Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

A question to all liberals of Bleeping Computer


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 08:00 PM

Liberals and leftists of the Bleeping Computer community,

Why do you actively advise against Internet piracy & torrenting, yet vote on the left, for higher tax rates, whenever there is an election at your respective countries?
:)

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,294 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 08:15 PM

Reply from a moderate:

 

1.  Because public services cost money and adults know that money comes from taxes.

 

2.  Because legitimate taxation is not the genesis of thievery that steals from the producers of entertainment.

 

No smiley.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

             ~ Brian Vogel

 

 

 

              

 


#3 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 08:40 PM

Goddamnit, I knew I was overdoing it with the smiley emojis! :lmao:

Also, I appreciate as always that you have taken time to input your thoughts.

#4 myrti

myrti

    Sillyberry


  • Malware Study Hall Admin
  • 33,784 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At home
  • Local time:02:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 08:48 PM

Can you explain why internet piracy is the same as taxes to you?

is that a bird?  a plane? nooo it's the flying blueberry!

If I have been helping you and haven't replied in 2 days, feel free to shoot me a PM! Please don't send help request via PM, unless I am already helping you. Use the forums!

animinionsmalltext.gif

Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+


#5 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 09:01 PM

It's not the same to me yet. I am 'relatively' young at 21 years old and am forming some core views on the world right now.

I was confronted by somebody with the following statement:
"Both increasing taxes and torrenting files is taking somebody else's property and recognizing it as your own".

I am looking for different views on this issue, hence this topic.
I, personally, couldn't so far put in words why precisely would such a line of thought, as the one expressed by my friend, be wrong.

#6 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 13,705 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:11:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 10:08 PM

 

Reply from a moderate:

 

1.  Because public services cost money and adults know that money comes from taxes.

 

2.  Because legitimate taxation is not the genesis of thievery that steals from the producers of entertainment.

+1

 

I'm actually a socialist I believe the govt is there to serve the people and to help those who are not as fortunate,  I have no problem paying higher taxes if it helps somebody put a roof over their head or food in their stomach, or gives them medication if they are sick.

 

 

Taxes are a legitimate way for governments to raise the money they need to do stuff, Like defense, education, health care, and social security these things help the people. A classic example is Australia's social security and PBS ( pharmaceutical benefits scheme ), where most medication is heavily subsidized by the tax payer, In Australia the most a diabetic pays for insulin is $40 for 25 pens, things like needles are free, our public hospitals are free,

 

I just cant imagine a insurance company refusing to pay for a child's chemo treatment because they want to make a profit, the people who do stuff like that are truly evil.

 

Software/Music/Video piracy is just theft and the only person who benefits is the person downloading illegal content.

 

Now here I have to make a confession, I do illegally download Game of Thrones as each episode is released, however as soon as the box set of the series is for sale in stores I buy it, I consider my illegal download a preview.   


Edited by NickAu, 08 April 2017 - 10:12 PM.


#7 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,294 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 10:09 PM

Yet another twist on the vacuous, "Taxes are theft," trope.

 

In a representative democracy taxes are imposed by our elected legislators in pursuit of goals collectively agreed to.  Note:  collectively agreed to.  I as an individual may or may not agree with each and every one of those goals, but I recognize as a citizen that these were settled upon after the usual legislative process.  The things we get from government, and the list is long, don't come free and we should expect to pay for them.

 

Torrenting (of the type implied in the context of this discussion) is actual theft, pure and simple.  You are refusing to pay for something you wish to consume, and are consuming, and are depriving others of the fruits of their labor with nothing whatsoever given back in return.

 

The statement as made by your friend is logically invalid and the textbook example of a false equivalency.


Edited by britechguy, 08 April 2017 - 10:10 PM.

Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

             ~ Brian Vogel

 

 

 

              

 


#8 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 10:35 PM

Okay, I see.
However, why bother with high taxation in the first place? Why not, for example, if you want to help a local fellow in need from your community, just go and present them with whatever resources you can contribute with? Why filter the money through big government with significant portion of it becoming lost in the bureaucratic process. I for one want to aid education, but why not just go to school, pay my tuition and from it, and the help of other sponsors, the school distribute back the financial need-based scholarships to those students who need it?
For now, I just don't see how giving this huge amount of taxes to some guys in the government benefits the people in need more than just directly going to them and helping with whatever is necessary. Of course, this can't and shouldn't apply to such parts of the government as national defence where everyone benefits from economies of scale and top-level organization. I mean, what other way to make a country secure there is? You can't ask the people to sharpen their sickles and be ready in case of an attack by an agressor, lol. :lmao:

My general view is that the government should be a regulator (based on whatever rules everyone has collectively agreed upon, as Brian stated), a sort of referee, if you will, but not a player itself.

Edited by Just_One_Question, 08 April 2017 - 10:36 PM.


#9 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,294 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 10:59 PM

Well, history has taught us that being a regulator entails being a player as well.

 

Ignoring social programs (which I think it would be a hideous mistake for government not to sponsor) you can't do things like regulate industries without being a player as a side effect.  In addition, there are lots of things that government does because private enterprise and charity have never elected to do them.

 

I find it interesting that you think you can, in essence, be a referee without being a pivotal part of the game, even if you are not "a player" you play a distinct and inescapable role.

 

BTW, I think this is a very good conversation to have and that you are sincere in your statement that you're trying to work this (among other things) out in your head.  That's what life is about.  It's also why the smiley raised my hackles.  It was impossible to determine whether you were trying to engage in a back and forth or were just launching a snark attack.

 

It really is possible to have diametrically opposed views and still have respect.  But one thing that's a requirement for that to be the case is sincerity of inquiry when we're talking abstractions and a basis in shared fact when we're talking about the observable world.  Respect for expert opinion doesn't hurt, either, when one does not have a deep foundation and understanding about a given subject.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

             ~ Brian Vogel

 

 

 

              

 


#10 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:45 AM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 11:36 PM

Yes, I agree.
I'm never trying to irritate people, I just want extra information & perspectives.
What I mean by regulation by the government is for example everyone to know that all food and beverages on the market are safe. I don't want anyone going around selling poison to people, even if it only hurts you slowly with time. Another point - I'd like to work in the financial sector later in my life and wish the SEC to regulate it in the sense that I don't want anyone trading on insider information, for example. Enriching themselves and underminig the foundations of moral practices. Like people who cheat at school whenever there is a teacher who for one reason or the other chooses not to enforce the rules for such students, basically devaluing the grades of the hard-working honest kids.
I also, don't want to see however a situation where the governement is the sole entity you can run for help to in a given situation, limiting your choices to zero. For example, in my country medical care is fully-socialized. A side effect, though, turned out to be that because the government doesn't have a personal investment, an incentive to compete like an entrepreneur does, the buildings and the overall state of affairs lags pretty steeply behind what most Western countries have as standards. Dude, when I was at the hospital to my grandma 3 weeks ago, we had to wait for her diaper to get changed, because...get this, the nurse on duty had to show a contestant on The Voice to one of the other nurses, who she deemed had 'killed it'. What negligence! BTW, the guy really did have an amazing voice, but that's beside the point, lol.
And finally, I just don't like seeing governement getting tangled with things which are none of their business. Like LGBT rights, for example. What right does the government have to decide whether people, no matter the colour, nor matter the sex, who are inlove, should get married or not? Brilliant writer Oscar Wilde was incarcerated for gayness, or in other words, being himself and not interfering in anyone's life. What the hell?!
And so, in conclusion to a rather lenghty post, I think that the government should employ minimal resources in battling serious issues, mainly offering a helping hand to the poor and unfortunate, and only regulate and stay out of the way of the rest of the people's private business.

Edited by Just_One_Question, 08 April 2017 - 11:49 PM.


#11 Orange Blossom

Orange Blossom

    OBleepin Investigator


  • Moderator
  • 37,046 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bloomington, IN
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 08 April 2017 - 11:51 PM

In my country, health care is mostly not socialized.  I assure you that lots of people wait to have their incontinence products changed, assistance to go to the bathroom, have their bedding changed, and plenty else.  This is because insurance companies all want profits and they refuse to pay for the amount of care that's really needed.  Medicare and Medicaid, both social medical programs for elderly and poor folks, also have problems.  Example: to safely turn a 350 lb. person in bed, you need 3 caregivers, but Medicaid in Indiana will only pay for one.

