Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Dems = marxist economics, amoral culture, raced based politics, coalition of fringe groups
Reps = capitalism, moral culture, law/constitutional based politics, mainstream society

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It seems all your solutions to problems in your anarchist society relies on cooperation of others.

Completely false, it relies on people doing what's in their self-interest, which is exactly what the majority of people try to do already. The difference is that people are allowed to pursue their interests without the Government using force and coercion against them for doing so. What I said was "If you want something, you're willing to pay for it".

Ray's question about getting sidewalks built in his town would be solved by asking other in the town to build connecting sidewalks. The end result would be in Ray's town a patchwork of sidewalks. Some people would cooperate, others would say can't afford it, maybe next year, and other would say no fucking way.

I see you're ignorant AND illiterate. I said that he could ask other people if they want sidewalks to, and establishments typically build their sidewalks regardless, this case was assuming FEW people wanted sidewalks. I find it hilarious that you can only make an argument by straight-misreading my posts.

If Ray wanted sidewalks near other people's houses, I don't see why those people would say no, because if Ray wants to build a sidewalk on someone else's property, it should be to mutual benefit. If it's not to their mutual benefit, why the hell should someone else be allowed to force you to let them build a sidewalk there? It's just amazing that people like you can't think beyond using force against innocent people, it's pretty screwed up.

I don't won't people walking in front of my house. The same situation would exist when it comes to highways, railways, expressways, or high speed transit across the country.

Except Railways and highways were already being built before the Government declared imminent domain over them, you historical illiterate. All the Government did was monopolize them.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, people would pay for their police and fires services, just like they are now be it city or volunteer. Nobody works for free. And yes, I would pay a volunteer fire department because you pay for any insurance you buy. Hell, a fire engine alone cost over 200K.

Do you think it would be bad PR if an insurance company didn't pay for that house that burned down just because the home owner didn't have insurance with that company?

So, you THINK everyone would want them, therefor they should be forced to pay for them, and they should be monopolized under a ruler. Flawless logic.(That's sarcasm, by the way, I just need to make sure it doesn't fly over your head like everything else in this discussion) It's funny that you claim to be a Conservative, because last I checked, they claim to be pro free market, yet you seem perfectly content with the Government monopolizing services to the detriment of the citizens, and funding them through straight theft. Oh, and this question is answered in that video that you ignored.

If they were standing around the house with their equipment at the ready, watching everything the family owns and loves burn to the ground, I'd say yeah, probably. Were I in that position, I'd grab a garden hose and try to put it out myself.

Actually we had a case here a few years back where police did gun down a kid with a toy gun. HIs name "was" Tamir Rice. He was pulling out a realistic gun and the officer shot him dead. Why? Because the officer had no idea it was a toy, and you can't wait until somebody shoots first before you shoot back. You may be going home in a body bag if you do.

So, it's totally fine that a little kid was gunned down in cold blood, because the Road Pirate thought said little kid may be a threat. Let's not, like, avoid being aimed at and assess the situation, let's claim that paid leave at the cost of someone else's life. So much for serving and protecting.

Of course, this situation never would have happened if Private Security wasn't centralized under the Government and people weren't stolen from to fund it.

I forgot to comment on one of your videos; it was the guy one the ground crawling towards the officer. Too bad you posted the clipped version, but I seen that video before. The officer explicitly warned him not to reach behind his back again, and told him he would be shot if he did. Guess what? The full video shows the guy reaching behind his back, and that's when the officer shot.

I'm fully aware that he kept pulling up his pants, and that the Road Pirates who broke into his house and held him at gunpoint had told him they would shoot at the slightest provocation, as if they were a group of rabid dogs. Are you trying to argue that despite the man being unarmed, this was fully legitimate, or are you arguing that it's ethical to gun people down as long as you warn them first?

As for the girl in the car. You have no evidence whatsoever that any police officer shot her. All you have is speculation. Again, why would an officer execute a 19 year old girl who was apparently harmless? It doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, bro, she shot herself in the head with her hands cuffed behind her back, in a Road Pirate vehicle where she's separated from the armed driver. Totally shot herself in the head, dude.

Gosh, I dunno, probably because they get paid leave, and the same Government who owns them owns the courts. If you're not wearing your body camera, no way to prove he did it. Road Pirates are always innocent unless they're a detriment to the Government.

