Ocasio-Cortez Wins Another Primary… as a Write-In Candidate… in a District She Wasn’t Running In

Well, you don't have to play at this course. There are other places that you could conceivably play at that don't charge dues, but they tend to be failed states.

I don't have any data to back that up, but I would assume that most people are in favor of roads, a standing military, and fire departments that they can call without first needing to provide some kind of insurance number or pay a service fee when everything they own is ablaze. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if I was.

Lets start with the latter, since you're kind of leaning to the consequentialist argumentation. If most people want all those services, aren't there also people that can provide them? If so why does their funding have to be compelled? If there aren't people or organizations that can provide them, how are they possibly provided now?
 
Lets start with the latter, since you're kind of leaning to the consequentialist argumentation. If most people want all those services, aren't there also people that can provide them? If so why does their funding have to be compelled? If there aren't people or organizations that can provide them, how are they possibly provided now?
I see the argument that you're making, so I will jump ahead a few steps in this Socratic Method game. Most people do want them, and it is more efficient in this case for all of us to contribute small amounts of money in the form of local taxes to provide those services, acting as a form of collective insurance. There are very few people who don't want to opt into this collective insurance, and they protest in the manner that you're doing now. That's fine, as you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you're welcome not to pay your local taxes. If the IRS finds out, there may be consequences for you though, as you will have claimed that you had paid them in the past.
 
yea hes an idiot using the word wrong too

I think hes even been yelled at for it by denmark

But let me clue you in here

If someone believes in private property they arent a socialist

European countries prefer the term 'social democracies', downplaying the socialist part and emphasizing the democratic part.
 
I see the argument that you're making, so I will jump ahead a few steps in this Socratic Method game. Most people do want them, and it is more efficient in this case for all of us to contribute small amounts of money in the form of local taxes to provide those services, acting as a form of collective insurance. There are very few people who don't want to opt into this collective insurance, and they protest in the manner that you're doing now. That's fine, as you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you're welcome not to pay your local taxes. If the IRS finds out, there may be consequences for you though, as you will have claimed that you had paid them in the past.

It's more efficient for the services to be provided by a monopoly that forcefully crowds out its competitors and still compels payment? That's a rather radical economic claim, wouldn't you say? And if the collective bargaining for a compulsory funded monopoly is the most efficient means to distribute scarce resources, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to all means of production to be distributed through it, right?
 
European countries prefer the term 'social democracies', downplaying the socialist part and emphasizing the democratic part.

An equally stupid proposition, because you're just proposing that the lowest common denominator make the decisions for the means of production for everyone else.
 
An equally stupid proposition, because you're just proposing that the lowest common denominator make the decisions for the means of production for everyone else.

Well youre an admitted monarchist and fascist so of course you revile democracy.
 
It's more efficient for the services to be provided by a monopoly that forcefully crowds out its competitors and still compels payment? That's a rather radical economic claim, wouldn't you say? And if the collective bargaining for a compulsory funded monopoly is the most efficient means to distribute scarce resources, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to all means of production to be distributed through it, right?
I'm much more comfortable with local governments providing services in a manner that reflects the actual community they're providing for, rather than a national government in DC making decisions about what is best for people across multiple regions with different norms, values, and ways of life. To my more liberal friends in CA, if they want high taxes and lots of regulation, they are welcome to it. I just don't want it, so don't impose it on me by voting every 2-4 years in the form of a President or your Senators/Representatives. That's more my stance on government. People should have what they want.
 
People are such suckers . . .
1RpqRdff_400x400.jpg
 
I'm much more comfortable with local governments providing services in a manner that reflects the actual community they're providing for, rather than a national government in DC making decisions about what is best for people across multiple regions with different norms, values, and ways of life. To my more liberal friends in CA, if they want high taxes and lots of regulation, they are welcome to it. I just don't want it, so don't impose it on me by voting every 2-4 years in the form of a President or your Senators/Representatives. That's more my stance on government. People should have what they want.

Right so the local knowledge argument. I agree in principle, and I'm challenging you to take that concept further.

And yeah, I'm with you in the sense that if you scale down to a small enough region that its only going to be one enterprise that's offering a service. As in, if you're in a residential neighborhood, you could be obligated insofar as your willingness to enter and leave the contract for you to pay HOA dues. I'm not seeing the justification though for even local gov't (i.e. townships) to compel a monopoly over a pool of services, LE, arbitration, roads etc.... even from a consequentialist angle (nevermind the deontological reality that if you're compelling payment that its theft, or if they're also threatening violence against potential competitors that its also immoral).

And even at the level of the township, aren't you preventing people still from deciding what they want for those individual services and who they want it from? Why do the services you listed, even at the local level have to be provided by an exclusionary vote?
 
I guess that can be the correct conclusion if you're a complete idiot, sure.

You've literally stated you prefer monarchies to democracies. We're you a complete idiot when you said this?
 
Back
Top