Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Kehama wrote:
How can someone make the argument that the US Government is attacking Christianity and suppressing Christians freedom to worship... and believe it?

Two words.

Conspiracy.
Theory.

IMAGE(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/argument_victory.png)

Spoiler:
"Really, the comforting side in most conspiracy theory arguments is the one claiming that anyone who's in power has any plan at all."

Tkyl wrote:
Kehama wrote:
How can someone make the argument that the US Government is attacking Christianity and suppressing Christians freedom to worship... and believe it?

By not actually thinking about what they are saying.

Being accustomed to privilege helps. Accepting the status quo as the way it is supposed to be is part of human nature.

What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

that movie sucked.

Edwin wrote:

Is this as big of a deal as they are making it out to be?

Can't watch the video as it's geolocked, but if it's about the Barclays Libor thing there'll be wrist-slapping and a lot of sighing and not much will change.

SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

No clue since I'm not of that mindset but are you drawing the parallel between "taxes are armed robbery" and hatred of anything that is forced on you by the state?

Kehama wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

No clue since I'm not of that mindset but are you drawing the parallel between "taxes are armed robbery" and hatred of anything that is forced on you by the state?

No, I'm drawing a parallel between different forms of civic duty. Legitimate question, not a baited setup.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Kehama wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

No clue since I'm not of that mindset but are you drawing the parallel between "taxes are armed robbery" and hatred of anything that is forced on you by the state?

No, I'm drawing a parallel between different forms of civic duty. Legitimate question, not a baited setup.

I think it would be basically the same as our previous conversation on this page: jury duty is to protect people from government oppression, lest the government overstep in its role preventing aggression. So when you get summoned for jury duty, what's your complaint going to be? That you don't mind government oppression? Well then, it would be hypocritical to complain about the government oppression of jury duty, wouldn't it?

What happens if you don't go? I honestly don't know, do you get fined? If so, can you follow the same trail from not paying taxes and end up at "thrown in jail at gun point"?

SixteenBlue wrote:
Kehama wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

No clue since I'm not of that mindset but are you drawing the parallel between "taxes are armed robbery" and hatred of anything that is forced on you by the state?

No, I'm drawing a parallel between different forms of civic duty. Legitimate question, not a baited setup.

I think it would be basically the same as our previous conversation on this page: jury duty is to protect people from government oppression, lest the government overstep in its role preventing aggression. So when a person is summoned for jury duty, what's their complaint going to be? That they don't mind government oppression? Well then, it would be hypocritical of them to complain about the government oppression of jury duty, wouldn't it?

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Kehama wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

No clue since I'm not of that mindset but are you drawing the parallel between "taxes are armed robbery" and hatred of anything that is forced on you by the state?

No, I'm drawing a parallel between different forms of civic duty. Legitimate question, not a baited setup.

I think it would be basically the same as our previous conversation on this page: jury duty is to protect people from government oppression, lest the government overstep in its role preventing aggression. So when you get summoned for jury duty, what's your complaint going to be? That you don't mind government oppression? Well then, it would be hypocritical to complain about the government oppression of jury duty, wouldn't it?

What happens if you don't go? I honestly don't know, do you get fined? If so, can you follow the same trail from not paying taxes and end up at "thrown in jail at gun point"?

Same as in any other government with jury duty? The only issue I can think of particular to a "taxes are slavery" ideology is that they don't have available the 'general betterment of society' goal as a justification for the severity of the penalty.

Of course, the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd is a pretty diverse crowd, but that's how I could see some of them justifying it.

I heard and interesting interview on Joe Rogan's podcast the other day (Hey the drive from Chicago to Grand rapids, to Detroit and back is boring as sh*t), with Shane Smith of Vice it was a fascinating 3 hours of conversation.

I haven't had time to do more than a cursory vetting of the info he was presenting, but despite the trashiness of his magazine the stories seem equal parts fascinating and depressing.

Anyone know anything about this guy and his VBS.tv?

SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/...

