From a legalistic perspective: the very fact that legislation is law makes taxing you "lawful". It cannot be theft because you are taxed in accordance with law.
Theft is found in entirely different legislation- the Crimes Act 1961 (NZ)
@leeknivek if you did not vote for that party, and that party, acting as Parliament, enacted tax legislation, then you simply miss out- this is the very nature of democracy.
The fact that you did not vote "for it"or voted against it does not mean tax is theft. Tax is not theft if you are taxed pursuant to law.
One of the paramount principles of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was "no taxation without representation". This is found in the Bill of Rights Act 1688 (Imp. )
There will always be policies you disagree with, but we need gov. End of story. Should we setup alternative institutions and then start phasing gov out? Absolutely. But right now we haven't setup shit, except for tiny pebbles here and there. If you disagree with the gov then don't pay taxes. I didn't pay for two years using the tactics from Cracking the Code. I'm still free and have received a few IRS letters, nothing more.
It is thieves robbing the poor to give o he rich time we all stopped funding wars and corrup government and banks let us all stand and unite non compliance is what we need.
@ed2point0 nor did you for paying your bill in a restaurant, or when you set up a Doctors appointment. It's called an implied contract. A legal substitute for a contract. An implied contract is an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken. Your ability to comprehend this is not anyone's issue but your own & more speaks to your mental state
@carcabe Taxation is whats used to build countries. Its a way of working together, keeping up the society youre part of, the society that surrounds you...
To the people who disagree with this man, you don't understand history. Before 1913 the IRS and the Federal Reserve as ''Federal'' as Federal Express didn't exist. Why should my labor be taxed? It is a private agreement between myself and a private business. Why should I pay housing taxes. I bought the home. The Government claims a right on my property. The idea is so engrained into most Americans that they think this is how it always has functioned. It hasn't. I left the US(S)A. Bye.
I do not believe taxation is theft, because the government along with "private" enterprise distribute the currency to the people. They are simply collecting what they have lent out in the first place to enhance the quality of life.
@ConformistDave If you are receiving valuable services, how about we just pay someone of our choosing to perform that service for us. If the "government services" are truly valuable, this would not be a problem.
@tomniemiller IMHO I don't believe people are capable, and altruistic enough to perform these major feats without a governing body of some sort of upper authority.
Hahaha.. Anyone who does not like this is a weird O ! I really like this logical progression of your thoughts of Theft and Armed Robbery. Anyone who can't see that is involved in a "belief system," and not thinking.. that about what it boils down to. I used to be in a belief system but no longer. Now I try to think.. I like your way of thinking.. Keep it up
Anyone claiming taxation is theft has rejected our social contract. They have also made an incredibly illogical argument. Using that irrational logic, Seat Belt Laws are abusive forced coercion, as is insurance, restaurant health codes, building codes, FDA, FAA, etc. Fair enough, you CAN "opt out" anytime. You may LEAVE AT ANY TIME YOU CHOOSE. Start MikeLand, but you REJECT THAT, meaning you REJECT Libertarianism. If you FORCE others to LIVE as you wish, you've REJECTED your own theory
@Bolgernow I am trying to start Mikeland, but that is not possible when they steal the property I purchase with my labor,... just as when they steal Bolgernow's labor/property. The government does not own the land I purchased through the market, I do... the just falsely claim to own it. How about you leave me and Mikeland alone so I can live freely without your terrorism?!?No one has to live as I wish... just respect my right not to have a violent monopoly rule over me.
@mikeshanklin Haiti, Somalia, or the new Seasteading world created by the Pay-Pal founder await your arrival. They're a Libertarian paradise with no regulations, governmental control, or building codes. When you get an iron deficiency anemia, or Cholera you can just label it "enjoying your freedom". You might have a mild form of Asperger's syndrome. Good luck with that
@mikeshanklin Actually,the thing about buying land is that when you do it, in whatever country, you also agree to play by that certain countrys society, its rules, its way of doing things. All land has been claimed by different cultures, theres no untouched piece of land anymore. The land you buy is part of that country.. The taxes you pay are used to hold up infrastructure and other important things that you might need and use to get to your land...
@LedKenji666 Huh?!? You make no sense! I am saying leave me alone,.... how does that lead to me building some platform in international territory?!? I want to live here on my land I paid for without other people using threats of violence on me... um, last time I checked they called that Freedom. I work VERY hard already and should have the freedom to live wherever I want as long as I am not infringing on others. Are you threatening me? Are you going to use steal my property if I don't move?!?
@OneCerebralSamurai you didn't. You used the Ad Hominem fallacy of personal insults, while totally ignoring the realities of our Social Contract & governmental structures. Not a convincing argument, but sadly very common style for Libertarian's. Your battle with accepting reality isn't my concern. Good luck!
@Bolgernow This social contract...did you ever sign this contract? Did I? Agreement is implied? Did you or I give those that assume our agreement power of attorney? If I am contractually bound to hand my personal property over to the "representatives" in government without my express consent, how is this not voluntary servitude? How is this not initiating violence on peaceful people? Why is it that only the government is able to do this? That they have a monopoly on violence?
@chuska8383 go to a restaurant, eat a meal(some of which you ate, & some you didn't), & then when presented with the bill, say, "I singed no contract, or have given express consent to pay for this meal". Try it. The cops will love you. "Social Contract: An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed & the government defining & limiting the rights & duties of each". If you don't like it, you can leave at anytime. THAT'S freedom
@Bolgernow VOLUNTARILY entering the restaurant, itself a private entity, and receiving goods and services in exchange for payment is NOT equivalent to men kicking in the door of your personal property and demanding payment for "services" which you never asked for, ordered, or want.
You keep repeating "if you don't like it leave" which screams intellectual dishonesty and moral scar tissue. You don't have the right to impose rules on people and demand they leave their property if they disagree.
@chuska8383 I don't recall ever agreeing to pay for my food when I sit down at a restaurant, but it's an implicit contract so no signature is required. It's also under the threat of force. The exact same applies with our Social Contract
@Bolgernow You choose to enter restaurants and request their food and service. The restaurant isn't your property, you are a customer, the owner can ask you to leave. You may go home or go to another restaurant. A restaurant can't charge you a bill unless you order food from them. The government however can demand property from you AND DOESN'T ALLOW COMPETITION. Somebody's personal property DOES NOT belong to the government, nor do their wages.You know this, you're just being dishonest.
@chuska8383 when did I sign a contract or agree to pay for the meal? I didn't, it's an implicit contract, just as our Social Contract you totally ignored. You CHOOSE to live here. You didn't sign a contract or agree to it, but guess what, it's an implicit contract. Haiti, Somalia, or Seasteading are all Libertarian lands you can go to ANYTIME. If you don't WANT to, then you CHOOSE to stay here. Which means you CHOOSE to accept our Social Contract giving us governmental services
@Bolgernow I didn't choose to live here, I was born here. And you are completely missing the point AND are STILL being intellectually dishonest. This conversation is pointless. We'll agree to disagree...though your side doesn't allow agreement. A gun is not an argument but rather is the admission of intellectual impotence.
@chuska8383 because I explain something directly like you accept daily, but can't mentally grasp the EXACT SAME IMPLICIT CONTRACT structure of our Social Contract speaks more to your internal mental issues. My "side" is reality. Force is how all social rules are enforced. If you don't like it, go screw
@Bolgernow Force in defense and force in aggression are two completely different things!!! As long as a person is not using aggression on other peaceful people, they should have the right not to have guns pointed at them. The social contract points guns at peaceful people... it is against the non-AGGRESSION principle. The social contract and civilization are actually a dichotomy, not symbiotic.
@mikeshanklin if you choose to live in this country, you accept our implicit social contract(taxes). Just as if you CHOOSE to go to a restaurant to order food, you ACCEPT our implicit social contract of the bill. If you don't wish to accept the Social Contract, you can leave anytime. Freedom is choice. Yet, if you refuse to MOVE, but also reject the social contract, it's YOU exerting force. You're the aggressor, Just as if you ordered food, but then refused to pay the bill
@Bolgernow Not really, if people want to have in their restaurant certain "health codes" that they hold their employees to, then they can do that. In fact most places would probably do that, because no one wants to get food poisoning and if you walked into the greasiest spoon in the dishwasher you'd probably just leave. The fact is, I can't just leave, because trying to legally entire most countries is a years long process.
@metzger90 a passport can get you into ANY country. Then you get a work visa(1,2, or 3 years). Once you marry, own a house, run a business, or get your citizenship, you're good. Fully follow the process through. Clearly you've never traveled or understand how the world works. Books, facts, & reality are all good things
@Bolgernow A passport can get me into North Korea?!? Highly doubt that... Besides, the discussion here is not about the process of gaining citizenship in other countries, it is about the anti-ethical position of the process at its root. The fact that the system is funded through extortion/theft/taxation backed by the threat of violence on peaceful people who simply disagree with statism slavery. All I offer are facts, taxation is theft, it is involuntary confiscation from peaceful people.
@mikeshanklin of course communist counties won't let you in. Only four exist, & in only parts(China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, & Vietnam). You wait a week to make a circular argument fallacy? We have an implicit social contract. If you don't like it, you can leave anytime. Freedom. But if you refuse to MOVE, & reject our social contract, it's YOU exerting force. You're the aggressor. Just as if you ordered food in a restaurant, but then refused to pay the bill
@tomniemiller Its how we have defined freedom to be in the modern world. We, humans. Welcome to reality? Theres a lot of things wrong in the world, and things often seem to be getting worse.. but if you want to look at freedom issues, youre free to read up on history and see just how much freedoms we've had say in the last 2000 years for example. We havent moved that far, but atleast we've moved.
@tomniemiller our government is made up of people like you & me. We have a Social Contract. If you wish to reject our Social Contract, that's your choice. You're not being forced to live here. Freedom of CHOICE. HOWEVER, if you CHOOSE to live here, YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT. It's an implicit contract. Your views are no different than eating in a restaurant, then when the bill comes due you scream, "No, thief!"
