What's with the Visceral Reaction Towards "Obama Phones"? - GoFuckYourself.com

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 01:54 PM

Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why? Because AFAIK that program doesn't even use any tax dollars...it is 100% funded by the private telecommunications companies.

woj · 11-12-2015, 02:14 PM

It's funded from that "universal service fee" that is added to your phone bill, it's not a huge amount, but it's just another tax called by another name...

so you have a $50 phone service, but your bill ends up $70 with all the taxes and weird fees added on...

you don't see anything wrong with that?

sandman! · 11-12-2015, 02:21 PM

you might be a little slow because we get taxed to provide those phones look at your cell phone bill if you have one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why? Because AFAIK that program doesn't even use any tax dollars...it is 100% funded by the private telecommunications companies.

newB · 11-12-2015, 02:31 PM

I'm thinking maybe die hard Republicans might take offense to the moniker - Obama had nothing to do with it. The Reagan Phone would be more accurate.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 02:33 PM

While it's not technically a tax, the telecom companies are *mandated* to charge the overage to their customers, which is a part of the Universal Service Fund, enforced by the FCC. The USF includes a program called Lifeline for low income people to gain access to these phones.

Now of course, in typical cronyism/corporatism fashion, the telecom companies *love* the mandate, because it allows them to gain new subscribers from the low-incomers, and charge overages if they go over their monthly allotted time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why?

Sure, are you against theft? I know I am. That's how these "obama phones" are provided. The telecom companies are legally required, under the threat of force by the US government, to charge you more than they would have normally.

No matter what the reason or justification is (to save the trees, the bees, the children or the birds), you don't attempt to solve a problem by initiating or threatening the initiation of force against an individual(s) and their property (business).

So back when we had slavery, owners would say "Who's going to pick the cotton if we end slavery you nutball?", well it doesn't matter, because owning people is immoral.

So when you say, "How are low-incomers going to communicate with each other?", the moral response is, "I don't know. But we certainly aren't going to make threatening demands towards other companies to do it."

2MuchMark · 11-12-2015, 02:33 PM

A simple way to stir up righties about any subject: Add "Obama" in front of it.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

It's funded from that "universal service fee" that is added to your phone bill, it's not a huge amount, but it's just another tax called by another name...

so you have a $50 phone service, but your bill ends up $70 with all the taxes and weird fees added on...

you don't see anything wrong with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandman!

you might be a little slow because we get taxed to provide those phones look at your cell phone bill if you have one.

Whatever taxes you are paying on your cell phone bill, none of that goes to fund "Obama phones"

"Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it. "

The Obama Phone?

BlackCrayon · 11-12-2015, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Whatever taxes you are paying on your cell phone bill, none of that goes to fund "Obama phones"

"Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it. "

The Obama Phone?

well they are "fees" not taxes. same shit basically in the end as everyone pointed out but you don't want to admit.

crockett · 11-12-2015, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why? Because AFAIK that program doesn't even use any tax dollars...it is 100% funded by the private telecommunications companies.

Because Obama... Do you really need to ask?

woj · 11-12-2015, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Whatever taxes you are paying on your cell phone bill, none of that goes to fund "Obama phones"

"Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it. "

The Obama Phone?

You are mistaken, just read further down on that page you mentioned:

"SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world?s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households."

Rochard · 11-12-2015, 02:37 PM

This phone program has been going on for decades, long before cell phones. This all goes back to Ma Bell. There is a special fee on your phone bill that covers this.

Originally it was started to help Ma Bell and then the baby bells string up phone lines in areas with smaller populations where it would not normally be profitable for the phone companies to do so. It also provided phones for people with special needs and low income families.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

While it's not technically a tax, the telecom companies are *mandated* to charge the overage to their customers, which is a part of the Universal Service Fund, enforced by the FCC. The USF includes a program called Lifeline for low income people to gain access to these phones.

Now of course, in typical cronyism/corporatism fashion, the telecom companies *love* the mandate, because it allows them to gain new subscribers from the low-incomers, and charge overages if they go over their monthly allotted time.

Sure, are you against theft? I know I am. That's how these "obama phones" are provided. The telecom companies are legally required, under the threat of force by the US government, to charge you more than they would have normally.

