Taxes are theft

[Sibirsky]

And agreement of terms by 2 or more parties.

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

The agreement.

Unless it is written into the original agreement. To which both parties agreed.

[Mavorpen]

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

The agreement.

Unless it is written into the original agreement. To which both parties agreed.

You know for a fact that agreements don't enforce themselves. That's quite possibly the silliest thing I've read in a while.

[Pdiiek]

Bullshit.

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

You're smart enough to know that electronic devices and education are two very different markets operating in different circumstances, with massively different scope for price-reducing innovation. In addition, education is a human right and a basic need for any developed, modern society in a way that TVs and iPods just aren't, and should be provided by that society.

[The Black Forrest]

It expands alright.

Are you claiming it doesn't innovate?

Didn't Al Gore invent the Internet? Was that before or after he was in office?

[Sibirsky]

And agreement of terms by 2 or more parties.

No no no, I didn't ask you to define it. I asked you who defines it.

The government.

[Conserative Morality]

Didn't Al Gore invent the Internet? Was that before or after he was in office?

Before. Anyone who worked for the government supports THE MAN and THE MACHINE and the stupid MASSES whom I am so much smarter than.

[The Black Forrest]

But there would still be a cost present, and when you reduce costs you have to reduce quality, because there is a point where you can go no lower without making a profit, which, myself being in private school for the elementary-middle school period of my life know that even with financial aid they aren't cheap

Bullshit.

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

Not always. Free market minded businessmen reduce the quality of parts to increase profit. After it if you built it to last, they won't buy it again.

[Conserative Morality]

The government.

Then you realize that you are arguing that a contract is invalid when those who define contracts allow that it is not invalid by their definition?

[Sibirsky]

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.

Which isn't what I said.

[Chinese Regions]

Are you claiming it doesn't innovate?

Didn't Al Gore invent the Internet? Was that before or after he was in office?

He wasn't serial.

[Sibirsky]

You have no idea what an agreement actually is.

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

I'm not hazy on them.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not hazy on them.

Then you realize that, by accepting and using government services, following the government's laws, and obeying government requirements, you have entered into an implicit contract?

[Mavorpen]

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

Which isn't what I said.

Really? You quite clearly stated that not rejecting a contract doesn't mean that you agree to it. If you don't agree to it and you don't not agree, then what the fuck are you doing?

[The Black Forrest]

Didn't Al Gore invent the Internet? Was that before or after he was in office?

He wasn't serial.

Was he busy hunting manbearpig?

[Sibirsky]

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.

Spending during and after the recession obviously increased.

While I am not sure, I would assume charitable donations decreased.

It was just the Federal government. The charity portion was not broken down, into charity types.

[Sibirsky]

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?

Or they fail and someone else takes their place.

Expansion is good for everyone except those that lose their jobs.

[Sibirsky]

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.

That's rich.

[Sibirsky]

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.

I addressed that point elsewhere.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Spending during and after the recession obviously increased.

While I am not sure, I would assume charitable donations decreased.

It was just the Federal government. The charity portion was not broken down, into charity types.

Oh let's not raise charity as a solution.

It can't and never will take over and cover it.

[Mavorpen]

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.

I addressed that point elsewhere.

Since you can't answer a simple question, I guess you're conceding.

[The Black Forrest]

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?

Or they fail and someone else takes their place.

Expansion is good for everyone except those that lose their jobs.

Or they get bought out by a big fish for flea market prices and that fish becomes a monopoly.

The competitors aren't always equal to the task.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Yes.

Other things would not drop in cost as fast, if they dropped in cost at all.

Fun fact: Public schools are a lot more expensive than private schools. Already. When private schools are almost entirely for the rich or snobby middle classes.

[Sibirsky]

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?

No. They are worth what the market will bear. If their skill is common, their pay will be low. If their skill is rare and in demand, their pay will be higher.

The employer has the risk of going out of business, due to bankruptcy. What is no one wants those 5 quid things? He already spent 5 million on the machine. More on rent and so on.

[Sibirsky]

It expands alright.

Are you claiming it doesn't innovate?

No. I am claiming that those innovations would have happened anyway. In a worst case scenario, at a later time.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Not enough? What is enough? And what isn't?