🇳🇱
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.
@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.
@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)
@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.
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.
@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
@freemo @Hyolobrika I don't think my meaning came through.
The most important part here is that infringing on peoples reproductive freedom is the core problem.
I merely meant to add to that that a natural market value determined by decisions of few people makes this the problem of the poor majority.
Improved social services would negate this, making the strategy i strongly suspect the perpetrators have impossible.
So while i see that you have your stance and stick to it, which is fine, i wanted to point out that such an infringement on reproductive freedom (perpetrated by others, not us) will have more dire consequences with that stance. You can fight infringements on reproductive freedom directly, or by making them ineffective for the purpose they have.
> The most important part here is that infringing on peoples reproductive freedom is the core problem.
A very valid concern. If thise wasnt a valid concern then I would have just sided withthe bodily autonomy and right to life of the child and said abortions should be banned outright. but since there is a conflicting right of the mother at play any solution could not completely outlaw abortion. But by the same logic since the bodily autonomy and right to life of the child is also a consideration I cant in good conscious also allow abortion to be unrestricted.
My solution minimizes the overall infringement on both parties by 1) ensuring women always know about their pregnancy early with plenty of time to decide and 2) have an adequate window of 2 months to execute on their decision and 3) since both abortions and pregnancy tests are free there is no excuse for delaying
> I merely meant to add to that that a natural market value determined by decisions of few people makes this the problem of the poor majority.
Societies are big, the decisions arent on a "few people" especially when everyone int he very complex network of society who makes decisions themselves are under pressures from the consequences of those decisions. Which means their choices are not at their own whim, since people generally look after their best interest and thus decisions are made by the forces present in society that shape that self interest.
> Improved social services would negate this, making the strategy i strongly suspect the perpetrators have impossible.
providing the right sorts of social services would fix most problems... too few or the wrong kind causes problems, and too much also causes problems. But yes the right sort of social services is critical.
