|
VitalSigns posted:So privately-funded colonialist wars are just fine, Libertarians only object to the funding it with taxation part? The Mississippi and South Sea bubbles? What are they? 
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Prove all these points; thanks. Disprove all those points; thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Disprove all those points; thanks. Here's some Debate 101 advice: people that make assertions (like you) are the ones bound to defend them, not the negative parties. Hope that helps! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Two things: 1. You always have the option of leaving a country and renouncing your citizenship. By remaining a citizen of a country and enjoying the countless benefits afforded to your by the federal and local governments, you're also agreeing to a number of things, such as letting the government choose how to allocate your tax money (which you can influence indirectly through electing politicians that represent you*). 2. Historically people and societies have found that the benefits of governments outweigh their cons. Welfare states have drastically reduced poverty/infant mortality, etc. If you think that your own sense of moral purity is more important than this that's fine, but understand that most people will probably find your way of thinking to be very immoral. If you'll read through this thread, you'll find that most of the discussion has been about the multitude of very serious problems an AnCap/libertarian society would encounter, so you might want to start by addressing those. *Obviously it doesn't quite work out this way in reality, but there's a pretty big difference between thinking that our current society and form of government is broken and thinking that the answer is to eliminate all government. edit: Also, like another poster said, the burden of proof is on you here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So privately-funded colonialist wars are just fine, Libertarians only object to the funding it with taxation part? Any war has to be *started* by someone, and that's a violation of the NAP already. Nothing to see here, move along. How about addressing the point instead? I never said I supported any wars. I just said I wouldn't not intervene in your use of your own property (as long as you're not violating anyone's rights).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
New topic for discussion: shiranaihito: Troll, or just really stupid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:New topic for discussion: I believe the rebuttable presumption is both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Here's some Debate 101 advice: people that make assertions (like you) are the ones bound to defend them, not the negative parties. Hope that helps! How about reading the original post where I already explained that even sociopaths know extortion is wrong. We all know that aggressing against others is wrong - that's what we're taught as children, and that's what our consciences tell us anyway. It's just axiomatic. Demanding that I prove axioms is not a particularly good way of debating either, but it does serve the purpose of preventing the conversation from progressing, which was his real goal anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Any war has to be *started* by someone, and that's a violation of the NAP already. Nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and just who is enforcing this NAP in your precious anarchist utopia? No one is going to address the "points" because you declared anyone who doesn't already agree with you to be irrelevant to the discussion, you massive tool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You've got two choices here: Actually, there are more choices than that if you dare to think and study history. For example, you could let your neighbor choose a form of civil disobedience, refusing to pay taxes representing the war in Afghanistan (many peace/religious activists do this), or organizing with other people who are interested in changing course and using tax moneys in a better way. This worked as recently as the Iraq War and Afghanistan War, to some degree, resulting in an eventual draw down and disengagement (for better or worse) as politicians were elected who opposed those wars. You could also let your neighbor move to a different country or refuse to work, thereby owing no taxes at all. Paying taxes doesn't mean you support anything - but that your leaders and/or some majority of people do support and choose this action. If you don't pay those taxes, you don't go to jail for not supporting the war in Afghanistan - you go to jail for being a deadbeat, cheater, and awful citizen, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:How about reading the original post where I already explained that even sociopaths know extortion is wrong. Prove that taxation is extortion, for starters; thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:New topic for discussion: Here's another job for the Debate Police, Mr. ThirdPartyView. I believe he's aware that ad-hominems are not arguments either, so I'm sure he'll reprimand you shortly. Calling me a poopy-head does not disprove anything I've said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Prove that taxation is extortion, for starters; thanks. I made it clear already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Calling me a poopy-head does not disprove anything I've said. Circular reasoning (AKA Praxeology) doesn't either, champ. shiranaihito posted:I made it clear already. Not really, so please elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Here's another job for the Debate Police, Mr. ThirdPartyView. I believe he's aware that ad-hominems are not arguments either, so I'm sure he'll reprimand you shortly. Calling me a poopy-head does not disprove anything I've said. No, I'm quite aware, as is ThirdPartyView (who you assume is a man), that my post was not a valid argument. It's purpose was not to argue with your statements, but to call you an idiot, which it did. You are an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:For example, you could let your neighbor choose a form of civil disobedience, refusing to pay taxes representing the war in Afghanistan (many peace/religious activists do this), or organizing with other people who are interested in changing course and using tax moneys in a better way. This worked as recently as the Iraq War and Afghanistan War, to some degree, resulting in an eventual draw down and disengagement (for better or worse) as politicians were elected who opposed those wars. You could also let your neighbor move to a different country or refuse to work, thereby owing no taxes at all. Finally some semblance of a discussion. You're overcomplicating things. If you're a moral person, you don't have the choice of "letting" your neighbour "choose a form of civil disobedience". If he wants to disobey the government, you have no right to prevent him, because that would require aggressing against him (ie. forcing him to obey the government). RocketLunatic posted:Paying taxes doesn't mean you support anything - but that