Minimum Wage Rise Will Cause The Moon To Fall From The Sky

[wonderpup]

No, it's created by the real world actions that turn raw materials into something else.

So I have a moral claim on the wealth I create?

[TGP]

So a property right is created by the assertion that it exists?

No, it's created by the real world actions that turn raw materials into something else.

Like the real world action of a soldier sitting in a trench.........turning the raw material of "a geographic area" into a "geographic area safe from attack" ?

It's completely and totally optional. Nobody has to pay any attention whatsoever to it. And it's still true.

Like a state ?

Edited March 26, 2010 by TGP

[pootle]

You ARE involved....... because you get the same chance to change the status quo as anyone else. You are as involved as any. You ARE NOT needed. You can pay, or you can go, no one NEEDS you.

No, we want to make these things POSSIBLE (not cheaper) by payin for it in this way. Without compulsion public goods cannot be paid for (because as no-one can be excluded for failure to pay, no-one pays, everyone tries to get it for free......... so no-one gets it. I'm sure you remember the mongol/village example from before).

Nor am I relying on you being abashed and reaching in your pocket.

We are relying on force.

You either reach in your pocket...........or you leave......... or we force you to live in a little box with few rights, no freedom and no privileges as a penalty.

Yours,

TGP

Should anyone ever doubt the truly barbaric and hideous truth under the facade of [caring socialism, just read this confession

[MarkG]

You ARE NOT needed. You can pay, or you can go, no one NEEDS you.

That's what the left always say until the productive members of society do just that... then they start building walls and imposing exit visas and punitive exit taxes. Because the one group you NEED are the productive people who pay the taxes.

The 'brain drain' of the last sixty years is one of the biggest reasons for Britain's decline, as so many of the best people have fled socialist excess to move to freer nations.

Edited March 26, 2010 by MarkG

[Boom Boom]

Yep - but you owe me for anything of mine you destroyed.

And this arrangement would be enforced by whom?

[Boom Boom]

That's what the left always say until the productive members of society do just that... then they start building walls and imposing exit visas and punitive exit taxes. Because the one group you NEED are the productive people who pay the taxes.

The 'brain drain' of the last sixty years is one of the biggest reasons for Britain's decline, as so many of the best people have fled socialist excess to move to freer nations.

And the squawking ideologues on the right are always threatening to go Galt. The brain drain is in actuality the result of our embrace of casino capitalism, chasing a quick buck in the markets, instead of investing in technology companies.

Apple

Microsoft

Sony

Intel

AMD

Nvidia

Panasonic

Samsung

Nokia

Just some of the technology companies not started in the UK. Indeed, what do we have?....

Amstrad

So frankly, the threat is meaningless, the spivs and mountebanks can sling their collective hooks for all I care.

[D.C.]

I don't know how/why you view a Libertarian style government as uncivilised, but I'm sure you will share?

I don't mind paying my way, but I want, what I pay for, to be linked in the best way to what I use. Is that so difficult a nettle to grasp? I don't know how you have concluded that I want to enjoy benefits and contribute nothing; I haven't suggested that at all.

Well we could always look at the US.

Healthcare costs twice as much as the NHS and doesn't cover 60 million people.

I do call refusing to treat people because they can't afford to pay for it uncivilised.

My comment about enjoying the benefits without contributing is about the highly selfish individualism on display in your comments without regard for the 'big picture'.

The wealthy always have the advantage and always have choices, the poor don't. After a few generations of passing on this advantage the disparity between the rich and the poor becomes hugely magnified and the wealthy effectively enslave everyone else as they control all the resources and have all the power.

What you describe as 'freedom' is simply another road to serfdom.

By levelling the field and guaranteeing a minimum standard of life, the welfare state model prevents this going too far.

[bogbrush]

TGP, you seem to me probably the most dangerous person who posts in this forum.

[Traktion]

Well we could always look at the US.

Healthcare costs twice as much as the NHS and doesn't cover 60 million people.

I do call refusing to treat people because they can't afford to pay for it uncivilised.

My comment about enjoying the benefits without contributing is about the highly selfish individualism on display in your comments without regard for the 'big picture'.

The wealthy always have the advantage and always have choices, the poor don't. After a few generations of passing on this advantage the disparity between the rich and the poor becomes hugely magnified and the wealthy effectively enslave everyone else as they control all the resources and have all the power.

