The Trillion Dollar Coin?

David · Feb 14, 2013

misterveritis said:
In the business case I willingly entered into the arrangement. In the second I have no control over the relationship. In the first it was by my choice. In the second is is simply a coercive arrangement that I have no choices in.

No real choices means no freedom.

It is a choice. You chose to buy property in an area under a gov't that levied a property tax. You chose to use the services those taxes pay for. You chose to live/work in that gov'ts jurisdiction. And unlike the folks at the bank, you have a say in who actually sits on that gov't.

misterveritis · Feb 14, 2013

David said:
It is a choice. You chose to buy property in an area under a gov't that levied a property tax. You chose to use the services those taxes pay for. You chose to live/work in that gov'ts jurisdiction. And unlike the folks at the bank, you have a say in who actually sits on that gov't.

You have shifted the argument. So let's follow this path. When I bought this property I accounted for the property taxes. The government can change the rules with no actual recourse on my part. They can decide that my 600K property is now worth a million. They can take as much as they want determined by the level of corruption they engage in. Most governments change the rules by reassessing the property every few years. Interestingly when the surrounding properties lose value they do not come around.

I do not have to do any business with any business. I cannot escape the many layers of overlapping government.

misterveritis · Feb 14, 2013

David said:
And how is that different then reneging on paying your property taxes and the IRS putting a lean on you? Your arguing in circles here.

There are two different issue at play. When the government takes my property from me in order to give it to you it was not because I failed to pay property taxes. It was because the other guy agreed to pay more taxes than I am obligated to do. Eminent domain, until recently was a way for the government to take property that would be put to use for the public as a whole. So they may have found a good place for a municipal building, an armory, a hospital, to widen a highway...

Now they can take my property from me to give it to you, another private citizen if you agree to do something with it that will generate more taxes.

And this is wrong.

David · Feb 15, 2013

misterveritis said:
There are two different issue at play. When the government takes my property from me in order to give it to you it was not because I failed to pay property taxes. It was because the other guy agreed to pay more taxes than I am obligated to do. Eminent domain, until recently was a way for the government to take property that would be put to use for the public as a whole. So they may have found a good place for a municipal building, an armory, a hospital, to widen a highway...

Now they can take my property from me to give it to you, another private citizen if you agree to do something with it that will generate more taxes.

And this is wrong.

Citations?

misterveritis · Feb 16, 2013

David said:
Citations?

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[/quote]
Wiki.
Don't doubt me.

David · Feb 16, 2013

misterveritis said:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Wiki.
Don't doubt me.[/QUOTE]

Mind offering a link? Simply saying wiki isn't vary helpful, it's an encyclopedia with millions (if not billions) of entries. And if I doubted you I'd of called BS, not asked for a link, this is something I've not heard of before now.

myp · Feb 17, 2013

misterveritis said:
The most dangerous forms of coercion have always been found in governments. Businesses cannot compel me to buy their product or pay a fine. Tyrannical governments can and do. A business cannot take my property from me. Governments can and do. A business cannot take my life with impunity. Governments can and do.

I didn't comment on the level of coercion. I just said both exist. You seem to now be moving towards accepting that and arguing that government coercion is worse. That was my whole point...

misterveritis · Feb 17, 2013

"Wiki.
Don't doubt me."

David said:
Mind offering a link? Simply saying wiki isn't vary helpful, it's an encyclopedia with millions (if not billions) of entries. And if I doubted you I'd of called BS, not asked for a link, this is something I've not heard of before now.

You could have simply copied the first five words and pasted it into the Google Search Engine.

There are other instances of bullying. I especially liked the story about agencies colluding with one another to have a choice piece of property condemned so the state could buy it cheaply.

misterveritis · Feb 17, 2013

myp said:
I didn't comment on the level of coercion. I just said both exist. You seem to now be moving towards accepting that and arguing that government coercion is worse. That was my whole point...

Explain why you believe that a business can coerce you? Can a business force you to buy their product? Can a business force you into a relationship with them that consumes your wealth under the threat of fine, imprisonment or death?

I would love to read some examples.

David · Feb 17, 2013

misterveritis said:
"Wiki.
Don't doubt me."

