CA State Considers Stealing 12 Cents Per Can Of Soda Sold

[michaelsuede]

The looting insurgents you call government are calling for the theft of 12 cents from every can of soda sold.

NBC reports:

Quote:

Some California lawmakers are seeing soda as liquid gold when it comes to help resolving the state’s huge budget crisis and giving counties and schools a helping hand.

Assembly Bill 669 would add a penny an ounce tax to sweetened beverages.

The proposed measure would raise $1.7 billion to fight childhood obesity [LOL, as if that money will be spent on childhood obesity], but some see it as a way to help out cash-strapped counties [because it is a foregone conclusion that cash-strapped county governments are entitled to more of your money and that helping them is good for you] since the money generated by the measure would go directly to the counties.

Soda is for your lords and masters, it is not something a common plebe like yourself should be indulging in. Further, soda is not actually a commodity that people purchase and consume, it is a money tree that government plans on using to fatten its coffers.

The obvious problem here is that you are too stupid to consume beverages such as soda without becoming a bloated fat cow. The best way to prevent you from becoming a fat tub of worthless lard is for the State to simply make food so expensive that you can’t afford to eat it.

Another way the State seeks to keep your waistline trim is by destroying the US sugar market. It used to be that soda was made with real sugar, but the State has so massively manipulated the sugar market with tariffs, quotas, and regulatory restrictions that soda producers have finally thrown in the towel. They now resort to using processed corn syrup instead of sugar to produce soda in the US.

Of course, in the process of destroying the US sugar market, law makers not only deprived commoners of good tasting soda, they also made people fatter. Princeton University studies have shown that corn syrup will make you fatter than normal table sugar.

So here we can see the circular reasoning of the State in action. We must destroy sugar markets to save us from ourselves, and in the process, make people fatter by having producers switch to using processed corn syrup. But because producers have switched to processed corn syrup, the State must now destroy soda production to once again save us from our worthless pathetic selves.

The endless theft and destruction of private markets is the only way to prevent people like you from becoming fat blobs of scum.

May Mao bless you and keep you.

May Mao make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.

May Mao destroy your the value of your money, and give you peace.

[Aepervius]

You can live without soda.

If they started taxing flour or bred that way i would rise an eyebrow. But soda ? pffff.

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

You can live without soda.

If they started taxing flour or bred that way i would rise an eyebrow. But soda ? pffff.

I can live without cable, central air, home decor, and good tasting food too. Obviously the State should make those unaffordable by taxing them out of existence as well.

I personally feel no one should be able to afford anything that doesn't serve to simply keep them alive at a base level of existence.

[Irony]

Most people call that a tax. It's not really something new, they've done it with cigarettes for a while now, and with gas, and they make you buy these little metal labels for your car and charge you for that too, and they make you pay them even more money if you own land.

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Irony

Most people call that a tax. It's not really something new, they've done it with cigarettes for a while now, and with gas, and they make you buy these little metal labels for your car and charge you for that too, and they make you pay them even more money if you own land.

Thanks for the update.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Thanks for the update.

Anything else you'd like help with?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Anything else you'd like help with?

sure, if you could provide an actual point when posting it would be helpful to me when consuming your pro-State propaganda.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Irony

Most people call that a tax.

But hey, most people also call the state government the state government and not "looting insurgents" or "your lords and masters".

[JWideman]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

sure, if you could provide an actual point when posting it would be helpful to me when consuming your pro-State propaganda.

Propaganda is only okay when you do it?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by timhau

But hey, most people also call the state government the state government and not "looting insurgents" or "your lords and masters".

I disagree. The State is a prototypical mafia organization and the English dictionary accurately describes it thusly:

looter:

Quote:

to rob especially on a large scale and usually by violence or corruption

insurgent:

Quote:

one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

lord:

Quote:

one having power and authority over others

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

I disagree. The State is a prototypical mafia organization and the English dictionary accurately describes it thusly:

looter:


insurgent:


lord:

You don't approve of the mafia? They sell insurance.

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You don't approve of the mafia? They sell insurance.

The mafia "sells" insurance to prevent you from being looted by other criminal elements. This can be a beneficial service that brings value to consumers. Further, the mafia also provides services to cut through bureaucratic red tape when conducting business. For example, if a special permit is required to conduct a certain business, the mafia will ensure the proper politicians are paid off in order to get their "clients" permission to conduct legal business.

Indeed, in Italy, many business owners willingly pay mafioso who provide good protection services from other criminal gangs and allow them to operate free of government regulatory burdens.

Quote:

How does such an organization survive into the twenty-first century? It has a great deal to do with social factors - things like high unemployment, widespread lack of confidence in the competence of law enforcement authorities, distrust of the state. But the general secretiveness of the people is one of the main reasons organised crime is still so powerful in the Italian South, where common folk often seem suspicious of even the most ordinary social forces. The Italian ethos is based on the realities of everyday life: Italians presume that their elected leaders are thieves motivated by greed. Businessmen presume that associates will steal at the first opportunity. Labor unions presume that employers will seek to exploit employees whenever possible. Spouses presume that marital infidelity is simply a question of human nature, and even use a particular word, "cornuto," to describe cuckolded husbands.