I'm not trying to speak for you. I'm trying to explain our society to you since you don't understand. If you are part of this society, then you live by society rules. You are not an island. If you wish to be, then you should leave our society and find one of those islands. Then nobody will bother you......for a while anyway.

No, I perfectly understand, I understand better than you do, apparently, because you're saying it's perfectly legitimate and ethical for people to be able to consent to me being robbed and harassed by the Government and the Road Pirates, and that I should leave my property to escape it, and that people should just be subservient to this unethical monopoly on force. You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me, despite the fact that the initiation of force is coming from the Government.

I'll try to explain again, since your mind is being clouded by anti-thought.

At any one time, there's an infinite number of things that a person is not doing, this is why the burden of proof is on the active side, the person who is taking an action. NOT paying taxes is a passive position, therefor the Government sending Road Pirates after someone for NOT paying taxes means that the burden of proof is on the Government to prove that the individual has hurt someone or deprived someone of something. To try to justify this would be to say that the Government is entitled to our property and ourselves, because it would have to be so in order for withholding our property from them to be wronging them in some way, in which case, we are literally slaves.

That piece of paper is a court order. The court has the right to give permission to our police to search your home by compliance or force. If you don't like our system, again, move, or try to get your representatives to have a constitutional amendment. Because our US Constitution is what gives the courts a right to issue a search warrant.

So, more rights that no other people have, coming from Government official, because they wrote on a piece of paper, and more telling me to move away from my property in order to escape the violence and unethical actions of the Government. I already linked you a video, several actually, where this statement is refuted.

Do you not understand that if you ignore everything a person is providing in an argument, it's not an honest discussion?

Like, let me level with you. I thought going into this that I was dealing with an intellectual heavyweight, because I liked you lots when I was a Conservative, and I let it slide numerous times when you refused to address some of the arguments I was making and just dropped those sections of the post because I had proven you wrong, without telling me that you admit to being wrong. Really, I get that it's not easy admitting it when you were wrong, and that's fine, but I expected better.

Regardless, what I've been getting at with this string of messages, such as what you just replied to, is that the Government isn't entitled to my property, my body, my labor. They do not own me or my property, therefor telling me that because other people agreed to it, any number for that matter, they own my property, and can break into my house, hold me at gunpoint, demand my property from me, and kill me if they feel threatened. The logic doesn't follow, because as I showed; Social Contract Theory is not legitimate, because someone cannot tacitly consent to something, nor can someone else decide what someone is consenting to when they themselves don't even know.

As far as the US Constitution is concerned, it's no different from that Social Contract, it's part of it. We do not need a sheet of paper to say we own ourselves, nor did anyone consent to that sheet of paper, especially since it's basically ignored by the Government anyway.

And your comparison is phony. You can't compare a country in tyranny to a civilized country like the USA, and say if a set of rules apply to one, they must apply to all.

Every "country" is in tyranny. Besides, it's called consistency. If standards are not applied consistently, then the standards by which you're holding people are arbitrary. That's why I kept pointing out that you're applying rights that nobody had to grant in the first place, to other people on the basis that they're calling themselves Government. For one, someone cannot give a person a right they don't have, and for another, saying that one person can do something while others can't is just special pleading.

This is why I sent you the video by Shane Killian, where he discusses logic. Saying that we should submit to the US Government, but that the Jews shouldn't submit to Nazi Germany is just inconsistency.

Children don't have the right to consent or refuse. They are children and as such, their parents consent on their behalf.

So then if a parent decides their child should be murdered by the Government, or that the child should be sold into slavery, the child consents because the parents decided it was so.

I also want to point out that we went from "You consent because the majority did" to "You consent because you voted" to "You tacitly consent by being born" to "You consent because your parents said so".

Yes they are allowed to barge into your property. It's called Search and Seizure. And no, they don't collect fines. They issue you a summons for court and you pay your fines to them.

I call it breaking and entering, and literal theft. You also just admitted that the same standards aren't applied to them, because they can break into your house.

Secondly, if you ignore that summons, they send the Road Pirates after you again. I suppose you could say it's coercion, so sure, it's coercion, not theft. I don't really see how one's better than the other, but hey, you think any number of crimes is totally fine as long as the Government is doing it.

