Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

Lies. Freedom from tyranny does not equate to nomadic life, nor anarchy, nor everyone heading back to the caves/trees.

WOW What the hell is wrong with you folks that you can't imagine a life without someone holding your hand when you go to the bathroom.

You love straw man arguments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, then, the ability of the government to tax seems to be the major issue with libertarians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He talks of having a consistent philosophy while blathering on inconsistently about the meaning of consistent as equaling popular.

You are stupid as well as a liar. That is bripat is blathering on about consistency equating popularity.

You would fail as a popular vaudeville act.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Compulsory taxation is theft. technically, taxation is compulsory by its very nature. If the government needs funds, it should secure them through use taxes or donations exclusively. But that is agaisnt the states one and only true authority - the monopoly on the use of force and violence.

 

[Contumacious]

OK, then, the ability of the government to tax seems to be the major issue with libertarians.

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov


The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?"

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He talks of having a consistent philosophy while blathering on inconsistently about the meaning of consistent as equaling popular.

You are stupid as well as a liar. That is bripat is blathering on about consistency equating popularity.

You would fail as a popular vaudeville act.

Yes, name calling and such is all you really have, Fake. We realized this pages ago. And you did in fact, equate popular to consistent. I'm certainly not going to bother pointing it out to you, it's there for all to see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good, you are on the right track finally, TASB.

To collect use taxes requires the possibility of force if necessary.

Thus, the differences between use and other taxes are immaterial when we are discussing governmental power.

The problem is that the Rule of Men has never been any better than the Rule of Law.

 

[dblack]

OK, then, the ability of the government to tax seems to be the major issue with libertarians.

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov


The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?"

.

My comment wasn't meant to make the general argument that taxation is theft. I was merely contrasting altruism as a personal concern for and willingness to help others, with state mandated wealth redistribution. Which isn't really taxation. Taxation is a power granted to government to finance it's necessary functions. Wealth redistribution is an abuse of the taxation power to address perceived inequities in the free market.

 

[Erand7899]

That is merely a poor interp by bripat. A consistent philosophy for success in politics does depend on popularity. The libertarian may have a consistent philosophy for himself, but he must submit it in our democracy to the electorate. The electorate so far has said that libertarianism is not the type of crap with which it wishes to be associated.

bripat, why do you hate American democracy?

If a minority (unpopular) position did not exist, then there could be no majority (popular) position. In any society, the popular position has about a 50/50 chance of being the best position.

Principles stand on their own, and are not governed by popularity. For example, the principle that concentrated political power is dangerous political power, is not dependent upon how many people hold that view. The history of the world has validated that principle over and over again. Hitler was very popular, and as history has shown, very dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We already have one party, the Democrats, who run to the head of the popular trend at every opportunity. We have another party, the Republicans, who does the same way too often. We do not need a third party playing the same stupid political games.

What we do need is a party where conservative and libertarian principles are merged to form a winning combination that can satisfy both. Both support limited government. and both support fiscal restraint. Most other differences are minor, and those differences can be left to the political forces of the moment.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, then, the ability of the government to tax seems to be the major issue with libertarians.

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov


The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?"

.

My comment wasn't meant to make the general argument that taxation is theft. I was merely contrasting altruism as a personal concern for and willingness to help others, with state mandated wealth redistribution. Which isn't really taxation. Taxation is a power granted to government to finance it's necessary functions. Wealth redistribution is an abuse of the taxation power to address perceived inequities in the free market.

And even still, any compulsory taxation is theft. the power to tax is the power to use force and violence to obtain property that does not belong to you. Is it any wonder that it ALWAYS leads to abuse?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And if we leave it to the Rule of Men we all will get screwed far worse.

 

[dblack]

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov


The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?"

.

My comment wasn't meant to make the general argument that taxation is theft. I was merely contrasting altruism as a personal concern for and willingness to help others, with state mandated wealth redistribution. Which isn't really taxation. Taxation is a power granted to government to finance it's necessary functions. Wealth redistribution is an abuse of the taxation power to address perceived inequities in the free market.

And even still, any compulsory taxation is theft. the power to tax is the power to use force and violence to obtain property that does not belong to you.

I don't think it is. Taxation may share some qualities with theft, but when contained to it's legitimate purpose - to fund government - it's hard to see it in the same category is arbitrary stealing. When it steps outside that purpose, and becomes a general tool to bully and manipulate society, it's worse than theft.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Erand7899 argues that "What we do need is a party where conservative and libertarian principles are merged to form a winning combination that can satisfy both", not understanding conservatism does believe in government of, by, and for the people, and that taxation is a legitimate function of a conservative government of We the People.

 

[JWBooth]

Taxation Is Robbery

by Frank Chodorov


The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?"

.

My comment wasn't meant to make the general argument that taxation is theft. I was merely contrasting altruism as a personal concern for and willingness to help others, with state mandated wealth redistribution. Which isn't really taxation. Taxation is a power granted to government to finance it's necessary functions. Wealth redistribution is an abuse of the taxation power to address perceived inequities in the free market.

And even still, any compulsory taxation is theft. the power to tax is the power to use force and violence to obtain property that does not belong to you. Is it any wonder that it ALWAYS leads to abuse?

