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

[kudukid]

Just as a car parking company would put you in jail for refusal to pay the fees you implicitly agreed to when parking a car in their space.

Do you really believe that a car parking company can put a person in jail?

You can't go back on that now. Or at least, if you do............ we will put you in jail. Just as we would a man who pulled into a space then refused to pay.

Surely you don't?

Same as I can't see whats wrong with attacking you, kidnapping you, locking you in a cage and telling you it's for your failure to pay for the convenience of a parking space..........

You actually do!

Whatsmore, you had a choice. You didn't have to incur the contract. You could have refused the job. You could have left the country. You CHOSE to incur the contract with the state that came with a job that paid that income, now you must pay......... or like any private company whose implicit contracts you breach you face the threat of forcible removal of your liberty.

Why do you think a private company can put you in prison?

It's really very simple. I pay for my share of all these services. I incurred the contract same as you. I pay same as you. I am fully paid up.

Said with a click of the heels and a salute!

We do. The tax man doesn;t come round and soothe your feathers, whisper sweet nothings in your ear, hears all your moral qualms, take your confession, rub your feet and THEN asks for the taxes.

I am now imagining you as Mr Smith.

They don't need to. They take the taxes. They will shove the gun in your face if you do not.

I bet you are a barrell of fun at parties!

Just like the parking space which you pulled into......... no-one is going to talk to you about it..........you knew the deal........pay or "gun in the face"

We're talking about it on here because I am trying to explain to you that this is moral. That guns in the face CAN be moral. Just as a gun in the face if you take a diamond ring from a man who owns it without payment is moral.

NURSE!!!!

Edited March 27, 2010 by kudukid

[kudukid]

Actually,

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

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

You honestly believe that the BOE and the FED are subordinate to Brown and Obama?

Oh dear.

[TGP]

Do you really believe that a car parking company can put a person in jail?

yes and no.

They can levy a penalty. If you fail to pay this they will take you to court. If you are guilty the court will levy a fine. If you fail to pay the fine the court will find you in contempt and send you to jail.

That is the circumstance in which the co. Send you to jail.

Just as in the analogy I was drawing the state would (eventually, if not initially) send you to jail.

Surely you don't?

[\quote]

in those circumstances they would. Just as the state would do so if you fail to pay your taxes after proceeding through levels of lighter penalties in the same way. Read back in the thread a bit more. You should be able to see me saying "the company sends you to jail" was merely convinient shorthand for

(btw. Posted from an iPhone. Better replies will have to wait until Monday.)

[TGP]

yes and no.

They can levy a penalty. If you fail to pay this they will take you to court. If you are guilty the court will levy a fine. If you fail to pay the fine the court will find you in contempt and send you to jail.

That is the circumstance in which the co. Send you to jail.

Just as in the analogy I was drawing the state would (eventually, if not initially) send you to jail.

Surely you don't?

in those circumstances they would. Just as the state would do so if you fail to pay your taxes after proceeding through levels of lighter penalties in the same way. Read back in the thread a bit more. You should be able to see me saying "the company sends you to jail" was merely convinient shorthand for This.

(btw. Posted from an iPhone. Better replies will have to wait until Monday.)

[TGP]

yes and no.

They can levy a penalty. If you fail to pay this they will take you to court. If you are guilty the court will levy a fine. If you fail to pay the fine the court will find you in contempt and send you to jail.

That is the circumstance in which the co. Send you to jail.

Just as in the analogy I was drawing the state would (eventually, if not initially) send you to jail.

Surely you don't?

[\quote]

in those circumstances they would. Just as the state would do so if you fail to pay your taxes after proceeding through levels of lighter penalties in the same way. Read back in the thread a bit more. You should be able to see me saying "the company sends you to jail" was merely convinient shorthand for this.

(btw. Posted from an iPhone. Better replies will have to wait until Monday.)

[TGP]

F***, hpc really doesn't like my iPhone. The last two copies were attempted edits.

[TGP]

You honestly believe that the BOE and the FED are subordinate to Brown and Obama?

Oh dear.

no. I believe the private sector SHOULD be subordinate to the public sector.

For the record, neither of those two institutions are in the private sector !