No matter what the reason or justification is (to save the trees, the bees, the children or the birds), you don't attempt to solve a problem by initiating or threatening the initiation of force against an individual(s) and their property (business).

So back when we had slavery, owners would say "Who's going to pick the cotton if we end slavery you nutball?", well it doesn't matter, because owning people is immoral.

So when you say, "How are low-incomers going to communicate with each other?", the moral response is, "I don't know. But we certainly aren't going to make threatening demands towards other companies to do it."

No, they are not legally required to charge more than they normally would. All they are required to do is provide the program. Whether the phone companies decide to offset the costs upon the consumer is left to the company to decide. If the consumer does not want to be charged more, than the consumer is free to withhold his/her business patronage. If enough consumers withhold their business, then the companies would not charge that fee. That's the free market.

BlackCrayon · 11-12-2015, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

No, they are not legally required to charge more than they normally would. All they are required to do is provide the program. Whether the phone companies decide to offset the costs upon the consumer is left to the company to decide. If the consumer does not want to be charged more, than the consumer is free to withhold his/her business patronage. If enough consumers withhold their business, then the companies would not charge that fee. That's the free market.

Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.

if all companies charge it, what do you suggest people do? stop using cellphones in protest..yeah ok buddy. you are king of manipulating an argument so you are never "wrong" so have fun pc principal.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

You are mistaken, just read further down on that page you mentioned:

"SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world?s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households."

None of that refutes what I said in my original post. In fact, what you quoted confirms my original post...the fee is charged by the private companies.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act ?mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.? So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That?s what you?re paying for.

if all companies charge it, what do you suggest people do? stop using cellphones in protest..yeah ok buddy. you are king of manipulating an argument so you are never "wrong" so have fun pc principal.

Yes, because that is the free market principle. Consumers can seek change through their spending decisions. Obviously the vast majority of cell phone consumers value their cell phone usage far above paying that nominal fee.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

That's the free market.

Wrong, see your previous statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

All they are *****required***** to do is provide the program.

A market is not free if there's state intervention. The program demands a percentage of their revenue. Whether or not they'll pass the cost onto consumers is irrelevant; it's the fact that the mafia-like entity know as the state is demanding a percentage of their revenue.

The consumers opting to do business with a given company in the case of the USF doesn't mean anything, because all other cell phone companies are required to have the USF.

It's like when statists tell me to leave the country if I don't like government; uhm, all other countries have governments.

woj · 11-12-2015, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

None of that refutes what I said in my original post. In fact, what you quoted confirms my original post...the fee is charged by the private companies.

the fee exists only because the government created the program, forcing companies to pay for it...

imagine that government created 50% tax on porn products, and as a result every porn company raised their membership rates by $10... porn companies would be the ones charging the fees, but clearly the government caused it and so should be considered the "bad guy"...

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 02:47 PM

woj gets it.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Wrong, see your previous statement:

A market is not free if there's state intervention. The program demands a percentage of their revenue. Whether or not they'll pass the cost onto consumers is irrelevant; it's the fact that the mafia-like entity know as the state is demanding a percentage of their revenue.

The consumers opting to do business with a given company in the case of the USF doesn't mean anything, because all other cell phone companies are required to have the USF.

It's like when statists tell me to leave the country if I don't like government; uhm, all other countries have governments.

I never said private companies operate on an absolute free market system in this country without any government regulations whatsoever. I just said that the relationship between the consumer and the phone company is a free market relationship...because the phone company is free to decide whether or not to charge the extra fee...and the consumer is free to decide if they want to do business with that company.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I never said private companies operate on an absolute free market system in this country without any government regulations whatsoever. I just said that the relationship between the consumer and the phone company is a free market relationship...because the phone company is free to decide whether or not to charge the extra fee...and the consumer is free to decide if they want to do business with that company.

The problem isn't with whether or not the company will hike up their rates, it's with the fact that the federal government (FCC) is placing that mandate *on* the company for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

That's why I'm against "obama phones".

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

the fee exists only because the government created the program, forcing companies to pay for it...

imagine that government created 50% tax on porn products, and as a result every porn company raised their membership rates by $10... porn companies would be the ones charging the fees, but clearly the government caused it and so should be considered the "bad guy"...