If no force may be used against a noncriminal, then the current system of compulsory jury duty must also be abolished. Just as conscription is a form of slavery, so too is compulsory jury duty. Precisely because being a juror is so important a service, the service must not be filled by resentful serfs. And how can any society call itself "libertarian" that rests on a foundation of jury slavery? In the current system, the courts enslave jurors because they pay a daily wage so far below the market price that the inevitable shortage of jury labor has to be supplied by coercion.

The problem is very much the same as the military draft, where the army pays far below the market wage for privates, cannot obtain the number of men they want at that wage, and then turns to conscription to supply the gap. Let the courts pay the market wage for jurors, and sufficient supply will be forthcoming.

MacBrave wrote:
Let the courts pay the market wage for jurors, and sufficient supply will be forthcoming.

So, which magical unicorn's ass does he think this money is going to fall out of?

Career jurors! And nothing will ever go wrong!

MacBrave wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/...

If no force may be used against a noncriminal, then the current system of compulsory jury duty must also be abolished. Just as conscription is a form of slavery, so too is compulsory jury duty. Precisely because being a juror is so important a service, the service must not be filled by resentful serfs. And how can any society call itself "libertarian" that rests on a foundation of jury slavery? In the current system, the courts enslave jurors because they pay a daily wage so far below the market price that the inevitable shortage of jury labor has to be supplied by coercion.

The problem is very much the same as the military draft, where the army pays far below the market wage for privates, cannot obtain the number of men they want at that wage, and then turns to conscription to supply the gap. Let the courts pay the market wage for jurors, and sufficient supply will be forthcoming.

Thanks. While I completely disagree I am still happy to see the consistency.

I find the idea horrifying.

How far is this crazy going to get
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/bach...

SixteenBlue wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
What does the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd think about jury duty?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/...

If no force may be used against a noncriminal, then the current system of compulsory jury duty must also be abolished. Just as conscription is a form of slavery, so too is compulsory jury duty. Precisely because being a juror is so important a service, the service must not be filled by resentful serfs. And how can any society call itself "libertarian" that rests on a foundation of jury slavery? In the current system, the courts enslave jurors because they pay a daily wage so far below the market price that the inevitable shortage of jury labor has to be supplied by coercion.

The problem is very much the same as the military draft, where the army pays far below the market wage for privates, cannot obtain the number of men they want at that wage, and then turns to conscription to supply the gap. Let the courts pay the market wage for jurors, and sufficient supply will be forthcoming.

Thanks. While I completely disagree I am still happy to see the consistency.

Except it's not consistent, at least with what I believe you are thinking--if you go to that page, he writes: "If no force may be used against a noncriminal" which leads to the point that iaintgotnopants brought up: which mythical beast's rectum does this species issue forth from?

Looking up something else the guy said:

Thus, if a government based on voluntary taxation permits free competition, the result will be the purely free-market system outlined in chapter 1 above. The previous government would now simply be one competing defense agency among many on the market. It would, in fact, be competing at a severe disadvantage, having been established on the principle of "democratic voting." Looked at as a market phenomenon, "democratic voting" (one vote per person) is simply the method of the consumer "co-operative." Empirically, it has been demonstrated time and again that co-operatives cannot compete successfully against stock-owned companies, especially when both are equal before the law. There is no reason to believe that co-operatives for defense would be any more efficient. Hence, we may expect the old co-operative government to "wither away" through loss of customers on the market, while joint-stock (i.e., corporate) defense agencies would become the prevailing market form.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/...

So yeah--that's not so much this guy arguing against taxes as slavery as it is him arguing for anarchism, even if he's arguing he's not an anarchist because of...SEMANTICS!

We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."
http://mises.org/daily/2801

Rothbard began to consider himself a private property anarchist in the 1950s and later began to use "anarcho-capitalist".[55][56] He wrote: "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."[57] In his anarcho-capitalist model, a system of protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services. Anarcho-capitalism would mean the end of the state monopoly on force.[55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_...

tl;dr: all anarchists may be members of the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd, but not all members of the "taxes are armed robbery" crowd are anarchists.

