Taxation is Coercion

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

I have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

Your example of WAL-MART and other phenomenon in our system aren't the results of a free market, because they didn't occur in a free market. So you are basing your empirical evidence on a system that isn't anywhere near a free market.

Do you have the slightest clue why government regulations exist?
Or did you bother to do what I said?
Perhaps you can start here

[Bendira]

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

I have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

Your example of WAL-MART and other phenomenon in our system aren't the results of a free market, because they didn't occur in a free market. So you are basing your empirical evidence on a system that isn't anywhere near a free market.

Do you have the slightest clue why government regulations exist?
Or did you bother to do what I said?
Perhaps you can start here

Whats your point?

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

[Bendira]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

If you made a point in the first place it would help.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

If you made a point in the first place it would help.

I think you are proving my point.

[Bendira]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

If you made a point in the first place it would help.

I think you are proving my point.

You have no point to prove. Say something that atleast resembles a point, and I will tell you why its wrong.

Edit: Linking a wikipedia article about WAL-MART isn't a point.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

If you made a point in the first place it would help.

I think you are proving my point.

You have no point to prove. Say something that atleast resembles a point, and I will tell you why its wrong.

Right after you tell me why there wouldn't be any predatory pricing without government regulation.

[Sibirsky]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

Stop being an obnoxious troll. Your criticism of Wal-Mart link is pointless. It outlines problems with a monopoly like Wal-Mart. He's saying Wal-Mart's domination of the industry would not be possible without state intervention.

[Bendira]

Whats your point?

That you ignore anything that proves your delusion wrong?

I'm guessing Sibirsky puppet.

If you made a point in the first place it would help.

I think you are proving my point.

You have no point to prove. Say something that atleast resembles a point, and I will tell you why its wrong.

Right after you tell me why there wouldn't be any predatory pricing without government regulation.

Because "predatory pricing" would result in the monopoly taking a massive economic hit and possibly going out of business itself, when other business' buy the products at below market price, and then sell them for slightly more once the hypothetical price war has ended. This is just one of many scenario's where it would be retarded to "predatoraly price" in an actual free market. Why such a scenario never happens in our socialist market is because of regulations and legal restrictions such as patents and intellectual property rights.

[Thevenin]

Well, i have disagree. Taxes pay for things like, roads, police and fire departments, libraries etc etc. These things are not free, they cost money. And the government can't be expected to pick up the tab if they have no income source. Most, if not everyone uses these services or have at one point in their lives, so i see no reason why you shouldn't pay for them. A tax evader who calls the fire dept. when his house burns down is a thief in my book. Of course, this doesn't take into account politicians that spend tax payers money on yachts and vacations, as these are a consequence of the human factor, not the system itself. Now income tax IS thievery. But that's another story for another time.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Because "predatory pricing" would result in the monopoly taking a massive economic hit and possibly going out of business itself,

Why?

when other business' buy the products at below market price, and then sell them for slightly more once the hypothetical price war has ended.

Why don't they do that now, then?

Why such a scenario never happens in our socialist market is because of regulations and legal restrictions such as patents and intellectual property rights.

Patents and IP prevent companies from buying cheap products from Wal-Mart and selling them at higher prices? Really?

[Bendira]

Why?

Because they are losing money on every item they sell.

Why don't they do that now, then?

Because of patents and intellectual property laws.

Patents and IP prevent companies from buying cheap products from Wal-Mart and selling them at higher prices? Really?

Yeah. If I own a small corner store, and I walk into WAL-MART and buy 20 coffee makers that are identical to another companies that WAL-MART is engaged in a price war with. And I buy them for like $10 below market price, and I go and put them in a back room at my small shop. And then when the coffee makers price goes BACK to market price after the hypothetical price war has been resolved, I decide to sell the coffee makers I had sat on. Thats illegal. And thats just on a small scale. This is not even accounting for the idea that this is completely ignoring the economics behind the suppliers to WAL-MART, who in a truly free market would have no reason to solely restrict their business to WAL-MART.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Why?

Because they are losing money on every item they sell.

Which I already said. But they are able to while their smaller competition isn't.

Because of patents and intellectual property laws.

Yeah. If I own a small corner store, and I walk into WAL-MART and buy 20 coffee makers that are identical to another companies that WAL-MART is engaged in a price war with. And I buy them for like $10 below market price, and I go and put them in a back room at my small shop. And then when the coffee makers price goes BACK to market price after the hypothetical price war has been resolved, I decide to sell the coffee makers I had sat on. Thats illegal. And thats just on a small scale. This is not even accounting for the idea that this is completely ignoring the economics behind the suppliers to WAL-MART, who in a truly free market would have no reason to solely restrict their business to WAL-MART.

