Paying taxes -- Patriotic duty or extortion?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Neither you nor Albright nor the U.N. nor anybody or anything else has been able even to offer much of an explanation as to just how those supposed deaths were caused, by whom and how they were recorded to come up with any totals. Until anything approaching credible reportage is seen, this alleged calamity will have to continue to be regarded as extremely questionable in many aspects.

Don't bother, this is just anti-government cherry-picking for effect. But two can play that game:

In the first decade and a half of the 21th century, tobacco companies and their products have caused over 75,000,000 deaths worldwide. Global deaths over the same time period due to government-related conflict are less than 10% of that (probably less than 5%). The current statistical trend indicates that in the 21st century, over 1,000,000,000 (one billion) people will die due to tobacco-related causes, including over 50,000,000 non-smokers. Yet to our anarchist friends, that's a shining example of free-market capitalism, consequences be damned. Who's immoral now?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Neither you nor Albright nor the U.N. nor anybody or anything else has been able even to offer much of an explanation as to just how those supposed deaths were caused, by whom and how they were recorded to come up with any totals. Until anything approaching credible reportage is seen, this alleged calamity will have to continue to be regarded as extremely questionable in many aspects.

Dude your mind cannot possibly be as feeble as you pretend. I can't walk you through this any more directly than I have.

Quote: MathExtremist

Don't bother, this is just anti-government cherry-picking for effect. But two can play that game:

In the first decade and a half of the 21th century, tobacco companies and their products have caused over 75,000,000 deaths worldwide. Global deaths over the same time period due to government-related conflict are less than 10% of that (probably less than 5%). The current statistical trend indicates that in the 21st century, over 1,000,000,000 (one billion) people will die due to tobacco-related causes, including over 50,000,000 non-smokers. Yet to our anarchist friends, that's a shining example of free-market capitalism, consequences be damned. Who's immoral now?

Anti-Government cherry picking for effect? Governments are responsible for about 100,0000,000 dead people in the 20th century alone, and for the love of god the holocaust was a government program. I am by no means cherry picking by pointing out that the consequences of the Iraqi sanctions.

Tobacco is terrible. I've written a hell of a lot of words here, I maintain that you are intellectually dishonest as you will not attack what I have directly laid out, you instead set up bizzare straw men that parody my position. Instead of making up lies and attributing them to me why don't you just keep enjoying your cognitive dissonance when I point out how may people your friends in Washington DC kill.

I guess any number of dead foreigners is fine because that is the price of having a violent expropriator whose critical role in the world is....wait for it.....making sure that the shoe market remains competitive!

[q

If I had the option of opting out of government, taking no benefits and paying no taxes, I would gladly take it

This whole conversation is too wordy for me, more better for bigger minds, but;
I think you have the option, and you haven't taken it, though you said you would. Do you think you don't have the option? Or do you think the discussion here is more important than you taking the option? Or the option isn't even available if you read the fine print? Or all of the above, or none of the above? Why are you still here? You want me, or others to come with you? You should go, set it up, and then invite the rest of us? Except that wouldn't work, by definition, cause you couldn't reach out to us, again by definition.

Close the thread, move to 'elsewhere', DT maybe.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Close the thread, move to 'elsewhere', DT maybe.

What a crappy idea. Take it over to the place where threads go to die....

I know...I know...it is a little bit out of the ordinary, but a few threads about stuff like this make the board more interesting, even if they are technically off-topic and marginal for even being here.

IMO, anyway...

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

This whole conversation is too wordy for me, more better for bigger minds, but;
I think you have the option, and you haven't taken it, though you said you would. Do you think you don't have the option? Or do you think the discussion here is more important than you taking the option? Or the option isn't even available if you read the fine print? Or all of the above, or none of the above? Why are you still here? You want me, or others to come with you? You should go, set it up, and then invite the rest of us? Except that wouldn't work, by definition, cause you couldn't reach out to us, again by definition.

Close the thread, move to 'elsewhere', DT maybe.

You can't do that, current governments simply will not allow it.
check out liberland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

Quote: bigfoot66

Anti-Government cherry picking for effect? Governments are responsible for about 100,0000,000 dead people in the 20th century alone, and for the love of god the holocaust was a government program. I am by no means cherry picking by pointing out that the consequences of the Iraqi sanctions.

