Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[bripat9643]

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

Or why don't YOU show me this contract and the exact place where I signed it? If it truly exists as a contract and I consented to it, then this should be an easy task.

Absolute maddening stupidity. This person clearly took the class, because no one could come to conclusions as silly as this if they actually thought with their own brain for a minute.



Next they will tell you to take it up the ass, after all you consented. It's written in the skies.

That's a lame response that you didn't sign it. You participate in it, that is agreeing to it.

Bullshit. He participates only in the same sense that the victim "partipates" in a mugging.

Why do statists always try to change the meaning of "consent?" The answer is simple: because they know accurate definitions condemn their statist dogma as nothing more than tyranny.

Bripat should be good reading it. He constantly posts links to things that other people wrote and says here, this is what I think ...

So what?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, so by posting on these boards, you imply your consent to me kicking you in the shins every morning on the way to work. If you resist this shin-kicking, the consequence is that 10 of my friends will drag you to a cage in my basement.

Please explain to me why this is invalid. I'm not being facetious.

When I joined this board I agreed to follow the rules of the board. If when I was signing up they told me one of the rules of the board was that I got kicked in the shin every morning on the way to work or that 10 of your friends will drag you to a cage in my basement, then I would not have joined the board. Seems simple enough.

If the rules changed and that became one of the rules of the board I would then choose to leave the board as I would not abide by that rule.

I’m not talking about the rules of the board. I’m talking about MY assertion of what your action implies. I’m stating that you imply your consent to the aforementioned terms by posting here. So do you accept this or not? If not, why not?

 

[kaz]

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

A gave you the answer. It's private security agencies.

That isn't even a 50K foot answer, it's a 50K mile answer.

1) What happens when you and your neighbor hires different private security agencies who disagree what the lines between your property should be?

2) What happens when you and your daughter says your neighbor's son raped her and he said she consented and each of your private security agencies agree with their customer?

3) What happens when your private security agency can't get to your house because it goes through your neighbor's yard?

4) What happens when your neighbor's private security agency says you owe him $10K for services rendered you didn't know he provided you?

I look forward to your not addressing any of these questions either

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with him and you won't be there for them either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor, they live down the street and they'll risk that.

What now?

 

[ding]

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

He doesn't accept it.

I don't accept YOUR version of it.

Your version is a contradiction.

How so?

Because my beliefs are consistent with my actions. I believe government serves a valid and legal purpose. So when I pay my taxes I am being true to my belief.

You on the other hand believe that government does not serve a valid purpose and is illegal. So when you pay your taxes, you are behaving inconsistent to your belief.

Wrong, douchebag. I'm complying because the only other choice is being arrested and serving a long prison sentence.

You're an idiot if you believe a rational person would make such a choice.

It isn't likely that you would go to jail. You would likely face civil penalties, including fines and interest on the money owed and they would garnish your wages. But you could get your day in court and if enough of you banded together and made a decent argument, who knows you might even win.

So my point still stands, how strongly do you feel about this? How important is it to you?

Or you could just show us and pack up your bags and move to a country more to your liking?

Or move to the wilderness and live off the land like a true sovereign human being would do.

I am beginning to think this isn't very important to you.

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

A gave you the answer. It's private security agencies.

That isn't even a 50K foot answer, it's a 50K mile answer.

1) What happens when you and your neighbor hires different private security agencies who disagree what the lines between your property should be?

2) What happens when you and your daughter says your neighbor's son raped her and he said she consented and each of your private security agencies agree with their customer?

3) What happens when your private security agency can't get to your house because it goes through your neighbor's yard?

4) What happens when your neighbor's private security agency says you owe him $10K for services rendered you didn't know he provided you?

I look forward to your not addressing any of these questions either

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

 

[kaz]

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

I've posted the same link to you several times, and each time you come up with some excuse for refusing to read it.

Same excuses:

1) You don't provide any content, you just say read this

2) You present it each time wrapped in dickish context

Those are the same two things every time

So what's your argument for why anarchy can't work? There is more than one law agency? Brilliant retort, because currently as we know, common law doesn't exist and there is only one court...

Basically you are asking of the impossible from the anarchists while asking of no standards from the government crowd. Let's review how ironic it was to talk about the barriers of your property while the government is taking over 40% of your stuff and handing it to someone you disagree with in every way. Once you deal with your impossible double standard all the questions will be answered.

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

Kaz is strangely silent since I posted the explanation of how private security agencies would work.

Yes. I had plans yesterday afternoon and today I went to work

 

[bripat9643]

He doesn't accept it.

I don't accept YOUR version of it.

Your version is a contradiction.

How so?

