Revel to allow Smoking starting Valentines Day-Staff
Yet the constitutional rights innumerated actually require a maintenance charge. The courts are part of the force to protect your 1st ammendent rights, when somebody wants to silence you. Police maintain order. National Guard watches the border. Military has watched Russia, China for incoming threats. Other citizens already fought and died against Nazis and Imperial Japan.
This is an ONGOING service. Unless you are born completely outside the security of the state, you start receiving this service immediately upon birth.
No one is invited to be born here to receive this service free. Nor do we force you to be born here. That you can't otherwise control it, is not our fault. It may not be your fault either, but that doesn't make it our fault just because you have no control over your birthplace.
I would argue you start acquiring a debt to the state immediately. The debt to the state starts at birth. It's still a lot better deal than being born in N. Korea.
Sat down to play and, while the shuffle was going on, inquired with a few people about the smoking rumor...
as I had previously reported, the plans (per a meeting just held yesterday) is to build an offshoot
from the casino to a separate gaming area for smokers (they are doing this to put the smoking area
on a separate ventilation system from the main casino floor). Dealers will be asked if they want to deal
in the smoking section and, if not, they will not be forced to deal therein.
Quote: aceofspadeson site update
Sat down to play and, while the shuffle was going on, inquired with a few people about the smoking rumor...
as I had previously reported, the plans (per a meeting just held yesterday) is to build an offshoot
from the casino to a separate gaming area for smokers (they are doing this to put the smoking area
on a separate ventilation system from the main casino floor). Dealers will be asked if they want to deal
in the smoking section and, if not, they will not be forced to deal therein.
So what happens when none of the dealers want to deal in the smoking section? Will they provide some incentive? Seems like a pretty obvious choice if you're a dealer to not do that, unless you think the tips might be better or something.
Quote: bigfoot66I am aware of this but it is beside the point. I am not a Nozickian (I am much closer to Rothbard and David Friedman than Nozick. I had the pleasure of spending a couple hours with Friedmand and drinking beer with him a few years back. He sure did not like Rothbard!) but the Tale of the Slave is a strong piece of writing. I have not heard a satisfactory answer to his question and you are not offering one here either.
It's easy to start with an absolute principle like "every restriction of personal liberty is the ultimate evil" and make logical arguments therefrom, but I dispute the premise and therefore all of your conclusions. Nozick even supports the radical idea of voluntary slavery -- the notion that one can freely abrogate one's freedom via contract. Do you?
My direct answer to the tale of the slave is that not all impingements upon individual liberty are immoral, and I am willing to sacrifice ultimate personal liberty for the benefits of living in the society that surrounds me. I have no doubts about the ROI of that exchange for me. It seems you do, but it also seems that you haven't fully thought it through. Do you really expect to live as a freeloader in the midst of others who have accepted their debts to society?
Quote:Who is talking about leaving society? I have stated in this thread more than once that I believe man cannot live without trade. I am simply objecting to the violent and immoral activities of one family of institutions in the society, I think I have made that clear.
You are - you just don't know it. What you object to, if eliminated, would naturally re-emerge by itself. It's historical fact. For example, the Framers could have set up any form of social order they wanted. There were no constraints. Yet they chose to organize a democratic government, not an anarchist society. You seem to believe that anarchy is a superior social structure, but no successful anarchy has ever emerged from a large, diverse group of people attempting to live together. Arguing that "we should let the free market decide" is directly contrary to your premise because the free market *already has decided*, and every time, government emerges. Therefore, the only way for you to avoid what to you are the objectionable aspects of society is for you to leave altogether. And by yourself.
But you'd be better off learning to be less absolutist in your thinking unless you really do want to be alone forever. Your ideal of unfettered personal liberty is not even sensible once you have a family, let alone living in a city. Anyone with kids will understand. For example, as a parent you'll lose the liberty to sleep in past 6:30am on weekends -- but that doesn't mean your children are immoral.
Quote: MathExtremistFor example, as a parent you'll lose the liberty to sleep in past 6:30am on weekends -- but that doesn't mean your children are immoral.
Come now, you should know better than that. For starters, people choose to have children. Once they do, then, yes, they have also chosen the responsibility to care for them until they grow up. But no one is forced to have children (and thta's one reason abortion si an important right).
If there were a law forcing you to have children on penalty of imprisonment or a severe fine, then that would be stripping you of your liberty.