@Bolgernow I suppose its always good to look for alternatives, something these guys are trying to do. All it takes is convincing the population of some country or another.. Im okay with that.. and say good luck?
Im happy with this social contract deal though, being part of a society, a small part, but still a part.. I always thought these Freedom yelling people are bit.. anti-social?
@Foksuh agreed. Seeking other avenues is one thing. But claiming taxation is theft, or slavery, or armed robbery is totally insane. It rejects we live in a modern society
@Bolgernow So, are you saying that taxation is not the confiscation of property from peaceful people who simply disagree? Are you telling me that if I simply disagree with paying taxes to a violent monopoly, that I am not modern enough? Sounds like to me, you believe we have to threaten peaceful people to have society.... what makes that so? Why do you have to go around threatening people to have a society?
@mikeshanklin straw man. You only offer irrational circular argument. Whatever floats your boat. Your rational sanity isn't my concern, it's yours. I've pointed out if you reject the social contract, but still actively CHOOSE to live here, it is YOU exerting force. Just as if you ordered food in a restaurant, but refused to pay the bill. If you can't understand this fact, that's YOUR issue
@Bolgernow People don't actually order government services like in a resturant.
This is the social contract lawn service. I show up at your house and and mow your lawn. I send you a bill. If you don't want to pay the bill you can move? Oh and you can vote on weather or not you want me mowing you lawn but most of your neighbors like it and the majority rules. You also get charged weather or not you have a lawn. This is my reductio ad absurdum response for you poor resturant ananogy.
@MrGreeneggsnham the restaurant analogy was used for the implied social contract everyone accepts. If you reject the Social Contract, but still CHOOSE to live here; it's YOU exerting force against the rest of society. Your comprehension of this isn't my issue
@Bolgernow Well everyone doesn't accept the implied social contract. There is no collective brain from which the government can get acceptance from everyone. Silly collectivist, you can't deny the autonomous existence of individuals.
I actually pay taxes so I don't understand how you got "exerting force" by simply disagreeing with you on something political. Reguardless using force itself requires that you actually take action. It's not refusal to obey or doing nothing.
@MrGreeneggsnham the social contract is an accepted norm in modern society, just like paying for meal at a restaurant. If you reject that, you're rejecting reality. Individuals who are mentally unstable often experience difficulty coping with the everyday functions, demands & the challenges of life. Think the moon is made of cheese, or babies should box heavyweights, don't care. It's not my problem, it's yours. It makes you mentally unstable
@Bolgernow You can't get 30 people to agree on pizza toppings but you can get 300,000,000 to agree on a monsterous list of arbitrary rules put forth by the state. See, the social contract is valid.
@Bolgernow Statism is a system we inherited from cavemen... Freedom is the modern society, so no, we don't quite live in a "modern society" yet.... whatever modern means to you. Modern to me means civilized behavior, statism is uncivilized behavior as it is threats of aggressive coercion on peaceful adults who simply disagree. Why does threats on peaceful adults equate to civilization?!? If anything, a civilized society has civilized behavior, statism is uncivilized and "unmodern".
@Foksuh Why do you believe society = threatening peaceful people? Are you seriously trying to argue that you have to steal to have society?!? Why does society automatically equate to force peaceful people to do what you say?!? Sounds like the opposite of "society" to me.... but maybe society IS that twisted.... I would bet that I have more friends on my facebook list and in real life than most of you... that I am one of the biggest extroverts out there, and I am for Freedom/Voluntaryism.
@mikeshanklin No one has threatened me in my life, so I believe I live in very peaceful society and I suppose I should call myself lucky for that.
I do understand some of your points but not all of them.
Youre looking for some sort of utopia.
We still act like cavemen, sadly, and that wont end anytime soon.. Education plays a big part in changing that, equal opportunity to learn no matter how poor you are.
As for your facebook friends and whatnot, so what?
@Foksuh Nothing to do with utopia. He just realizes that the system we are living under is a system of massive failures and a huge crime and that we can most certainly do a whole lot better. I would say Mike is a realist and knows that problems will always exist and that is very far from a utopia.
@MrDefiance000 Its not the system, its the people.. A lot of "systems" would be nice if our greed didnt screw it up.
Its the lack of morals. Realist also understands that there will always be greed and corruption that affects other people.
The fact that we do live under the same laws, under the same social contract, makes it a lot easier to deal with certain problems instead of the utopia where people have no goverment and everyones "free" to do as they wish.
@Foksuh Its the drones who believe in the system and that create the monster machine. It takes people who comply and make it what it is after all. The many parts bolts, cogs keep the monster wheel spinning after all. However it is also about much more than this. The mental conditioning goes back a long way and already starts as a baby when you first open your eyes and you have corporate stamps stamped all over your tiny body.
@Foksuh One must also remember that they have history on their side in creating this beast of a machine and you are surrounded by it and pushed into this matrix from the moment your birth is registered. As a single entity you may or may not become aware after some time. History is on the side of those who control the rigged game.
@Foksuh In terms of going much further one must also ask themselves the question what makes people act the way they do within this context? Not just in terms of greed an immorality either. There is much more to it than that. It is not a world of just black and white but a whole lot more colors within the spectrum than just this. What makes people complicit and conform? Where does it start? What mechanisms of control have been put in place over time and where are things heading?
@Foksuh Also what are the informed and uninformed choices /options that people are confronted with? What barriers, control mechanisms exist and are being put into place to strengthen the facade that is in place to make people more ignorant and deceive them?
@MrDefiance000 Lack of education. People arent taught to think, and some people are incapable of using their heads, even if they were taught.
And I suppose, even though our lives are easier than ever before, we still live very stressful lifestyles, or a lot of people do.. It drives people to the point where they dont want to think, they just want to relax and have fun on their free time?
Like said, plenty of room for improvement, but I wouldnt tear it all down.
@Foksuh It is not just the lack of education but also what people are being taught and conditioned into believing since birth. There are many mis and disinfo agents out there that have created a drone society and are helping the deception agenda along. Add a bit of forced medication to that and it makes the job even easier.
@Foksuh People have forgotten the true priorities of what is really important in life. Only once they are on their deathbeds to they suddenly come to a realization of what they have lived. You see masses of drones lacking emotions and rock like ascending and descending the escalators to their next material pursuit.
@Foksuh The same old routine of 9 to 5 and then a good dosage of tv programming (programming) after the day has ended and theb to bed and to start it all over again. Crimes are committed not just against native fauna and flora but against masses of human beings out there beyond the borders where wealth is concentrated. The list goes on and on.
@Foksuh The amount of suffering that is created under the noble lie is totally EPIC when one truly understands what is going on behind the facade of deception and propaganda.
@MrDefiance000 Oh, and I wanted to add, religions also, major issue when it comes to teaching people about reality.
As for the evils of corporations, and this total freedom idea? Those good old corporations would have a free reign at that point. Sure, you would have the option to choose for a moment, but you know how business is, the big ones eat the small ones.. The more freedoms corporations have, the worse the life on earth will get.
@Foksuh The thing is that what we are living under now is not capitalism anyways but rather a corporate fascist dictatorship. Things would have to be changed dramatically. The unequal distribution of wealth and resources is a major issue and crime in my opinion. I do not believe in giving these same corproations more power but I also do not believe in govt interference to keep the small guy down. I have a real issue with any centralized power structure.
@Foksuh What is my vision? I can not tell you that exactly. It took us a hell of a long time to even get to where we are now. I can tell you what I do not want to see however. I truly do believe that the disclosure of technologies that are being supressed will play a major role in solving many problems of the future however. Sounds unrealistic? Yes maybe to some....
@Foksuh And finally, I do not disagree with everything you say. There is some agreement but also some disagreement of course. I agree with the religion part for sure on your final post. After all power trumps faith. Namaste
"Yeah all you stupid people need to go do research like i did!" Literally all you said was taxation is theft... you presented not a single fact.
Now lets try the opposite - Taxation is not theft, Taxation is not theft! - Now i just want to make sure everyone understands that Taxation is not theft, its a fact. And if you don't believe me do some research you dummy.
I believe I really know what point your trying to convey, what your message is so to speak. However, you would do yourself more justice to use more specific examples when over generalizing.
@mcRydes and if all property is public how could The State, the primary Organ of our Collective Will, be thieving from itself? you're not making any sense! :b
@mcRydes Individual rights are against Freedom?!? Sorry, but individual rights ARE freedom... With a monopoly called government, you will never be truly free. Only in a free market where violence on peaceful people is discouraged will freedom be realized. You can threaten violence on my friend, family, and neighbors all you want, but they acquired their property through the peaceful market. If you want property, earn it... nothing is free in this world, nor should it be. We are not your slaves.
@mikeshanklin uh wow, individual rights are freedom? are you also a chubby wubby bouncin baby boy with extra poopy diapers squishin the poop around between your soft baby butt cheeks? Read Isiah Berlin on the difference between Positive and negative liberty then get back to me aight
and why is a market necessarily peaceful hmm? if our government is as demented as you claim why would it have isolated its violent tendencies from the market, of which our government is a fundamental piece?
Read CATO Institute destroys the myths of inferior health care in the united states - an article discussing figures..
Go to the CATO website, and under the search engine, look under HEALTHCARE STUDY. Now if you scroll down, there's a paper entitled WHO's Fooling Who? which specifically addresses the problematic approach taken by WHO in conflating its results. There's an veritable potpouri if information. LOL!! You lose again.
I'm sorry to hear that. Okay, let's walk through it. Go to the CATO WEBSITE. In the upper right hand corner, type in HEALTHCARE STUDY. There are 625 results. On the first page, the 6th result down, there's something entitled: "WHO'S FOOLIN' WHO? The World Health Organizations problematic ranking of healthcare systems." Click on that. I'll be waiting with open arms. :-) It's late here, so I'm off to bed, although this is fun. See you tomorrow. :-)
I didn't say it was. YOu can't read. I said it addresses the "problematic approach taken by WHO in conflating it's results." Those were my exact words. You were interested in reading about it, so I sent you in the direction. Now given the fact that the search brings up 625 results for Healthcare study, let's just pick our poison. Try THE GRASS IS NOT ALWAYS GREENER: A LOOK AT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLD. You should learn to read, before you tell someone to GET SMARTER. LOL!!
