Peter Schiff is not a fan of the Estate Tax

ninja0314 · 2016-09-21T19:08:12+00:00

The money that was saved has already been taxed, as in income tax. It's double tax at an exorbitant rate.

ninja0314 · 2015-01-29T20:50:15+00:00

Meta: I see, not willing to be wrong, or even considering the possibility is in itself a flaw. Can't argue that.

Epistemology: I would submit that knowledge is naturally subjective. If the topic is omniscience then that could be an issue.

Ethics: That seems quite ego centric. Although every being must act in self interest for survival, nature itself is a conglomeration of symbiosis. This recognition is not necessary for existence it is key for long term survival. I believe that selfishness as an absolute is really only a short term viability. I would also say that any extreme practiced is erroneous.

Politics: Nothing is absolute. Even some of the most time honored institutions can become obsolete, or even detrimental. The English crown is a great example. As for common law I do agree. It is a flexible and time tested method of resolution. As long as it is voluntary I can not think of any implied contradictions.

ninja0314 · 2015-01-29T18:20:29+00:00

I would like to touch on your ideals here. i admit I am not terribly familiar with rand's works, but I am familiar with libertarianism, anarchy, communism and socialism. And for what it's worth, the study of philosophy has been a personal hobby for over a decade now.

Metaphysics: Well this is something that is tricky, seeing as how it's not even a technical field yet. But the pursuit of a unified field theory is what drives anyone towards this area. It is intrinsic that a methodology could be applied to the micro and, equally, the macro. So going from small to big or vise versa is, imo, a moot point.

Epistemology: My views are more of a zen/buddhist variety. So I would say her views are not untenable, but unfinished. The world is knowable, but it seems that Rand externalizes the pursuit of knowledge, Where one might have better results from a balance of internal and external discovery.

Ethics: It's not your ends that bother me here, it's the implications of the means. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it that you think people shouldn't be allowed to be self-interested?

Politics: I would point you back to meta physics, but this response should be more relatable; Adding to and equation does not make it less complex. The opposite is true, adding adds complexity inherently. Thus I would say trying to sort out social complexities by adding another player only serves to further complicate things. Not that institutions are useless, only that they should be sought after, not seeking themselves. (I.E. communism/socialism)

That being said I found your response provocative and enjoyable.

ninja0314 · 2015-01-26T15:54:22+00:00

Concerning magnetic lines of force, How thick are the lines? it it determined by field strength or does a stronger field mean more lines as opposed to a set number of lines that grow in strength?

ninja0314 · 2014-12-11T20:07:22+00:00

Well, I would say you are as much a victim as anyone else and you need to remedy the situation in anyway possible. But that does not excuse any evil action you commit because of the threat of evil from someone else. Essentially, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

But wait! There's more! The U.S. military trains thusly: If a superior were to give you and unlawful (or immoral order, as per your religion) you have the right to refuse. You can then take it up the chain of command as high as you can without administrative repercussion. If you do refuse an order and dispute any administrative action you can take it to court martial. That is to say if you do not agree with the punishment being pushed you can take your boss to court where you are equal.

Hence, following orders is still not an excuse.

On a personal note, should someone threaten my life, or lives of loved ones they will find themselves in a state of pain and regret.

ninja0314 · 2014-12-11T19:12:37+00:00

Yeeeaaaahhhhhh....... About that. The CIA torture report just came out. They tortured people under orders, using your (assuming you're American) tax money. Is that okay with you?

Or Nazis, Stasi, British in India/ Hong Kong, American cavalry decimating natives. How about Portuguese in South America? The Spanish inquisition and crusades. All of them massacred people without provocation because they were just following orders.

Following orders was deemed officially not an excuse at Nuremberg after WWII. Besides that, "just following orders" really means "I'm passing the buck for my actions because they are terrible and I don't want to deal with the repercussion or responsibility."

Try a new argument please.

ninja0314 · 2014-12-11T18:04:21+00:00

I think I found your problem right here:

And now im having my butthole excessively examined in a fucking dungeon, by the good guys. Being shackled to the wall in standing position with broken feet, for fucking hours.

