Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

1…7891113

Comments

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because you used the term, and I want to know what you actually mean by it.



    Are you sure that the American citizenry is paying taxes in exchange for "military protection"? I'm an American citizen. I'm not paying taxes for "military protection". I'm paying taxes because the state threatens me. They then use that money for "military protection" which, in my lifetime, has arguably made me less safe than if they hadn't.

    Would you prefer America didn't exist?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    But why would I want to pay for someone else's police and fire department.

    You probably wouldn't. Some people might. But it really doesn't matter. You have no obligation to pay for someone else's police and fire department. Establishing one in your town, however, would do that in part.
    I pay the tolls because I am using that road and benefit from it being properly maintained.

    You see how your toll is paying for someone else's road too though, right?
    Why would I want to pay even higher tolls just to pay for some other twon's police and fire department.

    You probably wouldn't. Few people would. But again, that doesn't really matter. Establishing that road in your town likely would do that in part, in the event that the same people who pay for your roads also pay for your town's police and fire department.
    I will pay for those departments in the town/city I live and work in, but wouldn't be too happy if I had to front the bill for someone else. What about people who don't drive, they then get to benefit from these services free of charge.

    What service do they benefit from "free of charge"?
    The willfull purchase of the citizenry. So we the people would directly purchase supplies, uniforms, equipment for the military.

    Not necessarily, no, but that would be an option. More likely, you would determine what your security from external threats is worth to you and contribute to a provider nearest that price point. I mean, you don't buy Wal-Mart employees' uniforms, supplies or equipment directly, but you do indirectly.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    Would you prefer America didn't exist?

    America the land? America the people? America the government? America the culture? What specifically do you mean by "America"?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I think the answer is obvious knowing him as well as I do. But I'll just let him answer you when he can.

    I think the answer is obvious too. I'm intruiged to hear his response.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    America the land? America the people? America the government? America the culture? What specifically do you mean by "America"?

    That was a sort of, you know, rhetorical question in nature, but since you answered, sure, which one could you live without? And why?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I think the answer is obvious too. I'm intruiged to hear his response.

    Well, what do you think the obvious answer is since you're here?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    That's it exactly. This is the same concept as paying taxes just disguised as freewill. New boss same as the old boss. Not caslling it a "tax" just makes some people feel better.

    If you change the name, but still force people to pay it at gunpoint, it's still a tax. It was the same thing when you changed it from "theft" to "taxation" as well.

    And I'd never hide the fact that everything I say here requires the concept of free-will. If free-will doesn't exist, tax away! As a matter of fact, do whatever you'd like...or at least whatever you're programmed to do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Well, what do you think the obvious answer is since you're here?

    Are you asking me to read past Kabongs exact literal statements? Because, if so, that would violate the very thing you were yelling at me in the first place for doing.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    That was a sort of, you know, rhetorical question in nature, but since you answered, sure, which one could you live without? And why?

    I could probably live without any of them, depending on how and when they went out of existence. I'd be very happy if "America" the government ceased to exist. I'd be very sad if "America" the land ceased to exist. I'd have mixed emotions if "America" the culture ceased to exist. And I'd be incredibly sad if "America" the people ceased to exist.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I could probably live without any of them, depending on how and when they went out of existence. I'd be very happy if "America" the government ceased to exist. I'd be very sad if "America" the land ceased to exist. I'd have mixed emotions if "America" the culture ceased to exist. And I'd be incredibly sad if "America" the people ceased to exist.

    I'd be incredibley humored if you made your sentiments into a movie. :)
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Are you asking me to read past Kabongs exact literal statements? Because, if so, that would violate the very thing you were yelling at me in the first place for doing.

    I'm not yelling at you. I woud use caps if I was trying to express that level of aggravation. Annoyed would be a better discription and I don't yell simply from being annoyed.

    I'm asking you now because I'm quite curious as to how you view his motives. Certainly just because you have these views of him, whatever they may be, it doesn't make them accurate. So you can't pass your perception of Kabong off as the 'truth' when you're only assuming.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You probably wouldn't. Some people might. But it really doesn't matter. You have no obligation to pay for someone else's police and fire department. Establishing one in your town, however, would do that in part.



    You see how your toll is paying for someone else's road too though, right?



    You probably wouldn't. Few people would. But again, that doesn't really matter. Establishing that road in your town likely would do that in part, in the event that the same people who pay for your roads also pay for your town's police and fire department.



    What service do they benefit from "free of charge"?



