SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have now developed a method that can objectively evaluate the age at which children and adolescents can safely watch a movie. They measured the composition of air in cinemas as well as levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during 135 screenings of eleven different movies. Over 13,000 audience members were involved. For a variety of film genres and age groups, the researchers found that isoprene levels reliably correlate with the age rating of a film. "Isoprene appears to be a good indicator of emotional tension within a group," says Jonathan Williams, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "Our approach could therefore provide an objective criterion for deciding how movies should be classified."
They couldn't already objectively measure fear by the amount of urine-soaked seat cushions?
C. Stönner, A. Edtbauer, B. Derstroff, E. Bourtsoukidis, T. Klüpfel, J. Wicker, J. Williams. Proof of concept study: Testing human volatile organic compounds as tools for age classification of films. PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (10): e0203044 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203044
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:02AM (6 children)
Sure I can. And I did. And so far, it looks like I was right.
As your position is that taxes are theft "at gunpoint", you're against the services they fund "at gunpoint." Pretty easy to understand. So, if you're going to make the case that these services would be supplied (by who? from whom?) if taxes were non-existent, or optional... by all means actually give that a go. However:
To anticipate the most common counter: Every claim that these needs would best be addressed by private means has proven dubious in the extreme. Even with the considerable government tax-supported funding to do these things at present, we see that the remaining needs are not met by the private sector. Not even close. To claim that this would improve when tax support is no longer available, or severely reduced... that requires some pretty heavy duty justification.
I encourage you to provide it, if you can. If you do, I'll change my position. I'm not wedded to it, only to the objective facts of the matter, which, presently, are not in your favor. But perhaps I don't have all of them.
Without a credible explanation of how these things would be funded outside of a taxation regime, it is only reasonable to conclude that as the current tax support does not suffice, and the private sector isn't picking up the slack, even though it's much smaller than the total load, and then some of the current support disappears when taxes are optional or simply non-existent under your idea of how things ought to be, then all these issues will be more poorly supported. If they are even supported at all.
This leads straight back to you are against these things being supported in the first place, as well as to the proposition that taxes need to be imposed by force. Otherwise, these things won't get done, or will be done not anywhere near as effectively.
So far as I can see to this point, your argument is either they will get done because (fill in the blank... no explanation has been forthcoming, still waiting, and still willing to pay attention) or that they don't need to be done, because it's more important that you are not forced to pay taxes, or... what? I'm truly curious how you think an optional or non-existent taxation system would support the various infrastructure and social issues I outlined (as well as the many others I didn't go into) if indeed that's your position. If your position is "fuck those guys, I got mine and I want to keep all of it", well, just say so. :)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:38AM
He DID just say so, it's just that he did it in a way that shows he thinks we're all fucking idiots and he's the smartest guy in the room, pulling the wool over our eyes. How much you wanna bet he drivess on public roads, drinks municipal tap water, and ate something today that passed FDA inspection?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:27AM (4 children)
You can't support an institution that commandeers resources by force then also ask with a straight face "Where are you going to get the resources to do something???"
You're like that bully who grabs the smaller kids wrist, and uses it to slap the kid's face with his own hand. "Why are you hitting yourself? Hey. HEY! Answer me. Why are you hitting yourself?!"
Let's take things one step at a time, man.
This whole "Government disappears over night" scenario is your straw man; nobody is calling for that. However, for the love of Civilization, at least have the courage to admit that it would be a good thing if we could figure out how to fund societal organization without having to resort to a system as arbitrary and capricious as taxation. And, then, maybe we can pick one small thing somewhere and try to do de-tax it, and learn from the experience.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 25 2018, @01:48PM (3 children)
Again, yes, I can, and I do.
And why? Because there's no better alternative in sight. Put one on the table and we can talk about it. Short of that, you have no case.
Every time someone bitches about taxes being non-optional and force being used to collect them or punish non-compliance if someone attempts to refuse to participate, the very legitimate question comes up as to what the alternative is. I note that no one here (or anywhere else) has yet to put such an alternative on the table. Until/unless they can and do, it's just pointless bitching.
To tax avoiders and cheats, both individual and corporate, I say (wo)man up and carry your part of the load. If you think the tax system is inequitable (and I certainly agree), then by all means work to try for an honestly more equitable distribution of load. I suggest the first step there is to stop ever voting Republican until/unless they start making the wealthy carry a fair share and stop trying to erode the system by rote. They're terrible about those things. Of course any legislation that provides tax breaks / shelters for X is fair game, from either party. Right now, the Republicans do more of that, by far, and also work to erode government services in a way that is much harder on the lower end of the economic spectrum. The Republicans are currently the voter's manifestation of "I got mine, you can just fuck off and die." Personally, I can't go there.
I have no problem whatsoever admitting that. However, inasmuch as no such thing has ever been presented, regardless of how many times people have bitched about forced tax collection, I class it squarely with "it would be a good thing if everyone was beautiful, no one ever got sick, and we all had everything we want." Sure it would.
But all these things, in reality, are imperfect with our social structure and technological level as it is, and the economic part of that is not likely to change until automation goes a whole lot further than it has thus far. Even then, only if we can make that work in an equitable manner, which is by no means a given. So the way to go at present, IMHO, is to incrementally improve what we can (meaning, try to make the tax system more equitable) and otherwise bear up under the load with all the fortitude we can muster.
If you can think of a better alternative than a tax system that can actually be tested (and again, we know that depending on the private sector to address the challenges voluntarily does not work, so no point in trying to make a case for it), then by all means, let's hear about that. It's all well and good to say "I don't like it when they take my money" but that's only skin-deep and without a replacement strategy, enormously selfish if you actually want them to stop doing that. If you're just externalizing "gee, wish I had more money", yeah, okay, most people feel the same. But to imagine that legitimately extends to "taxation is theft at gunpoint" as if it were a terrible thing... that's just impossible to take seriously without a replacement strategy.
An economy of plenty is still a long way out. I have no doubt it'll get here if civilization doesn't outright crash one way or another (war, climate, comet, whatever), but it really doesn't seem likely to be here soon, and getting from the current economic system to that kind of thing is likely to be a challenge in and of itself. So for now, we really do have to solve our problems with redistribution of wealth, and yes, by force when faced with people who balk.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)
There are loads of infrastructure and services that are maintained, improved, and grown without taxation. Indeed, most of society is NOT based on taxation: In the U.S., government spending is currently around 36% GDP.
Why aren't you denigrating people who are doing their bit to eradicate sickness? "Why do you even bother??? We'll never live in a world free from disease! Moron!"
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 25 2018, @07:15PM (1 child)
So, you offer nothing but a straw man. Well, I can't say I'm surprised.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25 2018, @07:50PM
I'm also not surprised.