|
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? Because that means initiating aggression, a violation of the NAP. There is nothing that you can do to prevent someone from simply stealing in any manner which does not involve physical force that isn't identical to your objections to taxation. Both are simply laws; they require the "force" part of "enforcement" to function. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 11, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Hey, why does the non-aggression principle only suddenly become our overriding moral principle after Europeans came to America, murdered and dispossessed the people who held claim to the land by virtue of mixing their labor on it, and made their descendants poverty-stricken landless trespassers in their own country, forced to sell their labor to the inheritors of those who stole from them? Aren't they entitled to compensation? Why doesn't Libertarian Year Zero start with return all stolen property to the Native Americans? Or failing that, why don't the descendants of slaves get title to the plantations that their ancestors worked? For an inviolable moral principle, it seems awfully convenient that Libertarians are just fine with benefiting from the fruits of past aggression, and only now is it a hideous moral crime if the state directs some of that income to pay for food stamps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted: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, reality. Sugar plantations were massively profitable, and plenty of slave catching was done by private entrepreneurs. Human trafficking, sex slavery and agricultural slavery are real things that exist today in America even despite the state actively suppressing it; it's stupid as gently caress to say that it's not profitable to enslave people or that it requires state support. How are the private police going to stop agricultural slavery? What, the armed guards who are holding the workers there are just going to melt into a puddle of goo when the slave says "non-aggression principle", and then they'll just walk into the boss's office, get the gold bars out of the safe, and sign a contract over the phone with John Brown DRO? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted: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) You do realise that massive companies are raping the planet even with governments supposedly protecting it, don't you? A big enough company can just bribe the appropriate officials to look the other way, and then pollute to their evil hearts' content. In a free society, on the other hand, everyone would be responsible for their own actions. If an evil business fucks up people's drinking water, you can bet your rear end there will be negative consequences for that. Yeah, for example through DROs etc. Oh, and extortion is immoral. If a mafia were extorting you but handing out say, 10% of the loot to Poor Starving People®, would you not want them to stop just because The Poor *might* become hungrier as a result?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted: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? 100% the former. It happened all the time, in fact, and is quite well documented!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Someday shiranahito and I are going to be drinking a good cider and laughing about what an ignorant tool he was. This is really bush league libertarianism on display here, I'm sure we can be friends in time. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Ooh oh, don't scare the new guy away yet, I want someone to pick apart the things I posted already.Rockopolis posted:Something that pops up in discussions of Gavelkind succession (bane of Crusader Kings players), the hilarity of the Holy Roman Empire, and other bits of the feudal system was they they really didn't see it as 'government' or a state per say, but more like private property and contractual obligations. Lots and lots of contractual obligations. That's why Gavelkind is a thing; it's not breaking up a country on the death of a king, it's distributing your estate out to your sons, like private property. Rockopolis posted:Speaking of inheritance, one of the things that's really bothered me is, doesn't just about every bit of wealth or property have really clouded title? Like, it's all tainted with what a Libertarian would call coercion and aggression, and what everyone else would call buckets of blood and human misery. Like in the US, everything is contaminated by slavery and Indian murder. Rockopolis posted:In maybe Libertarian terms, are there people who's rational self interest would make them prefer Stateistan over Libertopia? Or more broadly, the use of agression over the NAP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:This is really bush league libertarianism on display here, I'm sure we can be friends in time. Not really, no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Hey ancap guy the NAP is retarded and the onus is on you to justify it. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Because that means initiating aggression, a violation of the NAP. Someone can steal your wallet without you noticing. Do you think that's the same as pointing a gun at you and forcing you to give it to him? If not, why are you conflating the two? The first is a violation of your property rights, the second is a violation of the NAP (*and* your property rights, to be clear, but the distinction is that the NAP violation comes first, and that's why they're in separate categories). Hodgepodge posted:There is nothing that you can do to prevent someone from simply stealing in any manner which does not involve physical force that isn't identical to your objections to taxation. Both are simply laws; they require the "force" part of "enforcement" to function. Both what are "laws"? And how do you define a law in this context?