We can clearly see that the Italian Mafia specifically is a necessary institution that persists mainly because of the State, not in spite of the State.

Without the mafia there to ensure the wheels of progress move forward by buying off politicians, economic activity in Italy would grind to a halt completely.

As with all things, even the private market in criminal activity does a better job of providing necessary services than the State.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

The mafia "sells" insurance to prevent you from being looted by other criminal elements. This can be a beneficial service that brings value to consumers. Further, the mafia also provides services to cut through bureaucratic red tape when conducting business. For example, if a special permit is required to conduct a certain business, the mafia will ensure the proper politicians are paid off in order to get their "clients" permission to conduct legal business.

Indeed, in Italy, many business owners willingly pay mafioso who provide good protection services from other criminal gangs and allow them to operate free of government regulatory burdens.



We can clearly see that the Italian Mafia specifically is a necessary institution that persists mainly because of the State, not in spite of the State.

Without the mafia there to ensure the wheels of progress move forward by buying off politicians, economic activity in Italy would grind to a halt completely.

As with all things, even the private market in criminal activity does a better job of providing necessary services than the State.

So, the government is worse than a criminal organisation?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, the government is worse than a criminal organisation?

Yes.

Primarily because the State has far more weapons, and also claims the legitimate authority to use those weapons against innocent people who don't pay up.

The State claims it is the sole institution which may engage in theft within a given arbitrary geographical region.

It is far more powerful than mafia, who must provide some beneficial services or be run out of business.

Unlike the mafia, the State does not need to provide any beneficial services.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Yes.

Primarily because the State has far more weapons, and also claims the legitimate authority to use those weapons against innocent people who don't pay up.

The State claims it is the sole institution which may engage in theft within a given arbitrary geographical region.

It is far more powerful than mafia, who must provide some beneficial services or be run out of business.

Unlike the mafia, the State does not need to provide any beneficial services.

The mafia needs to provide beneficial services?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

The mafia needs to provide beneficial services?

Yes, if the mafia did not provide beneficial services, it would go out of business. People would pay another organization to eliminate them (not necessarily the State either).

Since the State is an inept and corrupt institution itself, people would hire legitimate private security corporations to deal with mafia harassment.

However, people would also turn to the State in order to seek retribution. The mafia would eventually be placed under enormous pressure and be driven from society completely if it did not serve a beneficial service.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Yes, if the mafia did not provide beneficial services, it would go out of business. People would pay another organization to eliminate them (not necessarily the State either).

Since the State is an inept and corrupt institution itself, people would hire legitimate private security corporations to deal with mafia harassment.

Hypothetical: If the government was dissolved and all of its functions were taken over by the mafia, would you still approve of them?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Hypothetical: If the government was dissolved and all of its functions were taken over by the mafia, would you still approve of them?

I would prefer to have a government that strictly limited itself to mafia practices.

For example, if the government strictly did nothing but protect me from being looted by other criminal institutions, this would be a superior state of affairs to what we have now.

Indeed, I would willingly pay such an institution if the services it provided were reasonably priced.

[Philosaur]

And I call you a liar for inserting your own parenthetical comments into the paragraph you quoted from the article. Where did you learn English composition?

Furthermore, providing dictionary definitions (from the "English dictionary" as if there's only the one) for the words you used to describe the government and its activities is ridiculous. It's not that we don't know what those words mean, it's that we object to you misusing them the way you did.

Whatever point you were trying to make has fallen face down in a puddle of your own inept dishonesty.

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Philosaur

And I call you a liar for inserting your own parenthetical comments into the paragraph you quoted from the article. Where did you learn English composition?

Furthermore, providing dictionary definitions (from the "English dictionary" as if there's only the one) for the words you used to describe the government and its activities is ridiculous. It's not that we don't know what those words mean, it's that we object to you misusing them the way you did.

Whatever point you were trying to make has fallen face down in a puddle of your own inept dishonesty.

Given that I bracketed my ad-libs, I wouldn't consider it lying.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

I would prefer to have a government that strictly limited itself to mafia practices.

For example, if the government strictly did nothing but protect me from being looted by other criminal institutions, this would be a superior state of affairs to what we have now.

Indeed, I would willingly pay such an institution if the services it provided were reasonably priced.

I've been meaning to ask; You consider being taxed to be an act of theft, so do you consider demanding interest on an investment to be theft?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

I've been meaning to ask; You consider being taxed to be an act of theft, so do you consider demanding interest on an investment to be theft?

Certainly not.

Time has value, therefore it is appropriate to charge for the lending of resources over time.

[Damien Evans]

Nothing to see here.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Certainly not.

Time has value, therefore it is appropriate to charge for the lending of resources over time.

You don't consider that taxes are repayment for the time spent in the country, which belongs to the government?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You don't consider that taxes are repayment for the time spent in the country, which belongs to the government?

No, because private individuals engaging in voluntary transactions can meet all consumer needs without the threat of violence or coercion.

Therefore, taxes are theft.

