aminok

33 ms·

241.
by aminok 10y ago
The previous Prime Minister died in 1964: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Ala%27 Mossadeq became Prime Minister in 1952. So he did not become Prime Minister by assassinating the previous guy. The predecessor of
242.
by aminok 10y ago
You're most welcome.
243.
by aminok 10y ago
Democracy is how we determine what laws to pass. Universal rights are how we determine if a law is just. Just as we have a universal right to not be enslaved, we have a universal right to not have our private property and privacy violated,
244.
by aminok 10y ago
Yes, moving to the tax system as proposed would require a massive reduction in government spending. >However I don't understand how you can think tax on trade is authoritarian yet other tax forms aren't. Land, and to a lesser e
245.
by aminok 10y ago
I hope this is really skillful trolling and not an actual belief you have about how economies work.
246.
by aminok 10y ago
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter how many countries practice it. >but if most people want BI then it would be authoritarian to not give it to them in a democracy. That's not how authoritarian is defined. The majority
247.
by aminok 10y ago
Having a country where people are thrown in prison for refusing to help other people who, through no fault of the imprisoned individual's own, are in unfortunate circumstances, is a basic indication of authoritarianism. Like something
248.
by aminok 10y ago
Not all taxes demand a share of the currency we receive in private trade. A split rate property tax for example does not require making such a demand. My preference is to replace all taxes with user fees for use of government services and a
249.
by aminok 10y ago
Basic Income (aka universal welfare) is bullshit because it is authoritarian. It depends on throwing people who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are confined like captive animal
250.
by aminok 10y ago
His writings on economics, and concepts such as leftist intellectuals attempting to establish "cosmic justice" through the use of government intervention, are fantastic. It is hard for me to respect his intellect after reading som
251.
by aminok 10y ago
>Normally theft is defined in terms of the property system of the society it occurs within. As you said, let's not get hung up on semantics. It's taking property from someone that they are morally entitled to. If John gives me
252.
by aminok 10y ago
You're conflating violations of human rights, like lynching, with private discrimination, which violates no rights. You do not have a right to a product or service (like healthcare), or a job, that someone else provides. You're on
253.
by aminok 10y ago
A group is going to revolt because racists don't want to associate with them? Seems unlikely. I haven't seen evidence that private discrimination leads to revolution. History is filled with examples of laws being passed to mandate
254.
by aminok 10y ago
One is the basis of a stable social order, and one is not. Once you abandon the principle of private property and self-ownership, then human rights just become a popularity contest, about which values and attitudes are acceptable (not polyg
255.
by aminok 10y ago
>Why not treat 'right to live free of racial discrimination' as a human right? Because I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or prop
256.
by aminok 10y ago
I'm okay with threats of government violence against would-be violators of human rights, like slavers and murderers. I'm not okay with using such threats to deter private discrimination in who people interact and do business with.
257.
by aminok 10y ago
So slavery is okay as long as the government determines it is. Great moral framework you have there. It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
258.
by aminok 10y ago
The peer-to-peer economy is the path to reducing income disparity. Staying the course and fully realizing that vision in the face of political turbulence and ideological opposition from opponents of the free market, will be difficult.
259.
by aminok 10y ago
Those places have governments, just ones that, relative to the governments of advanced economies, are extremely small and barbaric. If we define a government as a party with a localized monopoly on force, even an armed robber is a governmen
260.
by aminok 10y ago
>In the scenario I'm describing, it's a certainty. Without theft, everyone starves to death because they have no property which would enable them to acquire food. If they steal from him, they survive. There is no scenario where
261.
by aminok 10y ago
The individual spent years smearing cryptocurrency, insisting it had no future, was a ponzi, etc, because he was/is ideologically opposed to its undermining of authoritarian government control. He has publicly said he thinks a "to
262.
by aminok 10y ago
As you say, let's not get hung up on semantics. Whether you want to call it violence, or violating someone's rights, intruding on someone's property is aggressive deprival of someone's rights, and justifies the use of de
263.
by aminok 10y ago
The carrying out of the threat may be rare, but the use of the threat to deprive someone of their rights is not. It is endemic. A person has a right to their property and their privacy and income tax laws violate both.
264.
by aminok 10y ago
Imprisoning someone for refusing to pay a $5 voluntary debt is morally different from imprisoning someone for refusing to pay a $5 involuntary debt. It's important to understand that all government mandates are backed, ultimately, by t
265.
by aminok 10y ago
Violating someone else's property rights is violent. One's exclusive right to their body is a type of property rights. One's right over their body is based on exactly the same principle of appropriating unclaimed natural reso
266.
by aminok 10y ago
>The normal interpretation of that phrase is that the direct punishment you get is prison. I'm arguing that this interpretation is wrong, as it ignores the violence and force that ultimately backs all government mandates. The violen
267.
by aminok 10y ago
It's a human rights violation to demand someone give up their privacy and disclose their income, and then to demand that they hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade. To even categorise refusal to disclose one&#
268.
by aminok 10y ago
Difference is that those debt obligations were voluntarily assumed, whereas tax debt is an odd form of debt that is imposed on someone without their agreement.
269.
by aminok 10y ago
>Failure to file or filing fraudulently are, of course, offenses that risk jail time. So the income tax is a grotesque violation of Human Rights and should be abolished.
270.
by aminok 10y ago
Refusal to report your private income (surrender your financial privacy) is punishable by prison. >If your poor, the IRS won't throw you in jail. However, if you have a reasonable source of income, you will be asked to pay your shar

More ›