What you describe as 'freedom' is simply another road to serfdom.

By levelling the field and guaranteeing a minimum standard of life, the welfare state model prevents this going too far.

The US isn't the only country in the world with an element of private health care - there are many others which merge the basics at state funded, with private for further treatment. In many of these cases, they have much better health than either the UK or the US. As I stated (and you ignored) various key basic health areas should still be covered by the state, IMO.

If you cut taxes for all, the rich and the poor benefit. If you stop the bailouts, red tape, quangos, you free the private sector and the individuals to prosper. As discussed in a similar thread recently, having as free a market as possible, while providing a safety net for those struggling, may benefit people far more. This is hardly "highly selfish", but rather giving everyone a crack of the whip.

How about tackling the hoarding of land, allow free market money, stopping the bailouts and loosening the grip of the VIs? IMO, you are addressing the symptoms, rather than the root causes.

[PopGun]

TGP, you seem to me probably the most dangerous person who posts in this forum.

and the most succint.......

Edited March 26, 2010 by PopGun

[TGP]

A statement that the state relies on force

Should anyone ever doubt the truly barbaric and hideous truth under the facade of [caring socialism, just read this confession

This is not a statement that socialism relies on. It is a statement that all states rely on. Democratic, Conservative, Republican, Monster Raving Loony Party, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Theocratic every state extant in the world today. This has nothing to do with socialism.

Whatsmore....... and this is a crucial point........ it only relies on this backstop in teh way entirely private capitalist enterprises rely on the same backstop. Ultimately, the only thing stopping you walking out of Curry's with a "free kettle" is the same backstop. As does every firm or company.

If this is a "hideous truth" and I can understand it is for some naive people who haven't really thought reality through......... it is a "hideous universal truth".Without which any economic system would utterly collapse. Including, I have to say, anarchism.

It would be the ultimate backstop...... even in an anarchist system..... that would keep me walking off with Injin's property.

People usually don;t state it so baldly. But then again, they don't have to deal with people like Injin, desperate to get to the base level of everything all the time.

That's what the left always say until the productive members of society do just that... then they start building walls and imposing exit visas and punitive exit taxes. Because the one group you NEED are the productive people who pay the taxes.

Fine Go Galt........ see how many follow you to Galts gulch.

Once you lived there on your own for a while, killing rats to eat with your superior technocratic skills...... you'll decide to come back in participate in society again at some point.

I am noticing a distinct lack of guys queing up in their top hats and monocles to book flights on Somalian Airways

The 'brain drain' of the last sixty years is one of the biggest reasons for Britain's decline, as so many of the best people have fled socialist excess to move to freer nations.

Yes.....they can move between nations........ select between social contracts........but I notice they NEVER flee to a nation WITHOUT such a contract.

They ALWAYS prefer to flee to a state, where such a social contract protects them and (no matter how light the fees) there are fee's that are levied as taxes in order to pay for that.

Why is that ? If the perfect circumstance (as Injin proposes) are no laws/taxes/state whatsoever......why does no-one ever CHOOSE this option by flying to a stateless area with their pockets full of Krugerrands ?

Is it because people aren't thick....... and they realisethat enterring a stateless area with your pockets full of krugerrands is the easiest way to end up a dead body in a ditch with it's throat cut and no krugerrands ?

TGP, you seem to me probably the most dangerous person who posts in this forum.

?

Because I recognise the state for what it is......... a neccessary evil that, at it's very bottom, relies on the application of force.......BUT which creates a situation that is better than one that can be attained with no state at all.

It's worth noting that, although I am personally not a libertarian, everything I have talked about so far. EVERYTHING. Is applicable to such a minimalist, libertarian state.

Generallywhat I have talked about...... the provision of neccessary public goods........ is HOW libertarians define their minimalist states. "Only things the state MUST do, because others cannot, and nothing else".

Now. I personally would probably go further than that. But thats no tneccessary when talking with Injin. Injins an anarchist. The first step is talking him into accepting the minimalist state of libertarians. Then we can start talking about that.

It's a bit like talking to a communist. The first stage is talking him "down" from there into accepting a social democratic/capitalist society. Once you've done so you've removed the utter blood soaked dangerousness from his position, and going from there is more a matter of taste than a matter of blood soaked idiocy.