Yes, it does mean you send men with guns. That's what we pay them for. And yes, trying to wake up at 4:30am like my tenant does will do her harm if she doesn't have ample sleep to make it to work and do her job safely. It's a law WE CREATED called Disturbing the Peace. If you want to live here, you have to live by our laws. If you don't like our laws, you can go back to the ghetto where you belong. But as I predicted, the music stopped immediately upon police arrival, the inconsiderate lowlife took his kids in the house, and the rest of the night was nice and quiet, just the way we taxpaying citizens want it.

Well, firstly, "we" do not pay them for that, our property is stolen to fund them. Secondly, that was the point I was trying to make; Our property is stolen and given to them so that they can infringe on our individual rights. I doubt you recognize that, but I'll say it anyway.

If it's doing demonstrable harm, then in an Anarchist Society, they'd be able to prove it to a Private Court, and force would never need to be used.

"We" did not create the law, the rulers decided to write their opinion on paper, then sent Road Pirates after people they don't like, using it as a pretense.

Also you keep saying "If you don't like it, leave", but as I've already demonstrated repeatedly, the burden of proof is on the Government because they're the ones initiating force. To make this argument, you keep asserting that I've consented, or other people consented for me, regardless, PROVE I consented, SHOW ME where I signed a contract stating my rights don't exist.

Nobody gets injured if you don't threaten an officer. They live by our laws as well. They are the authority, and you do as they tell you. If you don't, and you are continuing to break our laws, you will eventually end up in jail.

The Road Pirate shows up and threatens you, that's an active position, the burden of proof is on the Road Pirate to show that the victim is hurting or depriving someone else of their property.

Authority doesn't exist, it's an illusion. Nobody consented to being ruled by these 24/7 LARPers, so the Road Pirates have no legitimacy to break into your property and threaten you. t this point, you're just repeating yourself. This is boring. You're even ignoring the videos I'm linking, so you're legit not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

See what I mean? Pick up a book or see youtube or docudramas but don't learn about politics here....

 

[Flopper]

It seems all your solutions to problems in your anarchist society relies on cooperation of others.

Completely false, it relies on people doing what's in their self-interest, which is exactly what the majority of people try to do already. The difference is that people are allowed to pursue their interests without the Government using force and coercion against them for doing so. What I said was "If you want something, you're willing to pay for it".

Ray's question about getting sidewalks built in his town would be solved by asking other in the town to build connecting sidewalks. The end result would be in Ray's town a patchwork of sidewalks. Some people would cooperate, others would say can't afford it, maybe next year, and other would say no fucking way.

I see you're ignorant AND illiterate. I said that he could ask other people if they want sidewalks to, and establishments typically build their sidewalks regardless, this case was assuming FEW people wanted sidewalks. I find it hilarious that you can only make an argument by straight-misreading my posts.

If Ray wanted sidewalks near other people's houses, I don't see why those people would say no, because if Ray wants to build a sidewalk on someone else's property, it should be to mutual benefit. If it's not to their mutual benefit, why the hell should someone else be allowed to force you to let them build a sidewalk there? It's just amazing that people like you can't think beyond using force against innocent people, it's pretty screwed up.

I don't won't people walking in front of my house. The same situation would exist when it comes to highways, railways, expressways, or high speed transit across the country.

Except Railways and highways were already being built before the Government declared imminent domain over them, you historical illiterate. All the Government did was monopolize them.

Building sidewalks and roads in your anarchist society would require approval of every property owner involved. If not sidewalks and roads would not be completed. Suggesting that owners that approved of the project pay the full cost would only encourage others that are less enthusiastic to hold out for payment. The more people that dropped out, the higher the cost would be for those that supported the project. The end result would be no sidewalks.

I remember when they were building an interstate highway in the town I lived in. An elderly lady who owned a small farm the highway would cross refused to sell her property. She was born there and generations of her family lived and farmed the property and no amount money would be enough for her to give up her home. Eventually, she was forced to give up her property. She was paid far more than it was worth. She probably attacked big bad government for stealing her property but the highway was build and the whole town benefited. How would anarchist handle this situation?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It seems all your solutions to problems in your anarchist society relies on cooperation of others.

Completely false, it relies on people doing what's in their self-interest, which is exactly what the majority of people try to do already. The difference is that people are allowed to pursue their interests without the Government using force and coercion against them for doing so. What I said was "If you want something, you're willing to pay for it".

