US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

I didn't. Feel free to stop providing all this stuff. I'll be fine. I never asked for your domination.

 

Of course you did. You chose to remain an US citizen, inside US borders.

nobody is dominating you. You are free to leave the country at any time. While you are here though, you are agreeing to the social contract, and you will be paying your taxes.

 

I actually didn't agree to any contract. And you can feel free to stop providing me with all these supposed benefits any time you wish. I never asked tor them and I don't want them.

Taking people's stuff is wrong. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

 

Perhaps the rich pressure groups funding right wing libertarianism could buy these folk a few desert islands? Seems only fair for the poor individualists

 

The privileged -- especially landowners -- take everyone's rights to liberty by force and call those rights their "property." Yet you think that is somehow noble, and declare such "property" rightful and even sacrosanct.

 

The privileged take people's property? Please explain.

 

I said that the privileged take people's rights to liberty from them by force and call them their private property. This means that others must pay the privileged for permission to exercise their rights. That is how the privileged take everyone else's property. Read and learn:

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And come to that, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

 

Okay, I see that you didn't say that the privileged take people's property. So we agree that the privileged don't take people's property.

 

Non sequitur!

 

Feel free to take your stuff and leave but as long as you remain you are obligated to pay for the services that you are benefiting from.

 

You sure did, when you decided to remain a US citizen and stay inside US borders.

Whether you use them or not is up to you. You’ll be paying your taxes regardless. It’s part of your social contract.

 

I'm not on board with your 'you pay us our money or you leave'. I guess I'll never make a good mobster.

 

It’s the contract you agreed to. You are free to withdraw that consent at any time. Nobody will miss you

 

I understand you have a lust to dominate your fellow man, but you haven't convinced me that I have a right to take my neighbor's property.

 

I'm still not convinced that I have any right to forcibly take property from my neighbor. You haven't really made a good case for it. I'm not going to go along with your violence.

 

You will be paying your taxes regardless of your libertarian delusions.

 

Of course I will.

You just haven't convinced me to support your violent plan. I can't support stealing my neighbor's property.

 

And this is you consenting to the social contract. Nothing I have stated is violent.

 

I just can't support your use of violence against your fellow man to steal his stuff.

 

I don't use violence or steal anything. You are here voluntarily. By being here, you have agreed to the social contract. That contract includes your tax obligations. It is entirely voluntary.

 

Yeah, I'm still not buying your violent message. I don't consider my neighbors to be cattle. I'll never understand this lust to dominate.

 

Other than taking people's money by force. I can't agree with your idea that I have a right to take my neighbor's property.

 

That you have descended to puerile ad homs exposes the vacuity of your position.

 

Because I don’t have one.

-“

Nobody is talking about cattle or dominating anyone. That’s called a straw man.

 

It isn’t by force. It’s a voluntary agreement.

Strawman