Suppose someone has a daughter and chooses to neglect rather than accept that responsibility. If individual liberty always trumps everything else, why isn't that a morally acceptable choice?Quote: NareedCome now, you should know better than that. For starters, people choose to have children. Once they do, then, yes, they have also chosen the responsibility to care for them until they grow up. But no one is forced to have children (and thta's one reason abortion si an important right).
If there were a law forcing you to have children on penalty of imprisonment or a severe fine, then that would be stripping you of your liberty.
I'll tell you why: because individual liberty *doesn't* always trump everything else. Sometimes you have to accept responsibility for your actions and other times responsibility for your inactions. People in the U.S. choose to live in the U.S. too, just as much as they choose to have children. We have the freedom to do otherwise. But, having decided to stay in the U.S., it follows that one should accept the responsibilities that come with that choice. One of those is to accept the social norms and structures in this country, including the provisions of the Constitution which call for taxation.
For all the complaining about the injustice and immorality of tax policy in the U.S., most of the loudest opponents of our government are *still here*. They have the freedom to leave but have chosen not to. That action speaks volumes.
Quote: MathExtremistSuppose someone has a daughter and chooses to neglect rather than accept that responsibility. If individual liberty always trumps everything else, why isn't that a morally acceptable choice?
Seriously?
Ok. Because when an adult chooses to have a child, he or she assumes the responsibility it entails. Having assumed a responsibility, one is bound to see it through. The child, on the other hand, did not choose to be born, nor can she care for herself for at least several years.
Quote:But, having decided to stay in the U.S., it follows that one should accept the responsibilities that come with that choice. One of those is to accept the social norms and structures in this country, including the provisions of the Constitution which call for taxation.
Assuming that's so, there's nothing in your argument to say one cannot, or even that one shuold not, try to change the country for the better. Choosing to live somewhere does not entail blindly accepting any and all actions done by the government in that jurisdiction.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's easy to start with an absolute principle like "every restriction of personal liberty is the ultimate evil" and make logical arguments therefrom, but I dispute the premise and therefore all of your conclusions. Nozick even supports the radical idea of voluntary slavery -- the notion that one can freely abrogate one's freedom via contract. Do you?
I told you that I would give you the last word here and I am willing to honor that, but since you asked several questions I assume you wish to continue debate at this point. If it is voluntary it would not be slavery to begin with. This is like saying that I agree to let you rob me, It would not then be robbery but a gift. I assume you are refering to a sort of indentured servitude that would last to the end of one's life when you use the term 'voluntary slavery'. I have not found this to be an interesting question in the past and have not spent a lot of time thinking about it, but my gut feeling is that if one chooses to accept payment up front in exchange for some term of labor that would be a valid contract. I cannot imagine a situation where anybody would do it so I think this is just a hypothetical designed to make my position look absurd and I think it would not be relevant in real life.
Quote: MathExtremist
My direct answer to the tale of the slave is that not all impingements upon individual liberty are immoral, and I am willing to sacrifice ultimate personal liberty for the benefits of living in the society that surrounds me.
You keep making broad statement statements like this so I assume you are defending the status quo or something similar. But when I ask you to defend the activities that existing governments engage in you indignantly tell me that I am mischaracterizing your position. What is your position, specifically? When is it moral for one man to take another man's life, liberty, or property at the point of a gun?
Quote: MathExtremistI have no doubts about the ROI of that exchange for me. It seems you do, but it also seems that you haven't fully thought it through.
I never said and do not believe "all impingements upon individual liberty are immoral." I said that the initiation of force is immoral. It is wrong to threaten people, steal, kill, etc.
I earned a degree studying political theory and have continued to read the topic since I have graduated. I was a Rush Limbaugh republican my whole life including most of my time in college and only after about 18 months of studying the writings of voluntaryists did I change my opinion. It took a lot of thinking and reading.
Quote: MathExtremist
You are - you just don't know it. What you object to, if eliminated, would naturally re-emerge by itself. It's historical fact. For example, the Framers could have set up any form of social order they wanted. There were no constraints. Yet they chose to organize a democratic government, not an anarchist society. You seem to believe that anarchy is a superior social structure, but no successful anarchy has ever emerged from a large, diverse group of people attempting to live together. Arguing that "we should let the free market decide" is directly contrary to your premise because the free market *already has decided*, and every time, government emerges. Therefore, the only way for you to avoid what to you are the objectionable aspects of society is for you to leave altogether. And by yourself.
