This is an inauguration...not a superbowl.

[jboking]

Well, that is one way to look at it I suppose. I would rather have Megan chime in before passing that judgement though.

Good, because that's not accurate. I don't think that *taxation* (i.e. theft under threat of force) is a legitimate means of acquiring government funds. I don't think it really matters what the gov't does with that loot--the means of acquiring it irrevocably taints all activities funded by it.

Ok, well for the sake of argument, What is a legitimate means of acquiring government funds. The only impression taxes ever gave me was that the government owns the land that my stuff rests on, which I wouldn't really argue.

Another question, isn't threat of force basically the only way to insure you get what you want? Do you have a better, more effective, method?

 

[jboking]

My mistake. I didn't think you were so radical in your opposition to government imposed duty backed by force that you think taxes used to raise a military force to repel an invasion "taints" the act of self-defense and that military pay is "loot."

I'm not in the least opposed to government--a proper government is what makes civilization possible. But you don't form a proper government by building it on theft, no matter *how* good your intentions. It is entirely proper for the government to charge fees for services (such as contractual services) as a means of financing. It is NOT proper for the government to declare that it is the owner of your income and it only allows you to keep some of it out of politeness.

So, could you name a proper government by these guidelines?

 

[nathan-dts]

I think this is a great way to get EVERYONE involved, especially the younger generation who are important to new presidents.

 

[JMeganSnow]

And how do you do this in the case of national defense? Does the navy stop the invaders at sea, and ask where they plan to invade, and if they say they only want to invade those places that haven't contracted for national defense, then the navy lets the armada through?

Are you really completely ignorant of how budgets are set? The government charges a fee for contractual services that is sufficient to cover expected expenses. It's just like a company selling a product--if I told you that they only charge for their cell phones, would you gasp in horror and demand to know "but how are they paying their employees?!?!"

That's not what government declares--that' how you characterize it. Just because you think of it in those terms, it certainly doesn't mean the government has declared any such thing, nor does it necessarily mean that is what is going on in fact.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's so awfully rude to the thieves to actually call them thieves--that's an unfair "characterization". They call *themselves* "freelance social debt collectors" so we should respect their right to make up their own sobriquet.

What bullshit. The government abrogates to itself the right to declare how much of my income it wants to take--I keep the rest strictly by permission. The body that controls and dictates the terms of an item's use is acting as the owner of that item regardless of what they choose to call themselves.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Ok, well for the sake of argument, What is a legitimate means of acquiring government funds. The only impression taxes ever gave me was that the government owns the land that my stuff rests on, which I wouldn't really argue.

Any voluntary means of financing is legitimate. There are a number of options: the government can charge for contractual services. This is an urgent need in any civilized country (imagine what would happen to your contracts if they were unenforceable!) and people are more than happy to pay for such a thing. The government could hold a lottery as in many of the U.S. states--people pay for that. It could ask for donations. (People donate billions of dollars a year to causes much less worthy.) But it cannot rightfully say "pay us or we'll put you in jail."

Another question, isn't threat of force basically the only way to insure you get what you want? Do you have a better, more effective, method?

Well, this is a problematic question because the context is not clear. Do you mean "the only way I can get people to give me their stuff is to threaten to shoot them if they don't" or "the only way I can prevent people from stealing MY stuff is to shoot them?"

These are different cases. The first constitutes you initiating force against someone in order to gain a value. The second constitutes you *defending yourself* from the person in the first example.

It is necessary to use force to defend yourself against people who want to use force against you, but it is not necessary to use force against people who have no such desire. Instead, in order to "get what you want" from the peaceful people, you must offer them a value in exchange for their value. You must trade.

The government is rightfully the authority that maintains a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force--this is so that the use of force is arbitrated by an objective third party. Civilization would break down if anyone could go out and "retaliate" against anyone else on whatever grounds. But since there are always some people who choose to initiate force, retaliatory force will always be necessary.

Taxation, however, is not retaliation against someone initiating the use of force--it is the government initiating force against its own honest citizens. (Dishonest citizens have nothing to tax.) If a government is to be righteous, it cannot be allowed to emulate a mugger.

 

[JMeganSnow]

So, could you name a proper government by these guidelines?

As in, one that currently exists? No--in fact, one has never existed. America in the 19th century approached *close* to this ideal but never completely achieved it. There have been other, similar "close" situations, like, I believe, Hong Kong in the 80's and early 90's.

But what difference does it make? Progress consists of bringing into existence things that never existed before. Without it, the human race would perish.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

They did pay for the big flashy party out of their own pockets.

That's nice to hear . . . sort of. Got a source for that?

ABC News. See my above post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.84624?page=3#1213001] with the quote and the link.