    Not necessarily, no, but that would be an option. More likely, you would determine what your security from external threats is worth to you and contribute to a provider nearest that price point. I mean, you don't buy Wal-Mart employees' uniforms, supplies or equipment directly, but you do indirectly.

    First my tolls would not pay for another road. The tolls on that road would do that. I would only be providing for the roads I use. Again people who don't drive would not be paying any tolls but if their house was on fire or their home burglerized they would be receiving the services of their local police and fire department without having contributed to the revenue that said department needs to operate. Right now, the way it stands, my property taxes pay for those local services that I use in my town. Using a method like tolls on roads i am forced to pay for other town's services via the tolls.

    The problem is not taxes, but how we collect and use them.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Rushlimbo
    Rushlimbo Posts: 832
    farfromglorified wrote:
    If you change the name, but still force people to pay it at gunpoint, it's still a tax. It was the same thing when you changed it from "theft" to "taxation" as well.

    And I'd never hide the fact that everything I say here requires the concept of free-will. If free-will doesn't exist, tax away! As a matter of fact, do whatever you'd like...or at least whatever you're programmed to do.

    Hehe. If I'm programmed then so are you. I dont have a problem paying taxes to enjoy civilization the way it is now. I dont know how you can claim to be so against the concept of taxation and STILL pay them without a fight. Perhaps you are programmed to fear the tax boogeyman. Is there another land where they live as you dream? Maybe you should move there. if there is no such place and you are against the current system as a claim, then maybe you should take all likeminded people in this current crappy system and form your own nation. You can call it "January 1st" since that will be your tax free day. Good luck.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'm not yelling at you. I woud use caps if I was trying to express that level of aggravation. Annoyed would be a better discription and I don't yell simply from being annoyed.

    I'm asking you now because I'm quite curious as to how you view his motives. Certainly just because you have these views of him, whatever they may be, it doesn't make them accurate. So you can't pass your perception of Kabong off as the 'truth' when you're only assuming.
    Maybe you can direct me to the "Halliburton" discussion in question in this thread. I'd LOVE to see the debate in it's entirety. :)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'm not yelling at you. I woud use caps if I was trying to express that level of aggravation. Annoyed would be a better discription and I don't yell simply from being annoyed.

    Hehe...I meant "yelling" as more of a generic euphemism.
    I'm asking you now because I'm quite curious as to how you view his motives. Certainly just because you have these views of him, whatever they may be, it doesn't make them accurate. So you can't pass your perception of Kabong off as the 'truth' when you're only assuming.

    I'm not passing off my perception as "truth". I'm allowing my perception to be challenged. That's why I've been asking these questions, and that's why I'm interested in seeing his response.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Hehe. If I'm programmed then so are you.

    Of course. Isn't that what denying free-will is all about?
    I dont have a problem paying taxes to enjoy civilization the way it is now. I dont know how you can claim to be so against the concept of taxation and STILL pay them without a fight.

    Because my claims aren't really just anti-tax. My claims are pro-freedom and pro-life. Why would I sacrifice my life or further sacrifice my freedoms for less taxes?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    angelica wrote:
    Maybe you can direct me to the "Halliburton" discussion in question in this thread. I'd LOVE to see the debate in it's entirety. :)

    Here's the thread:
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=204630&highlight=worst

    I haven't reread yet it, myself.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Here's the thread:
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=204630&highlight=worst

    I haven't reread yet it, myself.
    Thanks! :)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...I meant "yelling" as more of a generic euphemism.



    I'm not passing off my perception as "truth". I'm allowing my perception to be challenged. That's why I've been asking these questions, and that's why I'm interested in seeing his response.


    You allow yourself to get personal about things that you can't know. You don't pass if off as a guess, you make accusations.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    First my tolls would not pay for another road.The tolls on that road would do that. I would only be providing for the roads I use.

    Do you think when you buy a roll of toilet paper at Wal-Mart that you've only paid for that roll of paper and nothing else?
    Again people who don't drive would not be paying any tolls but if their house was on fire or their home burglerized they would be receiving the services of their local police and fire department without having contributed to the revenue that said department needs to operate.

    Why would this happen? Why would your tolls go to police and fire departments, by default?
    Right now, the way it stands, my property taxes pay for those local services that I use in my town. Using a method like tolls on roads i am forced to pay for other town's services via the tolls.

    Who is forcing you to pay these things? When I talk about toll roads, I'm talking about an entity that charges you for administering their roads, not a government charging you for whatever it pleases.
    The problem is not taxes, but how we collect and use them.

    I'd agree with that. But how you collect them and how you use them are prescribed by the concept of taxation to begin with: collection by force and use by fiat.

Categories