Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: customdesigned on May 28, 2012, 12:06:27 pm

Title: Pilgrim
Post by: customdesigned on May 28, 2012, 12:06:27 pm
Pilgrim is a really interesting character.  On the one hand, he is an a$$, but on the other hand he is surprisingly competent and genuinely has things to offer to the community.  Kind of like real life.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: ContraryGuy on May 28, 2012, 03:31:05 pm
Pilgrim is a really interesting character.  On the one hand, he is an a$$, but on the other hand he is surprisingly competent and genuinely has things to offer to the community.  Kind of like real life.

Just like real life; especially when he wanted to sue someone for making fun of him.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on May 28, 2012, 07:21:53 pm
Pilgrim is a really interesting character.  On the one hand, he is an a$$, but on the other hand he is surprisingly competent and genuinely has things to offer to the community.  Kind of like real life.

Yes, very like some people I know. This includes a self-described anarcho-capitalist who threatened to sue me because he thought I might make fun of him by creating a character somewhat like him... even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.   ::)
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: wdg3rd on May 28, 2012, 09:15:16 pm
Pilgrim is a really interesting character.  On the one hand, he is an a$$, but on the other hand he is surprisingly competent and genuinely has things to offer to the community.  Kind of like real life.

Yes, very like some people I know. This includes a self-described anarcho-capitalist who threatened to sue me because he thought I might make fun of him by creating a character somewhat like him... even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.   ::)

There are assholes in all walks of life and philosophy.  Been known to seem like one myself now and again.  Sorry, shit  happens.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on May 28, 2012, 09:41:16 pm
There are assholes in all walks of life and philosophy.  Been known to seem like one myself now and again.  Sorry, shit  happens.

One of the perks of being a writer is you always get the last word.  ;D
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: ContraryGuy on May 29, 2012, 12:40:42 am
Pilgrim is a really interesting character.  On the one hand, he is an a$$, but on the other hand he is surprisingly competent and genuinely has things to offer to the community.  Kind of like real life.

Yes, very like some people I know. This includes a self-described anarcho-capitalist who threatened to sue me because he thought I might make fun of him by creating a character somewhat like him... even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.   ::)

Can be?  I thought that was their default state.  ;D
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Andreas on May 29, 2012, 02:12:40 am
The human condition.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Killydd on May 29, 2012, 12:48:30 pm
Oddly, if you ever read a book on manners, you'll see that certain levels of hypocrisy are considered a virtue by our society.  Of course, at least once he realized that his knee-jerk reaction was going to be difficult to carry out, he seems to have settled down.  Of course, this does settle the question of why Guy's cousin is going out there:  just another Terran ploy to take advantage of a perceived weakness, not necessarily direct agitation.  Although of course the "hysterical" woman might also have been a planted agitator.  Then again, she might just be someone prone to overreacting.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Andreas on May 30, 2012, 02:16:06 am
It's like the freed slave condition; sometimes the slave would rebel against freedom, unable to accept the change in paradigm.
Again, I think that not wanting to pay taxes is a piss-poor main reason to join an anarchy.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: dough560 on May 30, 2012, 07:30:37 am
I'd love to hear what you consider a better reason.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: bjdotson on May 30, 2012, 08:55:58 am
sing along with me

If you're happy and you know it, shake your chains
If you're happy and you know it, shake your chains
If you're happy and you know it and you really want to show it
If you're happy and you know it, shake your chains

Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Andreas on May 30, 2012, 09:55:55 am
I'd love to hear what you consider a better reason.
How about an escape from coercion? Or a desire to no longer underwrite the violence perpetrated by the state in one's name? Or a moral objection to any sorts of dysfunctions (like, wars on some drugs)?

If ALL it really boils down to is "I don't want to pay", then there's really no moral foundation for being a productive member of an anarchy (or any other society).
Bear in mind that I say that if that's ALL it boils down to.
Lots of losers don't want to pay taxes for all sorts of reasons. If they haven't even thought about it, they could be harboring any kind of social or mental "infections".
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: macsnafu on May 30, 2012, 11:07:45 am
I'd love to hear what you consider a better reason.
How about an escape from coercion? Or a desire to no longer underwrite the violence perpetrated by the state in one's name? Or a moral objection to any sorts of dysfunctions (like, wars on some drugs)?

