How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Centinel]

Ah, but per the fringe right crowd 'we the people' don't have the authority to tax.

We're all equals. One person doesn't have the authority to tax another.

And are you one the people in this thread that considers it evil to oppose the initiation of aggression?

 

[bripat9643]

Alfalfa? If that is meant as a racial pejorative, you really are off you Axis. BTW, Libertarians are not evil by design, they are simply naive, impractical and self centered.

I don't consider libertarians 'evil' either. Just childish in their understanding of power and coersion, with and moral loopholes in their conception of coercion that you could drive a truck through.

I consider you to be evil because you clearly don't understand basic moral principles like "don't use force against innocent people."

You consider me disagreeing with you to be 'aggression'....despite the fact that you can't cite a single thing I've ever taken from you.

So your assessment doesn't amount to much. Logically, legally or constitutionally.

You are evil because you give your permission to an organized criminal gang (government) to take my stuff and force me to do things I don't want to do.

So the Founders and the Constitution are evil then?

They were ignorant. They tried to create a moral form of government, but the task is impossible.

 

[Skylar]

You need to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, it's stuck.

You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa

Alfalfa? If that is meant as a racial pejorative, you really are off you Axis. BTW, Libertarians are not evil by design, they are simply naive, impractical and self centered.

I don't consider libertarians 'evil' either. Just childish in their understanding of power and coersion, with and moral loopholes in their conception of coercion that you could drive a truck through.

Ultimately libertarianism is unsustainable as its inherently exploitative. It will either fall to the will of the people at the abuses due to a sense of simple fairness inherent to games theory. Or it will collapse into oligarchy under unchecked private power. But libertarianism as imagined by many libertarians wouldn't survive in either scenario.

Yes, we can run our own lives, we don't need government to do it for us. I feel you

It doesn't really matter how you feel about government. The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains. And its in this exploitative nature that libertarianism's unsustainability are sown.

it doesn't really matter how you feel about libertarianism (freedom), the exploitative criminal nature of government remains and the unsustainability of democracy couldn't be more obvious.

Government has existed for millennia. Your claim that it cannot be sustained would be contradicted by history.

Libertarianism doesn't exist anywhere that I'm aware of. Its too self corrupting, self defeating, inefficient and weak to survive.

Somolia would probably be the nation closest to your ideal of 'freedom'.

 

[Centinel]

Sure there could be: slavery. Which flourished in the period where our nation was most closely aligned with libertarian values.

Nope. Slavery is aggression.

And you think moral opposition to aggression is evil?

 

[bripat9643]

Your reasons were unaccompanied by any visible means of support. Nothing could possibly be more exploitative than government, and nothing could be less "sustainable" democracy,

Sure there could be: slavery. Which flourished in the period where our nation was most closely aligned with libertarian values.

Slavery exists only where government enforces it, so you only further confirmed what I posted. There's nothing libertarian about slavery. In fact, all government is a form of slavery.

 

[Skylar]

We're all equals. One person doesn't have the authority to tax another.

One person, no. The people, yes.

You're making the same blunder with taxation that you did with the Constitution: confounding the single party with the parties of the compact. Its the same inept logic that led you to the ludicrous conclusion that an individual can secede their home from the United States if they wish.

Though lets explore this idea little further. Are any mandatory laws allowed under your conception of 'aggression'?

 

[Skylar]

Sure there could be: slavery. Which flourished in the period where our nation was most closely aligned with libertarian values.

Nope. Slavery is aggression.

You're post has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Check the question I'm responding to.....then the word salad that is your reply.

 

[bripat9643]

Violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so) would be aggression.

And I still haven't learned what's evil about the position that it's wrong to initiate those sorts of acts against one's fellow man.

It would depend on the circumstances then. If you consider say, property tax to be 'aggression'......then you'd probably have far fewer people getting behind your argument than if you were talking about say, a mugging in a park.

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

It doesn't matter what people consider to be aggression. The property tax clearly is an example of aggression.

Why?

If you don't pay it, the government will take your property. How is that not aggression? What is the distinction between that and extortion?

As they will with other form of taxation. As you haven't paid your debts. Any creditor would seize assets if you refuse to pay a lawful debt.

Why is the lawful collection of debts that you owe 'aggression'?

And since Washington and the Founders all believed in mandatory taxation, were they 'aggressors'?

