Profitability does not necessarily correlate with better life for customers, it all depends specifically on the subject.

Averts are entirely set up from the point of view of businesses, people can live better without ads, businesses need them because another competing business is also doing advertisement, it's just an arms race. Advertising and its growth is a cancer in our society, it destroy society values just for a quick buck and provides zero value to our society. I can't wait to see that die. I can't believe some of the smartest people we have out there spend all their lives making people click on ads, this is totally insane.

Advertising is just oppression by private companies, I don't see any difference with government ads. Except that because there is a profit in private advertising, it's even more invasive and everywhere.

> Advertising is just oppression by private companies, I don't see any difference with government ads.

You see no difference between ads that ask you to buy something and a government that uses torture, murder, mind control, propaganda, and fear to carry out the destruction of free will of its citizens?

Ok.

> it's even more invasive and everywhere.

Yes, being sent to labor camps to work to death is just as invasive as having Google know that I like video games.

Not all propaganda posters were about destructing free will, some of them were also for improving the social status quo. Example: "I will be a chemist" - USRR, 1964 - http://i.imgur.com/DTMN0MY.jpg.

And I don't compare labour camps with advertising.

I compare governments ads "work harder for your country" and private ads "you look ugly, you should buy some of our makeup". Private ads are all about destroying free will too, that's exactly their point.

They were so lucky to have a government that allowed them to become chemists.

Seriously, though, talk to some Soviet-era scientists. It was a good gig. You might of course bring up Academician Sakharov. But his dissodence was actually a result of the high status scientists had in the USSR. He thought his status would shield him from his critiques of the government.

I guess you missed my point. I'm sure the chemists had a good time.

Until companies can walk around with guns or threaten you with imprisonment for not paying their fees or "enjoying" their products, the two are nothing alike. Advertising doesn't use physical force.

Just responding to this dreary trope: if you don't pay taxes, under ordinary circumstances, you won't be imprisoned. Your paycheck will be likely garnished or some of your assets taken to cover your tax debt. For tax evasion to enter the realm of "now you're going to jail" (like Wesley Snipes) you've got to do a lot more than simply fail to write the gubmint a check.

You just proved my point... that's force and coercion. "They don't shoot you, they just steal or money!"

Whatever tax you owe isn't your money. It's the government's money, and by refusing to pay it, you're stealing from the rest of us. That's the government enforcing our property rights when it uses force to reclaim what's ours.

Oh, so they have claim to a percentage of my labor? without my consent? That sounds like something...

Your parents/legal guardians consented for you when you were a minor and could not make such an agreement.

When you reached the age of majority, you gave consent by continuing to live here.

(And if you think consent requires words, and not merely actions, try wordlessly walking out of a convenience store with a package of slim jims you didn't pay for.)

I find it endlessly amusing you're hypothetical for non-verbal consent is literally theft.

However, I agree; taxation is necessary for government to exist. I'm also not an anarchist. I see taxation as a necessary evil, but I refuse to not call it what it is. Like the case with most (all) necessary evils, I consider it a moral obligation to advocate for it's conservative application. So, sorry you find it offensive that I want the government to steal less of your labor. I hold no grudges towards people that would like to see their labor partitioned towards public works to whatever extent they see fit, but I maintain coercion is immoral.

Lastly, the "just move argument" is a real gem. "Don't like police brutality? just move." Talk about letting your privilege show...

Your hypothetical refusing to pay your tax is also theft; you are stealing from the rest of us.

I'm glad you agree that taxation is necessary for government to exist. Some day, I hope you'll come around to doing away with silly word games like "it's theft". Because it isn't.

If, as you say, I am merely being charged for services, what do I do If services are being offered which I morally oppose and don't want to be part of? I am still forced to (coerced) to pay for them (theft) regardless of my usage. For example, I am vehemently opposed to our current handful of military actions. I don't want my money going towards innocent loss of life or actions that promote it. You're answer is to simply uproot my life and move?

What do you think would happen if we could allocate our tax dollars personally however we see fit? With access to different public "services" being granted accordingly?

If you don't want to consent to paying for the benefits of living in a particular society, then don't be part of that society.

"Don't like police brutality? Just move!"

I don't think the "I will be a chemist" Soviet ad used physical force either.

But I want to be able to utilize all this cool free stuff that boosts my quality of life without seeing ads! It's my right! STOP OPPRESSING ME!

So we a are pivoting between Huxley and Orwell...

Huxley's vision was not one in which property rights were recognized.

> You see no difference between ads that ask you to buy something and a government that uses torture, murder, mind control, propaganda, and fear to carry out the destruction of free will of its citizens?

How many of the western allies did just that during the cold war?

I didn't make any mention of what country did what.

It is entirely in the customers interest for a business they support to be profitable, which advertising promotes.

I'm sure residents of the DPRK would disagree that our ads are as invasive as their government propaganda. Or maybe they would agree with you... not sure that proves anything though...

   your property to better your and your customer's lives

While conveniently ignoring everyone else.

But hey why help them? They aren't paying you...

I have an obligation to respect other peoples rights (which essentially all boil down to property rights). I have no obligation to help others if it isn't mutually beneficial. I might choose to, but it would infringe on my rights to force me to - that's called slavery.

Wasn't your obligation to respect other people's right forced upon you? How does respecting the rights of others not make you a slave to them?

Because from the logic you are using that is a conclusion.

There are many kinds of oppression one might be oppressed in some way that still allows a semblance of property ownership.

The ability to own property doesn't encompass property rights; especially when "own" is used as loosely as it is today. If property rights are entirely respected, how can someone be oppressed?

Is easy to talk about property rights after destroy native population and give the lands to a minority when all the rest have only option to sell their work force. The problem with property is its historical construction was not legitim.

You almost formed a complete sentence. I didn't do any of those things.