Ray's question about getting sidewalks built in his town would be solved by asking other in the town to build connecting sidewalks. The end result would be in Ray's town a patchwork of sidewalks. Some people would cooperate, others would say can't afford it, maybe next year, and other would say no fucking way.

I see you're ignorant AND illiterate. I said that he could ask other people if they want sidewalks to, and establishments typically build their sidewalks regardless, this case was assuming FEW people wanted sidewalks. I find it hilarious that you can only make an argument by straight-misreading my posts.

If Ray wanted sidewalks near other people's houses, I don't see why those people would say no, because if Ray wants to build a sidewalk on someone else's property, it should be to mutual benefit. If it's not to their mutual benefit, why the hell should someone else be allowed to force you to let them build a sidewalk there? It's just amazing that people like you can't think beyond using force against innocent people, it's pretty screwed up.

I don't won't people walking in front of my house. The same situation would exist when it comes to highways, railways, expressways, or high speed transit across the country.

Except Railways and highways were already being built before the Government declared imminent domain over them, you historical illiterate. All the Government did was monopolize them.

Building sidewalks and roads in your anarchist society would require approval of every property owner involved. If not sidewalks and roads would not be completed. Suggesting that owners that approved of the project pay the full cost would only encourage others that are less enthusiastic to hold out for payment. The more people that dropped out, the higher the cost would be for those that supported the project. The end result would be no sidewalks.

I remember when they were building an interstate highway in the town I lived in. An elderly lady who owned a small farm the highway would cross refused to sell her property. She was born there and generations of her family lived and farmed the property and no amount money would be enough for her to give up her home. Eventually, she was forced to give up her property. She was paid far more than it was worth. She probably attacked big bad government for stealing her property but the highway was build and the whole town benefited. How would anarchist handle this situation?

To your first paragraph, years ago when our city switched from the city collecting our garbage to a private outfit, they charged the residents who used the service. Before you knew it, people were driving up to houses with garbage and putting their garbage bags on their tree lawn so they didn’t have to pay. Then they started to drive to businesses doing the same, and those businesses filed police reports.

The only way to stop these problems was for the city to charge all residents and assess the fee on our property tax bill. Problem solved. Lowlifes quit putting their garbage on my lawn and the city collected enough money to pay the private service.

Anybody that expects everybody in society to comply with necessities and pay for them is living in a fantasy world. We are not clones who all think alike.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Flopper]

It seems all your solutions to problems in your anarchist society relies on cooperation of others.

Completely false, it relies on people doing what's in their self-interest, which is exactly what the majority of people try to do already. The difference is that people are allowed to pursue their interests without the Government using force and coercion against them for doing so. What I said was "If you want something, you're willing to pay for it".

Ray's question about getting sidewalks built in his town would be solved by asking other in the town to build connecting sidewalks. The end result would be in Ray's town a patchwork of sidewalks. Some people would cooperate, others would say can't afford it, maybe next year, and other would say no fucking way.

I see you're ignorant AND illiterate. I said that he could ask other people if they want sidewalks to, and establishments typically build their sidewalks regardless, this case was assuming FEW people wanted sidewalks. I find it hilarious that you can only make an argument by straight-misreading my posts.

If Ray wanted sidewalks near other people's houses, I don't see why those people would say no, because if Ray wants to build a sidewalk on someone else's property, it should be to mutual benefit. If it's not to their mutual benefit, why the hell should someone else be allowed to force you to let them build a sidewalk there? It's just amazing that people like you can't think beyond using force against innocent people, it's pretty screwed up.

I don't won't people walking in front of my house. The same situation would exist when it comes to highways, railways, expressways, or high speed transit across the country.

Except Railways and highways were already being built before the Government declared imminent domain over them, you historical illiterate. All the Government did was monopolize them.

Building sidewalks and roads in your anarchist society would require approval of every property owner involved. If not sidewalks and roads would not be completed. Suggesting that owners that approved of the project pay the full cost would only encourage others that are less enthusiastic to hold out for payment. The more people that dropped out, the higher the cost would be for those that supported the project. The end result would be no sidewalks.

I remember when they were building an interstate highway in the town I lived in. An elderly lady who owned a small farm the highway would cross refused to sell her property. She was born there and generations of her family lived and farmed the property and no amount money would be enough for her to give up her home. Eventually, she was forced to give up her property. She was paid far more than it was worth. She probably attacked big bad government for stealing her property but the highway was build and the whole town benefited. How would anarchist handle this situation?