If ALL it really boils down to is "I don't want to pay", then there's really no moral foundation for being a productive member of an anarchy (or any other society).
Bear in mind that I say that if that's ALL it boils down to.
Lots of losers don't want to pay taxes for all sorts of reasons. If they haven't even thought about it, they could be harboring any kind of social or mental "infections".

I agree.  Merely wanting to avoid taxes is not much of a reason.  Seeking freedom from the coercion of involuntary taxation is a better reason, as is seeking freedom in general, or wanting to tackle new frontiers, etc.

I think the story is showing us exactly this point.  The people who merely wanted to avoid taxes hadn't really thought it all the way through.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: quadibloc on June 03, 2012, 05:07:32 pm
even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.
What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

It's not clear to me that this is obvious. After all, making fun of someone can adversely affect other people's attitudes to him.

Free speech means you're allowed to tell the truth about people, subject to privacy limitations. But mockery and other forms of speech with emotive effect may be legitimately categorized as action.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: myrkul999 on June 03, 2012, 05:34:29 pm
even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.
What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

No, it does not. Stating your opinion of someone, no matter how vitriolic, is not acting, nor can it be considered an attack unless it's an outright lie.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: wdg3rd on June 03, 2012, 05:59:04 pm
even anarcho-capitalists can be hypocrites.
What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

It's not clear to me that this is obvious. After all, making fun of someone can adversely affect other people's attitudes to him.

Free speech means you're allowed to tell the truth about people, subject to privacy limitations. But mockery and other forms of speech with emotive effect may be legitimately categorized as action.

Nope.  Calling someone a motherfucker, whether or not he had a mother or if he fucked her is not an initiation of force.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on June 03, 2012, 06:45:31 pm
Nope.  Calling someone a motherfracker, whether or not he had a mother or if he fracked her is not an initiation of force.

Nor is it the threat of force, nor--true or not--is it fraud.

(Now is when all the "sea lawyers"--libertarians and otherwise--come out of the woodwork to claim that telling a lie is "fraud." Maybe yes, usually no. Please look it up, before you post.)
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: sam on June 03, 2012, 06:59:34 pm
[quote What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

No, it does not. Stating your opinion of someone, no matter how vitriolic, is not acting, nor can it be considered an attack unless it's an outright lie.

What about veiled threats?  How veiled does a threat have to be before it becomes wrong to eliminate the guy who made it?

Is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing hard assault?

If so, is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing slowly assault?

If so, is waving your fist inches from the other guys nose assault or the threat of assault?

If so, is putting your face a couple of inches from the other guys face and yelling that his mother was a whore assault or the threat of assault?

If so ...

You cannot draw a sharp line.  In general, words from a long distance away seldom justify violence, but words from close at hand can, and frequently do, justify violence.

But some words from far away clearly do justify violence, as when someone who is in a position to make bad things happen to you, suggests that if he does not get what he wants, some bad thing might regrettably happen to you.

Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: mellyrn on June 03, 2012, 07:13:47 pm
The efficacy of physical self-defense depends on the relative power of you and your attacker.

The efficacy of emotional self-defense, otoh, is entirely up to the defender.  No one can hurt you emotionally without your participation.  It's true that you might not know how to defend yourself emotionally, but it can be learned.  It's that participatory aspect that says derision does not violate the ZAP.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: myrkul999 on June 03, 2012, 07:36:43 pm
For convenience, My answers will be in-line, in bold.

What about veiled threats?  How veiled does a threat have to be before it becomes wrong to eliminate the guy who made it?

A threat is a violation of ZAP. Veiled threats are reason to boost security, but unless he comes out and says it, you can't really act on it.

Is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing hard assault?

To be sure. That's why I don't do that except in defense.

