Twitter Suspends Proud Boys And Founder Gavin McInnes Accounts Ahead Of Unite The Right Rally

Huh? You are trying to explain taking someone's property for your attempt to deliver healthcare to everyone. This isn't moral. However, I do like the oversimplified and completely ignorant Bernie Sanders bumper sticker, "profit vs life" which completely ignores the millions of lives saved through profit incentive given the correlation between free markets and infant mortality rate. It also completely ignores the giant innovation contribution that are semi-free market health care system contributes to the rest of the world.

 

Im not sure that requires an explanation. How are they not theft?

 

I don't give a **** about innovation, nor do I care about oligarchic arguments about a few rich ******bags keeping a few more cents of "their money" which they have systematically denied to the laborers making their companies actually work.

These dickheads don't innovate. They reinvest and horde cash and they outright -admit- they do so.

Your entire premise is a fraud and it's so easy to see it for what it is. Another rich man lie sold to people who have the audacity to believe they can on day be like them.

Newsflash; their entire system, the hijacked notion of "liberty" is nothing but a cover for them paying even less in wages then they do now, and stifling growth by bloating their own coffers. They don't want you to be in on it and they never have.

 

Right.... well genius if you don't believe in taxes and by extension the government that taxes are necessary to fund and operate then how do you believe in theft? Theft is a legal concept and laws only exist under a framework of government. What's stealing absent government to define the parameters of ownership? What's property?

 

What a crock of ****, typical... and cites thinkprogress. If there is any identity politics in Proud Boys, it's men's rights. Rest is complete hooey, but a great example of pervasive LW race baiting and false labeling of political opposition.

 

Ahhhh, the ole they just haven't implemented it right crowd, aye?

And yet, there is innovation. Where does it come from outside of capital investment whether it be from outside or retained earnings? Seems we are far away from a moral argument now.

What is my premise other than no one is entitled to another's property. I've said nothing about class structure, corporate privilege or economic systems. All I have stated is that it is immoral to take property from someone regardless of intended use.

Newsflash, there isn't a mattress in the world that big.

 

Genius is an adept moniker; I'll accept it. The rest of your statement sounds like you got a bit emotional, and it clouded your thought process. The synopsis that I'm putting together is that you believe that government establishes morality and the concept of ownership. Then, you seem confused about the concept of property. We'd have to have several sessions like a psychologist to understand how you got to this line of thinking. Governments can track ownership and make laws to encourage morality, but they do not create either concept. Perhaps government should charge for it's services. The services that are desired will be paid for and those that do not provide value will not be demanded.

 

I never said the government establishes morality. I said universal healthcare was the morally right healthcare system to choose because by every measurement it covers more people and provides better results than private health insurance. If studies showed the opposite than I would advocate for the private system but they don't. The only one who spoke of government and morality was you when you claimed taxes were immoral because they amounted to theft. I've asked you to explain that statement but so far you've declined to. I'm not terribly surprised....

I did however claim government establishes legal concepts of ownership.

Explain ownership outside of a legal government framework. How does it work? And to be clear I'm not saying that absent government you can't posses things but those things don't have legal protection. Without government your land is just something you claim you own and you get to hold it only so long as you can keep me from taking it from you.

Also if all government services have to be paid out of pocket before access then isn't that just private business by another name? What if I can't afford the police? I'm just **** out of luck? Suppose when I come to take that land from you and everything you own and it has no legal protection what are you going to use to pay the private police force to come help you get it back?

These aren't emotional questions these are intellectual questions asking you to explain these interesting theories on government and taxes that you seem to have. But I don't really expect you to be able to. From a sheer rational perspective they make little sense.

 

Do as I do. Don't use Twitter. The site provides no real benefit to anyone.

 

You said, "Theft is a legal concept and laws only exist under a framework of government." I disagree.

First, your other post was a little muddled, but you did seem to indicate that ownership and morality came from government. Second, it does not matter how convincing you believe the studies are showing universal health care to be a benefit.
Taxes take money by the use of force. If I take something from you by force, it's theft. You can complicate it by discussing the extrapolatory benefits derived from government, but you can't explain how taking something by force that I'd be unwilling to give up is not inherently theft.

Government isn't necessary for the concept of ownership.

Well, we could both agree that I own something without the need to take it from one another. You know, like sensible humans. You act as if giant governments have always existed or do currently exist in all societies that can conceive ownership.

No. While I agree that hiring private companies to provide most government services is far more efficient, some services will only be provided by government. Albeit, it will be vastly fewer services if the public had to directly pay for them.

Property taxes, which is most commonly used as the primary funding for local government services, is pretty close to a usage tax. Fuel taxes for roads, sales taxes for local infrastructure, etc. Either way, you would be immoral if you attempted to take my property. That is the basis of what you are contending. If you think you have a better use for my land, you believe you have a right to take it which pretty much means you support corporations in the eminent domain cases brought against private property holders.

You take from person A and give to person B with the threat of force on person A. That is immoral. Now, you can be convinced that person B really deserves what person A has, or that person A has enough after you have forcefully confiscated a portion for person B, but that does not matter when discussing the morality of the act. Taking by force is immoral, period. There isn't an equation for net morality derived, lol. Socialism is immoral.