You can't incur a debt to any private firm or individual without expressly agreeing to it. A private company can't simply inform you that you owe it money and then use force to seize your assets. That would be a crime. So how does one incur this "debt" to the government?

By choosing to reside within it territory and the jurisdiction of its law. Laws that include mandatory taxation.

Nope. NO lawyer or judge would support your theory that you have agreed to anything simply by choosing not to leave a given location. Furthermore, I said "explicitly agreed" to it. You can't incur a debt without explicitly agreeing to it - by putting your signature on a contract, for example.

And since Washington and the Founders all believed in mandatory taxation, were they 'aggressors'? its a simple question. And yet you conspicuously refuse to answer it every time I ask.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to avoid it.

I've already said they were aggressors. Apparently you're illiterate.

 

[Skylar]

Your reasons were unaccompanied by any visible means of support. Nothing could possibly be more exploitative than government, and nothing could be less "sustainable" democracy,

Sure there could be: slavery. Which flourished in the period where our nation was most closely aligned with libertarian values.

Slavery exists only where government enforces it, so you only further confirmed what I posted. There's nothing libertarian about slavery. In fact, all government is a form of slavery.

Slavery exists when the government doesn't stop it. The government didn't 'enforce' slave ships. As all it takes is one man wielding power over another to a sufficient degree to strip him of everything. Even ownership of himself.

Slavery requires nothing more than a vast disparity of personal power. Which libertarianism laughably ignores almost entirely.

 

[Centinel]

You're post has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Check the question I'm responding to.....then the word salad that is your reply.

You said that slavery is aligned with libertarian values. It's not. Since slavery is aggression, it is antithetical to libertarian values.

 

[Skylar]

It would depend on the circumstances then. If you consider say, property tax to be 'aggression'......then you'd probably have far fewer people getting behind your argument than if you were talking about say, a mugging in a park.

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

It doesn't matter what people consider to be aggression. The property tax clearly is an example of aggression.

Why?

If you don't pay it, the government will take your property. How is that not aggression? What is the distinction between that and extortion?

As they will with other form of taxation. As you haven't paid your debts. Any creditor would seize assets if you refuse to pay a lawful debt.

Why is the lawful collection of debts that you owe 'aggression'?

And since Washington and the Founders all believed in mandatory taxation, were they 'aggressors'?

You can't incur a debt to any private firm or individual without expressly agreeing to it. A private company can't simply inform you that you owe it money and then use force to seize your assets. That would be a crime. So how does one incur this "debt" to the government?

By choosing to reside within it territory and the jurisdiction of its law. Laws that include mandatory taxation.

Nope. NO lawyer or judge would support your theory that you have agreed to anything simply by choosing not to leave a given location.

Issues of geographic jurisdiction are recognized by every lawyer, law or judge.

As is mandatory taxation.

Remember, your perspective of 'law' is beyond even the most right wing fringes of the actual law.

Furthermore, I said "explicitly agree" to it. You can't incur a debt without explicitely agreeing to it - by putting your signature on a contract, for example.

Implied contracts exist virtually everywhere. If you walked into a restaurant and ordered food, you haven't 'explicitly agreed' to pay for it. But its thoroughly implied that you will.

You're probably going to want to stay more philosophical than legal. As the law contradicts most of what you believe. Nor do you have much of a command of its concepts.

I've already said they were aggressors. Apparently you're illiterate.

Are the founders and the constitution evil. They certainly match your definition of evil.

 

[bripat9643]

Government doesn't give people money, got it. You're a brainiac, Mr. Einstein. And a master debater as well, Daniel Webster

Not 'your money', no. How can something be 'stolen' from you when you don't own it?

You do own it when the government takes it, fool.

Not when you pay it.Or when its paid for you through lawful seizures and auction. Then it belongs to the people.

So 'your money' is never given to anyone.

ROFL! Yeah, and your car belongs to the thief after he takes it. At least, that's what your theory of ownership says.

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

I simply don't accept your conclusion that taxation is theft. Nor does the US government, the founders, the US constitution, our courts or our laws.

So we're all 'this stupid'....and only you've got it figured out, huh?

It doesn't matter what you accept. You have failed utterly to point out any meaningful distinction between taxation and theft. Apparently you believe words don't have meaning.

I never claimed I was the only one to figure this out.

 

[Skylar]

You're post has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Check the question I'm responding to.....then the word salad that is your reply.