This is whats happenning with Injin. I'm talking him up from a blood soaked and dangerous anarchism into a "safe" libertarianism (accepting public goods). Whether afterwards I go on from there to try to justify social democrayc over libertarianism is another matter, and much more debatable.

If I am a danger......... it is only to peoples warm and cosy, but blisteringly wrong, ideas. Not to anyones person or safety.

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 26, 2010 by TGP

[bogbrush]

Because I recognise the state for what it is......... a neccessary evil that, at it's very bottom, relies on the application of force.......BUT which creates a situation that is better than one that can be attained with no state at all.

It's worth noting that, although I am personally not a libertarian, everything I have talked about so far. EVERYTHING. Is applicable to such a minimalist, libertarian state.

Generallywhat I have talked about...... the provision of neccessary public goods........ is HOW libertarians define their minimalist states. "Only things the state MUST do, because others cannot, and nothing else".

Now. I personally would probably go further than that. But thats no tneccessary when talking with Injin. Injins an anarchist. The first step is talking him into accepting the minimalist state of libertarians. Then we can start talking about that.

It's a bit like talking to a communist. The first stage is talking him "down" from there into accepting a social democratic/capitalist society. Once you've done so you've removed the utter blood soaked dangerousness from his position, and going from there is more a matter of taste than a matter of blood soaked idiocy.

This is whats happenning with Injin. I'm talking him up from a blood soaked and dangerous anarchism into a "safe" libertarianism (accepting public goods). Whether afterwards I go on from there to try to justify social democrayc over libertarianism is another matter, and much more debatable.

If I am a danger......... it is only to peoples warm and cosy, but blisteringly wrong, ideas. Not to anyones person or safety.

Yours,

TGP

Not at all, because you keep writing about how you agree with incarceration for someone who makes a choice not to join in with schemes you want to do when neither of you have any greater claim to living on this Island.

That is a direct, personal threat to the person, not to their cosy ideas.

I personally struggle to see how we do without a state answer to some questions, but I really would defend the right of a person to decline perticipation even if they exist on the same land. I think the overriding principle must be not to enforce one-sided "agreements". It's plain immoral.

Edited March 26, 2010 by bogbrush

[TGP]

Actually,

At this point it's probably worth me laying my cards on the table....

Politically I aqm what you might call a "constitutional democrat". That is I believe that politically we should settle things on a majority democratic vote in most cases. But in some cases we should settle them democratically at a much higher threshold.

So.... whether we tax at 40p on the pound or 42p on the pound is a majoritarian vote...... but whether we, say, cancel all property rights would require a much higher threshold. Something like the US's "2/3rds of both houses, and 2/3rds of all state legislatures" constitutional amendment system. Basic rights at the higher threshold, things that are not basic rights at the majority threshold. I am generally very socially liberal, but less so economically . I am reasonably happy with representative democracy as a way of organising this, although I think with advances in technology a more "direct democracy" system will become viable in some cases, ALL at the "majority vote level".

Economically......I suppose you could call it "social capitalism". I beleive in the vast majority of cases capitalism is the most efficient solution. But that it is only efficient within a framework set outside capitalism by the political system and that in SOME cases, in SOME markets, it is not the most efficient system due to those markets having special characteristics (non-excludability, natural monopolies and a few other cases)

ENTIRELY free markets are not as efficient as markets that work within such a public framework....... so a capitalist society that operates within a framework where, say, contracts and law are created in a non-free market way (through the above political system) are more efficient than markets where contracts and law are settled themselves in a free market way (highest bidder wins). Whatsmore economic systems which allow capitalism to settle all markets where this is the most efficient way to do so, but allow the govt. to settle markets in areas where free markets cannot do so are MORE efficient than economies that try to shoe-horn evertyhting into capitalism whether it fits or not (things like defence, public health, I a ssume your reasonably familiar with the list now)

I'd be hesitant to put a "% of the economy" figure on the split between the two....... becuase it depends VERY MUCH on the efficiency of the political system in supplying the goods required. I can state that I see this is certainly possible below 50% of the economy, as many states settle this reasonably in this area today.........but I can also envisage a "highly efficient" state that was able to cover all the required areas with 20% or 30% of the total economy, although there are no states that "efficient" today....... or an economy where the people were very insistent that it be settled at 60 or 70% of the economy. Although at those higher levels I would increasingly disagree with them and attempt to argue the figure down.

