web analytics

Can we get him Drug Tested? ( continued )

By Phantom On September 20th, 2013

images

Troll shut down his thread to future comments. He must be tired. So, lets just continue the conversation right here.

Try to stay away from any abuse, just continue to discuss the issue here please. We begin with what would have been my next comment on his thread.

45 Responses to “Can we get him Drug Tested? ( continued )”

  1. Pete

    I know young / younger people who have gotten seriously sick, requiring a lot of care, and so do you.

    If there’s no individual mandate, the only way to make anything work is to allow hospitals to decline to treat uninsured sick or injured. And that’s not on.

    If insurance is such a rip off, I invite you to start the Pete Insurance Company so that you can rake in all the pots of gold.

    Its not as easy as you think, and insurance companies go out of business every year because they paid too many claims and collected too little premium.

    The premium of the many pays for the losses of the few. That is how it works.

  2. Thank you Phantom for countering Troll’s abuse of ATW.

    Pete Moore: “Insurance is usually a rip-off. In this case, the rip-off is the mandated transfer of wealth from (mostly) working people to special interests, in this case insurance firms. ”

    Pete, do you think insurance is a ‘class’ issue? Define ‘working people?’

  3. There can be no complaint!

    Let the river of conversation flow.

  4. pinky –

    People earning around the average wage, which is the vast majority.

    Look, government really is, as Bastiat said, the great fiction by which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.

    When you bear this in mind, the reason for most of what government does becomes clear. Laws and regulations are designed either to transfer wealth from one party to another, or block a party from entering an industry (say via high compliance costs).

    Obamacare was written long before Obama was in the White House and it was written by the special interests. Look at what it says: you must buy this product or be punished, citizens.

    What is the purpose of that? It’s the obvious purpose. It forces a great transfer of wealth from the people to the politically connected insider interests.

    Congress of course has absolved itself. Tax-victims must also pay for their health cover or be punished. This alone is sufficient reason for American citizens to not comply.

  5. It is helpful to people who can’t get insurance in any free market due to preexisting conditions

    Etc

  6. “Tax- victims”. 🙂

    Pete, :-), there is no reply really possible to such anti-government nonsense.

    Maybe you could put up a Jam video, and we can agree on one thing!

  7. Health Insurance is a good thing. So are car insurance, life insurance, etc. Not everything is a government conspiracy against citizens.

  8. I live in a high tax area but I am no tax victim and neither is anyone else here.

  9. There’s a possible reply, such as agreement. What no-one has ever done here is explain how ‘tax’ is not extracted by threats of violence.

  10. “What no-one has ever done here is explain how ‘tax’ is not extracted by threats of violence.”

    Why do you object to paying taxes, Pete. Don’t you enjoy living in a society with roads, and relatively clean water/air, safer travel, police and fire men when you need them etc?

  11. It is a part of how human society organizes itself at all times.

    Bees build hives, beavers build dams, humans have governments that do more/less things as funded by the tax that they set up.

    It is as natural as walking or breathing.

    Argue about the amount of it, or what it is spend on, yes. But there will be tax.

  12. “Why do you object to paying taxes, Pete.”

    Eh? I don’t pay taxes, they’re extracted from me by the threat of violence, and I object for the same reason I object to anyone robbing me.

    At least other thieves and gangsters are honestly dishonest. The way the State goes about it, they rob us, hand back a fraction and expect us to be grateful.

  13. The state doesn’t rob us. We consent to taxation. We are perfectly at liberty to elect a government that will abolish taxation and dismantle the whole idea of a public sector but no party with that platform has won an election.

  14. Who threatens you with violence Pete? What type of violence?

    Can you refuse to pay? Would you?

  15. Ha ha.

    “Don’t you enjoy living in a society with roads, and relatively clean water/air, safer travel, police and fire men when you need them etc?”

    The old “but who will build the roads?” line always comes out. Answer: the same people building them now; but with no innefficient middle man they’ll be cheaper.

    What are you going to do, buy a home in the middle of a field with no road going up to it? Of course you’re not. Wherever developers build, they build roads.

  16. pinky –

    What would happen to you if you refused to hand over any money to the IRS mafia and continued to refuse to hand money to the IRS mafia?

    What will happen to you?

  17. You go onto benefits 😉

  18. Pete,

    Who threatens you with violence Pete? What type of violence?

