Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[paulitician]

"OUR GANG IS BETTER THAN YOUR GANG!! WOO HOO!!!"

That's what it's all about with Gang-worship mentality. It's about the conditioning. It's all the oppressed People eventually grow accustomed to.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now you are back tracking? OK, do libertarians believe in value in laws?

And note others have disagreed that libertarians do not believe in taxation.

Believ in value in laws? I'm not sure what you're asking there, but there are natural laws that govern mans free will and right to life that supercede anything another man, or a mob of them, right down and try to enforce. As far as moral and ethics are concerned.

Believe in taxation? Jeebus you're dumb. There is no reason to not believe in it. it can be proven as an action. The question is whether or not taation is theft, and if theft is an act of aggression. the answer is an undeniable - YES. therefore it goes against the NAP and is not a legitimate action.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you are back tracking? OK, do libertarians believe in value in laws?

I have no idea what this question is asking.

Yes, libertarians believe in laws, and, yes, they have values.

and note others have disagreed that libertarians do not believe in taxation.

There are lots of nuvo libertarians who don't really understand what the philosophy is about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting that you are in a small rump minority of even weirder libertarians than the others on the Board.

I did not know that was possible, but there we are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No problem. Anything to help a 'tard out. Your helmet strap is loose too. You're welcome.

 

[bripat9643]

No problem. Anything to help a 'tard out. Your helmet strap is loose too. You're welcome.

The idea of not having the same opinions as every moron on the street really terrifies Fakey.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now you are back tracking? OK, do libertarians believe in value in laws?

And note others have disagreed that libertarians do not believe in taxation.

Believ in value in laws? I'm not sure what you're asking there, but there are natural laws that govern mans free will and right to life that supercede anything another man, or a mob of them, right down and try to enforce. As far as moral and ethics are concerned.

Believe in taxation? Jeebus you're dumb. There is no reason to not believe in it. it can be proven as an action. The question is whether or not taation is theft, and if theft is an act of aggression. the answer is an undeniable - YES. therefore it goes against the NAP and is not a legitimate action.

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No problem. Anything to help a 'tard out. Your helmet strap is loose too. You're welcome.

The idea of not having the same opinions as every moron on the street really terrifies Fakey.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now you are back tracking? OK, do libertarians believe in value in laws?

And note others have disagreed that libertarians do not believe in taxation.

Believ in value in laws? I'm not sure what you're asking there, but there are natural laws that govern mans free will and right to life that supercede anything another man, or a mob of them, right down and try to enforce. As far as moral and ethics are concerned.

Believe in taxation? Jeebus you're dumb. There is no reason to not believe in it. it can be proven as an action. The question is whether or not taation is theft, and if theft is an act of aggression. the answer is an undeniable - YES. therefore it goes against the NAP and is not a legitimate action.

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

 

[RKMBrown]

Believ in value in laws? I'm not sure what you're asking there, but there are natural laws that govern mans free will and right to life that supercede anything another man, or a mob of them, right down and try to enforce. As far as moral and ethics are concerned.

Believe in taxation? Jeebus you're dumb. There is no reason to not believe in it. it can be proven as an action. The question is whether or not taation is theft, and if theft is an act of aggression. the answer is an undeniable - YES. therefore it goes against the NAP and is not a legitimate action.

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

TakeAStepBack, your statement that taxation is theft was way to broad. Your misstatements while pretending to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought are tiresome, leading, and will result in turning away folks that might otherwise be interested. Clearly only some forms of taxation, such as income tax taken by threat of jail time and/or without permission, is theft. Taxes and fees freely paid for by those who agree to pay said taxes and fees, when said agreement is not done under threat or duress, is not theft. Payment for services rendered is not theft.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RMKBrown, thank you for clearing some things up for me. Obviously, contradictions exist among libertarians. I am going to sit back, watch, and read you guys without comment. Ver interesting.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

TakeAStepBack, your statement that taxation is theft was way to broad. Your misstatements while pretending to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought are tiresome, leading, and will result in turning away folks that might otherwise be interested. Clearly only some forms of taxation, such as income tax taken by threat of jail time and/or without permission, is theft. Taxes and fees freely paid for by those who agree to pay said taxes and fees, when said agreement is not done under threat or duress, is not theft. Payment for services rendered is not theft.

