Read this.

[Pete7469]

Property Rights | The Art of Not Being GovernedThe Art of Not Being Governed

Comment if you're not a bed wetter. Your "opinions" can be found on bumper-stickers and are generally as useless as you are.

 

[konradv]

Sounds kind of sketchy. Even a minarchist government would need some money to function and have to appropriate some of your "property". How do you reconcile that or are you an anarchist that believes in no government?

 

[Pete7469]

Why is it that every single thread about minimal government is responded to by bed wetters who proclaim that libertarians are "anarchists"?

There are ways for governments to extract finances for their antisocial endeavors without creating undue harm to the people it governs.

Why does it have to be one of 2 extremes with bed wetters?

You either have marxist "anarchy" or somalian anarchy?

WTF?

 

[Mad Scientist]

To a Marxist, Libertarian may as well mean Anarchist because small government means the same as no government.

Big Government types have long forgotten that the Government exists by the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Property Rights | The Art of Not Being GovernedThe Art of Not Being Governed

Comment if you're not a bed wetter. Your "opinions" can be found on bumper-stickers and are generally as useless as you are.

Weak, but from redhead on, fail. He has no idea what the hell he is talking about...

 

[mamooth]

Pete is fixated on bedwetting. Doesn't he know there are adult diapers for his problem?

Pete should also explain why his system never works in the real world. Marxism also sounds good, in theory, just like Pete's stuff.

 

[konradv]

Why is it that every single thread about minimal government is responded to by bed wetters who proclaim that libertarians are "anarchists"?

There are ways for governments to extract finances for their antisocial endeavors without creating undue harm to the people it governs.

Why does it have to be one of 2 extremes with bed wetters?

You either have marxist "anarchy" or somalian anarchy?

WTF?

I didn't proclaim anything. I asked a question that, apparently, you can't answer. However you extract taxes, it's a "taking". Perhaps you should explain how that works instead of just trying to distract us with name calling. We're waiting.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Pete is fixated on bedwetting. Doesn't he know there are adult diapers for his problem?

Pete should also explain why his system never works in the real world. Marxism also sounds good, in theory, just like Pete's stuff.

Pete is sure that everything he believes would benefit all of mankind, if it were only written in blue.

 

[Peach]

The "no government" types are the first to say "Where is a cop when you need them?" "Why is the fire department so slow, those ashes could ruin my lawn!" "These potholes are destroying my tires, where is the road mantenence around here?"

 

[konradv]

To a Marxist, Libertarian may as well mean Anarchist because small government means the same as no government.

Big Government types have long forgotten that the Government exists by the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

The question isn't government or no government, but how you get taxes without violating property rights. Please try and stick to the subject. It isn't those questioning the OP that seem to be confused!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Property Rights | The Art of Not Being GovernedThe Art of Not Being Governed

Comment if you're not a bed wetter. Your "opinions" can be found on bumper-stickers and are generally as useless as you are.

Whenever an article begins with a reference to what libertarians believe, it's a reference to what about 5% of the People believe.

The problem with Libertarianism is a math problem.

 

[Wildman]

Sounds kind of sketchy. Even a minarchist government would need some money to function and have to appropriate some of your "property". How do you reconcile that or are you an anarchist that believes in no government?

huhhh ! can you please get someone to translate this to plain English ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sounds kind of sketchy. Even a minarchist government would need some money to function and have to appropriate some of your "property". How do you reconcile that or are you an anarchist that believes in no government?

huhhh ! can you please get someone to translate this to plain English ?

For your level, See Spot Run, now go to bed.

 

[Wildman]

Property Rights | The Art of Not Being GovernedThe Art of Not Being Governed

Comment if you're not a bed wetter. Your "opinions" can be found on bumper-stickers and are generally as useless as you are.

Weak, but from redhead on, fail. He has no idea what the hell he is talking about...

and you do ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Property Rights | The Art of Not Being GovernedThe Art of Not Being Governed

Comment if you're not a bed wetter. Your "opinions" can be found on bumper-stickers and are generally as useless as you are.

Weak, but from redhead on, fail. He has no idea what the hell he is talking about...

and you do ?

Yep. Utilitarianism is not, society is happiest when fucking 13-year-olds, so let's do that. That however, is what the "author" apparently believes.

 

[Skylar]

To a Marxist, Libertarian may as well mean Anarchist because small government means the same as no government.

Big Government types have long forgotten that the Government exists by the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

And yet people want the big ticket items. Social Security. Medicare. A strong national defense. They just don't want to pay for them.

 

[Skylar]

To a Marxist, Libertarian may as well mean Anarchist because small government means the same as no government.

Big Government types have long forgotten that the Government exists by the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

The question isn't government or no government, but how you get taxes without violating property rights. Please try and stick to the subject. It isn't those questioning the OP that seem to be confused!!!

And in answer:

For one thing, utilitarianism assumes that we can weigh alternatives, and decide upon policies, on the basis of their good or bad consequences. But if it is legitimate to apply value judgments to the consequences of X, why is it not equally legitimate to apply such judgments to X itself? May there not be something about an act itself which, in its very nature, can be considered good or evil?

So I apply the standards of your own article....and question the value judgements you've applied to 'x'. X being the 'violation of property rights' through taxation.

You've concluded that taxation is immoral. I reject that perspective. As taxes are levied lawful representatives of the people, exercising the people's authority. Why would the people's authority be insufficient to levy taxes? And why would the levying of taxes be an act of immorality?

 

[SmedlyButler]

Property Rights | The Art of Not Being GovernedThe Art of Not Being Governed

Comment if you're not a bed wetter. Your "opinions" can be found on bumper-stickers and are generally as useless as you are.

Wonder how it will work out. I guess I'll try it.

READ THIS!!!!!

Rothbard on Race, gender and civil rights;

Michael O'Malley, Associate Professor of History at George Mason University, characterizes Rothbard's "overall tone regard[ing]" the black civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement to be "contemptuous and hostile".[83] On O'Malley's account, "Rothbard found the idea of freedom for Negroes alarming [because] they did not understand it properly". Rothbard vilified women's rights activists, attributing the growth of the welfare state to politically active spinsters "whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of health and heart". He believed that Jewish and lesbian women were responsible for the movement to enact child labor laws, which he viewed with disgust.[83][84] O'Malley summarized Rothbard's views: "votes for women and equality for African Americans ... upset the natural order".
Rothbard called for the elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure" stating that it "tramples on the property rights of every American." Rothbard also urged the (state) police to crackdown on "street criminals", writing that "cops must be unleashed" and "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error". He also advocated that the police "clear the streets of bums and vagrants", and quipped "Who cares?" in response to the question of where these people would go after being removed from public property.[85]
Rothbard held strong opinions about many leaders of the civil rights movement. He considered black separatist Malcolm X to be a "great black leader" and integrationist Martin Luther King to be favored by whites because he "was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution."[5][page needed] Rothbard praised Malcolm X for "acting white" through use of his intellect and wit, and contrasted him favorably with the "fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style, "Dr." King". But while he compared Malcolm X's black nationalism favorably to King's integrationism, he ultimately rejected the vision of a "separate black nation", asking "does anyone really believe that ... New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.?"[86] Rothbard also suggested that opposition to King, whom he demeaned as a "coercive integrationist", should be a litmus test for members of his "paleolibertarian" political movement. - Wikipedia

Paleolibertarian, anarcho-Capitalist, nutjob. He disliked a few of of the people I dislike (e.g. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Nixon) but hell, he disliked, or hated just about everybody.