And....of course....... the economic system is subordinate to the political system.

I am by no means a socialist........I am a "mixed economy capitalist" and a supporter of "liberal democracy".

Yours,

TGP

[pootle]

This is not a statement that socialism relies on. It is a statement that all states rely on. Democratic, Conservative, Republican, Monster Raving Loony Party, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Theocratic every state extant in the world today. This has nothing to do with socialism.

Wrong! You would initiate force against those who have done you no wrong in order to make them comply with your wishes. Not all systems work in this way.

[TGP]

Not at all, because you keep writing about how you agree with incarceration for someone who makes a choice not to join in with schemes you want to do when neither of you have any greater claim to living on this Island.

No, that would by no means be my first choice. But Injin wants everything reduced to the base level.

In order to forestall pages and pages of ********. I am happy to say we've already settled all the other initial resorts, injin accepts none of them....... and to discuss it in the terms INJIN wants it discussed in which is "why are you putting a gun in my face".

I don't want to discuss it there. I'd prefer he accepted countries as a reality, or all sorts of other things commonly accepted as "real" as reality. He will not. So I am forced, constantly, to reduce it to the Ultima Ratio Regum

When it comes down to it....... Countries DO exist, and they DO levy taxes..... and anyone who refuses to believe that and actually follows through on his actions is going to end up in jail. I would prefer it be settled in any other way, but when it really comes down to it........this is the backstop. If you really push and push and push Injin is RIGHT to say this is where you end up.

You shouldn't mistake my unwillingness to go through pages of ******** before we get here to be a willingness on my part to use force as a first resort.......it is very much a last resort........it is simply a last resort I know Injin will logically force me to by denying any other level exists.

That is a direct, personal threat to the person, not to their cosy ideas.

OK, you ARE misreading this.

I am not personally threatening you or anyone. I have certainly never held a gun and have no intentions of ever doing so. We are talking of states here (even if, falsely, I occasionally slip into saying "I" rather than "the state" because I am arguing that position). States exist, in part, so that this kind of force is only used in the rarest of cases instead of all the time.

I just know, from talking with injin in the past, that if I start at the nice cosy "pay your taxes because the nice man asks you" level he will force and force and force through argument all the way down to........ "ultimately, you have to do it or force will be applied".

I am shortcutting that pages and pages of argument........ you mistake that for me reaching for the gun as first resort.

Look, suppose I asy "Why shoudl I pay curry's for a kettle"... and you say "because it's their property".... and I say "Why is it their property" and you say "Because they made it" and so on and so on and so on for pages of this stuff. Eventually you get to the point where you say "You have to pay curries for the kettle otherwise you will go to jail" and I say "What if I refuse" and you say "then someone puts a gun in your face to force you to jail".

Now. Knowing that argument is coming........ we agree to skip it....... instead of having it for kettles, then for shoes, then for fridges, then for microwaves, then for cookers,and just carrying on having the same argument......... we just start at "we both know ultimately it ends with a gun in the face".

THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN I WILL FORCE YOU TO BUY MY KETTLE WITH A GUN IN THE FACE.

Only that we're skipping all the ******** in between and talking at the base level.

We could go through "because it's democratic", "because you agreed to a contract", "because of X and Y and Z" levels and we've done so with injin LOADS of the time. Someone else is going through this rigmarole above for what must be the billionth time.

Ultimately, it always comes down to force as the backstop, both with a state........ and with the enforcement of any private/capitalist contracts..............and I am discinlclined to argue it all the way down every time because we both know where it ends up.

I personally struggle to see how we do without a state answer to some questions, but I really would defend the right of a person to decline perticipation even if they exist on the same land. I think the overriding principle must be not to enforce one-sided "agreements". It's plain immoral.

We are not forcing one sided agreements.

Injin implicitly agreed to a two sided agreement when he took a job paying a wage he KNEW came with the requirement to pay tax.

This is what the "parking space" argument is about.

So long as you are aware before time what the deal is (Injin was) and so long as it's cleaarly signposted (it is) and so long as you can refuse to engage in the contract (Injin could)....... then taking a job paying above £6k a year (or whatever it is) is an implicit agreement to a two-sided contract, ultimately (after pages of argument) enforced by, well, force.