If so, is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing slowly assault?

This one is pushing it, but again, A-OK in defense.

If so, is waving your fist inches from the other guys nose assault or the threat of assault?

I would say it's certainly at least an implied threat of assault.

If so, is putting your face a couple of inches from the other guys face and yelling that his mother was a whore assault or the threat of assault?

Nope. It's rude, and distasteful, but not assault, nor threat of assault.

If so ...

You cannot draw a sharp line. 

I think I did, chief.

Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: wdg3rd on June 03, 2012, 08:39:35 pm
[quote What, you mean that derision doesn't violate the ZAP?

No, it does not. Stating your opinion of someone, no matter how vitriolic, is not acting, nor can it be considered an attack unless it's an outright lie.

What about veiled threats?  How veiled does a threat have to be before it becomes wrong to eliminate the guy who made it?

Is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing hard assault?

If so, is putting your hand on someone's face and pushing slowly assault?

If so, is waving your fist inches from the other guys nose assault or the threat of assault?

If so, is putting your face a couple of inches from the other guys face and yelling that his mother was a whore assault or the threat of assault?

If so ...

You cannot draw a sharp line.  In general, words from a long distance away seldom justify violence, but words from close at hand can, and frequently do, justify violence.

But some words from far away clearly do justify violence, as when someone who is in a position to make bad things happen to you, suggests that if he does not get what he wants, some bad thing might regrettably happen to you.



If he's touching my face without my permission I'll take his hand off at the wrist.  If I get sloppy and take his head off, I'm willing to take things to adjudication as to whether I got too sloppy.  I'll pay weregild if he hds people who stupidly depended on him.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Killydd on June 03, 2012, 10:08:50 pm
Legally, the yelling an inch from your face does constitute assault.  Battery is the crime when someone actually hits you, but assault does apply if a rational person would feel threatened by the actions.  It may be a lesser crime than, for example, holding a deadly weapon while doing the same, but if there is little doubt that the offender wishes to cause physical harm and is only looking for an excuse, then it is an assault. 
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on June 03, 2012, 10:10:36 pm
If he's touching my face without my permission I'll take his hand off at the wrist.  If I get sloppy and take his head off, I'm willing to take things to adjudication as to whether I got too sloppy.  I'll pay weregild if he hds people who stupidly depended on him.

Again, sea lawyers (not you, wdg3rd), love these supposed edge cases. They think that they can refute a principle with lifeboat scenarios. In the instant case, there is a difference between, "I can touch your face and there is nothing you can do about it," and "Wdg3rd, there's a scorpion on your face. Hold still while I knock it off."

This is where the "reasonable person" test comes into play. (It used to be called the "reasonable man" test, but now everyone except Sam uses the non-sexist term.) In the real world, actions have contexts: personal, social, circumstantial, etc. The sophists always ask their edge questions without context. Give us a face-touching-context and I think most of us will know what is reasonable and what is not. Of course, the sophists continue to split hairs ever finer into more and more unlikely hypotheticals, but the rest of us live in reality.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on June 03, 2012, 10:22:29 pm
Legally, the yelling an inch from your face does constitute assault.  Battery is the crime when someone actually hits you, but assault does apply if a rational person would feel threatened by the actions.  It may be a lesser crime than, for example, holding a deadly weapon while doing the same, but if there is little doubt that the offender wishes to cause physical harm and is only looking for an excuse, then it is an assault. 

Not correct. Without getting into the distinction between common law assault and battery and statutory assault and battery (which varies between jurisdictions), it is really quite simple. Battery is physical violence (actually, more precisely an "unwanted touching"). Assault is the threat of a battery. (No need to guess, people; these things are on the internet. So if I wave my claymore at you in a credibly threatening manner, that's an assault.) If I stick you with it, that's a battery.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Killydd on June 03, 2012, 10:45:10 pm
Two points of contention here, Sandy.  First, that the "weapon" in question may be nothing more than your fists.  The second is that what I wished to do is draw the distinction between heated debate(including vitriolic insults) and a person getting in your face, making intimidating remarks and actions, but wanting to say "but he hit me first" when arbitration over an eventual fight breaks out.  That is, the threat of battery can be primarily verbal, although I will agree usually supported by a physical action to increase the threat.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: ContraryGuy on June 04, 2012, 01:09:04 am
It's like the freed slave condition; sometimes the slave would rebel against freedom, unable to accept the change in paradigm.
Again, I think that not wanting to pay taxes is a piss-poor main reason to join an anarchy.

