"Markers" ... another Mark

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that matters. Also, it's probably incorrect -- you might be feeling "duress" in the non-legal sense, but the legal term "duress" means unlawful coersion. Except in court, the law gives a judge the right to compel testimony so it's not actually "duress" because it's not unlawful. Almost by definition, not following the rules of the court -- including the rules about swearing to provide (and subsequently providing) honest testimony -- is contempt. You don't get to effectively say "I dispute this court's authority" and not have the court take it as an affront when, by law, they do have that authority. You have a Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn't excuse you from promising to be honest in the first place.

And this is another shining example of why I have no respect for the law and government. It's not duress when they do it. It's not kidnapping it's an arrest. It's not extortion it's taxation. It's not slavery it's conscription. It's not mass murder it's war. Even though the actions are the same.

Quote: rudeboyoi

And this is another shining example of why I have no respect for the law and government. It's not duress when they do it. It's not kidnapping it's an arrest. It's not extortion it's taxation. It's not slavery it's conscription. It's not mass murder it's war. Even though the actions are the same.

If you ever get prosecuted for perjury, just say that you responded "in the least untruthful manner possible," just like the Director of the CIA did...

https://youtu.be/CV7ecTqvkOc?t=45s

I assume a high percentage of people are lying on the stand.

Security guards are big time liars from my personal experience and from many stories and evidence.

I'm not expecting an answer but ask yourself would you lie for a friend or loved one? I think most people would depending on the circumstances and how serious the situation was.

Imagine a situation where your co-worker is your friend who's up against some asshole AP who's in "your casino" making it his personal ATM. I'm certain they can, do and will justify lying.

Quote: rudeboyoi

And this is another shining example of why I have no respect for the law and government. It's not duress when they do it. It's not kidnapping it's an arrest. It's not extortion it's taxation. It's not slavery it's conscription. It's not mass murder it's war. Even though the actions are the same.

"Shayna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!"

It's all about balancing privileges and responsibilities. You have a responsibility to the laws of the U.S. if you want the privileges of living under the rights they afford you. You don't have to pay U.S. taxes, you don't have to follow U.S. laws, you don't have to register for the U.S. Army. But you don't get to stay in the U.S. while not doing those things. (Except the Army, the draft hasn't been around for quite some time...)

You don't owe a similar debt to some other individual, which is why if that same individual tried to kidnap your or extort you or enslave you, it would be wrong. But the government does have those rights, and that's why they don't call them kidnapping, extortion, or slavery when the government does it via laws passed by representatives of the governed with their consent. The physical action may in fact be identical (arrest is a great example) but the context determines whether it's lawful or not. I mean, you'd be pretty mad if I came over to your house with an axe, chopped a bunch of holes in the wall, and then flooded it with water. But if I'm your next-door neighbor and your house is on fire, that's absolutely the right thing to do. Context matters.

Quote: MathExtremist

But you don't get to stay in the U.S. while not doing those things.

But the government does have those rights, and that's why they don't call them kidnapping, extortion, or slavery when the government does it via laws passed by representatives of the governed with their consent.

Yes i do. The government does not have any property rights (jurisdiction) since everything they claim to own has been stolen and theft is not a valid ownership claim.

Oh and where did they get these so called rights from? How can an individual delegate a right that they themselves don't have to another?

I do not consent to being governed. Simply saying that nullifies any argument you have.

Quote: rudeboyoi

And this is another shining example of why I have no respect for the law and government. It's not duress when they do it. It's not kidnapping it's an arrest. It's not extortion it's taxation. It's not slavery it's conscription. It's not mass murder it's war. Even though the actions are the same.

Nonsense. If courts don't have rules, and can't compel people to do certain things, then they're not courts.

And your false equivalences are silly. The pairs of actions you name are not the same at all. If you hate government, fine, but just try living without it.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Yes i do. The government does not have any property rights (jurisdiction) since everything they claim to own has been stolen and theft is not a valid ownership claim.

Oh and where did they get these so called rights from? How can an individual delegate a right that they themselves don't have to another?

I do not consent to being governed. Simply saying that nullifies any argument you have.

You, my poor friend, are quite confused.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

You, my poor friend, are quite confused.

Everyday of my life I try living without government. The only time I interact with them is when they force me to interact with them.

Im not at all confused. I see government for exactly what it is. Just another mafiosa claiming it's not. Wake up and see it for what it is.

It's amazing that so many people are capable of dismissing heavenly dieties yet are unwilling to let go of earthly ones. Authority exists only in the mind. Whether that perceived authority is invisible (god) or physical (politicians, LEO'S, judges, prosecutors, etc).

If you claim to be an atheist but still believe in statism, you are not. You have merely replaced a heavenly diety with an earthly one. The state is your god.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Everyday of my life I try living without government. The only time I interact with them is when they force me to interact with them.

Im not at all confused. I see government for exactly what it is. Just another mafiosa claiming it's not. Wake up and see it for what it is.

