🇳🇱
Im watching cop interaction videos and one thing i heard a few cops say now to people who refused to answer questions or give them a hard time.. they ask "Why do you hate cops so much?".... no no no buddy, these people dont hate you, they are **scared** of you, big difference. People just dont tend to like people they are scared of, but that is secondary!
@freemo Kinda scary how you consider me wrong on so many things, then you say such simple, yet useful truth. Reality is confusing, don't you agree?
@admitsWrongIfProven you are probably just noticing i am more direct about things i disagree. It isnt that i find you more wrong than anyone else might. Im just more likely to tell you.
@admitsWrongIfProven No I dont think people should work for their keep. I can think of plenty of examples (like inheretance) where they don't and I'm ok with it.
What I think is that people shouldnt be forced to let you steal from them so they dont have to work for their keep (communism for exmaple)
@freemo Wait, stealing by random luck is good? I need a new random luck generator installed.
@admitsWrongIfProven Inheretance isnt stealing, the person wanted you to have it. Taxes are stealing in the sense that you are taking money against someones will to get it to someoneone else.
That said I''m actually not against taxes, but only when it benefits the greater good (and base line welfare that keeps people froms starving does that)
@freemo You are aware that you favour the status quo over individual achievement?
@admitsWrongIfProven thats seem in-congruent. thats like saying "you know you favor this current color of carpet over women's rights".
You may be better served making your point with an example
@freemo If i am born with nothing, poor parents, i starve save for strong social services.
Why would an individual that is so lucky to be born to rich parents get more?
In the example, the child is too young to achieve anything, so inheritance is not consistent with achievement. What is your stance on achievement relevance?
@admitsWrongIfProven Why shouldnt they? They werent lucky, their parents worked hard. They also couldnt have been born to any other person, if they were they wouldnt have been them. So its not lucky since you can only be born to exactly who you are born to.
@freemo I do not understand. Why are babies born to rich parents not lucky?
How would you determine who worked hard? Hard work is no realistic indicator for success. Randomness is involved.
What are you trying to say?
@admitsWrongIfProven Luck implies there is some element of chance,there isnt. You can only be born to one specific mother, you can never be born to any other mother through an act of chance (short of a few really weird obscure edge cases).
How can something that has no random element to it be luck?
> How would you determine who worked hard? Hard work is no realistic indicator for success. Randomness is involved.
It is of course possible they themselves didnt work hard for it, it very well may be someone else who worked hard who gave it to them somehow... who knows. Point is it wasnt random.
@freemo So you are saying what happens happens. No benefit in thinking about it. I am born to this mother, and father, and that is it.
Following that train of thought, i think this would have solved our problems, humanity-wide, long ago.
If i am born to little chances at success, why do anything. Why struggle, when life is like it is?
I do agree, if life is shitty, it would be better not to try. Just stay in bed, or the mud hole i was born in. Let it go.
Complete agree. No energy to invest, let it go!
> So you are saying what happens happens. No benefit in thinking about it. I am born to this mother, and father, and that is it.
Not saying that at all. By all means thing about what happens. Obviously you cant change (nor was there any random element of chance) determining who you were born to. But you can certainly think and talk about it and what that means.
> If i am born to little chances at success,
You mean like me? I was born to abject poverty and grew up in it my whole life on welfare.
> why do anything. Why struggle, when life is like it is?
Born to little chances.. have to understnad what that means.. it means the average person will have little chance. It does not mean you have little chance. The chance you have to survive will be determined far more by the choices you make, than the choices thrust on you.
Despite growing up with "little chances" it was quite trivial for me to become successful as early as the age of 15.
I've lived this and already proven its not just possible, its easy.
@freemo >Despite growing up with “little chances” it was quite trivial for me to become successful as early as the age of 15.
I’ve lived this and already proven its not just possible, its easy.
So what are you trying to say here? Because you made it despite the odds, others have to make it, too?
Aside those that inherit, it seems.
You tout that inheritance was ok, but you give absolutely no explanation on why.