Sounds like you haven't read it, as usual. LOL!! It calls into question the basis for the findings, therefore, by extension, undermines the validity of the study you proudly announce. It specifically says that the findings are ideologically or value based, hence lack objectivity. It's rational is clearly discussed. Thus I conclude: A) that you DIDN'T read it. OR B), you CAN'T read it. LOL!!
"Sounds like you haven't read it, as usual. LOL!! It calls into question the basis for the findings, therefore, by extension, undermines the validity of the study you proudly announce"
- incorrect, all it does it attack certain elements of the criteria used in the study, it doesnt assert that the results are incorrect nor does provide any counter-results.
- furthermore the study is from CATO (a libertarian think tank)
LOL!! It's not that hard. The paper didn't say the results are faulty because it didn't have to. It demonstrated that the criteria for which the study is based were illegitimate, and, by extension, the results could be reasonably considered ILLEGITIMATE. Hence, I don't need to assert anything cause I just proved that what you provided is doubtful at best. I just undermined your case. If it was the OJ trial, I'd get an acquittal. Secondly, Who cares where the truth comes from? :-)
"LOL!! It's not that hard. The paper didn't say the results are faulty because it didn't have to..."
- the paper you specified IS NOT a counter-study, it simply attacks some elements of the WHO study criteria and DOES NOT disprove the results.
"Who cares where the truth comes from?"
- The paper is from CATO (a self-proclaimed republican think tank) that is unaccredited and not an authority on health - there's no basis for saying it's contents is correct - it is an opinion peice
A) DISPROVE - Unless you're smoking funny weed, the paper, as you call it, most certainly calls into question the results used as WHO used faulty criteria to arrive at the desired results it was trying promulgate. In my book, that means you (in the words of PUBLIC ENEMY) CAN'T TRUST IT!!
B) Again, attacking the source is an ad hominem attack. Attack CATO's logic. If you can't do that, then you'll have to admit you've lost. Now what's wrong with the logic?
" DISPROVE - Unless you're smoking funny weed, the paper, as you call it, most certainly calls into question the results used as WHO used faulty criteria to arrive at the desired results"
incorrect:
a). the paper is an opinion piece from cato (which is nether an accredited institution nor a health authority)
b). whilst the paper does attempt to criticize SOME elements of the WHO criteria it does disprove the results.
Your first name is DE, and last name BUNKED. Okay, I'll forever declare you Mr. Bunked. Listen, Bunked, The piece, which you call opinion makes STATEMENTS OF FACT. It says WHO uses such and such faulty criteria when making its conclusions, thereby resulting in the desired results. It does not say (NOT ONCE) "it is my opinion" nor, "we think". To challenge it, you must challenge the statement of facts it asserts. Since you have failed (miserably) in that endeavor. I conclude you lose
" The piece, which you call opinion makes STATEMENTS OF FACT"
- the burden of proof is on you to present these facts (if they exist), the CATO paper is an opinion piece that hasnt been held to any burden of proof, so we have no idea whether it's contents are entirely made up.
NOT!! You claimed that the CATO piece is garbage when it makes factual claims. Prove them factually incorrect. Otherwise I stand by them until further notice. Responding that it's an opinion piece since it's NOT an accredited scientific organization is blowing smoke. If it's NOT accredited, this should make your work easy. Prove it wrong.
You've failed to demonstrate that the statement of facts it makes aren't fact based. You served, I volleyed. I'm waiting...... You claimed we shouldn't pay it any mind. Why not, specifically? What about the piece makes it incredible? Are you saying that WHO in fact didn't use the criteria the piece claimed it did? That would be a proper challenge to it. Not, DUH, it's not accredited. LOL!!
"You've failed to demonstrate that the statement of facts it makes aren't fact based. "
- your statement is illogical, all the article does is make assertions, the burden of proof is on you to show they are factual ; they dont start as being considered fact by default.
"You served, I volleyed. I'm waiting..."
- sadly your volley failed.
"You claimed we shouldn't pay it any mind"
- no, i've simply pointed-out that it's an opinion piece you've failed to substantiated
A) Assertions: LOL!! If I claim I saw you last night with a woman. Is that an "assertion" or is that a statement of fact? I can't wait for this one.
B) Volley: Yes, failed to get a return. Hence you lose the point. I should be in Wimbledon. :-)
C) You've CLAIMED it's opinion based on voodoo logic. What makes it an opinion piece? Arguably the WHO study is an opinion piece. So clarify that one for me. Comedy!!!
"Assertions: LOL!! If I claim I saw you last night with a woman. Is that an 'assertion' or is that a statement of fact? I can't wait for this one."
- that is ofcourse an assertion (whether it can be considered a a fact is dependent on whether you substantiated the assertion with evidence)
"Volley..."
- incorrect, i demonstrated the CATO paper could not be used as evidence because it is nothing more than an opinion peice from an organization that is not a health authority
Bout time. I was gettin' worried. Good to hear from you...Now back to serious matters:
A) This was a trap on my part, and you fell for it. Sorry. An assertion of a fact, and a statement of a fact are NOT mutually exclusive. Example: You claim X punched you. When you go to the police, they "Take a STATEMENT from you." This doesn't mean it's true. You're WHO study falls into this category.
B) You haven't even read the CATO paper. LOL!! What a moron. ha ha, ha
:"A) This was a trap on my part, and you fell for it. Sorry. An assertion of a fact, and a statement of a fact are NOT mutually exclusive"
:
;- i never claimed they were mutually exclusive, i pointedout that you've failed to provide a basis for saying that what you assert to be fact is actually fact
Quit stalling. The basis is provided in the paper, which, by the way, you haven't read. Your argument falls on its face since you've NOT asserted either why what you've presented is actually fact, other than claiming reliance on authority, which can be misleading as was pointed out in the paper. Hence, you're trying to hold me to a standard of absolute proof when you've failed in your endeavor to do same. This reminds me of the Leftowitz vs Bernal debate on African history. :-)
"Quit stalling. The basis is provided in the paper"
- incorrect, the CATO paper paper only attacks some of the who criteria and does not debunk the results.
- the paper itself however to even provide evidence of this as it is nothing more than an opinion peice whose arguments you have failed to provide evidence for.
A) Cato paper attacks some elements... (Incorrect, the criteria which the paper attacks undermines, nullifies and diminishes the results reached. It's not that difficult.)
B) Opinion paper...(The study is WHO's opinion and nothing more. The paper undermines that study. Since you can't dismiss what it says, you repeatedly - like a parrot - fall back on this argument. What's wrong with the paper's attack?)
C) Falls on its face..(The paper undermines the conclusion via the criteria)
" Cato paper attacks some elements... (Incorrect, the criteria which the paper attacks undermines, nullifies and diminishes the results reached"
- incorrect, i have demonstrated that it only attacks some elements with reference to the abstract however your assertion that it 'attacks undermines, nullifies and diminishes the results reached' has no evidence at all
A) "I have demonstrated that it only attacks some elements" (LOL!! You haven't even IDENTIFIED what elements were under attack. Never mind that the elements in question overcame the attack from the paper.)
A) "And I don't need to" (You haven't "demonstrated" anything. You made an assertion without backing it up. Secondly, you haven't read the piece. You're a fraud. LOL!!)
B) "Baselessly" (How would you know if I made a baseless assertion when you've not read the piece. Secondly, you haven't undermined it's points. You've made an assertion that it's baseless with no accompanying proof of your claim. Hence, you're a FRAUD. Got nibble on some cheese you MOUSE. LOL!
"(You haven't demonstrated anything. You made an assertion..."
- INCORRECT, i demonstrated it with reference to the abstract. you have failed to provide any basis as to why the EVIDENCE i have presented from the abstract is invalid and failed to present any counter evidence.
"How would you know if I made a baseless assertion when you've not read the piece"
- i have read both the peice and your comments, and we KNOW your assertion is basless as you are unable to provide evidence
"You've made an assertion that it's baseless with no accompanying proof of your claim"
incorrect:
- i DEMONSTRATED that CATO paper only attacked some elements of the WHO study (and did not debunk the overall results as you claimed) using EVIDENCE from the abstract
- you failed to provide evidence against this and failed to produce any counter-evidence, hence your claim is a baseless assertion.
- incorrect, WHO is an accredited organization that is an authority on health, the fact it has met the scientific burden of proof means that we objectively know it isnt an opinion piece, and the fact that the WHO organization is a world authority on health gives it even further credibility.
"Falls on its face..(The paper undermines the conclusion via the criteria)"
- incorrect: "your assertion that it 'attacks undermines..."
A) "Incorrect is an accredited organization" (This isn't a logically valid point. What your circumlocutious point boils down to is that WHO has authority, so its opinion holds weight. However, it's an opinion nonetheless. This continual mentioning of an obscure burden of proof means nothing since you've not identified just what that involves. Just what do you mean by WHO has met it burden of proof?)
B) "Your assertion..." (Incorrect: The paper stands on its own.)
A) "The WHO study has passed..benchmarks and burdens." (A bald-faced assertion without facts to back this up. AMATEURish.)
B) "The CATO paper hasn't met equivalent burdens of proof" (And when I won my traffic case, it wasn't necessary to demonstrate that I'd received a law degree when I put the Administrative Judge in his place. What does this have to do with anything? LOL!)
C) "uses the scientific method." (An assertion. - You're an amateur.)
"A bald-faced assertion without facts to back this up. AMATEURish"
- incorrect, it's paper that has been subjected to and met the scientific burden of proof.
"And when I won my traffic case, it wasn't necessary to demonstrate that I'd received a law degree when I put the Administrative Judge in his place"
- the cato paper is the equiviliant of an unverified second-person account, whereas the WHO paper is the equiviliant of a complete fingerprint match through VERIFIED FORENSICS
"you've NOT asserted either why what you've presented is actually fact"
- incorrect, again, i presented a scientific paper a leading health authority, it has met and passed it's burden of proof, hence the burden is on you to provide evidence against it, in contrast the paper you have presented may as well have been written by joe the plumber (and we have no basis for saying it's contents are valid)
A) I've presented a scientific paper...(And what burden has that paper passed? Secondly, the study used invalid criteria, therefore it is not truthworthy.)
