Planetfurry BBS

[Solis]

Wow... people actually LIKE Jay Naylor's offensive tripe? *blinks*

Colour me surprised.

His portrayal of the "woman is useless without her man" and "woman are pretty much sex objects" stereotypes is about as annoying as RHJunior's "Hard Onions" strips... and that's saying something.

[Styx]

Funny I always saw the women in his strip as strong willed. Lucy and Fisk's mom raising the both of them on her own yes very strong and independant.

[Solis]

[Midi]

[Styx]

[Syrius]

[Arctic_Mutt]

[Asalis]

in his live hjournal I also remember seeing him state that the views of the characters in his comic have bsolutly no berring on his own personalk views. He distances himself from the comic, useing the website as a form of income. In other words its jsut a comic, Its not meant ot be taken seriously.

[Solis]

[Toric]

Some interesting responses here.

First, I'll throw in my own unsupported opinion on the comic, in general. I like it, but I think someone else said it best... good-not-great.

Now for some support. Get comfy.

On one paw, it is indeed a "people in fur-suits" sort of thing. In some ways, I think this is somewhat intentional. Hyenas are clearly black people. Cats are clearly White, Mice are clearly Jewish.

I don't see this as especially good or bad, just one way of doing it. I enjoy looking at the pretty furry pictures, and I read the story. I'm entertained.

As for... politics. Hm.

I am curious exactly where/how he lambasted EVERYONE who dares question the government? Comic number/link if you prefer not to spoil.

As for the woman image thing: The mother raised two kids as a single parent. She also dated a lot. I think the finale scene in the Ms. Bedbutter Chronicles when she lit into Ms. Bedbutter summed it up quite nicely. It's not about being subservient, it's about being independant.

I'm not exactly sure what consitutes hypersexed, but I can see some indication/support for that image in the beggining, considering the her activities and making some bad choices about leaving the kids home unsupervised while she went out on dates. On the other hand, she changed from that. She was quite celibate for some time... finding herself a man and forming a relationship with him does not seem particularly subservient. I don't see being single or celibate as being particularly preferable!

As for Lucy... nothing seemed excessively unusual. She had her mother as a role model. She was close to her brother. Stuff happened. She still dated a lot afterwards. I'm sure the incest was weird, but not unbeleivable from the characters.

I really don't get where the "I'm nothing without my man" comment comes from. I think the imagery of hypersexxed may come the closest to the comic, but some of it seems more of a tool to show progress and maturity of the particular characters. I'm completely lost as to the apaprent issue with politics. Maybe someone can point out some specifics, and give some more detailed opinions on that?

[Chris Regan]

[webkilla]

[Toric]

Well we have an interesting dilemma on our hands then... Ideally we could get you, him, and me together, and I could smooth things over and point out from my objective third point of view what I think went wrong. Any chance of luring him over here to PF (if he's not already a member, that is) and some possible response? I could post on LJ to see if he would.

That aside, let me isolate some key points:

Freedom vs. Not Freedom

A lot of the discussion can be boiled down to this. Set aside "what if" and "well because this" type thoughts and start with this basic, simple concept. You have freedom, and anything else. "Extreme freedom" if we can imagine that often used metaphor of black and white, we'll assign to the white side (or black if you prefer, but I'll leave it to the readers who prefer to do so to switch my words around ot comply with that choice on their own) and we can imagine that it represents either actual pure white or as close to that extreme as is realistically possible. Everything else represents not pure black, but every shade of gray past white up to and including pure black.

I don't think anyone in the discussion was arguing in on/off black/white terms, and it was more or less a discussion of shades of gray. However it seemed that Fyskblack was focusing on defending his support of that white. In your defense, Webkilla, you did not seem to ever quite support pure black! You were doing a fine job of defending some shade of gray.

Coercion/Free Will

A favorite subject of mine. Very appropriate to the subject of freedom. I will have to side with Fyskblack on this point. Philosophically speaking, he is completely right in every argument he made on this point.

