Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
One who merely lacks belief does not DISbelieve.
What does one who merely lacks belief do?
One who DISbelieves does lack belief.
Lacks a belief which affirms, not one which negates.
Therefore DISbelievers are just going a step further.
How is that a "step further"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
not necessarilya good example of a logically incoherent concept is "infinite"another good example of a logically incoherent concept is "free-will"people generally believe these are comprehensible ideasand people use these terms and exchange information containing these terms that may or may not contain perceived "miscommunication"
The point I'm driving at is reflected in this question: does communication require logically coherent concepts in order to establish communication? If I were to tell you that "my love for my family is infinite," despite the concept of infinity being logically incoherent, would that constitute as a miscommunication? You can ask me to define, "infinite." You may even propose, "what happens to your love after you perish?" But was the initial statement "miscommunicated"?
The influx of neologisms will have uprooted the necessity of strict measures, not to mention, we are discussing semantics. I believe that logically coherent concepts are important for argument, which is a form of communication. For just communication however, no (e.g. Scat singing.)
it's the difference between "not adopting a belief" and "belief in the impossibility"for example,i do not have a "positive belief" in bigfoot (i am not a "bigfoot believer" but i cannot DISprove bigfoot (because the claim is unfalsifiable) so i do not say "there can be no bigfoot" (i am also not a "bigfoot denier")
Wouldn't that inversely suggest a negative belief of some sort, which doesn't necessarily implicate a "lack" of it? I understand oromagi's contention because the term "lack" suggests "absence." And in my opinion, the only thing that approximates a "lack of belief" is ignorance. Is it that an atheist "lacks belief" or is it that an atheist sustains a "negative" belief based on a "positive" belief in something else? And I'm not suggesting that for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures.
this all has to do with the burden-of-proof that theists try to foist onto atheists
Is it really "foisted"? Or created by (some) atheists who don't substantiate their affirmations?
more precisely than "lack of belief" atheist should be understood as simply "not a theist"
Then wouldn't "a lack of [positive] belief" in theism be more appropriate than simply a "lack of belief"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itselfThere's your conditional statement.
Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever,
Agreed.
especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?
and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
I'll reserve my response pending the distinction about which I inquired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I disagree. Pederasty is still, fundamentally, is based on male-on-male sexual contact. What I see progressives doing is inconsistent with that. They're pushing a gender-confused mentality on young boys, to induce them to engage in gender-nonconforming behaviour, dress in gender non-conforming ways and modify their physicality and biology in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with maleness.What progressives seem to be pushing looks a lot more like the kind of perverse sexual practice of tribal Afghanistan, whereby young boys (usually aged 7-12) are made to look, dress and behave like girls, to be used as objects of sexual exploitation. This is different than the pederasty of, for example, Ancient Rome (even though the practice may well have been an offshoot of the same cultural aberration).
Even if the young male is dressed as a girl, that would still count as pederasty. But I can only suspect (I don't know what's on their minds) based on what I've gleaned that this all a ritual venerating the Baphomet, who has both male and female parts. And I wouldn't limit this to just progressivism, as conservatism plays a key part in the dialectic that pushes these progressive agendas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you have some plan to mitigate the influence of warlords and other cults-of-personality ?
The goals which my arguments favor does not particularly include the "mitigation" of warlords and other cults-of-personality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you have some plan to mitigate the influence of warlords and other cults-of-personality ?
Governments mitigate warlords? Name a more influential warlord than government itself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
with very few exceptions, power corrupts
All the more reason to object to government, and decentralize. The only justifiable power is individual power. I'm often dumbfounded but not surprised by the responses to individualist arguments, which at their very worst are proposing that one's time, labor, and resources should be doled out subject to one's own decisions.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
And still choked a 3-1 lead (1st in Finals history) to a guy you have ranked 8th behind him 🤦🏾♂️
If you can put LeBron at #2, I can put Steph at #7. And let me remind you that in three of their four Finals match ups, Steph and the Warriors were the victors. And while Steph Curry may not be the "better" individual player, he has the better impact on a championship paradigm. And as I've already stated, I don't count the "bubble championship," which was more like an AAU tournament. Greatness, for me at least, is based on maximizing one's team's success, which is the primary goal of organized basketball. And Steph Curry is better at that than LeBron, at least at the monment. LeBron is great, even though he hasn't necessarily lived up to his hype (and I wouldn't blame him for all of it,) but Steph Curry at the moment is greater.