If that's 100M rather than 1B, you're right -- and the death toll due to private/corporate action was greater. Don't try to use numbers to justify your view that the government is immoral because the only conclusion is that everyone is immoral. And then nobody is.

Quote:

Tobacco is terrible. I've written a hell of a lot of words here, I maintain that you are intellectually dishonest as you will not attack what I have directly laid out, you instead set up bizzare straw men that parody my position. Instead of making up lies and attributing them to me why don't you just keep enjoying your cognitive dissonance when I point out how may people your friends in Washington DC kill.

Levying the charge of intellectual dishonesty is hilarious from someone who won't even form his own opinions on a topic. Let's not pretend that you're even remotely attempting to have a reasonable debate at this juncture -- you're just linking to your favorite philosophers' websites and saying "I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, go read what someone else wrote." If you don't want to put in the time to form your own opinions and think through the topic with the grey matter between your ears, that's your choice. You can be an unthinking congregant in the church of anarchy, it's no skin off my nose.

But don't you dare do that and, at the same time, attempt to excoriate those who have actually thought through these things and have arrived at a different conclusion. I've rebutted nearly all of your unworkable proposals and/or illusory foundations and you haven't once proffered a legitimate rejoinder. You think it's extortion because you have to pay taxes to fund the society that, over generations, gave rise to your cushy standard of living? That's not extortion, it's part of the social contract that spans those generations, and that contract is legitimately enforced when breached (as is every other contract). If you want to opt out of that contract, you may: go live in Western Sahara where there's no government and you don't owe anything to anyone. But every day you stay in the territory governed by the United States, choosing to accept the benefits of this country's history, that further erodes whatever standing you may have had. Talk about cognitive dissonance! What does it say about your own morality if this government is evil and immoral yet you support it by contributing both to the GDP and tax base? What does it say about your own morality if, though you have the opportunity to leave this den of iniquity, you choose to stay?

There is no such thing as a social contract in this context.

You have not responded directly my proposals, you argue against straw men, and you also refuse to defend anything specific: this is why you are intellectually dishonest. The one topic we actually mixed it up on (where you claimed that a predatory corporation could hurt consumers by lowering their prices) you conceded that you were wrong and then you decided that you could not deal with academic arguments any longer.

Furthermore it is extremely uncharitable and frankly rude of you to claim that I have not thought this through. It should be clear from my writing that I have indeed thought this through, you are the one who stated very early in the conversation that you had not thought about these things in a long time.

Since you have thought it through so much go ahead and lay your cards on the table. What flavor of statist are you dude?

Quote: bigfoot66

There is no such thing as a social contract in this context.

Denied. You're living in the United States, not some made-up thought experiment. Why should you not have to pay taxes to the government when you have accepted the social contract by living here? This question has been asked of you at least three times in this discussion. Your refusal to answer is telling.

Quote:

You have not responded directly my proposals,

What proposals? You haven't made any, you've just said "the market will take care of everything as soon as governments are gone." I directly refuted that with, you know, the history of human society. When left to their own devices, free peoples have almost always created governments (and the exceptions are things like tribes in Africa numbering fewer than 100 people). You have no response to this historical fact. Point me to a stable libertarian society anywhere on the planet at any point in history.

Quote:

Furthermore it is extremely uncharitable and frankly rude of you to claim that I have not thought this through. It should be clear from my writing...

You mean the writing where you referred me to someone else's writing? Nice try, but no dice. You've called me intellectually dishonest a few times and now you're also calling me rude. Insulting me won't buttress your position. It just demonstrates that you can't actually support your position with reasoning so you're resorting to ad hominem insults. That means you lose.

Quote:

Since you have thought it through so much go ahead and lay your cards on the table. What flavor of statist are you dude?

I don't need to label things in order to understand them. But I'm not proffering a position other than "what you're suggesting isn't workable" and "I don't have a moral problem with consent of the governed."

You've presented a position -- that taxation is extortion/theft -- and you've utterly failed to support that position with anything other than lunatic rantings about men with guns, war statistics, and how every statist is an evil, immoral murderer. That's not at all convincing.