Just as pulling into a parking space is a 2-sided agreement, despite the fact you never signed an explicit contract. Putting your car in that defined area is agreement to an implicit contract........... working for a wage in a georgaphic area where such an agreement is in effect on wages/taxes is also an implicit 2-sided contract that Injin freely enterred into.

He could have left. He could even have stayed and not worked. He chose to stay and work, he "pulled into the space and parked" and now he has to uphold his side of that contract.

He refuses. As when anybody refuses to honour their side of a contract......the ULTIMATE penalty employed for this is force

What if I don't pay ? Then you are taken to court, and if found guilty fined. What if I don't pay the fine ? Then you are jailed. What if I refuse to go to Jail ? Then the state forces you. What If I resist that force ? Then we apply greater force than you can muster........GUN IN THE FACE..... I just cut out all the preceding because both me and Injin know where the argument goes.

Going back and pretending "OOooooh, Look he just sorts everything out by running around with a gun and taking from people" is disingenuous. All the rest of the argument is there. I just refuse to jump through injin's hoops EVERY BLOODY TIME we mention something and cut to the chase.

Yours,

TGP

[TGP]

Wrong! You would initiate force against those who have done you no wrong in order to make them comply with your wishes. Not all systems work in this way.

They have done wrong.

They have broken an implicit contract to pay........ and it's not "my wishes" BTW....... I don't agree with everything the state pays for, didn't agree with Iraq for example, so it's not "my wishes" he is being forced to pay for. It is the sum total of everyones decisions, not mine alone.

I pay for decisions I disagree with, because I recognise I've enterred an implicit contract to do so by engaging in a atxable activity........ Injin is in the same position.

The state is just as justiufied to use force to punish such non-compliance with their implicit contracts..........as a private enterprise is justified to use force to punish such non compliance with their contracts

(again, in both cases, as the ultimate argument...... you have to go through levels and levels to get to that point).

Injin engaged in an implicit contract to pay taxes when he engaged in an activity he was welll aware had a tax levied against it. He did not have to engage in that activity. He could have left the country. He could have stayed but not engaged in it. He engaged in it.

Whatsmore, I was absolutely RIGHT to say that this is the ultimate level of EVERY state on the planet today, without exception, and almost all capitalist enterprises (I think ebay is an exception).

When Injin walks out of curry's with a kettle......... he signed no contract to buy that kettle....... the act is implicitly a contract to pay for that good. Thats enforced by force in eaxctly the same way taxes are, ultimately.

Yours,

TGP

[pootle]

Weird double post

Edited March 26, 2010 by pootle

[pootle]

Look, suppose I asy "Why shoudl I pay curry's for a kettle"... and you say "because it's their property".... and I say "Why is it their property" and you say "Because they made it" and so on and so on and so on for pages of this stuff. Eventually you get to the point where you say "You have to pay curries for the kettle otherwise you will go to jail" and I say "What if I refuse" and you say "then someone puts a gun in your face to force you to jail".

Now. Knowing that argument is coming........ we agree to skip it....... instead of having it for kettles, then for shoes, then for fridges, then for microwaves, then for cookers,and just carrying on having the same argument......... we just start at "we both know ultimately it ends with a gun in the face".

THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN I WILL FORCE YOU TO BUY MY KETTLE WITH A GUN IN THE FACE.

The initiation of force is the taking of the kettle without paying. The gun in the face is the response. The gun in the face is a consequence of the force initiated by the person stealing the kettle - their choice! When you pick up one end of a stick, you move the other end too.

Only that we're skipping all the ******** in between and talking at the base level.

We could go through "because it's democratic", "because you agreed to a contract", "because of X and Y and Z" levels and we've done so with injin LOADS of the time. Someone else is going through this rigmarole above for what must be the billionth time.

Ultimately, it always comes down to force as the backstop, both with a state........ and with the enforcement of any private/capitalist contracts..............and I am discinlclined to argue it all the way down every time because we both know where it ends up.

We are not forcing one sided agreements.

Injin implicitly agreed to a two sided agreement when he took a job paying a wage he KNEW came with the requirement to pay tax.

This is what the "parking space" argument is about.

So long as you are aware before time what the deal is (Injin was) and so long as it's cleaarly signposted (it is) and so long as you can refuse to engage in the contract (Injin could)....... then taking a job paying above £6k a year (or whatever it is) is an implicit agreement to a two-sided contract, ultimately (after pages of argument) enforced by, well, force.