 

Absolutely right. Just like the NFL. If they don't like your message, they can shut it down.

 

Yes I know you disagree. I'm asking why you disagree.

No they don't. Do you even know what money is? Do you think absent government you can just print your own dollars and exchange them with other people for goods and services? Hey, if you want to go live in the woods and trade chickens for wood fine, no one is going to bother you. But if you want to live in society then grow up and recognize society requires taxes in order to function and your continued presence in society signals your agreement to shoulder your portion of that burden that we have democratically decided you should pay.

Its not theft if you don't own it. Without government to referee or to establish rules of ownership then my claim to it is just as valid as yours.

Prove you own something then without using legal frameworks.

Government isn't necessary for when people agree on ownership, government is necessary for when they disagree.

If people are directly paying for them then they aren't government services. They are private companies and will act in the benefit of the one paying.

How would justice work? Who pays the police? Suppose you rob me(or I say you do) and I pay the police. Are they going to do an independent investigation? Why would they look out for you if I'm paying them?

 

You have decided to force me to pay. That's immoral. Also, money is a placeholder for value. If I don't have money, you will take my possessions. Money in this instance was used as a generic term for property.

So, you were lying when you said that you didn't think that government creates the concept of ownership. That is completely ignorant.

Sure, it's mine. I either have possession through trade or creation. Again, the concept of ownership does not originate from the government. There are societies all over the globe at this very moment that fully understand the concept of ownership without any government involvement. That's probably asking too much of you to fathom that.

First, this completely contradicts your previous statements, lol. Keep it straight man. Second, this is completely untrue. More and more 3rd party arbitration is the go to due to inefficiency of government even here is giant gov western world.

No. there are tons of usage taxes; toll roads are a good example.

Because they adhere to the constitution.

 

Who's forcing you to pay taxes? And why are the taxes you want to force on others ok? Seems pretty convenient.

I said the opposite actually. It's morality I said government didn't create. Morality you decide for yourself.

Create it how?

The only ownership that matters is legal ownership. Before that ownership was one cave man hitting the other over the head with a club and saying "mine".

Name them.

 

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The gov forces me to pay taxes. I don't want to force taxes on anyone. I prefer usage taxes as I stated before.

Perhaps you can't actually follow what you said.

You can't comprehend creating something from scratch? This is getting ridiculous. Just admit that you want to choose what all resources should go toward based on what you believe is most useful.

So, now without governing forces which are controlled by men, men can't be civilized. Got it. You are truly a big government fanatic.[/Quote]

 

Those last two sentences seem to be contradictions. It took us this long to finally come to a point where you admit as I said from the start that your childish argument would boil down to taxes are theft except for the taxes you want to impose on everyone else. Those are good because of reasons.....

Everyone does. I didn't ask how you create things because I don't know how to chop wood, I ask because when you decide to chop wood you've decided that the resources from that tree are yours. How have you come to own this tree that you get to decide what to do with it?

I asked for one example of these hundreds of societies that apparently exist in utopia without government and you can't even name one.

 

Do you understand what a usage tax is?

Maybe I planted that tree on my property. And no, I don't want to control anyone. I'm opposed to force, fraud, or coercion.

Any developing world community.

 

Yes, you should boycott Twitter.

 

Name one. Just one. Name somewhere where ownership of property exists outside a legal government framework. And this usage tax am I forced to pay it? What am I paying it for? What am I getting in return? This government and tax system you're describing doesn't seem to make any sense. What is this government's role? What about the people who can't pay? What happens to them? Do they not get to enjoy the benefits of government? Are they banished? Deported?

 

It's really simple, but that hasn't seemed to matter thus far. If you want a gov service, you pay for it. People that can't pay, don't get the service. I can't imagine you being able to get past that without done giant fear mongering, class warfare statement. Government involvement at the federal level is a really new concept in the US.

 

And what exactly would these services be? Give an example? Could I pay for a private company to do it instead? What does your government actually do? Suppose a poor man is charged with a crime and has no money for a lawyer. Is he **** out of luck? Doesn't sound so much like you want a government. Sounds like you just expect people to get along because of reasons....... maybe like one of these imaginary communities that exist all over even though you can't name one.

 

Common street thugs are given free lawyers but not micheal flynn who had to sell his house to protect himself from the mueller witchhunt

Or anyone being harrassed by the IRS

They dont get free government services

But an illegal alien who sneaks across the border including MS-13 gangbangers does get a lawyer at taxpayer expense

Thats not right

 

We're having a different discussion on the nature of government I don't really know what you're on about. Crying like a victim again? And for Flynn no less. The man's a criminal and a rat who took a deal to snitch on his buddies. That's who you're crying over?

 

Thankfully the Deep State is not going after mere trump voters like myself

Yet

Flynn and manifort were targeted by the muller witchhunt only because they worked for trump

 

So they didn't commit any crimes? And Trump is just allowing this to happen? What a cuck. To bad you didn't vote for someone with some balls for President like Hillary. She didn't even have to win to punk you guys and you're just rolling over and taking it. It's ok. It's easier if you just let it happen.