The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

What fact did he state? That he disagrees with me but can't explain why beyond some woolly allusions to tin-foil-hats and wrong-headedness? 
.
I'm not so wrapped up in myself as to PM people who disagree with me and have a go at them, Locusts.
.
And I'm pretty certain Jim can stand up for himself without you jumping in with your big spoon. If you want to answer my question, go for it - if not, then don't.

[TordelBack]

Boys, boys. If you can't speculate wildly about how the world is, might, will or should be on a 2000ad forum, then where? I've said it before many times, but while I seldom agree with the Shark on matters I've learned a huge amount from arguing with him or just trying to follow his ideas to their conclusions. You know by now what you're going to get in a Shark post, so if polite affable utopian conspiracies, stories of human decency and bureaucratic inhumanity, and bullheaded questionings aren't your thing then not reading his posts is a sensible option. Although almost inconceivable I'm sure there are people who don't read Jim's lettering tutorials or my whines about money and Star Wars either. The fools.

[Banners]

By what right does one person have claim on another person's income, wealth or property? It's a simple enough question, isn't it?

I don't think one person ever has the right, but we exchange individual freedoms and money for the sake of consensus and the benefit of the collective.

It would be very nice to live in an altruistic world where things happened thanks to the fuel of mere niceness. But until then, I am somewhat reluctantly willing to obey the state and pay its bills so that my bins get emptied, my son gets his medicine, and someone will try to save my house if it catches fire.

Similarly, by delegating all these decisions to a government (even one I may not agree with), I get to spend my time reading science fiction comics and playing video games, instead of worrying about Iran's nuclear weapons and road maintenance.

[The Legendary Shark]

The fools indeed, Tordels! Even I've read (some of) Jim's lettering posts and (some of) your Star Wars moans. I even seem to recall reading a thread about unicorns...
.
Banners, what if you don't want to exchange your freedoms for bin men? That's what grates with me the most - authority doesn't say "hey, we've got a fairly good bin-emptying scheme for £X per month (or less if you're poor) - you fancy joining in?" No - authority says "we've emptied your bins, made what we could selling recyclables on and farming the service out to my friends - now pay me or we'll lock you the fuck up."
.
It's the element of choicelesness that gets me - someone else, whom I've never met, has decided how much I MUST pay for ESSENTIALS and then punishes me if I dare to disagree. I will always resist that. Nobody else has to but I do.

[Skullmo]

Please explain to me by what right one person can demand a share of another person's earnings and/or wealth.

Because they have the power to punish you if you do not give them what they want. And their power derives from the fact that people, explicitly or through capitulation, give their approval for our society to be like this. You may disagree with someone taking your money and feel it is unjust, but as I am sure you can see from a number of the responses this is not the case among all people.

I once got into an argument on a date because I argued that we should not be levying tax just for the sake of it as it had become an accepted norm that taxes would rise, but that this shouldn't be the case - tax should be gathered for a specific public use. She felt higher taxes were needed as the money was used to help old people. . . .

[Tiplodocus]

And occassionally, people make life a little bit harder for themselves because they believe that, by way of example, it might lead to a better world for all concerned.

[Hawkmumbler]

This thread is like Thunderdome in which Grennie is Master to Jim's Blaster.

[Skullmo]

True - you can keep butting your head against a wall to make your point, but everyone has to make their own choices and live with them. There are things that I really disagree with and will not do.

I have no issue with people opposing things, if we all accepted the status quo at all times then we would not have our current freedoms of sexuality.

On a related note I remember watching a news story about a guy who got parking tickets and refused to pay them. He had lost in court and they took everything from him. At the end of the story he was sitting in his (soon to be repossessed) house and they asked him.

'Knowing the outcome, do you wish you had not pursued this course?'

And he replied

'I would have done it anyway'.

[Prodigal2]

Boys, boys. If you can't speculate wildly about how the world is, might, will or should be on a 2000ad forum, then where? I've said it before many times, but while I seldom agree with the Shark on matters I've learned a huge amount from arguing with him or just trying to follow his ideas to their conclusions. You know by now what you're going to get in a Shark post, so if polite affable utopian conspiracies, stories of human decency and bureaucratic inhumanity, and bullheaded questionings aren't your thing then not reading his posts is a sensible option. Although almost inconceivable I'm sure there are people who don't read Jim's lettering tutorials or my whines about money and Star Wars either. The fools.