To your first paragraph, years ago when our city switched from the city collecting our garbage to a private outfit, they charged the residents who used the service. Before you knew it, people were driving up to houses with garbage and putting their garbage bags on their tree lawn so they didn’t have to pay. Then they started to drive to businesses doing the same, and those businesses filed police reports.

The only way to stop these problems was for the city to charge all residents and assess the fee on our property tax bill. Problem solved. Lowlifes quit putting their garbage on my lawn and the city collected enough money to pay the private service.

Anybody that expects everybody in society to comply with necessities and pay for them is living in a fantasy world. We are not clones who all think alike.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Anarchism is simply not a realist ideology in towns, cities, or nations. There has to be some authority that creates rules or laws and enforces them. When the needs of one group are contrary to the needs of another group, a ruling has to be made as to who's needs will be met. Again, there has to be a method of enforcing those rulings otherwise the result will be disorder and chaos in which society can not progress.

The only way anarchism can work is in small homogeneous groups such as a family where social ties are strong and all member yield to compromises in order to maintain those ties.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

Boy do I have a story to tell you.

Too bad it is sexually explicit.

It involves Bill Clinton and a 20 something intern in the year 1998.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

In all seriousness, the strict definition of politics is debating policy, making policy, and analyzing its impacts on society. Well, American politics anyway.

Politics can be anything that involves laws and or what impact on people those laws have on the common man. What can we do, what policies or laws can we pass that have positive impact on society?

Or, politics can simply mean anything one can do to further one's own political ambitions while comparing the cost of pursuing those ambitions against the cost of society's ambitions.

In short... I have not the slightest clue. It may just involve who is more popular and who has more standing with the people.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Building sidewalks and roads in your anarchist society would require approval of every property owner involved.

Except, as usual, you're freaking wrong. I guess it's a foreign concept to someone who believes someone is fully legitimate in declaring ownership of an entire continent so long as they refer to themselves as Government, but people take ownership of land by putting work into it, such as building a structure on it, or gardening, or building a road on it. People would be able to build sidewalks or roads on an area as long as nobody is using that area. Besides, if a person is living somewhere and a person wants to travel from that location, yeah, pretty sure they'd want a road. I also want to draw your limited attention span to the Iowa road that people built for themselves in an hour because they wanted it.

If not sidewalks and roads would not be completed. Suggesting that owners that approved of the project pay the full cost would only encourage others that are less enthusiastic to hold out for payment. The more people that dropped out, the higher the cost would be for those that supported the project. The end result would be no sidewalks.

I find it amazing that your reading capabilities are below first grade level, yet you claim to have ran a business. Who did you hire to read for you?

People can hire businesses to build roads for them, chip in to build a road for everyone, OR a business can just build roads as they had before the Government declared imminent domain over them. How is this so difficult for you to comprehend? I never suggested that a business would build a road on someone's yard and force them to pay for it, you illiterate schmuck.

I remember when they were building an interstate highway in the town I lived in. An elderly lady who owned a small farm the highway would cross refused to sell her property. She was born there and generations of her family lived and farmed the property and no amount money would be enough for her to give up her home. Eventually, she was forced to give up her property. She was paid far more than it was worth. She probably attacked big bad government for stealing her property but the highway was build and the whole town benefited. How would anarchist handle this situation?

It's called imminent domain, and the Government is the one who uses it to force people out of their homes, so they can build where they used to be.

Well, nobody is entitled to your property, so we'd solve that problem by not having a Government.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

To your first paragraph, years ago when our city switched from the city collecting our garbage to a private outfit, they charged the residents who used the service. Before you knew it, people were driving up to houses with garbage and putting their garbage bags on their tree lawn so they didn’t have to pay. Then they started to drive to businesses doing the same, and those businesses filed police reports.

The only way to stop these problems was for the city to charge all residents and assess the fee on our property tax bill. Problem solved. Lowlifes quit putting their garbage on my lawn and the city collected enough money to pay the private service.

Anybody that expects everybody in society to comply with necessities and pay for them is living in a fantasy world. We are not clones who all think alike.

So, your logic is "Because the Government allowed a single business to monopolize the industry in this city, it's privatized."

