/liberty/ - Liberty

Not long, the unis and airports have already gone full electronic.

>>16702

It won't happen.

Too many businesses are built on hiding revenue sources. Not just the black market, but all the cash and carry places that fudge on their taxes.

>>16702

>the government could generate "cash" without opposition while you could get yours taken away because of your views, or actions.

they already do this, what planet have you been living on

>>16723

kek if electronic finance got in the way of fraud, banking accounts wouldn't exist

it's all about that book magic

>>16748

Mind telling us how your ebin picture is relevant?

>>16748

Funny, because the structure and rules of monopoly are what allow the monopolies to form.

My friends and I made a "free market" version of monopoly with trade deals and partial shares in profits. It ended in a monopoly, but only after three of us tried to form a socialist collective to take over the board.

>>16748

What's the point of luxury taxes? it's one of the most economically retarded policies out there

>>16877

because resting is wrong and detrimental for the guys that steal from you

>>16877

>>16909

Luxury taxes make perfect sense.

Governments need money to run and you need to tax those who actually have money in order to get funds.

luxuries by definition are non-essentials so discouraging their consumption by increasing their price does less harm,

you might even argue that taxing some luxuries to discourage their consumption is a social good. Alcohol and tobacco "sin taxes" are an example of this.

and Please stop with the taxation is theft crap. Taxes are part of the social contract.

>>16929

>luxuries by definition are non-essentials so discouraging their consumption by increasing their price does less harm

What is this? the Soviet Union?

>unironically using the term 'social good' and using it to justify taxation

>and Please stop with the taxation is theft crap. Taxes are part of the social contract

Thats ironic coming from someone with the Revolutionary flag

>>16929

>you might even argue that taxing some luxuries to discourage their consumption is a social good. Alcohol and tobacco "sin taxes" are an example of this.

Calling it a social good is a bland self-deception. Truth is, no one knows who benefits from these "sin taxes", but people like you are sure someone does. Someone is also harmed by it, but you assume that the good for someone outweighs the harm done to the other someones. You're pretty much arguing from a probably-not-so-pure utilitarian perspective, but by bringing in the social good and not the good of individuals or even groups of people, you make the hedonistic calculus even more inapplicable than it already is.

>Taxes are part of the social contract.

Problems with the social contract:

>The only people who may have signed such a thing have been dead for one-hundred years

>It can't be an implied contract because no government even pretends that you have a choice but to sign the contract

>Governments don't care about this legal construction at all

All you need to debunk the theory of the social contract is basic knowledge on contractual law. The jurisdiction doesn't matter, those principles are pretty much universal.

>>16930

The American Revolution wasn't against taxes. It was against taxation with representation.

And George Washington himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

I'd reckon that flag fits my ideology just fine.

>>16931

If you don't like the American social contract, you are free to leave.

>>16931

I should further explain the concept of a sin tax.

Lets look at alcohol.

I live in a big college party town, and nearly every stupid thing that happens is done by drunk kids.

Their vandalism, fighting, and what not cost the city money. Putting a little tax on their booze allows the city to pay those social costs.

I don't see how rights are infringed because alcohol consumption is not prohibited. It just costs more.

Hopefully this gets our more troublesome drinkers to cut back,, and if it doesn't it helps pay for the problems they create for the rest of us.

>>16933

I'm from Germany, so leaving the US will not exactly be very helpful.

Ever heard of Sealand? Bunch of guys actually did leave Germany, went to an abandoned platform in the middle of the ocean. You can't leave a country harder than this, and yet, our federal constitutional court ruled that they were still german citizens, and that you can't opt out. So much about just leaving it if you don't like it.

The question of whether or not you can opt out of a social contract is completely irrelevant, though, because - as I explained to you - the social contract does not exist.

>>16929

I never signed a contract. Show me this social contract I supposedly signed so I can burn it.

>>16935

>I don't see how rights are infringed because alcohol consumption is not prohibited. It just costs more.

Your property rights are infringed when money is taken from you. Come on.

With that out of the way:

>Their vandalism, fighting, and what not cost the city money. Putting a little tax on their booze allows the city to pay those social costs.

I like getting drunk. In fact, I love getting drunk. What I don't like is being a total ass when I'm drunk. The worst it does is make me tell old friends that I love them very much and am glad they are in my life, which is pretty gay, but hurts no one. What I don't do is start fights, damage property or even insult cops. Why, then, should I pay for this shit? Why don't you extra? Because you're not drinking alcohol? That's a stupid criterion as soon as you take the individual into consideration, instead of arguing from a collectivist viewpoint.

>>16939

>You folks really shouldn't knock the idea of the social contract. Before this idea appeared, your rulers just figured they only had to answer to god and did whatever they wanted.

The social contract was a huge step forward in its time, but now, it's holding us back from going the next steps. The concept has outlived its usefulness, for the most part.

>and a tax on a product doesn't infringe your property rights because you haven't bought that booze yet,, and you don't have to buy it.

That I don't have to buy it does not mean I am required to put up with the state demanding money from me, without me ever giving my okay.