Because my beliefs are consistent with my actions. I believe government serves a valid and legal purpose. So when I pay my taxes I am being true to my belief.

You on the other hand believe that government does not serve a valid purpose and is illegal. So when you pay your taxes, you are behaving inconsistent to your belief.

Wrong, douchebag. I'm complying because the only other choice is being arrested and serving a long prison sentence.

You're an idiot if you believe a rational person would make such a choice.

It isn't likely that you would go to jail. You would likely face civil penalties, including fines and interest on the money owed and they would garnish your wages. But you could get your day in court and if enough of you banded together and made a decent argument, who knows you might even win.

That's still coercion, dumbass. What if you tell the court to fuck off?

So my point still stands, how strongly do you feel about this? How important is it to you?

Or you could just show us and pack up your bags and move to a country more to your liking?

Or move to the wilderness and live off the land like a true sovereign human being would do.

I am beginning to think this isn't very important to you.

Your point is bullshit. There's no point in continuing this discussion with such a monumental idiot.

 

[ding]

Given that bripat9643 spent his entire day posting on an online forum, something tells me he doesn't have to worry about the federal government garnishing his wages.

 

[kaz]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

"How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery." Now that's a load of crap. Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may or may not be justified, but redistribution of wealth is wrong 100% of the time. Of course it is, what a load of crap. And BTW, you're not an anarchist, at least you said you're not

 

[ding]

That's still coercion, dumbass. What if you tell the court to fuck off?

Then at least one of us would have had the balls to follow his convictions.

 

[kaz]

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

The statists have never really thought about why they believe what they believe. Thus, they have no answers when you point out the flaws in their arguments.

If you want to call a small government libertarian a statist and lump us with Marxists, then your words lose all meaning as they are simply hyperbole

 

[kaz]

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

 

[kaz]

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

The statists have never really thought about why they believe what they believe. Thus, they have no answers when you point out the flaws in their arguments.

I have trouble understanding or accepting how someone can be motivated to a position by personal preference or perceived benefit, even in the face of ironclad logic to the contrary. That’s just not how my brain works, I guess.

When I heard someone describe how external authority is slavery, I immediately saw the validity of the claim, emptied my pockets of everything I believed in opposition to that information and thought, “Fuck - I’m an anarchist”.

It took me a month to get over it. I was excited by the discovery, but scared of the implications. I had all the same questions statists do. But I saw that I was on a crumbling iceberg and there was only one ship taking people off. So I struggled with these questions from on-deck as the ship pulled out; I didn’t refuse to board just because I didn’t know where it was headed.

Self-respect demands that one accept truth when recognized, so I hope that they have no inkling; because to see even a glimmer and remain stubbornly planted as misunderstanding transforms into willful ignorance is a discrace no man should abide.

Apparently you were a lot less logical than I am.

My positions are consistent that the only government I support is government where there can be only one. There can be only one military, police department, civil and criminal courts, set of roads, recognition of property rights and management of limited resources.

That's where anarchy falls apart. For everything else it holds, which is why we agree on everything else. You guys jump through big hoops to justify how things where there can be only one would work without there being only one, and you fall flat on your face every time

 

[kaz]

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

When consent is required, it’s not taxation; it’s charity, or business, or something else. Taxation means hand it over or be punished. If not, we could just ignore the IRS like a Salvation Army Santa. It doesn’t work like that and you know it.

Each individual interprets taxation differently.

The majority in this country consent to taxation in accordance with the constitution at a minimum.

We long ago rejected the brutish life you wish to champion in favor of living in a civil society.

There are not multiple ways to claim consent. I do not consent to the taxes I pay. I pay them because government points a gun at my head. There are only a tiny portion of them that I would consent to.

Pointing a gun at my head and making me pay for your medical care, retirement, welfare and other expenses isn't "consent," it's armed robbery

 

[Tehon]

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

 

[bripat9643]

Given that bripat9643 spent his entire day posting on an online forum, something tells me he doesn't have to worry about the federal government garnishing his wages.

I home with the shingles, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

That's still coercion, dumbass. What if you tell the court to fuck off?

Then at least one of us would have had the balls to follow his convictions.

You mean you're an imbecile. You have no convictions other than that you're entitled to take money from others to use for your purposes.

 

[ding]

Given that bripat9643 spent his entire day posting on an online forum, something tells me he doesn't have to worry about the federal government garnishing his wages.

I have the shingles, dumbass.

^ daving

 

[bripat9643]

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

You're right about that. His position isn't consistent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I’m not talking about the rules of the board. I’m talking about MY assertion of what your action implies. I’m stating that you imply your consent to the aforementioned terms by posting here. So do you accept this or not? If not, why not?

You are making no sense. How can I imply my consent to rules that do not exist?