 

Here, in order to have truly good quality health care, you have to be independently wealthy.


Help us help you. If HelpBot replies, you MUST follow step 1 in its reply so we know you need help.

Orange Blossom

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

SpywareBlaster, WinPatrol Plus, ESET Internet Security, NoScript Firefox ext.


animinionsmalltext.gif

#12 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:45 AM

Posted 09 April 2017 - 12:27 AM

Yeah, exactly! So, just keep the money, that would've otherwise been spent on taxes, save it and if a day comes where you have to enter a medical facility, God forbid, make it rain! :lmao: But seriously though, in any structure, the goverment should always have capital set aside to pay the medical bills of those who weren't wise enough to save up for a rainy day or quite simply were unlucky. Also, possibly zero-interest government loans for people in need could be a remedy of such issues and keep some common folks away from bankruptcy and financial ruin. The public, via the government, would once again lose money in the long run, strictly monetarily speaking, due to inflation, but it would still probably be better than paying full-sum for someone who got drunk beyond comprehension, stumbled and broke his arm, and now everybody has to share the cost of the consequences of his poor decisions.
Hell, bringing us back to the original topic, I think that having excessively high taxes, in some places upwards of 40%, contributes to diverting the spotlight from the real serious issues. Because when the government is so cash rich, all of a sudden everyone has some problem that cannot wait to be solved by the officials, thus limiting the final amount of aid that ultimately reaches people in actual need. In my high school, for example, everyone who had a GPA above 3.5 received a small merit-based scholarship each month of about $15 no matter their, or more precisely their parents', financial climate. We had 1 millionaire in our class who also got the 'aid'. Now, I must say, I do understand nowadays that these scholarships were in a sense put in place in order to facilitate a notion in the minds of the growing students that if you work or study hard, you shall be awarded eventually. But even so, these scholarships amounted to millions of dollars per year which could've been spent more conservatively, I believe. I mean...a pat on the shoulder by the principal would've done the job just fine as well, lol. :lmao:

#13 thelittleduck

thelittleduck

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pond
  • Local time:12:45 AM

Posted 09 April 2017 - 04:05 AM

"Both increasing taxes and torrenting files is taking somebody else's property and recognizing it as your own".

 

Taxes (increased or otherwise) pay for the police.  Without them, many more people (than already do) will attempt to take your property, and recognize it as their own.

 

The folks who have their property swiped through torrenting also pay their taxes don't forget.



#14 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,294 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 09 April 2017 - 05:15 PM

Just_One_Question wrote, in part:  "And finally, I just don't like seeing government getting tangled with things which are none of their business. Like LGBT rights, for example. What right does the government have to decide whether people, no matter the colour, nor matter the sex, who are in love, should get married or not? Brilliant writer Oscar Wilde was incarcerated for gayness, or in other words, being himself and not interfering in anyone's life. What the hell?!"

 

Please do not take the following personally, but it will be an attack on the ideas expressed, which are hardly only your own and have been demolished many times before.  There will be some "looping" between the beginning and end of what you said.

 

With regard to marriage, it is and always has been a societal/governmental entity with, in many cultures but not all, strong religious ties as well.  Marriage exists as a social institution and has been regulated by governments, tribal all the way up to federal governments, since marriage has existed.  Its main, I'd say exclusive, purpose as far as government goes is control of property and inheritance.  It's a way of keeping order and order across generations.

 

Any two people who have wished to form a personal union, even those condemned by society and law, have been doing so since time immemorial.  What they have not been able to do is to have the same legal advantages (and social recognition) conferred by recognition of their relationships under the law.  

 

In the abstract one can argue that government should not be in "the marriage business" but I think that any serious examination of that in depth will show that the reasons the government are in the marriage business are valid.  That being said, this means that the broadest possible combinations of partners who wish to enter into the legal institution should be able to do so.  There are very good reasons why the law includes prohibitions to things such as brother-sister marriage but there were very few, none in fact, as to why two men or two women who are unrelated and consenting could not enter into the marriage contract.

