# About taxes



## Alain De Vos (Oct 31, 2022)

I just received two letters on the same day from my government.
I need to pay X Euro's , second letter they will pay me back X Euro's after I paid X Euro's.
I just paid X Euro's, two days for payment or additional costs will be involved.
So funny.
Every sane person would say this is stupid.
A friend told me this is "administration".


----------



## CuatroTorres (Oct 31, 2022)

I know this one:
Have a beer.
Or make a winning political party and end taxes.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Oct 31, 2022)

I'll settle for a beer. Because promises in vain is not my kind of tea.


----------



## gpw928 (Oct 31, 2022)

I'd say you were very lucky to get the money back!

The previous government is Australia devised a scheme (robo-debt) to send conjured up debt notices to welfare recipients demanding that they prove that no debt existed -- by providing written evidence (generally payslips, mostly for casual work) dating back many years.  This was nothing more than a Government sanctioned extortion scheme.

Most were unable to disprove the debt (do you have your payslips from five years ago?).  The psychological impact on vulnerable people was horrendous, and some faced financial ruin.  More than 2000 people died after receiving a robo-debt notice.

The recently established Royal Commission has already determined that the Government of the day, and the Ministers responsible, were clearly advised from the outset, by their own lawyers, that the scheme was illegal.  One might have hoped that _*amoral*_ would have been enough...


----------



## Lamia (Oct 31, 2022)

gpw928 said:


> This was nothing more than a Government sanctioned extortion scheme.


It was a privilege to serve in that building few months ago. I was hopping from one chamber to the other. I saw a judge come to work in pants. That was one of the simple-life impressions created amongst us. 

And about the robo-debt, I clearly remember it. Very saddening! I would imagine that several people are still paying back these 'debts' to the government welfare department.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 1, 2022)

I thought we are crazy.  But when I hear words. It's not locallly.


----------



## PMc (Nov 1, 2022)

gpw928 said:


> I'd say you were very lucky to get the money back!
> 
> The previous government is Australia devised a scheme (robo-debt) to send conjured up debt notices to welfare recipients demanding that they prove that no debt existed -- by providing written evidence (generally payslips, mostly for casual work) dating back many years.  This was nothing more than a Government sanctioned extortion scheme.
> 
> ...



Well, no. There is an important principle in democratic countries, that an explicit law is necessary to prohibit something. (This is different do totalitarian contries where one can get punished for crimes that were just made up by the government because they don't like you.)
So this means, as long as no law does prohibit something, you are free to do it. And I think this is correct and important.

But now comes the point: as all people are equal, the rulers demand the same right for themselves. They also consider themselves free to do whatever they like als long as there is no law against it - and if there is a law against it, then try to somehow get around that. And that means, in the first line, obviousely try to maximise their own  profit on the expense of the people.
There is no such thing as an _amoral_ government, and if it is rightaway _illegal_, then they can take taxpayers' money to get themselves some good lawyers.


----------



## SirDice (Nov 1, 2022)

Was afraid this would happen, no politics please.


----------



## gpw928 (Nov 1, 2022)

SirDice said:


> Was afraid this would happen, no politics please.


Sorry, my fault...


----------



## Crivens (Nov 2, 2022)

This is a rather hot topic, isn't it?
I for one are happy to pay taxes, they buy me some civilisation. I'm not happy with everything that is bought with that money, but then, for contrast, look at countries with a tax rate of zero. You know, like Somalia. And if you think your tax code is stupid, try germany. My blood pressure forbids me to go into details.


----------



## CuatroTorres (Nov 2, 2022)

How can I delete my message?
This is a double insinuation: Please re-enable the removal feature.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 2, 2022)

You can edit your message & delete all characters.


----------



## CuatroTorres (Nov 2, 2022)

You don't want them to enable the feature, right?


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 2, 2022)

Everyone has the right to censor himself. But there is mostly hardly a need for it.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 2, 2022)

The moment you feel the need to censor yourself you should stop and think of the why you feel you need to do this.
Noone should need to do this out of fear.


----------



## CuatroTorres (Nov 2, 2022)

Don't take it too seriously and have fun. Let's leave politics for philosophy, fine.


----------



## BobSlacker (Tuesday at 1:18 PM)

Taxation is theft, nothing more.


----------



## SirDice (Tuesday at 2:00 PM)

BobSlacker said:


> Taxation is theft, nothing more.


You could try to state your claim with the self-proclaimed queen of Canada. Apparently she has decreed that no tax should be paid. Fair warning though, it never ends well.


----------



## BobSlacker (Tuesday at 3:13 PM)

It is not my claim, it is the practical definition of taxes.