The frequently returned to topic of taxation is an excellent description of his point. He focused on his point of free will and stated that taxation was not free will. Anything which removes either your freedom to do with your money as you please, or which removes your ability to even decide abrogates your free will with your money. Taxation is enforced by law, or as Fyskblack frequently pointed out "Police with guns and threat of prison." Technically, you are free to decide not to pay taxes. The infringement on your freedom is that if you decide to exercise that decision, the government will forcibly take your money from you anyway, AND punish you with undesirable consequences. In your pointing out of automated income taxation, he pointed out how that removes even your ability to choose to not pay.

Webkilla, the fault here I think is that you tried to argue definition, and somehow tried to define taxation as somehow still voluntary... but failed to show it being so. I think a clearly stated concession that paying taxes is not a voluntary, free will decision is needed, or a different argument somehow proving that it is would be necessary to hold your point.

Feasibility

This appears to be your strongest point, Webkilla. However, you do err a bit on this topic even. Essentially it boils down that you feel that absolute freedom is simply not feasible. Unfortunately I think other points distract you from this.

You support your point rather nicely when you discussed Denmark's history. You paint a very good picture of how many people voluntarily give up some of their freedom for the benefit that doing so provides. You would do well then to hold onto this core, and use it to point out other points.

Fyskblack's opposition to this point seems to be on the basis that despite history, our current situation has grown beyond simply communal effort. His stance seems to be that there has grown a lot of inefficiency into the system, which has nullified the benefits.

Free stuff!

A weak point in the discussion seems to have arisen from the specific terminolgy used, and the annoyance of having to clarify things repeately. Webkilla, you use the term "free" to describe the benefits granted by paying taxes. Fyskblack clearly indicated that this use of term threw him off, which you seemed ot understand. Might I suggest then it would behoove you to describe those benefits not as free (rather than try to defend your calling them free) and instead to label them in another way.

Despite that snag, I think you both attempted to stick to the point... Your stance is that there exist benefits made available to you (your own experiences provide you with strong examples to show) because of the communal contribution. Fyskblack's stance is that those same benefits would be available under his hypothesis.

You both touch on the idea of funding stuff, in a rather nebulous way. Neither of you comes out and says it bluntly though: Going to the hospital (my chosen example out of the several you two brought up) costs money. You think that going ot the hospital is too expensive for you to afford. Fyskblack thinks it would be if you didn't have to pay for all the government inefficiency that has inflated the prices. To an extent, you're both right.

My two cents (plus tax, comes out to $25)

While away in Iraq, I was given the luxury of being tax exempt... part of the incentive plan of re compensation to us soldiers for being over there. I'll note that before then I had not paid too much attention to how much money was taken out for taxes each pay check... it was something that I figured I couldn't change, so I might as well not dwell on it until tax season. Well, getting that money taken out, then returned (how is that for efficiency?) each paycheck painted a very vivid image of just how much money was alloted to taxes. Can you say several hundred dollars each month?

On the other side of the coin, we have sales tax. I was surprised to not see that mentioned in the discussion... it has the allure that it is somewhat more voluntary, because you choose what to buy... but it is still compulsive because you are forced to pay it. I happen to have been saving the receipts of everything I've paid for in my wallet for about a week now, so let me pull those out and look up the taxes I've paid... close to $12. Looks like I might expect to pay over $600 a year if I paid roughly that much in sales taxes each week. Add in roughly $500 each month for income tax, and we're looking at $6600 dollars a year. Note that I made about $40k this year.

I don't make a lot of money... I certainly could not afford to outright purchase a car or home (would have to finance them, which is a whole nother discussion). If I did make more money, the percentage of my earnings that went away to taxes would be even higher. But lets look at that real number we have... 6,600 dollars. Considering I made a few large purchases not counted into that sales tax, and we can probably assume some other kind of fee or tax lets just further round that number up to an even 7k.

Do I have to even ask what kinds of things you would do with an extra $7k sitting around? How much of a hospital bill would you be able to pay for this year, if you had an extra $7 sitting around? Now lets also factor in Fyskblack's point that hospitals would cost a lot less under his system for various reasons.

Clearly those people who set aside money for themselves in anticipation of such needs would very much be able to survive under the "pay as you go" system, while those who were short-sighted and didn't save would be screwed.

Morality

Ah yes, that wonderful concept called "morals." By definition, morals are good things to have. But getting three people to agree what morals are precisely is impossible.

