Coronavirus

[k0rps]

Would be easy if the internet of things (5G) collects mass amount of data on it's users, reports to a central agency that bills users for their monthly usage and fees of service.

Imagine people only paying for what they use.
Imagine something all ways watching..
Imagine a new world under the new digital regime...

 

[Punisher84]

Would be easy if the internet of things (5G) collects mass amount of data on it's users, reports to a central agency that bills users for their monthly usage and fees of service.

Imagine people only paying for what they use.
Imagine something all ways watching..
Imagine a new world under the new digital regime...

Pretty much already there

 

[H.A.F.]

View attachment 64172

View attachment 64173

 

[Highland Rogue]

Who do you expect would pay for roads, street lights etc. without taxes?

Thank you for asking.
The people who own them could certainly make agreements with their customers to allow use of them couldn't they ?

The question is should any service provider force a person to pay them, when the person doesn't want or don't use their "services" ?

With taxation, you can't separate any bads and disservices that come along whether you want them or not, from any goods or services you DO want.
Imagine if grocery stores operated on the same model as taxation.

Customer - "Uh hey, why are you billing me for these fucking lima beans I never wanted and I'm a vegan, why the charge for the beef "?

Government run grocery store manager - "Shut the fuck up and pay us"

 

[Highland Rogue]

But until he can show me specific actual examples of his theory's in action, they are just fantasy.

Why thank you for asking (sort of). I can see you've been thinking about our discussions. I appreciate that.

Are you saying that a world based in consent and agreement isn't a worthy model to pursue ?

That instead, a world where other people routinely make or limit your choices even when your choices are peaceful, that's the model we have and we should stick with that ? Can you show me any society where that has ever worked?

 

[Highland Rogue]

He thinks it should be on the "honor system"

The man that sold you clairvoyance lessons. Get your money back.

I never said a free market is based in anything other than consent. How individuals decide the terms of their agreements, payment modes etc. isn't up to me, though. That's for the involved parties in a given transaction to come to agreement on. Pretty horrible and left field eh?

 

[hhibrownsbacker]

Why thank you for asking (sort of). I can see you've been thinking about our discussions. I appreciate that.

Are you saying that a world based in consent and agreement isn't a worthy model to pursue ?

That instead, a world where other people routinely make or limit your choices even when your choices are peaceful, that's the model we have and we should stick with that ? Can you show me any society where that has ever worked?

Again, you refuse to answer the specific question and try to turn it around, you're pretty good at that. Either you can name one instance where your theory is working in real life or not. Focus, it isnt that hard, even a child can answer a direct question. If you cant name one instance where your theory exists in the real world, where exactly does it exist? Your dreams? Your mind? Comic Book? Fiction novel? Come on man, help us out. We cant read minds like you can.

 

[Whip Eurass]

Thank you for asking.
The people who own them could certainly make agreements with their customers to allow use of them couldn't they ?

"could certainly"? Try 'certainly not'.

A road is needed in a 12 mile stretch connecting Getreal to Cmonman and your home in Utopia is right in the middle.

A thousand homes would have access to the road. 900 'contributors' are needed to fund it.

The road builder canvasses the homes, and finds 600 homes enthusiastic about the needed road. But 150 of these say their budget is maxxed out, and can't afford to fund the road. You REALLY want the road, and have plenty of cash, so you say you'll cover those 150 'yes' but poor homes.

100 residents live there specifically because there are no incoming or outbound roads.

The other 300 residents would actually like having this road, but they figure there's plenty more people like you that will pay much more than their own share. So they don't pay, but still expect the road to be built. In days ahead, they begin protesting in front of your home, calling you all sorts of nouns for not subsidizing all of your 'less fortunate' neighbors.

You take a knee with them, promise to help paint 'Less Fortunate Lives Matter' on the new road, but it's not enough. A couple of weeks later, you put your home on the market and flee, cursing the militant less fortunates as your U-Haul trods along the path where the road would have been. When you find pavement, you soon pass Acme Road Builders, and see a "building for lease' sign on the window.

 

[Whip Eurass]

Why thank you for asking (sort of). I can see you've been thinking about our discussions. I appreciate that.

But not enough to give him the specific example he asked for. The tap dance continues.

 

[Whip Eurass]

Again, you refuse to answer the specific question and try to turn it around, you're pretty good at that.

Doing something often is not the same as doing something well.