Just as pulling into a parking space is a 2-sided agreement, despite the fact you never signed an explicit contract. Putting your car in that defined area is agreement to an implicit contract........... working for a wage in a georgaphic area where such an agreement is in effect on wages/taxes is also an implicit 2-sided contract that Injin freely enterred into.

He could have left. He could even have stayed and not worked. He chose to stay and work, he "pulled into the space and parked" and now he has to uphold his side of that contract.

He refuses. As when anybody refuses to honour their side of a contract......the ULTIMATE penalty employed for this is force

You can't equate a concious choice to pull into a parking space (that you know belongs to someone else) and implicitly agreeing to their terms of use with being born into a geographical region. Where is the implicit contract in being born? Where is the choice?

You are describing a state in which people are born into bondage, of being born into a non-consenting contract that they had no knowledge of and no capacity to agree to.

EDIT TO ADD:

They have done wrong.

By being born? That's what we are talking about here. Not buying kettles, or pulling into a parking space (things done by choice).

Edited March 26, 2010 by pootle

[bogbrush]

Two things;

1. The one -sided agreements are real. You say we have nukes so he has to buy them, he says not by my request. You really can't escape the fact that if 99% say we want nukes it cannot compel the other 1% to pay for them. That is tyranny, which is the next point.

2. It's no good saying you don't stick guns in peoples faces and at the same time accepting that if he declines all your other inducements you get the gun out (or insist he shares in paying someone else to do it). If you agree with the system that puts guns in faces (as ours does) then you are just as responsible for the gun in the face. All he's doing is bringing you to the reality of your choice.

As far as you implied contracts, the fact is that if you don't have a clear sight of the contract terms and a choice to sign or not it's not a contract, and you'd not get one supported in law if you tried to do it that way. There is no implied contract when you pop out the birth canal.

Edited March 26, 2010 by bogbrush

[Traktion]

They have broken an implicit contract to pay........ and it's not "my wishes" BTW....... I don't agree with everything the state pays for, didn't agree with Iraq for example, so it's not "my wishes" he is being forced to pay for. It is the sum total of everyones decisions, not mine alone.

Just to pick up on that point - there were many who shared this same opinion, yet they were dismissed. Under the guise of defence, we went on the offence. While war is an extreme example of state intervention, it also demonstrates to me, that the state has too much power. Other state decisions are effecting the lives of many (perhaps the majority) who disagree - this wielding of power against the will of the many is what I dislike most about big government.

Consider how many people are disillusioned with politics and how few people vote, the system looks less representative and more unfair still. "But you can vote for who you want," they retort, but can we? Our voting system is so rigged towards having majority rule (well, the biggest minority considering low turn out) that we have little choice either way - short of a hung parliament, most people's views are not represented.

This is why I think the government needs to only be involved where absolutely required. If there have to be decisions which effect everyone, there should be a damn good reason for it. For everything else, people should be free to make their own choices.

[TGP]

The initiation of force is the taking of the kettle without paying. The gun in the face is the response. The gun in the face is a consequence of the force initiated by the person stealing the kettle - their choice! When you pick up one end of a stick, you move the other end too.

Fine, the initiation of force was taking a job that came with an implicit contract to pay taxes. The gun in the face is the response.

You can't equate a concious choice to pull into a parking space (that you know belongs to someone else) and implicitly agreeing to their terms of use with being born into a geographical region. Where is the implicit contract in being born? Where is the choice?

But we didn;t tax them when they were born.

They grew to an adult, and during that time were taught all about the implicit contracts for taxes.

They incurred that implicit contract when they engaged in adult activities that were taxed. Taking a job that pays over a certain threshold. Buying a car. Buying a house.

It is at that point they incurred the contract. They had options not to do so, which they did not take.

You are describing a state in which people are born into bondage, of being born into a non-consenting contract that they had no knowledge of and no capacity to agree to.

No. This is why we did not tax them until they reached the age of majority/age at which it was considered reasonable for them to enter a work contract.

By that point they ARE aware that there are such a thing as taxes that will be levied. At that point they incur an obligation to pay.

And, of course, if they DID NOT learn...... they merely have to pay their first weeks taxes, quit and leave the country. No-one is FORCING them to stay, they are free to leave.