I'm sure it is illegal. Care to tell me what law it is breaking though because that has jack shit to do with patents or intellectual property.

[Bendira]

Why?

Because they are losing money on every item they sell.

Which I already said. But they are able to while their smaller competition isn't.

Because of patents and intellectual property laws.

Yeah. If I own a small corner store, and I walk into WAL-MART and buy 20 coffee makers that are identical to another companies that WAL-MART is engaged in a price war with. And I buy them for like $10 below market price, and I go and put them in a back room at my small shop. And then when the coffee makers price goes BACK to market price after the hypothetical price war has been resolved, I decide to sell the coffee makers I had sat on. Thats illegal. And thats just on a small scale. This is not even accounting for the idea that this is completely ignoring the economics behind the suppliers to WAL-MART, who in a truly free market would have no reason to solely restrict their business to WAL-MART.

I'm sure it is illegal. Care to tell me what law it is breaking though because that has jack shit to do with patents or intellectual property.

Im not sure of the specific law, but it is illegal. And it is a form of patent and intellectual property regulation. Lets assume that my semantics are completely incorrect just for the sake of argument, it still dosn't make my point any less valid.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

How about you figure out what it is.

[Bendira]

How about you figure out what it is.

Its irrelevant.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

How about you figure out what it is.

Its irrelevant.

Then it's imaginary.

[Nieuwsblad]

There are certain things that cannot be bought with private money alone (roads, space programs, defense programs) In addition, there are things which aren't necessarily profitable but may benefit another company or program (for example, the widgets of Company A might not make a lot of money but may be necessary for Company B).

[Bendira]

How about you figure out what it is.

Its irrelevant.

Then it's imaginary.

Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.


Some generic copywrite law, which is a form of intellectual property.

[Bendira]

There are certain things that cannot be bought with private money alone (roads, space programs, defense programs) In addition, there are things which aren't necessarily profitable but may benefit another company or program (for example, the widgets of Company A might not make a lot of money but may be necessary for Company B).

Your first sentence dosn't make sense. The second part about something being needed by party B that part A provides, but somehow party A dosn't make any money off it is really dumb. If party B needs it, they would be willing to pay a price for it.

[Opiachus]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Tax is not theft, it is neccesary for our own good. If there was no tax, the government wouldn't have money for transportation, education, healthcare, fire fighters, police, military, etc. If you don't want to pay tax; move to Antarctica. But there are no hospitals in Antarctica, right?

Tax is not theft. Because you are a citizen of a country, you are liable to all of that country's laws, including the tax code. It is perfectly legal, and the government needs it. Theft, is completely different, because the money is being taken against your will, and you have not agreed to it.

[Bendira]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Tax is not theft, it is neccesary for our own good. If there was no tax, the government wouldn't have money for transportation, education, healthcare, fire fighters, police, military, etc. If you don't want to pay tax; move to Antarctica. But there are no hospitals in Antarctica, right?

Tax is not theft. Because you are a citizen of a country, you are liable to all of that country's laws, including the tax code. It is perfectly legal, and the government needs it. Theft, is completely different, because the money is being taken against your will, and you have not agreed to it.

Im tired of repeating myself on this. Go look back through the thread, I lay out my position against your assertions here many many times. It should not be hard to find.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

How about you figure out what it is.

Its irrelevant.

Then it's imaginary.

Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.


Some generic copywrite law, which is a form of intellectual property.

I fail to see you citing the law that says competitors can't buy Wal-Mart sold coffee cups.

[Bendira]

How about you figure out what it is.

Its irrelevant.

Then it's imaginary.

Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.


Some generic copywrite law, which is a form of intellectual property.

I fail to see you citing the law that says competitors can't buy Wal-Mart sold coffee cups.

If the coffee cup is patented and copywrited, which all products sold by WAL-MART would be, I would have no right to distribute it since I didn't own the rights to it. Im not going to go to the courthouse to dig through lawbooks to find the exact law in question, so if you feel its extremely necessary to have the exact law, I would advise you to either find it yourself, or disengage from this discussion.

Edit: There is nothing against competitors buying them, but there is laws against distributing them.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

If the coffee cup is patented and copywrited, which all products sold by WAL-MART would be, I would have no right to distribute it since I didn't own the rights to it.

Neither does Wal-Mart.