4 ms·

> It kinda is voluntary. If you don't like it, you can leave the country which wants you to pay. Voluntary would be staying where you are and still not being f

> It kinda is voluntary. If you don't like it, you can leave the country which wants you to pay. Voluntary would be staying where you are and still not being forced to pay. When a mugger presents their victim with a choice like "your money or your life" they're not paying voluntarily just because there was another option. You don't have the right to evict people from their homes any more than you have the right to take their money. > It sounds to me like some anti-social behaviour pattern. The attempt to normalize theft is the only "anti-social behaviour pattern" here.

Krasnol 4y ago
The funny thing here is that your obviously anti-social behaviour only works in a society where being anti-social has been normalized. You'd be dead in a social society because as a lone, greedy individual, you're weaker than a group where the strong care for the weak. But even you must be aware that your model is coming to an end. The anti-social aspects of it have become a topic. Something which hasn't been the case in the past decades because the downsides of this model became so obvious. You are part of a finally dying thought system and the parts you didn't answer to speak for themselves.
- nybble41 4y ago
  You're either trolling or completely clueless. I suspect the former is more likely but I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt. > You'd be dead in a social society because as a lone, greedy individual … You're obviously reading way more into my comment than I actually wrote, which says more about you than me. I am 100% in support of groups working together voluntarily and looking out for each other. The system you advocated for is not that, and opposing it does not make one "lone" or "greedy". > … you're weaker than a group where the strong care for the weak. Imposing a "choice" of compulsory payments or eviction is not the strong caring for the weak, but rather the strong preying upon the weak. > … the parts you didn't answer to speak for themselves. I didn't address the rest of your prior comment because it wasn't worth a response. But since you insist: > Don't you pay for taxes or Government services too? This is how a civilized society works. Civilized society persists despite taxes, not because of them. Theft is not civilized, and treating it as legitimate is corrosive to any civilized society. > What do you expect people to do which can't afford to pay their health bills because they've been unlucky or something like that? Are they supposed to just die? Obviously they aren't supposed to just die. That question was not asked in good faith. Taking other people's stuff isn't the answer either; the products of their labor are not for you to spend. People are expected work to provide for themselves and to plan ahead for the future, setting aside a portion of the surplus during good times to sustain them through the bad times. Working together with others makes this much easier but it is first and foremost an individual responsibility. For the truly unlucky cases there is plenty of honest, actually-voluntary charity to go around.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    > You're either trolling or completely clueless. I suspect the former is more likely but I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Wrote the person who just repeated some random Ayn Rand bull. Seriously? You are accusing me of trolling? With that material? :D > I am 100% in support of groups working together voluntarily and looking out for each other. The system you advocated for is not that, and opposing it does not make one "lone" or "greedy". I wonder if you are really so naive or if you got so used to repeating that as an excuse. If we'd live in a society where voluntary donations would suffice, we'd not need laws or regulations. > Imposing a "choice" of compulsory payments or eviction is not the strong caring for the weak, but rather the strong preying upon the weak. You must be from the US where there are two parties and you can buy into a political position form the national to county level. In other parts of the world, there is still democracy and yes, none of those are perfect but if you consider any serious statistics on where people are most happy, it's those (really) democratic countries with a wide ranging social system [0]. So please...spare me that Atlas Shrugged Fan Fiction... > Civilized society persists despite taxes, not because of them. Theft is not civilized, and treating it as legitimate is corrosive to any civilized society. Oh so taxes are theft now? And you accuse me of unworthy comments? This is hilarious. > Obviously they aren't supposed to just die. That question was not asked in good faith. Nothing...seriously not a single sentence you've issued here is something someone with a healthy moral compass would consider "in good faith". Your answer here is literally: they should have a go fund me to save their lifes...I mean...lol...I don't even know how to answer to so much crap. I really hope I'm talking to a child because I have worked in some really terrible Fortue companies and I haven't met anyone who'd fall so deep down the "Wolf of Wallstreet"-LARP. Edit: ok, I've had to look you up and it wasn't that hard because you 'muricans have no sense of data protection (or any laws for that) and hell, where do you even get those ideas from? You are some random tech guy and an aerospace company with a career which didn't even touch areas where this kind of talk would be something to come close to. Who the hell do you think you are? Some random financial crisis would throw you onto the street. Who do you think will make a go fund me for you? Your colleagues? You probably even vote for the red party...I don't even... [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/03/18/ranked-the-20-happiest-countries-in-the-world-in-2022/?sh=44a1678a35d5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/03/18/ran...