Again, we're not going to agree on the measures. What's justifiable to you is not necessarily justifiable to me, and vice versa. I've been watching the NBA since the mid-to-late 80's (though, I was really young at the time.) I'm not even pretending to be impartial. If LeBron is your second favorite player of all-time, then don't mind my statements. You don't need my acknowledgement to validate your favoritism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't believe that snapshots of horrific incidents set the standard for the conscience exhibited by people in general. But admittedly, I can only speak to my own experience. I, like many, have experienced both the good and bad, and yet I still have faith in people--politicians and members of government excluded. What would it state about the attempt to actualize ideals, when the the foundation--people at their best--is dismissed based on platitudes using "human nature"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
because dopamine response has a hard upper limit (with diminishing returns)and because human experience is finite
Fair enough.
there is a lot of effort made to gain "the consent" and or "assent" of the general populationthis is most likely because people who are given "a choice" (even if it is technically a "false choice") are more likely to blame themselves than to blame those who gave them the "false choice" and or "the system itself" and are subsequently going to be easier to control (less chance of La Révolution)
I 100% agree with this. The two-party system for example is nothing more than a catalyst for Hegelian dialectic reasoning.
this leads to less overt human suffering and or outright slaughter, which sort of became a "problem" perhaps not for the "commanders" but for the peripheral participants and foot-soldiers in forceful government action (Jallianwala Bagh for example)
Good example.
and generally speaking, (IFF) someone has a conscience (THEN) reducing overt suffering and or outright slaughter is considered preferable
And this is the reason I oppose arguments against "laissez-faire." I do believe that people generally have a conscience.
Created:
I didn't think that the Boston Celtics could match up with the Warriors offensively, and I was right. Honestly, if not for some baffling errors by the Golden State Warriors, this could've been a sweep, or at the very least won in five games. I do hope that the Boston Celtics bounce back from this because I do have an immense appreciation for well-run systems i.e. (Golden State Warriors, San Antonio Spurs, Miami Heat, Milwaukee Bucks, etc.)
As for Steph Curry, I propelled him high on my top 10 list because this win was rather impressive. Individually, he faced off against the defensive player of the year at his position. Kind of like how Michael Jordan faced off against Gary Payton Sr. in the '96 Finals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
if a person is a hermit or recluse that doesnt participate in society
Non sequitur.
maybe they have a claim to not owing society anything or not wanting to pay taxes.
And just like Double_R, you're glossing over the objection.
anyone who participates in common society owes that government for what it does, in at least some capacity.
Unless delineated or stipulated in a willfully entered contract, then NO.
it's irrational to say otherwise.
Yes, it's "irrational" to object to one's funds and resources being seized with the threat of deadly force.
the dude arguing against this, is crazy
"Dude" is right here. There's no need to circumvent. You can address me directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is a hard upper limit to how much comfort and entertainment any particular human can enjoy in one lifetime
Why would there be a limit on that which is not quantifiable?
strangely enough,the people running this shit-show feel like they can live with a "clean-conscience" if the slaves "VOLUNTARILY" participatethis is the key benefit of the current system over say, FLAGRANT TYRANNY
I would personally agree with this. Though if we are to maintain our examples and standards, there is no way for either of us to know how "clean" their consciences feel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe you benefit from the system you live in? Yes or No?
You're not addressing the objection. Your statement is akin to: "well, did you feel aroused while being raped? Yes or no?" While my statements are akin to "rape is rape, feelings of arousal notwithstanding." My contention isn't against members of a community pooling and organizing their funds in order to establish and sustain goods shared by them all, i.e. roads, irrigation, electricity etc. My contention is against an organization that seizes priority over the provisions and dissemination of these goods BY FORCE, and obtains these funds--which are mostly allocated elsewhere--to sustain these goods BY THE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE. So you can attempt to pigeonhole our exchange to a dispute over "benefits and drawbacks," but I will not entertain it. Address the objection.
Of course, we all do. The question here is how much of your product is due to you're time and labor? If you are an Uber driver for example, you make a living transporting people on roads the rest of us paid to build. Do you believe you are therefore entitled to 100% of the revenue generated from this?