1. A group of people (self-proclaimed as a state and/or government) ask you for money.
2. If you give them your money they will leave you alone.
3. If you don't give them your money they will prosecute you.
4. If you protect your assets and/or avoid prosecution, they will try to get your assets by force.
5. If you respond to the aggression they will kidnap you and/or kill you.

So, theft by definition. I would go far and call it theft with threat of assault,


----------



## SirDice (Tuesday at 9:01 PM)

Sounds a lot like SovCits.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Tuesday at 10:10 PM)

There is also alot which can be said about central-banking which is highly related to taxes.


----------



## eternal_noob (Tuesday at 10:18 PM)

You are doing something wrong. I always get money back when i file a tax return.


----------



## BobSlacker (Tuesday at 10:34 PM)

Alain De Vos said:


> There is also alot which can be said about central-banking which is highly related to taxes.


The state money it's a lie, it is backup by political honesty, aka lie. Central bank it is a very complex scam.



eternal_noob said:


> You are doing something wrong. I always get money back when i file a tax return.


So the thief gave some money back to you? This doen't change the nature of the relationship, it is still theft with threat of aggression.


SirDice said:


> Sounds a lot like SovCits.


I didn't knew them, thank you.


----------



## astyle (Tuesday at 10:47 PM)

Ahhh... in the United States, we have a similar mess, it's called Social Security Administration.  In most cases, though, it's really on individuals to keep track of their own debts, because big bureaucracies have too much data to wade through. But if you have the paperwork to back up your case, just go to the window, sit down in front of the clerk and refuse to leave until your case has been thoroughly verified. I once did that with a bill I paid already. Turns out that somebody on their side of things was just not paying attention to the job they had in front of them. Taking them to task saved me about $1k USD.


----------



## BobSlacker (Tuesday at 10:54 PM)

astyle said:


> Ahhh... in the United States, we have a similar mess, it's called Social Security Administration.  In most cases, though, it's really on individuals to keep track of their own debts, because big bureaucracies have too much data to wade through. But if you have the paperwork to back up your case, just go to the window, sit down in front of the clerk and refuse to leave until your case has been thoroughly verified. I once did that with a bill I paid already. Turns out that somebody on their side of things was just not paying attention to the job they had in front of them. Taking them to task saved me about $1k USD.


It is more crazy when you realize that you are not obliged to make proof against your self when you murder someone, only when you spend money.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Tuesday at 11:15 PM)

Life is littered with examples of things that transform into stupid with oversimplification. I think these are good sources of inspiration for artistic expression.

I don't know why so many people believe in the magic spells and scrolls (the constitution) which were supposedly cast by a bunch of old guys (nodisrespect) a long time ago (and maybe women(lol)).

Just do what I do: stay broke (0%), and live with your mom forever cuz shell never die and always take care of me, and use the free innanet which is technically yours because your the man of the house.

The credit score? who cares, I hate sports.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 2:56 AM)

SirDice said:


> Sounds a lot like SovCits.


No, this this a very serious problem: for everything you hear and that does not conform to the endless stream of lies in the media, you wanna stuff it into a cardbox labelled something. This is the issue of today, and the typlical reaction. People dont _think_ anymore about that is said, they only ask for the label of a packaging, then to decide on that. People dont care anymore about _what_ is said, only about who says it.

Now getting to the topic, I have a quest open, this is a lifelong challence... The challenge is to find any identifyable difference between a governemnt and organized crime. And nobody ever could come up with any.

So what BobSlacker say, it is the logical consequence, and it doesn't matter who say what, because the law of logic and evidence is valid universally.



BobSlacker said:


> It is not my claim, it is the practical definition of taxes.
> 
> 1. A group of people (self-proclaimed as a state and/or government) ask you for money.
> 2. If you give them your money they will leave you alone.
> ...


Yes, this is exactly what organized crime do.


----------



## SirDice (Yesterday at 9:23 AM)

I'm happy to pay more taxes if this means affordable (preferably free) healthcare and education for _everyone_.


----------



## cynwulf (Yesterday at 10:05 AM)

Tax is in fact, extorted from the population - whether it's VAT, income tax, local authority taxes, etc - and that money is then used to pay politicians, pay for government sponsored schemes which usually only benefit a few, (or "support" an already super rich hereditary monarchy), bankroll the development and purchase of weapons, military action, etc, etc.  The funds from taxation eventually finding their way back into the coffers of rich individuals and corporations...  it's also spent on policing, but only just enough to support enough policing to protect the assets of the rich and ensure there is sufficient man power and equipment to suppress riots.

The government takes your money and passes it onto cronies, contractors, big corporations...  many of whom lobbied the government, many of who's boards of directors are full of those same politicians or their families.

So unfortunately, taxes mostly being spent on "public services" is a complete myth.  Especially considering that more and more public services are sold off or contracted out to the private sector.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Yesterday at 1:20 PM)

If you didn't pay taxes, how would the government provide the services they offer or pay for road construction, defense, and so on?