Show me this social contract you speak of. I dont recall ever signing one.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Show me this social contract you speak of. I dont recall ever signing one.

It's that 9 digit prison number you're given after you're born.

Do you think it's statism that keeps these people under these conditions? What are the odds this is an unregulated mine, no minimum wage, no required safety regulations, no inspectors. No state involvement at all.

Quote:

IJEN, Indonesia – Stunning Mount Ijen in eastern Java draws tourists by day and hundreds of sulfur miners by night. They endure toxic fumes and backbreaking loads to earn pennies hauling out a substance used to bleach sugar and vulcanize rubber.

Just after midnight, wearing headlamps to find their way through the darkness and volcanic smoke, the miners descend into the crater with shovels and crowbars, often without protective masks.

They break up the mustard-yellow slabs of sulfur that are formed by planting pipes into the crater, forcing sulfuric gases to condense and then solidify.

Bearing loads of up 70 kilograms (154 pounds), the men make an agonizing climb out of the crater and then a 3-kilometer (2-mile) journey down the mountain.

They face deformities and shortened life spans working in a job that in other countries is mechanized because of the high dangers. Lethal gas explosions are an ever-present risk.

"This is very hard work," said 42-year-old miner Suratna, who like many Indonesians uses only one name. "I barely make enough money to buy food for my family and for my children's education, but I still thank God for giving me something".

The miners earn 1,000 rupiah (7 cents) for each kilogram, or about $10 a day if they make two trips up and down the smoldering 2,799-meter (9,183-foot) volcano.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/04/indonesian-sulfur-miners-brave-volcano-fumes-earn-pennies.html

Quote: rudeboyoi

Show me this social contract you speak of. I dont recall ever signing one.

so·cial con·tract
noun
an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.


I don't remember who wrote it recently, but something along the lines of "a contract does not have to be written/signed". [not verbatim] ie: You walk into a restaurant, order and are served food, eat the food -- the (implicit?) contract says you gotta pay for food & services, not "well I never signed nothing, so...."

Quote: rudeboyoi

Show me this social contract you speak of. I dont recall ever signing one.

I love that old libertarian saw. It's so simple yet so wrong.

When you were born, your parents exercised their lawful guardianship over you to grant to you the rights, privileges, and obligations of a citizen of the United States. Blame them for signing you up. You've been a part of this country, benefiting from this country's rights and privileges, for your entire life. You may not fully comprehend the degree to which your lifestyle is interconnected with your fellow citizens, but that ignorance is no excuse for the mistaken belief that you're a fully-realized, entirely independent person capable of living adjacent to but independent of society.

And as an adult, you rely on the government's services all the time. Again, you don't realize it but that ignorance is no excuse. Open up your wallet and look at your money. See what it says on the top? That's the reason you can expect to pay about the same amount of money for a cheeseburger tomorrow as you did last week. Other countries haven't been as good at providing stable currency. Remember the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe? Guess whose currency they're using now.

And you don't recall signing anything? Your signature is on the back of your drivers' license, your credit card, the deed to your house, and the depository agreement with your bank. The US government (and local governments) have had a hand in providing a stable framework for all those transactions to occur. And as RS just pointed out, you don't need a signature to have a valid contract -- offer, acceptance, and consideration are sufficient. The restaurant example is a good one, but a more pertinent one is your utility bill. When you turn on the tap, what comes out? Unless you're in Flint, it's clean water. You never signed anything, but you agree to pay your municipal water provider every month in exchange for them providing pressurized water via the community's network of pipes. It's a shared resource that we all benefit from. If you were to stop paying your water bill, the utility would shut off your water. You don't have any complaint with that, right? Well, if you were to stop paying your taxes, it's just as reasonable for the government to shut off your citizenship rights. That includes the freedom to travel within the United States. You don't want to be a citizen anymore? You're free to give up that status and the rights and privileges that go along with it. But if you stay in the territory governed by the United States after you waive your citizenship, that makes you either an illegal immigrant or -- if you have a gun -- a foreign militant.

