Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

yes I do, but do you really believe in such things..?

Law of nature is as real as the social contract. Both are interesting concepts.

just try to tell a rule rispected everywhere

It's not because it isn't respected everywhere that it wouldn't be a law of nature.

because the state decides about what % of rights to give to you.

No. The state should just make sure that only those who were involved get money (and a small percent goes to taxes to pay the public goods).

If the blue people have the strenght to do it, they will be allowed to paint of blue even your face.

That's why we need a government who make sure no man or group gets this kind of power. That's why the government itself shouldn't have a lot of power (though they should get the monopoly on using violence).

No. The state should just make sure that only those who were involved get money (and a small percent goes to taxes to pay the public goods).

what I find unbeliavable in your ideas is that the:
1. market must be letf free to do almost everything at every cost.
It regulates itself at optimum (doesn't care how many people die/suffer)
2 state must not intervene in any case it can avoid it (doesn't care how many people die/suffer).

But I think both them (market and state) were made up FOR people, so they are no more interesting if don't serve them as good as it is possible.

this is why talking about social contract is the key of the problem (people will not stay too long in a situation that don't fit their interest), and law of nature is only a stupid theory (and an abandoned one, that some only some religion keep alive to continue to influence the laws).

To conclude nobody has nothing without state, it gives what it decides to, there's no right or wrong, only the decision of who run it.
The law we have is the esact definition of the state of balance of power in our countries.
so when you write "state must", "state must not" you have to say for the interest of WHO..

there's no right or wrong, only the decision of who run it.

The key is not who runs it, but what it (government) does. It should do as less as possible.

so when you write "state must", "state must not" you have to say for the interest of WHO..

It's not aimed for someone's interest. I simply don't care for that. If the rich or the poor benefit from it, I couldn't care less. The point is that I have an opinion about what the state should and shouldn't do. Who benefits from it, is for me irrelevant. Do I want to make the poor poorer? No. Do I want to make them richer? No. Do I want to make the rich richer? No. Do I want to make them poorer? No. I'm not targeting on any of that. I'm targeting at a small state without substantial power in the daily life of the citizens (except for the monopoly on violence, Hobbes' Leviathan). I'm talking about what I believe is the only morally acceptable state. A liberal, free society. Totally different from our Western socialist states.

You can't disregard the consequences. The objections many of us have against your ideology is precisely because the inevitable consequences are completely unacceptable to us. When you say you don't care what the consequences may be, you are effectively denying any possiblity of debate on the matter. It's like you want to drive your car at speed because you feel you have right to do so - even if it is blindfolded on a road where many small children like to play. I often wonder whether you truly understand what you are preaching.

Actually, I can. I think it's wrong to base an ideology on the fact that you want to benefit a certain group by stealing from another group. That opens the gate to clientelism and neo-corporatism. Which is not the way to go for me.

And when I drive 100 km/h, I (directly) endanger those children. And speed limits are necessary (on certain roads), they are a part of the basic organisation of society.

Actually, I can.

By your own admission, you don't care. So what is it? If you do care, you should take into account that your ideal world has some flaws. So far you have been very unwilling to discuss said flaws. You will need to adress the issue of power balance in any type of society in order to fully appreciate it.

you want to benefit a certain group by stealing from another group.

Would you please stop calling it theft? Whichever way you look at it, it's not theft. There is a very clear definition of theft. I strongly suggest you learn it and use it. Taxation is a necessary given, even in your ideal world.

Taxation is making a donation for helping the weaker.

An example happened in France recently : a family has his child who has a very rare type of cancer. They can keep him at home to have a better life... But it costs a lot of money to build a new room to keep him without microbian's atmosphere... They can buy by themselves... Thus, all the village give a donation and/or helped the family to build the house during their free time... This is just this helping others... This is not a theft...

So what is it?

I don't care who benefits from 'my' system, and therefore, the result (who actually benefits) cannot be seen as a flaw (to me). You can think that it is a flaw (from your POV), but for me, it really isn't.

So far you have been very unwilling to discuss said flaws.

I am willing to discuss flaws you see if I think it's a flaw. There is no point in discussing it if I think it's not a flaw.

