It seems that at the moment, the primary rejoinder of the White House about the information released by WikiLeaks is that more innocent lives have been put at risk now than would have been without the leaks. If this is true, at some point, further leaks would cause the loss of innocent to approach the level that would result from a complete withdrawal. That's why I think these predictions are all total fabrications and BS. The White House likely believes there is a very real "risk" resulting from future leaks. They would likely call them "copycat leaks." But courage is contagious, as Assanage so astutely pointed out. Therefore future, even bigger leaks are an altogether credible inevitability. Why not minimize the loss of innocent life by making a strategic withdrawal as soon as possible? If innocent life really is such a priority to the White House, why not leave now?
WARNING: This is forbidden knowledge. I'm just telling you right up front. If you explore this idea too much, you might become an "undesirable." You've been warned.
Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that most people believe taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").
The way I see it, taxes are institutionalized theft. That is, theft that has been made "legitimate." But how does someone take something immoral and convert it into something moral?
I've pose two questions to help sort out the difference between theft performed by an individual and institutionalized theft (that is, theft by a group of individuals, also known as government).
If taxation is not theft, what would government have to do in order to commit theft?
If taxation is not theft, is over-taxation theft?
For some reason, the first question takes a lot of effort for people to answer. It's a little out of left field, right? The second question sort-of gives an inch to the idea. In fact, it allows the you to answer the first question and open the door to the idea that taxation is actually theft.
If I can get some agreement from above line of questioning, I can bring it home with a soliloquy I call "The Magic Threshold."
The Magic Threshold
Premise: 1) Assuming taxation is not theft *until* the level taxation is deemed to be excessive. 2) Government is not capable of theft *until* taxation is excessive; before that it is just not theft. 3) This level might well be different for everyone.
Questions: Is it possible for an individual to do the same? Is there a certain level at which taking something that's not yours is also *not* theft *until* a certain nominal level, *then* after that level is crossed, it *becomes* theft?
If so, what was it called before the theft threshold is crossed for that individual?
You might simply reply, "I don't think it applies to the individual. It applies to the collective of society."
To which I reply, "But I assume you are not suggesting that collectives are bound by a different set of moral consideration, right?"
Attached is an excellent interview from July 14th, 2010 between Mark Edge and Benjamin Powell on the topic of immigration.
And in "rebuttal" by Lou Dobbs: Notice, all Dobbs can do is call Powell an idiot and a jackass. That's his only rebuttal. On top of that, Dobbs confuses "fact" with "opinion." The fact is, there is no such thing as illegal immigration because that notion is built on top of the opinion that states and nations exist in the first place.
Barence writes "A pernicious new type of scam is targeting British computer owners, reports PC Pro. The con is both fiendishly clever and ridiculously simple. The fraudster cold-calls the customer and tells them that Microsoft has detected a virus on their PC, then invites them to download a piece of remote-assistance software. No doubt reassured by the lines of indecipherable code flitting across their screen, the caller assures the customer they can make the virus vanish – but first, of course, they want payment. £185 to be precise. The spoof site behind the scam is approved by McAfee's Site Advisor and bears Microsoft logos, something which both companies have failed to act upon. Meanwhile, an assortment of British regulators have said there is nothing they can do to stop it."
This is a great example of what people imagine a stateless society would look like. If the authorities aren't there to step in, how will people be protected against predators and "cyber-scammers?" Well, in the current "regulated" environment, scammers are encouraged to think of ways around regulation. Regulations only offer a false sense of security. People are actually left unprotected from the scams when a simple exploit is discovered.
Compulsory "safeguards" that are required or will be required by government causes software and hardware vendors to raise their prices by embedding their regulatory costs. After a particularly bad incident like the one in the above article, vendors will be required by government to add more fraud protection after the fact, otherwise leave the market. In the case of the EU, it already has many regulations on the books that increase the cost of going to market. Regulations upon regulations will also keep certain vendors out of these markets.
Regulatory costs in systems like this are hidden by the falling price of physical computer hardware (costs naturally fall in the computer industry). But believe me, these embedded costs are there. At some point soon, I expect government intervention in information technology will represent the bulk of the cost of information technology (it probably already has). Regulations will also get further and further behind the latest threat from scammers.