Could all those rights, privileges, services and benefits have been provided by an anarcho-capitalist regime? I doubt it, but that doesn't matter because in your case, they weren't. They were provided by the people in the United States where you live. You think the US government is immoral? When you follow that chain of thought to its logical end, you have to conclude that the pipefitter at the municipal water plant, the county sheriff's deputy, and the grade school teacher at the public school are just as immoral because they're complicit in the works of that government. And so is everyone else who consumes or builds those services and institutions. That's everybody.

If you think every single one of your neighbors is part of a pervasive moral perversion, maybe you're right. We're all immoral and only you are the shining beacon of virtue among the sinners and heathens.

But you're still here. And that tells me that you and all your anarchist friends are just blowing hot air. Put your money where your mouth is and go live in an ungoverned part of the world. As an American citizen, you have the right to do that. You also have the right to agitate to change the US government. But you don't have the right to force everyone to dismantle the society they've worked so hard to build, just because your panties are in a twist about some delusion that everyone here is a slave. Claiming to support liberty and freedom while denying that same freedom to others is perhaps the gravest hypocrisy of them all.

'just because your panties are in a twist about some delusion that everyone here is a slave'.

I like that jhit. You ever considered runnin' for public office?
There seems to be a bit of a vacuum in both US political parties at the moment.
Get thyself sucked up I say....

Get Dyson as an advisor..;-)

Quote: bigfoot66

Thanks.


Walter Block has a very good book on ending road socialism, available for free from Mises.org, and your fear is unfounded.

Blackwater is clearly coercive. Who do they typically work for, by the way?

I'm probably not going to read a whole book on the subject. However, I spent 20 or 30 minutes or so googling.

I couldn't find much on how anarcho captialism does not lead to corporate rule. Would it be that, corporations as we know them, do not exist?

Blackwater is often employed by govs, often acting as proxies for corps. And they are also hired directly by private interests. And corps have hired goons as long as they've been around. Without the muscle of the state to deal with, I don't see why they wouldn't just fill the coercion void.

If I run a corporation, or am just a billionaire, and I want to dictate what happens, who is going to stop me? Especially if I actually own the police and roads! I understand that this would involve coercion, but I don't care about that. If you show any effective resistance, I'm going to hire some guy to come break your thumbs. Go complain about it to an arbitrator.

Or, I don't break your thumbs. You just have to sign a contract if you want to use the roads. The contract says you can't be in a union. It says you must sign up with my bank. It says whatever I want it to say.

You want to start your own road company? Oh wow. Your supplier, who I'm really cozy with, sold you a bunch of defective equipment. Bummer.

Quote: rxwine

Do you think it's statism that keeps these people under these conditions? What are the odds this is an unregulated mine, no minimum wage, no required safety regulations, no inspectors. No state involvement at all.



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/04/indonesian-sulfur-miners-brave-volcano-fumes-earn-pennies.html

I read some stuff on this and I think that according to some people, you'd be allowed to have a union in anarcho-capitalism. But, it might be one of those deals where the union can not "coerce" you into joining, which makes them pretty ineffective.

Plus, the capitalist can just hire a bunch of goons to deal with the union. It seems to me that in most countries where the workers and capitalists are free to go head to head with no state intervention, you wind up with situations like this.

To be fair, the government favors capitalists in general, and in some cases will do their goon work for them. But if there is no intermediary at least ostensibly representing the people, it seems that whoever has the most money and power would just get exactly what they want all the time.

Quote: MathExtremist

..... in a twist about some delusion that everyone here is a slave.

Is there some fine line between the government claiming the ability to terminate anyone's life at their discretion, and someone being a slave?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html

Where did the gov get the authority for indefinite detention, or asset forfeiture, or the power to supersede 4th amendment protection from illegal wiretaps?

Where did they get the authority to take away someone's inalienable rights?

edit:

Quote:

Open up your wallet and look at your money. See what it says on the top?

Open up your wallet, and you see what it says.
It says federal reserve note. The federal reserve is not federal, it is a privately held corporation and they have the power to determine what those notes are valued at, and can change that value indiscriminately, even retroactively.

The fed can change the value of my lifes work retroactively. The social contract I had said I would accept a certain amount of value for the fruit of my labor. I performed that labor, took payment and stuffed it in my mattress. The fed says, your labor wasn't really worth what we agreed it was at the time, so devalues the money in my mattress. Who broke the social contract?