Until you present evidence of your claim that government healthcare is a better option, then you are statements are like chafe in the wind, just blowing away. The study has been debunked.
- the scientific method (most effective truth-finding mechanism in human history)
"Secondly, the study used invalid criteria, therefore it is not truthworthy"
- incorrect, the CATO paper make the ASSERTION that it follows incorrect criteria, however the CATO paper has not been held to a burden of proof and CATO itself is not an authority on health. The WHO paper is trustworthy, the assertions of the CATO paper are not
A) "The scientific method" (Can you be more vague? LOL!! How did WHO arrive eat its results bub? You claim that the scientific method was used, so how was its conclusions reached?)
B) "CATO paper makes the ASSERTION" (And why was this ASSERTION not valid enough to undermine the study's results? You're just stalling.)
"'The scientific method' (Can you be more vague? LOL!! How did WHO arrive eat its results bub?"
- hahaha you seriously dont know how the scienitfic method works? no wonder you believe the unevidneced assertions of equal credibility as the WHO paper.
- i'm not here to be a primary school teacher, GOOGLE IT.
A) "Scientific Method" (Hmm, I quite understand dipshit how it works, but what does that have to do with you're accepting someone's words without checking them out? This discussion has proven you're an amateur, willing to accept whatever someone under color of authority says. Hmm, you still believe that there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq cause Condolezza Rice said it? LOL!!)
"Hmm, I quite understand dipshit how it works, but what does that have to do with you're..."
i've already debunked this question:
- WHO organizes world health efforts for 70 years and becomes an authority on world health, WHO writes a scientific paper (subjected the the scientific burden of proof) which it then publishes.
- A 10 year old doesnt like what the paper shows and scribbles angrily onto a cardboard box, he then proclaims that it debunks the WHO paper.
Wait, are you claiming that there was only ONE element that was faulty in the WHO study as dictated by the CATO paper? LOL!! Finally we're making some headway as to what you meant by your repeated vague mantra (IT ONLY ATTACKS SOME ELEMENTS.) In my book, SOME is plural, but here you say ONE. If I was a lawyer, i'd have your head in a court of law. You're bullshit has been sniffed out, so try it on someone else. :-)
"Wait, are you claiming that there was only ONE element that was faulty in the WHO study as dictated by the CATO paper"
- incorrect, i'm saying that because the CATO paper is just an opinion peice that makes assertions, we have no reason to believe ANY of WHO study is faulty.
"Until you present evidence of your claim that government healthcare is a better option"
- i have already done so using the WHO paper, you have failed to provide any evidence against it (all you could produce was an opinion piece from CATO)
A) "I've already done so using the who paper" (Which was then undermined by the CATO paper. In short, your authoritative opinion piece was undermined by another opinion piece.)
You're not capable of GETTING SMARTER, so I won't waste my time telling you to do that. LOL!!
"Which was then undermined by the CATO paper. In short, your authoritative opinion piece was undermined by another opinion piece"
Incorrect:
"WHO is an accredited organization that is an authority on health, the fact it has met the scientific burden of proof means that we objectively know it isnt an opinion piece"
"Really!!! So what specifically about the paper is misleading?"
- i have not claimed any part of it to be misleading, i have simply pointedout that it only attacks the WHO criteria and does not contest the results (as you claimed). I've supported this with reference to the article's abstract.
if you contest this then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, because i have already provided mine :)
"C) You've CLAIMED it's opinion based on voodoo logic"
- incorrect, we know for a fact that is an opinion piece because it has not been subjected to any burden of proof (eg. the scientific method) and the organization is not an authority on health.
A) Burden of proof: Are you claiming that The Who study has been subjected to burden of proof? If so, why was it using an erroneous methodology to arrive at a conclusion favorable to governmental intervention into healthcare?
B) You've NOT mentioned the second paper, indicating that nations who formerly had governmental healthcare are choosing more private means. You're ignoring the inconvenient. LOL!!
A) Burden: Really, so how was this burden met? Since you claim this as a fact. I'll be waiting until the moon turns blue on this one.
B) How do you know it's an assertion since: 1) you haven't read it. AND 2) you haven't undermined it's conclusions. In a debate, when an assertion/statement of fact/declaration is made, it has to be met head on. You have wasted my time making circumlocutious statements and relying on a debunked authority. Won't work. YOu just don't know. LOL!!
- the paper complies with the scientific method and is from a leading world health authority. That's the standard of it's contents. if you want to contest the methodology then i suggest you go contest gravity first :)
"How do you know it's an assertion since: 1) you haven't read it. AND 2) you haven't undermined it's conclusions"
a). i have read it's contents
b). we know it's an assertion because the claim hasnt met any burden of proof.
A) "The paper complies with the scientific method..." (And what method was that? Your reliance on authority without examining how its conclusions were drawn is evidence sine quo non of supreme ignorance.)
You say: Bubba is the expert, so he knows.
I say: Bubba is full of shit as pointed out by Billy Bob...
You say: well Bubba is the expert., and Billy Bob ain't so I don't care what Billy Bob says.
"And what method was that? Your reliance on authority without examining..."
- incorrect, the scientific method is a benchmark for a STANDARD OF EVIDENCE (the most effective one in human history). It follows a strict methodology to identify whether claims are correct. Furthermore there are established avenues for disproving that which is published ie. peer reviewed magazines.
if the CATO paper actually had any evidence then it would have been submitted for publishing.
A) "Scientific method is a benchmark" (Now that you've copied this from WIKIPEDIA, just what does this have to do with WHO's using invalid criteria at arriving at it's results? LOL! You're so dumb!! All your claim boils down to is we should believe what WHO says, not another organization because WHO has authority. That again is considering the source, and NOT the evidence. You've done this the entire time we've argued about this. You've failed to get into the details of CATO's paper
From a legalistic perspective: the very fact that legislation is law makes taxing you "lawful". It cannot be theft because you are taxed in accordance with law.
Theft is found in entirely different legislation- the Crimes Act 1961 (NZ)
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 day ago
..its not theft as you are taxed under legislation enacted by your (democratically elected (a joke lol)representatives.
You did it to yourselves.
Theft is an entirely unrelated offence.
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 days ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY What if you did not vote for it or voted against it?
leeknivek 2 days ago
@leeknivek if you did not vote for that party, and that party, acting as Parliament, enacted tax legislation, then you simply miss out- this is the very nature of democracy.
The fact that you did not vote "for it"or voted against it does not mean tax is theft. Tax is not theft if you are taxed pursuant to law.
One of the paramount principles of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was "no taxation without representation". This is found in the Bill of Rights Act 1688 (Imp. )
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 day ago
'22 Parliamentary control of public finance
It shall not be lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act of Parliament,—
(a) to levy a tax; or
(b) to borrow money or to receive money borrowed from any person; or.
(c) to spend any public money.
Compare: 1977 No 65 ss 53(1), 70; Bill of Rights art 4 (UK)
Section 22(b): substituted, on 25 January 2005, by section 37(1) of the Public Finance Amendment Act 2004 (2004 No 113).'
Constitution Act 1986 (NZ)
Its NOT theft...
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 2 days ago
Do people really need to study why taking what isn't yours by force is uncivilized?
MrDpsummers 4 weeks ago
Mike, If taxation is theft. Shouldnt you move to an area where there is no taxation to protest. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. im just asking
niggaflies 1 month ago
@niggaflies You mean like the moon?
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
There will always be policies you disagree with, but we need gov. End of story. Should we setup alternative institutions and then start phasing gov out? Absolutely. But right now we haven't setup shit, except for tiny pebbles here and there. If you disagree with the gov then don't pay taxes. I didn't pay for two years using the tactics from Cracking the Code. I'm still free and have received a few IRS letters, nothing more.
tstruss912 1 month ago
It is thieves robbing the poor to give o he rich time we all stopped funding wars and corrup government and banks let us all stand and unite non compliance is what we need.
edtheball69 1 month ago
To those who perpetuate the Social Contract fallacy: I didn't sign shit.
ed2point0 1 month ago
@ed2point0 nor did you for paying your bill in a restaurant, or when you set up a Doctors appointment. It's called an implied contract. A legal substitute for a contract. An implied contract is an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken. Your ability to comprehend this is not anyone's issue but your own & more speaks to your mental state
Bolgernow 1 month ago
In ancient times politicians were known as "tax farmers" because all they ever 'grew' were taxes.
canadakim1 1 month ago
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wealth. Taxation is driven by envy, jealousy and covetousness. Of course it's theft.
carcabe 1 month ago
@carcabe Taxation is whats used to build countries. Its a way of working together, keeping up the society youre part of, the society that surrounds you...
Foksuh 1 month ago
To the people who disagree with this man, you don't understand history. Before 1913 the IRS and the Federal Reserve as ''Federal'' as Federal Express didn't exist. Why should my labor be taxed? It is a private agreement between myself and a private business. Why should I pay housing taxes. I bought the home. The Government claims a right on my property. The idea is so engrained into most Americans that they think this is how it always has functioned. It hasn't. I left the US(S)A. Bye.
msungs 1 month ago
@msungs Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.(1895)
x2f01mick 1 month ago
AMEN. I'll go one step further....it's EXTORTION !! Pay tax or we TAKE what you own.
notpcone 1 month ago
I do not believe taxation is theft, because the government along with "private" enterprise distribute the currency to the people. They are simply collecting what they have lent out in the first place to enhance the quality of life.
ConformistDave 1 month ago
@ConformistDave If you are receiving valuable services, how about we just pay someone of our choosing to perform that service for us. If the "government services" are truly valuable, this would not be a problem.
tomniemiller 1 month ago
@tomniemiller IMHO I don't believe people are capable, and altruistic enough to perform these major feats without a governing body of some sort of upper authority.
