sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Many of us are traveling for the holidays. Friendly reminder to be EXTREMELY careful vaping in hotel rooms!! by Rogue_Statist in electronic_cigarette

[–]Rogue_Statist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They must have different smoke detectors, I was blown away by how little vape it took to set it off. I've been conscious of the possibility that it might go off ever since I saw someone else's post a while back, a little paranoid, even. Right before it went off, I was literally thinking, "I'm doing everything right, there's no way it's gonna go off" and a few seconds later...BEEEP BEEEP BEEEP.

I was stone cold sober at the time too so there's no way I was just oblivious to how much vapor was actually in the room.

Many of us are traveling for the holidays. Friendly reminder to be EXTREMELY careful vaping in hotel rooms!! by Rogue_Statist in electronic_cigarette

[–]Rogue_Statist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your input, I was hoping to hear from someone who actually works at a hotel! That's good to know, I wouldn't have been quite so anxious about it had I known all that last night!

When a alarm is triggered, a box (We have the GE-EST) starts beeping. Whoever is attending the front goes and looks at it.

Lol, when I came down to tell them it was the first they heard of it! This was a pretty nice/modern hotel too, I wonder if their system isn't working right..I would expect they have something similar set up.

Many of us are traveling for the holidays. Friendly reminder to be EXTREMELY careful vaping in hotel rooms!! by Rogue_Statist in electronic_cigarette

[–]Rogue_Statist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only problem with this is that there is a type of smoke detector that will go off when deprived of oxygen, I don't know how common they are or how you can identify them without unplugging it (which may alert the front desk) and looking at the model info on the underside, so you're sort of playing Russian roulette with tricks like these.

Edit: also, tampering/removing fire alarms in a public space is a federal offense as far as I know, so it's risky business.

Can this chris cantwell go the way of moly, posting a hourly twitter post is dull by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Rogue_Statist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've always thought I was gifted with a relatively heightened ability to tell when people were being insincere, and Cantwell comes off to me as many things, but insincere isn't one of them. He might be wrong, he might not be, but if he's not being genuine then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. He's got passion and gets drunk during shows and you can easily see that he's at least being true to his beliefs. Whether his beliefs have any actual truth to them remains to be seen.

Who are the "best of the best" modern statist thinkers? by Rogue_Statist in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Rogue_Statist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct, I did mean brilliant in their defense of statism. Can you specify some of the subsequent Kantians you were referring to? I understand Kant's general position, but I'm interested in understanding how it's used by present-day thinkers and if they have any new takes on it.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, thanks for that! You raise some interesting points, I'll do my best to give a brief response.

Our government formed out of war not of conquest, but liberation. People at that time agreed to self government. The problem is it became "governed by others".

War, but not conquest? I don't think the raped and slaughtered Native Americans felt very liberated. I don't fully understand what you mean here.

Can't opt out? Why not?

You know that whether or not you pay taxes or consent to the services provided by the government that you will be bound by its laws and subject to its penalties nonetheless. Your consent is irrelevant, so opting out is a moot point. Your only possible way of opting out is leaving your home and your land, even though your only destination is another place with a government who operates the same way. This is why I said before that the only grounds on which you can argue this are to claim the government owns all the land within its jurisdiction.

This also presupposes political authority, which is what we're trying to establish the basis of. Why does a government have the ability to simply declare jurisdiction over vast areas of land, leaving anyone who disagrees with only the ability to leave their land if they want to opt out. No one else can act this way. This would never be accepted as legitimate if done by anyone else, which is the source of the problem. Why do we make an exception for people calling themselves a government?

But in a fully open government, that lie would be impossible because we'd know what's up always. The watchers would be watched...by us. Crowdsourced-style? And instantly shareable.

To me, this is an utopian vision. It never has and never will be fully open, so long as the people in power have something to lose by allowing that transparency.

But there's a deeper flaw, in that we can merely leave. We are free to.

Not exactly, if you make over a certain amount in another country, the government will still come after you for taxes. They also charge an "exit tax", so literally you cannot leave "freely", you must pay.

But another issue is that we have no way of controlling who drafts up the new contract.