It's amazing that so many people are capable of dismissing heavenly dieties yet are unwilling to let go of earthly ones. Authority exists only in the mind. Whether that perceived authority is invisible (god) or physical (politicians, LEO'S, judges, prosecutors, etc).

If you claim to be an atheist but still believe in statism, you are not. You have merely replaced a heavenly diety with an earthly one. The state is your god.

LOL, if you are a true non-believer, then why don't you go out a break a few laws? Rob a bank, steal a car, I guarantee the earthly "deity" will make you a believer real quick. That, or your cellmate will.

Quote: KingoftheEye

LOL, if you are a true non-believer, then why don't you go out a break a few laws? Rob a bank, steal a car, I guarantee the earthly "deity" will make you a believer real quick. That, or your cellmate will.

Legality and morality have nothing to do with eachother. What's immoral (such as stealing) remains immoral regardless of what any so called law states. An immoral act doesn't become a moral act. A moral act does not become an immoral one. Just because a law may dictate otherwise.

It's recognizing that the police are no different than any other would be kidnapper. Its always moral to defend yourself against kidnapping but for self-preservation it's prob in your best interest to not resist the kidnapping.

Defending the law is no different than defending a Muslim extremist for wanting to kill the infidels. The law and any other religious scripture are nothing more than scribbles on a piece of paper where people delude themselves into believing they have the "right" to violate other people's rights because those scribbles say it's okay to do so.

Quote: rudeboyoi

I do not consent to being governed. Simply saying that nullifies any argument you have.

If you're interacting with the society that the government enables, you are. The reason you're able to drive down the street is because the government built the road you're on. The reason you're able to send me a message on WoV is because the government developed the Internet. Taking the view that you're not "interacting with the government" is a short, narrow one. The big picture is that you owe your lifestyle to the Americans who came before you and built your society on the bedrock of the rights and responsibilities that they consented to.

If you really don't consent to the rights and responsibilities that come with being an American, you can give up those rights. But you haven't done that, have you? I'm assuming you were born in the United States, which means your American citizenship is an accident of birth. But every day that you stay, you're choosing to be an American. That choice comes with obligations. You can't have one without the other.

Put another way, if you're going to maintain the position that you "do not consent to be governed" but you nevertheless stay here and enjoy the rights and privileges of being an American, while my neighbors and I all do consent to be governed (by following the law and paying taxes to pay for those rights) then I say you're just a freeloader trying to have his cake without paying for it. Defend your position that it is acceptable to sponge off society without living by its rules.


Here's some appropriately-titled jazz for your morning listening.

The government does not build roads. They steal money from other people. Keep the Lions share for themselves (typically 70% which is easily verifiable just google the gasoline tax from state to state) then pay someone else to build the roads.

Nor do they own those roads since it was stolen from someone else. So they do not have any property rights in regard to those roads. Theft is not a valid ownership claim.

If you and your neighbors want a slave master that's your prerogative but you can not consent for me. I do not want a slavemaster. That's the difference between having sex and rape. One is consensual. One is not. It does not matter how many other people agree to something. Gang rape doesn't suddenly become okay because the gang is in the majority. I do not consent to being governed and no amount of mental gymnastics can override that.

Quote: rudeboyoi

... people delude themselves into believing they have the "right" to violate other people's rights because those scribbles say it's okay to do so.

What are rights? What makes you believe that you have any rights without scribbles on paper?

Quote: DRich

What are rights? What makes you believe that you have any rights without scribbles on paper?

Rights are inherent. Scribbles on a piece will either be redundant with those rights or violate them.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Rights are inherent. Scribbles on a piece will either be redundant with those rights or violate them.

I am not being argumentative but I really don't understand. What are rights that are not defined by society? Do animals in the wild have rights? Do trees have rights? Who decides who or what has rights?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Nor do they own those roads since it was stolen from someone else. So they do not have any property rights in regard to those roads. Theft is not a valid ownership claim.
...
I do not consent to being governed and no amount of mental gymnastics can override that.

Nope. If you follow your logic all the way backwards, you'd necessarily conclude that the deed and title that I hold to my home was merely granted by the government who stole it from someone else, which means it's illegitimate, which presumably would enable you to feel okay about pitching a tent in my back yard and moving in.

But you don't get to do that, because the property rights that I hold in my home (and the land surrounding it) are granted to me by the same government that I consent to govern me. I don't have any inherent, generational ownership claim over this house; I just bought it a few months ago and before that, I didn't even live in the same city.

How can you plausibly draw the line?

Quote: DRich

I am not being argumentative but I really don't understand. What are rights that are not defined by society? Do animals in the wild have rights? Do trees have rights? Who decides who or what has rights?

From past discussions with rudeboyoi, I think this might be a good foundation:
https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism

Quote: DRich

I am not being argumentative but I really don't understand. What are rights that are not defined by society? Do animals in the wild have rights? Do trees have rights? Who decides who or what has rights?

The only objective right we have is the right to self-defense which we can observe in nature. Life attempts to defend itself in a myriad of ways. It can be passive such as poison. If you eat me you will die or at least be very sick so leave me alone. Or aggressive (i dont like using this word but cant think of a better antonym for passive) such as horns. If you attack me I will gore you so leave me alone.