What would be the reality in a stateless situation? What is the solution without government regulation?
Well, since people would know there's no compulsory safety net, computers would be sold with an optional support service. Due to the lack of embedded tax levied and regulation compliance on the sale of hardware and software, the initial price would be much lower in the stateless society. So people who can support their own systems don't have to pay for these services. There is no distributed penalty.
Imagine an entire computer rig, both hardware and software, that costs $50 without support service. Then you pay another $50 for security service that expires after two years. This security service comes with a great support package (like perimeter software with automatic updates and phone support). After two years, you can renew the service for another $50 or buy a newer (better) rig for $50 (plus another $50 for another two years of service).
If someone manages to scam you, the computer security company pays for a new rig plus compensation for damages beyond that. The security company then has a direct incentive to secure its customers from being scammed. So they will make sure you're on the latest firewall software or what have you. They will also send you understandable information about the latest scams. For some people who need it, there would be cause to send DVDs with instructions on how to handle calls from scammers, e-mail attachments, et cetera. Again, because they have an economic incentive to prevent fraud, there is no limit to the innovation they'll use.
And if they fail to protect on a constant basis, they run the risk of going out of business, unlike legislators do in our current situation.
Then there's competition. Maybe another computer security company only charges $25 because they don't send training media. Or maybe all of the computer security companies realize they are competing against your family members and geek friends who offer free support. Maybe your geek friend will chip in to pay for some or all of the $50 to keep you from calling. Maybe the geek friend gets a discount or reward for hooking up all his technophobe friends with a support contract. Competition and voluntary interaction is where the free market really shines.
Is it perfect? No. But it would be way better and more effective than the compulsory system we now have (and also what's on the horizon in the near future).
For more information about statelessness and what a voluntary society might look like, please consider: http://c4ss.org/content/2973
I am told I am a very negative person and I don't say enough good things about the United States. Well, part of that is because we so often base our perception of the US as being its government. But the people are the rulers, thus the elected officials are the servant government. At least, that's how it should be. There is also supposed to be a division between a country's private sector and its public sector, otherwise we have state run for-profit initiatives, which is a bad thing (fascism). So I've decided to look for the good things about American, inside and outside the government. This is by no means an exhaustive list. This is more-or-less a grouping of accolades and accomplishments I've singled out for specific reasons. And remember, all praise is relative opinion.Warren G. HardingI was asked who my favorite president was in the last 150 years. Off the bat, President Warren G. Harding came to mind. The reason is, when they started to see economic problems, his solution was to invite his buddies over to the White House to play cards and drink booze. I like that approach. Doing nothing was a pretty good plan. True Laissez-faire.In other words, he did nothing and the economic problems subsided quickly. But in the process of doing nothing, he also allowed the Federal Reserve System to continue to exist, so that was a Bad Thing. Not his fault, but not something he saw fit to fix either. Harry TrumanThere had to be another president on my list, so after doing a little more research, I've decided Harry Truman is another favorite. He did a lot more than nothing. He got the federal government out of the way of the free market. He started to restore the gold standard after the war. He repealed price controls that were put in place for the war. In other words, he did things that were detrimental to the growth of the Federal Government. He took his oath seriously. Any president who puts us back on the gold standard gets a AAA rating in my book. If Bush had done it even after all of what has happened, even after saying, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system," I would have given him a AAA rating if he would have at least put us back on the gold standard. Keep in mind, if Bush did that, the dollar would probably have to be revalued to $40,000 per gold ounce instead of $35 like in Truman's day, but that's a step in the right direction (I just pulled that number out of the air, same place the dollar comes from). SpaceX
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) is an American space-transportation startup company founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. It is developing partially reusable launch vehicles - the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 - and the Dragon series of space capsules.
The reason this is impressive is that they did this in spite of all the resistance and interference of the government. But it also illustrates where private industry is technologically.Chinese Food Technically, I'm referring to American-Chinese Food, but this 15 minute video sums it all up: Is America Number One? Here's an ABC special from late 1999 featuring John Stossel. It's 40 minutes long and outlines exactly why I'm happy to be here. Coming To AmericaSo there you have it. That's the good stuff about America. I'm sure there's a lot more, but remember, I'm a curmudgeon.