What I said above is "agnostic" in regard to brown/boe.

Again FTR..... Both SHOULD be subordinate to democratic pols as non-dem public institutions. And I think by and large they are. Parliament/brown can sack king. King can't sack brown.

[bogbrush]

Do you really believe that a car parking company can put a person in jail?

Surely you don't?

You actually do!

Why do you think a private company can put you in prison?

Said with a click of the heels and a salute!

I am now imagining you as Mr Smith.

I bet you are a barrell of fun at parties!

NURSE!!!!

I tell you, I've never read such dangerous madness before. This guy has no concept at all of what contracts are and the onus being on the offering party to secure a conscious, free acceptance. He seems to think that if he and his mates decide to do something they should be free to force me to join in or they get to evict/shoot me.

Edited March 27, 2010 by bogbrush

[TGP]

I tell you, I've never read such dangerous madness before. This guy has no concept at all of what contracts are and the onus being on the offering party to secure a conscious, free acceptance. He seems to think that if he and his mates decide to do something they should be free to force me to join in or they get to evict/shoot me.

no. I am happy to talk about concious free acceptance.

When you engage in an activity (parking a car) in a defined geographic area (a parking space) provided all efforts have been made to inform you of a fee ( a whacking great sign) engaging in that activity is viewed, rightly, by the courts as implicitly incurring a contract to pay. You are familiar with this example, no ?

When you engage in an activity (buying a house) in a defined geographic area (the uk) provided all efforts have been made to inform you of a fee (your solicitor informs you) engaging in that activity is viewed, rightly, by the courts as implicitly incurring a contract to pay.

Any penalty imposed in either case is for breach of those contracts.

You may agree with neither contract. You may view one, both or neither as invalid. The law considers both valid. Should you persuade the court otherwise you may be let out of the contract. BUT you must do so. If you do not the court will impose a penalty.

If you wished to avoid all this it is no good claiming you have a unilateral right to ignore these imlicit contracts. You should have not engaged in the activity in that area once you were informed of the fee.

Why Is this so hard to understand ? The fact that there was no written and signed contract does not mean there was not a contract enterred into.

[bogbrush]

no. I am happy to talk about concious free acceptance.

When you engage in an activity (parking a car) in a defined geographic area (a parking space) provided all efforts have been made to inform you of a fee ( a whacking great sign) engaging in that activity is viewed, rightly, by the courts as implicitly incurring a contract to pay. You are familiar with this example, no ?

When you engage in an activity (buying a house) in a defined geographic area (the uk) provided all efforts have been made to inform you of a fee (your solicitor informs you) engaging in that activity is viewed, rightly, by the courts as implicitly incurring a contract to pay.

Any penalty imposed in either case is for breach of those contracts.

You may agree with neither contract. You may view one, both or neither as invalid. The law considers both valid. Should you persuade the court otherwise you may be let out of the contract. BUT you must do so. If you do not the court will impose a penalty.

If you wished to avoid all this it is no good claiming you have a unilateral right to ignore these imlicit contracts. You should have not engaged in the activity in that area once you were informed of the fee.

Why Is this so hard to understand ? The fact that there was no written and signed contract does not mean there was not a contract enterred into.

Let's get this back to where it began.

You and your mates decide you'd be safer from the Russians with nukes. I don't agree with nuking people. You say that I have to pay otherwise you'll put me on a boat somewhere.

Now can you please explain to me the bit where I made a contract for the nukes.

[Injin]

no. I am happy to talk about concious free acceptance.

When you engage in an activity (parking a car) in a defined geographic area (a parking space) provided all efforts have been made to inform you of a fee ( a whacking great sign) engaging in that activity is viewed, rightly, by the courts as implicitly incurring a contract to pay. You are familiar with this example, no ?

When you engage in an activity (buying a house) in a defined geographic area (the uk) provided all efforts have been made to inform you of a fee (your solicitor informs you) engaging in that activity is viewed, rightly, by the courts as implicitly incurring a contract to pay.

Any penalty imposed in either case is for breach of those contracts.

You may agree with neither contract. You may view one, both or neither as invalid. The law considers both valid. Should you persuade the court otherwise you may be let out of the contract. BUT you must do so. If you do not the court will impose a penalty.