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 3:20 PM)

SirDice said:


> I'm happy to pay more taxes if this means affordable (preferably free) healthcare and education


This is not logical: If you want healthcare and education, then just do it: take responsibility, stand up and engage.

Instead hiring some "people" to extort money from others in your name, in order to (purportedly!!) do what you want, that is not only cowardly and dependent, and it also shows contempt for others and disrespect of freedom - but most importantly it will serve to sustain and expand an apparatus which will soon become a criminal organsation (if it isn't one already in the first line), instead of doing any good.  



SirDice said:


> for _everyone_.


Yes, thats the catch-all gotcha: It must always be "everyone", because that will never be achieved.  You cannot count everyone, there will always be somebody who slipped through. And that is the important justification to show the obvious need to increase totalitarism, suppression and surveillance ever further!


----------



## SirDice (Yesterday at 3:36 PM)

PMc said:


> This is not logical: If you want healthcare and education, then just do it: take responsibility, stand up and engage.


I'm privileged enough to not have to worry about the costs. But many people aren't that lucky. Don't you think everyone deserves good healthcare and education? Or at least have the opportunity to get it, so it's not only the rich people that benefit from those opportunities?



PMc said:


> and it also shows contempt for others and disrespect of freedom


So aspiring to give everyone the same opportunities and benefits somehow shows contempt and disrespect? I think you got that backwards.


PMc said:


> Yes, thats the catch-all gotcha: It must always be "everyone", because that will never be achieved.


Maybe, maybe not. I think it's good if you at least try to include everyone. 


PMc said:


> You cannot count everyone, there will always be somebody who slipped through.


So because you can never achieve that goal it's not even worth trying? Things aren't black and white you know. There's a very big grey area between the two extremes. If we can only get to 90% that would be still be worth it.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 3:37 PM)

drhowarddrfine said:


> If you didn't pay taxes, how would the government provide the services they offer or pay for road construction, defense, and so on?


Its a general problem: 
On one side is the demand that government should manage public services, like road construction (infrastructure, healthcare, education). Most people will agree to that, but the effect is that over time this takes away more and more of your freedom, and it most likely ends in heavenly peace for those who are unwilling to cherish the services of the government.

On the other side liberals may demand that all public services should be provided by companies and regulated by free market. And that doesn't work either - because the consumer is not really free to decide if he wants to buy water/transport/etc. or not. So what you get is again an overgrowing apparatus of regulations, and an evergrowing heap of buerocrats moving papers from one desk to another without achieving anything, but being very happy that they can feed their lifetime on the taxpayer and never need to fear to loose their job.

So, both results in the same end and doesn't work, the discussion is futile.

But, what we must not forget: for 100'000 years we lived as hunters&gatherers without any government, and that did work perfectly, because otherwise we weren't here.
+


----------



## SirDice (Yesterday at 3:52 PM)

PMc said:


> On the other side liberals may demand that all public services should be provided by companies and regulated by free market. And that doesn't work either - because the consumer is not really free to decide if he wants to buy water/transport/etc. or not.


I would agree, a completely free market for public services doesn't work either. Go take a look in Denmark. A lot of their healthcare is free, but if you want something different or extra you can pay for those with an insurance company of your choice. 


PMc said:


> But, what we must not forget: for 100'000 years we lived as hunters&gatherers without any government, and that did work perfectly, because otherwise we weren't here.


Sure, but that doesn't work anymore since we started conglomerating into cities. So for the last 6000 years or so we've needed some form of regulatory body, i.e. a government. Anarchistic societies didn't fair well.


----------



## chrbr (Yesterday at 3:55 PM)

PMc said:


> But, what we must not forget: for 100'000 years we lived as hunters&gatherers without any government, and that did work perfectly, because otherwise we weren't here.


In the past the government has been a priest, the head of the clan or such. They have not been elected but felt more or less responsible for the community because their existence depended on the community. For the actual politicians their monetary benefit has the highest priority. They get their pensions, almost independent of their efforts for the people.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 4:40 PM)

SirDice said:


> I'm privileged enough to not have to worry about the costs. But many people aren't that lucky. Don't you think everyone deserves good healthcare and education?


Absolutely not! 