Of course. The road does not provide the service, otherwise the clients could opt to WALK ON THAT VERY SAME ROAD "THE REST OF YOU" PAID TO BUILD. Your argument is utter nonsense. It would be like arguing that a professional basketball player is indebted to Spalding and now Wilson for the massive incomes they generate. If you're personally responsible for financing and building that road, and you maintain ownership, then restrict access or charge tolls.
Why should I or anyone else respect that? What gives you and this previous "owner" the right to proclaim the land which you sit on to be yours now?
Moral concept.
If I come along and manage to forcefully take it, what is to stop me from being the new owner?
Moral concept.
Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out. Human nature does not work the way you wish it did.
Yes, please inform me on Human Nature using Hobbes's contradictions. If man's nature disallows him from being left to his own devices, then why would that very nature facilitate him/her to join and organize with other humans and maintain a concept called "government"?
Products and services for the public good are not produced by individuals acting on their own individual behalf.
Non sequitur.
They're produced by individuals working within an entity designed to benefit the public good.
And what does it say about an "entity designed to benefit the public good" if it THREATENS those over whom it presides with THE RESPONSE OF DEADLY FORCE IN THE ADVENT OF DISSENT?
You are the one claiming you shouldn't have to pay into any of this despite continuing to enjoy the benefits of it. That argument can only make sense if any of the things I'm talking about would have arisen without a government. So the onus is on you as well. Support your claim.
This is your argument:
Is there a place anywhere in human history that accomplished the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as you take advantage of everyday that arose without a governing authority?
Not mine. I'm neither obligated nor willing to entertain an argument which implicitly concludes that "the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as [I] take advantage of everyday could not have arisen without a governing authority." I'm not going to entertain your argument from ignorance just because you frame it in a question.
I have maintained that none of the services you've listed are limited to government expertise.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
You don't have Bill Russell on your list. 11 rings don't mean anything?
Created:
Steph Curry 2022 Finals Game 6 Stats:
34 Pts, 7 Assists, 7 Rebounds 12/21 FG (57.1%,) 6-11 3PFG (54.5%,) 4-4 FT (100%,) 2 Steals, 1 Block - FINALS MVP.
Created:
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabar
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Steph Curry
8. LeBron James
9. Larry Bird
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
public school alone costs the state approximately $12,000.00 per year per childthat's about $144,000.00 per child for an average high-school diplomanot to mention police and fire protection and what driving would cost if every road was a private toll-road
If that's the case, public schooling would create a three trillion dollar obligation even if the entirety of tax revenue were spent on it. Perhaps the organization which regulates the allocation of funds is not particularly efficient.
because if they use the right combination of rhetoric and incentives, they can manipulate the system to allow them to live better than most kings
They can live better than those who live better than most kings, without the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I’m not even sure what this thread is even meant to accomplish or argue for. Seems like a mindless pissing competition of “my figure heads are smarter than yours”.
It’s a dumb thread that does nothing helpful.
No, not really. I don’t think one is smarter than the other.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
BINGO
So the U.S. government takes in about 4 Trillion in tax revenue. There are about 42 million poor people in the United States. If you take about half of that and distributed it among the poor, that's roughly $48,000 each annually. What does is say about a society's functionality when a demographic albeit a minority are extorted in service to another demographic, namely paying them to halt any prospective wide-scale aggression? Why would they--the rich--even want to participate in such a society?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If I am actively accepting the local mobs protection,
How is one "actively accepting" a local mob's protection when they're the source of the threat, and using that threat to coerce you?
If on the other hand they are protecting me without my knowledge or consent and I am doing nothing I wouldn't have done anyway then I am not obligated.
The point of paying "protection" money to a mob is not that they actually "protect" you. It's a means to extort money out of you by threatening to harm you or disrupt your business.
That's not remotely what's happening here.
That's exactly what's happening here.
You will continue to drive in public roads, use public water systems, use the electric grid, etc. etc. etc., all while arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for it. That's absurd.
Another asinine argument. No one is arguing that one shouldn't have to pay for services they consume. The government by threat of force assumes priority over these services and coerces payment, whether one consumes them or not. The argument that one is therefore financially obligated to this government is absurd!
Since when do you have a right to use that which others worked for and paid for for free?