First off, fella, I never pretended "to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought". I'm speaking solely on my own behalf. Second, the only tax that does not come with the threat of force are user taxes. Where one can choose to not participate in that particular sector of commerce. Such as a gas tax. Which is the same as a user fee. As said before regarding user fees for the "required tasks" of government.

 

[paulitician]

Lets face it, most will happily comply and do what the Gang tells them to. It's been that way for so long now. It's all most know. But that conditioned behavior is all based on fear & intimidation from the Gang. Most don't even realize that, or don't want to face that reality. The Gangs of the World merely carved out and split up the turf. And they did it by way of brutal violent force. This video does a great job explaining how and why it was done. I encourage all here to check it out.

 

[Contumacious]

RMKBrown, thank you for clearing some things up for me. Obviously, contradictions exist among libertarians. I am going to sit back, watch, and read you guys without comment. Ver interesting.

You know I do see a marked contradictions between Libertarians. Some want to hang you by your balls, others want shoot you between your beady eyes, still others want to waterboard you.

So, we are still debating the penalty phase. But we shall arrive at a consensus soon.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

TakeAStepBack, your statement that taxation is theft was way to broad. Your misstatements while pretending to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought are tiresome, leading, and will result in turning away folks that might otherwise be interested. Clearly only some forms of taxation, such as income tax taken by threat of jail time and/or without permission, is theft. Taxes and fees freely paid for by those who agree to pay said taxes and fees, when said agreement is not done under threat or duress, is not theft. Payment for services rendered is not theft.

First off, fella, I never pretended "to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought". I'm speaking solely on my own behalf. Second, the only tax that does not come with the threat of force are user taxes. Where one can choose to not participate in that particular sector of commerce. Such as a gas tax. Which is the same as a user fee. As said before regarding user fees for the "required tasks" of government.

Wrong again. The threat of force is not a necessary element of any type of tax. Further any user tax could also be deemed mandatory and carry a threat of force. So again, you are confusing, either purposefully, or without care or any reasoned thought the concepts of taxation with the threat of force, and the acts of theft by self appointed tyrants.

Any type of tax could be modified to allow for folks to opt in or out.

 

[FA_Q2]

Believ in value in laws? I'm not sure what you're asking there, but there are natural laws that govern mans free will and right to life that supercede anything another man, or a mob of them, right down and try to enforce. As far as moral and ethics are concerned.

Believe in taxation? Jeebus you're dumb. There is no reason to not believe in it. it can be proven as an action. The question is whether or not taation is theft, and if theft is an act of aggression. the answer is an undeniable - YES. therefore it goes against the NAP and is not a legitimate action.

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

Then you disagree with the constitution in general. There are many required purposes of government and the justice system is just one among them. I believe in the constitution and what it stands for. Then there is the local governance as well. I do not have a beef with taxes in general though I believe that any tax should be levied across the board (aka flat tax) instead of through special interests and social engineering. I think that the rejection of all tax is not a basic tenant of libertarian thought. Libertarians generally recognize that government is a necessity and in order to have government you must fund it.

I don’t generally think that all government works are bad. Police and fire should exist. Roads should exist. Basic infrastructure should exist. Some form of funding is required for all of this.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

TakeAStepBack, your statement that taxation is theft was way to broad. Your misstatements while pretending to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought are tiresome, leading, and will result in turning away folks that might otherwise be interested. Clearly only some forms of taxation, such as income tax taken by threat of jail time and/or without permission, is theft. Taxes and fees freely paid for by those who agree to pay said taxes and fees, when said agreement is not done under threat or duress, is not theft. Payment for services rendered is not theft.