Webkilla, you mention charity. It is a very nebulous thing to try and claim that charity is a good thing in and of itself. However, I think Fyskblack conceded that point, and agreed with you that it was. However, charity is freely giving your excess to those in need. Taxes are, by his argument, taken from you by force. You are not giving your money to charity, the government is taking it form you at gunpoint, and handing it out as it sees fit. You never really address this point at all. You seem to simply disagree and somehow think that charity is somehow still being done. Disagree, but somehow make a counter point that supports your disagreement.

You hint that without government enforcement of this redistribution of wealth, that people would not give charity. Fyskblack picks up on this rather vague point you sort of make, and readily counters even this. He stated plainly he would be willing to give charity. I fully agree with his sentiment that If I am to give charity, it will be in the amount I decide, and to whom I decide to benefit. It simply is not charity when the government takes your money from you by force, and hands it out as it decides.

What I think you might have been trying to suggest is that certain people would not give charity at all. Fyskblack (and I) would probably point out that this is what makes it a voluntary and good thing... the right to not give is what makes the act of giving special and good!

Another point you may have been trying to get to is that you fear not enough charity would be done. This would be your most valid point, and would require support from both sides to discuss fully.

Don't like it? Leave!

I think this is one of the last nails you put into your own coffin, Webkilla. You made the argument that if someone didn't like paying taxes ("if people dont like the tax braket they're free to leave the country, go somewhere else..." were your exact words)

I have to admire the counter Fyskblack had in response to that statement. However, I think you either forgot you made that statement, were distracted by other points, or something... because you stalled, were evasive, and seemed to try to ignore his counter, rather than discuss it. I could sense a LOT of frustration with you from him in his responses at that point... and I have to say, very understandable.

The point is, you attempt to assert that since people can leave "here" if they don't like the taxation, the taxation is still voluntary. You essentially volunteer implicitly by staying put. The flaw is that, as Fyskblack points out, there is no "there" to go to! At best, you could move to some other place with lower, perhaps more tolerable taxes... but seriously... try to suceed from the government, and attempt to become a solitary, living on your own. You may succeed if you decide to go live in some unpleasant wilderness place in Canada, Siberia, Africa, or some grueling place most other people don't want to live. Problem is then that living in that kind of place is hard to support yourself in. Societies have more or less found all the good spots already, and settled them. No longer can you just uproot and move out West to the frontier lands, and try to make your own stake!

You mention this experimental society of Fyskblack's... but the problem is that since it does not actually exist, then his counter still remains. right now, there exist no place you can feasibly go and be absolutely free, form a free society, and "go there." You are stuck with different flavors of "here."

Ah, but that is not the end of it. Let us assume that California succeeded from the US, became our own country... and set our government up as Fyskblack envisions. Now we have that place we can go to if we "don't like it"

His tandem point was that your communist/fascist state can only exist morally if his state exists, so that people do in fact have a choice. The point is that "your" state is NOT free currently without "his" state existing... AND what does it say for "your" state that it REQUIRES "his" state to exist to be free?

Fysk's state

What I can glean from Fyskblack's words, his ideal state would be something along these lines:

Imagine not some small group of seperationists, not some post-apocalyptic survival thing, but normal today life. Let me expand on my above suggestion of California.

First off, California (for those who might not know) is the 6th largest economy in the world. Yes, a STATE ranks that high in the WORLD economies. Furthermore, we produce 25 of the world's food production. As far as landmass goes, we're significantly larger than most European countries. Los Angeles alone has a higher population than some countries! The point being, California could reasonably become its own entity, its own sovereign nation. We have all the necessary resources, both natural and man-made. Further, I don't envision California would become and isolated place, we'd of course maintain a healthy trade relationship with the United States, and other foreign powers.

California is also rather known for being liberal-minded, and often rather innovative legislatively. As I grew up, it seemed that things often started out in California, then spread to the rest of the US law books. Such a radical change in government seems like it would indeed suit the majority of the populace of California, further making it an ideal candidate for this experimental society.

One problem is of course getting the thing done. We can hope for a peaceful separation. Realistically, that is probably one of the biggest barriers to making it actually happen... (It is all fine to say "if you don't like it, leave" but when you say "fine, I'm leaving" they still want your taxes and are willing to go to war to keep you!)

