Just What is Libertarianism?

[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.

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

Personally, I prefer to live in a free society. You do not.
You prefer to have the state force morality on others, and place them in a condition of involuntary servitude.

 

[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.

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.

Of course you can work to change the law. As I have said. In the meantime, you either obey the law, refuse to obey the law and take the consequences or find somewhere else to live. You have a choice.

 

[kaz]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have a choice.

So did the slaves in the American south -- they could have run away, or any number of other things to keep them from being slaves.
Under your argument, they chose to be slaves.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

Personally, I prefer to live in a free society. You do not.
You prefer to have the state force morality on others, and place them in a condition of involuntary servitude.

I'm sure you would. Where do you propose to do that?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

We are working to make it a free society by educating numskulls like you.

 

[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.

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.

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.

And you choose to live here. You choose to take advantage of the benefits of this society. That is not free of charge. If you don't think that is fair, I am fine with you being unhappy about it. Work to change the law, live with it, refuse to pay and take the consequences or leave. Those are your options. Pick one.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

Personally, I prefer to live in a free society. You do not.
You prefer to have the state force morality on others, and place them in a condition of involuntary servitude.

I'm sure you would. Where do you propose to do that?

Nazis said the same thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

We are working to make it a free society by educating numskulls like you.

You aren't very good at it.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

Actually it does contradict living in a free society, but I'm not going to quibble about the small stuff in this thread.

 

[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.

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?

The law.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Ok. I'm cool with you being an involuntary servant.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

We are working to make it a free society by educating numskulls like you.

You aren't very good at it.

Actually, brainwashed drones like you are a waste of time. These threads are intended to educate those who are able to commit logic.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Ok. I'm cool with you being an involuntary servant.

You just admitted you're a Nazi.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

You are free to hold that opinion. You are free to try to get others to agree and get the laws changed. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I have already laid out your options. No one said you were always going to get your way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Ok. I'm cool with you being an involuntary servant.

As you apparently hate freedom and liberty, I am not surprised.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Ok. I'm cool with you being an involuntary servant.

You just admitted you're a Nazi.

Have I given you the impression I care what you think? I do apologize for misleading you.

 

[kaz]

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?

That depends upon what you mean by a free society. If you mean that you don't have to pay for the benefit of living in a first world environment, then I guess we aren't a free society. And it will continue not to be a free society. What are you going to do?

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

Actually it does contradict living in a free society, but I'm not going to quibble about the small stuff in this thread.

For five minutes, you are correct... But yeah, we agree on a lot more than we disagree

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Ok. I'm cool with you being an involuntary servant.

As you apparently hate freedom and liberty, I am not surprised.

If that makes you feel better, be my guest. Now what are you going to do? I mean other than just bitch about how life isn't fair.