In order for taxes to be legitimate, voluntary transactions must not capable of providing all the services modern society requires. Of course, this is not the case, as such, taxes are theft.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

No, because private individuals engaging in voluntary transactions can meet all consumer needs without the threat of violence or coercion.

Therefore, taxes are theft.

In order for taxes to be legitimate, voluntary transactions must not capable of providing all the services modern society requires. Of course, this is not the case, as such, taxes are theft.

But you're in THEIR country. Aren't you refusing to give them what is rightfully belong to them if you refuse to pay?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

But you're in THEIR country. Aren't you refusing to give them what is rightfully belong to them if you refuse to pay?

No, because voluntary transactions could accomplish all the services the State provides.

Therefore, if I wanted some kind of service, I could pay for it voluntarily on my own.

The use of coercion is not necessary.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

No, because voluntary transactions could accomplish all the services the State provides.

Therefore, if I wanted some kind of service, I could pay for it voluntarily on my own.

The use of coercion is not necessary.

Okay, suppose I move into a house you own, and then refuse to pay you rent, on the grounds that I no longer require your services. Does that make me a criminal?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Okay, suppose I move into a house you own, and then refuse to pay you rent, on the grounds that I no longer require your services. Does that make me a criminal?

Considering I own the house, it would make you a trespasser and a thief.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

sure, if you could provide an actual point when posting it would be helpful to me when consuming your pro anti-State propaganda.

WOW, I guess that would be DITTO for you! Because the OP had absolutely ZERO sense or value! I mean what exactly is YOUR point?! That tax is theft? IF so why single out soda tax?

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Considering I own the house, it would make you a trespasser and a thief.

So, doesn't that make you a trespasser and a thief if you refuse to pay taxes?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Magyar

WOW, I guess that would be DITTO for you! Because the OP had absolutely ZERO sense or value! I mean what exactly is YOUR point?! That tax is theft? IF so why single out soda tax?

I believe you are mistaken.

It is valuable to demonstrate that the State uses coercion to rob people of their income while socially engineering society to meet the whims of power mad sociopaths.

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, doesn't that make you a trespasser and a thief if you refuse to pay taxes?

No, because the housing contract was entered into voluntarily between two willing participants.

When the State prevents free markets from forming due to regulations, and then forces people to pay for services the free market could provide on its own, then we can say the State is illegitimate in using coercion to fund its operations.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

No, because the housing contract was entered into voluntarily between two willing participants.

When the State prevents free markets from forming due to regulations, and then forces people to pay for services the free market could provide on its own, then we can say the State is illegitimate in using coercion to fund its operations.

Don't you have the option of leaving the country? Why don't you have a choice about accepting the government's services?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Don't you have the option of leaving the country? Why don't you have a choice about accepting the government's services?

Saying I should leave the country does not address the fact that the State illegitimately prevented free market services from forming and then used coercion to fund its own brand of services.

Such an argument simply avoids the immorality and injustice of the State's business practices.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Saying I should leave the country does not address the fact that the State illegitimately prevented free market services from forming and then used coercion to fund its own brand of services.

Such an argument simply avoids the immorality and injustice of the State's business practices.

One other question I had outstanding: If you did get the government-free society you wanted, who would prevent a new government from forming?

[Philosaur]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

Given that I bracketed my ad-libs, I wouldn't consider it lying.

No.

These are brackets: [ ]

These are parentheses: ( )

When you make editorial comments, you use brackets. You use parentheses when you are making a personal comment, adding an after-thought, or making clarifications to text you, yourself, wrote.

Considering you don't know the difference between brackets and parentheses, it's not surprising you don't know the difference between taxes and theft.

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Philosaur

No.

These are brackets: [ ]

These are parentheses: ( )

When you make editorial comments, you use brackets. You use parentheses when you are making a personal comment, adding an after-thought, or making clarifications to text you, yourself, wrote.

Considering you don't know the difference between brackets and parentheses, it's not surprising you don't know the difference between taxes and theft.

Thank you mr. grammar police.

I shall now use brackets to insert my ad-libs from here forward.

[Philosaur]

Originally Posted by michaelsuede

No, because the housing contract was entered into voluntarily between two willing participants.

When the State prevents free markets from forming due to regulations, and then forces people to pay for services the free market could provide on its own, then we can say the State is illegitimate in using coercion to fund its operations.

Are you saying you are an unwilling participant in the social contract the American government has with its people?

[michaelsuede]

Originally Posted by Philosaur

Are you saying you are an unwilling participant in the social contract the American government has with its people?

In law, a contract is only enforceable if it is consensual:

Quote:

Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, which is usually translated "agreements to be kept" but more literally means "pacts must be kept".[1]

Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations, along with tort, unjust enrichment, and restitution.

As a means of economic ordering, contract relies on the notion of consensual exchange and has been extensively discussed in broader economic, sociological, and anthropological terms (see "Contractual theory" below). In American English, the term extends beyond the legal meaning to encompass a broader category of agreements.[2]

Since I never consented to any social contract, there necessarily can be no legitimate social contract.

Consent requires that I either give a verbal or written declaration of my agreement to be bound by said contract.