Healthcare is a madness: organized healthcare _creates_ more than half of the illnesses. Ivan Illich explained that already 50 years ago - healthcare is an evergrowing moloch of useless therapies. He says, the problem is that politcal responsibles do not question the usefulness of healthcare-products, but only demand that the most expensive stuff must be available to everybody. (And people are supposed to think that receiving expensive therapies instead of proper treatment makes them more equal.)
Education is not something you can put into people, it is something the individual must strive for on their own. What you can provide is just facilities: a good basic education of reading and writing and critical thinking, and then accessibility of knowledge.
Now after probably three dozen "school reforms" in the last half century, just go and talk to an elementary class teacher and ask them what has become of this all.
The defect with both matters is the same: the believe that you just need to *fill in* therapy into people to make them healthy, that you just need to *fill in* education into people to make them knowledgeable. And that this stuff that you "fill in" has only a price-tag, and you need to extort that money from the taxpayers in order to get what you want.

But it doesn't work that way. *Healing, as well as learning, is a process of self-responsibility: you cannot do it for others.* Putting that responsibility into the government just takes away self-responsibility from the people and, consequentially, makes them less educated and less healthy. 
In (western) Europe you can see that effect whereever you look.



SirDice said:


> Or at least have the opportunity to get it, so it's not only the rich people that benefit from those opportunities?


That might have been a topic 50 or 100 years ago, when there still were opportunities reserved for the rich.
Back 50 years ago when I grew up, the only opportunity I couldn't have was a motorcycle with 16 years, so I could impress the girls. Even the working-class sons had one. But there was nowhere an issue with not getting any kind of required learning stuff *if you would want to get it*.

The current business-paper discussions about a lack of skilled/educated workers is entirey a lie. What they want is *not* skilled workers, what they want is trained monkeys to operate their GUIs. (Otherwise I wouldn't be longterm-unemployed.)



SirDice said:


> So aspiring to give everyone the same opportunities and benefits somehow shows contempt and disrespect? I think you got that backwards.


You cannot give whatever to whomever if it isn't your property at first. You just *don't have *opportunities and benefits to give to everybody. Neither does anybody. But making people believe that they would depend on "opportunities and benefits" to be received from somewhere, that already makes them less engaged and more waiting and demanding.

What You aspire, was already achieved 50 years ago. And it was achieved because *we* (and I count me among that) did fight for it.
Now this has become a kind of frozen religious matra that is ever recitated but can never be truly achieved (just like Jehova witnesses forever walk around and tell their story which never will be achieved), and does now only serve as an excuse to have the established powers gain more power (and these established powers are basically those who did fight alongside 40 years ago, but then got corrupted by politics - but they still strongly believe that their way is the only proper way, and therefore anybody critisising their way must be a nazi - like an EPROM staying with the believes they got programmed 50 years ago - and when they tried to use LSD to finally EEPROM their brains as Tim Leary recommended, they got a horror from realizing what freedom actually means).



SirDice said:


> So because you can never achieve that goal it's not even worth trying?


You should have asked that in 1960.
Consequentially, it was tried. Some things were achieved. Society and public services did change a lot. Sometimes to the better, sometimes to the worse.

But now continue just parroting the old matras without reflecting on current reality, without learning from what went good and what went bad in the recent decades, without reflecting about todays challenges, about the planetscope digital enslavement, etc. - I think that doesn't lead anywhere.


----------



## SirDice (Yesterday at 4:42 PM)

chrbr said:


> In the past the government has been a priest, the head of the clan or such.


Good one. Completely glossed over this fact. As hunter/gatherers there typically was an elder and/or shaman as an 'authority' figure. They ruled on conflicts between tribal/family members or divided the spoils of the hunt. Only a few people of the tribe hunted, and everybody within the tribe benefited from that. So there have always been a set of rules to live by. If you didn't follow the rules of the tribe/family you were usually kicked out (or simply killed). Some people seem to have a really romanticized version of life back then, you just lived on your own, doing whatever pleases you. It didn't work like that in reality.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 4:52 PM)

SirDice said:


> Sure, but that doesn't work anymore since we started conglomerating into cities.


That is exactly the point! when things started to fall apart and buerocracy was invented.

And social sciences well know why that is the case: because the human brain can remember a personal relation to some 300-400 people at most (because that's the usual maximum size of a tribe).
And things appear to work well when there is a personal relation and common interest, they seem to work not so well in anonymity.



> So for the last 6000 years or so we've needed some form of regulatory body, i.e. a government. Anarchistic societies didn't fair well.



Well, one could also say, after 6000 years it should be obvious that governments are the problem.
It's just that we still need to devise a scheme that is based on personal relationships and that can work in agglomerations, and that is self-organizing and self-healing. 
For instance, I remember one being proposed, back in the 80s: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p-m-bolo-bolo

"Anarchy" is actually a cornucopia of ideas, which usually aren't well analyzed, because people are usually against anarchy, having the rigid believe that anarchy cannot work.


----------



## Crivens (Yesterday at 4:54 PM)

chrbr said:


> In the past the government has been a priest, the head of the clan or such. They have not been elected but felt more or less responsible for the community because their existence depended on the community. For the actual politicians their monetary benefit has the highest priority. They get their pensions, almost independent of their efforts for the people.