your leaders and/or some majority of people do support and choose this action. Paying taxes means you don't want to go to jail (or be killed if you resist). RocketLunatic posted:If you don't pay those taxes, you don't go to jail for not supporting the war in Afghanistan - you go to jail for being a deadbeat, cheater, and awful citizen, right? No, you go to jail for disobeying your rulers. Not wanting to be extorted is not the same as being a deadbeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:If you're a moral person, you don't have the choice of "letting" your neighbour "choose a form of civil disobedience". If he wants to disobey the government, you have no right to prevent him, because that would require aggressing against him (ie. forcing him to obey the government). Please back this assertion up; thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Not really, so please elaborate. Here's what I originally said; It's not that complicated: - A mafia threatens you with violence to get money from you. - A government threatens you with imprisonment to get money from you. The former is called by its right name: extortion, but the latter is known as "taxation". They're exactly the same though: An organisation threatens you with <NOPE> to get money from you. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. Stop wasting my time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Please back this assertion up; thanks. I've already covered it. We all know aggressing against people is immoral. Stop spewing distraction bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:No, I'm quite aware, as is ThirdPartyView (who you assume is a man), that my post was not a valid argument. It's purpose was not to argue with your statements, but to call you an idiot, which it did. You know I didn't actually expect him to reprimand you, right? I was just pointing out the double-standard (that would apply as long as he didn't).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:- A government threatens you with imprisonment to get money from you. You don't go to jail for failing to turn over the money, you do so for committing perjury (by filing false returns) or by not filing a return at all; after all, Title 26 of the US Code (the Internal Revenue Code) is based on voluntary compliance as elaborated in Flora v. United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:New topic for discussion: I'm trying to decide if I care about having the moral high ground by not mandating the incarceration of libertarians for the thought-crimes against humanity they're always trying to perpetuate. Hi shiranaihito. I'm a statist, your savior and deliverer from evil. You might remember me from such hits as clean drinking water: the priliege you can't stop taking for granted and Roads: your time preference for goods is ridiculous you spoiled brat. Today I want to talk to you about my latest production: Taxes: Your property rights are borrowed insipid child. You see shiranahito, property rights only exist in society because society exists at all, society is how we define the rules of interacting with other members of our rather complex species. Government is the rather imperfect way we make sure libertarians don't collect vast amounts of sex slaves, child laborers or condense economic wealth to the point that others property rights are infringed. If your world view was allowable or not even considered sociopathic, why I could kill you and pay off whomever has property rights to your remains and suffer no ill consequences! Most likely I wouldn't bother though because no one owns your property but you! Ha ha ha! Good thing statists built the intertnet and all societal infrastructure so you could whine about how you can't rape and pillage everything you lay your eyes on, right shiranahito? Ha ha ha! *smokes pipe and scowls at you* RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:You don't go to jail for failing to turn over the money, you do so for committing perjury (by filing false returns) or by not filing a return at all; after all, Title 26 of the US Code (the Internal Revenue Code) is based on voluntary compliance as elaborated in Flora v. United States. See this for a great illustration of what's wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:It's not that complicated: But 1. you're benefiting from the taxes you pay to the government in many ways and 2. you technically do not have to continue being a citizen of a particular country. It isn't like people earn money in some void where their work has been decided by the Market Gods to be worth $10.00 an hour. The market is deeply intertwined with society's infrastructure (that is maintained by the government). This is why "I earned X dollars but the government took Y% of it from me!" doesn't make much sense. You're essentially in a contract with the government where you pay it taxes in exchange for benefiting from its services and infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:See this for a great illustration of what's wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE "I say it's robbery, therefore it's robbery!  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Any war has to be *started* by someone, and that's a violation of the NAP already. Nothing to see here, move along. But we just abolished taxes, and therefore the Army and the police, which was what was required to end slavery in the real world. The slave trade is pretty profitable. People are going to do it, so who is enforcing your NAP? Slaves who are picking cotton under the lash don't exactly have the spare cash to fund the Union Army to come in and emancipate them again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:*smokes pipe and scowls at you* Try again without the ad-hominem sewage? How about making a clear claim about something? Do you claim that doctors and teachers only accept extorted money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
It's good to have you here, shiranaihito. I have a few questions and then a few follow ups for you, if you're smart enough to answer. The first few are super easy! If you walk into a store and take a bunch of goods and walk out without paying, have you committed an act of aggression? Similarly, if you let's say that you walk into a store, take a bunch of goods, but then only leave $5, even though the goods are worth much much more, but then you leave anyway, is that an act of aggression? If you have someone come to your home and provide a service to you but then you refuse to pay them, is that an act of aggression? Lastly, if you give someone less money than their services are worth, is that an act of aggression?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Also can you answer the questions people have asked about who would enforce the NAP? That lets us jump directly into the hole of never-ending chains of DROs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But 1. you're benefiting from the taxes you pay to the government in many ways and 2. you technically do not have to continue being a citizen of a particular country. 