Well, Scott Pilgrim does have charisma.  havent you seen the movie?

In every maturing society, complacency sets in.  The longer people go being comfortable, the less they have to worry about. 
But, because people are constantly bombarded by messages telling they should be worrying, the smaller and pettier stuff they look around to worry about.

When you combine this with the generally enforced ignorance, you the "mascons".  They had to have something to bitch about(because life is just far too comfortable to be happy), so they hit on the oldest canard in history:  My Taxes Are Too High.

So, Pilgrim tells them "how would you like to live in absolute tax-free freedom?"  Since they are riled up up, naturally they say  yes.

It may have been a piss poor reason, but, like so many things, the decision to sell everything, mortgage your life and give up every thing you've known for an uncertain future, is not a rational decision.
It is not based on reasoned thought, but on emotion.  If the person carries through far enough while irrational, the decision gains enough inertia that it becomes mores difficult to stop than to carry through with it, to whatever end may come.

Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on June 04, 2012, 05:34:48 am
Two points of contention here, Sandy.  First, that the "weapon" in question may be nothing more than your fists.  The second is that what I wished to do is draw the distinction between heated debate(including vitriolic insults) and a person getting in your face, making intimidating remarks and actions, but wanting to say "but he hit me first" when arbitration over an eventual fight breaks out.  That is, the threat of battery can be primarily verbal, although I will agree usually supported by a physical action to increase the threat.

Here's how it works. Under the Common Law, various crimes, torts, etc. are defined by "elements." This is just "black-letter law" that guides the trier of fact, in determining if parties have acted reasonably (i.e., "reasonable person" test). Here is a good explanation of the elements necessary to constitute an assault:

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-assault.html

As indicated above, these elements and their interpretations, are guidelines. People can get it wrong; just as with any system of conflict resolution. However, the underlying principle applies irrespective of whether or not it was properly applied in a given context.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Azure Priest on June 04, 2012, 07:24:52 am
Well, now we've got Pilgrim's followers who fled an oppressive government looking to establish the self same policies they fled from.

As for the yelling two inches from your face.

That in and of itself can be both assault AND battery. In Florida within the last week, a man LITERALLY ate another man's face.

He refused to obey the orders of the police who were coming to the aid of the victim and had to be shot to death.

(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Killydd on June 04, 2012, 11:10:02 am
(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)
Quite silly when you consider the number of crimes perpetrated by consumers of alcohol.  Most opponents to the war on drugs think that drugs should be legal, but you should be culpable for your actions at all times.  Which pretty much comes down to the personal responsibility that many on here promote.  Then there's the other group that merely wishes to add more drugs to the list of "harmless enough to be socially and legally acceptable."
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: macsnafu on June 04, 2012, 11:47:31 am
Well, now we've got Pilgrim's followers who fled an oppressive government looking to establish the self same policies they fled from.

As for the yelling two inches from your face.

That in and of itself can be both assault AND battery. In Florida within the last week, a man LITERALLY ate another man's face.

He refused to obey the orders of the police who were coming to the aid of the victim and had to be shot to death.

(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)

So one person took bath salts and started chewing on a person's face.  Are we to merely assume that the bath salts is what caused it?  How many other people have taken bath salts and done something as gruesome or lethal as this? Perhaps he was already a deranged person obsessed with the zombie apocalype, and THEN he took the bath salts. 

Yes, outlawing bath salts is still silly--outlawing face-eating is silly, too, because it already constitutes an attack, and thus a crime. 

