alphanullmeric

Does your anarchism extend to the aforementioned left leaning foreign governments?

Oh this is hilarious. Not only do you confirm that you wouldn't support them doing what they choose to with their service in the absence of government intervention, you would actively support the same government intervention you pretended to be against if it meant you could force them to do something you benefit from.

If you wanted to prove that consistency wasn't exclusive to me you've done a pretty poor job. Combing through someone's account to avoid a yes or no question is especially pathetic.

While you're running away from that other yes or no question, I might as well try asking you this one - do you support privacy?

No. The US government should stay out of other countries business’. They should even stay out of NATO. But again, I’m sure you don’t have that level of consistency.

I don’t support any government bullying of private companies, although I’m sure any level of consistency would be unfamiliar to people like you.

Should TikTok be allowed to control what goes onto their service? That’s a yes or no question.

TikTok is a private company and your use of their service is not a right.

So no, “it’s the law” doesn’t apply to you. Answer the question or I’ll answer it for you. Thanks for playing.

Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws?

Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people?

Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different.

You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.

You are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is involved and not what it does.

It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.

Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.

Compared to what? An equivalent framework costs more in Canada when you factor in a student discount.

I find it hilarious that you decided to respond to a single sentence out of my comment, and then proceeded to say exactly what I claimed you would say in the rest of my comment. If you can quantify the "indirect benefits" I get from services you chose to use without my input, then you can quantify the indirect benefits a lemonade stand gets from the theatre that opened up next to it. Stop trying to have it both ways.

If AMC opens a theatre next to a kid's lemonade stand at a loss, indirectly benefiting the stand, do you believe he owes AMC money? I'm looking for a yes or no answer, or I'll answer for you. An essay that runs around the question is not an option. If you truly believe the fair share includes "indirect benefit" then your answer should be a yes.

That’s correct, you pay for what you use and don’t pay for what you don’t. It’s irrelevant as to how much something someone else chose to do benefitted me. My lemonade stand doesn’t owe the cinema you decided to open up next to me any money. The only case where you ever have a right to force me to pay you is if we both voluntarily entered an agreement to transact. The “indirect” talking point is something some people like to say so that they can arbitrarily increase someone else’s tax burden by claiming they benefited from an infinite list of things without needing to quantify anything. Simultaneously they can arbitrarily decrease their own tax burden by choosing a threshold of income above their own at which they decide these “indirect benefits” come into play. I’m not interested in that argument. Pay your fair share.