You said that slavery is aligned with libertarian values. It's not. Since slavery is aggression, it is antithetical to libertarian values.

I said that slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values. You're quite awful at paraphrasing.

And I offered slavery as something more oppressive than our government. You have yet to disagree.

 

[PK1]

Obviously we can have liberty, but we dont have to live in Chaos to do so.

We are a community of people, not a gaggle of assorted individuals with no impact on one another.

---
Agree with above post.
However, your thread title lumps Libertarians together in one "evil" bucket.
That does not apply to liberty-oriented "free thinkers".
The Libertarians i relate to are prosocial as well as individualistic, Thomas Paine style.
.

How about the 'all taxes are immoral aggression, theft and invalid' bucket?

---
You lumping too?
Paine was not anti-tax.
.

 

[Centinel]

We're all equals. One person doesn't have the authority to tax another.

One person, no. The people, yes.

You're making the same blunder with taxation that you did with the Constitution: confounding the single party with the parties of the compact. Its the same inept logic that led you to the ludicrous conclusion that an individual can secede their home from the United States if they wish.

Though lets explore this idea little further. Are any mandatory laws allowed under your conception of 'aggression'?

One person doesn't have the authority to tax another. Two people don't have the authority to tax another. Three people don't have the authority to tax another. And so on.

I'm not sure what your question means? "Are any mandatory laws allowed under your conception of 'aggression'?" I support laws against aggression, and I oppose laws that result in the initiation of aggression, if that's what you're asking.

 

[Skylar]

Not 'your money', no. How can something be 'stolen' from you when you don't own it?

You do own it when the government takes it, fool.

Not when you pay it.Or when its paid for you through lawful seizures and auction. Then it belongs to the people.

So 'your money' is never given to anyone.

ROFL! Yeah, and your car belongs to the thief after he takes it. At least, that's what your theory of ownership says.

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

I simply don't accept your conclusion that taxation is theft. Nor does the US government, the founders, the US constitution, our courts or our laws.

So we're all 'this stupid'....and only you've got it figured out, huh?

It doesn't matter what you accept.

Me personally? Or me, the founders, the courts, the law, and the constitution?

Because we're all on one side of this issue. And you're on the other. And as the very real existence of mandatory taxation demonstrates, its most definitely relevant.

 

[Centinel]

You're post has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Check the question I'm responding to.....then the word salad that is your reply.

You said that slavery is aligned with libertarian values. It's not. Since slavery is aggression, it is antithetical to libertarian values.

I said that slavery flourished when our nation was most closely aligned to libertarian values. You're quite awful at paraphrasing.

And I offered slavery as something more oppressive than our government. You have yet to disagree.

So if you're saying that slavery is anti-libertarian, I agree. If you're saying that libertarianism condones slavery, I disagree, since slavery is aggression, and libertarianism is based upon the moral opposition to the initiation of aggression.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously we can have liberty, but we dont have to live in Chaos to do so.

We are a community of people, not a gaggle of assorted individuals with no impact on one another.

---
Agree with above post.
However, your thread title lumps Libertarians together in one "evil" bucket.
That does not apply to liberty-oriented "free thinkers".
The Libertarians i relate to are prosocial as well as individualistic, Thomas Paine style.
.

How about the 'all taxes are immoral aggression, theft and invalid' bucket?

---
You lumping too?
Paine was not anti-tax.
.

I'm quoting the folks in this thread. Pretty accurately, actually.

 

[bripat9643]

Your reasons were unaccompanied by any visible means of support. Nothing could possibly be more exploitative than government, and nothing could be less "sustainable" democracy,

Sure there could be: slavery. Which flourished in the period where our nation was most closely aligned with libertarian values.

Slavery exists only where government enforces it, so you only further confirmed what I posted. There's nothing libertarian about slavery. In fact, all government is a form of slavery.

Slavery exists when the government doesn't stop it. The government didn't 'enforce' slave ships. As all it takes is one man wielding power over another to a sufficient degree to strip him of everything. Even ownership of himself.

Slavery requires nothing more than a vast disparity of personal power. Which libertarianism laughably ignores almost entirely.

Bullshit. Slavery requires the government to enforce it. Otherwise the slaves would just run away, or kind people like me would help them to escape. Slavery existed in the ante-bellum South only with extensive enforcement measures which included the capturing of runaway slaves by Northern states.

 

[Centinel]

And I still haven't learned why it's evil to morally oppose the initiation of aggression.