But hey, how many cases are there of somebody shooting somebody else after drinking some beers--obviously, we should outlaw beer!  Or people shooting other people in cases of road rage--does that mean we should outlaw cars, or just the roads themselves?



Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: customdesigned on June 04, 2012, 01:39:14 pm
Pay attention everyone.  An excellent and important distinction:

Quite silly when you consider the number of crimes perpetrated by consumers of alcohol.  Most opponents to the war on drugs think that drugs should be legal, but you should be culpable for your actions at all times.  Which pretty much comes down to the personal responsibility that many on here promote.  Then there's the other group that merely wishes to add more drugs to the list of "harmless enough to be socially and legally acceptable."

Treating addicts as helpless victims of the dealer (unless drugged against their will - something not uncommon with the "date rape" drug) is a big part of the drug problem.

I have kids, and I know it is heart wrenching when your kid does something incredibly stupid that ruins them for life (or just kills them) because "all their friends are doing it".  But giving that unconstitutional power to government only made it worse.

Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on June 04, 2012, 02:48:59 pm
Well, now we've got Pilgrim's followers who fled an oppressive government looking to establish the self same policies they fled from.

It wasn't by accident that I picked escapees from Massachusetts. I was just mirroring reality. There has been press about people leaving Massachusetts, because of taxes, and then trying to turn New Hampshire, and other destinations, into mini-Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: wdg3rd on June 04, 2012, 06:23:25 pm
Well, now we've got Pilgrim's followers who fled an oppressive government looking to establish the self same policies they fled from.

It wasn't by accident that I picked escapees from Massachusetts. I was just mirroring reality. There has been press about people leaving Massachusetts, because of taxes, and then trying to turn New Hampshire, and other destinations, into mini-Massachusetts.

And with a fraction of the numbers of the Massholes, the 1000 or so immigrants from the FSP have had some spectacular success rates in Concord.  The ban on smoking in bars passed, but if it doesn't get repealed this year, it will next year.

My own primary action item when I get there (hopefully a matter of months rather than years now) is getting rid of the sales tax on prepared food.  I plan to be a restaurateur, and I hate the idea of being a tax collector.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: myrkul999 on June 04, 2012, 07:37:29 pm
My own primary action item when I get there (hopefully a matter of months rather than years now) is getting rid of the sales tax on prepared food.  I plan to be a restaurateur, and I hate the idea of being a tax collector.

If I understand it correctly, the tax is technically on the restauranteur themselves, they just typically pass it along directly to the customer.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: wdg3rd on June 04, 2012, 07:49:48 pm
My own primary action item when I get there (hopefully a matter of months rather than years now) is getting rid of the sales tax on prepared food.  I plan to be a restaurateur, and I hate the idea of being a tax collector.

If I understand it correctly, the tax is technically on the restauranteur themselves, they just typically pass it along directly to the customer.

You do not understand it correctly as it is worded in every place I've looked.


It's restaurateur, not restauranteur.  Trust me on this.  I used to get it wrong too.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: myrkul999 on June 04, 2012, 08:06:54 pm
My own primary action item when I get there (hopefully a matter of months rather than years now) is getting rid of the sales tax on prepared food.  I plan to be a restaurateur, and I hate the idea of being a tax collector.

If I understand it correctly, the tax is technically on the restauranteur themselves, they just typically pass it along directly to the customer.

You do not understand it correctly as it is worded in every place I've looked.


It's restaurateur, not restauranteur.  Trust me on this.  I used to get it wrong too.

Interestingly, my spellchecker doesn't complain about either one.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: wdg3rd on June 04, 2012, 08:37:01 pm
My own primary action item when I get there (hopefully a matter of months rather than years now) is getting rid of the sales tax on prepared food.  I plan to be a restaurateur, and I hate the idea of being a tax collector.

If I understand it correctly, the tax is technically on the restauranteur themselves, they just typically pass it along directly to the customer.

You do not understand it correctly as it is worded in every place I've looked.


It's restaurateur, not restauranteur.  Trust me on this.  I used to get it wrong too.

