Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Charisma on Command"
channel.
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@biocapsule7311 "thinking you can accuse others of logical fallacy" - look, your best argument is "we live in a society". The foundation of your argument is self-justifying. How am I in the wrong for calling out the problem in justifying things based on "society"?
"when challenged, you collapsed" - yeah, asking for better, non fallacious arguments = collapsing.
"taxation is the payment of collective cost of services rendered for living in a 'community', in a 'society" - and extortion money is the payment of collective cost of services rendered by your local mob boss for living inside their turf. You can define it as whatever you want with pretty words but it doesn't change the nature. For a collective cost to be billed to anyone, there has to be a collective contract. Living in any "community" or "society", like an homeowners association, or a country club, or whatever requires a voluntary sign up. This "society" automatically joins anyone born in it (being born into a contract is simply not possible because children cannot consent).
"If you don't like it, you can cease living in one and for go all the benefit" - Wrong. It's not possible to do that.
"If you receive a service but refuse to pay and the server call the cops" - I am not receiving a service.
"By your logic, anything you have to pay for, forces you to "work for free"" - Wrong. Anything I pay for I CHOSE TO PAY for it and I MUST RECEIVE the service or else whoever I gave my money to can be nailed for fraud. The government gets away with not providing any service to me but also removing my choice. There's a big difference between me signing a contract that stipulates that I pay for cable and internet service, and you just sitting around in your house not using any of those services and never having signed a contract but the cable company sending armed thugs to force you to pay for a service you don't use. It's weird, I have explained this very well but you keep confusing VOLUNTARY CONTRACT with being forced into an arrangement where you must pay despite never agreeing to anything and independently if you're using the service or not.
"Taxation is something very old" - and how old something is doesn't justify it. In fact through history taxation was essentially free labour because most people did not have wealth and thus had to pay taxes to their lords through free labour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caiarcosbotias1710 "The laws that work on the road are not there simply because an entity owns the street itself. They are there to ensure a correct use by part of all the "clients"." - in most cases, the one who wants correct use by the clients is also the owner. The correct use is defined by conduct and not just the damage you cause. It could be argued that running a red light in the middle of nowhere is a victimless action but the fact is that people are not omniscient. Anyone could jump out of nowhere and try to cross the street the moment you run that red light. While the purpose is ensuring safety (and reducing maintenance costs, downtime, accident cleanups, etc) it is the owner who both makes the rules and ensures they are enforced.
"some money that you have legitimately earned must go to the State, in order for it to sustain the infrastructure, services, etc... that most people use everyday, including yourself" - I am not arguing that people shouldn't pay for anything. I am arguing that taxation is the wrong way to do it. A person who doesn't use roads shouldn't be forced to pay for the wear and tear I cause to it.
"Actively avoiding paying your own taxes can be more harmful than the case presented above, since it deteriorates the quality of things like law-enforcement, public healthcare, public services... and thus endangers the people who use them" - I am pretty sure that actively T-boning a car or running over a person because you ran a red light is more harmful than... doing "nothing".
"If you are alone, as I specified in the case before, there are no authorities than can punish you." - Irrelevant. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it still makes a noise. If you commit a crime and nobody was there to witness it, congratulations for getting away with it but you still committed a crime.
1
-
@caiarcosbotias1710 "I specified that you are completely alone" - Which is irrelevant because 1. I am not omniscient and thus unable to trust the information I was given if I was driving the car and 2) the rules are based on conduct and not damage.
"I don't understand this; the laws of conduct are designed in order to reduce the damage you can cause" - yes, which is why you get punished even if no damage was caused.
"Strictly following the "conduct" you could run over someone who crossed the street in red simply because you are arriving late at work. [...] Prioritizing conduct over a quantitative measure of damage is like building the house starting from the roof.
" - We're not talking about the morality of following conduct or not. Also, if you can stop but keep driving into a pedestrian, even if the pedestrian was in the wrong, you're probably gonna go down for vehicular manslaughter. The driver is only considered not liable in situations where stopping was impossible, or even more dangerous.
"In a perfect world, that would be ideal. Sadly, the truth is that for a functioning state to work it must work beyond it" - but that's the thing, this started off as an argument about the morality of the state. Now you're accepting that in a perfect world what the state is doing is immoral, but it must be done for practical reasons. I'm not arguing that, that's a topic for another day. I'm not arguing about the practicality so I'm willing to give you that point when it comes to this subject. But that admission that "in a perfect world" you'd consider what the state does is wrong is all I was looking for.
"Let's say I'm rich and thus never have to use public health. ¿Does that mean that the Nation should not take some of my money to make sure that the poor doesn't die on the streets?" - No. Not only is nobody else entitled to that money, there is no justification for bullying people into giving up their money and there's no guarantee that the bullies will serve the population's interests. Look at the Communists. They claimed to be for the people, for the workers. Then as soon as they got to power, they enslaved the people and fed them scraps. Millions died.
"Don't get me wrong, my point is not based on ethics, but on math. If half the population is dying on the streets and a few keep the resources that could help the others, the overall eficiency of the system is horrible." - You're talking about a "system" that can't even keep half the population alive but it's somehow the rich people's fault that the system is inefficient? The system should have been abandoned in the first place.
"not punishing the first legitimates tax evasion on a collective level" - ... I fail to see the bad part about that. My point is that you're using inaction as basis for guilt. If I pass by a burning building and hear screams from the inside, I won't go to jail for refusing to jump into the fire.
"Thus, commiting a "crime" with no victims and no further damage to the system as a whole doesn't matter"
"Again, the law is build on the idea of calculating consequences, not on some total, complete and omnipotent ideal or principle." - ... no, that is completely wrong. Law based on consequence is completely subjective and detached from morality. Most legal systems are based on "principle", Natural Law, legal positivism, etc.
For example: Martin Shkreli was convicted of securities fraud. In the end nobody actually lost money and some of his investors actually turned a profit. It didn't matter, he still committed fraud. It's a matter of principle.
1