Except no phone company is forced to charge the consumer. And no consumer is forced to do business with any company that voluntarily decides to charge the consumer. If anyone is the "bad guy", its the consumer himself for voluntarily paying the fee, and than blaming the government for the fee that the consumer voluntarily paid for.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Except no phone company is forced to charge the consumer. And no consumer is forced to do business with any company that voluntarily decides to charge the consumer. If anyone is the "bad guy", its the consumer himself for voluntarily paying the fee, and than blaming the government for the fee that the consumer voluntarily paid for.

The phone company is being threatened with aggression (whether that be fines, closing the company, or prison) if they do not relinquish a percentage of their revenue to the US government for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

This is the problem. It's not about consumers, it's not about how the companies handle how they're going to pay for that percentage. It has to do with the existence of the very program itself.

Dvae · 11-12-2015, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

A simple way to stir up righties about any subject: Add "Obama" in front of it.

A simple way to stir up Mark Prince is use "Republican" or if you really want to really stir him up use "Sarah Palin". Better yet go all out "Global Warming is a hoax"

woj · 11-12-2015, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Except no phone company is forced to charge the consumer. And no consumer is forced to do business with any company that voluntarily decides to charge the consumer. If anyone is the "bad guy", its the consumer himself for voluntarily paying the fee, and than blaming the government for the fee that the consumer voluntarily paid for.

so in my example, if you wanted to buy a porn membership, and were displeased about the extra $10 you have to pay... who would you blame for that? the company? or the government?

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

The phone company is being threatened with aggression (whether that be fines, closing the company, or prison) if they do not relinquish a percentage of their revenue to the US government for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

This is the problem. It's not about consumers, it's not about how the companies handle how they're going to pay for that percentage. It has to do with the existence of the very program itself.

Are you against all taxes? Because your rant I highlighted above sure sounds like it. If you are against the extra cell phone fee that private companies voluntarily charge, you as a consumer have the power to voice your disagreement by refusing to do business with such companies.

Dvae · 11-12-2015, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Except no phone company is forced to charge the consumer. And no consumer is forced to do business with any company that voluntarily decides to charge the consumer. If anyone is the "bad guy", its the consumer himself for voluntarily paying the fee, and than blaming the government for the fee that the consumer voluntarily paid for.

I'm going to call my cell phone carrier and tell them I refuse to pay these hidden fees listed on my bill on the basis that I object to the low income program.

How long do you think it will be before my service is disconnected. Probably about the end of the month.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

so in my example, if you wanted to buy a porn membership, and were displeased about the extra $10 you have to pay... who would you blame for that? the company? or the government?

In your hypothetical, I would indeed blame myself if I voluntarily paid that extra $10, and then proceeded to blame the government for my voluntary decision.

But I wouldn't pay the $10 fee if I did not think it was worth it to begin with.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

I'm going to call my cell phone carrier and tell them I refuse to pay these hidden fees listed on my bill on the basis that I object to the low income program.

How long do you think it will be before my service is disconnected. Probably about the end of the month.

If enough act that way, then phone companies would be economically forced to re-evaluate whether or not to charge consumers that fee. That's the free market.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Are you against all taxes?

Yes, because I'm against theft. I don't know, I was taught growing up that it's wrong to steal and threaten people regardless of the intentions, and even if a percentage of other people voted in the suits who do the thieving.

Were you taught something different? Like, it's wrong to steal when you're a child, but it's okay if you're an adult wearing a suit whose enforcers are men in blue costumes?

I'm sure you'd have a problem if my friends and I got together in your neighborhood, had an election, I won, and demanded 20% from you and your neighbors. I'd promise to pave your roads and give you security though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

If you are against the that extra cell phone fee that private companies charge, you as a consumer have the power to voice your disagreement by refusing to do business with such companies.

"with such companies", here in the US there's like what, 2 or 3 reliable cell phone companies? Sprint/ATT/Verizon. I'm fairly certain they all have similar charges regarding the USF. It'd be more moral if the government would stop using force against these companies, that's the better solution than making me have to scurry around and see who's dealing with the theft the best.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

If enough act that way, then phone companies would be economically forced to re-evaluate whether or not to charge consumers that fee. That's the free market.