You will need to adress the issue of power balance in any type of society in order to fully appreciate it.

I have told you multiple times how I see that.

Would you please stop calling it theft?

No.

Whichever way you look at it, it's not theft. There is a very clear definition of theft. I strongly suggest you learn it and use it. Taxation is a necessary given, even in your ideal world.

Taxation for public goods is necessary. Only a small amount of our taxes go to public goods (education and such are no public goods to be clear).

Taxation is making a donation for helping the weaker.

A donation is voluntarily. Taxation is not voluntarily. Ergo taxation isn't making a donation.

Thus, all the village give a donation and/or helped the family to build the house during their free time... This is just this helping others... This is not a theft...

Of course that's not theft. It's charity. This has nothing to do with taxation though.

Not all morals are thrown away. You know that.

No not all, but the moment it's about profit and not about the best for humanity, morals and values become at least the second priority if not even less, and it happens a lot. The pharmaceutical industry for example, die of aids or pay. You can't afford it? To bad, then you die. And this is just one of many examples. I can also use the US as an example with a failing medical system based on making profits. Or food shipped from countries that need it themselves, but the highest bidder gets it and that are the first world countries. Or the oil industry, mining industry (of valuable raw materials), fishing industry, etc etc etc.

And indeed, I'm not talking about the over-production in the first world countries, but all food that is shipped to these first world countries (that even isn't even needed as we have enough already, but we pay more). Actually, it wouldn't be right to ship our over-production to the second or third world countries at predatory pricing as it will ruin the markets of these already vulnerable markets.

First of all, what is important in killing is who initiated the violence. It wasn't us. (Libya for instance.)

It's not the point who started, the answer to your question is that killing is already done for the best of humanity.

EDIT: and please stop that ridiculous statement that taxation is theft, it absolutely makes no sense. The more you say it doesn't make it more true. Taxation isn't unauthorized so can't be theft!
(edited)

They could afford it. Remember that in the liberal system (neoliberalism is only invented by leftists to make liberalism look like a bad ideology), net wages would be a lot higher.

it seems as: "and yeah, its hard today, but when we reach utopia, wages will be higher" , its a fairy tale like communism. Or you mean middle class on Usa can afford an expensive illness?

I dont think what its mean as excludable in english then ( excluible)

and please stop that ridiculous statement that taxation is theft, it absolutely makes no sense. The more you say it doesn't make it more true. Taxation isn't unauthorized so can't be theft!

Well, juridical, it might not be theft. But look at the facts:

- you are forced to buy some goods / services; you cannot chose to buy them or not, and
- if you don't pay for those goods / services (that might be unwanted), the government threatens with violence.

I call this theft. You can think otherwise, but I'll continue to call taxes what they are, whether you like it or not.

It's not me who thinks it's something different as it is, it's you who thinks that. Taxation isn't theft, it's your personal opinion it is theft but that's a big difference with reality.

Besides, you get something in return for paying taxes, or don't you use the roads and/or drive a car (which causes polution besides roads that need to be maintained because of use and be save), public transport, go to a doctor or hospital when you get sick or need medicines, need national security with police and an army, go to school that is now affordable, want clean streets, go to the toilet and have a working sewerage, etc etc etc?

(edited)

It's not me who thinks it's something different as it is, it's you who thinks that. Taxation isn't theft, it's your personal opinion it is theft but that's a big difference with reality.

It is indeed. And I am free to express that opinion. So I'll continue calling taxation in our countries theft.

Besides, you get something in return for paying taxes, or don't you use the roads and/or drive a car (which causes polution besides roads that need to be maintained because of use and be save), public transport, go to a doctor or hospital when you get sick or need medicines, need national security with police and an army, go to school that is now affordable, want clean streets, go to the toilet and have a working sewerage, etc etc etc?

Do you even reed what I write? Let me repeat myself:

- For public goods (public roads, national security, police, ...): no problem, this is not theft.
- For all other goods (like public transport, doctor, hospital, school, ...): I cannot chose if I want those goods or not although they aren't public goods; I should have this choice (and the associated bill; if I use them, I pay for it; if I don't use them, I don't pay for it). Because I don't have the choice, I am forced (I am threatened with violence if I don't) to buy these goods. This is theft. If I use those goods / services or not is irrelevant to it being theft or not.

