Just What is Libertarianism?

[kaz]

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

When a parent signs a contract for a child as a child, it is in reality binding on the parent, not the child.

A parent obviously cannot sign a contract for an adult or is binding on the child when they become an adult. They also can't do anything like destroy their credit that affects them

 

[bripat9643]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

When a parent signs a contract for a child as a child, it is in reality binding on the parent, not the child.

A parent obviously cannot sign a contract for an adult or is binding on the child when they become an adult. They also can't do anything like destroy their credit that affects them

They can't even sign anything binding on the child when the child is still a child.

BTW, thanks for explaining that. I knew that's what the numskull was thinking of when he said a parent can sign a contract for a child.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it. Perhaps next time you'll be born into a more understanding species.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

When a parent signs a contract for a child as a child, it is in reality binding on the parent, not the child.

A parent obviously cannot sign a contract for an adult or is binding on the child when they become an adult. They also can't do anything like destroy their credit that affects them

And yet a child who makes a lot of money (a child actor, for example) has that money controlled by the parent. The parent can access the money and spend it, creating financial obligations. Now, the child can later sue the parent for mismanagement of funds, but that is on the basis of their status as a fiduciary - not for theft. The parent can also sign a contract releasing that child's right to sue (to whatever extent a hold harmless agreement is allowed in the given state) for such things as surgery, even if the child specifically states they don't want the surgery.

But this is really get bogged down in a side issue. So if you think I am wrong I am ok with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it

Interesting.
And so, you then agree that if the morality of a society decdes, say, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, then they should move to another country.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it

Interesting.
And so, you then agree that if the morality of a society decdes, say, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, then they should move to another country.

If they do not wish to live under that constraint, yes. Or they can work to change the law.

What do you think they should do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

You do understand that state-enforced involuntery servitude applied across an entire csocirty and freedom are, well, opposites.
Right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it

Interesting.
And so, you then agree that if the morality of a society decdes, say, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, then they should move to another country.

If they do not wish to live under that constraint, yes. Or they can work to change the law.
What do you think they should do?

Seems to me that these people argue they have rights protected by government.
Interestign that you disagree.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

You do understand that state-enforced involuntery servitude applied across an entire csocirty and freedom are, well, opposites.
Right?

No. But you can think that if you like. If I walk into a store and grab a loaf of bread I don't think my freedom is curtailed because I have hand over money for it. That is just the cost of bread.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it

Interesting.
And so, you then agree that if the morality of a society decdes, say, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, then they should move to another country.

If they do not wish to live under that constraint, yes. Or they can work to change the law.
What do you think they should do?

Seems to me that these people argue they have rights protected by government.
Interestign that you disagree.

They worked to change the law and they did so effectively. I applaud them for it. Do you think the government was protecting them 50 years ago?

You still haven't said what you think they should do. What advice would you offer them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

You do understand that state-enforced involuntery servitude applied across an entire csocirty and freedom are, well, opposites.
Right?

No. But you can think that if you like.

When people in a society are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, therefore living in a condition of state-enforced involuntary services, how are they then living in a free society?

 

[FA_Q2]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it. Perhaps next time you'll be born into a more understanding species.

It is not this society’s version either btw even though you seem to have presented it as such. In this system there is another option – work to change it from within. That happens to be what many of us are trying to do even if things are not going in that direction thus far.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.

Not my version.... society's version. But yeah, that's pretty much it

Interesting.
And so, you then agree that if the morality of a society decdes, say, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, then they should move to another country.

If they do not wish to live under that constraint, yes. Or they can work to change the law.
What do you think they should do?

Seems to me that these people argue they have rights protected by government.
Interestign that you disagree.

They worked to change the law and they did so effectively. I applaud them for it. Do you think the government was protecting them 50 years ago?

I'm sorry.... first you said they could leave if they didn't like it and how you say they have rights.
Which is is?

 

[kaz]

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

When a parent signs a contract for a child as a child, it is in reality binding on the parent, not the child.