ConformistDave 1 month ago
I agree with this logic :)
WOLF333999 1 month ago
Hahaha.. Anyone who does not like this is a weird O ! I really like this logical progression of your thoughts of Theft and Armed Robbery. Anyone who can't see that is involved in a "belief system," and not thinking.. that about what it boils down to. I used to be in a belief system but no longer. Now I try to think.. I like your way of thinking.. Keep it up
iondetox 1 month ago
Anyone claiming taxation is theft has rejected our social contract. They have also made an incredibly illogical argument. Using that irrational logic, Seat Belt Laws are abusive forced coercion, as is insurance, restaurant health codes, building codes, FDA, FAA, etc. Fair enough, you CAN "opt out" anytime. You may LEAVE AT ANY TIME YOU CHOOSE. Start MikeLand, but you REJECT THAT, meaning you REJECT Libertarianism. If you FORCE others to LIVE as you wish, you've REJECTED your own theory
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow I am trying to start Mikeland, but that is not possible when they steal the property I purchase with my labor,... just as when they steal Bolgernow's labor/property. The government does not own the land I purchased through the market, I do... the just falsely claim to own it. How about you leave me and Mikeland alone so I can live freely without your terrorism?!?No one has to live as I wish... just respect my right not to have a violent monopoly rule over me.
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin Haiti, Somalia, or the new Seasteading world created by the Pay-Pal founder await your arrival. They're a Libertarian paradise with no regulations, governmental control, or building codes. When you get an iron deficiency anemia, or Cholera you can just label it "enjoying your freedom". You might have a mild form of Asperger's syndrome. Good luck with that
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin Actually,the thing about buying land is that when you do it, in whatever country, you also agree to play by that certain countrys society, its rules, its way of doing things. All land has been claimed by different cultures, theres no untouched piece of land anymore. The land you buy is part of that country.. The taxes you pay are used to hold up infrastructure and other important things that you might need and use to get to your land...
Foksuh 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin build a platform on the ocean on international territory. what u need money and people to help you? well just work hard idiot.
LedKenji666 1 month ago
@LedKenji666 Huh?!? You make no sense! I am saying leave me alone,.... how does that lead to me building some platform in international territory?!? I want to live here on my land I paid for without other people using threats of violence on me... um, last time I checked they called that Freedom. I work VERY hard already and should have the freedom to live wherever I want as long as I am not infringing on others. Are you threatening me? Are you going to use steal my property if I don't move?!?
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@Bolgernow I wanted to make an intelligent reply to your comment - but I couldn't figure out what the phuck you were talking about...
Get some microscopic clue - and then rational people will converse with you.. OR...
Rant like a stupid kunt - and don't expect to be treated any differently.
OneCerebralSamurai 1 month ago
@OneCerebralSamurai you didn't. You used the Ad Hominem fallacy of personal insults, while totally ignoring the realities of our Social Contract & governmental structures. Not a convincing argument, but sadly very common style for Libertarian's. Your battle with accepting reality isn't my concern. Good luck!
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow This social contract...did you ever sign this contract? Did I? Agreement is implied? Did you or I give those that assume our agreement power of attorney? If I am contractually bound to hand my personal property over to the "representatives" in government without my express consent, how is this not voluntary servitude? How is this not initiating violence on peaceful people? Why is it that only the government is able to do this? That they have a monopoly on violence?
chuska8383 1 month ago
@chuska8383 go to a restaurant, eat a meal(some of which you ate, & some you didn't), & then when presented with the bill, say, "I singed no contract, or have given express consent to pay for this meal". Try it. The cops will love you. "Social Contract: An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed & the government defining & limiting the rights & duties of each". If you don't like it, you can leave at anytime. THAT'S freedom
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow VOLUNTARILY entering the restaurant, itself a private entity, and receiving goods and services in exchange for payment is NOT equivalent to men kicking in the door of your personal property and demanding payment for "services" which you never asked for, ordered, or want.
You keep repeating "if you don't like it leave" which screams intellectual dishonesty and moral scar tissue. You don't have the right to impose rules on people and demand they leave their property if they disagree.
chuska8383 1 month ago
@chuska8383 I don't recall ever agreeing to pay for my food when I sit down at a restaurant, but it's an implicit contract so no signature is required. It's also under the threat of force. The exact same applies with our Social Contract
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow You choose to enter restaurants and request their food and service. The restaurant isn't your property, you are a customer, the owner can ask you to leave. You may go home or go to another restaurant. A restaurant can't charge you a bill unless you order food from them. The government however can demand property from you AND DOESN'T ALLOW COMPETITION. Somebody's personal property DOES NOT belong to the government, nor do their wages.You know this, you're just being dishonest.
chuska8383 1 month ago
@chuska8383 when did I sign a contract or agree to pay for the meal? I didn't, it's an implicit contract, just as our Social Contract you totally ignored. You CHOOSE to live here. You didn't sign a contract or agree to it, but guess what, it's an implicit contract. Haiti, Somalia, or Seasteading are all Libertarian lands you can go to ANYTIME. If you don't WANT to, then you CHOOSE to stay here. Which means you CHOOSE to accept our Social Contract giving us governmental services
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow I didn't choose to live here, I was born here. And you are completely missing the point AND are STILL being intellectually dishonest. This conversation is pointless. We'll agree to disagree...though your side doesn't allow agreement. A gun is not an argument but rather is the admission of intellectual impotence.
chuska8383 1 month ago
@chuska8383 because I explain something directly like you accept daily, but can't mentally grasp the EXACT SAME IMPLICIT CONTRACT structure of our Social Contract speaks more to your internal mental issues. My "side" is reality. Force is how all social rules are enforced. If you don't like it, go screw
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Force in defense and force in aggression are two completely different things!!! As long as a person is not using aggression on other peaceful people, they should have the right not to have guns pointed at them. The social contract points guns at peaceful people... it is against the non-AGGRESSION principle. The social contract and civilization are actually a dichotomy, not symbiotic.
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin if you choose to live in this country, you accept our implicit social contract(taxes). Just as if you CHOOSE to go to a restaurant to order food, you ACCEPT our implicit social contract of the bill. If you don't wish to accept the Social Contract, you can leave anytime. Freedom is choice. Yet, if you refuse to MOVE, but also reject the social contract, it's YOU exerting force. You're the aggressor, Just as if you ordered food, but then refused to pay the bill
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Not really, if people want to have in their restaurant certain "health codes" that they hold their employees to, then they can do that. In fact most places would probably do that, because no one wants to get food poisoning and if you walked into the greasiest spoon in the dishwasher you'd probably just leave. The fact is, I can't just leave, because trying to legally entire most countries is a years long process.
metzger90 1 month ago
@metzger90 a passport can get you into ANY country. Then you get a work visa(1,2, or 3 years). Once you marry, own a house, run a business, or get your citizenship, you're good. Fully follow the process through. Clearly you've never traveled or understand how the world works. Books, facts, & reality are all good things
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow A passport can get me into North Korea?!? Highly doubt that... Besides, the discussion here is not about the process of gaining citizenship in other countries, it is about the anti-ethical position of the process at its root. The fact that the system is funded through extortion/theft/taxation backed by the threat of violence on peaceful people who simply disagree with statism slavery. All I offer are facts, taxation is theft, it is involuntary confiscation from peaceful people.
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin of course communist counties won't let you in. Only four exist, & in only parts(China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, & Vietnam). You wait a week to make a circular argument fallacy? We have an implicit social contract. If you don't like it, you can leave anytime. Freedom. But if you refuse to MOVE, & reject our social contract, it's YOU exerting force. You're the aggressor. Just as if you ordered food in a restaurant, but then refused to pay the bill
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Do what the government says, move to another tyranny, or be imprisoned. Bolgernow's "Freedom".
tomniemiller 1 month ago
@tomniemiller Its how we have defined freedom to be in the modern world. We, humans. Welcome to reality? Theres a lot of things wrong in the world, and things often seem to be getting worse.. but if you want to look at freedom issues, youre free to read up on history and see just how much freedoms we've had say in the last 2000 years for example. We havent moved that far, but atleast we've moved.
Foksuh 1 month ago
@tomniemiller our government is made up of people like you & me. We have a Social Contract. If you wish to reject our Social Contract, that's your choice. You're not being forced to live here. Freedom of CHOICE. HOWEVER, if you CHOOSE to live here, YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT. It's an implicit contract. Your views are no different than eating in a restaurant, then when the bill comes due you scream, "No, thief!"
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow I suppose its always good to look for alternatives, something these guys are trying to do. All it takes is convincing the population of some country or another.. Im okay with that.. and say good luck?
Im happy with this social contract deal though, being part of a society, a small part, but still a part.. I always thought these Freedom yelling people are bit.. anti-social?
Foksuh 1 month ago
@Foksuh agreed. Seeking other avenues is one thing. But claiming taxation is theft, or slavery, or armed robbery is totally insane. It rejects we live in a modern society
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow So, are you saying that taxation is not the confiscation of property from peaceful people who simply disagree? Are you telling me that if I simply disagree with paying taxes to a violent monopoly, that I am not modern enough? Sounds like to me, you believe we have to threaten peaceful people to have society.... what makes that so? Why do you have to go around threatening people to have a society?
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin straw man. You only offer irrational circular argument. Whatever floats your boat. Your rational sanity isn't my concern, it's yours. I've pointed out if you reject the social contract, but still actively CHOOSE to live here, it is YOU exerting force. Just as if you ordered food in a restaurant, but refused to pay the bill. If you can't understand this fact, that's YOUR issue
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow People don't actually order government services like in a resturant.
This is the social contract lawn service. I show up at your house and and mow your lawn. I send you a bill. If you don't want to pay the bill you can move? Oh and you can vote on weather or not you want me mowing you lawn but most of your neighbors like it and the majority rules. You also get charged weather or not you have a lawn. This is my reductio ad absurdum response for you poor resturant ananogy.