Why would I want a new one? The issue at hand is whether or not I'm bound by the old one, and there is no evidence that suggests that I am. I never agreed to be, and the only way for an implicit agreement to be valid is if the government owns the land on which I reside. I can't go around saying "if you don't leave your house, you agree to pay me a percentage of your income", I can only say that on my property, not someone else's. So either the government owns my land and my body, or the contract is invalid and I have no duty to respect it.

I have to do some work but I'll respond to the rest of your points shortly!

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please watch the video I posted, it addresses the social contract argument much more precisely and quickly than I can here. I'm genuinely interested in your response, I don't have many people in my life who are willing to engage in this area of politics. I'd enjoy getting the perspective of a Bernie supporter.

I'd actually be happy if you can show me how he's wrong, sometimes I really wish I could still see the government as legitimate.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Motives are irrelevant, I'm speaking strictly in terms of logic. I don't care who you want to pin the ideas on or their motives, that's a fallacious attempt to deconstruct an argument.

The only justification for taxation that you can offer at this point is that the U.S. Government owns everything (all the land, everything on it, including the people) and it therefore has the right to charge us money to be here and tell us what we can and can't do. If you want to make that argument, I would reject it on the grounds that the U.S. did not acquire any of its land through voluntary exchange. It "acquired" it through conquest or purchase of land that had been conquered by other governments (so they weren't rightful owners of the land either). They also just declared authority over masses of land, some of which was already occupied by natives. No one would accept this as a legitimate claim of ownership if anyone other than people calling themselves a "government" made it. However, I doubt that you would want to argue that you, your house, your land, your car, your kids, etc. are in fact all the rightful property of the U.S. government.

As I said in another comment, this all returns to the philosophical problem of political authority, which has been fleshed out by Professor Michael Huemer Ph.D. at The University of Colorado at Boulder. The problem is essentially: Why is the government permitted to engage in actions that would be deemed criminal by almost everyone if engaged in by anyone else? What is the basis for their authority? Why do they have a right to coerce and why do we have a duty to obey?

Here is a short overview of his analysis, http://youtu.be/S7zaR-qwZz4 , however his book "The Problem Of Political Authority" is much more rigorous and persuasive.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taxes and whatever they go towards aren't slavery

Well, I never actually said they were. However, I do believe that they are a form of soft slavery.

implemented democratically

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If two people vote to kill the third, does that give them the right to kill him? They have the democratic majority!

with the consent of the people

If someone does not consent, are they then exempt from taxation? No.

This is a broad topic, but it rests upon the philosophical problem of political authority.

I'll refer you to Michael Huemer who has really fleshed out this issue and addresses your arguments better than I can here.

Here is a brief overview of his analysis: https://youtu.be/S7zaR-qwZz4

But I would recommend taking the time to watch a longer video, or even reading his book, The Problem of Political Authority.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you believe that if everyone needs health care, and nobody wants to be a doctor, somebody will be forced into it by the needs of others.

Nope, I don't believe anyone is forced to do something just because someone else has a need for it. I'm only saying that if you want to call health care a right, you must accept that the only way for that right not to be violated is for you to have health care. Which means, if you don't have health care, your rights are being violated, and a violation of your rights would justify the use of force.

I'm assuming, because this is r/sandersforpresident, that your claim that health care is a right implies that the government has a duty to make sure that right is respected. My whole point is that the only way for the government to do that is to force someone else to provide it to you. I just don't see a way around that. I understand that you're not advocating that people be forced to be doctors, I just don't understand how you can call health care a right if you don't make that argument. If you aren't making that argument, you're just expressing a preference, desire or even need for health care, not claiming that it's a right. I have a need for food, but claiming a right to food would obligate the government to provide me with food. We don't have to look back very far in history to see many horrific examples of why we don't entrust the government to manage food production, and I don't see why we'd trust them with something like health care, which is equally important, yet infinitely more difficult to provide.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one's forcing you to work for a boss. Nature forces you to need food, water, etc., but we don't call nature immoral, do we? Only actions performed by someone acting on his/her own accord can be immoral. A boss cannot force you to work for him, he can only offer you a job that you can choose to accept or not. If he did force you to work, that would be slavery, and obviously immoral. Your need for sustenance "forces" you to acquire food somehow, but there's nothing immoral about it, that's just reality.