I do not claim a right to use that which others worked for and paid for; I claim a right to the products of my time and labor, my gifts, myself and my property. And I bear no obligation to any person or establishment/organization/institution/corporation that presumes priority over the dissemination of services WITH THE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE and COERCES FINANCIAL "TRIBUTE" for services I did not seek from them.
Really? Says who?
Says the arrangement between me and the previous owner.
The same governing authority you reject as illigitimate?
No.
Without the government - funded by your tax dollars - declaring the land you claim to be yours, the only thing that says you own it is your own ability to forcefully defend it from being taken.
This is the case de facto.
So if I come along with a bigger gun it's now my property.
And the government has bigger guns, so they would presume that it's "their property." How does this serve as a counterpoint to my objection?
Yet another benefit you enjoy while arguing you shouldn't have to pay for it...
There's cognitive dissonance in the expression of an argument that posits that being coerced and subject to aggression is a "benefit I enjoy."
That's irrelevant.
It's extremely relevant.
It doesn't matter if it could have arisen without a tax funded government, that is how it got there.
It does matter because your arguments have been prefaced with "Without the government..." This is an asinine argument because it would be like arguing, "Without the mob..." there'd be no pizzaria's in the corner, or construction sites, or body shops, or sports books, which I "enjoy," thereby justifying the extortion and aggression to which I am subject. And like the mob, the government IS NOT NECESSARILY RESPONSIBLE for the talents and skills which transformed into marketable services. Irrigation, road paving, electrical engineering, are skills than can be exchanged in an open market, thereby nullifying any argument "without the government..." especially since the government doesn't provide any of these mentioned services itself.
Is there a place anywhere in human history that accomplished the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as you take advantage of everyday that arose without a governing authority?
There has virtually always been government in recorded history, so there's little to no sample data. If however you intend to use this as a pretext to an argument where it's suggested that "Without government..." the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs of which you assume I take advantage would not be around or possible, not only will I not entertain your argumentum ad ignorantiam, but also I will demand your satisfy your onus and prove this to be the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
try this hypothesis,imagine a world where the police and mail services went on strike and or had their budgets cut off entirelykinda like the opening scene of robocopdon't the "rich" have "more to lose" in this scenario ?there are clearly more "poor" and it would seem likely they would overwhelm the "rich" with sheer numerical advantagesure, eventually it would all "settle down" and revert back to some sort of "wild west" maybe 1860's fever dream (if we're lucky)but we'd very likely end up with "company towns" and workers dealing with the prospect of near-slavery conditions (which we might be heading towards anyway)it would be nice if we all raised our own food on our own land giving us very little incentive to violate our neighbor's rightsbut i'm just not sure we can get to that point from where we are nowmy understanding is that "welfare" and "public services" are "cheaper" than "incarceration"the "rich" subsidize the "poor" in order to keep them from throwing "La Révolution"net "taxes" are actually negative for nearly everyone making less than $100,000 a year
So taxes are tantamount to the rich paying the poor "protection" money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what would you say to the proposal that these are considered "essential services"
How "essential" a service is ought to be determined by the market.
and should be provided to all citizens
Provided by who? At who's expense? If in one's proposal, one's going ignore any moral/ethical dilemmas then why stop at taxation? Why not just enslave a group of individuals and train and coerce them into providing these services?
(in order to qualify as a "functional society") ?
The functionality of a society is contingent on the individuals who comprise it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is an interesting comparison
It's intended to ridicule the proposition that in the face of aggression, it's incumbent on the target to flee, rather than the aggressor to stop or be stopped.
do "security services" and "package delivery" qualify as "marketable services" ?
Yes. However, Police and Mail are not sold in the market; they're just provided after the fact of taxation, a portion of which is provided to the aforementioned and is determined strictly by the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No one is claiming in any moralistic sense that you owe anyone anything. The point is that you continue to enjoy and take advantage of everything brought to society as a result of tax dollars while arguing that you have no moral obligation to pay into it.
This once again is an asinine argument; even if we were to exclude the modification, "moralistic," from this argument, you still wouldn't be able to justify an obligation to pay taxes. Arguing that one is obligated to pay the government taxes is like arguing one is obligated to pay a local mob "protection money."
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have taxes, so be it.
Yes, that is what I'm arguing.
Move somewhere where they don't have public roads or a public infrastructure system that the rest of society paid for to ensure everyone can enjoy the basic necessities in life.