We have an accountability gap there, sure. But that is not entirely the point with taxes.

If you want to have things done, for the mayority, you need to ignore some people. You can't build any infrastructure today because someone has an acure spell of NIMB, be it roads, powerlines or railways. One of our southern parts had fought tooth and nail not to build long distance power lines or wind turbines. Now they demand the rest of the nation saves them. Had everyone listened to them, we would all be in big poopoo. You need to do things even if not everyone affected agrees. That also goes for taxes. We have good healthcare, we have passable roads, we have railways (see how I avoid saying they are "good"? They were privatized some time ago...), and we have taxes to pay for that stuff. And if you compare the quality of healthcare for joe sixpack in places where you have health insurance by law with places where it is free market, that result might shock you. In the US, Joe Sixpack is more likely to be deep-sixed when his health acts up than here. When I need to call an ambulance, I do not need to consider the costs. And I did several times in the past. Also, I do not need to stop at a toll booth for a bridge/highway/whatever. That's why I pay taxes. I can afford it. Heck, I could even afford not to pay them as I could do some shenanigans with my lawyer who files my taxes. But I won't. I like free education for everyone. We have seen what happens when an art student is denied university.

As for the amount, it is the dose that makes the poison. And as long as it is fair and anyone chips in, I have no problem.

And here is one to lighten the mood: In the past we had empires, ruled by emporers. Then we had kingdoms, ruled by kings. Now we have countries.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Yesterday at 4:55 PM)

SirDice said:


> Some people seem to have a really romanticized version of life back then, you just lived on your own, doing whatever pleases you. It didn't work like that in reality.


You're not from New Hampshire, are ya?

I figured that if I could actually see where and what my tax dollars were contributed to it would be easy for me to enjoy (or, at least, accept) my participation. I'm also interested in eliminating the usefulness of any "not my tax dollars" argument.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 5:04 PM)

SirDice said:


> Good one. Completely glossed over this fact. As hunter/gatherers there typically was an elder and/or shaman as an 'authority' figure. They ruled on conflicts between tribal/family members or divided the spoils of the hunt. Only a few people of the tribe hunted, and everybody within the tribe benefited from that. So there have always been a set of rules to live by. If you didn't follow the rules of the tribe/family you were usually kicked out (or simply killed). Some people seem to have a really romanticized version of life back then, you just lived on your own, doing whatever pleases you. It didn't work like that in reality.


Ah, now you see it.  
That kind of "everybody-must-be-equal" fancy did never before work.

So what we have now is anonymous governments, mass governments stacked one atop of the other. These are an everlasting problem, as they always want to drift off in eiher the fashist or the communist totalitarism, and it takes ever ongoing effort to keep them in the unstable position in between.

This being difficult enough and not really solved, you want to put that everybody-must-be-equal (which has never really worked before) on top of it and make that a responsipility of that already malfunctioning government!

From an engineering viewpoint that is lunacy.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Yesterday at 5:07 PM)

Crivens said:


> And here is one to lighten the mood: In the past we had empires, ruled by emporers. Then we had kingdoms, ruled by kings. Now we have countries.



I hope this and suggestions like it are in celebration of anthropology day somewhere on the planet and not the suggestion that we're permanently incapable of anything except some type of terrible (which makes this, today, our version of perfect).

I'm certain the lessons of history will remain clear to those who need to remember.

I'm not entirely sure why we (humans) have such a hard time relating to each other so much so that we have to recall the lives of the past to interpret and understand why or why not to do something in the present day. There are a few examples of leadership that still persist today that aren't voted upon that turn out to not be evil at all (according to most people, at least): your parents, and your boss*.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Yesterday at 5:13 PM)

drhowarddrfine said:


> If you didn't pay taxes, how would the government provide the services they offer or pay for road construction, defense, and so on?


Who cares, as long as it isn't the roads I use, and the missiles don't hit me and shit.


----------



## Crivens (Yesterday at 5:17 PM)

alexseitsinger I think you did not get the joke. Who rules cuntries?


----------



## alexseitsinger (Yesterday at 5:18 PM)

Crivens said:


> alexseitsinger I think you did not get the joke. Who rules cuntries?


Haha. Perhaps, you're right.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 5:38 PM)

chrbr said:


> In the past the government has been a priest, the head of the clan or such. They have not been elected but felt more or less responsible for the community because their existence depended on the community.


Usually it was a priest, according to JGFrazer. And they were not _formally_ elected - but this is a group relation, and a group will always choose a leader by social dynamics, and one could well call that an "election" - it is actually the natural, non-formalized way of election.

