How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Skylar]

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

ABSURD ^^^

You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.

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

You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa

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

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

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

 

[Centinel]

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

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

And I still haven't learned what's evil about thinking those sorts of acts are wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.

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

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

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

It doesn't matter what people consider to be aggression. The property tax clearly is an example of aggression. If you don't pay it, the government will take your property. How is that not aggression? What is the distinction between that and extortion?

 

[Centinel]

Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.

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

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

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

It doesn't matter what people consider to be aggression. The property tax clearly is an example of aggression. If you don't pay it, the government will take your property. How is that not aggression? What is the distinction between that and extortion?

And how/why is it evil to think it's wrong?

 

[Skylar]

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

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

Why?

Remember, you've already abandoned your 'tax request' horseshit for a reason.

 

[Skylar]

Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.

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

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

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

ABSURD ^^^

You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.

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

You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa

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

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

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

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

That's hilarious. Government extracts tens of thousands out of my pocket every year, but libertarianism is "inherently exploitative?" What's even funnier is your belief that the current arrangement is "sustainable." We have a $20 trillion operating debt. We have $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Dims keep promising the ticks who don't want to work more and more, and they keep saddling the economy with more growth limiting regulations, and that's your conception of "sustainable."

 

[Skylar]

Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.

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

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

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

It doesn't matter what people consider to be aggression. The property tax clearly is an example of aggression. If you don't pay it, the government will take your property. How is that not aggression? What is the distinction between that and extortion?

And how/why is it evil to think it's wrong?

You think mandatory taxation is 'wrong'? Why?

 

[Skylar]

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

ABSURD ^^^

You have no understanding of governance, the history and evolution of the law or how and why COTUS was a compromise.

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

You gotta read the discussion to get the posts, Alfalfa

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's hilarious. Government extracts tens of thousands out of my pocket every year, but "libertarianism is unsustainable?"

Yup. For the reasons I've described:

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

And you don't even disagree with me.

 

[Centinel]

Why?

Remember, you've already abandoned your 'tax request' horseshit for a reason.

Why would property tax be an example of violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so)? Because that's what it is. Property tax is a threat to initiate aggression unless payment is made. It's extortion, which would certainly fall into the above examples of aggression.

 

[Centinel]

You think mandatory taxation is 'wrong'? Why?

Because I think it's wrong for people to initiate aggression.

Now why do you think that it's evil to think that it's wrong to initiate aggression?

 

[Skylar]

Why?

Remember, you've already abandoned your 'tax request' horseshit for a reason.

Why would property tax be an example of violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so)? Because that's what it is.

That's a circular argument. Where your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing.

Try again. This time without the logical fallacies.

Why is property tax 'aggression'.

Property tax is a threat to initiate aggression unless payment is made. It's extortion, which would certainly fall into the above examples of aggression.

Its a debt lawfully owed by most of those who owns property within a given jurisdiction.

Were the founders 'extortionists', then? The Constitution allows for all sorts of taxation. With no restriction on the application of capitation or property taxes save how the funds are distributed.

Is the constitution 'extortion'? If not, why not?

 

[Centinel]

Why?

Remember, you've already abandoned your 'tax request' horseshit for a reason.

Why would property tax be an example of violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so)? Because that's what it is.

That's a circular argument. Where your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing.

Try again. This time without the logical fallacies.

Why is property tax 'aggression'.

Property tax is a threat to initiate aggression unless payment is made. It's extortion, which would certainly fall into the above examples of aggression.

Its a debt lawfully owed by most of those who owns property within a given jurisdiction.

Were the founders 'extortionists', then? The Constitution allows for all sorts of taxation. With no restriction on the application of capitation or property taxes save how the funds are distributed.

Is the constitution 'extortion'? If not, why not?

Property tax is aggression because it is the threat to violate someone's person and/or property.

You asked me for my definition of aggression. Did you not understand it?

 

[Skylar]

You think mandatory taxation is 'wrong'? Why?

Because I think it's wrong for people to initiate aggression.

So the constitution and founders were both wrong, with Washington being an 'aggressor'?

And your philosophy appears to be anarchy. Where taxation, government, even laws are purely voluntary.

You do get that that isn't the United States nor was it even intended to be, right?

 

[Skylar]

Why?

Remember, you've already abandoned your 'tax request' horseshit for a reason.

Why would property tax be an example of violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so)? Because that's what it is.

That's a circular argument. Where your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing.

Try again. This time without the logical fallacies.

Why is property tax 'aggression'.

Property tax is a threat to initiate aggression unless payment is made. It's extortion, which would certainly fall into the above examples of aggression.

Its a debt lawfully owed by most of those who owns property within a given jurisdiction.

Were the founders 'extortionists', then? The Constitution allows for all sorts of taxation. With no restriction on the application of capitation or property taxes save how the funds are distributed.

Is the constitution 'extortion'? If not, why not?

Property tax is aggression because it is the threat to violate someone's person and/or property.

Why is collecting a debt that is lawfully owed 'aggression'?

 

[bripat9643]

Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.

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

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

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

As always, you attempt to ignore crucial details that make it obvious that your theories absurd once they are revealed.

 

[bripat9643]

Why?

Remember, you've already abandoned your 'tax request' horseshit for a reason.

Why would property tax be an example of violating, damaging, stealing, or trespassing against someone's body or any of the physical resources he owns (or making a threat to do so)? Because that's what it is.

That's a circular argument. Where your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing.

Try again. This time without the logical fallacies.

Why is property tax 'aggression'.

Property tax is a threat to initiate aggression unless payment is made. It's extortion, which would certainly fall into the above examples of aggression.

Its a debt lawfully owed by most of those who owns property within a given jurisdiction.

Were the founders 'extortionists', then? The Constitution allows for all sorts of taxation. With no restriction on the application of capitation or property taxes save how the funds are distributed.

Is the constitution 'extortion'? If not, why not?

Property tax is aggression because it is the threat to violate someone's person and/or property.

Why is collecting a debt that is lawfully owed 'aggression'?

It's only "lawful" because the government claimed it's lawful. The equivalent in the private sector would be if some bank that you've never had any dealings with sent you a letter claiming you owed it $100,000 and then proceeded to foreclose on your house. Of course, government doesn't allow banks to do what government does on a daily basis.

 

[Skylar]

Depends on what you mean by 'initiate aggression', I suppose.

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

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

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

You've being uselessly vague for a reason.

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.

Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.

It isn't. Obviously so.

Oh, and you never did answer my question:

If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them. The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that

So you are just whimpering because you are expected to pay taxes

Got it.........<Libertarian>

 

[Centinel]

Why is collecting a debt that is lawfully owed 'aggression'?

Collecting a debt is not aggression. Taxation, however, is.

You ask a lot of questions, yet you never answer questions you are asked.

What is evil about opposing the initiation of aggression?