 

[mattttherman3]

I skipped my noon class to watch the Inauguration speech. I heard that the whole thing cost over 150 million dollars, ah well I thought America was in a recession? I guess the taxes on all the hotels and food probably made up for it though.

I don't blame the media entirely for making it big, most people want to be a part of history.

I don't think that you need to cover the man's every single move, I understand that he is the first African American President but enough is enough. I believe that Men don't care a whole lot about what Michelle Obama or her kids wear, and why women might is beyond me.

That said, the inauguration coverage is still better than the Caylee Anthony case(along with the jagoffs who keep reporting on it).

 

[Aries_Split]

It would make sense that this would feel like a superbowl considering that it's the most expensive inauguration in American history. And I didn't really find anything special about it, except that it allowed me to say, "Comrades, welcome to United Soviet America."

Thats pretty much what we should start calling ourselves with Obama appointing so many comunists to important offices.

Communism is an economic policy.

...?

 

[MintyFreshBreathGuy]

Well you guys were just freed from eight years of tyranny. Frankly I don't know why you all aren't happier about the idea.

He has a point, plus the guy is black so now people won't yell at America for being racist. And yet Russia wanted us to claim responsibility for their little war with Georgia. It's good to know we're all friends on planet Earth. I mean seeing as we didn't even supply you in that war. Not to mention you started that war Russia, it's good to know that when things turn to shit, you can always use us as an aerobics mat. No offense to Russians themselves mind you, just Russians that blamed the US for their Georgia war.
And sorry I needed to get that out of my system. Anyway, I can see why the USA is happy, Bush the Dumbass, just left office and now I don't need to worry about suddenly becoming poor...as much.

 

[jboking]

Ok, well for the sake of argument, What is a legitimate means of acquiring government funds. The only impression taxes ever gave me was that the government owns the land that my stuff rests on, which I wouldn't really argue.

Any voluntary means of financing is legitimate. There are a number of options: the government can charge for contractual services.

Could the government providing your defence count as a contractual service, or is it that we should expect this from them without giving them anything for it.

This is an urgent need in any civilized country (imagine what would happen to your contracts if they were unenforceable!) and people are more than happy to pay for such a thing. The government could hold a lottery as in many of the U.S. states--people pay for that. It could ask for donations. (People donate billions of dollars a year to causes much less worthy.) But it cannot rightfully say "pay us or we'll put you in jail."

The lottery situation, the government can hold its own lottery, but it can't stop others from competing. Putting the government into that market interferes with laissez-faire. So, which is more important. Upholding a longstanding tradition, or interfering with commercial affairs to turn a profit.
Also, if they did something like this, there is no guarantee of a steady income. It will have competition and the government could easily fall on hard times against its competition. What do we do with a government with no funding?

Well, this is a problematic question because the context is not clear. Do you mean "the only way I can get people to give me their stuff is to threaten to shoot them if they don't" or "the only way I can prevent people from stealing MY stuff is to shoot them?"

These are different cases. The first constitutes you initiating force against someone in order to gain a value. The second constitutes you *defending yourself* from the person in the first example.

It is necessary to use force to defend yourself against people who want to use force against you, but it is not necessary to use force against people who have no such desire. Instead, in order to "get what you want" from the peaceful people, you must offer them a value in exchange for their value. You must trade.

The government is rightfully the authority that maintains a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force--this is so that the use of force is arbitrated by an objective third party. Civilization would break down if anyone could go out and "retaliate" against anyone else on whatever grounds. But since there are always some people who choose to initiate force, retaliatory force will always be necessary.

Taxation, however, is not retaliation against someone initiating the use of force--it is the government initiating force against its own honest citizens. (Dishonest citizens have nothing to tax.) If a government is to be righteous, it cannot be allowed to emulate a mugger.

I worded the question rather poorly, my bad. I was more going towards the idea that the only thing enforcing trade or contracts is force from the other side. What is to stop a person from stealing the goods they want instead of paying for them. The idea that they will be stopped and harmed? If they are not harmed would they not just try again? It's the idea that the last and main enforcement of any kind of agreement (contractual or otherwise) is force.

 

[jboking]

So, could you name a proper government by these guidelines?

As in, one that currently exists? No--in fact, one has never existed. America in the 19th century approached *close* to this ideal but never completely achieved it. There have been other, similar "close" situations, like, I believe, Hong Kong in the 80's and early 90's.

But what difference does it make? Progress consists of bringing into existence things that never existed before. Without it, the human race would perish.

The difference is empircal evidence that something like this is even achieveable. You said that America was close to the ideal and so was Hong Kong, so what stimulus changed them? Does this theory account for variables? The idea that both of these groups got close but had to move away from it suggests this system does not work.

