Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

You can't steal from those legal entities because in the end, that legal entity is the property of a person.

Next: Whose properties are political parties?

No, because the money doesn't go back to whom it belonged in the first place.

It comes back as different public services.

The difference is that religious people spread their religion by saying they KNOW that their god exists.

You're missing the whole point. Belief is about belief which is different from knowledge. If you don't know something, you can believe it or not. But you're saying, non-existence of God is more probable, when the fact is, we don't know anything about the probabilities. So you're mistaken, normal believers don't, because they don't claim to know anything about probabilities, they just believe.

What? All religious people do that? Sorry but I don't know such religious people.

Talk to the average priest.

That's your guess. I am a better scientist than you are and so I will say it's a 50/50 call.

All hail the mighty Sasha.

Why wouldn't I see the difference? I see it. And you're still wrong.

You're wrong because you're wrong. Talking about argumentation.

Lichtenstein, was it? Now I get why. It is too small to be very wrong.

I picked it very wisely, didn't I? ;-)

Your mother? Tell me more about your mother.

My mother is none of your business. I just said she's a Catholic and I most certainly do not hate her.

Next: Whose properties are political parties?

The political parties are property of its members.

It comes back as different public services.

But not to whom it belonged. A rich guy gets a lower ratio out of it.

So you're mistaken, normal believers don't, because they don't claim to know anything about probabilities, they just believe.

That just makes belief a stupid choice.

No, because the money doesn't go back to whom it belonged in the first place.

If I am one of the shareholders of a company, the company can't just take stuff away from me. That's theft. Like the governments steals from us. It's not because you own a company/state (partially) that that company/state can't steal from you. And you're the one claiming logic all the time?

LOL Please, don't mention logic.

There would be no company without capital and no state without tax. The difference between a state and a company is that state accumulates its "capital" each year and the company does that in lump sums with starting capital and the necessary recapitalisations.

The state doesn't take tax from you. Tax is also voluntary and you pay it voluntarily as well. If you don't want to pay it, move someplace else. Find your own planet if you will. ;)

That just makes belief a stupid choice.

I see you got tired.

I see you got tired.

He gets tired easily.

Talk to the average priest.

Sorry but I speak only to the good ones. ;)

All hail the mighty Sasha.

You're wrong because you're wrong. Talking about argumentation.

My mother is none of your business.

You replied to 3 jokes as if they were serious.

I picked it very wisely, didn't I? ;-)

Well, at least you got 1 out of 4. I hope you're better in evaluating probabilities. ;)
(edited)

:)

There would be no [...] state without tax.

Say what? So if taxes are abolished, there is no state according to you?

Tax is also voluntary and you pay it voluntarily as well. If you don't want to pay it, move someplace else.

So if we make a law (democratically) that it's legal to kill someone, people get killed 'voluntarily' in that country?

He gets tired easily.

Everyone has a limit to the bullshit he can tolerate. I think I have shown in the past that I have quite a high limit.

Well, at least you got 1 out of 4. I hope you're better in evaluating probabilities.

3 of them were jokes. So I got 1 out of 1.

Say what? So if taxes are abolished, there is no state according to you?

Well, tax is capital injection to remain liquidity of the state. It's the basis of state's cash flow. Can a company last without cash inflows? Are you really an economist?

So if we make a law (democratically) that it's legal to kill someone, people get killed 'voluntarily' in that country?

We already have such laws. You can kill in self-defence, enemy in war, in some countries euthanasia is legal. As you can see, all of these examples include more or less voluntary decision from the person getting killed. And we even have legal abortions where we kill someone who is most definitely wanting to live.

So, your idea that tax is theft is quite ridiculous. Saying that abortion is murder has more basis (btw, it is not murder but homicide).

3 of them were jokes. So I got 1 out of 1.

I made 4 jokes and you replied appropriately to only 1.

Everyone has a limit to the bullshit he can tolerate. I think I have shown in the past that I have quite a high limit.

1 out of 5 now. Your percentage is falling. Be careful. ;)

Are you really an economist?

Instead of asking these ridiculous questions, answer mine. If there are no taxes, is there no state?

We already have such laws.

I meant just kill someone at random. I walk on the street and I just kill some random dude. Would he get killed 'voluntarily' in that case? (If those laws were democratically accepted.)

I made 4 jokes and you replied appropriately to only 1.

The term 'joke' is subject to quite some inflation apparently.

I meant just kill someone at random. I walk on the street and I just kill some random dude. Would he get killed 'voluntarily' in that case? (If those laws were democratically accepted.)

You have the choice to go away from such a country. If you stay there, you take the risk.

So once again, you're not reading. So I'll end this discussion here.

OMG, everytime you have nothing to respond you have to do like that?

I'm an economist.

ROFLOL!