(of course, that phrase '"taxes are armed robbery" crowd' may be the problem in the first place--are you just referring to people who consider taxes raised for purposes other than self-defense from aggression are slavery, or the more extreme elements among those that believe such?)

Chairman_Mao wrote:
How far is this crazy going to get
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/bach...

What's worse is she's a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees all US intelligence activities.

OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
How far is this crazy going to get
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/bach...

What's worse is she's a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees all US intelligence activities.


Dude just blew my mind, seeing her name and intelligence with out the word lack in there there some where.

OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
How far is this crazy going to get
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/bach...

What's worse is she's a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees all US intelligence activities.

Part of me hates to sound like an elitist jerk, but this is what Democracy gives us. Thanks voters.

Atras wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
How far is this crazy going to get
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/bach...

What's worse is she's a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees all US intelligence activities.

Part of me hates to sound like an elitist jerk, but this is what Democracy gives us. Thanks voters.

Better than a dictatorship.. there are at least people condemning her views.

goman wrote:
Atras wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
How far is this crazy going to get
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/bach...

What's worse is she's a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees all US intelligence activities.

Part of me hates to sound like an elitist jerk, but this is what Democracy gives us. Thanks voters.

Better than a dictatorship.. there are at least people condemning her views.
Very true. It's annoying that she is one of ~400 Congressmen, and only 1 out of the 8 Congressmen from Minnesota yet she is clearly unqualified for anything, and she sits on the Financial Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. So while I think the US Government is a pretty sound concept, things like this really undermine my faith in the electorate.

Question: what is Obama going to do differently in his second term to help the economy?

Whatever Congress lets him do... Considering that it's *Congress* that passes laws, I'm surprised people think the President does more than try to influence overall policy. Although I guess he could tell the Fed what to do, that would be unwise in other than the grand strategic sense.

So to me the real question is, what will the Republicans do to help the economy in an Obama second term?

Robear wrote:
So to me the real question is, what will the Republicans do to help the economy in an Obama second term?

Nothing. They will continue to hinder things as much as possible, and keep blaming liberals for destroying America, and hope that the next president will be a 'real' American, that is to say, a Republican. Once that happens, they will claim any improvements as theirs, and anything that gets worse or stays the same will be blamed on the 'previous administration'.

In other words, things will stay exactly the same.

From the U.K.: How 'morally wrong' is it to pay cash-in-hand?

David Gauke, a Treasury minister, told The Daily Telegraph that home owners who allow workmen to evade VAT or income tax were forcing others to pay more.

His comments reflect growing concern in Whitehall about the cash-in-hand economy, which costs Britain billions of pounds a year in lost tax revenues.

However, critics accused the Government of being “unnecessarily moralistic” about ordinary people trying to keep their household bills down.
Mr Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said: “Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others have to pay more in tax.

“I think it is morally wrong. It is illegal for the plumber but it is pretty implicit in those circumstances that there is a reason why there is a discount for cash. That is a large part of the hidden economy.”

According to a report by the Public Accounts Committee, more than two million people make cash-in-hand payments costing the Treasury an estimated £2  billion. There is no law against paying someone in cash, but tradesmen are under a legal obligation to disclose their earnings to HMRC and say whether they are liable for income tax or VAT.

MacBrave wrote:
Mr Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said: “Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others have to pay more in tax.

Only if the government spends more money than it gets in tax and so has to raise taxes. I don't have any problem with people paying cash for purchases. I wish more people did. I think it is somewhat wrong that Visa and Mastercard and whatever the common UK equivalent is skim around 3% off almost every non-cash purchase in the US.

LeapingGnome wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
Mr Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said: “Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others have to pay more in tax.

I don't have any problem with people paying cash for purchases. I wish more people did. I think it is somewhat wrong that Visa and Mastercard and whatever the common UK equivalent is skim around 3% off almost every non-cash purchase in the US.

I don't think it's just "I'll give you a 5% discount if you pay with cash." It's "I'll give you a 5% discount if you pay in cash and then I won't report the income."

This type of behavior is a contributing factor the the entire mess in Greece. Avoiding taxes is a national pastime there.