You could have simply copied the first five words and pasted it into the Google Search Engine.

There are other instances of bullying. I especially liked the story about agencies colluding with one another to have a choice piece of property condemned so the state could buy it cheaply.

If I wanted to google, I wouldn't bother asking for a source. You said it, back it up and provide the exact source you're using. It's not hard, wiki is huge and probably has a few hundred related articles that for whatever reason avoided being merged.

myp · Feb 17, 2013

misterveritis said:
Explain why you believe that a business can coerce you? Can a business force you to buy their product? Can a business force you into a relationship with them that consumes your wealth under the threat of fine, imprisonment or death?

I would love to read some examples.

Not sure why you are focusing on business here (other than maybe you realizing that I was right when it comes to the private sector in general), but I already gave you an example- someone who holds a gun to your head and tells you to do anything. But that aside, even businesses can be coercive forces with threats to job security, boxing out competition unfairly, etc.

misterveritis · Feb 17, 2013

myp said:
Not sure why you are focusing on business here (other than maybe you realizing that I was right when it comes to the private sector in general), but I already gave you an example- someone who holds a gun to your head and tells you to do anything. But that aside, even businesses can be coercive forces with threats to job security, boxing out competition unfairly, etc.

I suppose you are contrarian because you enjoy it.

Given that you have added no value to this conversation I assume it has ended.

misterveritis · Feb 17, 2013

David said:
If I wanted to google, I wouldn't bother asking for a source. You said it, back it up and provide the exact source you're using. It's not hard, wiki is huge and probably has a few hundred related articles that for whatever reason avoided being merged.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kel...ates&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

myp · Feb 17, 2013

misterveritis said:
Given that you have added no value to this conversation I assume it has ended.

Anything that proves you wrong has no value? That is quite a silly standpoint. Unscientific too, might I add.

misterveritis · Feb 17, 2013

myp said:
Anything that proves you wrong has no value? That is quite a silly standpoint. Unscientific too, might I add.

Had you even attempted to prove me wrong your comments would have added value. You didn't.

I believe you are incapable of it. On to the next topic.

myp · Feb 17, 2013

misterveritis said:
Had you even attempted to prove me wrong your comments would have added value. You didn't.

I believe you are incapable of it. On to the next topic.

You thinking that only government displays coercion is just absurd. I already proved that wrong with the guy who points a gun to your head- a point that you again and again have ignored because it is inconvenient to your false claim.

misterveritis · Feb 18, 2013

myp said:
You thinking that only government displays coercion is just absurd. I already proved that wrong with the guy who points a gun to your head- a point that you again and again have ignored because it is inconvenient to your false claim.

Your dishonesty is what is absurd. Our discussion was about liberty and tyranny. It was about government that is unconstrained versus he individual who is constrained.

You are dishonest. This was not about crime. And you know that. You brought nothing to the discussion.

myp · Feb 18, 2013

misterveritis said:
You are dishonest. This was not about crime.

No... this was about coercion. It was about tyranny. And you can have that from the private sector too. What defines a criminal anyway? The government does.

Gangs, etc. practice coercion and the government is there as a force to fight it. But even beyond that, virtually any group in power can limit the freedom of others. It is just how things work. A business that threatens a worker with dismissal if they don't follow rules x,y, and z is a form of limiting liberty, especially if the labor market for that particular individual is limited to none. And as a pro-liberty advocate there is nothing wrong in accepting that because it is true- to deny it is to reject reality; it is to remain an ideologue.

To take that further, heavily unbalanced market power can lead to a lot of power on one side vs. very little on the other. Everything doesn't always have to be black and white- a dark shade of grey vs. a virtual white can be pretty bad too. At the end of the day, you will always have some coercion and unbalanced power- it is about forming a system that limits that and there government has a role (and you seem to agree since again and for the millionth time you support government too when it comes to protecting vs. murders, etc. and ironically you reasoning there proves my point in and of itself).

When I look to issues such as these I think of aggregate utility as a measure for creating policy, partly because I think it is easier to measure than liberty and partly because I think the end goal of libertarianism should be utilitarianism anyway.

The Trillion Dollar Coin?

Similar threads