Yes, because it's incumbent upon the one who is being coerced with the threat of deadly force to leave, and not the establishment/institution that assumes priority with the application of said threat of deadly force. Case in point: it was incumbent upon the Ukrainian residents to flee their homes rather than oppose Russia's invasion.
Somehow I suspect you won't.
Of course, I won't. I own my property.
Complete strawman. This has nothing to do with the idea that anyone is feeding you. This is about the fact that the means by which you feed yourself was put in place by the very system you rail against as immoral.
There isn't any distinction in what you just said here. Because it operates on the platitude that "the means by which [I] feed [myself] was put in place by the very system [I] rail against as immoral." Again, none of the services you've listed is limited to government expertise. In fact, the government doesn't provide a marketable service; it acts only as an intermediary--redistributing income and expenditures--with its coercive interference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
would you equate "human dignity" with "self-worth" ?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you personally distinguish the one from the other ?
Dignity is innate. When one argues that one "merits" basic necessities, this necessarily creates an obligation. So the question becomes, who is conscripted in service to this obligation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Since you insinuated that some humans (specifically poor ones) deserve to be deprived of basic necessities and therefore life. You have essentially insinuated that some humans are not worth keeping alive. This is a pretty direct way of communicating how you would gauge human worth.You clearly equate someone's worth directly with their financial worth. If I am somehow mistaken about then perhaps you should examine your language because you have as much as said that this is the case.
Since you insinuated that some humans (many of them women) deserve to be deprived of basic necessities and therefore life. You have essentially insinuated that some humans are not worth keeping alive. This is a pretty terrible way to treat women.
I'm no longer having this discussion with you. Enjoy your night, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No ones existence is guaranteed or justified.
What does this mean?
Either we all merit basic necessities and human dignity
I do not conflate "merit basic necessities" with "human dignity."
or none of us do.
No one "merits" basic necessities. Either one can generate income to acquire them, receive them as a gift, (or steal them?) but "merit" has nothing to do with it.
Money is a means to an end it is not an end in and of itself. Simply generating revenue (especially personal revenue) is a poor metric for most worthwhile human so far as I can tell.
What?! Since when were we gauging how "worthwhile" a human is?
There would be no people to make any income without them they are responsible for literally all income now being generated. By your metric women are more important than billionairs. Perhaps you should treat them accordingly.
What the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks? When did this discussion become an inspection of how importantly I treat women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By whatever measure you prescribe too I am generally of the opinion that everyone merits the basic necessities.
I am not.
Is it your contention that billionaires worked harder
I specifically omitted the words, "work harder." I said, "generate more commerce" which isn't necessarily contingent on how hard one works.
and contribute more wealth generating potential to society
Yes.
than the women who have already raised a generation?
Which of these women generate six or more figures of income?
The teachers who taught them?
Yes.
The firemen, doctors and paramedics that keep them safe?
Typically, yes.
The factory and farm laborers who produce the products they are bought and sold?
Yes.
No man is an island.
Non sequitur.
Billionaires would be unable to survive without us.
You don't know that.
It is worth asking yourself who needs whom,
No.
who does the actual work that makes the machinery of society function and who is actually making bigger sacrifices in their day to day life.
Irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And yet you still want to turn on a faucet and have water come out, or flip a light switch and watch as electricity currents run through, or get in your car and drive on actual roads, all of which were made possible thanks to the infrastructure our tax dollars put in place. But when it's your turn to contribute to the society you have taken advantage of since birth, suddenly that's an issue.
This argument is asinine. First, I wasn't born here. Second, how does an infant "take advantage" of anything. Third, every naturalized citizen is conscripted into taxation by social security and citizenship. Fourth, there isn't a single service you've listed, whether it's irrigation, electricity, or roads, that's limited to "government expertise." Fifth, nothing would please me more than for you to withdraw the proverbial hand you believe feeds me or anyone else. And I intend to place as much emphasis on this next statement as I can: NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING--unless delineated and stipulated explicitly in the terms of a willfully entered contract. If I can turn on a faucet and have water come out, or flip a light switch, and drive on a road, that's because from the time I was a child, I cultivated a set of skills which generate commerce, the compensation for which I use to exchange with another or others who have done the same. Do you honestly believe that because you kowtow to an organization which coerces you into submitting a fraction of your income, that you and others of your ilk have "contributed" to anyone's wealth much less play anything other than a minimalistic role in financing public goods, and that an obligation codified with the threat of deadly force should be placed on those who reside in proximity? In the expression of my illustrious sister, "Pfft!"