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock

 

[TakeAStepBack]

My comment wasn't meant to make the general argument that taxation is theft. I was merely contrasting altruism as a personal concern for and willingness to help others, with state mandated wealth redistribution. Which isn't really taxation. Taxation is a power granted to government to finance it's necessary functions. Wealth redistribution is an abuse of the taxation power to address perceived inequities in the free market.

And even still, any compulsory taxation is theft. the power to tax is the power to use force and violence to obtain property that does not belong to you.

I don't think it is. Taxation may share some qualities with theft, but when contained to it's legitimate purpose - to fund government - it's hard to see it in the same category is arbitrary stealing. When it steps outside that purpose, and becomes a general tool to bully and manipulate society, it's worse than theft.

I don't know that I would say theft holds any "qualities". What i will say, is that this sounds a lot like an argument I heard from one of our last decent congressman.

"I don't tell my patients when they come in that they have a touch of pregnancy. You're either pregnant, or you're not."

Same applies here, it's either theft or it is not. in the case of compulsory taxation, it is theft by the use of force and violence. The reason the state is not legitimate in my eyes is because it monopolizes the use of something it otherwise attempts to condemn and mitigate throughout the rest of society - force and violence. If you build a society on such blatant hypocracy as is done in comtemporary Statism, the results will ultimately be the same. Which is like I said, the power to tax is, was and will always, be abused. Always.

 

[dblack]

And even still, any compulsory taxation is theft. the power to tax is the power to use force and violence to obtain property that does not belong to you.

I don't think it is. Taxation may share some qualities with theft, but when contained to it's legitimate purpose - to fund government - it's hard to see it in the same category is arbitrary stealing. When it steps outside that purpose, and becomes a general tool to bully and manipulate society, it's worse than theft.

I don't know that I would say theft holds any "qualities". What i will say, is that this sounds a lot like an argument I heard from one of our last decent congressman.

"I don't tell my patients when they come in that they have a touch of pregnancy. You're either pregnant, or you're not."

Same applies here, it's either theft or it is not. in the case of compulsory taxation, it is theft by the use of force and violence. The reason the state is not legitimate in my eyes is because it monopolizes the use of something it otherwise attempts to condemn and mitigate throughout the rest of society - force and violence. If you build a society on such blatant hypocracy as is done in comtemporary Statism, the results will ultimately be the same. Which is like I said, the power to tax is, was and will always, be abused. Always.

Sure. That's the basic anarchist argument, and I'm quite sympathetic to it. I think we can achieve a voluntary society at some point - but not in the foreseeable future. Until then, taxation - whether you consider it to be 'theft' or not - is ideally contained by the rule of law. That containment is rapidly slipping away and that's what we need to be addressing. Dismissing it as theft is pointlessly indulging an anarchist pipedream.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think it is. Taxation may share some qualities with theft, but when contained to it's legitimate purpose - to fund government - it's hard to see it in the same category is arbitrary stealing. When it steps outside that purpose, and becomes a general tool to bully and manipulate society, it's worse than theft.

I don't know that I would say theft holds any "qualities". What i will say, is that this sounds a lot like an argument I heard from one of our last decent congressman.

"I don't tell my patients when they come in that they have a touch of pregnancy. You're either pregnant, or you're not."

Same applies here, it's either theft or it is not. in the case of compulsory taxation, it is theft by the use of force and violence. The reason the state is not legitimate in my eyes is because it monopolizes the use of something it otherwise attempts to condemn and mitigate throughout the rest of society - force and violence. If you build a society on such blatant hypocracy as is done in comtemporary Statism, the results will ultimately be the same. Which is like I said, the power to tax is, was and will always, be abused. Always.

Sure. That's the basic anarchist argument, and I'm quite sympathetic to it. I think we can achieve a voluntary society at some point - but not in the foreseeable future. Until then, taxation - whether you consider it to be 'theft' or not - is ideally contained by the rule of law. That containment is rapidly slipping away and that's what we need to be addressing. Dismissing it as theft is pointlessly indulging an anarchist pipedream.

if the rule of law is in the hands of men to be bent, it is only a matter of time before the law is change to reflect the wants of the State. There is no indication that a volunatry society will ever come about. Ever. What men will do, is continue repeating the failures of history, probably for as long as we're here. Again the containment of the power to tax by the state, or the king, or what have you, will always slip away. The entire notion of the action is built upon aggression and with that, it will always lead to more and more aggression. There is no, adn never will be any containment to authorizing certain men to hold such power over others.

I'm not indulging a pipdream of the end of taxation or a volunatry society. What i AM doing, is pointing out the screaming obvious that most do not want to recognize.

 

[bripat9643]

And if we leave it to the Rule of Men we all will get screwed far worse.

That's precisely what you endorse. What else can you mean when you insist that a political philosophy must be "popular?"

 

[JWBooth]

And if we leave it to the Rule of Men we all will get screwed far worse.

That's precisely what you endorse. What else can you mean when you insist that a political philosophy must be "popular?"

You know....mob rule.

 

[Redfish]

If libertarianism is dangerous, then freedom is dangerous.

and YES, freedom is dangerous---to those who would rule others by tyranny.