User talk:Shyguy76767

Welcome!

Hello, Shyguy76767, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sjö (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to inform you of my departure per the user's talk with me below. For a full disclosure of my reasons, see my user page. Shyguy76767 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation is theft

Although I agree with you that taxation is coercive, I think you will find no mainstream sources which assert that. Please see WP:Verify, which is one of the Wikipedia pillars. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the page and then on to the neutrality section. I am very disheartened by what I see as being a very confused and inconsistent application of ideas, which speaks little for the truth value of Wikipedia, since if "the mainstream" believed that 2 + 2 was 5... What's the point in editing for accuracy if rule of the popularity mob will rue the day? How could articles not ultimately end up like crap, the lingual version of 2 + 2 = 5? Nay - we have Anarchism and probably many others to show true the insecurity of Wikipedia of wanting to be taken seriously by the statist paperback encyclopedias the winners of war wrote. How, then, is Wikipedia not a soap box of popular opinion, which is stupified contradictions of a populous that believes falsehoods? Shyguy76767 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the mainstream view is correct, it is what we report. It is not often true that the the mainstream view is populist or popular. If you do not want to follow Wikipedia policies, you should write on another forum. (I should add that, when discussing minority or fringe groups, it is appropriate to discuss the mainstream view among those fringe groups. However, "taxation as coercion" is even less mainstream than "taxation is theft". That governments require taxation is almost certainly true, but not commented on in reliable sources, so we don't comment on it here, except as a view espoused by fringe groups. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia use reasoning, or popular opinion? Wikipedia is not just unscientific by obvious measures, but for topics not reducible to non-political subjects, utterly corrupt in content. This is because taxation, which is coercive, is thought to be voluntary. This results in society being based on involuntary participation, and deceit and lies to enable it, with the inculcated assumption of voluntary taxation being the core of the corruption.

Unless Wikipedia looks at it's foundation and does a re-assessment, its content is doomed to perpetual inferiority and infighting, which it is already characterized by, as "taken seriously" is a common theme regarding edits.

Reporting about corruption may be the policy of Wikipedia by extension; it is not something I want any part of. I will indeed write and converse elsewhere. Shyguy76767 (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New help request - Metacontention: Wikipedia is immoral and possibly irreparably inconsistent if reliant on mainstream consensus

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I seek to understand whether Wikipedia intends to be a site based in fact and reasoning or mainstream consensus, the full contention of which I explain on my user page. It can be summed up as this: if the mainstream consensus of 2 + 2 is that it is 5, then wouldn't that be fit to put on Wikipedia? Shyguy76767 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read The five pillars of Wikipedia which explains how the encyclopedia operates. If that model is not agreeable to you, then you may want to do as you say above and "write and converse elsewhere." — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 16:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{Help me}} template appropriately.
The {{Help me}} template is for help using Wikipedia. If you would like to ask a question about using Wikipedia, please replace the code {{Help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{Help me}}. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help ^connect IRC help channel to get real-time assistance.

I have seen the five pillars and I find this site to be in self-contradiction. I will post here the reasoning:

This site disingenuously states it is based on the lack of bias, there is no page on it; the link for "unbiased" goes to "biased", about which there is an inherent bias regarding the moral goodness of the subject:

"Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.".

Where is the bias?

Here:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Do you hold a neutral stance on the following three topics?

I would hope not. They are immoral, lacking sustainability and coherent applicableness to the receiving party: they are socially incoherent. If Wikipedia or wikipedians indeed claim neutrality on murder, rape, and genocide, then Wikipedia and wikipedians are accessories and enablers of, for primary instance, statism.

Statism is the primary reason that the world is in such a poor state, as taxation, which enables the existence of government, is inherently coercive, as if just one person does not consent to being taxed, it is involuntary, and given that the threat of jail or death result from the resistance to acquisition of money or equivalent items, taxation is coercive.

As our society is statist and thus based on taxation, the majority of the globe operates on coercion.

An example of the bias of wikipedians toward unsubstantiated views is seen with users Iwilsonp and Sjö, on these respective pages: here and here, for the definition of taxation.

"I don't think it's coercion." is not a reason, but an unsubstantiated opinion. Nonetheless, I provided reasoning to explain the inclusion of coercion to "imposition" within the definition of taxation. Iwilsonp has yet to respond, and Sjo is considering it further.

Here is the reasoning that taxation is coercive:

1. Using the definition:

"A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law."

2. Imposition is involuntary.
3. Iwilsonp's reasoning against attaching coercion to imposition was, "coercion carries a negative connotation of something illegal, however taxation is generally considered a government right."

My response is: Since without taxation, government would not exist, why wouldn't it be considered a government right? I'll explain this further: if government were not funded via the imposition of levies, namely, the involuntary inclusion of a person's money to the government treasury, then the government would no longer be a coercive entity. That taxation is involuntary is precisely why government is government. If taxation were voluntary, it would not be taxation, and government would not be government. It would simply be society and people interacting.

Because the state and government are the same concept, using them will result in circular reasoning, as the respective pages, referring to each other, show. The problem lies with the nature of taxation and government: they do not refer to equals, but rulers and citizens. This doublethink of taxation being a societal necessity corrupts all of society, especially via corporations. The means to correcting the circular reasoning is to call taxation what it is: coercion.

The only thing you need for taxation to be involuntary is that one person who is taxed does not agree to it. This is the case. There are numerous instances of this. I, for instance, do not want to be taxed. I do not want my money taken from me without my consent. However, the money is taken from me, under threat of being sent to jail. If I resist going to jail, I'm threatened with death.

This falls squarely into the definition of coercion:

"Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force. It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, usually having a strict choice or option against a person in such a way a victim cannot escape, for example: a bully demanding lunch money to a student or the student gets beaten."

Arthur Rubin named "mainstream sources" when I sourced Larken Rose's The Most Dangerous Superstition: "Although I agree with you that taxation is coercive, I think you will find no mainstream sources which assert that." Well, you might as well agree that 2 + 2 is 4, yet if the mainstream does not, oh well!

Accordingly, I contend:

1. Not having a bias is to be an enabler of immorality via being an accessory to immoral actions by lack of contending them. Or do you think murder is morally good?
2. That Wikipedia is not just biased, but immorally so, being an accessory to immoral actions.

I don't even know if this is the right spot to contend Wikipedia itself. I figure, it's the fastest way to find out where my contentions should go. Shyguy76767 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to include your essay, two of the five pillars would need to be overturned. It's not going to happen. You might try RationalWiki. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the suggestion. I joined that site just a bit ago today out of frustration. Shyguy76767 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia teahouse

Please do not post your essay at random places on wikipedia. The teahouse is not a place to rant about what you think about wikipedia. Its to help people with actual questions, instead of essays. NathanWubs (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I post my "rant" to be considered by Wikipedia/Wikipedians? Or is everyone here intolerant of discussing the validity of using erroneous reasoning, in favor of "being authoritative" by means of mainstream consensus? Shyguy76767 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As was said on my talk page. You do not. Wikipedia is not a forum. Calling people intolerant is defiantly not doing you any favors either. Remember Wikipedia is Encyclopedia, not a first or second source. Its a third source that only reports what other sources say. While you might not like it, that is how wikipedia is. NathanWubs (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Teahouse, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Arfæst ! 20:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]