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham the restaurant analogy was used for the implied social contract everyone accepts. If you reject the Social Contract, but still CHOOSE to live here; it's YOU exerting force against the rest of society. Your comprehension of this isn't my issue
Bolgernow 4 weeks ago
@Bolgernow Well everyone doesn't accept the implied social contract. There is no collective brain from which the government can get acceptance from everyone. Silly collectivist, you can't deny the autonomous existence of individuals.
I actually pay taxes so I don't understand how you got "exerting force" by simply disagreeing with you on something political. Reguardless using force itself requires that you actually take action. It's not refusal to obey or doing nothing.
Doing nothing=/=force
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham then you don't accept implied social contracts. You have a serious detachment from reality. Good luck with that & seek help...
Bolgernow 4 weeks ago
@Bolgernow Argumentum ad hominem
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham the social contract is an accepted norm in modern society, just like paying for meal at a restaurant. If you reject that, you're rejecting reality. Individuals who are mentally unstable often experience difficulty coping with the everyday functions, demands & the challenges of life. Think the moon is made of cheese, or babies should box heavyweights, don't care. It's not my problem, it's yours. It makes you mentally unstable
Bolgernow 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bolgernow You can't get 30 people to agree on pizza toppings but you can get 300,000,000 to agree on a monsterous list of arbitrary rules put forth by the state. See, the social contract is valid.
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@Bolgernow Statism is a system we inherited from cavemen... Freedom is the modern society, so no, we don't quite live in a "modern society" yet.... whatever modern means to you. Modern to me means civilized behavior, statism is uncivilized behavior as it is threats of aggressive coercion on peaceful adults who simply disagree. Why does threats on peaceful adults equate to civilization?!? If anything, a civilized society has civilized behavior, statism is uncivilized and "unmodern".
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@Foksuh Why do you believe society = threatening peaceful people? Are you seriously trying to argue that you have to steal to have society?!? Why does society automatically equate to force peaceful people to do what you say?!? Sounds like the opposite of "society" to me.... but maybe society IS that twisted.... I would bet that I have more friends on my facebook list and in real life than most of you... that I am one of the biggest extroverts out there, and I am for Freedom/Voluntaryism.
mikeshanklin 1 month ago
@mikeshanklin No one has threatened me in my life, so I believe I live in very peaceful society and I suppose I should call myself lucky for that.
I do understand some of your points but not all of them.
Youre looking for some sort of utopia.
We still act like cavemen, sadly, and that wont end anytime soon.. Education plays a big part in changing that, equal opportunity to learn no matter how poor you are.
As for your facebook friends and whatnot, so what?
Foksuh 1 month ago
@Foksuh Nothing to do with utopia. He just realizes that the system we are living under is a system of massive failures and a huge crime and that we can most certainly do a whole lot better. I would say Mike is a realist and knows that problems will always exist and that is very far from a utopia.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@MrDefiance000 Its not the system, its the people.. A lot of "systems" would be nice if our greed didnt screw it up.
Its the lack of morals. Realist also understands that there will always be greed and corruption that affects other people.
The fact that we do live under the same laws, under the same social contract, makes it a lot easier to deal with certain problems instead of the utopia where people have no goverment and everyones "free" to do as they wish.
Foksuh 1 month ago
@Foksuh Its the drones who believe in the system and that create the monster machine. It takes people who comply and make it what it is after all. The many parts bolts, cogs keep the monster wheel spinning after all. However it is also about much more than this. The mental conditioning goes back a long way and already starts as a baby when you first open your eyes and you have corporate stamps stamped all over your tiny body.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Foksuh It would be nice but we have to be realistic here. As you said there will always be problems of some sort. Noone is denying this.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh One must also remember that they have history on their side in creating this beast of a machine and you are surrounded by it and pushed into this matrix from the moment your birth is registered. As a single entity you may or may not become aware after some time. History is on the side of those who control the rigged game.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh In terms of going much further one must also ask themselves the question what makes people act the way they do within this context? Not just in terms of greed an immorality either. There is much more to it than that. It is not a world of just black and white but a whole lot more colors within the spectrum than just this. What makes people complicit and conform? Where does it start? What mechanisms of control have been put in place over time and where are things heading?
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh Also what are the informed and uninformed choices /options that people are confronted with? What barriers, control mechanisms exist and are being put into place to strengthen the facade that is in place to make people more ignorant and deceive them?
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@MrDefiance000 Lack of education. People arent taught to think, and some people are incapable of using their heads, even if they were taught.
And I suppose, even though our lives are easier than ever before, we still live very stressful lifestyles, or a lot of people do.. It drives people to the point where they dont want to think, they just want to relax and have fun on their free time?
Like said, plenty of room for improvement, but I wouldnt tear it all down.
Foksuh 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh It is not just the lack of education but also what people are being taught and conditioned into believing since birth. There are many mis and disinfo agents out there that have created a drone society and are helping the deception agenda along. Add a bit of forced medication to that and it makes the job even easier.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh People have forgotten the true priorities of what is really important in life. Only once they are on their deathbeds to they suddenly come to a realization of what they have lived. You see masses of drones lacking emotions and rock like ascending and descending the escalators to their next material pursuit.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh The same old routine of 9 to 5 and then a good dosage of tv programming (programming) after the day has ended and theb to bed and to start it all over again. Crimes are committed not just against native fauna and flora but against masses of human beings out there beyond the borders where wealth is concentrated. The list goes on and on.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh The amount of suffering that is created under the noble lie is totally EPIC when one truly understands what is going on behind the facade of deception and propaganda.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@MrDefiance000 Oh, and I wanted to add, religions also, major issue when it comes to teaching people about reality.
As for the evils of corporations, and this total freedom idea? Those good old corporations would have a free reign at that point. Sure, you would have the option to choose for a moment, but you know how business is, the big ones eat the small ones.. The more freedoms corporations have, the worse the life on earth will get.
Privatise everything and we'll go down fast
Foksuh 1 month ago
@Foksuh The thing is that what we are living under now is not capitalism anyways but rather a corporate fascist dictatorship. Things would have to be changed dramatically. The unequal distribution of wealth and resources is a major issue and crime in my opinion. I do not believe in giving these same corproations more power but I also do not believe in govt interference to keep the small guy down. I have a real issue with any centralized power structure.
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@Foksuh What is my vision? I can not tell you that exactly. It took us a hell of a long time to even get to where we are now. I can tell you what I do not want to see however. I truly do believe that the disclosure of technologies that are being supressed will play a major role in solving many problems of the future however. Sounds unrealistic? Yes maybe to some....
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Foksuh And finally, I do not disagree with everything you say. There is some agreement but also some disagreement of course. I agree with the religion part for sure on your final post. After all power trumps faith. Namaste
MrDefiance000 1 month ago
@types10000 I hope you someday realize what a retard you are.
FreedomDroid 2 months ago
"Yeah all you stupid people need to go do research like i did!" Literally all you said was taxation is theft... you presented not a single fact.
Now lets try the opposite - Taxation is not theft, Taxation is not theft! - Now i just want to make sure everyone understands that Taxation is not theft, its a fact. And if you don't believe me do some research you dummy.
Yeah. Do some reasearch @mikeshanklin.
SmOkEyJoE2323 2 months ago
Okay but can you give some ideas about if tax was abolished, what would be the next step. Who would build and maintain roads, schools, etc.
ravenzephyr 3 months ago
I believe I really know what point your trying to convey, what your message is so to speak. However, you would do yourself more justice to use more specific examples when over generalizing.
nomoreliberties 3 months ago
@types10000 lol you maaaAAAAaaaaad yuoo maaaAAAaaad!! lol didnt read a word
mcRydes 3 months ago
sorry but private property is theft. havent you read your Marx?
take a seat in the noob chair you little liberal baby ---> \__
mcRydes 3 months ago
@mcRydes and if all property is public how could The State, the primary Organ of our Collective Will, be thieving from itself? you're not making any sense! :b
mcRydes 3 months ago
@mcRydes Individual rights are against Freedom?!? Sorry, but individual rights ARE freedom... With a monopoly called government, you will never be truly free. Only in a free market where violence on peaceful people is discouraged will freedom be realized. You can threaten violence on my friend, family, and neighbors all you want, but they acquired their property through the peaceful market. If you want property, earn it... nothing is free in this world, nor should it be. We are not your slaves.
mikeshanklin 3 months ago
@mikeshanklin uh wow, individual rights are freedom? are you also a chubby wubby bouncin baby boy with extra poopy diapers squishin the poop around between your soft baby butt cheeks? Read Isiah Berlin on the difference between Positive and negative liberty then get back to me aight
and why is a market necessarily peaceful hmm? if our government is as demented as you claim why would it have isolated its violent tendencies from the market, of which our government is a fundamental piece?
mcRydes 3 months ago
@mcRydes I am very familiar with Berlin's works. However, he was a moron just like you.
starsassy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikeshanklin
"With a monopoly called government, you will never be truly free."
- nor would you be without government regulation; we already tried that at the start of the middle ages and it led to the formation of aristocracies.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000
Read CATO Institute destroys the myths of inferior health care in the united states - an article discussing figures..
Go to the CATO website, and under the search engine, look under HEALTHCARE STUDY. Now if you scroll down, there's a paper entitled WHO's Fooling Who? which specifically addresses the problematic approach taken by WHO in conflating its results. There's an veritable potpouri if information. LOL!! You lose again.
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Read CATO Institute destroys the myths of inferior.."
- You have failed to provide the title of the study or link to it, all you've done is assert it exists and failed to provide evidence.
"Go to the CATO website, and under the search engine, look under HEALTHCARE STUDY."
- i already have and there is nothing there that rebuts the WHO study. If you think there is then the burden of proof is on you to link to it.
The study doesnt exist and you've been caught in another lie.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Just go to the Cato Website and type in Healthcare study. Easy enough. :-)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Just go to the Cato Website and type in Healthcare study. Easy enough"
- i did and there was nothing there that contradicted the WHO Study.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
I'm sorry to hear that. Okay, let's walk through it. Go to the CATO WEBSITE. In the upper right hand corner, type in HEALTHCARE STUDY. There are 625 results. On the first page, the 6th result down, there's something entitled: "WHO'S FOOLIN' WHO? The World Health Organizations problematic ranking of healthcare systems." Click on that. I'll be waiting with open arms. :-) It's late here, so I'm off to bed, although this is fun. See you tomorrow. :-)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
The article titled: "WHO'S FOOLIN' WHO? The World Health Organizations problematic ranking of healthcare systems."