And if they failed, they could well be killed - or even feel responsible to kill themselves. But this idea has only survived as a stupid stance of crazy romantic relationships "if i loose you, i'll kill myself". 
It is about love, indeed.



chrbr said:


> For the actual politicians their monetary benefit has the highest priority. They get their pensions, almost independent of their efforts for the people.


Nowadays, as a logical consequence of "everybody-is-equal", politicians demand for themselves the same right that all other people have; specifically:  to do any- and everything that is not explicitely prohibited by law. So in fact their job is to move papers from one stack to another, while trying to exploit any and all means to enrich themselves unless it is explicitely prohibited. That's all, as for anything else they can hire [some friends as] consultants.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 5:53 PM)

Corollary: 
When I was in school, we had to decide upon one of four specializations: old languages, new languages, math/tech, or social-sciences/business (the fifth, music/arts, wasnt provided at that school).
It was clear to me that I was not very talented in languages (or just too lazy  ), and I was undecided between the other two, so I asked the teacher. And he was very clear about that: social-science is only for those who have no specific talents whatsoever.

So, these are people with no specific talent, and therefore dependent on social welfare or something similar. Which can be achieved in a couple of ways:

they can become company leaders and make others work for them
they can become teachers/therapists/mediators/etc. (Robert Bach: "_you teach best what you most need to learn_") and live off the taxpayer.
or they can become politicians.
In any case we must feed them thru, and that is what taxes are for.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Yesterday at 6:06 PM)

PMc said:


> Corollary:
> When I was in school, we had to decide upon one of four specializations: old languages, new languages, math/tech, or social-sciences/business (the fifth, music/arts, wasnt provided at that school).
> It was clear to me that I was not very talented in languages (or just too lazy  ), and I was undecided between the other two, so I asked the teacher. And he was very clear about that: social-science is only for those who have no specific talents whatsoever.
> 
> ...


If politicians weren't necessary then everyone else would have to learn how to manage things themselves! Unfortunately, I think arguing that they were never necessary requires that everyone must being born at the same time to inherit the same human rules (which shouldn't need to be explicit as we all have the same requirements and deserve the same tings), among a number of other assumptions--lets not tunnel into this tangent, I have to work, too!


----------



## SirDice (Yesterday at 6:57 PM)

PMc said:


> Back 50 years ago when I grew up, the only opportunity I couldn't have was a motorcycle with 16 years, so I could impress the girls. Even the working-class sons had one. But there was nowhere an issue with not getting any kind of required learning stuff *if you would want to get it*.


Who paid for that education? Did you or your parents pay for it? Or was it free (the government paid for it)? I was talking about being able to _afford_ a good education if you wanted to get it. I got a reasonably high education, my parents couldn't afford it and I had to pay for it myself. I had to supplement the student grant I got by working odd jobs in weekends and holidays, because the grant wasn't enough to pay for the books, let alone the tuition fees. Have you seen the tuition fees nowadays? And student grants have all been reduced to nothing. It wasn't much when I got it, you don't get anything anymore nowadays. Now you can only get a government funded loan to pay for it. And once you finished your education and start participating in the workforce you immediately start with 50.000 euro (or more) debt you need to pay off. This loan was introduced as interest-free but there's now talk of adding interest on that loan. If you're smart and want to get a good education you shouldn't be held back because you can't afford it. You should have the same opportunity as the other smart person that happens to have rich parents.

I'm not suggesting everybody should be forced into a higher education. That would be somewhat ridiculous, not everybody is equally smart enough for it. On the other hand I also know plenty of people with university degrees that are just too dumb to grasp even the most basic ideas or problems. Then there's also a good chunk of people that would be smart enough for a higher education but chose to become a plumber, electrician, construction worker or some other skilled laborer because they simply enjoy doing that kind of work. Free education is about being able to _choose_ to get it or not, regardless of your financial status.  



PMc said:


> Usually it was a priest, according to JGFrazer. And they were not _formally_ elected - but this is a group relation, and a group will always choose a leader by social dynamics, and one could well call that an "election" - it is actually the natural, non-formalized way of election.


Your argument was that as hunter/gatherers we didn't need a government and we did well without it. My argument was that there has always been some form of authority, in other words, a governmental body. Be it a single or group of elders, shamans, priests or some other type of figure heads, naturally chosen or by birthright doesn't really matter, it's still a form of government. And the group/tribe/family as a whole took care of individuals because that's what social animals (that includes humans) do.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Yesterday at 8:21 PM)

SirDice said:


> Free education is about being able to _choose_ to get it or not, regardless of your financial status.





SirDice said:


> If you're smart and want to get a good education you shouldn't be held back because you can't afford it. You should have the same opportunity as the other smart person that happens to have rich parents.





SirDice said:


> I was talking about being able to _afford_ a good education if you wanted to get it.



Agreed.