If you wished to avoid all this it is no good claiming you have a unilateral right to ignore these imlicit contracts. You should have not engaged in the activity in that area once you were informed of the fee.

Why Is this so hard to understand ? The fact that there was no written and signed contract does not mean there was not a contract enterred into.

Yes, it does.

A contract requires defined terms and conditions, and proving in court.

[TGP]

Let's get this back to where it began.

can I take it from this that we are going to stop with this "there is no contract" bollo*ks ?

That you realize you cannot validly argue that case and so we are moving on ? Or are you going to turn round later and pretend that you didn't dodge away from this losing argument ? If so, fine.

You and your mates decide you'd be safer from the Russians with nukes.

that's a reasonable way of saying it.

I don't agree with nuking people.

accepted.

You say that I have to pay otherwise you'll put me on a boat somewhere.

not quite accepted. I will only do so if you incur a contractual obligation to pay and do not do so. The penalty is probably not going to be exile. But there will be a penalty

Now can you please explain to me the bit where I made a contract for the nukes.

when you (say) bought a house in full knowledge that doing so incurred an obligation to pay a tax that would, in turn, fund those nukes.

You were informs by your solicitor that should you continue with the purchase auch a tax was payable. You purchased thee house, and so incurred a contractual obligation to pay the tax.

Perhaps I should make this clearer to froestall the next objection.

when you parked your car in the space the fee covered several services. Obviously, ability to leave your car there... But also that (say) if there was a fire the company would attempt t estinguish it before it reached your car..... Or that they provided a camera so that there would be evidence against any thief.... Or that they would place a person there to deter thieves.

All were included in the fee.

Perhaps you were not intersted in all those services. Perhaps you sought to just park your car and expected no other servces at all. That is immaterial. By parking the car you agreed to the WHOLE fee and were given all the services. The company did not offer to reduce your fee for less services. It was accept them all for the whole fee or do not park your car in this area. You accepted their fee on that basis by parking your car.

Failure to pay that fee is br

[TGP]

Breaking that contract

it is the same with the stamp duty. Regardless of the fact that you didn't want that service you agreed to pay full fee and received all the services, even the ones you didn't want. A court would recognize that fact and apply a penalty for failure to pay.

You may not have wanted nuclear protection. But you DID receive it. You Also agreed to pay the total fee for the total services. You broke that contract. Even if you didn't realize all the services that you were paying for at the time.

[TGP]

Yes, it does.

A contract requires defined terms and conditions, and proving in court.

As do taxes.

The defined terms and conditions are the stamp duty act. They cannot levy the tax without creating those t&c. Whatsmore they are made available to you and your soolicitor informed you of their existence.

Taxes also require proving in court. You are free to dispute any tax in court. Should you win you will not be required to pay. As it is with the car park contract.

As you can see. Taxes are no different in this respect (at least) from any other implicit contract, like my car park analogy.

[Injin]

As do taxes.

A court that's paid by taxation deciding if people are liable?

Behave.

The defined terms and conditions are the stamp duty act. They cannot levy the tax without creating those t&c. Whatsmore they are made available to you and your soolicitor informed you of their existence.

Taxes also require proving in court. You are free to dispute any tax in court. Should you win you will not be required to pay. As it is with the car park contract.

As you can see. Taxes are no different in this respect (at least) from any other implicit contract, like my car park analogy.

It's a shame that you think that the word contract has no objective definition.

[TGP]

A court that's paid by taxation deciding if people are liable?

yes. In the same way a private arbitration company arbitrates despite being paid a fee to do so today or in your anarchist system.

Behave.

It's a shame that you think that the word contract has no objective definition.

why is it a shame to acknowreldge the truth ? Contracts are sub. Defined by common agreement in a defined area. Contract law is different in different areas ass a result. A contract that is binding in , say, the uk may not. Be binding in hk as a result. Very few things are genuinely objectively defined. A few laws of maths and phyisics. Everything else is subjective. Especiallly anything only existing by common consent of humans.

[TGP]

Bump !

Anyone want to conitinue this discussion in the new week, or are we giving up on this one now ?