At any point Injin can withdraw from this implicit contract by withdrawing from the geographical area in which it is operative. Like the car in the parking space. He has to pay for the time his car is there (for which he received fair warning). If he considers it unfair he can withdraw his car at any time and no-one will stop him.

He can quit and move to somalia today....... and no-one will stop him. His continued presence in the geographical area, engaging in activities where there is an implicit contract concerning taxes is counted as a continuing obligation to pay. Just like the car parking space.

By being born? That's what we are talking about here. Not buying kettles, or pulling into a parking space (things done by choice).

Really ? Please show me the tax demand Injin received on the day of his birth.

You'll find he didn't.

He only incurred taxes when either

a) He engaged in an activity (almost all restricted to those over 16) which incurred taxes.

He reached the age of majority. 16.

1. The one -sided agreements are real. You say we have nukes so he has to buy them, he says not by my request. You really can't escape the fact that if 99% say we want nukes it cannot compel the other 1% to pay for them. That is tyranny, which is the next point.

No it isn't. I do not force him to pay for them. He is quite able to leave the area protected by those nukes and so escape all obligation to pay for them.

His continuing willingness to stay, is a continued implicit agreement to pay. Just as the continued willingness to leave you car in the space construes a continued willingness to agree to that contract.

We would ONLY be forcing him to pay if we restricted him from leaving. We do not do so.

2. It's no good saying you don't stick guns in peoples faces and at the same time accepting that if he declines all your other inducements you get the gun out (or insist he shares in paying someone else to do it). If you agree with the system that puts guns in faces (as ours does) then you are just as responsible for the gun in the face. All he's doing is bringing you to the reality of your choice.

I was not saying that. Of course that is the ultimate backstop. Some people were construsing this (because of the way I had argued it) as this being my first resort. IT IS NOT. It is merely the very last resort that ALL contractual obligation, public and private, reduce to in the end. I was conceding that fact....... and posting with the acknoweldgment of that fact.

As far as you implied contracts, the fact is that if you don't have a clear sight of the contract terms and a choice to sign or not it's not a contract, and you'd not get one supported in law if you tried to do it that way.

But it is clear. All this information is freely available on the internet...... or in declerations given at the point of sale...... and it is taught in schools.

I'd contend the state has taken all reasonable measures to inform you of that fact. Just like the cara parking spaces who put up their signs in the car park.

He had 16 years (or possibly more) of entirely free provision of these services. Thats QUITE a longgrace period to allow him to become aware of the implicit agreement that "if you work, and earn over £6k you pay taxes". He cannot say he wasn;t warned.

In fact.......I don;t think he's even CLAIMING he wasn't informed.

He disagreed. He doesn't think it's fair. He doesn;t want to pay. But he can't say he wasn't aware he HAD to pay.

EVEN IF HE WAS....... he would only have to pay once. THEN he would be informed. He's quite free to quit and leave the couyntry the very next day now he has been informed. In fact......... we're even more generous than that....... after his first pay check if he simply left the country no-one would actually seriously pursue him for the paltry few tens of £'s of taxes he owes.

Assuming Injin is not 16 or under (a big if)......... his continuing willingness to stay, years and years and years after he was aware there were such a thing called "taxes" is his implicit agreement to that ccontract every single week.

There is no implied contract when you pop out the birth canal.

Which is why you are not given your first tax demand when you hit the midwifes hands.

The implicit contract only starts at 16 (in some circumstances) or after you engage in an activity where there is an implicit tax contract (like stamp duty) in others.

Please show me the tax demand Injin received aged 1 day old.........andf I will agree that it is monstrously unfair.

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 26, 2010 by TGP

[pootle]

Fine, the initiation of force was taking a job that came with an implicit contract to pay taxes. The gun in the face is the response.

Not sure where to start with this whole post so I'll stick this point. If I don't take a job, but grow things and sell them (i.e. my own property) where is the implicit contract to pay the government anything? That's right, there isn't one. I'm not forcing the government or anyone else to do anything. There is no force involved until the government come along and put a gun in my face.

As for the rest of it, you've just gone back to "if you don't like it, fook off or we'll chuck you in the clinker".

[TGP]

Not sure where to start with this whole post so I'll stick this point. If I don't take a job, but grow things and sell them (i.e. my own property) where is the implicit contract to pay the government anything?

When you agree with the seller a price........ and then pay yourself that price as income.