Interestingly, my spellchecker doesn't complain about either one.

Most spellcheckers I use reject "spellchecker".  But they get restaurateur/restauranteur right.  Of course, I use Linux, so there's better input than the Microsoft kids who came last in their third-grade spelling bees.  And let's not discuss the new generation driving spelling with their thumbs.  Scott uses their warez'y shit as an example of linguistic evolution in the future (and I quite agree) but at the moment it just pisses me off.  I went to public schools when teachers could still slap us silly for that kind of crap.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Bob G on June 04, 2012, 08:56:26 pm
As for the yelling two inches from your face.

That in and of itself can be both assault AND battery. In Florida within the last week, a man LITERALLY ate another man's face.

He refused to obey the orders of the police who were coming to the aid of the victim and had to be shot to death.

How can you equate yelling in someone's face to eating it off?

Quote
(Of note, a blood test showed the attacker had a rather large amount of those drugs that there is a war on. Not so silly a concept any more is it?)

Actually it is silly. It appears the attacker had a quantity of so-called 'bath salts' in his system during the attack. These salts were developed as a not-yet-illegal (at least in some jurisdictions; they just 'made the list' here in Minnesota) alternative to the evil weed marijuana. If marijuana hadn't stupidly been made illegal, this alternative would not have been developed, and the victim's face might still be intact. After all, when was the last time someone went on a marijuana-fueled violence spree? As a favorite comic of mine says, "The only thing in danger after I've blown a blunt is my roommate's half-empty bag of Cheetos(R)."

Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: myrkul999 on June 04, 2012, 09:05:58 pm
Most spellcheckers I use reject "spellchecker".  But they get restaurateur/restauranteur right.  Of course, I use Linux, so there's better input than the Microsoft kids who came last in their third-grade spelling bees.  And let's not discuss the new generation driving spelling with their thumbs.  Scott uses their warez'y shit as an example of linguistic evolution in the future (and I quite agree) but at the moment it just pisses me off.  I went to public schools when teachers could still slap us silly for that kind of crap.

Linux/Firefox here, and the only word it disagrees with is "warez'y," which is well and good, since that is not English. It even accepts "spellchecker".
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Bob G on June 04, 2012, 09:12:53 pm
It wasn't by accident that I picked escapees from Massachusetts. I was just mirroring reality. There has been press about people leaving Massachusetts, because of taxes, and then trying to turn New Hampshire, and other destinations, into mini-Massachusetts.

Same thing happens on the left coast. Californicators (so-called because they come from California to escape the taxation and regulation, then fuck things up in Oregon) priced housing out of the reach of the locals and demanded all sorts of 'services' and 'protections' like they had back at home, apparently not realizing that all those S&Ps were the cause of the high taxes they tried to escape in the first place.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: myrkul999 on June 05, 2012, 01:07:17 am
And the doubts creep in...

Looking forward to seeing how this resolves.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Killydd on June 05, 2012, 04:08:32 am
It wasn't by accident that I picked escapees from Massachusetts. I was just mirroring reality. There has been press about people leaving Massachusetts, because of taxes, and then trying to turn New Hampshire, and other destinations, into mini-Massachusetts.

Same thing happens on the left coast. Californicators (so-called because they come from California to escape the taxation and regulation, then frack things up in Oregon) priced housing out of the reach of the locals and demanded all sorts of 'services' and 'protections' like they had back at home, apparently not realizing that all those S&Ps were the cause of the high taxes they tried to escape in the first place.
Not quite, in the case of Oregon.  They saw "no sales tax" and went YAY, then blinked when they got the property tax bill, especially as property values skyrocketed due to people selling off an expensive California property, using that to buy a relatively cheap house, but still overpaying for the area, driving the assessed value of everything around it up, and started voting to cut property taxes.  This resulted in a lot of unhappy people when services started getting cut to keep up with the reduced taxes.
My own primary action item when I get there (hopefully a matter of months rather than years now) is getting rid of the sales tax on prepared food.  I plan to be a restaurateur, and I hate the idea of being a tax collector.