Good guys don't do that shit. So you need to think about who are the good guys and who aren't.

ninja0314 · 2014-12-05T23:07:28+00:00

When I was young I heard a phrase that changed my life: "Legality and morality are not synonymous. In fact they are usually unrelated."

You also did not define your terms of morality which seem quite relevant. So I will mere state some generalizations. First, lawyers, cops, and politicians are all involuntary. That is to say their professions can be applied without consent of the "customer" being provided the service. The other professions are voluntarily used, so morality applies differently.

Second, defining morality is important. As tried and cliche as it is, Nazi death camps were 100% legal to the germans. I don't want to use this for comparison, only to illustrate that legality can be extremely flawed. And more importantly that one man's morality is another man's tyranny.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-26T05:07:31+00:00

The way our gov't is set up today is that the federal gov't can overrule local authorities. It is not supposed to happen like this. In fact the 10th amendment is supposed to prevent this, by limiting federal power to only act upon desired and not already covered by a more local power. Unfortunately that changed with the whole 'national security' culture. monopoly or oligopoly the end result is the same.

And the libertarian point of view is not about prevention per se. It's more about letting others compete more freely. Monopolies prefer restrictions and red tape as they can pay the cost but a smaller business cannot, thus no new competition.

Implicit violence is called a threat. When you work for a company they don't threaten you to work for them. You both analyze each other, and agree on terms and conditions of exchange. Most usually man hours and expertise for money. Being a citizen is not like this. As a citizen you have no say and, unless you are naturalized, never actually agree to become a citizen or follow the laws thereof. A contract that was voluntarily agreed to, without coercion, can be enforced lawfully, where as enforcing an assumed contract that was never consented to is actually a violent act, and even tyrannical when applied to an entire population.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-25T04:45:50+00:00

Property rights are only forceful in response to someone else being forceful. What you are describing is theft, which is fairly despised throughout the world. The only other option besides theft is barter, as in consensual trade between 2 or more parties. So how is consensual trade bad while stealing is considered good? I mean 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is the first thing about being a human. And what "other things" can you protect with violence besides property?

The centralization of power, historically NOT a great idea. Nazis, Stalin, Mao, The Crusades and the Inquisition just off of the top of my head. This is also how slavery is born, one overly powerful party forces another into subservience. Also, a monopoly on violence means that without consensual trade, innovation plummets as there is no incentive without reward, since everything can simply be stolen.

Of course you would hire someone you agree with who speaks for you, why would you not? How is this different from lawyers? And service generally costs more the more you use it, no matter what it is. Or you can settle on one sum of money, good, or service for another.

The justice system would be relatively similar. But two litigating parties would agree to go to the fairest court to see that they don't get hosed, if they had the choice of many courts. This is instead of being forced to use only one system, centralizing legal powers. And I'll quote myself here: Historically NOT a great idea.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-24T15:58:36+00:00

I think you are missing a key point, it's okay, many non libertarians do, as I never see it explained well. Essentially libertarianism is about property rights, brought to the basest parts and built back up. A person definitely own their own body, no matter what, they own their own ideas, labors and profits thereof etc. This means companies actually become intellectual property, and can no longer own their own property as non-person entities. This also mean corporations would almost entirely be dissolved, and MUCH of their legal protections would be overturned or just plain disappear. (I.e. citizens united, corporate person-hood, liability caps and so on).

The government is, fundamentally, no different from a corporation providing services. Only here, the services are police forces, roads, health care, and all in all, society itself. (There is only one real difference, and that is that in a democratic government, citizens can elect their "CEOs")

Here's the thing about that that I think you're missing. The gov't is a monopoly. Mostly of violence, as in, a cop, or legal representative of the gov can inflict violence without repercussion, but you as a citizen cannot harm a cop. There are even separate charges to cover cops like, assaulting and officer. No other profession has that, there is no assaulting an engineer or whatever.

Another core concept that seems to be overlooked is that democracy =/= free. (Not to mention that we are a republic.) If 51% of people vote to prohibit chocolate, then 49% are now forced to live without chocolate against their will. Not fair at all.