>It's a bummer that we have to pay extra because of unruly drunks, instead of gentlemen scholar drinkers like ourselves, but life isn't fair.

Life isn't fair, but I expect my fellows to be.

>there's a solid logic to it. Just like profiling in law enforcement. It sucks that mellow Arabs get some extra attention at Airport Security. Maybe they should blame the people who look like them for giving them a bad name.

And where should we draw the line? The only way to do so without being arbitrary is by acknowledging inalienable individual rights.

>and what's wrong with "collective viewpoint" Society is composed of Individuals

Talking about groups of individuals has its place, but that's not what I mean with the collective viewpoint. You should always ask yourself who's profitting from an action. If you can't come up with even a certain group, then chances are no one's profitting. "Everyone" counts as a group, but not everyone is profitting from something that supposedly serves the greater good.

>and the individual has to make some concessions for the greater good.

The individual just has to make concessions to other individuals, namely by respecting their individual rights. This will serve the greater good, ultimately, without ever bringing the collective as a whole into the equation.

>>16944

>What concept replaces the "social contract"?

The social contract was an attempt to reconcile human liberty with the coercive actions of states, based on the premise that it is fundamentally wrong to enslave men. We must embrace this premise, and realize that there is no social contract to justify the status quo. The positive law must die and make way for a strictly customary law, based upon principles like non-aggression, human autonomy and justice.

>As for everyone always being fair.. I reckon that's a tall order.

Sure people often aren't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

>>16947

I am unfamiliar with the term.. "positive law".

Did a search and found something about Thomas Aquinas and "man made laws" …

Are they really any other laws than man-made laws? It's not like angels drop by with copy at the state law.

Please elaborate.

>>16936

Sealand is actually off the coast of the UK, not Germany. Pretty sure it was never claimed by the Germans as their territory since it's actually in British waters

>>16944

>what replaces the social contract

mutual trade

Also, as soon as you steal money from people, liberty is dead. Anything else built on that foundation infringes your property rights. So, the only way you could reduce alcohol comsumption is if you could persuade the people who sell alcohol to raise prices or to not sell it to suspicious people. Vandalism and other property damage is taken care of by the courts. That does not need a tax before the crime.

something bad might happen != it will happen

laws should be objective, and if they are based on stupid justicfications that imprison people for some percieved precursor to a crime (in whose eyes? decided by whom?) then the law is immoral.

>>16953

Morality apart from state laws and religion is possible, you know.

>>16953

With positive law, I mean all law that originates in the state. Includes statutory law, constitutional law and the acts of the executive. Some rulings from courts could also count, if they are de facto regarded as laws.

Opposed to it is customary law, which is what is generally accepted as law whether it's been proclaimed or not. As for natural law: That shouldn't count as its own legal category, as it isn't enforced. It is a useful concept nonetheless.

>>16954

Right, it was never claimed by the Germans. It is part of British territories since 1987, after the states claimed all the territory twelve miles from their coasts.

>>16964

Not the guy you are replying to but you mean systems like Tort Law and Common Law right? they are largely customary and not 'written down' from what I understand.

I understand your position on natural law though, its useful but not 'law' per se.

>>16971

>Bitcoin for example with it's block chain technology would make it impossible for governments to "take away" your money or "print" as much money as they want.

Only until they acquire better processors, and /or forcefully take computers and disks with the hashes.

>>16967

>Not the guy you are replying to but you mean systems like Tort Law and Common Law right?

That's a good example. The Brehon Laws

>>16981

…would be another one, and I really ought to get my shit together. Damn.

>>17001

Well saying that common law isn't 'written down' is a little bit misleading, in reality common law is written down in the decisions of countless common law court cases (regardless of country) and is strongly influenced by natural law and the common sense of the time.

>I like living in the United States and having a relatively clear cut bill of rights in the Constitution.

And how is that working out for you? from an outside perspective your constitution seems to have about the same value as toilet paper when it comes to government legislation from the moment of its inception. The first president you ever had passed a law which directly violated the 1A by making it illegal to insult the president and other select members of government.

Shall not be abridged… except…

Shall not be infringed… except…

etc

>>17001

No law is ever so clearly, precise and unambiguous that a state court couldn't butcher it. Common law is more honest, and I appreciate that.

>>17000

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. CAW CAW CAW

>>17003

>>17017

These two post contradict each other.

Hundreds of individual court rulings to slog through is a not clear.

>>17003

>And how is that working out for you?

Considering that memes aside we are genuinely the freest country on earth I'd say it's doing okay. Not GREAT, but unfortunately we live in a world of men and not angels. The Constitution has more ably defended the freedom of men than any other document in the history of the earth.

>>17020

I didn't say it was clear, I said it was honest.