Wrong. Because these companies are all forced to relinquish a percentage of their revenue, and also enjoy a near oligopoly status due to the extremely high barrier to entry in the market, they can instead collude with each other. Consumers have no other choice and no where to go on this matter.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:21 PM

In the end, good ideas don't require force. Forcing private businesses to give up a % of their money for some social program is flat-out wrong.

Why is that so hard to accept?

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Yes, because I'm against theft. I don't know, I was taught growing up that it's wrong to steal and threaten people regardless of the intentions, and even if a percentage of other people voted in the suits who do the thieving.

Were you taught something different? Like, it's wrong to steal when you're a child, but it's okay if you're an adult wearing a suit whose enforcers are men in blue costumes?

I'm sure you'd have a problem if my friends and I got together in your neighborhood, had an election, I won, and demanded 20% from you and your neighbors. I'd promise to pave your roads and give you security though.

"with such companies", here in the US there's like what, 2 or 3 reliable cell phone companies? Sprint/ATT/Verizon. I'm fairly certain they all have similar charges regarding the USF. It'd be more moral if the government would stop using force against these companies, that's the better solution than making me have to scurry around and see who's dealing with the theft the best.

So if you are against all taxes, how do you propose to fund military, law enforcement, public roads/highways, sewer systems, border patrol, judicial system, and prisons?

And it's not like anyone is forcing you to patronize any cell phone company. Like I said above, consumers have the power to change the practices of private companies by refusing to do business with those companies.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Wrong. Because these companies are all forced to relinquish a percentage of their revenue, and also enjoy a near oligopoly status due to the extremely high barrier to entry in the market, they can instead collude with each other.

That's why the justice department handles anti-trust issues

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Consumers have no other choice and no where to go on this matter.

Phone companies force you to have an active cell phone?

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So if you are against all taxes, how do you propose to fund military, law enforcement, public roads/highways, sewer systems, and border patrol?

There's a load of literature from a lot of great anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers on these subjects.

Defense/Security:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/P...-%20ch%20x.pdf
http://www.anarcho-distributist.org/...0So ciety.pdf

Road provisions in stateless societies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x6oosvWnRs (personal friend)

Border patrol? There'd be no borders, because there's no state/nation-state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

And it's not like anyone is forcing you to patronize any cell phone company. Like I said above, consumers have the power to change the practices of private companies by refusing to do business with those companies.

This requires a mass-awakening/movement from all cell phone subsribers (nearly everyone in the US). If I decide to not have a cell phone, nothing changes about the system. I'm just left without a cell phone, which is a major problem as my business relies on it.

The better solution is to stop it with the fucking threats from the government.

Question: Why are you so opposed to asking the government to stop making threats against cell phone companies?

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

In the end, good ideas don't require force. Forcing private businesses to give up a % of their money for some social program is flat-out wrong.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Are you sure about that? The US Supreme Court forced state government to stop banning pornography. Isn't that a good idea?

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Are you sure about that? The US Supreme Court forced state government to stop banning pornography. Isn't that a good idea?

It's a good idea to not ban something that is consensual and voluntary. The only reason any state was able to ban it in the first place is because they're the government, and government is force.

The fact that they corrected their original error doesn't negate the quote that good ideas don't require force.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

There's a load of literature from a lot of great anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers on these subjects.

Defense/Security:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/P...-%20ch%20x.pdf
http://www.anarcho-distributist.org/...0So ciety.pdf

Road provisions in stateless societies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x6oosvWnRs (personal friend)

Border patrol? There'd be no borders, because there's no state/nation-state.

I am asking *you* how you would propose to fund those things (roads, military, jails, justice system, police, etc). Not what other people have proposed.

By the way, without taxes, there would be no Supreme Court. And without the Supreme Court there would be no one to stop state governments from banning pornography. Are you ok with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

This requires a mass-awakening/movement from all cell phone subsribers (nearly everyone in the US). If I decide to not have a cell phone, nothing changes about the system. I'm just left without a cell phone, which is a major problem as my business relies on it.

The better solution is to stop it with the fucking threats from the government.

Question: Why are you so opposed to asking the government to stop making threats against cell phone companies?