But, for the sake of the discussion, lets say that in a fit of unusual enlightenment, that California peacefully leaves the Union. Poof, we have our Free State of California. Experiment started.

First and foremost, an overhauling of the law books would take place. I think it would hold true to Fyskblack's vision that laws would be rebuilt from the ground up. The biggest problem seems to be the amount of inefficiency that has bloated the system.

Everything "government owned" would temporarily become public property. All government employees fired. All government-provided services dissolved. Blank slate across the board.

One problem with a complete Anarchy State is that, as Fysk pointed out, might makes right tends to turns things into a despotism. Someone would use force to become the new leader, and quickly we're return to someone taking your money at gunpoint again. One of government's assigned roles it the protection of human rights, and in this state, a government would have to be created to do that. The judicial branch, perhaps with extensive remodeling, would need to be retained. As long as the laws enforced, and the methods of enforcement remained acceptable, I think an effective and functional judicial branch could be crafted that would help maintain an otherwise free anarchy state. A point for you, Webkilla, is that staffing, maintaining, and operating a judicial branch requires money, and unfortunately taxes would be returned... though I think Fyskblack may agree that this is a necessary evil (near-white, not pure white).

What creates the problem is that in the absence of outside factors, an individual is free to do whatever they wish, without limit. When two people come into proximity, they both retain that full, unfettered right... until the exercise of that right somehow brings up conflict. If the free exercise of rights of one interferes with the rights of another... some resolution of conflict is necessary. Thus we seek to retain the most freedom, and impose the least restriction. That would be the primary goal of the new set of laws, and the prime goal of the reforged judicial system. therefore paying taxes to fund that entity would be a necessary abridgment of freedom to attempt to protect a larger loss.

An alternative to that, perhaps also fitting with Fyskblack's state, would be for individuals to amass their own personal power (probably in the form of guns, ammo, armor, followers/soldiers, and defend themselves from predators, and simply allow the "might makes right" to work on its own... though I'm not sure what would prevent that situation from devolving into a despotism when the "mighiest" decided to enforce rule on others).

Outside of the judicial government, it seems everything else would be left to pure free-market capitalism. Everything is privately owned and operated. Competition drives the market. Hospitals would charge at the door, roads would have toll booths to fund their maintenance, and so on.

The government employees would have to be paid sufficiently well so as to create enough interest in working those jobs that they remain filed and the duties performed. We cannot rely on the good will of people to simply volunteer to work for the government. Some young person might get it into their head that it would be fun and cool to be "in charge" but ideally the government would be set up so that it provides the service it is intended for, and that anyone in any position of importance within it has no ability to create frivolous laws and/or stray from the primary role of protecting the most rights. Thus anyone finding themselves wearing that mantle would be unable to "play with the power" but instead would find the job to be one of service, and it would be a chore, not a privilege.

On the other hand, I think the salaries of the Government officials in the current US system are grossly inflated. There would need to be some way to keep that salary in balance so that it is high enough to entice people to perform the service of government, but not so high as to create waste.

I personally do not drive. I don't own a vehicle, even a bicycle at the moment. I rely on my own feet and public transportation, and my buddies giving me a ride now and then. In Fyskblack's state, I would benefit greatly for not having to pay money into the maintenance of roads and such. However, since I do not pay taxes on a car... perhaps my savings would not be so great as imagined.

I tend to be rather healthy. I only rarely get sick, and when I do get sick, I tend to just suffer through it for a day or two, then get over it quickly. I consider myself rather careful and avoid risky things that might get me injured... I don't drive, I wear my seatbelt when I ride, look both ways, I don't drink or smoke, and so on. Thus I would save on not having to pay taxes on health care.

I am already paying my own tuition for school, out of my own pocket. I plan to look into grants and such, of course, but I have worked for and earned my way to go through school. The change seems it would not effect me too much.

Over all, I envision that I could easily see back most of that $7k under Fyskblack's state. I would (and have) put that money aside and more as my own personal insurance policy. I can be certain I'll cover myself, after all... but I would greatly appreciate the proposed decrease in costs for things like health care that seem plausible under Fyskblack's state. On the plus side, that $7k+ that is set aside in savings is earning interest for me. If I continue to not need it, it grows on its own over time. I am further rewarded under this system, instead of sending my money off for the government to mismanage.