Ooooh, Ray, you should stop parroting the mainstream Media, it doesn't help with your debate performance. I also want to point out that in this case, the Government is still stealing from everyone, including people not using the service and that the money being stolen is less effective when funneled through the Government due to their inability to properly allocate resources. So, people are paying more than the service is worth.

Lastly, your final paragraph is a strawman with no explanatory power. What I've been arguing is that people would act in their own individual interests, not that people would "Comply with necessities", that's senseless statist speak. What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for others, that's why there's no "Greater Good", that's just a nebulous buzzword, used to trick people into supporting things that don't benefit them.

If you're going to talk about me, fine, but you'd learn more talking TO me, plus it's more honest.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

Please don't *study politics*. Political science is just communism 101. If you want to learn about our politics and make informed decisions, study the CONSTITUTION and our history (not social science, not social studies...AMERICAN HISTORY and WORLD HISTORY taught by a real scholar, not a PhD in Stupidity).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

To your first paragraph, years ago when our city switched from the city collecting our garbage to a private outfit, they charged the residents who used the service. Before you knew it, people were driving up to houses with garbage and putting their garbage bags on their tree lawn so they didn’t have to pay. Then they started to drive to businesses doing the same, and those businesses filed police reports.

The only way to stop these problems was for the city to charge all residents and assess the fee on our property tax bill. Problem solved. Lowlifes quit putting their garbage on my lawn and the city collected enough money to pay the private service.

Anybody that expects everybody in society to comply with necessities and pay for them is living in a fantasy world. We are not clones who all think alike.

So, your logic is "Because the Government allowed a single business to monopolize the industry in this city, it's privatized."

Ooooh, Ray, you should stop parroting the mainstream Media, it doesn't help with your debate performance. I also want to point out that in this case, the Government is still stealing from everyone, including people not using the service and that the money being stolen is less effective when funneled through the Government due to their inability to properly allocate resources. So, people are paying more than the service is worth.

Lastly, your final paragraph is a strawman with no explanatory power. What I've been arguing is that people would act in their own individual interests, not that people would "Comply with necessities", that's senseless statist speak. What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for others, that's why there's no "Greater Good", that's just a nebulous buzzword, used to trick people into supporting things that don't benefit them.

If you're going to talk about me, fine, but you'd learn more talking TO me, plus it's more honest.

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month? There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

 

[Flopper]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

 

[Crixus]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

Yeah, politics are what rich folks do so they can fail up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

In Pumpkin's world, people wouldn't do that. We are all the same and think the same, so nobody would consider getting rid of their garbage for free. And it wouldn't cost government to clean up the messes in the streets and on neighbors tree lawns either.

She also stated that individuals could get cheaper rates for disposal than government. Okay, the cost per month here is $15.00 per household. I would love to know where individuals could hire a private company to make a special trip to your home every week to dispose of your garbage for only $15.00 per month. As a truck driver, I can tell you that it would cost more in fuel alone to provide such a service. Forget about manpower, maintenance, repair of equipment, government regulations, vehicle replacement costs, and what a landfill charges the garbage company. But I would guess that Pumpkin also thinks you can mail a letter from New York to California for less than forty cents if you do it on your own instead of using government services.

My company provides a service that's cheaper than trying to do it by yourself. Sure, any one of our customers can buy a truck and do their own deliveries. But at what cost? We get a special discount rate for leasing our trucks because we lease so many. We have our own DEF tote because my employer buys DEF fluid in bulk so it's cheaper than buying 5 gallon containers. The same holds true with fuel. Because we go to one place for our fuel purchases, we get a discounted rate due to volume. And who has time to mess around with license plate fees, government taxes, DOT certifications, setting up repair and maintenance appointments, and dealing with all the government regulations that go along with owning and operating a truck?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

They could just ask instead of hassling someone, using someone's property without permission just makes enemies for yourself. I know if someone asked me, I'd say they could, or just help them burn it, why not help each other?

I guess in your world, everyone is an asshole, though, and somehow gains more from making enemies than helping each other out voluntarily? I think it's kind of sick that you believe that the initiation of force has to be used for anyone to get what they want.