Because that is the will of the people...given that people voted for their government representatives who initiated the program, and such program does not violate the Constitution.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

It's a good idea to not ban something that is consensual and voluntary. The only reason any state was able to ban it in the first place is because they're the government, and government is force.

The fact that they corrected their original error doesn't negate the quote that good ideas don't require force.

So now you are against any form of government?

And the government body that corrected the error (SCOTUS) is not the same body that created the error (State government)

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I am asking *you* how you would propose to fund those things (roads, military, jails, justice system, police, etc). Not what other people have proposed.

What I could propose as a single individual, could likely never compare to the response of the market. You've heard it before in economics 101, where there's a demand, there'll be a supply.

In a stateless society, people would want roads, defense, dispute resolution, and everything we currently have. The only difference is that instead of relying on a monopolistic force to provide these things for us, the driving force behind innovation and better pricing (a free and private market) would handle it instead.

But that's all consequentialism, which I don't like to get into. Slave owners said "who'll pick the cotton", we said "it doesn't matter, it's wrong to own humans", just as it's wrong to steal people's money to provide services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

By the way, without taxes, there would be no Supreme Court. And without the Supreme Court there would be no one to stop state governments from banning pornography. Are you ok with that?

Without taxes, there would be no state governments, so that's not a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Because that is the will of the people...given that people voted for their government representatives who initiated the program, and such program does not violate the Constitution.

You do realize that "the will of the people" is a load of bullshit right? And the constitution is just scribblings on a piece of paper?

It's been proven that we live in an oligarchy. The US passes 40,000 new laws every year. Do you REALLY think these laws are representative of the will of the people?

Don't drink the government kool-aid indoctrination man.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So now you are against any form of government?

And the government body that corrected the error (SCOTUS) is not the same body that created the error (State government)

If you mean am I against being ruled by a group of people over a given piece of arbitrary land? Yes. I am.

State and federal governments and their branches are all a part of the same body and all funded in the same manner: taxation and expropriation.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

What I could propose as a single individual, could likely never compare to the response of the market. You've heard it before in economics 101, where there's a demand, there'll be a supply.

In a stateless society, people would want roads, defense, dispute resolution, and everything we currently have. The only difference is that instead of relying on a monopolistic force to provide these things for us, the driving force behind innovation and better pricing (a free and private market) would handle it instead.

But that's all consequentialism, which I don't like to get into. Slave owners said "who'll pick the cotton", we said "it doesn't matter, it's wrong to own humans", just as it's wrong to steal people's money to provide services.

Without taxes, there would be no state governments, so that's not a problem.

You do realize that "the will of the people" is a load of bullshit right? And the constitution is just scribblings on a piece of paper?

It's been proven that we live in an oligarchy. The US passes 40,000 new laws every year. Do you REALLY think these laws are representative of the will of the people?

Don't drink the government kool-aid indoctrination man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

If you mean am I against being ruled by a group of people over a given piece of arbitrary land? Yes. I am.

State and federal governments and their branches are all a part of the same body and all funded in the same manner: taxation and expropriation.

Ok so you are an anarchist that is against state government. Should have just said that in the beginning, because then obviously that is your driving mindset against any program initiated by a state government body. Now I know.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:52 PM

Here's a fun logic experiment..

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Because that is the will of the people...given that people voted for their government representatives who initiated the program, and such program does not violate the Constitution.

If you believe that the "will of the people" is perfect justification for implementing something, then would you have a problem if "the will of the people" mandated suicide once 2016 rolled around?

...and it doesn't matter if "that would never happen", a principle is only good if it can be applied *consistently*.

So you would be sure to hang yourself with your shoe laces if the will of the people dictated suicide right?

Just want to be sure here..

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Ok so you are an anarchist that is against any form of government. Should have just said that in the beginning, because then obviously that is your driving mindset against any program initiated by a government body. Now I know.

Lol I said there's plenty of anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers with input on those subjects earlier. I thought you would have inferred it from that.

BlackCrayon · 11-12-2015, 03:56 PM

don't even bother replying to this guy. he just manipulates his argument no matter where you try and take it. he is a joke.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

If you mean am I against being ruled by a group of people over a given piece of arbitrary land? Yes. I am.

State and federal governments and their branches are all a part of the same body and all funded in the same manner: taxation and expropriation.