I think its funny how much we expect from each other when we're the least experienced and the least capable (e.g. our students and our elderly). However, nobody should need to go to college to be a valuable professional and nobody should have to offer their body to be expected to survive.

We're all born into the terrible, terrible, terrible "gift" of a life with some kind of traditions and expectations being forced upon us by our parents, who also had parents that did the same thing, and on and on. This seems to be the most logical point of origin for most of our "big problems".


----------



## astyle (Yesterday at 8:31 PM)

Entire planet is insane, let's all ignore it and mess around in FreeBSD, shall we? it's WAY more fun than taking someone else to task.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 8:46 PM)

SirDice said:


> Who paid for that education? Did you or your parents pay for it? Or was it free (the government paid for it)? I was talking about being able to _afford_ a good education if you wanted to get it.


Thats why I say, bring that issue up in 1950 or even earlier. It's the wrong time now.
In fact the government *forces* children into school, it is not a matter of choice. (An explanation for this comes from the marxists: the government wants to control and brainwash the children into a capitalist worldview.)



SirDice said:


> I got a reasonably high education, my parents couldn't afford it and I had to pay for it myself. I had to supplement the student grant I got by working odd jobs in weekends and holidays, because the grant wasn't enough to pay for the books, let alone the tuition fees.


I tried with that so-called "higher education", and found it useless.
The matter is expalined in R.A.Wilson, Illuminatus, book II: _*"they are not here to learn, they are here to aquire a piece of paper that would make them eligible for certain jobs"*_

That's what that "higher education" is about: it is just a legitimation for certain prestigious jobs. So if you want such a job, why should _other people_ pay (->taxes->government) for your legitimation??

I for my part somehow figured that out, and let it be - because I do not do what I do not want to do, only because of morals or opportunism.
Instead I engaged in smoking pot and understanding computers, which looked much more interesting and promising. (I had to steal the computers, as I had no money to buy them.)



SirDice said:


> Have you seen the tuition fees nowadays? And student grants have all been reduced to nothing. It wasn't much when I got it, you don't get anything anymore nowadays. Now you can only get a government funded loan to pay for it. And once you finished your education and start participating in the workforce you immediately start with 50.000 euro (or more) debt you need to pay off.


Yes, because what they do nowadays call "higher education" is no longer what was once called "studying". It is now only a fast lane to quickly shape people into that kind of zombies that the industry (i.e. the big money) needs as functioning monkeys for their graduated jobs.
So this is indeed only money-in/money-out, it has nothing to do with learning.



> If you're smart and want to get a good education you shouldn't be held back because you can't afford it. You should have the same opportunity as the other smart person that happens to have rich parents.



The point is, it has nothing to do with "education"!  You could as well demand that the taxpayer should pay you pool invest in the casino, so that you can win the same amount as the rich people.



> I'm not suggesting everybody should be forced into a higher education.That would be somewhat ridiculous, not everybody is equally smart enough for it.



Never mind, that's already happening. As my teacher said, the social sciences are for these. And then they become our teachers, and -most importantly- our politicians (who will then never again let go of the never-ebbing udders of the milk-cow taxpayer).



SirDice said:


> On the other hand I also know plenty of people with university degrees that are just too dumb to grasp even the most basic ideas or problems. Then there's also a good chunk of people that would be smart enough for a higher education but chose to become a plumber, electrician, construction worker or some other skilled laborer because they simply enjoy doing that kind of work. Free education is about being able to _choose_ to get it or not, regardless of your financial status.


But what You are demanding is NOT that the taxpayer should enable people to be equally free to choose the learning of their interest. What you are demanding is that the taxpayer should *give people money to be equally able to buy a degree*!



SirDice said:


> Your argument was that as hunter/gatherers we didn't need a government and we did well without it.


Exactly. My argument is that we can learn from there, because that is proven to have worked for 100'000 years. Our modern lifestyle, to the contrary, works only for some 50 years yet.



SirDice said:


> My argument was that there has always been some form of authority, in other words, a governmental body.


That is NOT the same. A leader is somebody who takes responsibility (which is a natural thing). A government does no lead, it does govern. (And with our governments of today one can see that they have zero leadership skill.)
(Distinction: a leader is followed by the people out of their free will. A government needs laws and executives and police and military and jails in order to subdue the people.)



SirDice said:


> And the group/tribe/family as a whole took care of individuals because that's what social animals (that includes humans) do.


That was already thoroughly analyzed by the 1968 communards. There is knowledge there, one could grab it and understand, but nobody seems to care.


----------



## BobSlacker (Yesterday at 9:12 PM)

Every body here that is trying to explain how the mob spend the money that they robbed are trying to justify slavery with extra steps. If you want to help people with free-"something" donate money to who need it, but don't advocate in favor of mass extortion and slavery. That's just wrong. 