Other rights are subjective. Such as property rights. You get there by accepting that property is an extension of one's self. Think of prosthetic limbs to make this leap.

Quote: MathExtremist

Nope. If you follow your logic all the way backwards, you'd necessarily conclude that the deed and title that I hold to my home was merely granted by the government who stole it from someone else, which means it's illegitimate, which presumably would enable you to feel okay about pitching a tent in my back yard and moving in.

But you don't get to do that, because the property rights that I hold in my home (and the land surrounding it) are granted to me by the same government that I consent to govern me. I don't have any inherent, generational ownership claim over this house; I just bought it a few months ago and before that, I didn't even live in the same city.

How can you plausibly draw the line?

That piece of paper doesn't mean anything. The government doesn't recognize your ownership claim. They claim to own it and are merely renting it to you in the form of property taxes.

People that don't claim to be government recognize that's your property though. Like if someone asked your neighbor whose house is that down the street? They might respond "oh that's MathExtremist's house."

Quote: rudeboyoi

People that don't claim to be government recognize that's your property though. Like if someone asked your neighbor whose house is that down the street? They might respond "oh that's MathExtremist's house."

Okay, and what if your friends bought the other three houses on my street, and then you pitched your tent in my back yard, and when I complained to you, you pointed to your friends who said "dude, get out of rudeboyoi's house!" What right do I have to the house I purchased if you and your friends don't recognize that it's my property?

Quote: rudeboyoi

That piece of paper doesn't mean anything. The government doesn't recognize your ownership claim. They claim to own it and are merely renting it to you in the form of property taxes.

People that don't claim to be government recognize that's your property though. Like if someone asked your neighbor whose house is that down the street? They might respond "oh that's MathExtremist's house."

Manifestly false. "The government" recognizes, carefully records, and if needed, enforces your claim (as in punishing crimes that violate property rights, or allowing tort claims for the same reason).

Property taxes are imposed to make people pay for the municipal services that they benefit from by owning property in that municipality. Even if a person doesn't pay them, he still owns that property. And yes, I know, that property can eventually be seized. But so can any other asset, to settle any other debt, to the government or anyone else.

Most people, in fact, DON'T know who owns that house down the street--only that person's friends and immediate neighbors. One of the services that government provides is to identify and validate that ownership by maintaining public records.

I realize that you feel you have to spout this nonsense because of your avowed political leanings, but really, so many of your claims are just plain ridiculous and don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. You don't benefit yourself in any way by being an extremist.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Manifestly false. "The government" recognizes, carefully records, and if needed, enforces your claim (as in punishing crimes that violate property rights, or allowing tort claims for the same reason).

Property taxes are imposed to make people pay for the municipal services that they benefit from by owning property in that municipality. Even if a person doesn't pay them, he still owns that property. And yes, I know, that property can eventually be seized. But so can any other asset, to settle any other debt, to the government or anyone else.

Most people, in fact, DON'T know who owns that house down the street--only that person's friends and immediate neighbors. One of the services that government provides is to identify and validate that ownership by maintaining public records.

I realize that you feel you have to spout this nonsense because of your avowed political leanings, but really, so many of your claims are just plain ridiculous and don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. You don't benefit yourself in any way by being an extremist.

It is no different than the mafia asking for protection money. Sure they will protect your property from other criminals that attempt to aggress against your property but if you stop paying them protection money they will take it from you. Usually by means of torching the place or removing you from the picture.

Property taxes are absolutely an ownership claim. It's delusional to think otherwise. If you stop paying then the government will remove you from the picture.

It doesn't matter if you actually know who your neighbor is. It's recognizing oh that's my neighbors house. Recognizing that it isn't yours. No piece of paper is necessary for that thought to enter your mind.

Quote: rudeboyoi

It doesn't matter if you actually know who your neighbor is. It's recognizing oh that's my neighbors house. Recognizing that it isn't yours. No piece of paper is necessary for that thought to enter your mind.

So it all comes down to thought policing? Why can't all of your neighbors decide to recognize that your house is mine instead of yours? If property rights come down to something as ephemeral as "who recognizes what" then what's to prevent the tyranny of the absolute majority?

One of my favorite quotes of all time is by an anarchist named Larken Rose:

"When I tell someone that he should be free, the most common reply I get is "no I shouldnt"".

I am strongly opposed to criminally prosecuting people for not paying back casino markers.

For starters gambling debt is not enforceable in most states. Post dated checks are criminally unenforceable EVERYWHERE but Nevada.

Second, these casinos are using state resources to collect on their debt.

Lastly, people shouldn't be thrown into jail because they have a gambling problem.

It's predatory lending, plain and simple.

To say that a gambling addict should know better is absurd.

I get that Nevada wants their revenue but at some point the casino needs to absorb some risk.

Also adding why not make every person who creates a marker account watch a video describing their responsibilities and penalties if they don't pay it back.

If you lose that hand of blackjack you could lose your freedom.

Think before you take that marker.