    Please answer.

    Why would I refuse to pay taxes? I don’t think I pay enough!

  19. What would happen to you if you refused to hand over any money to the IRS mafia

    They’d say that it was OK.

  20. pinky –

    The State threatens me with violence. If I hold out against being robbed for long enough, I will be abducted and held in a cell. If I resist they will eventually commit violence against me.

    This is the essence of all law. It’s enforced compliance, backed by the threat of violence. No-one ‘pays’ taxes. They are extracted under the threat of violence.

    You can believe otherwise, but you’ll believe fairy tales.

  21. “The State threatens me with violence.”

    When did you receive those threats? From whom exactly? What type of violence are we talking about here?

    Are all laws enforced compliance? Should we have ANY laws, Pete. On any matter?

  22. Give in pinky. Give in to logic and reason.

    You can see that I’m distilling it down to the essential act, which is robbery. You can call it ‘taxation’ all you like, but a thing is what it is. You can call a rock a piece of cheese and pretend it’s yummy, but it’s a rock. Likewise, this fiction called ‘taxation’ is robbery, the enforced confiscation of private property.

    If you believe you’re insufficiently robbed then write a cheque to the IRS. It’ll be cashed, go and do it.

    Try answering a question occasionally. The three American men who habitually run from questions here are more than enough evaders.

  23. I will crucify Pete in Trafalgar Square unless he pays his taxes.

  24. Pete

    I answered your question above. We are not robbed. We consent to it. the election results prove it.

  25. I didn’t and do not give my consent.

    Colm, not you nor anyone else the right to rob me. Therefore neither you nor they can delegate that right to State proxies.

    Nothing – no ritual, no documents, no legislation confers the right on someone to rob someone else. These are absurd beliefs.

  26. Pete, which question would you like me to answer?

    Pete, do you vote? Have you ever voted? Was Margaret Thatcher a thief among thieves?

    Yes I can call a rock a piece of cheese, but it is not a piece of cheese, just like paying tax is not being robbed.

    Pete, is there a way for you to stop paying taxes? And will you willingly give up use of roads, footpaths, beer that won’t poison you, floorboards that won’t crumble under your feet….

    A move to Somalia, might be the answer for you. I hear like is splendid there.

  27. Off-topic but you have to watch this all the way from PA

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/19/.Uju4DA7uaPI.facebook

  28. Link above is not working:

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/19/20579416-foul-mouthed-pro-gun-pennsylvania-police-chief-loses-his-job?lite

  29. Pete

    If we are all just individuals and there is no such thing as ‘the collective’ then why should people from outside the UK be restricted from coming to live here as you have advocated, or do you adopt a pick and choose rule when it comes to ‘society’ ?

  30. We consent to it. the election results prove it.

    Really? The elections results prove that the refuseniks outnumber those who voted for the party of government.

  31. Pete Moore

    Why don’t you live someplace where there are no taxes? When you find such a place let us know.

  32. New Yorker –

    What kind of argument’s that?

    The powerful, and those close to the power centres everywhere, have always extracted wealth from others by force.

    What you’re asking is, why don’t those who are made rich and powerful by State coercion just disband it all? You get your answer by asking the question.

  33. Its not just the powerful anything.

    Its also the small towns in Vermont or Switzerland that tax to fund the services that help keep them as special, highly desirable places to live over time.

  34. Pete Moore

    The answer is there is no such place where you could live and survive. Therefore, you desire a non-existent place.

    Why is there no such place presently? Because as societies develop they divide up labor hopefully to those suited to certain tasks and responsibilities. They further develop into hopefully democratic societies where members fund activities hopefully for the common good.

    By living in such a society you knowingly or not agree to the principles of that society. You could opt out, though where you could live and survive not in such a society is very limited or non-existent. Probably 200 years ago you would have more options.

  35. //The answer is there is no such place where you could live and survive.//

    Actually, there are. The countries on the Arab peninsula don’t have any kind of taxes, as far as I know, or at least didn’t until very recently.
    I lived in Saudi Arabia for a year and didnt pay a penny in taxes.

    But the “under threat of violence” line is melodramatic nonsense. The same could be said for any law. Does the state force you under threat of violence to stop at a red light? Indeed even civil law cases – and Pete is a great advocate for Civil Law – ultimately lead to court judgements that are enforced the same way as taxation is.