Individually? No. What does that have to do with anything I've argued?
If you believe that you're indebted to a corporation because they've spent a fraction of your "protection money" on public goods, then what do you believe you owe those people and establishments that have had a more palpable influence in not only the cultivation of the skills you apply to generate income, but your well-being? I'm willing to bet at the expense of the prospect of eating crow that said people and establishments have not taken your money with the threat of deadly force. And I'm willing to bet that you've paid the government much more than you've paid them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, I pay my taxes.
That's not what I asked. Do you pay every person or establishment who or that has ever had an positive impact in your life a periodical stipend? I'm going to presume, no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I think my measure is consistent.
Then why haven't you attempted an answer to any of these questions:
Why stop at wealth? Why not suggest a steep tax for anyone who has received a cash gift for their birthdays (isn't that a "privilege of birth"?) or just cash gifts in general? Why not tax all charities, non-profits, and other donation based projects, right? I mean the sum of their work essentially amounts to asking for money. Hardly qualifies as "hard work and skill," right?
The point I'm driving at here is this: if your measure of hard work and skill determine the merit of one's earnings, then using your rationale, would you not also extend a steep tax to any and all cash gifts? Not to mention, charities, non-profits, and donation-based projects? What about passive-income?
The issue, in my view, is with the market, which assigns rewards and punishments in ways that are not always just.
The market is a composite of individual-based values. Rewards and punishment absent of coercive interference are assigned according to the satisfaction of these values. So it begs the question: how is it "just" to impose a penalty, for example, upon LeBron James's income because people would rather pay him more for his work than they would for a teacher's?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
or just cash gifts in general?
- Cash gifts up to $16,000 per year don't have to be reported.
- Excess gifts require a tax form but not necessarily a tax payment.
- Gift reporting and taxes are required of the donor, not the recipient.
- Noncash gifts that have appreciated in value may be subject to capital gains tax.
- Cash payments between individuals typically don't have to be reported.
- You must report payments of $2,400 or more made to any household employee.
- All income must be claimed on tax forms, even if it's paid in cash.
Cash Gifts Up to $16,000 a Year Don't Have to Be ReportedCash gifts can be subject to tax rates that range from 18% to 40% depending on the size of the gift. The tax is to be paid by the person making the gift, but thanks to annual and lifetime exclusions, most people will never pay a gift tax. [**]
And there are still those who say that taxation isn't theft and robbery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't know why poor people (worth less than $300 million) even want to live.
Are you under the assumption that those who are financially worth $299,999,999.99 are poor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Any wealth acquired through privileged birth and/or dumb luck is undeserved. Billionaires are frequently born into wealth, and they - virtually by definition - are exceedingly lucky. Compensation is earned on the basis of hard work and skill.
Why stop at wealth? Why not suggest a steep tax for anyone who has received a cash gift for their birthdays (isn't that a "privilege of birth"?) or just cash gifts in general? Why not tax all charities, non-profits, and other donation based projects, right? I mean the sum of their work essentially amounts to asking for money. Hardly qualifies as "hard work and skill," right?
It cannot be credibly claimed that billionaires are millions of times harder working and more intelligent than the average person.
It can be credibly claimed that their labor generates more commerce. LeBron James is probably no more hardworking or intelligent than a coal miner, but the masses are willing to pay more to see him at work, than they would to see a coal miner. And your proposal is to penalize LeBron James for this?
The spectrum of human capabilities simply doesn't very that much.
Perhaps the inconsistency is with your measure, and not the variance in human capability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think "deserving" is the wrong way of looking at it and will certainly tune people out of you use that kind of language. The issue here for me is the fact that while these individuals in most cases accomplished a great deal, they only did so within the systems and infrastructure that was already in place making it all possible so their actual contributions to society do not warrant the obscene wealth they have accumulated.
Do you pay periodical stipends to your parents/custodians, siblings, teachers/educators, restaurateurs who may have fed you on occasion, retail stores, barbers, or for that matter, anyone who has given you advice? No? Then I'm going to ignore this platitude that suggests that individuals are financially indebted to social systems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The 700+ American billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom half of households.