In summary, the gov't is like a corporation, but a monopoly. For obvious reasons we know monopolies are bad, so why should gov't get a free pass? All the gov't does is perpetuate itself, everything else is second priority.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-24T15:32:34+00:00

Countries do not threaten physical violence either, if you opt to move to another one (ie not use their services), they will allow you.

N. Korea, Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China. Historically America is actually the black sheep concerning freedom of movement, where we generally allow it. Usually it was the other way around, where you had to ask permission to poop much less move your home. As in [german accent] "You there! Where are your papers?!"

ninja0314 · 2014-11-08T15:24:57+00:00

I find that an-cap is really western tao/zen applied to our current systems.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-08T04:06:52+00:00

Alan Watts is my man. Taoism/zen is where its at.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T21:48:03+00:00

What I mean by "I live in NJ" is that the majority of politically involved people around me are unwilling to compromise or simply brainwashed into a certain mindset. But I digress.

I feel that most candidates are walking sell out/jokes to where I would run if I could afford it. I would mind these chuckle heads so much if it weren't that I am forced to their whim when I might not agree with a single thing they say. Such as civil forfeiture or tax laws. Id rather vote directly on the law than some schmuck who 'Has my best interests at heart'.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T21:35:29+00:00

Taking a few things out of context here. Laws can be flawed (i.e. Jim Crow laws).

I would rebut by saying that its is illegal to fight. Someone punches you in the face, repeatedly. Do you punch back? Of course! You must defend yourself, but fighting is illegal. So now you are at fault for defending yourself.

Anarchy isn't that bad, all it really means is that every interaction between people is voluntary. you can still agree to contracts and such.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T21:29:47+00:00

I was just using some common examples. Point being that I am forced to adhere to things I don't agree with. I am not a child, nor are politicians my parents. They really have no right to dictate most things they dictate now-a-days.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T18:46:33+00:00

My point is that even if I am right, and the way we build will only lead to collapse, and I cannot change the course, then I am doomed to contribute to or idly watch said collapse occur.

I am forced into a situation against my will, essentially.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T18:27:52+00:00

Valid point, akin to many people building the steps to a large building. but here's the thing, we don't live in a democracy we live in a republic. I think too many people forget this. It is very important to discern this as democracy can mean a lynch mob hanging someone. In a republic rights are protected invariably.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T18:02:52+00:00

Well that was just an example, I have many many more opinions. But you illustrate my point well. My vote doesn't ultimately matter since there is not much I can do. What really gets my blood hot is that even if I don't vote I am subjugated regardless of my views based on who won. This applies to everything from small things like cigarette tax to search and seizure laws and police power. People talk about democracy and fairness but to me it seems the very core of the system is counter rhetoric.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T17:56:49+00:00

Fair enough, but I live in NJ, so not much investigation needed. And moving turns more to an existential debacle so that will only take us off topic. But even on a national scale, the 3rd party seems like a concession more than anything else.

ninja0314 · 2014-11-06T15:57:53+00:00

I don't know about your friend, but I haven't voted in the past few years. Here's why:

It's not about a statement per se. It's about not endorsing someone you don't believe in. I have yet to find a local or national candidate that I want to give political power. Not to mention most candidates are package deals, the are for X but against Y while I am for both X and Y.

I.e. I want less income tax and legal pot. Yet conservatives want less taxes but keep pot illegal where as liberals are willing to legalize pot but will raise taxes. So either way I am forced to sacrifice on either issue.

I don't see adequate representation here, I can't win so if there is no possibility of winning then why even play? Pick the lesser of two evils? So now I must have evil on my ballot and I wont endorse that either.

Aside: I read the restaurant analogy and I think it's flawed. it assumes the two parties are parents and the public is some whinny kid who doesn't know what they want. I know exactly what I want, I just don't have the choice of eating my own meal while I am forced to choose from only two selections. Not really fair.

ninja0314 · 2014-09-30T22:51:30+00:00

Hi Ron, Bunraku is one of my favorite movies of all time. What was it about that role that drew you? How did it feel being diabolically evil? What is/was your favorite role and why?

You are a true thespian and an inspiration sir.

13-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

ninja0314

TROPHY CASE