Our liberal democratic republic is eroding, I think, and probably a lot of others would agree. But that's not really an argument against liberal democracy.

If the arms dealers and mercenaries were employed directly by the oil companies, with no middle man, would it be better? Would they be like, "oh we can't kill that guy, he's a sovereign citizen."

Quote:

It says federal reserve note

Managed to get to 27 pages before the Fed came up. Might be a record.

Quote: petroglyph

Is there some fine line between the government claiming the ability to terminate anyone's life at their discretion, and someone being a slave?

edit: Open up your wallet, and you see what it says.
It says federal reserve note. ...
The fed can change the value of my lifes work retroactively. The social contract I had said I would accept a certain amount of value for the fruit of my labor. I performed that labor, took payment and stuffed it in my mattress. The fed says, your labor wasn't really worth what we agreed it was at the time, so devalues the money in my mattress. Who broke the social contract?

You're not a slave if you can leave but you choose not to. End of story.

And it says "United States of America" on the top of your money. That is, the name of your government. Go ahead and try to create your own currency and see how well that works for you in the global economy. The latest to try was Bitcoin. Before that was the Liberty Dollar. Can you buy bread and milk with those?
Here's a chart of BTC to USD over the past few years:

Now here's a chart of GBP to USD over the same past few years:

You want to take the risk of running a BTC-denominated business, go for it. But since the purpose of money is to act as a representation of value and medium of exchange, it hardly makes sense to use a currency whose value fluctuates more than the EKG of someone being electrocuted. The benefits that flow from using USD as a currency derive in part because USD is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and that faith and credit is respected worldwide due to its stability. BTC is backed by some math, a bunch of anonymous hackers, and apparently an Australian guy with a Japanese pseudonym. edit: or maybe not.

Maybe you'd prefer to work with a currency whose value is less than the paper it's printed on?


As to the question of changing the value of your life's work retroactively, that's not a serious objection against the government because the free market does that all the time. Remember audio cassettes and "Is it live ... or is it Memorex?" Memorex's audio cassettes were big business in the 1980s. What do you think their unsold inventory of audio tapes is worth today? In the 1980s if I delivered a case of blank tapes to your house, you'd have been thrilled. Today you'd grumble about them taking up space in your trashcan.

Quote: MathExtremist

You're not a slave if you can leave but you choose not to. End of story.

If someone declares the right to terminate your life anywhere on the planet, it hardly matters whether or not you leave. As I linked above, the current CIC claims the right to kill any American [or anyone else] anytime anywhere. Evidenced by the drone killing of Awlaki, [who maybe did something subversive?] but not his 16 year old son in a separate strike. ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-u-s-keeps-killing-americans-in-drone-strikes-mostly-by-accident/

If someone demands the authority to kill you anywhere anytime, and they do, go ahead be free. But your distinction between being able to kill anyone with immunity, and slavery are merely semantic. They can take your life because they own it. What is it you free people do that, "not free" people don't ? I have friends visit from China, a communist country. They buy real estate, drink beer, make love, go to school in both country's. What is the major difference between the worlds policeman, and the bad guys?

Could it be intellectual property? They are free to hack yours and spend it. And they can do that, basically because you are an American. Who is more free?

Quote:

And it says "United States of America" on the top of your money.

That is not the first line. Look at your bills. Top line says Federal Reserve Note. If yours says USA on top, you have accepted a counterfeit. Take some of those frn's and burn them in front of secret service or treasury cops, you will be arrested for destroying notes. If you own them, why can't you destroy them? That is because they belong to the Federal reserve, a privately held corporation. I never gave them authority to imprison me, for owning [and doing as I wish] with what I have accepted as token for my labor.

If I pay you in fresh salmon for services, and you eat the fish, do you get arrested?

Quote:

That is, the name of your government. Go ahead and try to create your own currency and see how well that works for you in the global economy.

If we are talking about me, me. No way. I am as legal as I know how to be, pay taxes, love my country, the whole bit. They take what they want and leave me the rest. I tried the tax exempt stuff in the 70's, that battle is not for me. The gov has the hammer, I know it. But being the greatest nation in the world as we are, I can point this stuff out. That's what my relatives would want, is for me to not go quietly into the night.