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Not really, no. I was trying to be hopeful damnit 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:A big enough company can just bribe the appropriate officials to look the other way, and then pollute to their evil hearts' content. Hey guys, a company might bribe the government. We don't want justice-system-for-sale, so let's turn all law over to courts that explicitly cater to the highest bidder to avoid that frightening state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You do realise that massive companies are raping the planet even with governments supposedly protecting it, don't you? Yes, I do, and that's exactly my point. In the US we manage to do a pretty good job of not completely ruining the environment by having semi-effective regulation, and we put a stop to the worst offenses. In states with little or no regulation, the damage is way worse. In an ideal state, the regulation would be totally effective. In an ancap society, there would be no regulation: the rape would be at its worst and ongoing. shiranaihito posted:In a free society, on the other hand, everyone would be responsible for their own actions. If an evil business fucks up people's drinking water, you can bet your rear end there will be negative consequences for that. Yeah, for example through DROs etc. So your answer is "yes, in an ancap society you can't be proactive, only reactive, everyone is hosed and all that we can do is try to seek monetary damages... which are meaningless in cases like these, such as when your water table has been ruined for generations." In a worldwide ancap society, presumably we'd die out in just a few generations from lack of clean food and water How do you know which business hosed up the drinking water? In an ancap society, you wouldn't be able to trespass on their land, right? What if there are 10 companies dumping poo poo in a river and they all just place the blame on the other 9? Who gets punished? Who does the punishing? Who forces the companies to accept this punishment? e: And how do you detect who did the damage in a less obvious case, such as dumping things into the water table when the water table might extend over an enormous region with many private companies and citizens? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
I have another question that should be easy. Assuming that you abolish the entire American government and form a free stateless society. Now I'll be kind and I'll let your stateless society keep all the infrastructure the government built for you, but all military equipment is destroyed because they have no place in a society ruled by the NAP. The next day China and Russia invade the west coast. How does your society then protect itself? -EDIT- Also, I'd like you to acknowledge that you are now a Statist. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have another question that should be easy. Canada is our official DRO but secretly we buy Mexican Drug Lord Inc because they need something to do now that weed is legal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
shiranaihito, you've just admitted that private industry will go as far as bribing regulatory officials so that they can more easily pollute. Why is your response to this "then let's get rid of the regulatory officials"? That's moronic
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have another question that should be easy. Sino-Russian military occupation is recognizeably Bad for Business, so market forces oblige our libertarian hidalgos and their faithful retainers to mount their horses and ride off to liberate San Francisco. paragon1 posted:New topic for discussion: option 3: fourteen years old
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:shiranaihito, you've just admitted that private industry will go as far as bribing regulatory officials so that they can more easily pollute. Why is your response to this "then let's get rid of the regulatory officials"? That's moronic It doesn't solve the problem, so clearly the solution is more freedom (to be corrupt as poo poo with little to no consequence)! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have another question that should be easy. Do you think Valhalla DRO would take defense contracts for enough Danegeld?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Do you think Valhalla DRO would take defense contracts for enough Danegeld? Valhalla DRO would almost certainly be bought out by a lifetime's supply of Russian vodka for all its members.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I would like to thank all the people who responded to my question. It's such quick, insightful discussion of the problems that plague our society (libertarians) that make me love D&D so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
30 new posts in the last 2 hours? Jrodefeld must be back!  Wait.. Who the gently caress is this guy with the vaguely japanophile name?! The gently caress is this! Where is my Jrodefeld entertainment!?  shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. This is a contradiction in terms. Sorry, I'll try to keep the Ad Hominems down to be fair but I personally believe that there is something wrong with AnCaps in the same way that there is something wrong with cult followers. I say this as a former Ancap. quote:One of your members gifted me a membership, so I figured I might as well make your brains hurt a bit. How nice of them.  quote:I'll try to keep this brief to avoid wasting way too much time. For starters, you'll find that your example is a bad one because most people in this thread or on these forums do not support the sort of foreign interventions you're talking about. Starting from a position of "Hey, what if you really loved that thing you hate" is a weird debating tactic. That said, I am not the one deciding these issues. We are. We as a society decide whether to go to war, or what have you as per the whole 