A parent obviously cannot sign a contract for an adult or is binding on the child when they become an adult. They also can't do anything like destroy their credit that affects them

And yet a child who makes a lot of money (a child actor, for example) has that money controlled by the parent. The parent can access the money and spend it, creating financial obligations. Now, the child can later sue the parent for mismanagement of funds, but that is on the basis of their status as a fiduciary - not for theft. The parent can also sign a contract releasing that child's right to sue (to whatever extent a hold harmless agreement is allowed in the given state) for such things as surgery, even if the child specifically states they don't want the surgery.

But this is really get bogged down in a side issue. So if you think I am wrong I am ok with that.

How is the parent spending the child's money creating a "financial obligation?" I don't know what you mean by that.

The parent is supposed to only spend legitimate amounts. I don't know how they determine that. I've been telling my kids it's got to be their turn by now to pick up a check, it doesn't go anywhere.... As you say, yes the child can sue the parent for mismanagement of funds, I'm not sure how that part contradicts anything I said

 

[bripat9643]

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

When a parent signs a contract for a child as a child, it is in reality binding on the parent, not the child.

A parent obviously cannot sign a contract for an adult or is binding on the child when they become an adult. They also can't do anything like destroy their credit that affects them

And yet a child who makes a lot of money (a child actor, for example) has that money controlled by the parent. The parent can access the money and spend it, creating financial obligations. Now, the child can later sue the parent for mismanagement of funds, but that is on the basis of their status as a fiduciary - not for theft. The parent can also sign a contract releasing that child's right to sue (to whatever extent a hold harmless agreement is allowed in the given state) for such things as surgery, even if the child specifically states they don't want the surgery.

But this is really get bogged down in a side issue. So if you think I am wrong I am ok with that.

I believe the child has to agree to allow the parent to control his money. they can terminate that agreement any time it wants. Such things happen all the time with child stars who make a lot of money when they are very young.

Parents can make medical decisions for their children (someone has to do it). That isn't the same thing as signing a contract for them. However, any clauses about not being allowed to sue have never held up in court in the first place, child or not.

It's not a side issue. It goes to the issue of whether anyone ever agreed to pay taxes. They didn't.

 

[FA_Q2]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

You do understand that state-enforced involuntery servitude applied across an entire csocirty and freedom are, well, opposites.
Right?

No. But you can think that if you like. If I walk into a store and grab a loaf of bread I don't think my freedom is curtailed because I have hand over money for it. That is just the cost of bread.

You do understand that the key distinction here in your example is that you CHOOSE to grab that loaf of bread where the others have been pretty consistent that the wrongdoing is a matter of not having an option.

A better example would be that your neighbor’s decided that everyone was required to have that loaf of bread but because they did not have the means to provide it you were required by them to purchase half the bread for the entire community against your will.

 

[bripat9643]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

You do understand that state-enforced involuntery servitude applied across an entire csocirty and freedom are, well, opposites.
Right?

No. But you can think that if you like. If I walk into a store and grab a loaf of bread I don't think my freedom is curtailed because I have hand over money for it. That is just the cost of bread.

No one forces you to take the bread. It doesn't belong to you. On the other hand, government forces you to pay for services you haven't asked for. The federal government doesn't own the property I live on, nor the store where I buy bread, so where did it get the right to take money from me by force?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude.
How can state-enforces involuntary servitude in a free country?.

Through law. I would think that is obvious.

You do understand that state-enforced involuntery servitude applied across an entire csocirty and freedom are, well, opposites.
Right?

No. But you can think that if you like. If I walk into a store and grab a loaf of bread I don't think my freedom is curtailed because I have hand over money for it. That is just the cost of bread.

No one forces you to take the bread. It doesn't belong to you.

You pay for the bread, you get the bread.
You pay for someone else's bread, you get nothing.
When the state forces you to pay for someone else's bread, you are an involuntary servant.