First off, fella, I never pretended "to be the arbiter of all libertarian thought". I'm speaking solely on my own behalf. Second, the only tax that does not come with the threat of force are user taxes. Where one can choose to not participate in that particular sector of commerce. Such as a gas tax. Which is the same as a user fee. As said before regarding user fees for the "required tasks" of government.

Wrong again. The threat of force is not a necessary element of any type of tax. Further any user tax could also be deemed mandatory and carry a threat of force. So again, you are confusing, either purposefully, or without care or any reasoned thought the concepts of taxation with the threat of force, and the acts of theft by self appointed tyrants.

Any type of tax could be modified to allow for folks to opt in or out.

Then it would no longer be a tax.

Let me know when you find this voluntary tax. I'd love to hear all about it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

Then you disagree with the constitution in general. There are many required purposes of government and the justice system is just one among them. I believe in the constitution and what it stands for. Then there is the local governance as well. I do not have a beef with taxes in general though I believe that any tax should be levied across the board (aka flat tax) instead of through special interests and social engineering. I think that the rejection of all tax is not a basic tenant of libertarian thought. Libertarians generally recognize that government is a necessity and in order to have government you must fund it.

I don’t generally think that all government works are bad. Police and fire should exist. Roads should exist. Basic infrastructure should exist. Some form of funding is required for all of this.

No, i disagree with certain portions of it. Not the constitution "in general".

 

[bendog]

If you are against taxation in general, how do you suppose to fund the required tasks of the government?

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

Then you disagree with the constitution in general. There are many required purposes of government and the justice system is just one among them. I believe in the constitution and what it stands for. Then there is the local governance as well. I do not have a beef with taxes in general though I believe that any tax should be levied across the board (aka flat tax) instead of through special interests and social engineering. I think that the rejection of all tax is not a basic tenant of libertarian thought. Libertarians generally recognize that government is a necessity and in order to have government you must fund it.

I don’t generally think that all government works are bad. Police and fire should exist. Roads should exist. Basic infrastructure should exist. Some form of funding is required for all of this.

Not to argue, but neoliberalism, which is generally what Reagan and Thatcher espoused, basically holds that for a govt action to be legitimate is must aim to increase transparency and the ability for private actors to enter and exit free markets.

By and large that works for me. However, even Hayek recognized that if something like pollution endangered a forest, then free markets by themselves don't work, and govt would have to limit pollution. Reagan was ok with stricter regulations after the Bhopal disaster. Further, no one can honestly dispute that there are some people who are not capable of successfully caring for themselves in free market economies.

 

[FA_Q2]

First, we'd need to define the "required tasks" of government. The only required one I recognize, is the arbitration of dispute settlement from fraud or contract issues. With that, there could be user fees. Otherwise, voluntary donations.

Then you disagree with the constitution in general. There are many required purposes of government and the justice system is just one among them. I believe in the constitution and what it stands for. Then there is the local governance as well. I do not have a beef with taxes in general though I believe that any tax should be levied across the board (aka flat tax) instead of through special interests and social engineering. I think that the rejection of all tax is not a basic tenant of libertarian thought. Libertarians generally recognize that government is a necessity and in order to have government you must fund it.

I don’t generally think that all government works are bad. Police and fire should exist. Roads should exist. Basic infrastructure should exist. Some form of funding is required for all of this.

No, i disagree with certain portions of it. Not the constitution "in general".

You need to further that explanation then. In all honesty, I don’t see how you can square that with the constitution. It calls for a legislative body that needs to be paid, the common defense that is expensive, a judicial branch that needs to be paid, roads that are also expensive and we have not even crossed over to the fact that there are state governments that need to be funded as well. Do you think that it would be all right to eliminate police and fore services as well?

How do you propose to fund any of this or can you be more specific on what parts of the constitution you disagree with?