If there is more to these incidents that you would like to enlighten me on, please do.

 

[Ultrajoe]

the US is the most charitable country in the world by far.

In terms of charity-per-person i think there are only 4 species of noxious fungus that are less altruistic than the US. That was meant as humor, not an attack. The internet doesn't carry the distinction very well.

I didn't watch the inauguration, i'm Australian after all. I might catch a replay later on. I'm really quite meh, Obama was just the lesser of 2 evils. I'm counting down the days until people realise that he's just another politician in a govenment so warped and ritualised that it's people can't even see the need to revolt when they are practically tyrannised. I'd say it's cultish, but that would be insulting. More like... pride-deadened.

 

[JMeganSnow]

That in no way, shape, or form answers the question: what happens when an invading armada meets the government's by-contract navy, and declares that they are only going to attack those people who did not sign the contract to be protected by the government's navy?

The navy protects all the citizens in the country regardless, of course. The contractual services means that the government will back a contract you set with a third party, so if you contract, say, for a credit card, you pay a small fee for a government guarantee that means you can take the credit card company to court if there is a problem. THAT money is used to fund the three necessary services: military, police, courts.

No, you should respect facts: thieves take all your money without any input from you, and use it for their own purposes.

And how is this different from the government, exactly? Oh, I get to vote. Well if I don't happen to be in the majority on a given issue, that means I have no rights whatsoever? That's a direct contradiction of the founding principles of a republic, which are that ALL individuals have rights that no one--not other individuals, not the government, NO ONE can rightfully abrogate.

Certain governments take it after you've voted, so that first of all, they're only really 'taking' it from you if you didn't vote for it, and then they're spending it for some national purpose.

I didn't vote for it. Hence, by your logic, they're taking it from me without my input and using it for their own purposes!

What you're doing is conflating government redistributing wealth for the sake of justice with a government taking wealth for the purpose of providing necessary services. Maybe both are illegitimate, but, characterizing them as the same just because the impact on you may be the same goes against all reason and logic.

The services are not necessary and how in hell is taking the income that I EARNED and giving it to someone WHO DID NOT EARN IT "justice". Justice *means* granting to people what they have earned, so taking that *away* from them is precisely the opposite of justice--it is injustice of the worst kind.

What you are saying here makes no more sense than calling a fireman who tears down your home a vandal, because he's trying to prevent the spread of a fire in a house adjacent to yours to the rest of the block.

I wouldn't call him a vandal because that's not *casual* destruction of property, but the fact that you may have good intentions doesn't relieve you of responsibility for your actions. I have no access to and cannot judge your intentions, and treating people on the basis of what they intend to do rather than what they have done amounts to demanding that a just person become a mind reader. I do not care whether a thief intends to donate my money to "the poor" or buy booze. I do not care whether a murderer believes he is gaining revenge or doing God's will or bringing about the triumph of the Fourth Reich. All are guilty of the same crime.

You can't use a word that denotes both results AND motives in a way that ignores motives. Playing with the meaning of words like that to collapse distinctions, now THAT is characteristic of dictatorships! That's right out of _1984_!

The word theft does not denote a particular motive any more than the word "murder" or "running" does. Wasn't Robin Hood called the "King of Thieves"? It describes an action--taking something that is not rightly your property. Oh, you can call it booty, tribute, Danegeld, taxes, loot, The People's Share or anything else you want--it doesn't change the process by which it was acquired.

 

[JMeganSnow]

What if I want to provide those contractual services?

Private citizens cannot provide the same services that the government does because private citizens are prohibited from the use of retaliatory force--that's what the government is *for*. A private citizen cannot, therefore, guarantee contracts because they do not have the power to make arrests if someone fails to live up to their end of the contract.

What if I want to hold a lottery?

Under a proper government, no one can or will stop you. In fact, you'd probably have an advantage because you don't have a military, a court system, and a police system to fund.

What if I think people should donate to my alternate cause and not the government's cause? All of a sudden I'm in business competition with the government? How is that fair?

A charity is not a business, but it's amusing of you to try to steal business terminology to smuggle in the idea that the government asking for handouts is somehow preventing you from doing the same. You should remain free to solicit, so your rights are not compromised. If the government were to outlaw other forms of charity in an attempt to secure more revenue, that would be wrong.

 

[JMeganSnow]

They did pay for the big flashy party out of their own pockets.

That's nice to hear . . . sort of. Got a source for that?

ABC News. See my above post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.84624?page=3#1213001] with the quote and the link.

Does anyone else find it ironic that a large chunk of that money came from executives that were recipients of bailout funds?

It *is* your tax dollars at work--after they've been laundered by the gov't giving them away. Nice.