FWIW, I think bitcoin is stupid. That bank has been robbed, even the Fed has been hacked. I am as low tech as possible other than trading in chickens. As a matter of fact, I overpay and file 1040 EZ. I always get a return, but as a point of interest, my brothers return was hijacked before he received it. Hard to win playing by the rules.

I do however believe in an asset backed currency such as the Yuan will soon be. The wrc has changed every 70 years or so throughout history.

You say the market can devalue the money in my mattress? pfft. Who makes the rules on Neg rates and QE? Those that voted against bailing out AIG were opposed 700-1 against That game is rigged.

This is what I think also about federal taxes. If it really is that important to anyone, there are rules and exemptions in the IRS code that will allow them to pay zero or near zero taxes. Some receive more than they pay in. The rules in the code can be used by anyone who cares to get that involved with it. Real estate deductions, business, charitable donations etc. No one has to overthrow the gov to reduce or eliminate their taxes. I don't complain at all about paying mine. I find it hard to believe that I have it so good.

Quote:

But since the purpose of money is to act as a representation of value and medium of exchange,

Did you use "representation" rather than "store" of value for a reason? Money is supposed to be a store of value. If it is supposed to represent a value than that is what it should do, not represent one value and actually be another.

Quote: Rigondeaux

If I run a corporation, or am just a billionaire, and I want to dictate what happens, who is going to stop me?

Clearly not the GOP.


(You can't leave a hanging fastball over the plate like that and not expect someone to take a swing at it.)

Quote: petroglyph

If someone declares the right to terminate your life anywhere on the planet, it hardly matters whether or not you leave.

If someone's going to kill you, they're going to kill you. You're not a slave just because terrorists or criminals roam the planet. And I certainly don't think someone is immune to committing crimes just because they put on the mantle of government. But that's a far cry from the philosophical accusation that the entire institution of government, in whatever form, is necessarily evil. When the anarchists use such an example to prove the rule, it's invalid reasoning. Certainly not everyone on the planet is a murderer. Neither of us are (I presume), though both of us play by the rules. The zealots among the anarchists would perhaps accuse us of being complicit in the immorality of government, and I reject that accusation.

Quote:

That is not the first line. Look at your bills. Top line says Federal Reserve Note. If yours says USA on top, you have accepted a counterfeit. Take some of those frn's and burn them in front of secret service or treasury cops, you will be arrested for destroying notes. If you own them, why can't you destroy them? That is because they belong to the Federal reserve, a privately held corporation. I never gave them authority to imprison me, for owning [and doing as I wish] with what I have accepted as token for my labor.

You and I both know that the Fed is a government institution. The point I was making was that the money we use is also a government institution, and using that money in commerce is one way that anarcho-capitalists are hypocritical in their consumption of government benefits.

Quote:

You say the market can devalue the money in my mattress? pfft. Who makes the rules on Neg rates and QE? Those that voted against bailing out AIG were opposed 700-1 against That game is rigged.

I'm not going to attempt to quantify the components of inflation that derive from explicit central bank action vs. the action of the unregulated market, but we both know that fractional reserve lending increases the money supply and necessarily causes inflation, so the dollars in your mattress will erode in value over time anyway. The only way around that is if you make currency a zero-sum game, but I don't know how to do that and have global economic growth. (Yes, I meant "store of value" before, I misspoke).

Quote:

This is what I think also about federal taxes. If it really is that important to anyone, there are rules and exemptions in the IRS code that will allow them to pay zero or near zero taxes. Some receive more than they pay in. The rules in the code can be used by anyone who cares to get that involved with it. Real estate deductions, business, charitable donations etc. No one has to overthrow the gov to reduce or eliminate their taxes. I don't complain at all about paying mine. I find it hard to believe that I have it so good.

If only more people understood that it's okay to recognize that and still be critical of parts of their government, instead of taking the revolutionary stance that all government is evil, we'd be in far better shape than we are now.

Quote: bigfoot66

....wouldn't we prefer to let an arbitrator resolve our dispute? We would both have to agree on which mediation service to use, and we would probably only be able to agree on one who had a reputation for being fair, right? If you are black and I am white, would you agree to go to the racist court? This market process means that unreasonable or unfair judges would go out of business and the fair ones would attract a lot of business. We would both agree to be bound by the mutually chosen arbitrator's decision.