Statism it is just another cult with a mob mentality, and is the most dangerous one.


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 9:17 PM)

PMc said:


> The point is, it has nothing to do with "education"!  You could as well demand that the taxpayer should pay you pool invest in the casino, so that you can win the same amount as the rich people.



One might elaborate further on this one. The difference is explained by Max Weber: in protestand ethics, gambling is consideres _leisure_, while a graduated job is considered _work_.
And by _working_ instead of enjoying your life, you are considered to submit to God's will.

Probably, investing at the stock exchange, which is in practice all the same as gambling, is also considered _work_ - wich shows that the whole distinction is blurred and driven by misguided moral aspects.

Trying to get the full picture, including the role that money actually plays, can easily drive the mind into overload. Our whole today society is driven by the urge of making more money - which would be impossible without money, because typically you can neither eat more than fits your stomach, and only as much as has been planted and harvested.


----------



## SirDice (Yesterday at 10:55 PM)

PMc said:


> Instead I engaged in smoking pot and understanding computers, which looked much more interesting and promising.


We might disagree on a lot of things but I do see a lot of common ground.

Legalize pot and tax the ever living crap out of it


----------



## eternal_noob (Yesterday at 11:08 PM)

PMc said:


> God's will


Mankind created God, not the other way round.


----------



## astyle (Yesterday at 11:20 PM)

eternal_noob said:


> Mankind created God, not the other way round.


Dogs were around for longer than that.


----------



## Tieks (Yesterday at 11:23 PM)

BobSlacker said:


> Every body here that is trying to explain how the mob spend the money that they robbed are trying to justify slavery with extra steps.


I can understand that point of view when I read about 'omnibus spending package meant to fight inflation' or 'disinformation governance board' (the latter probably meant to explain why there is no need to read omnibus spending bills before voting).
But there is at least one positive side to it: As a foreigner I have a great laugh when I read such things. It's not all bad, you know.
BTW, where did Scary Poppins go? I miss her!


----------



## eternal_noob (Yesterday at 11:26 PM)

astyle said:


> Dogs were around for longer than that.


So were space frogs.








						Panspermia - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## PMc (Yesterday at 11:56 PM)

SirDice said:


> We might disagree on a lot of things but I do see a lot of common ground.
> 
> Legalize pot and tax the ever living crap out of it


Okay, You can do that. Then I do what people do with alcohol for a long time already: run my own distille. One can do that with lower-q stuff, and get the pure agent from it... 


eternal_noob said:


> So were space frogs.


Wait - that one was Alien/Prometheus... (I occasionally loose track on the topics)


eternal_noob said:


> Panspermia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But how did a 5th century BCE philosopher know about spacecraft? That would then rather be Daeniken...

It seems the bottomline is: they still do not know how life originates, so they try to push the blame around.
They claim that science can now explain everything up to some 3 picoseconds or such after the big bang, but they still have no clue how the difference is created between a heap of organic molecules on one side, and a living being on the other... 
And that's important to keep in mind, because ...
_“and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”_
...science has no idea about what a soul is, either - but that seems to get tolerated in general.


----------



## BobSlacker (Today at 2:37 AM)

Tieks said:


> I can understand that point of view when I read about 'omnibus spending package meant to fight inflation' or 'disinformation governance board' (the latter probably meant to explain why there is no need to read omnibus spending bills before voting).
> But there is at least one positive side to it: As a foreigner I have a great laugh when I read such things. It's not all bad, you know.
> BTW, where did Scary Poppins go? I miss her!


Wooosh, I didn't get this one, sorry.


----------



## k3y5 (Today at 3:36 AM)

FreeBSD forums are a magical place.


----------



## BobSlacker (Today at 3:49 AM)

k3y5 said:


> FreeBSD forums are a magical place.


Best social media ever.


----------



## smithi (Today at 4:27 AM)

SirDice said:


> Was afraid this would happen, no politics please.



That worked out well, eh?
<&^}=


----------



## Alain De Vos (Today at 5:26 AM)

Time for a joke.
Most of the politicians find , most of other politicians, bad politicians.


----------



## Crivens (Today at 6:16 AM)

Alain De Vos said:


> Time for a joke.
> Most of the politicians find , most of other politicians, bad politicians.


*lifts carpet* where is the joke?
Ahh, it's like 80% of drivers see themselves as better than average?


----------



## eternal_noob (Today at 6:46 AM)

Problem is that you don't need any education to be a politican. This really  started to be a problem nowadays


----------



## Alain De Vos (Today at 7:03 AM)

But, In my life i have also seen persons with very high degrees doing very bad things.


----------



## covacat (Today at 11:16 AM)

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61702ZA-L8L._AC_SL1000_.jpg


----------

