How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[bripat9643]

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?

Yes, they were wrong on that issue. The Founders were brilliant men, but they weren't infallible. We've had 200 years since then to think things over a little better.

 

[rightwinger]

The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?

Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?

Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?

Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Your word parsing is irrelevant.

The fact that when you pay your taxes....the money you pay isn't yours anymore isn't 'word parsing'. Its the huge, gaping, bleeding hole in your argument.

As how can you 'steal' something from someone.....when they don't own it?

You have no answer.....as there is none. Your entire argument is a laughable fallacy.

What about the government takes money from you and gives it to yourself do you not understand?

The government doesn't give your money to anyone. What about that do you not understand?

They don't? Welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, refundable tax credits, earmarks, planned parenthood, none of them exist, really? You got a link for that?

Government collects money for running the country

Those programs are part of running the country as determined by..We the People

 

[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'?

It's only "lawful" because the government claimed it's lawful.

That would be the representatives of the people who passed laws. Yet you reject their authority, the constitution's, all of it. As the constitution includes taxation power......is it too invalid and immoral, based on aggression?

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.

A bank can get a court order and have property seized if that's a debt that you owe. What do you think a foreclosure is.

And given that the founders had debtors prisons and mandatory taxation, clearly the founders were wrong, the constitution and its reasoning invalid, and its signers immoral 'aggressors'.....per your logic, anyway.

If not, why not?

 

[PK1]

Obviously we can have liberty, but we dont have to live in Chaos to do so.

We are a community of people, not a gaggle of assorted individuals with no impact on one another.

---
Agree with above post.
However, your thread title lumps Libertarians together in one "evil" bucket.
That does not apply to liberty-oriented "free thinkers".
The Libertarians i relate to are prosocial as well as individualistic, Thomas Paine style.
.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree with you for government's redistribution of wealth schemes. But I do not think taxes for what are services for all should be voluntary. Military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, that sort of thing

What 'redistribution'? None of the funds spent are yours. How then could anything be 'stolen' from you by funding programs.....when the funds being spent on those programs don't belong to you?

You might as well call me buying a sandwich 'theft'. As I'm not spending your money on that either.

Government takes my money and gives it to someone else, that is pure armed robbery. Government should treat all its citizens the same, benefitting one citizen at the expense of another is a wrong and taking my money by force to do it is a crime

'Your money' isn't given to anyone. Nixing your entire silly argument. As your presumption of ownership is a fallacy.

You're stuck.

Government doesn't give people money, got it. You're a brainiac, Mr. Einstein. And a master debater as well, Daniel Webster

Not 'your money', no. How can something be 'stolen' from you when you don't own it?

You do own it when the government takes it, fool.

 

[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?

Yes, they were wrong on that issue. The Founders were brilliant men, but they weren't infallible.

So, just to demonstrate how ludicriously extreme your views are......even the founders were immoral aggressors and the constitution was wrong. Because they collected any form of mandatory taxation.

You do realize that you're essentially arguing anarchy at this point, yes?

We've had 200 years since then to think things over a little better.

The number of folks that would argue that ALL mandatory taxation is immoral wouldn't be a terribly large number.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously we can have liberty, but we dont have to live in Chaos to do so.

We are a community of people, not a gaggle of assorted individuals with no impact on one another.

---
Agree with above post.
However, your thread title lumps Libertarians together in one "evil" bucket.
That does not apply to liberty-oriented "free thinkers".
The Libertarians i relate to are prosocial as well as individualistic, Thomas Paine style.
.

How about the 'all taxes are immoral aggression, theft and invalid' bucket?

 

[Skylar]

What 'redistribution'? None of the funds spent are yours. How then could anything be 'stolen' from you by funding programs.....when the funds being spent on those programs don't belong to you?

You might as well call me buying a sandwich 'theft'. As I'm not spending your money on that either.

Government takes my money and gives it to someone else, that is pure armed robbery. Government should treat all its citizens the same, benefitting one citizen at the expense of another is a wrong and taking my money by force to do it is a crime

'Your money' isn't given to anyone. Nixing your entire silly argument. As your presumption of ownership is a fallacy.

You're stuck.

Government doesn't give people money, got it. You're a brainiac, Mr. Einstein. And a master debater as well, Daniel Webster

Not 'your money', no. How can something be 'stolen' from you when you don't own it?

You do own it when the government takes it, fool.

Not when you pay it.Or when its paid for you through lawful seizures and auction. Then it belongs to the people.

So 'your money' is never given to anyone.

 

[Skylar]

Your word parsing is irrelevant.

The fact that when you pay your taxes....the money you pay isn't yours anymore isn't 'word parsing'. Its the huge, gaping, bleeding hole in your argument.

As how can you 'steal' something from someone.....when they don't own it?

You have no answer.....as there is none. Your entire argument is a laughable fallacy.

What about the government takes money from you and gives it to yourself do you not understand?

The government doesn't give your money to anyone. What about that do you not understand?

They don't? Welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, refundable tax credits, earmarks, planned parenthood, none of them exist, really? You got a link for that?

