Quote from: billyjoeallen on March 14, 2014, 08:17:36 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 14, 2014, 03:23:02 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on March 14, 2014, 08:28:55 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 14, 2014, 08:11:54 AM

Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

That is why this back and forth communication with you is getting NO WHERE - b/c you keep insisting that your being part of a community is coercion... and you give way too much weight to this coercion aspect - to the extent that taxes are mandatory and a part of civil society, and almost anywhere in the world has some taxes.. though there is variation. If you are an American (or another western country), you have won the lottery, b/c you can move almost anywhere in the world with your passport and find some haven that has little to no taxes. What country are you from? You seem to want the benefits of being part of a community, but you do NOT want to pay into that community's rate of taxation.

There is a difference between not wanting to pay and not wanting to be forced to pay. You don't have to agree with me to understand that many people resist being controlled regardless of who is doing the controlling or why. YOu have no evidence that I don't want to contribute to society. Your assumptions I suspect are based on projection. It's YOU who doesn't want to contribute unless everybody else pays their "fair" share with you determining what's fair.

I agree with you regarding the part that people do NOT want to be controlled, and people want to have control in their lives.

Now, you are saying that I do NOT want to pay... Surely this is crazy talk.... What i said was that the fact that the very rich do NOT pay their fair share, and that the very rich have been receiving reductions in their contributions for about 30 years, these reductions have caused the rest and regular people to have to pay more. What does this have to do with me - except for the fact that I am claiming that I am NOT one of the very rich? However, even some people who are part of the very rich, including warren buffet and I believe bill gates, have recognized that the system is way too skewed in favor of the rich and that they have conceded that the rich (including themselves) need to pay more taxes in order to have more sustainable systems and infrastructure, etc etc etc.

Also, I have never suggested that any of these community designs are up to me, and you should realize that if you were NOT so hell intent upon skewing reality and trying to get your way with name calling that is NOT based in reality. Democratic input is part of the complications of taking into account a multitude of stakeholders in a process that involves compromise and frequently everyone NOT getting what they want.. but NONETHELESS attempting to satisfy the needs of the most stakeholders. Surely, these kinds of processes are complicated and they are hard to follow and they are frequently flawed in application. Nonetheless, they are NOT what you are framing them to be. They are NOT one person or small group deciding, except to the extent to which the one person or the group has been duly elected or properly appointed within the process. Then those kinds of groups and people have discretion within their office to carry out the mandates of their office within the public interest parameters. The only way that I would be deciding would be if I were elected or appointed within an office that has discretion over the areas upon which I am supposed to decide. Hopefully this clarifies, somewhat.