1) If McDonald's starts extorting you but gives you a Big Mac every month "in return", you're benefiting from the "McTaxes" you pay, and therefore extortion is .. not immoral? 2) Any particular country can just decide that I can never leave (see: USSR, Cuba, North-Korea, etc), and switching from one prison to another doesn't mean you're free. Ytlaya posted:It isn't like people earn money in some void where their work has been decided by the Market Gods to be worth $10.00 an hour. The market is deeply intertwined with society's infrastructure (that is maintained by the government). This is why "I earned X dollars but the government took Y% of it from me!" doesn't make much sense. The market doesn't *have to be* intertwined with anything the government does, and extortion is immoral regardless of what the market is intertwined with. The market does "decide" market rates for jobs though, but that's just whatever employers happen to be willing to pay for Task X at a certain time. There's nothing special about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Try again without the ad-hominem sewage? I just made about 12 different points I cant help it if you're too thin skinned to cope with someone calling you less than special. In the free market this makes you an inferior worker, good luck with that. I'm sorry you're offended I think you are a blight on humanity and should reform or die. I am a statist, I don't give a drat about your feelings and my love for the rest of all of humanity and creation predates my compassion for worthless leeches on society. Even you will be made to contribute, you already pay for my great works, you already suffer my tyranny. OBEY OBEY.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Also can you answer the questions people have asked about who would enforce the NAP? That lets us jump directly into the hole of never-ending chains of DROs. I'm not claiming that no one would ever violate the NAP. Of course some people will, but that doesn't matter. We're discussing a moral principle here, not some magical force that somehow prevents everyone from doing bad things. There's no way to "enforce" the NAP, but there are ways to incentivise adhering to it, such as the DROs you so helpfully brought up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I just made about 12 different points I cant help it if you're too thin skinned to cope with someone calling you less than special. In the free market this makes you an inferior worker, good luck with that. I'm sorry you're offended I think you are a blight on humanity and should reform or die. I am a statist, I don't give a drat about your feelings and my love for the rest of all of humanity and creation predates my compassion for worthless leeches on society. I thought trolling was forbidden by the forum rules?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Okay so gently caress anyone too poor to pay for a DRO, and anyone held in bondage by another. Crimes against them just go unpunished. Impressive moral principle you've got there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's good to have you here, shiranaihito. I have a few questions and then a few follow ups for you, if you're smart enough to answer. The first few are super easy! Obviously, stealing from someone would not constitute initiating the use of force against him, but why would you not have the right to physically intervene in someone attempting to steal from you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:I thought trolling was forbidden by the forum rules? Trolling implies I'm being insincere. Let me reiterate, based on your stated beliefs and thoughts, I hate you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Obviously, stealing from someone would not constitute initiating the use of force against him, but why would you not have the right to physically intervene in someone attempting to steal from you? So you agree that the government has the right to physically intervene when you attempt to steal from them by using the things that they own and the services they provide without paying a fair price for them. Fantastic, you are now a Statist!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. Hi there, how about addressing the post that I made above your intro post, which discusses what happens when private companies don't have enough oversight from a higher authority? For instance, if I own a company that dumps fracking wastewater (or nuclear waste or whatever else) into the water table, then I could be doing serious harm to millions of people. Even if you get together a bunch of Men With Guns and run me out of town for doing this, the damage is already done: your drinking water is hosed, your farming water is hosed, everyone is hosed. A governing body with regulatory authority can discover this kind of thing faster than a private citizen, and it may even be able to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the best case. The ancap version of this scenario has no such preventative mechanisms, so the damage is done over a period of many years, and potentially no one is the wiser (because no one can pinpoint a specific source for the pollution, what with having no authority to enter another's land) How would an ancap society prevent my company from dumping poo poo into the water table? You don't have a central governing body to rely on, so do you just accept that your natural resources will all be ruined and that you can only generate a reactionary response?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Obviously, stealing from someone would not constitute initiating the use of force against him, but why would you not have the right to physically intervene in someone attempting to steal from you? That would be aggressive against them, which we all know is immoral right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But we just abolished taxes, and therefore the Army and the police, which was what was required to end slavery in the real world. Well, do you think some random cotton farm owner had the resources to catch runaway slaves by himself, or did he perhaps get some help from the government? VitalSigns posted:The slave trade is pretty profitable. People are going to do it, so who is enforcing your NAP? Slaves who are picking cotton under the lash don't exactly have the spare cash to fund the Union Army to come in and emancipate them again. Actually, producing anything with slave labour is massively less productive than people producing things out of their own will, pursuing their own personal gain (like we all do). A slave resents being forced to work, so he only does the bare minimum to avoid punishment. On the other hand, someone like Elon Musk single-handedly changes the automobile industry, providing tens of thousands of jobs while at it, advances technology and makes people's lives easier. The most productive slave is one who doesn't realize he is a slave. That would be the vast majority of people on the planet, of course. If 100% of the fruits of your labour are forcefully taken away from you, you're obviously a slave.. so if 50% is taken away, you're a .. "50% slave"? You're not an outright slave, but you are enslaved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:01
|
|