'democracy' thing. quote:(Please refrain from de-railing the conversation with "externalities" etc. That's a separate issue) I'd argue it isn't but fine. quote:Now then, here's the important part: Are *you* willing to let *me*, in turn, decide how to use *my* money? Are you willing to let me *not* support the war in Afghanistan, and refrain from participating in funding it? Or do you want me to be *forced* to support it, even though I don't want to? No, I am not willing to let you decide how to distribute your taxes (or keep them however the case may be.). Apparently talking to me is now pointless, but lets assume for just a moment that we aren't writing off the 70% of the US population that thinks paying taxes is a civic duty. Because that is pretty hosed up. I also wouldn't let you choose to opt out of food stamps, or social security, or heating assistance for the poor. I'm a firm believer in a democratic society, and a democratic society in which everyone has a veto over where their taxes go leads to a stupid situation in which people pay for the things they personally want while essential programs like social security go unfunded. Before I continue, I want to clarify something. What is property to you, and how do you determine what belongs to who? To me (really to everyone) property rights are a societal creation, the same thing as money. Just like the USD is actually just a piece of paper we instill with value via an agreement between people, your property is only your property because of an agreement between people. If you own a house, you have the right to defend that house because society agrees that the house belongs to you. If you, on the other hand, simply declared that something was your property without any basis in social agreement, this would not be the case. This is true even in libertarian property systems. You might be like Jrodefeld and have a big explination as to how property is actually some universal constant because you pissed on the ground and mixed your blood with it in a voodoo ritual. But the defining factor is whether other people honor your property rights, not whatever moral reasoning you come up with to explain them. If your moral reasoning was sufficent cause for something to belong to you, then it would apply in todays situation as well, but it does not, because society does not necessarily agree with it. Since property breaks down to 'what belongs to who', and is totally at the whim of society, then society is also clearly capable of deciding that the money you pay in taxes is not actually money that belongs to you. We can decide that the government (yet another social creation, just like money or property) has a moral right to collect taxation. They might even phrase it like: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So why do you believe that taxation is somehow exempt from this societal agreement? We make all sorts of agreements with one another, and taxation is just one of many. quote:Otherwise, we've just established you're actually an anarchist - you just didn't know it yet. You see, every single tax dollar spent means that we've been *forced* to support whatever the dollar was spent on. If you accept that we all have the right to use our property as we see fit, then you cannot support the state any longer (because the state is based on violating that right). The issue of force is another trixie little libertarian thing where you like to redefine a term to mean something it doesn't in practice. I've mentioned this a bunch in the thread, but I'll bring it up with you here. In your society, you have the right to defend your property with force. If someone steps on your land you can remove them, if they resist you can call someone to force them off. If they get violent you can kill them. Libertarians fully believe in the usage of force to protect what belongs to them. As I mentioned above however, the argument for the state is that what you see as 'theft' only works because you are attempting to redefine what belongs to whom. Under our current moral and legal framework your taxes do not belong to you. You can argue that the framework is wrong, but then the question becomes, why? Why is your moral framework somehow better than the one accepted by the vast majority of Canadians, Americans, British, French and so forth? As for your Mafia comparison. Is my condo association the mafia? They take money from me simply for owning a home inside the condo association, and they can take more or less depending on a democratic agreement between tenants. They can spend it on things I think are stupid, and I only have the say that my vote allows. You might argue that I chose to live there, but that applies to you just as well. If you argue that you were born here and thus don't have a choice, I'll go one further. What if I had a child who inherited my home after my death? They'd have all the same obligations that I have now, the condo board would legally be allowed to take money from them for owning the home. Is that theft? quote:Even sociopaths know that extortion is immoral, they just don't give a gently caress. But if you're not one, it will be clear to you that: Man, like... don't be a sheep! Free your mind! You are making a lot of assertions that are not backed up by anything except a moral view based on a priori assumptions. The problem is that your whole argument only works if we agree with those assumptions. If for example, we don't agree that Taxation is extortion because we believe in a social contract then the above reads like this: -Taxation is legal -Extortion is immoral -Governments are based on taxation (=/= extortion) -Governments are moral. You have to do better than throwing out your warped view of legality. I've told a lot of ancaps over the years that if they want any chance at EVER having their ideology taken seriously, they need to show how it would somehow be better than what we have currently. Because a moral argument based around 'CAPITALISM IS THE BEST!' isn't going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted: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). Less productive on average, but way more productive than just the plantation owner. It turns out that people in a free market don't give a poo poo about society's productivity, they care about profit. A slave-owner makes way more profit with slaves than without them even if society's average productive capability decreases as a result. As a rational self-actor, of course he's going to purchase and keep slaves, as well as pay for their capture should they escape. Every slave-owning society throughout history is proof of this
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Oh, and extortion is immoral. This is trivially, tautologically true, because extortion means the wrongful taking of goods by force. Hence it proves absolutely nothing and there is no point saying it. To persuade someone who thinks some taxation is justified you need to make a moral argument, not call it by a name that presupposes your conclusion. Here is a case of justified taking by force. A is dying; B is not and has the cure, but refuses to give it; C cannot get the cure from anywhere else. C can either: 1) watch A die; or 2) take B's cure from him and save A's life. I think 1) is morally bad and 2) is morally good. What's your argument against this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Someone can steal your wallet without you noticing. Do you think that's the same as pointing a gun at you and forcing you to give it to him? If not, why are you conflating the two? The first is a violation of your property rights, the second is a violation of the NAP (*and* your property rights, to be clear, but the distinction is that the NAP violation comes first, and that's why they're in separate categories). And if you notice them stealing your wallet, any force you use to stop them from doing so is a violation of the NAP. As long as the thief does not use force against you or threaten you, s/he has not initiated aggression. Why do property rights get to be an exception to the NAP? They cannot be enforced without violating the NAP. The classic example is if you want someone to leave your property and they refuse. How do you propose to get them to leave without force? I suspect you have kept them as "separate categories" because it allows you to overlook the fact that property rights require aggression to enforce. quote:Both what are "laws"? And how do you define a law in this context? There are specific bodies of legislation, created by democratically elected representatives of the people, which authorize the use of force by delegates of the executive branch in order to enforce both taxation and property rights. So why does one use of force get to be acceptable and one immoral, besides that you like one and not the other? Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:This is trivially, tautologically true, because extortion means the wrongful taking of goods by force. Hence it proves absolutely nothing and there is no point saying it. To persuade someone who thinks some taxation is justified you need to make a moral argument, not call it by a name that presupposes your conclusion. This is right. If society really believed that taxation was theft, we would use a different system. But the vast majority of people, while we may not love paying our taxes, understand that it is pretty preferable to alternatives. It is not theft, especially because of the tremendous benefits we receive in return.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
What's the age of consent in libertopia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Shiranaihito, I have one more example to go with all the others people are throwing at you.quote:If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, can the dying people use force against the man (but not kill or wound him) to take what water they need just to survive? (leaving him of course with his proper share). Now I'm going to help you out a little bit here by telling you the answers: No - You are morally bankrupt. You are literally arguing that property rights are more important than human life. or Yes - You are conceding that the non-aggression principle is flawed, and that in some instances rule utilitarianism allows the use of reasonable force to take some reasonable amount of property, if people's lives or welfare are at stake. If this is the case, then there is argument that taxation is not always immoral, and if taxation is not ALWAYS immoral then it is a matter of people deciding the level of taxation they agree with. Its like the old joke about sleeping with someone for $1,000,000 vs $1.00. If you agree that some taxation can be moral, then you're merely haggling over what level of taxation is best. As a bonus I'll even provide you with this quote from Mises himself regarding government and taxation to help you chose your answer: Ludwig Von Mises posted:“There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Hey shiranaihito, here's a hypothetical for you: My community gets together and we voluntarily form the "Main Street Committee." We voluntarily pool together some funds and we voluntarily build a road going through the center of our town. We put up a sign at each end saying "committee-members only", non-members have to voluntarily join the committee and pay dues in order to use the road or else they're violating our property rights. The road that we built is awesome, so eventually we get enough membership that we're able to start providing other services, such as police protection, fire coverage, etc. You might not support the use of your funds for fire coverage (you just want to walk/drive on the road), but we say "it's our road, so you either pay dues and get to use the road or you don't get to use the road. Usage of the road without paying dues is a violation of the NAP" 1) If you refuse to become a committee member and pay dues, but you still use the road, then you're violating our property rights. Do we agree? 2) What if we rename the committee "the United States of America". Is it still a violation of our property rights for you to use the road without paying dues? 3) What if we rename the dues and start calling them "taxes"? 4) What if we use your "taxes" and pay for the invasion of a nearby town? Note that you never consented to a war, you just wanted to drive on the road; but you love that road so very much. Of course, you can always leave and go to a different town (just like you could leave this country and go somewhere else), but the road here is so much nicer than the road in Somalia-town, even though it's free to use, and you don't like having to deal with the warlords there, so you'd much rather stay here. What do you do? If you refuse to pay dues (or "taxes") for driving on our road, is it still a violation of the NAP and/or our property rights?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:This is right. If society really believed that taxation was theft, we would use a different system. But the vast majority of people, while we may not love paying our taxes, understand that it is pretty preferable to alternatives. It is not theft, especially because of the tremendous benefits we receive in return. One aspect of libertarianism that isn't discussed much even here is that it's a reaction to a shift in government revenue from tax on trade to tax on income. Pre-WWII governments didn't tax income much or at all because they were incredibly protectionist. Currently, there is no issue on which actual politicians are more united on, against the general wishes of their constituents, as creation of free trade agreements aimed at removing any possible barrier to movement of goods and capital. The income tax has been used as a substitute for the revenues lost from excise taxes, tariffs, etc. If libertarians were more than the useful idiots of the establishment, they would protest the excesses of free trade rather than the income tax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
shiranaihito, I have a question: Suppose I steal a bunch of money from you. That's a violation of the NAP but I do it anyway. I use that money to buy a car. Is driving the car an ongoing violation of the NAP? Is it immoral for me to continue using the car that I purchased with money that I stole? Another question: Instead of the hypothetical above, I stole a bunch of money from someone else and then used that money to buy you a car. Is it immoral for you to use that car that was purchased with money that I stole? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:What's the age of consent in libertopia? More importantly, who imposes an age of consent? DROs? Home-owners associations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:What's the age of consent in libertopia? The moment you demonstrate self-ownership by running away from home. Which is important, because your parents have no obligation to feed you or house you. Their parental duty is only to never prevent you from running away no matter your age. If your parent (or purchaser as the case may be, as Rothbard has taught us Libertopia will have a flourishing free market in children) does imprison you, or rape you, or force you to sew sneakers for 16 hours a day chained to a table, why that just means you need to work a little harder and save up a little more gold until you can hire a DRO to protect your rights. Better get saving though, DRO insurance is mad expensive when you have a pre-existing condition knows as "already being a child-slave" . VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Do I have to pay child support in libertopia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Geeze, did we run him off already?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:Geeze, did we run him off already? I wonder if whoever bought him the account warned him about the inevitable dogpile? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Do I have to pay child support in libertopia? Obviously not. No man, woman, or infant has a right to your hard-earned wealth. That toddler needs to achieve his market potential and start hookin' if he wants food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obviously not. No man, woman, or infant has a right to your hard-earned wealth. That toddler needs to achieve his market potential and start hookin' if he wants food. Bootstraps yourself into True Freedom by entering into indentured servitude, baby. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. You can't complain that people are using ad hominem attacks when you end your first post on one. Your argument is just a very simple assertion that doesn't match reality. For example, the mafia extracts money from you before they provide you with services, and when you don't agree to pay, they'll attack your property to convince that should pay. However, the government has already provided you with services, such as education, roads, and all these other things you take for granted but don't think you should pay for. Also, paying money doesn't mean you agree or support everything the other party does. For example, my boss may disagree with me that ELO is the greatest band ever, but she still pays me. I pay my cable bill even though I think my cable company is terrible. I need their services more than I need the moral high ground. It's called nuance. It's something ancaps tend to avoid. That's why we reject your arguments. Also, don't mention DROs in this thread like they are a reasonable option. We thoroughly destroyed that idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Caros posted:Geeze, did we run him off already? Just be patient for a bit, his last answer was only an hour ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:00
|
|