Born to that mother, nothing to do. Oh, the random mother was a rich one, good. that is great. But if people born to poor mothers are salty, they have no right.
Why?
> So what are you trying to say here? Because you made it despite the odds, others have to make it, too?
There you go making things random that arent random... What random generator are you talking about and when is the randomness injected into the system? It sounds like you are using "random" as an incorrect fillin for "complex". This are complex, but far from random.
What i am trying to say is that an individual success is largely determined by them and their actions. I am saying the reason it was so easy to me had no elements of randomness to it, it was the result of my choices. Other people should make the right choices, and we should help them do it. Telling them their spot in life is due to random choices and rhetoric about "why should they even try" is not helping them, it is why they are in the situation they are in in many cases.
> Aside those that inherit, it seems.
Nah people who inheret arent the exception. If they have the same mentality as the people who stay in poverty they will loose their inheritance in no time and be in poverty.
> You tout that inheritance was ok, but you give absolutely no explanation on why.
Something being OK is the default. I dont need to prove why its ok that the sun rises at a certain time or why a leaf happaned to be in the middle of the rode... I have no need to explain why its ok because its ok simply because you have put forward no argument as to why it shouldnt be ok
> Born to that mother, nothing to do. Oh, the random mother was a rich one, good. that is great. But if people born to poor mothers are salty, they have no right.
Why do you keep saying words like "random" even after that has been debunked. You know saying the same thing that is shown to be false over and over wont make it true. Ir will weaken your argument though.
> Why?
Your statement used previously debunked falsehoods like "random". I cant answer a question about a statement if the statement uses nonsensical words in the context.
@freemo >What i am trying to say is that an individual success is largely determined by them and their actions
I see no proof of that, not even a hint.
> Nah people who inheret arent the exception
So some, but not all? I wonder if you want all humans to live well or just some.
Sleepytime now. Confused on how you mean to argue inheritance, i have not seen one reason why people that get one should, but others not. Sleep well.
> I see no proof of that, not even a hint.
This is a discussion of opinions, and our reasoning. This is not a formal scientific publication. I explained my opinions and reasoning.
As for the hint, yes that you got. Specifically I gave an example, that would qualify as "more than a hint". I could provide more examples to backup what i said as needed.
> So some, but not all? I wonder if you want all humans to live well or just some.
Yes only some rich people who inhereit, the ones who have the same mentality as your average poor person, will loose all their money. On the flip side only some of poor people will also be able to become rich on their own, and those are the people who have the same sort of mentality as the people in inherit their money and manage to keep it or grow it.
> Sleepytime now. Confused on how you mean to argue inheritance, i have not seen one reason why people that get one should, but others not. Sleep well.
Thats easy... they should get it because someone wanted to give something to them, and it was their propery.
@freemo Well, yes, it is not a formal scientific thing. Seems it would be necessary to go deeper to capture the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo (as inheritance exists to a very large degree). I'll let you know when i have further thoughts.
@admitsWrongIfProven I certainly dont doubt that inheritance exists... but you seem to have this idea that the natural laws of the world should either be fair, or government should make them fair... I disagree, and thus why all of your arguments, usually rooted in that concept, also wont land with me.
@admitsWrongIfProven or to be more specific equal, as in, you seem to abhor any random aspect of success. An idea that effort, regardless of how poorly it is applied, should result in equal success regardless.
@freemo Oh i don't simply trust any existing gouvernment to do this well. It would be counterfactual to do so, since social services that exist are plagued by many problems.
I do acknowledge that i wish for things that contain unsolved problems, going where i would like would require work.
You did once use the word "communism", which makes me think you might associate things i say with aspects of a known past dictatorship - i do not want those. Rather, i am in favour of the idea of working together, which was not a feature there - it was top-down, the opposite of what i want.
A machinist can be an incredibly hard worker, one of the best of the trade, and make a decent living. One could say he is "rich", but lose it all in the blink of an eye due to circumstances beyond his control, and he still has to make choices between finances and wellness from time to time.