 

Oscar Wilde was imprisoned because the law codified bigotry against homosexuals while he was alive.  A brilliant quotation I keep in my collection for signatures reads:

 

         In a democracy only those laws which have their bases in folkways or the approval of strong groups have a chance of being enforced.

              ~ Abraham Myerson
 
The law most frequently has very deep roots in folkways and mores, but these change over time, and in periods of transition it is often changes in the law that propel those changes from "in flux" to "accepted as a done deal."  It is only because changes in folkways and mores, and corresponding changes in the laws of many nations, that your quizzical declaration, "What the hell?!!," could even be expressed and the position behind it, that the government has no business imprisoning gay people accepted as a given "among civilized people."
 
We see exactly the same frictions being expressed again by those who wish to gut laws regarding public accommodations under the guise,and false one, of religious liberty.  Religious liberty is about your being able to believe whatever you wish and worship as you wish to worship, it is not about allowing you to treat specific segments of the public that you have an antipathy toward differently in businesses that sell goods and services.  If you sell cakes you're expected to sell cakes to whoever can pay for them.  If you offer lodging you are expected to rent your rooms to whoever can pay for them.  Your religious convictions or the lack thereof have no business entering into that equation.  They once did, and legally so since if there is not a law against something it is, by default, permissible under the law.  You can't have anti-discrimination laws if you believe that the government has no place in ensuring a level playing field in the public square.  I, for one, believe that one of the primary functions of government in western democracies is to ensure a level playing field in the public square.  This means that, by definition, they are going to have to get into things like minority rights because, if protections are not enacted into law then anything goes.  We've seen, time and time again, what happens when "anything goes" with regard to strong majorities who "don't like" weaker minorities.  There are ways to make a number of the horrors of history impossible, or at the very least punishable, by enacting laws specifically prohibiting same.

Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

             ~ Brian Vogel

 

 

 

              

 


#15 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,294 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 09 April 2017 - 05:27 PM

In my country, health care is mostly not socialized.  I assure you that lots of people wait to have their incontinence products changed, assistance to go to the bathroom, have their bedding changed, and plenty else.  This is because insurance companies all want profits and they refuse to pay for the amount of care that's really needed.  Medicare and Medicaid, both social medical programs for elderly and poor folks, also have problems.  Example: to safely turn a 350 lb. person in bed, you need 3 caregivers, but Medicaid in Indiana will only pay for one.

 

Here, in order to have truly good quality health care, you have to be independently wealthy.

 

Amen!!   I, in addition to being a computer geek from way back, am a speech-language pathologist.   One of the reasons I dropped out of active practice is that medical care decisions in this country long ago stopped being made by clinicians but are instead determined by insurance companies.  There was a time when the primary complaints you'd hear "inside the biz" were complaints about Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance was beloved.  That transitioned to Medicare and Medicaid becoming beloved and private insurance despised - as M & M behaved far more consistently and were not capricious about what would or would not be covered.  Then, as the country lurched to the right over the last 40 years and funding for social programs aimed at the most financially destitute and vulnerable were cast as being "for those moochers," and funding withdrawn Medicaid became as capricious in many cases as private insurance.   Medicare is now the darling, even if it doesn't pay as well as some private insurers, because the rules of the game remain clear.  It has the added advantage of having a much better value per dollar in terms of delivering care than any private insurer does.

 

Back, however, to JOQ's anecdote about the nurse:  Bad employees exist anywhere and everywhere.  Anyone who thinks this kind of thing is not occurring widely has not stepped foot into badly run (or even some pretty reasonably run - as bad apples do occur everywhere) long term care facilities in this country, almost all of which are for-profit private entities.  Most facilities that call themselves skilled nursing facilities (SNFs [sniffs] in med parlance and nursing homes in common parlance) are anything but.  I sincerely hope that there is such a thing as karma for individuals who are supposed to be caregivers, and paid caregivers, who allow those in their care to sit in their own excrement.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

             ~ Brian Vogel

 

 

 

              

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users