If I understand it correctly, the tax is technically on the restauranteur themselves, they just typically pass it along directly to the customer.

You do not understand it correctly as it is worded in every place I've looked.


It's restaurateur, not restauranteur.  Trust me on this.  I used to get it wrong too.
It might be worded that way, but the tax people get pissy if it isn't added explicitly at the end for them to analyze.  Ever bought something at a convention?  Noticed that a lot of vendors will just take cash for the stated value of their items, but if you pay with a card, they add on sales tax suddenly?  That's why.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Bob G on June 05, 2012, 05:06:58 am
Not quite, in the case of Oregon.  They saw "no sales tax" and went YAY, then blinked when they got the property tax bill, especially as property values skyrocketed due to people selling off an expensive California property, using that to buy a relatively cheap house, but still overpaying for the area, driving the assessed value of everything around it up, and started voting to cut property taxes.  This resulted in a lot of unhappy people when services started getting cut to keep up with the reduced taxes.

The tax rate was reduced, but because of the increasing assessed value tax collections actually increased. At least until the 'bubble' burst.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Andreas on June 05, 2012, 05:43:33 am
It will be interesting to see if Pilgrim will follow the herd he led there, or maybe find some common ground with the hoi-polloi...
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: macsnafu on June 05, 2012, 12:16:53 pm
Hey, that face-eating attack in Miami?  They still don't know why the guy did it.  Bath salts or illegal drugs may not have been involved.

Quote
Still unclear is what motivated the attack. Though some have speculated that Eugene was under the influence of some kind of stimulants or other drugs that sometimes cause violent episodes, police said they found no evidence of drugs or paraphernalia at the scene. Toxicology tests of Eugene’s blood will likely take several weeks.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/29/2822971/new-video-shows-more-grisly-detail.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Killydd on June 05, 2012, 07:43:25 pm
Not quite, in the case of Oregon.  They saw "no sales tax" and went YAY, then blinked when they got the property tax bill, especially as property values skyrocketed due to people selling off an expensive California property, using that to buy a relatively cheap house, but still overpaying for the area, driving the assessed value of everything around it up, and started voting to cut property taxes.  This resulted in a lot of unhappy people when services started getting cut to keep up with the reduced taxes.

The tax rate was reduced, but because of the increasing assessed value tax collections actually increased. At least until the 'bubble' burst.
Actually, with some other things, it didn't.  Historically, there was a frequent tax rebate when collected taxes exceeded projections from two years before, and then that became expected, and when one year they wanted to use that to cover the increased costs of more people in the state, someone decided to write into law that the rebate must happen.  Of course, since the state was forbidden by law to go into debt, the projections had to be lower than what they would actually collect to make sure that they could budget well, actual revenue had to be reduced.  Of course, my memory of these events is further complicated by the fact that at the same time, there was a rebalancing of education dollars, siphoning money away from the type of school that I attended, which just magnified the effect of funding loss on my education. 
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: ex-Gooserider on June 09, 2012, 12:32:53 am
As one from Taxachussetts that frequently border hops in order to get the 6.25% shopping discount, and has several friends in NH, I would point out that while NH doesn't have a state sales tax or personal income tax, they DO have high property tax rates, and business taxes that are on the high side...

Bottom line is the difference in total taxes between MA and NH isn't nearly as great as many people think that it is...  There is a difference, but most of it is explained by the lower level of gov't services in NH...

The folks that really get screwed are the large number that live in NH, and work in MA - as they get to pay the higher NH property taxes AND the MA income tax.  Unfortunately, for reasons that aren't as clear as one would hope, there are more / better paying jobs in MA, so there are a LOT of cross border commuters...

Since I got hurt, we have strong reasons to stay in MA (I don't like it, but I make out quite well under RomneyCare...) but we were looking somewhat at making the move to NH before that happened.   The GF is the primary breadwinner as a principal software engineer, and what she found when looking at employment options is that there were very few openings in NH, compared to what there are in MA...