Oh, and as I mentioned several times; Without barriers to entering the market, set by Government, people would be free to fulfill demand for profit, so if you want your trash gone, you can just pay for it. Much like every other service. This should not be hard to comprehend, it's how the market has worked since the beginning of time.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In Pumpkin's world, people wouldn't do that. We are all the same and think the same, so nobody would consider getting rid of their garbage for free. And it wouldn't cost government to clean up the messes in the streets and on neighbors tree lawns either.

Again, my argument is that people would do what's in their self-interest, and pissing others off is rarely that. I don't get how you are having such a hard time comprehending how the market works, and how trading peacefully and voluntarily creates greater mutual benefit than screwing over others. How many people do you think would want to associate with you if they see you throwing your trash all over other people's yard? I personally wouldn't, and I bet you wouldn't, so how can you argue that people would find greater benefit to that? You literally can't, and that's why you keep ceasing replying to me, and instead talking about me to that economic illiterate, because neither one of you can make an effective argument against me.

She also stated that individuals could get cheaper rates for disposal than government. Okay, the cost per month here is $15.00 per household. I would love to know where individuals could hire a private company to make a special trip to your home every week to dispose of your garbage for only $15.00 per month. As a truck driver, I can tell you that it would cost more in fuel alone to provide such a service. Forget about manpower, maintenance, repair of equipment, government regulations, vehicle replacement costs, and what a landfill charges the garbage company. But I would guess that Pumpkin also thinks you can mail a letter from New York to California for less than forty cents if you do it on your own instead of using government services.

For one, you're talking in dollars, which is an unsustainable fiat currency that's not backed by anything but violence, to force other people to trade in it, which is why Russia, Venezuela, and several other places have recently stopped trading in it. So, in a world without Government, purchasing power would be much greater.

Secondly, you're speaking in terms of the Government stealing from everyone, whether they use the service or not. Not only is this unethical, but it also funnels it through the Government, which turns lower benefit for higher cost. ARE you going to claim the Economic Calculation Problem doesn't exist? Is that what you're arguing? If you really want to go there, bring it the Hell on.

Thirdly, you're speaking in terms of under Government regulation, where Gas costs more, parts cost more, employees cost more, and nearly half of a business' profits are stolen by the Government which is passed down to consumers.

Lastly, I feel like you're unironically arguing that mailing cost less through the Government, which is actually hilarious, because the Government can't measure supply and demand curves. Do you, like, think that monopolies make things cheaper or something? Good grief, you sound like a freaking Marxist. Literally all you're doing right now is "Well, I paid 15 dollars, what do you think it would cost with competition? Humph, people would just throw their trash in other people's yards, let's just ignore the business was a monopoly at the time".

My company provides a service that's cheaper than trying to do it by yourself. Sure, any one of our customers can buy a truck and do their own deliveries. But at what cost? We get a special discount rate for leasing our trucks because we lease so many. We have our own DEF tote because my employer buys DEF fluid in bulk so it's cheaper than buying 5 gallon containers. The same holds true with fuel. Because we go to one place for our fuel purchases, we get a discounted rate due to volume. And who has time to mess around with license plate fees, government taxes, DOT certifications, setting up repair and maintenance appointments, and dealing with all the government regulations that go along with owning and operating a truck?

Probably lower cost, because if it was more expensive to do it yourself, your business wouldn't exist. Then again, barriers to entering the market currently exist, so a business which already exists is cheaper than starting a business, which is one of the reasons I keep pointing out that competition would be more prevalent. You literally have to hire someone to help you navigate through all of the regulations, then there's monopolistic practice laws, preventing you from undercutting or raising prices to certain levels, then there are the requirements on pay, regardless of whether the task is worth that cost or not(Only less than 4% of people make minimum wage), then there's the benefits requirements, zoning depending on the business, IP laws, etc. Gosh, it's like they're trying to create monopolies by preventing competitors from entering the market or something.

The entire second half of your response, here, literally proves my point. All of those things you just mentioned are also artificially inflating prices, which makes it harder to enter the market. Without all of those regulations, it would be easier and cheaper for people to create a business with that service, and competition would be more common, creating lower prices and higher quality. Do you not think the market should be free or something?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

Please don't *study politics*. Political science is just communism 101. If you want to learn about our politics and make informed decisions, study the CONSTITUTION and our history (not social science, not social studies...AMERICAN HISTORY and WORLD HISTORY taught by a real scholar, not a PhD in Stupidity).

Ahem, do you understand the statement you just made?