Yves Smith with Naked Capitalism has an article today on the failure of arbitration as a means to routinely settle diputes. The CFPB has reviewed arbitration and finds plaintiffs only win in 4% of disputes.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-to-put-end-to-mandatory-arbitration-for-retail-financial-products.html

From link: "Arbitration cases can be unfair not only because consumers have no choice in the matter, but also because prior results from Public Citizen research suggests that consumers may win only 4% of the time. The relationship as currently structured gives arbitration forums and arbitrators a strong incentive to side with “repeat players” that control the flow of ongoing business, rather than a consumer seen only once. In the credit card context as well as many other consumer transactions, it is very difficult to find a product without a forced arbitration agreement hidden somewhere in the fine print."

Quote: petroglyph

Quote: bigfoot66

We would both agree to be bound by the mutually chosen arbitrator's decision.

Yves Smith with Naked Capitalism has an article today on the failure of arbitration as a means to routinely settle disputes.

Sure, that makes sense, and as you pointed out there's a pretty obvious conflict of interest in the nature of for-profit arbitration. But the bigger issue is that it's ridiculous to suggest that two parties in dispute are always going to agree on how to resolve their dispute. If that were always true, they wouldn't be in dispute! The reason you need an independent, non-commercial judiciary with the ability to forcibly bind (coerce) the parties under the judge/jury's verdict is because parties don't always agree. It's not like the guy who loses at trial is going to say "aw shucks, you're right, I do agree with your point of view, here's the money."

Quote: MathExtremist

In the meanwhile, it is outrageous hypocrisy for you to deny the legitimacy of the government while enjoying the benefits of that government. It should be cathartic for you to purge your lifestyle of all remnants of the US government, so I recommend sending me any piece of paper in your possession that has the word America on it. I'll pay for private postage so you don't have to use the USPS.

And FedEx, UPS, DHL and all other private shippers use roads, airports, and other infrastructures built by the government and funded by the tax payers.

Quote: 777

And FedEx, UPS, DHL and all other private shippers use roads, airports, and other infrastructures built by the government and funded by the tax payers.

Is DHL still even in business in the US?
I'll one up ME. You send me legal tender paper from the US and I'll pay the private postage AND I'll pay you half face value in whatever medium you prefer. You into Bitcoin?
If you fed-x overnite me a one dollar bill, I will track you down, I'll do it in person....
And I'll buy you a beer ;-)
Cheers, 2F

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Is DHL still even in business in the US?
I'll one up ME. You send me legal tender paper from the US and I'll pay the private postage AND I'll pay you half face value in whatever medium you prefer. You into Bitcoin?
If you fed-x overnite me a one dollar bill, I will track you down, I'll do it in person....
And I'll buy you a beer ;-)
Cheers, 2F

If I get to pick the beer, I'm in.

One bottle of 2015 Samuel Adams Utopias.

Send me your address. :)

Quote: SanchoPanza

Hiding assets has many more effects than just cheating on taxes, which is not always even the prime purpose of the hiding. Mergers and acquisitions, from either end, may see advantages in non-disclosure. As may financiers, investors, hedge funds and on. Hiding assets may even serve a public relations interest like avoiding bad publicity. Obscuring assets can perform many functions, both intended and unintended as well as legal, illegal and questionable.

The main benefit of hiding assets is for tax evasion and/or money laundering.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crooks-terrorists-tax-evaders-shell-093904249.html

https://panamapapers.icij.org/

Quote: TomG

If the government wanted us to pay our debt correctly they wouldn't have made the tax code 70,000 pages. But that's what they chose to do. I fill out my 1040 and mail it to the experts for review. Then I pay whatever they decide. That is not cheating, that's following the rules.

Did you vote for any or all of them, and are you going to vote for them again in the upcoming election cycle?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/larry-summers-bashes-the-“tax-break-for-billionaires”-172731144.html

There is a reason the tax code is 70,000 pages.

The tax code is how politicians reward their friends and punish their enemies. It is just that simple.

Every Presidential candidate promises to simply it. None ever will, including The Donald.