    Take up this question, Pete: You take a civil action against your neighbour and win. How should/could the judgement be enforced if not with the agents of the law?

  36. New Yorker –

    We all contribute to the common good by working and producing. Real public service is toiling to provide your fellow man with the goods and services he wants to buy. Talking about, well presumably what we have today, you say:

    “By living in such a society you knowingly or not agree to the principles of that society.”

    Whose principles? Not mine. I didn’t agree to them. You seak as if we reafirm a set of principles at every election. In that case our nations are stuffed full of kleptomaniacs.

    I cannot help myself to your goods, therefore I cannot ask a politician to do so for me. To vote for someone, to take your stuff, to give it to me is as bad as climbing through your window at night.

    No, calling it an election and democracy does not sanctify it.

  37. Noel Cunningham –

    “But the “under threat of violence” line is melodramatic nonsense. The same could be said for any law.”

    Which I do. You might recall me referring to “the violence of law”. They are directives backed up by the implied threat of violence. Otherwise, how would laws be enforced?

    “Does the state force you under threat of violence to stop at a red light?”

    Yes, of course it does. If a camera catches me running a red light I’d be fined. If I don’t pay I’ll be dragged in front of a court. If I continue to resist I will eventually be caged.

    “Indeed even civil law cases – and Pete is a great advocate for Civil Law – ultimately lead to court judgements that are enforced the same way as taxation is.”

    Well now we’re talking. The great mistake that many make is to assume that an anarchistic society is one without rules. It’s certainly not. I’m all in favour of rules voluntarily arrived. We adhere to them all the time.

    Before the old canard about murder makes an appearance, we had social rules against murder for a thousand years before Parliament codified them. It remains an offence under the common law.

    “Take up this question, Pete: You take a civil action against your neighbour and win. How should/could the judgement be enforced if not with the agents of the law?”

    Already, we often resolve disputes via arbitration rather then through state agents. Many industries are stuffed full of arbitrators. The idea that I should have to appeal to the central state to get a ruling on where our fence line runs is absurd. We only do that through habit, following the growth of the central state into every area of life. Private law and arbitration has as long a history as state law, probably more so.

  38. Pete

    I live in fear that you actually believe in this stuff, any of it

    Arbitration is a useful tool. Two major reasons why it exists are that it avoids what is often the huge expense and long duration of litigation, and that an arbitration process which can be unfair, is imposed by a much stonger party – a company you bought a house or insurance policy from, an employer, etc. Arbitration is very often not voluntary at all now.Many of my customers hate it when it is imposed on them.

    Nearly everything you say moves to shifting power more to the powerful, not the other way round.

    You seek essentially the repeal of all laws and regulation, and a catastrophic increase in litigation, and its associated expense and delay and unfairness, for no possible gain that any thinking person can see.This is the most absurd position that anyone has ever taken on these pages.

  39. Arbitration is useful when agreed to freely by parties of substantially equal power.

    This is very often not the case.

  40. Pete Moore

    By the very fact that you physically exist in a given political entity you agree knowingly or not with the principles therein. The only way not to is to physically remove yourself. You could take Noel’s statement and physically take yourself to the Arabian pensinula and not pay taxes but have to observe rules based on their principles which might not be to your liking.

  41. //By the very fact that you physically exist in a given political entity you agree knowingly or not with the principles therein. //

    That can’t be true, NY. There are dissidents/dissenters in every society.

  42. Pete – People don’t get to pick and choose everything they wish to contribute to or not. Like child who demands dessert for every meal you simply lack maturity to even discuss these issues.

  43. Hi from Chasrlotte NC. Big city. Many NY Giants fans down here for the game today.

    Pete’s main issue is that he has built up a structure of ideas that don’t make sense even by his own standards. It could never work, and all of us here have been gentle with him. There are endless, gaping logical flaws in this extreme, anarchist ” no government ” philosophy. If we pointed them all out, there’d be no time to discuss anything else.

  44. Noel

    By dissenting they acknowledge the principles and accept the consequences of dissenting from them.

  45. NY –

    You’ve lost me with that argument.

    Mahons –

    A free people would get to pick and choose. Your principle is that the State can do what it likes, so long as enough people vote for it. You accept tyranny then, if enough people vote for it. You implicitly accept the very worst acts, so long as some people vote for it.