Unless, you actually find some argumentation instead of making me repeating myself all the time, I won't answer anymore on this subject.

(If you would find a more specific and in your and mine opinion more correct definition of what I call theft, I'd be willing to use that, but nobody has come with another word for this kind of theft so far.)

Take the US as an example, if you get sick and need to go to a hospital for a few weeks then you can be sure you are financially ruined, the same if you need expensive medicines for the rest of your live. And this is in a first world country.
But I can also take private schools as an example, if someone has the brain but not the money to afford more and/or higher education, his/her live will be completely decided by the fact there is not enough money.

And I don't even start about the fact that all we have now and is working great is all made possible because of taxes, like good roads, hopsitals, schools, electric grid, internet, punblic transport like rails, etc etc. It's easy to claim taxes aren't needed if all is already made possible because of this system of taxes. If all of these examples I've just mentioned would be a mess or not even existing, you would beg for taxation to make it possible.

Your utopia is heaven for the rich, but that's not the world I want to live in. The results of privatization and free markets are more and more visible and to often the results show it is a big mistake. And your utopia is also an egocentric and selfish world in which we will all be individuals that needs to take care for themselves, even if they can't for whatever reason. But we aren't individuals, we live in a society and are part of a society, and that's everything but egocentric and selfish. So yes, some pay a bit more for something they don't use (or not used till now), others get a bit more as they pay for because they really need it, and sometimes it's even 'unclear' if you get what you pay for.

EDIT: (If you would find a more specific and in your and mine opinion more correct definition of what I call theft, I'd be willing to use that, but nobody has come with another word for this kind of theft so far.)

I think words like wanting to be egocentric and selfish and also a part hypocritic cover most of the definition you are looking for ;)
(edited)

Take the US as an example, if you get sick and need to go to a hospital for a few weeks then you can be sure you are financially ruined, the same if you need expensive medicines for the rest of your live. And this is in a first world country.

And why can't people afford good health care? Because too much of their wage is taken away by taxes. Yes, American taxes are quite high (but not as high as in Europe of course). So giving the American way of health care as an example of my ideology is either a lie or a misinterpretation of my ideology.

But I can also take private schools as an example, if someone has the brain but not the money to afford more and/or higher education, his/her live will be completely decided by the fact there is not enough money.

Education is maybe one of the issues in which it might be a good idea to give loans to people who want to study (by the government). Because banks won't want to give them a loan because they have no underlying asset as guarantee. Of course, that loan has to be paid back (although some recalculation could be possible because due to education, people will earn more and therefore will pay more taxes (even with flax tax).

And I don't even start about the fact that all we have now and is working great is all made possible because of taxes, like good roads, hopsitals, schools, electric grid, internet, punblic transport like rails, etc etc. It's easy to claim taxes aren't needed if all is already made possible because of this system of taxes. If all of these examples I've just mentioned would be a mess or not even existing, you would beg for taxation to make it possible.

Yes. There would be no Internet without taxes. Makes sense.

And again, roads are public goods, you cannot compare roads with schools or hospitals.

Your utopia is heaven for the rich, but that's not the world I want to live in. The results of privatization and free markets are more and more visible and to often the results show it is a big mistake. And your utopia is also an egocentric and selfish world in which we will all be individuals that needs to take care for themselves, even if they can't for whatever reason.

Yes, because people are evil and don't give anything to charity... Come on. They would earn a substantial amount of money more due to low taxes, and could give more to charity. I don't want to live in a world where people are thought to be evil.

But we aren't individuals, we live in a society and are part of a society, and that's everything but egocentric and selfish. So yes, some pay a bit more for something they don't use (or not used till now), others get a bit more as they pay for because they really need it, and sometimes it's even 'unclear' if you get what you pay for.

We are individuals. You can deny that, but that would be plain stupid. You can call me egocentric and selfish (which I'm not), but you cannot possible expect me to be convinced of that.

I think words like egocentric and selfish and also a part hypocritic cover most of the definition you are looking for ;)

So I should say taxes are egocentric, selfish and hypocrite instead of theft? I'm okay with that ;-)