Krasnol 4y ago

The funny thing here is that your obviously anti-social behaviour only works in a society where being anti-social has been normalized. You'd be dead in a social society because as a lone, greedy individual, you're weaker than a group where the strong care for the weak. But even you must be aware that your model is coming to an end. The anti-social aspects of it have become a topic. Something which hasn't been the case in the past decades because the downsides of this model became so obvious. You are part of a finally dying thought system and the parts you didn't answer to speak for themselves.

nybble41 4y ago
You're either trolling or completely clueless. I suspect the former is more likely but I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt. > You'd be dead in a social society because as a lone, greedy individual … You're obviously reading way more into my comment than I actually wrote, which says more about you than me. I am 100% in support of groups working together voluntarily and looking out for each other. The system you advocated for is not that, and opposing it does not make one "lone" or "greedy". > … you're weaker than a group where the strong care for the weak. Imposing a "choice" of compulsory payments or eviction is not the strong caring for the weak, but rather the strong preying upon the weak. > … the parts you didn't answer to speak for themselves. I didn't address the rest of your prior comment because it wasn't worth a response. But since you insist: > Don't you pay for taxes or Government services too? This is how a civilized society works. Civilized society persists despite taxes, not because of them. Theft is not civilized, and treating it as legitimate is corrosive to any civilized society. > What do you expect people to do which can't afford to pay their health bills because they've been unlucky or something like that? Are they supposed to just die? Obviously they aren't supposed to just die. That question was not asked in good faith. Taking other people's stuff isn't the answer either; the products of their labor are not for you to spend. People are expected work to provide for themselves and to plan ahead for the future, setting aside a portion of the surplus during good times to sustain them through the bad times. Working together with others makes this much easier but it is first and foremost an individual responsibility. For the truly unlucky cases there is plenty of honest, actually-voluntary charity to go around.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  > You're either trolling or completely clueless. I suspect the former is more likely but I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Wrote the person who just repeated some random Ayn Rand bull. Seriously? You are accusing me of trolling? With that material? :D > I am 100% in support of groups working together voluntarily and looking out for each other. The system you advocated for is not that, and opposing it does not make one "lone" or "greedy". I wonder if you are really so naive or if you got so used to repeating that as an excuse. If we'd live in a society where voluntary donations would suffice, we'd not need laws or regulations. > Imposing a "choice" of compulsory payments or eviction is not the strong caring for the weak, but rather the strong preying upon the weak. You must be from the US where there are two parties and you can buy into a political position form the national to county level. In other parts of the world, there is still democracy and yes, none of those are perfect but if you consider any serious statistics on where people are most happy, it's those (really) democratic countries with a wide ranging social system [0]. So please...spare me that Atlas Shrugged Fan Fiction... > Civilized society persists despite taxes, not because of them. Theft is not civilized, and treating it as legitimate is corrosive to any civilized society. Oh so taxes are theft now? And you accuse me of unworthy comments? This is hilarious. > Obviously they aren't supposed to just die. That question was not asked in good faith. Nothing...seriously not a single sentence you've issued here is something someone with a healthy moral compass would consider "in good faith". Your answer here is literally: they should have a go fund me to save their lifes...I mean...lol...I don't even know how to answer to so much crap. I really hope I'm talking to a child because I have worked in some really terrible Fortue companies and I haven't met anyone who'd fall so deep down the "Wolf of Wallstreet"-LARP. Edit: ok, I've had to look you up and it wasn't that hard because you 'muricans have no sense of data protection (or any laws for that) and hell, where do you even get those ideas from? You are some random tech guy and an aerospace company with a career which didn't even touch areas where this kind of talk would be something to come close to. Who the hell do you think you are? Some random financial crisis would throw you onto the street. Who do you think will make a go fund me for you? Your colleagues? You probably even vote for the red party...I don't even... [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/03/18/ranked-the-20-happiest-countries-in-the-world-in-2022/?sh=44a1678a35d5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/03/18/ran...