Oh by the way, without a central state government, there would be no one to prosecute anti-trust issues and prohibit collusion between private companies...other than the consumer refusing to do business with those companies (if they ever become aware of it in the first place.) Is that ok with you?

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Oh by the way, without a central state government, there would be no one to prosecute anti-trust issues and prohibit collusion between private companies...other than the consumer refusing to do business with those companies (if they ever become aware of it in the first place.) Is that ok with you?

Collusion between private companies usually happens only with the help and influence of government. A market where everyone is able to freely compete without artificial barriers to entries makes it nearly impossible for collusion and monopolies to rise. That's why you only hear about these types of issues in the most heavily regulated industries.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Here's a fun logic experiment..

If you believe that the "will of the people" is perfect justification for implementing something, then would you have a problem if "the will of the people" mandated suicide once 2016 rolled around?

...and it doesn't matter if "that would never happen", a principle is only good if it can be applied *consistently*.

So you would be sure to hang yourself with your shoe laces if the will of the people dictated suicide right?

Just want to be sure here..

No, because you forgot the other part of my sentence...the part about constitutionality. Mandated suicide would violate 8th and 14th amendments.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Lol I said there's plenty of anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers with input on those subjects earlier. I thought you would have inferred it from that.

Yea but you never mentioned anything about you being an anarchist until many posts after my initial question. That's why I said if you had mentioned your anarchist tendencies from the onset, it would have more clearly answered my question.

galleryseek · 11-12-2015, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

No, because you forgot the other part of my sentence...the part about constitutionality. Mandated suicide would violate 8th and 14th amendments.

The constitution has been amended 17 times, and the constitution is constantly disregarded by those in power.. Again, it's just a piece of paper.

Instead of gaining your moral compass based on ancient texts, there's a better way: it's called the non-aggression principle. It's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property. Stick to that as the basis by which you associate with others and you'll be fine.

TCLGirls · 11-12-2015, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleryseek

Collusion between private companies usually happens only with the help and influence of government. A market where everyone is able to freely compete without artificial barriers to entries makes it nearly impossible for collusion and monopolies to rise. That's why you only hear about these types of issues in the most heavily regulated industries.

Except there were huge antitrust issues in the 1800s before the government stepped in with the Sherman anti-trust regulations.

11-12-2015, 01:54 PM	#1
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	What's with the Visceral Reaction Towards "Obama Phones"? Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why? Because AFAIK that program doesn't even use any tax dollars...it is 100% funded by the private telecommunications companies.

11-12-2015, 02:14 PM	#2
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	It's funded from that "universal service fee" that is added to your phone bill, it's not a huge amount, but it's just another tax called by another name... so you have a $50 phone service, but your bill ends up $70 with all the taxes and weird fees added on... you don't see anything wrong with that? __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

11-12-2015, 02:31 PM	#4
newB Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Somewhere between reality and total ape-shit bonkers. Posts: 2,870	I'm thinking maybe die hard Republicans might take offense to the moniker - Obama had nothing to do with it. The Reagan Phone would be more accurate. __________________ The best Adult Affiliate Programs reviewed and indexed by niche and feature. Easily find the sponsors that suit your needs.

11-12-2015, 02:33 PM	#6
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,477	A simple way to stir up righties about any subject: Add "Obama" in front of it. __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

11-12-2015, 02:37 PM	#11
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,289	This phone program has been going on for decades, long before cell phones. This all goes back to Ma Bell. There is a special fee on your phone bill that covers this. Originally it was started to help Ma Bell and then the baby bells string up phone lines in areas with smaller populations where it would not normally be profitable for the phone companies to do so. It also provided phones for people with special needs and low income families. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

11-12-2015, 02:47 PM	#18
galleryseek Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 8,234	woj gets it.

11-12-2015, 03:21 PM	#31
galleryseek Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 8,234	In the end, good ideas don't require force. Forcing private businesses to give up a % of their money for some social program is flat-out wrong. Why is that so hard to accept?

11-12-2015, 03:56 PM	#44
BlackCrayon Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ottawa Posts: 19,631	don't even bother replying to this guy. he just manipulates his argument no matter where you try and take it. he is a joke. __________________ you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..