I think that sentiment is Fyskblack's biggest, strongest, unopposed point. As it stands now, the government is this large, somewhat anonymous entity. It forcibly takes your money and spends it with no real way to trace it.

Focus again on health care. If it is too expensive for anyone to afford, people will not pay for it, and prices will go down. Law of supply and demand. Right now prices are high because people are enabling those high prices through various factors. But the simple fact remains that yes, people will get sick or injured. People will need a hospital and doctors. For the masses, a balance will be struck where most people get treated, plain and simple, regardless of what anyone tries to do to prices.

The only problem with that basic balance is that not EVERYONE will get treatment who needs it. some people are simply too poor to afford it. THIS is the opportunity for charity. Under Fyskblack's system, people like myself and like him would willingly part with some of our saved away money into a pool to help pay for someone like Webkilla who got hit by a car. Because he's a fellow furry and such.

So what if VRRschee (sp?) decides to keep all of his/her money, and not chip into the pot? As long as enough people help out that you get your leg fixed, who cares? I'm sure when you get back on your feet and come into some extra cash, that you'd be more inclined to help out those who helped you, and when V gets hit by a car... well... less charitable people will find themselves dying of their wounds, right?

Anywho. At this point I think I risk getting repetitive, rather than helpful.

Thanks for the email, Webkilla.

[webkilla]

you have no idea how that analysis there warms my heart... you're the first person who actually appears to have taken a look at my arguments (and his for that matter) and been reasonable about it - thank you

and i very much doubt that you'll get naylor to respond to this - he only seems to rear his head anywhere other than his own LJ when someone publicly flames him...

but regarding your analysis:

i very much like that you point out the need for judicial enforcement from day one - and that something like that would still require 'taxes', or at least steady, monthly, 'donations' from anyone who wants the cops to look their way to see that nothing bad happens.

there's just a few flaws in this pay-as-you-go approach to public services i dont see any really good solutions too (other than making it state run services pre-paid via taxes)

firefighters. imagine two houses burning at the same time - fire engine arrives... do the two home-owners engage in a bidding war to see who gets their house saved while the other gets burned down?

and can such a 'contract' then be bought out too? say, a man pays his donations to the police to get his wares protected - can a criminal then not just pay equally to have that contract made null and void? (and again, if law enforcement is bought - you can probably 'buy' the ones who'd otherwise normaly keep tabs on the law enforcers too)

i know that last example seems a little extreme - but directly paid for armed services to do law enforcement sounds very mercenary-ish to me, and mercs tend to go with the highest bidder.

this is again why i kept insisting to naylor that i'd love to see his little scheme be set up as a small scale (small hamlet?) experiment - if for nothing else then to see just how spectacularly it might fail.

[Toric]

Enforcement of laws, i.e. Police, are an integral part of the judicial govt. Thus would be part of what I described above. Mercenary law enforcement would simply be part of what turns an anarchy into a despotism!

Emergency services is an area I neglected to address. However, I think that could easily be handled in a non-taxed/govt. controlled manner. I think you take the pessimist's view on things, and assume that "pay as you go" would be completely literal. Not everything privately owned today in the real world works like a supermarket, where you buy from the limited stock on the shelf, first come, first serve.

Look at the many creative ways people have come up with to allow people to exchange goods and services. Financing, insurance, and loans could all still be used by various entities. Rather than initiate some kind of bidding war, people would hite and put on retainer various emergency services. I could imagine several firefighting companies competing for business, trying to provide better service, or cheaper service, to hit different target customers.

The important part is not that you don't pay in advance, the important part is that you choose whom you pay to, and wither or not you pay at all. Imagine that the firefighting station is a monopoly, and you're forced, via taxes not only to only hire them, but you can't even decide (for some reason) not to hire them at all. Under a free system, not only could you decide not to hire them at all, you would ideally have the option of several fire-fighting companies to choose from. You could also attempt to start up your own firefighting company, if you felt you could make a better offering than existing ones, thus make more money.

The side-benefit of this freedom and the competition of the free-market is that rather than govt controlled monopoly, instead you have reason to improve technology, to offer better service, or more cost-effctive service. Thus we can envision better firefighting technology researched in pursuit of that dollar.