovate and expand?

Right. Government doesn't innovate and expand?

It expands alright.

[Mavorpen]

His point is, "things are expensive."

I argue that with things like that being provided privately, they would be reduces in cost. He argues that cost reductions cause quality reductions as well. I showed how that is not always true.

Electronics drop in cost because of the development of more efficient technology.

Which ironically is driven quite a lot by investments in science.

[Souseiseki]

yes, they are. if employees are making things that are sold for £5 but getting paid £0.50 for it, how is that not paying them less than they are worth? they are being paid 10 times less than what they are actually worth to the company.

The employee used the employer's £5,000,000 machine to make those things.

point? they are still paid less than what they are worth.

are you saying the employer is entitled to take a 90% cut of your shit because he was nice enough to let you use his machine to make money for him, what a nice guy, taking such a risk?

[Conserative Morality]

It expands alright.

Are you claiming it doesn't innovate?

[Mavorpen]

American welfare sucks, news at 11.

Right. Because spending more is a sign of quality. Always.

It is when that spending is not enough for that specific country. But go ahead and swing your fists at imaginary arguments.

[Sibirsky]

Right. Government doesn't innovate and expand?

oh, it expands alright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

You!

I swear I did not see this, before responding to CM.