But the REALLY rich, have put no effort into the money they have made, or not enough - in many cases there is no possible actions they could have ever taken to have earned the money they make!
The only way to accumulate such wealth is through exploitation, big and small, through lies and deceit and treachery.
Does that count as having earned their wealth?
Jeff Bezos could have literally cured Death itself, and I don't think that would warrant the amount of money that he makes, not even a tenth
@admitsWrongIfProven what do you think of this argument?
I think there is some truth to it. True by hyperbolic and lacking some nuance, but true enough to be a discussion point.
Civil laws for example, no matter how much you refuse to follow such laws, will ever wind you up in jail or (Assuming you dont have a corrupt cop) a death threat. The only way we could make this assertion is if we consider loosing all your money the same as a death sentance, which also has some truth to it, but is a stretch.
But for criminal laws, yea, at the end you either need to coorperate with the law or the consequences of breaking the law, or escalate the matter to the point of violence or jail time, and if you resist jail time by executing "self-defense" when they try to take you then you will likely end up dead.
So while I do get the point and admit to the principle having elements of truth, to say such a think is highly hyperbolic and lacking a complete picture.
Also,
>Civil laws for example, no matter how much you refuse to follow such laws, will ever wind you up in jail or (Assuming you don't have a corrupt cop) a death threat.
What if you refuse to give them your money?
> Welfare is funded by taxes. Is not paying tax a civil offense or criminal in the US or Netherlands (your countries of residence) or Germany (admitsWrong's)?
No, simply not paying taxes is a civil offense, not a criminal one. They will come and take your money, but no risk of jailtime in and of itself.
Now it **can** be criminal but only indirectly. Like **lying** on your tax returns can absolutely be criminal. But simply not filing them at all, and therefore not paying taxes is not.
> What if you refuse to give them your money?
Then they will just take it by either directly taking it from your bank or by calling your employer and directly taking it from your paycheck before you get it.
If you have no bank account, or pay check they may take your property in a lawsuit such as putting a lein on your home. But it wouldnt be criminal to simply not pay. Civil cases dont become criminal when you dont pay. However if a judge makes a very explicit injunction in a civil case that you arent allowed to do something, and you do it anyway, then it can cost you much much more. If you misbehave in court you can get jailtime for contempt too, but again thats a bit of a stretch.
I guess for those countries, I was wrong.
I only know the USA for sure. I can say this it was a fundemental thing for the USA when it was founded. In the England at the time the UK seperated debtor prisons were common, and as yous ay not paying taxes could get you in prison, as could not paying other debts.
In the USA we established early on debtors prison was a human rights violation, so you can never be jailed in the USA for not paying something you owe, even taxes. That said I am not sure if the UK still employees the older unjust laws of a debtors prison or if they have gotten some common sense and improved their approach.
@freemo @Hyolobrika Well that answers the jailtime question. I guess it just goes to homelessness as an implicit punishment if you cannot pay, as then you cannot pay rent (fot those that do not own their house).
I am not sure, but they probably can take you to the bring of homelessness but would have to leave you with enough pay in your paycheck for your most basic needs.
This article is talking about it as though it's historical. And I've never heard of that happening to anyone. Interesting that the Netherlands still has it though.
Yea I would hope debtors prison would be a thing of the past... i really dont know much about it outside of the scope of the USA.. ive paid taxes and worked in most major countries. But im not one to skip on my taxes :)
@Hyolobrika @freemo I know of an example from germany where such happens.
Using public transportation without paying has brought people to jail, at least repeat offenders that cannot pay the fines. This is obviously inefficient (jail is expensive) and was thus widely detested, but exceptions are dependent on the individual transport services to not prosecute.
@freemo @Hyolobrika After all, it is not only a matter of efficiency (ticket sales are an effort), but also an environmental action that would work mostly with incentivization. I guess nobody but car manufacturers would disagree here.
My general metrix for "what should we make tax paid (free)" is anything that will benefit all of society more than it costs us.