 

[Highland Rogue]

name one instance

You have a cook out and invite a few guests. It's a voluntary thing, everybody has a good time. Has that ever happened ?

"could certainly"? Try 'certainly not'.

A road is needed in a 12 mile stretch connecting Getreal to Cmonman and your home in Utopia is right in the middle.

A thousand homes would have access to the road. 900 'contributors' are needed to fund it.

The road builder canvasses the homes, and finds 600 homes enthusiastic about the needed road. But 150 of these say their budget is maxxed out, and can't afford to fund the road. You REALLY want the road, and have plenty of cash, so you say you'll cover those 150 'yes' but poor homes.

100 residents live there specifically because there are no incoming or outbound roads.

The other 300 residents would actually like having this road, but they figure there's plenty more people like you that will pay much more than their own share. So they don't pay, but still expect the road to be built. In days ahead, they begin protesting in front of your home, calling you all sorts of nouns for not subsidizing all of your 'less fortunate' neighbors.

You take a knee with them, promise to help paint 'Less Fortunate Lives Matter' on the new road, but it's not enough. A couple of weeks later, you put your home on the market and flee, cursing the militant less fortunates as your U-Haul trods along the path where the road would have been. When you find pavement, you soon pass Acme Road Builders, and see a "building for lease' sign on the window.

In a truly free market we'd be "allowed" flying cars, which would help alleviate some road concerns.

 

[Highland Rogue]

Doing something often is not the same as doing something well.

 

[BigBallzWillie]

Why thank you for asking (sort of). I can see you've been thinking about our discussions. I appreciate that.

Are you saying that a world based in consent and agreement isn't a worthy model to pursue ?

That instead, a world where other people routinely make or limit your choices even when your choices are peaceful, that's the model we have and we should stick with that ? Can you show me any society where that has ever worked?

No, he is not saying any of that.

 

[BigBallzWillie]

The man that sold you clairvoyance lessons. Get your money back.

I never said a free market is based in anything other than consent. How individuals decide the terms of their agreements, payment modes etc. isn't up to me, though. That's for the involved parties in a given transaction to come to agreement on. Pretty horrible and left field eh?

It is very left field and quite delusional too. You don't back up any of your utopian ideas with anything but hypothetical questions.

 

[hhibrownsbacker]

So a cookout and flying cars is what we get???? Is that all? Thats the best you could do? Priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Old ST1R]

Thank you for asking.
The people who own them could certainly make agreements with their customers to allow use of them couldn't they ?

The question is should any service provider force a person to pay them, when the person doesn't want or don't use their "services" ?

With taxation, you can't separate any bads and disservices that come along whether you want them or not, from any goods or services you DO want.
Imagine if grocery stores operated on the same model as taxation.

Customer - "Uh hey, why are you billing me for these fucking lima beans I never wanted and I'm a vegan, why the charge for the beef "?

Government run grocery store manager - "Shut the fuck up and pay us"

So you don’t drive down the road or walk on the side walk? And only during the day, not at night? Do you ever drive to another city or state on the freeway?
Did you pay for education at a private school?

There are just so many things that taxes pay for and you use.

 

[Whip Eurass]

So a cookout and flying cars is what we get???? Is that all?

It's more than I expected. The cat surely has to be putting us on at this point.
@Highland Rogue - there's your exit card. Take it.

 

[Old ST1R]

Thank you for asking.
The people who own them could certainly make agreements with their customers to allow use of them couldn't they?

And just how do you think people using the streets would pay for the use? If the people that “owned” them had to police their use, YOU couldn’t afford to use them.

 

[hhibrownsbacker]

With taxation, you can't separate any bads and disservices that come along whether you want them or not, from any goods or services you DO want.

Bullshit again. With taxation you just vote in someone who will fight for your choices.

 

[Highland Rogue]

So you don’t drive down the road or walk on the side walk? And only during the day, not at night? Do you ever drive to another city or state on the freeway?
Did you pay for education at a private school?

There are just so many things that taxes pay for and you use.

Yes, there are so many things that taxes pay for. Endless wars, prohibition, subsidies, interest on excessive debt, largest prison population in the world, foreign empire and murder, torture, drones, etc. I could go on for quite a while.

How do you separate being forced to pay for those things, while being able to pay for the things you do want ?

Are you implying that government schools are a good thing and people should be forced to pay for them even if they don't use them or don't want them? How does that teach kids bullying is bad ?