If we are, I don't want to be told later that I don't understand implict contracts....... or that I'm some violence loving commie maoist nutcase because I support the kind of base level taxation that any state, even the most libertarian, requires to function.

Up to you, it's your call.

Yours,

TGP

[pootle]

Bump !

Anyone want to conitinue this discussion in the new week, or are we giving up on this one now ?

If we are, I don't want to be told later that I don't understand implict contracts....... or that I'm some violence loving commie maoist nutcase because I support the kind of base level taxation that any state, even the most libertarian, requires to function.

Up to you, it's your call.

Yours,

TGP

I'll bite ... you don't understand implicit contracts!

[TGP]

I'll bite ... you don't understand implicit contracts!

In what respect ?

Point out the flaw in my argument you want to discuss and we'll discuss it.

Yours,

TGP

[pootle]

In what respect ?

Point out the flaw in my argument you want to discuss and we'll discuss it.

Yours,

TGP

The key flaw is that agreement to a contract has to be voluntary. An involuntary contract is not a contract.

[TGP]

The key flaw is that agreement to a contract has to be voluntary. An involuntary contract is not a contract.

Well,

I was using stamp duty/car parking as my examples.

Did someone force you to park in that space ? If not, then parking there was a voluntary act that enterred you into an implicit contract to pay the fee for all the services you received when your car was parked there (whether you wanted all the services, or some, or none).

Did someone force you to buy a house ? If not, then buying one was a voluntary act that enterred you into an implicit contract to pay the tax for all the services you received on that house (whther you wanted all thge services, or some, or none).

How was your house purchase involuntary ?

Yours,

TGP

Edit: Syntax correction.

Edited March 29, 2010 by TGP

[pootle]

Well,

I was using stamp duty/car parking as my examples.

Did someone force you to park in that space ? If not, then parking there was a voluntary act that enterred you into an implicit contract to pay the fee for all the services you received when your car was parked there (whether you wanted all the services, or some, or none).

Yes, I parked and I paid. Both voluntary acts.

Did someone force you to buy a house ? If not, then buying one was a voluntary act that enterred you into an implicit contract to pay the tax for all the services you received on that house (whther you wanted all thge services, or some, or none).

How was your house purchase involuntary ?

Yours,

TGP

Edit: Syntax correction.

Buying the house was a voluntary exchange between me and the seller of the house. The payment of the stamp duty was involuntary. The government would have refused to acknowledge the validity of the the voluntary contract between me and the seller.

[TGP]

Yes, I parked and I paid. Both voluntary acts.

Agreed

Buying the house was a voluntary exchange between me and the seller of the house.

The payment of the stamp duty was involuntary.

No it wasn't. BEFORE the purchase of the house your solicitor informed you that this act came with a fee. You engaged in that act in any case. You were informed........ and your willingness to continue was taken as an implicit agreement to pay the fee.

You did not have to continue. You could have said "Sorry ? I have to pay a tax ? In that case call the whole thing off"........... just as with the cart parking space you could have done so upon reading their sign.

I understand that you DID NOT WANT TO PAY....... I'm sure that you do not want to pay for parking either, you'd prefer to have it free....... nevertheless, you enterred an implicit contract to pay when you picked that space aware of the fee.

Similarly, with stamp duty....... you enterred an implicit contract to pay upon being informed by the solicitor there was a tax, and you agreed to continue on that basis.

The government would have refused to acknowledge the validity of the the voluntary contract between me and the seller.

They would have. That is (one of) the services they are providing for that fee. If you consider the fee unreasonable....... you were entirely free to not continue with the purchase........ or purchase a house outside the designated area where that fee applies (the UK) just as you could have parked outside the designated area where that fee applies (the parking space).

Again......I understand that you did not want to pay the fee, that you would prefer that the service of recognising that contract as entirely valid came free (as did the other services paid for by that tax). It does not. It is a service for which there was a fee....... and after being informed of that fact you voluntarily carried on with the transaction in any case (as after being informed that there was a fee for parking in the space).

What you would prefer does not come into it. In both cases there is a fee, in both cases you are informed, in both cases you continue forward on that basis. So in both cases you have enterred into an implicit contract to pay.