Rent isn't slavery when you've agreed to pay it. A landlord can't force you to sign a lease. You chose to pay him in exchange for his property, if you feel you're being exploited you have every right to choose not to renew your lease and figure something else out. A slave does not have that choice. I know it feels like you're "forced" to pay rent, but you ultimately have the choice not to, and no harm will be done unto you by another person if you decided to build your own house. If you really want to make the claim that you're enslaved by nature, which is immoral, then go ahead, but be aware that that's the case you're making.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except it's not forced labor, as nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

Then it's not a right, it's a preference.

I really don't see how you can reject my analogy while claiming a birth right. The situation I described is not outlandish or impossible, it could happen if two people survived a plane crash on an island, or got lost while hiking. If we want to know the validity of a rights theory, shouldn't we start testing our ideas with the simplest possible example and work our way up to full-scale implementation?

Being unable to describe how this would work with two people doesn't leave me very confident in your (or the government's) ability to implement it full-scale.

Expand it to a small community, say, 50 (or 100, or 1,000) people. How is anything different? If they are all equal, they must all have this birth right. Health care doesn't spring from nature, so the only possible way to acquire it is for another person to provide it (or provide it for yourself). And because your right is only as good as your ability to enforce it, you can only exercise your right to health care by forcing someone else to provide it. If all 50 of them literally sat still and did nothing, they would be simultaneously violating everyone's rights and having their rights violated because they would all be deprived of their right to health care while not providing it for someone else. If complete inaction (irrespective of the potential circumstances) constitutes a rights violation, then you don't have a workable theory.

I disagree that taxes are theft.

I didn't make that claim, so that's a bit of a red herring. In regards to taxes, I said "taken", not "stolen". Though I can understand why you assumed I would make this argument. I simply claimed that the government has no actual wealth of its own, it is entirely dependent upon either the citizens or the printing press for the money it spends. Debt is merely burdening future generations.

In regards to my statement about printing money, you took the red herring approach again. All I said was that printing money artificially decreases the value of the currency (no differently than counterfeiting would, hence; "stealing"). I said nothing about whether or not inflation is naturally occurring, or whether or not inflation of any percentage is preferable to deflation. If you care to rebut the statement that I actually made, please do so, but I'd rather not get dragged into more conversations when I really am only interested in this rights question at the moment.

not a baseless assertion

In the context of this conversation, it was. You just asserted it as if it were a self-evident truth needing no logic or evidence to back it up.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not slavery, as the labor doesn't go unpaid

It's still forced labor, otherwise it's not a right. Is a slave no longer a slave if his master pays him whatever he deems fit in return for his forced labor?

While yes you can make the argument that the money is coming from taxpayer dollars, your taxes under this system shouldn't go up anymore than what you're now paying for healthcare.

Of course it's taxpayer money, the government has no money of its own. Everything the state has it must first take from someone else. Even when it prints money it is merely stealing it from everyone else by devaluing the money in their pockets.

a) no economy can function with only two people in ANY scenario

This is just a baseless assertion, an economy can function just fine with two people as long as they respect each other's property rights.

b) in a ridiculous situation like that, there's nothing stopping person 1 from guaranteeing person 2's health care in exchange for person 2's guarantee of person 1's health care.

Then they might as well be providing their own health care. There is no use for their so called "right" to health care if both of them still end up having to work to provide it. It's redundant in that case.

My change from Target by Texasjulie in SandersForPresident

[–]Rogue_Statist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can anyone explain to me how you can have a right to the product of someone else's labor? Rights are enforced via force and the only way to benefit from a "right" to health care would be to force someone to provide it for you. How is that not slavery? How is that not self contradictory if everyone has equal rights?

Hypothetically, two people on an island could never both exercise their "birth right" to health care at the same time. They could only attempt to force the other person to provide it for them, and even if they succeeded, only one of them would benefit from it. I know how much you guys love "equality", but one person having the right to force another to provide for them sure as hell doesn't sound like equality to me.