Because their labor typically generates more commerce than the bottom half of households.
I think no billionaire has or ever will deserve that much money.
What measures do apply when attributing "merit"?
Therefore, we should feel free to impose tax rates
That is, you are arguing for a directive where said individuals will be coerced into paying a steep stipend, the dereliction of which will have them face a penalty, which includes the threat of deadly force, correct?
as high as is beneficial for the common good.
Excluding what's "good" for the billionaires of course.
What do you think?
Honestly, I think it's asinine. It's nothing more than a platitude that's tantamount to "I want to take their money even by force, and I'll say whatever I can to justify it."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no clear logical pathway out of SOLIPSISM
Exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that is what I was asking you.
What in my response led you to ask me this?
It's a perplexing dilemma......To be reasonably certain that we do actually participate in a universe.....Whilst at the same time being aware that the outcomes of sensory perception only provides us with a simulated account of what we are certain is real.
Simulation necessarily suggests a manipulated imitation. A manipulated imitation of what? On what basis are you identifying this simulation, much less identifying distinctions from a claimed "non-simulation"?
One might suggest that within the above context, at best a fact is something we are reasonably certain of, relative to awareness of our existence and our ability to presumably simulate an accurate account of external messaging.
Why is "external" messaging relevant? How is it even rational, let alone capable of qualifying the determination of fact?
Created:
And I think ever since you’ve come into office, things are really looking up. You know, gas is up, rent is up, food is up, everything.
This is the only one I liked.
Created:
Posted in:
I've always thought of prayer as a form of meditation. To get away from the noise, so to speak. I assume that's the reason most who practice it find comfort in it. Whether it's supplication, gratitude, reflection, I always thought it help people come to terms with everything that's going around them and everything in which they're involved. I've always respected it--and still do. My aunt marathon prays, and her son says a prayer for everyone in our family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you believe it is UNFAIR for an employer to fire someone for NON-WORK-RELATED activities (THEN) either join or form a labor union
No more than a girlfriend would join a group of pasts ex-girlfriends or current "side-pieces" because she was unfairly dumped by a boyfriend for non-sexual reasons.
"freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from social consequences"
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
Are fictional universes a part of our universe? Yes, fictional universes are part of everything/totality.Within the context of everything and totality, when is a part, fictional/simulated or otherwise, not a fact?
Define "fact."
Is not internal data manipulation and simulation, in fact the extent of an organisms totality?
Why would "totality" be expanded beyond the internal data manipulation and simulations of said organisms?
Created:
The Golden State Warriors Win Game 5 of the 2022 NBA Finals (GSW up 3-2.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the cost of hiring replacements is unlikely to be unconsidered (aka "on a whim")
Perhaps not. But I was not the one who characterized their prerogative to fire, which I assume you presumed meant under any circumstances or reason, as a "rule of whim." Needless to say, incentives and disincentives influence decisions. Regardless of how this incentivizes or disincentivizes the party concerned, the prerogative still remains with them. So, for example, just as I would not object to an employer firing an employee for posting pictures of themselves using a competitor's product, I would not object to an employee quitting because their employer wears blue dress shirts at home.
So if we were to once again analyze your reference:
some corporations will fire you for posting pictures of yourself using a competitor's productthis is not a joke
Would an employer's firing an employee for posting pictures of themselves using a competitors product undermine, contradict, rebut, or refute my statement, here:
One only has "free speech" on one's own property.
No, not in the least. No more than it would for example if a girlfriend breaks up with a boyfriend after finding pictures of him locking lips with another girl on his couch in his apartment. The dissolution of an association, even unilateral and particularly absent of duress, doesn't qualify the prerogative of which I spoke. That is not to say, decisions albeit expressed through one's prerogative cannot be influenced by incentive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
iff a labor union negotiates to support its individual members (with a credible threat of a walk-out), specifically to protect individual members from being fired "without cause"then the labor union members' "right to free association" interferes with the business owner's ability to "fire employees on a whim" ("right to free association")
Walking-out is a response, not an interference. The employer can still incur the costs of hiring replacements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently we need to figure out what specifically you mean by "free association"because i thought you meant it as "freedom to fire anyone at any time and for any (non)reason"
In the context of this discussion, yes. And you responded that this was exempted by "labor union negotiations." What did you mean by this?
Created: