Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[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.

"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

It all goes into the same pot, so what it's spent on is irrelevant.

Sure, spending money on defending the country is the same as giving it to an illegal alien who walked across the border. Got it.

Wow, that's stupid. Even for you

The way the money is obtained is exactly the same. How it's spent isn't under discussion here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yours is. You're committing the fallacy of assuming that men want to be free and reach reasonable agreements. They don't.

And I've clearly stated my standard. Tell me where I have contradicted it.

Hint. Disagreeing with you is not contradicting my standard

I've already explained how unreasonable people are dealt with. You simply refuse to comprehend it. You aren't convincing anyone of the rightness of your position by playing stupid.

You stated that his security agency will dump him. But you are begging the question as to how you know that.

Since you're not very smart, that means you didn't answer the question, you just repeated they will dump him.

How are you going to ensure they do that? Notice you haven't answered that

Again, playing stupid isn't an effective debate tactic. I already posted the answer to your question.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

Self defense is not coercion.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

That's why it's not coercion. You would have to use force against someone minding his own business for it to be coercion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

Self defense is not coercion.

Does self defense use force or threats to persuading someone to do or to stop doing something?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

That's why it's not coercion. You would have to use force against someone minding his own business for it to be coercion.

You keep making up definitions to words, I guess that makes it easy to win an argument, but it just shows how weak your argument really is.

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/
noun

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Nothing in there about their own businesses.

 

[bripat9643]

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

Self defense is not coercion.

Does self defense use force or threats to persuading someone to do or to stop doing something?

Sure it does. When the clerk at the local 7-11 points a gun at someone who is trying to rob the place, is he defending himself and the property? Is he using a threat of force?

 

[bripat9643]

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

That's why it's not coercion. You would have to use force against someone minding his own business for it to be coercion.

You keep making up definitions to words, I guess that makes it easy to win an argument, but it just shows how weak your argument really is.

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/
noun

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Nothing in there about their own businesses.

Spare us from your idiocies.

 

[bripat9643]

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

That's why it's not coercion. You would have to use force against someone minding his own business for it to be coercion.

You keep making up definitions to words, I guess that makes it easy to win an argument, but it just shows how weak your argument really is.

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/
noun

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Nothing in there about their own businesses.

Self defense is not coercion:

coercion

Coercion
The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

 

[Flash]

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

So you don't have a problem with extortion, as long as you approve of (or deem "necessary") the subsequent expenditure?

I don't paying for the roads that ride on because if I don't pay they ain't gonna get built. I don't mind paying for police protection and don't mind paying the soldiers that protect my country providing that is what they are really doing.

I am not a greedy welfare queen that wants somebody else to pay for them.

I prefer user fees to general taxation.

I don't mind paying for certain things either, I just believe it's wrong to demand I do so by threat of violence. So, would you be willing to take the position that you're anti-taxation? Saying you don't prefer it is a point of contention because I'm citing it as a moral issue. To me, that's like saying, "I don't prefer that people be mugged" as opposed to saying, "I'm anti-mugging". Sort of a fence position, and I want to be clear about what you think.

Are you suggesting that taxation for the few necessary government functions should be optional?

For the kind of minimal government services I am talking about that would be very close to being impossible. How do we pay for a military on an optional basis? Most people would take the protection but not belly up the payment. The same with courts and police.

I prefer most things be based upon a user fee but there are a few (very few) things that should be collective.

We could have a very Libertarian or even an anarchy society that could work but not with the population that we have.

I am for very small government and a Libertarian and I hate government but I am not an anarchist. Maybe if the US had a population of 5 million it would be feasible but not with 330 million.

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

Interesting concept.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To be free of discrimination is a human right, and if you are going to claim that the public does not need protection from corporations through regulation, you are either a shameless liar or hopelessly stupid.

So to be free of discrimination is a human right, but to be free of violent coercion (taxation, etc.) is not? I'm not understanding the principles at the core of your position.

Discrimination is a form of violence. Taxation is not in my view. Do you actually think that the government should not collect taxes? If so then you are saying that there should be no government. Think about that. There will be no government to " violently coerce" you, but consider those roving bands of war lords who will have their way with you with no government to intercede. Now that will be violent coercion. How does life in Somalia sound?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

What do you think is the single greatest tool available to banks and corporations to further their dastardly agendas?

In the absence of regulations they have many tools to control those who are dependent on them and at their mercy. Is that a trick question, or just pathetically naive ?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

That's why it's not coercion. You would have to use force against someone minding his own business for it to be coercion.

You keep making up definitions to words, I guess that makes it easy to win an argument, but it just shows how weak your argument really is.

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/
noun

1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Nothing in there about their own businesses.

Self defense is not coercion:

coercion

Coercion
The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

I love how you dictionary shop till you find the definition that fits how you want to use the word.

By this definition nothing the government does is coercion, you just killed your own argument with your dictionary shopping.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.

Self defense is coercion, you are using force to get someone to stop doing something to you.

Self defense is not coercion.

Does self defense use force or threats to persuading someone to do or to stop doing something?

Sure it does. When the clerk at the local 7-11 points a gun at someone who is trying to rob the place, is he defending himself and the property? Is he using a threat of force?

Yes, he is using the threat of force to get someone to stop what they are doing..which is the dictionary definition of coercion.

That is two post in a row where you defeated your own argument.

Thanks!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

Thank you for showing how generous and enlighten you, and sharing your keen understanding of the social and economic forces that effect human lives beyond their control and thus the recognition that in a complex society we are all interconnected.

I am a very generous person. I probably give a lot more money to charity each year than you do. I believe in what is taught in the Bible that charity is from the heart, family and church. Nothing about having the Romans take my money by force and dole out to their special interest groups.

You have no idea what I give to charity and whether or not it is more than you give, so stop being so damned presumptuous. But common sense should tell you that charity cannot come close to meeting the needs of the victims of capitalism and the free market economy. The redistribution of wealth from the top down and a social safety net are necessities of the reality of our economy. The alternative is socialism and I do not think that you will go for that. You might want to read "Regulating the Poor " by Piven and Cloward before you continue to belly-ach about taxes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no human right to be free from discrimination.

Would you be so kind as to explain that further?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I prefer user fees to general taxation

So if your house is burning or you're being assaulted, you should give a credit card number when calling the fire department or police?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

There is no right to be free of discrimination, and regulations are not the only way to prevent corporations from "preying on people." No corporation preys on people 1/100th as much as the federal government preys on people.

To be free of discrimination is a human right, and if you are going to claim that the public does not need protection from corporations through regulation, you are either a shameless liar or hopelessly stupid.

Except that there are things we should discriminate against. So to argue that to be free of discrimination is a human right is not correct. That would be indiscriminate indiscriminateness.

What the hell are you taking about.? Are you saying that people do not have a right to not be treated like shit because of their race, religion, ethnicity , sexual orientation and so forth? Would you take that position if you were the victim of discrimination based on any of those factors?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

So you don't have a problem with extortion, as long as you approve of (or deem "necessary") the subsequent expenditure?

I don't paying for the roads that ride on because if I don't pay they ain't gonna get built. I don't mind paying for police protection and don't mind paying the soldiers that protect my country providing that is what they are really doing.

I am not a greedy welfare queen that wants somebody else to pay for them.

I prefer user fees to general taxation.

I don't mind paying for certain things either, I just believe it's wrong to demand I do so by threat of violence. So, would you be willing to take the position that you're anti-taxation? Saying you don't prefer it is a point of contention because I'm citing it as a moral issue. To me, that's like saying, "I don't prefer that people be mugged" as opposed to saying, "I'm anti-mugging". Sort of a fence position, and I want to be clear about what you think.

Are you suggesting that taxation for the few necessary government functions should be optional?

For the kind of minimal government services I am talking about that would be very close to being impossible. How do we pay for a military on an optional basis? Most people would take the protection but not belly up the payment. The same with courts and police.

I prefer most things be based upon a user fee but there are a few (very few) things that should be collective.

We could have a very Libertarian or even an anarchy society that could work but not with the population that we have.

I am for very small government and a Libertarian and I hate government but I am not an anarchist. Maybe if the US had a population of 5 million it would be feasible but not with 330 million.

Thank you for explaining yourself so thoroughly.

Considering our upbringing, it feels as though by saying “there should be no coercive taxation” that we are making a pro-active decision. But in reality, no coercive taxation is the natural state of things, and in every moment that we support something else, we are pro-actively making that choice.

In other words, if things were in their natural, free state, when would be a good time to say “Hey, you know what we should do to get funding for what we deem important? We should threaten everyone with violence. Then we’ll get all the funding we need, and we don’t have to bother convincing people that what we want is important!”

You see how a paradigm shift reveals the true nature of our actions. Immorality always has short-sighted benefits that circumvent the hard work of doing things the right way. But there are no shortcuts, and we pay, one way or another.

There’s no reason why things have to be organized across 325 million people. If the Federal Government was dissolved, we may be connected by a shared culture and commercial market, but we could generally have our voluntary society organized more locally. In any case, moral people really don’t have the option to rob people, regardless of the problems that creates. I trust that mankind can find new solutions to new challenges, just as it always has.