The benefit of people moving to public transit alone, and the benefits to our health, I think that alone makes the argument well enough. Add to that the reduction in drunk drivers, the fact that homeless and poor people will have transport accessiblity for interviews and anything else they need... it just makes sense as a ROI on every level. Even the people who wont directly use it benefit by having a cleaner environment and fewer poor people or people on welfare.
@freemo @Hyolobrika Completely agree. Same with education - i may not have children, but i don't want to live among idiots.
Yup. I am this weird mix of generally fisically conservative (not republican conservative but in the sense of being stingy)... I really want to see the overwhelming majority of govt programs abolished or at least significantly reduced
Yet at the same time I see things like education, public transit, and even pregnancy tests and abortions (as long as abortions are illegal after the first 2 months) as all free and tax paid. Which is very much out of line with most people who are fisically conservative.
@freemo @Hyolobrika Well, the abortion stuff touches upon a thing that i am uncomfortable with with your stance.
After all, the more unemployed people there are, the bigger the pressure to take unfair jobs.
You are free of this suspicion, only your stance of "if someone takes a job, then the offer was ok" is posing the problem i am talking about.
I cannot think of a motive to force people to carry unwanted babies to term except shoring up the numbers of people in poverty, so that they compete for jobs. Can you?
So to clarify: i do not think you want many people in poverty, i merely point out that the stance you have is subceptible to this problem introduced by others.
> Well, the abortion stuff touches upon a thing that i am uncomfortable with with your stance.
As with most of my views it considers the concerns from both sides of the issue, tries to integrate the legitimate ones (according to me) and find a solution that address all the legitimate concerns from both sides. I feel my solution successfully does this, so naturally, it pisses off everyone on both sides of the aisle.
> After all, the more unemployed people there are, the bigger the pressure to take unfair jobs.
No you have it backwards. The more unemployed people there are, the less you have to pay a person and still be fair. Afterall if the population is largely unhiarable due to no one bothering to get marketable skills, then that means most people's labour has very little value and therefore it is fair to pay them a less-than-living wage.
It is the governments responsibility to ensure the proper welfare programs are in place to support the unmarketable laborers, particularly if they bother to issue a minimum wage that is responsible for so many unskilled laborers to be unhirable. And also the governments responsibility to offer the right frameworks to ensure people have the oppertunity to gains kills and rise above the line of marketability.
It is not a companies responsibility to pay anyone a penny more than their natural market value.
> You are free of this suspicion, only your stance of "if someone takes a job, then the offer was ok" is posing the problem i am talking about.
It was perfectly ok... but there are many possible places to fix the problem, not the least of which could be that the person accepting the job refused to make the right decisions (took a bad offer, he could have maybe gotten a better one if he shopped around). So yes it is always fair but only so far as that it is fair to the choices both parties made, if people had acted more skillfully then there may have been a better outcome
Larken Rose says that he was taken to jail for not filing tax returns, and had he morally defended himself, they would escalated until dead.
Why would lying make something go from civil to criminal matter? Politicians lie all the time. Police lie all the time. AFAIK, unless under oath, lying isn't a crime.
@Hyolobrika @freemo Not paying taxes in germany is more complicated.
Most taxes are deducted automatically. Stores collect added value tax, income taxes are deducted from wages. You can get some back, so you could cheat by declaring fraudulent returns, but if you do nothing, the tax is payed.
It would be more relevant on a company level, employing someone without declaring - but at that point, we're at state vs. company, not state vs. individual.
> Not paying taxes in germany is more complicated.
>
> Most taxes are deducted automatically. Stores collect added value tax, income taxes are deducted from wages. You can get some back, so you could cheat by declaring fraudulent returns, but if you do nothing, the tax is payed.
In this regard the USA and germany are the same, income and sales tax and everything else happens at the point you receive it. So your ability to simply not pay taxes is fairly limited. There are a few ways you can do it (these will result in lawsuits fromt he IRS but jailtime only in situations where you outright lie or something illegal).
So one way is if your full time if you list more deductions than you actually will have, then dont pay the difference at the end of year on income.