Is an attack on some of the criteria of the WHO ranking system BUT DOES NOT contradict their findings - you are yet to produce a counter-study.
GET SMARTER
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
I didn't say it was. YOu can't read. I said it addresses the "problematic approach taken by WHO in conflating it's results." Those were my exact words. You were interested in reading about it, so I sent you in the direction. Now given the fact that the search brings up 625 results for Healthcare study, let's just pick our poison. Try THE GRASS IS NOT ALWAYS GREENER: A LOOK AT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLD. You should learn to read, before you tell someone to GET SMARTER. LOL!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"I didn't say it was"
INCORRECT:
You: "This is the fifth time I've said go to the CATO website, type in healthcare study, and for a rebuttal of your WHO study, search WHO. nuff said"
Me: i found no such study
You: "there's a paper entitled WHO's Fooling Who"
Me: This paper Is an attack on some of the criteria of the WHO ranking system BUT DOES NOT contradict or rebut their findings
So far you have failed to produce a counter study or a study that rebuts who's findings
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Sounds like you haven't read it, as usual. LOL!! It calls into question the basis for the findings, therefore, by extension, undermines the validity of the study you proudly announce. It specifically says that the findings are ideologically or value based, hence lack objectivity. It's rational is clearly discussed. Thus I conclude: A) that you DIDN'T read it. OR B), you CAN'T read it. LOL!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Sounds like you haven't read it, as usual. LOL!! It calls into question the basis for the findings, therefore, by extension, undermines the validity of the study you proudly announce"
- incorrect, all it does it attack certain elements of the criteria used in the study, it doesnt assert that the results are incorrect nor does provide any counter-results.
- furthermore the study is from CATO (a libertarian think tank)
You asserted you had evidence, where is it?
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
LOL!! It's not that hard. The paper didn't say the results are faulty because it didn't have to. It demonstrated that the criteria for which the study is based were illegitimate, and, by extension, the results could be reasonably considered ILLEGITIMATE. Hence, I don't need to assert anything cause I just proved that what you provided is doubtful at best. I just undermined your case. If it was the OJ trial, I'd get an acquittal. Secondly, Who cares where the truth comes from? :-)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"LOL!! It's not that hard. The paper didn't say the results are faulty because it didn't have to..."
- the paper you specified IS NOT a counter-study, it simply attacks some elements of the WHO study criteria and DOES NOT disprove the results.
"Who cares where the truth comes from?"
- The paper is from CATO (a self-proclaimed republican think tank) that is unaccredited and not an authority on health - there's no basis for saying it's contents is correct - it is an opinion peice
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) DISPROVE - Unless you're smoking funny weed, the paper, as you call it, most certainly calls into question the results used as WHO used faulty criteria to arrive at the desired results it was trying promulgate. In my book, that means you (in the words of PUBLIC ENEMY) CAN'T TRUST IT!!
B) Again, attacking the source is an ad hominem attack. Attack CATO's logic. If you can't do that, then you'll have to admit you've lost. Now what's wrong with the logic?
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
" DISPROVE - Unless you're smoking funny weed, the paper, as you call it, most certainly calls into question the results used as WHO used faulty criteria to arrive at the desired results"
incorrect:
a). the paper is an opinion piece from cato (which is nether an accredited institution nor a health authority)
b). whilst the paper does attempt to criticize SOME elements of the WHO criteria it does disprove the results.
Your paper has been debunked two-fold.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Your first name is DE, and last name BUNKED. Okay, I'll forever declare you Mr. Bunked. Listen, Bunked, The piece, which you call opinion makes STATEMENTS OF FACT. It says WHO uses such and such faulty criteria when making its conclusions, thereby resulting in the desired results. It does not say (NOT ONCE) "it is my opinion" nor, "we think". To challenge it, you must challenge the statement of facts it asserts. Since you have failed (miserably) in that endeavor. I conclude you lose
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
" The piece, which you call opinion makes STATEMENTS OF FACT"
- the burden of proof is on you to present these facts (if they exist), the CATO paper is an opinion piece that hasnt been held to any burden of proof, so we have no idea whether it's contents are entirely made up.
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
NOT!! You claimed that the CATO piece is garbage when it makes factual claims. Prove them factually incorrect. Otherwise I stand by them until further notice. Responding that it's an opinion piece since it's NOT an accredited scientific organization is blowing smoke. If it's NOT accredited, this should make your work easy. Prove it wrong.
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"NOT!! You claimed that the CATO piece is garbage"
- no, i simply pointed-out that it isnt evidence ie. it's an opinion piece and you've failed to substantiate that it's contents are fact based.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
You've failed to demonstrate that the statement of facts it makes aren't fact based. You served, I volleyed. I'm waiting...... You claimed we shouldn't pay it any mind. Why not, specifically? What about the piece makes it incredible? Are you saying that WHO in fact didn't use the criteria the piece claimed it did? That would be a proper challenge to it. Not, DUH, it's not accredited. LOL!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"You've failed to demonstrate that the statement of facts it makes aren't fact based. "
- your statement is illogical, all the article does is make assertions, the burden of proof is on you to show they are factual ; they dont start as being considered fact by default.
"You served, I volleyed. I'm waiting..."
- sadly your volley failed.
"You claimed we shouldn't pay it any mind"
- no, i've simply pointed-out that it's an opinion piece you've failed to substantiated
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) Assertions: LOL!! If I claim I saw you last night with a woman. Is that an "assertion" or is that a statement of fact? I can't wait for this one.
B) Volley: Yes, failed to get a return. Hence you lose the point. I should be in Wimbledon. :-)
C) You've CLAIMED it's opinion based on voodoo logic. What makes it an opinion piece? Arguably the WHO study is an opinion piece. So clarify that one for me. Comedy!!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Assertions: LOL!! If I claim I saw you last night with a woman. Is that an 'assertion' or is that a statement of fact? I can't wait for this one."
- that is ofcourse an assertion (whether it can be considered a a fact is dependent on whether you substantiated the assertion with evidence)
"Volley..."
- incorrect, i demonstrated the CATO paper could not be used as evidence because it is nothing more than an opinion peice from an organization that is not a health authority
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Bout time. I was gettin' worried. Good to hear from you...Now back to serious matters:
A) This was a trap on my part, and you fell for it. Sorry. An assertion of a fact, and a statement of a fact are NOT mutually exclusive. Example: You claim X punched you. When you go to the police, they "Take a STATEMENT from you." This doesn't mean it's true. You're WHO study falls into this category.
B) You haven't even read the CATO paper. LOL!! What a moron. ha ha, ha
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
;
:"A) This was a trap on my part, and you fell for it. Sorry. An assertion of a fact, and a statement of a fact are NOT mutually exclusive"
:
;- i never claimed they were mutually exclusive, i pointedout that you've failed to provide a basis for saying that what you assert to be fact is actually fact
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Quit stalling. The basis is provided in the paper, which, by the way, you haven't read. Your argument falls on its face since you've NOT asserted either why what you've presented is actually fact, other than claiming reliance on authority, which can be misleading as was pointed out in the paper. Hence, you're trying to hold me to a standard of absolute proof when you've failed in your endeavor to do same. This reminds me of the Leftowitz vs Bernal debate on African history. :-)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Quit stalling. The basis is provided in the paper"
- incorrect, the CATO paper paper only attacks some of the who criteria and does not debunk the results.
- the paper itself however to even provide evidence of this as it is nothing more than an opinion peice whose arguments you have failed to provide evidence for.
"Your argument falls on its face"
- incorrect, refer to above 2 points :)
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) Cato paper attacks some elements... (Incorrect, the criteria which the paper attacks undermines, nullifies and diminishes the results reached. It's not that difficult.)
B) Opinion paper...(The study is WHO's opinion and nothing more. The paper undermines that study. Since you can't dismiss what it says, you repeatedly - like a parrot - fall back on this argument. What's wrong with the paper's attack?)
C) Falls on its face..(The paper undermines the conclusion via the criteria)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
" Cato paper attacks some elements... (Incorrect, the criteria which the paper attacks undermines, nullifies and diminishes the results reached"
- incorrect, i have demonstrated that it only attacks some elements with reference to the abstract however your assertion that it 'attacks undermines, nullifies and diminishes the results reached' has no evidence at all
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "I have demonstrated that it only attacks some elements" (LOL!! You haven't even IDENTIFIED what elements were under attack. Never mind that the elements in question overcame the attack from the paper.)
Get a brain!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"(LOL!! You haven't even IDENTIFIED what elements were under attack"
and i dont need to in order to demonstrate my point:
- i demonstrated that it only attacked certain elements with reference to the paper's abstract
- you baselessly asserted that it debunked the entire who study whilst simultaneously failing to address my evidence
the ball is in your court, provide evidence for your claim.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "And I don't need to" (You haven't "demonstrated" anything. You made an assertion without backing it up. Secondly, you haven't read the piece. You're a fraud. LOL!!)
B) "Baselessly" (How would you know if I made a baseless assertion when you've not read the piece. Secondly, you haven't undermined it's points. You've made an assertion that it's baseless with no accompanying proof of your claim. Hence, you're a FRAUD. Got nibble on some cheese you MOUSE. LOL!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"(You haven't demonstrated anything. You made an assertion..."
- INCORRECT, i demonstrated it with reference to the abstract. you have failed to provide any basis as to why the EVIDENCE i have presented from the abstract is invalid and failed to present any counter evidence.