Here's how Common Law works:

>Find a ruling from a case similar to yours

>Check if the rationale applies

>Apply the ruling

>No ruling? Create one that's not an affront to basic human decency, the idea of justice and the general principles of your legal system

>Rinse and repeat for future cases

Here's how Statutory Law works:

>Find the positive rule that applies to your case

>Realize it doesn't apply to your case

>Use it as part of a legal analogy

>Teleologically reduce it because the result just doesn't seem to fit

>Endlessly debate whether priority notices are more proprietarian or more contractual in nature

>Realize no one cares about the strongest argument in the debate and just look up what the highest court has said about it

>Find out the EU has created a new regulation, according to which in cases like yours, two vendors who want a priority notice for some fucking reason need to do some fucking random shit beforehand

>Realize that the results completely go against everything you have ever been taught in law school

>Pretend it all makes sense

Seriously. This is the shit I'd be dealing with if I hadn't specialized in criminal law. Now I'm just dealing with half of it.

>>17047

When I started it, I was still deep into statism. In fact, my first semesters consolidated my view that democracy was oh so great and holy shit our legal system is so refined! When my pink glasses were knocked off by a good friend of mine, I started seeing it for the joke it was. Nevertheless, some of what I learned could be applied pretty well, I think, even in the absence of statutory laws. Something like the proximate cause doctrine, general contractual law and so on. EU-law, not so much. That stuff is only good for scaring little children.

>>17062

>I was still deep into statism

Guess I don't have any room to criticize since I applied for Air Force ROTC when I was already a libertarian and only didn't do it because they didn't offer me a good scholarship (even though I scored an 88 on the ASVAB and had acceptable athletic scores.)

tl;dr was prevented from becoming hypocrite by lack of scholarships, probably was for the best

>>17062

>I was still deep into statism

Dont feel bad, we all were like that at one stage just due to the nature of our current society.

>>17095

>Don't feel bad

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING

Haven't you learned anything from the left? Guilt is a valuable resource to be exploited, especially if the person who is supposed to feel guilty is white and male and raised in a culture with openness to criticism unless the person making criticisms is right-wing and tolerance.

>>17118

>Haven't you learned anything from the left?

>Guilt is a valuable resource to be exploited

Of course, but you are only supposed to guilt the fuck out of your enemies.

If you attack people who are on your side then its a fast track way to alienate them, the left does not realize this which is why its imploding.

>>17120

Its also the reason why the left are becoming more and more radical, attacking anyone creates a feedback loop where they constantly try to out-left each other to prevent being attacked. If the only place which is safe from attack is the extreme then its where everyone will try to go.

Forgot my flag last post.

An exclusively e-money economy would have to make unregulated bartering illegal, and that's almost unfathomable for most people. Say what you want about the convenience of debit/credit cards but people will never drop cash or trade because it can't be taxed or tracked. I don't think there's any way to spin that.

>>17123

Such is the nature of all extremists, really. The more justifiable rash actions are in defense of an ideology, the more unstable their dynamics are. The only thing that changes are their actions.

>>17173

>Such is the nature of all extremists, really.

No, I think its limited to those whose ideology is founded on relative truths (muh feelings) rather than objective truths (NAP et al.).

I dont see AnCaps trying to out-AnCap each other, or attacking small state Libertarians. Instead I see rational debate about the nature of the state and taxation, how intellectual property rights fits with the NAP, and other such topics. But on the left I see people being attacked for not bowing down to the group which is currently worth the most in their Victimhood Economy (muslims) and people desperately trying to signal to each other how progressive they are by falling to the latest troll by /pol/ ('freebleeding', shaving your head, etc) in a desperate attempt to attain their 5 seconds of limelight.

>>16958

>you could persuade the people who sell alcohol to raise prices or to not sell it to suspicious people

And how are you to persuade people do not without fines or something.

>>17275

Threat of boycott, for example. Might work well in smaller communities. In larger cities, good luck pulling something like that off. I think raising the price of goods is a bad way of getting the right people to stop consuming them, anyway.

>>17279

Boycott? Gosh. if I don't stop sell selling booze to my best customers people who don't drink excessively will boycott me.

>>17283

I just love it when people conveniently only read the part of the post they think they are able to refute!

Many places that sell alcohol don't rely on it to stay in business. Gas stores, convenience stores, kiosks and so on. You're right, for SOME businesses that sell booze, a boycott from non-drinkers won't work. Now, if you had read everything I wrote, you'd know that I think that

>raising the price of goods is a bad way of getting the right people to stop consuming them, anyway.

So, what do we do about drunkards who smash random shit up? Why, how about the same fucking thing we do with all criminals: Let them pay for the fucking damage they've caused and ban them from private parks.

>B-but what if they don't get caught? Why should I have to pay for their damages?

That's fucking life, deal with it. If criminals don't get caught, you don't get to take a little money from everyone who shares an arbitrary trait with them.

>>16702

>the government could generate "cash" without opposition while

you mean like a central bank?

the US has had one since 100+ years

>>16929

you are right about the luxury is optional

some things to consider

the question of materialism (and hedonism) is a moral one, not an economic one.

while restricting might make sense in some way, basically, establishing a state and the mechanisms to do that are not worth it

my solution is social ostracitation. wich can reach across anywhere from stern look to kicking them out of society.

remove all degeneracy = no degeneracy

also check out how mormoms are handling their own who do engage in e.g. sexual degeneracy