Yours,

TGP

[pootle]

DID NOT WANT TO PAY

Which would be definition of involuntary I believe.

You still have not addressed the problem of the implicit contract being involuntary.

I could apply your reasoning to the mafia and say that it is common knowledge that to operate a business in a certain town requires a "levy" to be paid to the local organisation. I want to open a business and in doing so accept the implicit contract with the mafia to pay them the levy.

In that same town the mafia apply a "levy" on anyone purchasing a house and everyone knows this. I want to buy a house with the profits I have left over after paying the buiness "levy". I buy a house and proceed with the purchase even though I know the mafia will require their "levy" to be paid. I purchase the house voluntarily, but I pay the levy involuntarily because I know that I will not be able to continue living and working in the town if I do not. In other words I have be coerced into paying. Coercion is a form of force. Being forced to do something is not doing it voluntarily.

[TGP]

Which would be definition of involuntary I believe.

No. You did not want to pay for the parking either. Yet you agreed to do so voluntarily.

You did not want to pay for the tax. Yet you agreed to do so voluntarily.

You CAN voluntarily agreed to do something you did not wish to do.

You still have not addressed the problem of the implicit contract being involuntary.

I think I have.

Regardless of your initial wishes on the subject...... perhaps you want free parking.......perhaps you want to buy a house without paying duty......... when informed that a fee WOULD be applied if you continued in the action, you voluntarily continued with the action.

Look. Maybe you do not like pain. Perhaps you would usually not assent to any pain.

IF........When informed that ripping off a plaster on your leg will cause pain you say "OK, do take it off anyway" you voluntarily assent to it, regardless of your initial wishes.

I could apply your reasoning to the mafia and say that it is common knowledge that to operate a business in a certain town requires a "levy" to be paid to the local organisation. I want to open a business and in doing so accept the implicit contract with the mafia to pay them the levy.

The mafia would claim so. You could challenge that in court. You would win.

The mafia does not have standing to create such fee's, and the court would recognise that it does not have that standing.

The car parking company does have such standing, and the court would recognise that it does have that standing.

The government of the UK does have such standing, and the court would recognise that it does have that standing.

Here this is a different argument. You are no longer alledging that you did not agree to the fee. You are alledging the UK govt. does not have the standing to levy the fee. Thats a different argument, one I am willing to have.

But lets finish this one first.

If you say "OK, I agree that I voluntarily agreed to this fee........ but I wish to start another argument over the govt. not having standing to levy it" we can do that. I don't want to move onto such an argument without settling this first because, of course, if I win that argument you'll just go back to this one again.

One at a time please.

In that same town the mafia apply a "levy" on anyone purchasing a house and everyone knows this. I want to buy a house with the profits I have left over after paying the buiness "levy". I buy a house and proceed with the purchase even though I know the mafia will require their "levy" to be paid. I purchase the house voluntarily, but I pay the levy involuntarily because I know that I will not be able to continue living and working in the town if I do not. In other words I have be coerced into paying. Coercion is a form of force. Being forced to do something is not doing it voluntarily.

No. Your logic is wrong here.

The issue with the mafia is they don't have the standing to legitimately levy that fee.......... much as if you bought from a person who did not hold title to the house/parking space.

The coercion argument is neither here nor there.

Ultimately, the fee for the parking space (which you consider legitimate) is also backed by such "coercion"........ you fail to pay....... and the company will take you to court........ if found guilty a fine will be levied........ if you fail to pay the fine force may be used to put you in jail.

The fact that (several steps down the line, as a last resort backstop) force is involved in that transaction does not make it illigitimate, or "forced" or "involuntary". Similarly, the fact that if you fail to pay your satamp duty (several steps down the line, as a last resort backstop) force is involved in that transaction does not make it illegitimate, or "forced" or "involuntary".

Both the govt. and the car parking space only use force in this legitimate way........ as a very last backstop........ if you have been found guilty by a trial of your peers........ and after being offered several other options (pay up, pay a fine, win your case) is offered first.

The issue with the mafia's force is that it is illegitimate because they do not have the standing (in the first instance) and also, incidentally, because they do not offer you a trial of your peers first..... as both the govt. and car parking company do (in the second instance).

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 29, 2010 by TGP