But you'd be better off learning to be less absolutist in your thinking unless you really do want to be alone forever. Your ideal of unfettered personal liberty is not even sensible once you have a family, let alone living in a city. Anyone with kids will understand. For example, as a parent you'll lose the liberty to sleep in past 6:30am on weekends -- but that doesn't mean your children are immoral.
Based on your statement here I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my position because this is pretty far off the mark if it is intended as a criticism. Human behavior certainly must be regulated. Some people want to play loud music while other people want to sleep. Some people want to smoke pot, other people want to raise their kids absent these influences. There are millions of these preferences that conflict for individuals and are mutually exclusive, so we cannot satisfy everyone. I still don't know what you believe in, but assuming you want something akin to the current scheme your solution is to allow one group of people to make all the decisions on these things and empower these people with the right to use violence to achieve compliance. I believe that these conflicts should be resolved peacefully whenever possible and If we error it should be on the side of respecting property and minimizing violence. For example, I do not own a home, but my goal is to buy a house. I don't want to live in a community where my neighbors might paint their house purple and gold to celebrate a Lakers' championship (oh God, the horror!!!). The market already has a solution available, it is called an HOA, and everyone knows and consents to the rules going in. In exchange, I have to comply with what my neighbors want in maintaining my house. All of this is great. Where did you get the idea that I value "unfettered personal liberty"?
I have no idea what you are getting at with the kids thing. Of course someone who chooses to have kids chooses to give up lots and lots of their liberty. Did you think I would disagree? It would be wrong for someone to show up at my door with an infant and say "Bigfoot66 you have to take care of little Katie here for the next 18 years", but if I chooses to have kids that is a choice.
Anarchy is not a social structure, anarchy means "without rulers". We use terms like "the market" to anthropomorphize the collection of all the little decisions made by each individual every day and to identify paterns of decisions and prefrences. 39 white guys signed the Constitution 250 years and a government was formed on that document. The market did not choose this government, but even if it evolved out of the free market 250 years ago as you claim the Civil War is pretty strong evidence of the fact that since then it has become something foisted on a lot of people who don't consent and don't want anything to do with the federal government.
I leave you with the words of Harriet Tubman: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
Quote: bigfoot66The market already has a solution available, it is called an HOA, and everyone knows and consents to the rules going in.."
http://neighborsatwar.com/
Quote:who ruled members’ daily lives, from where to place their garbage bins, to what color to paint the doors of the homes they owned, to whether they could park in their own driveway?
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/feb/17/cover-home-owner-association-horror-stories/
Quote:Noisegate — I complained about the neighbor’s noise. The HOA board sent me a letter — and I was on the HOA board.
“Treegate — I got neighbors to complain about the board’s removing too many trees without notice, like the one outside my door. They tried to remove me from the board.
“Doorgate — The board harassed me, first by making me repaint my screen door twice, then making me remove it, taking away my only view.
“Petgate — I complained about cat poop and dog bark, and the board continued to allow all sizes and number of pets.
“Woodgate — The property manager is replacing wooden decks needlessly, and the board is helpless to control them. And we’re expected to pay for them.
“Meetingate — The board canceled two meetings in four months when owners wished to complain. The board does not allow any discussion except for three-minute complaints. It holds secret sessions about contracts and claims this is the law
Quote: bigfoot66HOA's are far from perfect. I could make a long list of local government abuses as well, see http://www.copblock.o
rg
But of course a lawless society would be perfect. No rules = no rule breakers.
Quote: BuzzardBut of course a lawless society would be perfect. No rules = no rule breakers.
I would certainly not want to live in a lawless society.
Quote: bigfoot66You keep making broad statement statements like this so I assume you are defending the status quo or something similar. But when I ask you to defend the activities that existing governments engage in you indignantly tell me that I am mischaracterizing your position. What is your position, specifically? When is it moral for one man to take another man's life, liberty, or property at the point of a gun?"
In another post you said "I would certainly not want to live in a lawless society." Therefore there must be a mechanism to promulgate laws, and the best method anyone's come up with is a democratic legislature funded by taxation. However, since legislation is meaningless without execution, there must also be a method of enforcing those laws. "Law Enforcement" literally means the imposition of force to ensure compliance with the law, so your philosophy is self-contradictory: it is logically inconsistent to both desire a set of laws yet deny any mechanism to enforce those laws.
Quote: WizardThree-day suspension. I have a feeling it won't be your last, so feel free to voluntarily leave for good.
The Wizard is also a prophet!