"How would you know if I made a baseless assertion when you've not read the piece"
- i have read both the peice and your comments, and we KNOW your assertion is basless as you are unable to provide evidence
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"You've made an assertion that it's baseless with no accompanying proof of your claim"
incorrect:
- i DEMONSTRATED that CATO paper only attacked some elements of the WHO study (and did not debunk the overall results as you claimed) using EVIDENCE from the abstract
- you failed to provide evidence against this and failed to produce any counter-evidence, hence your claim is a baseless assertion.
types10000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"Secondly, you haven't undermined it's points. You've made an assertion that it's baseless with no accompanying proof of your claim"
- incorrect, i'm rejecting the paper because it has no evidence ie. no more credible than the ramblings of a drunkard.
if you would like to demonstrate the assertions of the CATO paper are correct then go ahead. Otherwise you have no evidence against the WHO paper
types10000 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"The study is WHO's opinion and nothing more"
- incorrect, WHO is an accredited organization that is an authority on health, the fact it has met the scientific burden of proof means that we objectively know it isnt an opinion piece, and the fact that the WHO organization is a world authority on health gives it even further credibility.
"Falls on its face..(The paper undermines the conclusion via the criteria)"
- incorrect: "your assertion that it 'attacks undermines..."
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "Incorrect is an accredited organization" (This isn't a logically valid point. What your circumlocutious point boils down to is that WHO has authority, so its opinion holds weight. However, it's an opinion nonetheless. This continual mentioning of an obscure burden of proof means nothing since you've not identified just what that involves. Just what do you mean by WHO has met it burden of proof?)
B) "Your assertion..." (Incorrect: The paper stands on its own.)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"This isn't a logically valid point. What your circumlocutious point boils down to is that WHO has authority, so its opinion holds weight."
incorrect:
- the WHO study has passed numerous benchmarks and burdens of proof
- the CATO paper is an opinion peice which has not met equiviliant burdens of proof.
" mentioning of an obscure burden of proof means nothing since you've..."
- incorrect, i've already explained that it uses the scientific method.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "The WHO study has passed..benchmarks and burdens." (A bald-faced assertion without facts to back this up. AMATEURish.)
B) "The CATO paper hasn't met equivalent burdens of proof" (And when I won my traffic case, it wasn't necessary to demonstrate that I'd received a law degree when I put the Administrative Judge in his place. What does this have to do with anything? LOL!)
C) "uses the scientific method." (An assertion. - You're an amateur.)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"A bald-faced assertion without facts to back this up. AMATEURish"
- incorrect, it's paper that has been subjected to and met the scientific burden of proof.
"And when I won my traffic case, it wasn't necessary to demonstrate that I'd received a law degree when I put the Administrative Judge in his place"
- the cato paper is the equiviliant of an unverified second-person account, whereas the WHO paper is the equiviliant of a complete fingerprint match through VERIFIED FORENSICS
types10000 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"you've NOT asserted either why what you've presented is actually fact"
- incorrect, again, i presented a scientific paper a leading health authority, it has met and passed it's burden of proof, hence the burden is on you to provide evidence against it, in contrast the paper you have presented may as well have been written by joe the plumber (and we have no basis for saying it's contents are valid)
try again :)
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) I've presented a scientific paper...(And what burden has that paper passed? Secondly, the study used invalid criteria, therefore it is not truthworthy.)
Until you present evidence of your claim that government healthcare is a better option, then you are statements are like chafe in the wind, just blowing away. The study has been debunked.
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"And what burden has that paper passed? "
- the scientific method (most effective truth-finding mechanism in human history)
"Secondly, the study used invalid criteria, therefore it is not truthworthy"
- incorrect, the CATO paper make the ASSERTION that it follows incorrect criteria, however the CATO paper has not been held to a burden of proof and CATO itself is not an authority on health. The WHO paper is trustworthy, the assertions of the CATO paper are not
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "The scientific method" (Can you be more vague? LOL!! How did WHO arrive eat its results bub? You claim that the scientific method was used, so how was its conclusions reached?)
B) "CATO paper makes the ASSERTION" (And why was this ASSERTION not valid enough to undermine the study's results? You're just stalling.)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"'The scientific method' (Can you be more vague? LOL!! How did WHO arrive eat its results bub?"
- hahaha you seriously dont know how the scienitfic method works? no wonder you believe the unevidneced assertions of equal credibility as the WHO paper.
- i'm not here to be a primary school teacher, GOOGLE IT.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "Scientific Method" (Hmm, I quite understand dipshit how it works, but what does that have to do with you're accepting someone's words without checking them out? This discussion has proven you're an amateur, willing to accept whatever someone under color of authority says. Hmm, you still believe that there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq cause Condolezza Rice said it? LOL!!)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"Hmm, I quite understand dipshit how it works, but what does that have to do with you're..."
i've already debunked this question:
- WHO organizes world health efforts for 70 years and becomes an authority on world health, WHO writes a scientific paper (subjected the the scientific burden of proof) which it then publishes.
- A 10 year old doesnt like what the paper shows and scribbles angrily onto a cardboard box, he then proclaims that it debunks the WHO paper.
types10000 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"And why was this ASSERTION not valid enough to undermine the study's results?"
a). because it's AN ASSERTION
b). because i've already demonstrated that the CATO paper wasnt trying to disprove the results
c). because in a study comprised of MANY elements, ONE being faulty doesnt disprove the OVERALL results.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Wait, are you claiming that there was only ONE element that was faulty in the WHO study as dictated by the CATO paper? LOL!! Finally we're making some headway as to what you meant by your repeated vague mantra (IT ONLY ATTACKS SOME ELEMENTS.) In my book, SOME is plural, but here you say ONE. If I was a lawyer, i'd have your head in a court of law. You're bullshit has been sniffed out, so try it on someone else. :-)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"Wait, are you claiming that there was only ONE element that was faulty in the WHO study as dictated by the CATO paper"
- incorrect, i'm saying that because the CATO paper is just an opinion peice that makes assertions, we have no reason to believe ANY of WHO study is faulty.
types10000 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Until you present evidence of your claim that government healthcare is a better option"
- i have already done so using the WHO paper, you have failed to provide any evidence against it (all you could produce was an opinion piece from CATO)
GET SMARTER
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "I've already done so using the who paper" (Which was then undermined by the CATO paper. In short, your authoritative opinion piece was undermined by another opinion piece.)
You're not capable of GETTING SMARTER, so I won't waste my time telling you to do that. LOL!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Which was then undermined by the CATO paper. In short, your authoritative opinion piece was undermined by another opinion piece"
Incorrect:
"WHO is an accredited organization that is an authority on health, the fact it has met the scientific burden of proof means that we objectively know it isnt an opinion piece"
types10000 3 months ago
Comment removed
types10000 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
;
;"You haven't even read the CATO paper. LOL!! What a moron. ha ha, ha"
;- incorrect, i have, you however obviously havnt.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
Really!!! So what specifically about the paper is misleading?
Nonpeon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nonpeon
"Really!!! So what specifically about the paper is misleading?"
- i have not claimed any part of it to be misleading, i have simply pointedout that it only attacks the WHO criteria and does not contest the results (as you claimed). I've supported this with reference to the article's abstract.
if you contest this then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, because i have already provided mine :)
types10000 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"C) You've CLAIMED it's opinion based on voodoo logic"
- incorrect, we know for a fact that is an opinion piece because it has not been subjected to any burden of proof (eg. the scientific method) and the organization is not an authority on health.
" Arguably the WHO study is an opinion piece"
- incorrect refer to above :)
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) Burden of proof: Are you claiming that The Who study has been subjected to burden of proof? If so, why was it using an erroneous methodology to arrive at a conclusion favorable to governmental intervention into healthcare?
B) You've NOT mentioned the second paper, indicating that nations who formerly had governmental healthcare are choosing more private means. You're ignoring the inconvenient. LOL!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
;
"Burden of proof: Are you claiming that The Who study has been subjected to burden of proof?"
- yes, the WHO study is a paper from a world health authority that has been subjected to the scientific burden of proof.
"If so, why was it using an erroneous methodology to arrive at a conclusion favorable to governmental intervention into healthcare?"
- it didnt, that's just an assertion made by the cato pape (which you've failed to substancaite)
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) Burden: Really, so how was this burden met? Since you claim this as a fact. I'll be waiting until the moon turns blue on this one.
B) How do you know it's an assertion since: 1) you haven't read it. AND 2) you haven't undermined it's conclusions. In a debate, when an assertion/statement of fact/declaration is made, it has to be met head on. You have wasted my time making circumlocutious statements and relying on a debunked authority. Won't work. YOu just don't know. LOL!!
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"Really, so how was this burden met?"
- the paper complies with the scientific method and is from a leading world health authority. That's the standard of it's contents. if you want to contest the methodology then i suggest you go contest gravity first :)
"How do you know it's an assertion since: 1) you haven't read it. AND 2) you haven't undermined it's conclusions"
a). i have read it's contents
b). we know it's an assertion because the claim hasnt met any burden of proof.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "The paper complies with the scientific method..." (And what method was that? Your reliance on authority without examining how its conclusions were drawn is evidence sine quo non of supreme ignorance.)
You say: Bubba is the expert, so he knows.
I say: Bubba is full of shit as pointed out by Billy Bob...
You say: well Bubba is the expert., and Billy Bob ain't so I don't care what Billy Bob says.
I say: Well, what did Billy Bob say?
You say: NOTHING
B) I've read(What did it say?)
Nonpeon 3 months ago
@Nonpeon
"And what method was that? Your reliance on authority without examining..."
- incorrect, the scientific method is a benchmark for a STANDARD OF EVIDENCE (the most effective one in human history). It follows a strict methodology to identify whether claims are correct. Furthermore there are established avenues for disproving that which is published ie. peer reviewed magazines.
if the CATO paper actually had any evidence then it would have been submitted for publishing.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000
A) "Scientific method is a benchmark" (Now that you've copied this from WIKIPEDIA, just what does this have to do with WHO's using invalid criteria at arriving at it's results? LOL! You're so dumb!! All your claim boils down to is we should believe what WHO says, not another organization because WHO has authority. That again is considering the source, and NOT the evidence. You've done this the entire time we've argued about this. You've failed to get into the details of CATO's paper
Nonpeon 3 months ago