Someways it doesn't speak well of the claimed economic advantages of an at least somewhat freer society...  NH has historically been "more free" than MA, arguably more so since the FSP got going, but despite this, the highly socialist MA is the one that has ended up with more of the jobs, better educational institutions (sorry, but NH doesn't have any comparison to Harvard / MIT / etc...) the 128 belt computer industry, and so on...

ex-Gooserider
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: mellyrn on June 09, 2012, 04:59:45 am
Quote
Someways it doesn't speak well of the claimed economic advantages of an at least somewhat freer society...

Imagine two governmentally-equal regions -- two AnCaps, two absolute monarchies, whatever, just so's they're the same -- one with the terrain of MA and the other with that of NH, and start them off at the tech level of, say, AD 1600.  There should be some differences.  4 centuries on should have multiplied the differences.  With software, terrain doesn't matter so much, so the more mountainous land has a chance to catch up when that arises, but there will still be a lack of other industry & peripherals (available pizza?)  I live within 100 miles of DC and we only just got DSL in our neighborhood late last year.

Rees-Mogg and Davidson refer intriguingly to what they call "megapolitical" factors, of which sheer geography is one.  Disease is another; possibly if North America hadn't been devastated by plague two years before the Pilgrims landed, America might not be quite so European today.

In short, it might speak volumes for a freer society that NH has as much as it does; I'm not saying that IS the case, but only that we don't know how much to attribute to which factors.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Andreas on June 09, 2012, 06:51:32 am
Which is cause and which is effect?
If a low-revenue state is right next to a high-revenue state, the low-revenue state may find that many residents will be working across the border.
That's a problem; the residents will likely be consuming services where they live, but they're paying income tax across the border from there, and the companies they work for are over there too. In those cases, the only way to cover the expense of these borderwalkers will be to up the tax on residency, property tax.
Of course, in a free state they could also drop all subsidy of services, but that might drive away residents, the ones in gainful cross-border employ (who are already taxed), and the ones of local employ, who aren't highly confident in their continued employment (who is, these days?).
Not that it couldn't work, it could, but raising property taxes is clearly one way of trying to cope.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: SandySandfort on June 09, 2012, 08:53:37 am
The folks that really get screwed are the large number that live in NH, and work in MA - as they get to pay the higher NH property taxes AND the MA income tax.  Unfortunately, for reasons that aren't as clear as one would hope, there are more / better paying jobs in MA, so there are a LOT of cross border commuters...

Sounds like a business opportunity to this market anarchist. Start a business that creates new jobs in NH. That should help reduce the cross-border commutes.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: Andreas on June 09, 2012, 12:01:16 pm
Of course, there are rumors that in Europe there are places where you can avoid taxes ('cept VAT) by living in a place that taxes only local income, and working in the next country over, where they tax only residents.
Title: Re: Pilgrim
Post by: customdesigned on June 09, 2012, 04:57:52 pm
The folks that really get screwed are the large number that live in NH, and work in MA - as they get to pay the higher NH property taxes AND the MA income tax.  Unfortunately, for reasons that aren't as clear as one would hope, there are more / better paying jobs in MA, so there are a LOT of cross border commuters...

Sounds like a business opportunity to this market anarchist. Start a business that creates new jobs in NH. That should help reduce the cross-border commutes.

A critical resource for any information economy job (software, games, web comics, etc) is a "fat pipe".  Mountainous terrain (NY) means low population density - attractive to "knowlege workers", but not to "fat pipe" builders.  My Dad lives in San Diego, also mountainous, and also few fat pipes.  An entrepreneur invested in an (expensive) fat pipe installation, then distributes it over a wide area via a wireless network.  Each customer is suppied with a router that relays packets wirelessly for other customers as well as locally.  (This is called a "lily pad" network.)  This brings broadband at reasonable cost to lots of residents like my Dad, and a reasonable profit for the guy that set it all up.  And the upstream ISP is happy too - they don't have to worry about build-out in a low density area.