The other way is to work as a contractor, in whcih case you pay taxes at the end of the year and not when you are paid.
@freemo @Hyolobrika Oh, i was under the assumption that you had to declare your taxes and would be punished (financially or with jail if you cannot pay) if you did not declare anything.
So that is wrong, you can just not do anything and the default tax is payed/deducted in the US?
> Oh, i was under the assumption that you had to declare your taxes and would be punished (financially or with jail if you cannot pay) if you did not declare anything.
This is mostly correct except you have to remove the "or with jail" part, remove that and its correct.
> So that is wrong, you can just not do anything and the default tax is payed/deducted in the US?
If you do nothing then the IRS will call you in for an audit and demand you pay and give you a chance to argue the amount owed. There will be a very hefty penalty of interest for back taxes owed you didnt file (As they dont tend to come after you until youve done it for a few years). If you refuse to cooperate the IRS will do their best to estimate the value for you and just forcable deduct from your account. But it wont be a fair amount it willb e a HUGE amount over what you would have paid if you did it the right way. Both that they overestimate by a huge margin, and because there are huge financial penalties.
You are only safe from jail time, not from financial penalties.
@freemo @Hyolobrika Hmm, so the german tax system is more convenient.
I would not have thought i would ever write this sentence. You may have the plus of no jail time, but you do have consequences for inaction we do not have.
In practice if you dont pay your taxes you will probably wind up paying thema t something like 5x what you owed.
@freemo @Hyolobrika In germany you just pay a bit more than what you owe, but the usual deductions for office workers are negligable. Would be way different if you have huge expenses, but those are a minority, like self employed people that work with machinery and materials, not information.
The IRS used to have a policy where they only pursued large debts (when taxes owed were above 500K). From what people have told me they now persue people at all levels of income.
@freemo @Hyolobrika Heh, tax collection priorities would be a prime example of a gauge for the gouvernments goals congruence with peoples needs.
If lots of small debts are pursued, the expected return would be small - even if the sum is great, it is a lot of effort, negating this.
@Hyolobrika @freemo I agree, but i think it is very narrowly framed.
Basically, to be a society (get the benefits of working together), we need some kind of agreement.
Now this is a big thing, it can enable society member to survive what loners could not, like broken bones or a famine.
As agreements get older, it is possible to loose some of the initial purpose of helping each other. There can be power not flowing from the agreement but from gatekeeping - as is today, getting into politics at a country level is way easier if one belongs to certain groups.
So the base notion that there is a threat of violence is correct, but the consequences are variable depending upon congruence of the actual goals of policy makers and enforcers with the goals of the people.
So an agreement of people is good in principle, but a specific gouvernments adherance to that can decline until it is no longer a positive influence. Notably, dictatorships under dictators that only wish for their own personal good would be at that point.
So i would say yes, but there is more to it. Keeping laws as lean as possible while still reaching the (assumed to be good) goal is a good idea. Making as little laws as possible, not regulating things that have no impact on well-being of the people, also good.
But that assumption of a good goal here is not fulfilling itself. Also, missing a necessary goal would also be detrimental.
My question is: are you willing to threaten people with death for a social safety net?
>So the base notion that there is a threat of violence is correct, but the consequences are variable depending upon congruence of the actual goals of policy makers and enforcers with the goals of the people.
If the goals of the people and the goals of policy makers are aligned, then why is violence necessary?
As established, simply not paying taxes will never equate to a death of threat. Not paying will never get you jail time or any criminal threats. You will be sued by the IRS, loose, and have your money taken virtually without a single threat being made.
Not saying if this is right or wrong, but trying to equate taxes with a death threat isnt accurate (even though associating criminal laws with death threats has some validity)
@freemo That is a good point, another one for the wonder i have.
I generally see you as someone who wants to be kind, but i also see the "people should work for their keep", which i cannot reconcile with the rest.
After all, i am convinced people generally want to be useful. So pushing is not the direction that would help.
Some disconnect exists, and i cannot put my finger on what it is.