That's right, there isn't one. I'm not forcing the government or anyone else to do anything. There is no force involved until the government come along and put a gun in my face.

No there is one. It is not all that obvious I grant you but it is there.

I would also say that there was no force involved until you refused to pay. But you held different. You held that the initiation of force was when someone took the kettle. Here it is when you sold the goods, incurring the implicit contract, and failed to pay.

I have no problem, really, saying the govt. is the initiator of force....... or that private companies that try to enforce their contracts (explicit or implicit) are the originators of the force there.

You wanted to tell me that failure to keep the implicit contract was the start of the use of force. Fair enough. I accepted your definition. Now it applies to implicit contracts with the govt. as much as implicit contracts with private firms.

As for the rest of it, you've just gone back to "if you don't like it, fook off or we'll chuck you in the clinker".

Yes, that is the exact situation.....put in it's baldest and most unflattering terms.

I maintain that is a moral thing to do in these circumstances. Remember, we are talking about

a) Public Goods. Which are non-excludable except by geographic area.

Where you have enterred into an implicit contract you were well aware of.

c) Where you had been given an ample grace period (16years+) to become aware and all the information on this has been freely available to you.

d) Where you are given a choice of leaving the geographic area..... or not engaging in the taxable activity...... and you declined, incurred the implicit contract, and are now refusing to honour your side of it.

In those circumstances....... "If you don;t like it, take off or we chuck you in the clinker" is moral in the same way that we can say to people "Do not walk out of Curry's with that kettle and without paying, or we chuck you in the clinker".

Yours,

TGP

[pootle]

When you agree with the seller a price........ and then pay yourself that price as income.

I see no contract, show it to me. Anyway, I'm not paying myself an income, I'm exchanging a thing I own for another thing. Does owning a thing imply a contract?

No there is one. It is not all that obvious I grant you but it is there.

Again, show me the contract or it doesn't exist.

I would also say that there was no force involved until you refused to pay. But you held different. You held that the initiation of force was when someone took the kettle. Here it is when you sold the goods, incurring the implicit contract, and failed to pay.

Yes, the initiation of force is when someone took the kettle without paying. Otherwise it would have been a consensual exchange!

Here, when I sold the goods it was another consensual exchange. The only contract was between me and the person with whom I exchanged the goods. There is no other contract and no force involved ... until the government comes along a demands a cut. It was a free exchange without force until the government arrived.

I have no problem, really, saying the govt. is the initiator of force....... or that private companies that try to enforce their contracts (explicit or implicit) are the originators of the force there.

You wanted to tell me that failure to keep the implicit contract was the start of the use of force. Fair enough. I accepted your definition. Now it applies to implicit contracts with the govt. as much as implicit contracts with private firms.

I didn't try to tell you the failure to keep an implicit contract was the start of the use of force. I think you misunderstood me when I mention taking the kettle - it was clear that I was referring to taking the kettle without paying. That is the initiation of force. Buying a kettle (rather than taking it) is a voluntary exchange - no force involved. There is no implicit contract in buying a kettle - one thing is exchanged for another, end of matter.

Yes, that is the exact situation.....put in it's baldest and most unflattering terms.

I maintain that is a moral thing to do in these circumstances. Remember, we are talking about

a) Public Goods. Which are non-excludable except by geographic area.

Where you have enterred into an implicit contract you were well aware of.

c) Where you had been given an ample grace period (16years+) to become aware and all the information on this has been freely available to you.

d) Where you are given a choice of leaving the geographic area..... or not engaging in the taxable activity...... and you declined, incurred the implicit contract, and are now refusing to honour your side of it.

In those circumstances....... "If you don;t like it, take off or we chuck you in the clinker" is moral in the same way that we can say to people "Do not walk out of Curry's with that kettle and without paying, or we chuck you in the clinker".

Yours,

TGP

A bold claim to say that it is moral. On what principles do you make this claim?

[bogbrush]

So you say that because you get born where a bunch of people decide to buy nukes, when you reach the age of 16 and never once implicitly or explicitly ask for nukes to be bought, you assume the right to chuck me out of the country to which you have no greater claim to reside in than me simply because I don't want to be part of your scheme?

I take it if I refused to get on the boat there would be guns pointed into my back.

Like I said before, you're seriously dangerous. I've not seen anyone on here so enthusiatically embrace the options of intolerance, coercion and violence.