Government collects money for running the country

Those programs are part of running the country as determined by..We the People

Ah, but per the fringe right crowd 'we the people' don't have the authority to tax.

We're essentially dealing with anarcho-libertarians here.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That would be the representatives of the people who passed laws. Yet you reject their authority, the constitution's, all of it. As the constitution includes taxation power......is it too invalid and immoral, based on aggression?

Correct.

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.

A bank can get a court order and have property seized if that's a debt that you owe. What do you think a foreclosure is.

Only if you owe the bank money and your property was put up as collateral. You can't incur a debt without explicitly agreeing on paper that you owe the money to the bank. When did you explicitly agree to be taxed or that you owe the government money?

And given that the founders had debtors prisons and mandatory taxation, clearly the founders were wrong, the constitution and its reasoning invalid, and its signers immoral 'aggressors'.....per your logic, anyway.

If not, why not?

Yes they were.

 

[bripat9643]

Government takes my money and gives it to someone else, that is pure armed robbery. Government should treat all its citizens the same, benefitting one citizen at the expense of another is a wrong and taking my money by force to do it is a crime

'Your money' isn't given to anyone. Nixing your entire silly argument. As your presumption of ownership is a fallacy.

You're stuck.

Government doesn't give people money, got it. You're a brainiac, Mr. Einstein. And a master debater as well, Daniel Webster

Not 'your money', no. How can something be 'stolen' from you when you don't own it?

You do own it when the government takes it, fool.

Not when you pay it.Or when its paid for you through lawful seizures and auction. Then it belongs to the people.

So 'your money' is never given to anyone.

ROFL! Yeah, and your car belongs to the thief after he takes it. At least, that's what your theory of ownership says.

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

 

[Skylar]

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'.

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.

That would be the representatives of the people who passed laws. Yet you reject their authority, the constitution's, all of it. As the constitution includes taxation power......is it too invalid and immoral, based on aggression?

Correct.

that's a pretty fringe ass position you've taken to declare the Constitution immoral and invalid. But then, you're a pretty fringe kinda guy.

Only if you owe the bank money and your property was put up as collateral. You can't incur a debt without explicitly agreeing on papery that you owe the money to the bank. When did you explicitly agree to be taxed or that you owe the government money?

When you agreed to live here. This is our nation and you're subject to the laws here. As am I. The authority lies with 'The People'. Not any one individual.

What you're describing is monarchy. And we've rejected the concept.

 

[Skylar]

'Your money' isn't given to anyone. Nixing your entire silly argument. As your presumption of ownership is a fallacy.

You're stuck.

Government doesn't give people money, got it. You're a brainiac, Mr. Einstein. And a master debater as well, Daniel Webster

Not 'your money', no. How can something be 'stolen' from you when you don't own it?

You do own it when the government takes it, fool.

Not when you pay it.Or when its paid for you through lawful seizures and auction. Then it belongs to the people.

So 'your money' is never given to anyone.

ROFL! Yeah, and your car belongs to the thief after he takes it. At least, that's what your theory of ownership says.

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

I simply don't accept your conclusion that taxation is theft. Nor does the US government, the founders, the US constitution, our courts or our laws.

So we're all 'this stupid'....and only you've got it figured out, huh?

 

[kaz]

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.

Alfalfa is white, why would it be "racial?" What color are you? Are you orange like Donald Trump?

Mea culpa, Alfalfa was white, I thought he was the character known as Buckwheat.

Me, I'm a mutt; mostly French and German with one great grandparent Italian and a grandmother from Romania.

Thank you for admitting you were wrong. But what if I had called you buckwheat? Why would that matter? Being called a black character would bother you? Why the obsession with skin color?

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

Yes, we can run our own lives, we don't need government to do it for us. I feel you

 

[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.

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.

Yes, we can run our own lives, we don't need government to do it for us. I feel you

It doesn't really matter how you feel about government. The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains. And its in this exploitative nature that libertarianism's unsustainability are sown.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are evil because you give your permission to an organized criminal gang (government) to take my stuff and force me to do things I don't want to do.

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.

Your reasons were unaccompanied by any visible means of support. Nothing could possibly be more exploitative than government, and nothing could be less "sustainable" democracy,

 

[Skylar]

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.

You are evil because you give your permission to an organized criminal gang (government) to take my stuff and force me to do things I don't want to do.

So the Founders and the Constitution are evil then?

 

[Skylar]

Your reasons were unaccompanied by any visible means of support. Nothing could possibly be more exploitative than government, and nothing could be less "sustainable" democracy,

Sure there could be: slavery. Which flourished in the period where our nation was most closely aligned with libertarian values.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes, we can run our own lives, we don't need government to do it for us. I feel you

It doesn't really matter how you feel about government. The exploitative nature of libertarianism remains. And its in this exploitative nature that libertarianism's unsustainability are sown.

it doesn't really matter how you feel about libertarianism (freedom), the exploitative criminal nature of government remains and the unsustainability of democracy couldn't be more obvious.