TB there are truly times when I wish you were President of the world.

[Professor Bear]

The greatest lie that the political elite ever sold to us is that the political system is their way of controlling us rather than the other way around.

/sarcasm
ISIS didn't like their bin-emptying social collective and so overturned it and installed what they thought was a great alternative no matter what the western fatcats and their paid-for media say about it.  Soon, they'll even be making their own actual, physical coin and they're 100 percent against usury, so I look forward to seeing how their utopia pans out.

[The Legendary Shark]

Skullmo, I have read numerous stories of people not paying parking tickets (for example) with impunity. It's not about not paying, it's about being willing to pay.
.
To say "I will not pay this parking ticket" drags you into a world of hurt because, by refusing to pay the ticket you are admitting to the validity of the ticket. You are admitting that the fine exists, that you have accepted that it (and all the rules pertaining to it) are valid but that you just don't want to pay up, for whatever reason. Then they have you in their world and no way will you win that game because it's rigged and they're all expert players. To win in their legislative world you must be a better player than they are - and that's unlikely.
.
So, from the off, you must drag them into your world.
.
What you do is return the parking ticket to the issuer with a note saying something like "I do not have a contract, treaty or agreement with you concerning this document and so return it to you for your files. If you wish to communicate further on this issue, my non-negotiable fees are £100 per letter."
.
I know that this works with TV Licensing, utility providers and - especially - debt collection agencies because I've done it myself.
.
The secret is to never refuse to pay. Instead, question the validity of the demand and impose your own charges (they never pay, but debt collection agencies give up after the third bill for £100 - one debt collection agency actually wrote Me a final letter telling me to stop writing to them and sending them bills because they weren't going to pay up! I wrote back saying that failure to pay might result in legal action being taken, which could cost them dearly in the long run, enclosed another bill for over £500 (I build in "late payment charges" of £25 per unpaid bill per week) and never heard from them again).
.
Common Law always trumps legislative law (at least in theory) and so that's the game you play - and you drag them into that game before they can drag you into theirs.
.
So says the homeless man, ha, ha, ha!

[JamesC]

Please explain to me by what right one person can demand a share of another person's earnings and/or wealth.

Because they have the power to punish you if you do not give them what they want. And their power derives from the fact that people, explicitly or through capitulation, give their approval for our society to be like this. You may disagree with someone taking your money and feel it is unjust, but as I am sure you can see from a number of the responses this is not the case among all people.

I once got into an argument on a date because I argued that we should not be levying tax just for the sake of it as it had become an accepted norm that taxes would rise, but that this shouldn't be the case - tax should be gathered for a specific public use. She felt higher taxes were needed as the money was used to help old people. . . .

Dates are supposed to be fun and you got into a debate about systems of taxation?
Was your date with George Lucas?

[Fungus]

'Knowing the outcome, do you wish you had not pursued this course?'

And he replied

'I would have done it anyway'.

Has anyone asked that question ever answered it any other way? Talk about a leading question 

[Skullmo]

'Knowing the outcome, do you wish you had not pursued this course?'

And he replied

'I would have done it anyway'.

Has anyone asked that question ever answered it any other way? Talk about a leading question 

I would have said - No, of course i wouldn't. i didn't think I was going to lose. Who would fight a losing battle!

[Skullmo]

Please explain to me by what right one person can demand a share of another person's earnings and/or wealth.

Because they have the power to punish you if you do not give them what they want. And their power derives from the fact that people, explicitly or through capitulation, give their approval for our society to be like this. You may disagree with someone taking your money and feel it is unjust, but as I am sure you can see from a number of the responses this is not the case among all people.

I once got into an argument on a date because I argued that we should not be levying tax just for the sake of it as it had become an accepted norm that taxes would rise, but that this shouldn't be the case - tax should be gathered for a specific public use. She felt higher taxes were needed as the money was used to help old people. . . .

Dates are supposed to be fun and you got into a debate about systems of taxation?
Was your date with George Lucas?

These are what my dates are like! on one of them I got bored and so decided to see how many animals I could list. It was about 50.