Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[dblack]

Millions of people negotiate the terms of taxation every single day. Hell some cities even pay people to move to their district and spend money, such as by starting up new businesses. The number of negotiated exemptions (terms) for taxation are nearly endless. Only fools pay the full tax requested. When I bought my land 75% of the tax was exempted through negotiation. How? I said I'd use 75% of the land for wildlife management.

This, in my view, highlights the most egregious abuse of the taxation power. Regardless of whether it should be considered 'theft', the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue to fund government. But our leaders have learned that they can use discriminatory taxation laws to coerce behavior in ways they couldn't via straightforward legislation.

In your case, for example, the tax break you received is the functional equivalent of a law requiring 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, with fines for all landowners who don't comply. Regardless of the Constitutionality of such a law, it would likely be seen as an overbearing, intrusive demand on landowners - and be rejected by voters. But repackaged as a 'tax incentive', we fall for it - even though the difference is entirely psychological.

 

[bripat9643]

To reduce taxes for the services attached by the people of the city to the title of the property.

The people created a means for negotiating exemptions for paying for said services through said taxation. I volunteered to pay my taxes by signing my title agreement. If I refused to sign the agreement I would not be able to purchase the land. The reason is the people have laws. We live by the rule of law in this country. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarianism is not against the rule of law.

You don't get it. Negotiating with the city over the terms of your property title is the same as negotiating with Guido the leg breaker over the terms of your business lease. Neither is a party to the transaction. Neither has anything at stake in the deal. Neither has any right to be a party to the transaction. They are involved only because they use the threat of force to insert themselves into the transaction.

The terms of any such contract are not voluntary. They are the result of compulsion.

Wrong.

The people of a region are most certainly party to transactions that are associated with that region.

You can't move to a region and demand those people throw their laws away to suit your desire to mooch on what the people of that region built.

You're obviously not a libertarian, so why do you claim to be one?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

To reduce taxes for the services attached by the people of the city to the title of the property.

The people created a means for negotiating exemptions for paying for said services through said taxation. I volunteered to pay my taxes by signing my title agreement. If I refused to sign the agreement I would not be able to purchase the land. The reason is the people have laws. We live by the rule of law in this country. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarianism is not against the rule of law.

You don't get it. Negotiating with the city over the terms of your property title is the same as negotiating with Guido the leg breaker over the terms of your business lease. Neither is a party to the transaction. Neither has anything at stake in the deal. Neither has any right to be a party to the transaction. They are involved only because they use the threat of force to insert themselves into the transaction.

The terms of any such contract are not voluntary. They are the result of compulsion.

Wrong.

The people of a region are most certainly party to transactions that are associated with that region.

You can't move to a region and demand those people throw their laws away to suit your desire to mooch on what the people of that region built.

What he's saying is he does not want their "services". To you, it's fine for a large grouyp (and certainly never all, thats a myth) say that everyone MUST pay into the services whether they want those services or not. The "laws" built on coercion are not voluntary, thats what we're saying here.

Following a law such as not acting out aggression towards another, is entirely different than forcing compliance of payment in a region. If it was voluntary, they would ASK you if you would like to pay for the services, and you would then VOLUNTEER to do so or not on your own accord and be left alone if you declined. It doesn't work that way, and THAT is the point of it being theft. They're NOT ASKING.


It's that simple.

 

[RKMBrown]

Right. You received a special exclusion and by which, to meet this exemption, you have special requirements to maintain. In other words, you're a subject and coworker of the state. This exemption can be removed for non-compliance to the demands. You can view this as voluntary, but it's compliance. The difference being that you can not avoid taxation without either a special arrangement, or without breaking the law. negotiating with the state is a matter of compliance, not volunteering.

I volunteered to move here. I volunteered to become a land owner. I volunteered to sign the contract. I voluntarily and willfully complied to sign the contract. I volunteered to comply with the rule of law. I would not have moved here if there was no rule of law for which people were required to comply to own property. I would not have moved here if there was no cooperative for police, fire, and rescue. I don't have the time nor the inclination to personally create my own police, fire, and rescue. No one held a gun to my head to move here or sign their agreement to pay their taxes for police, fire, and rescue.

I have no desire to live on or next to a lawless piece of property.

If it was voluntary, you would be able to buy the property without the injection of demands from the state. What you mean to say is you choose to comply. Compliance is not the same as volunteering.

Just as there are legal means for attaching properties to a jurisdiction there are also means for removing property from government jurisdiction.

Of course when you try to do that guido (Lincoln) might show up with an army...

 

[bripat9643]

To reduce taxes for the services attached by the people of the city to the title of the property.

The people created a means for negotiating exemptions for paying for said services through said taxation. I volunteered to pay my taxes by signing my title agreement. If I refused to sign the agreement I would not be able to purchase the land. The reason is the people have laws. We live by the rule of law in this country. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarianism is not against the rule of law.

You don't get it. Negotiating with the city over the terms of your property title is the same as negotiating with Guido the leg breaker over the terms of your business lease. Neither is a party to the transaction. Neither has anything at stake in the deal. Neither has any right to be a party to the transaction. They are involved only because they use the threat of force to insert themselves into the transaction.

The terms of any such contract are not voluntary. They are the result of compulsion.

Wrong.

The people of a region are most certainly party to transactions that are associated with that region.

No they aren't. If I move into a particular neighborhood, does the guy living next to the property I buy get to insert his own terms into the sales agreement? No, so why should the city have such authority?

You can't move to a region and demand those people throw their laws away to suit your desire to mooch on what the people of that region built.

The city is mooching off of me, not the other way around. IF the laws the people voted on are immoral, then I have every right to demand they be thrown away. We don't allow any city to impose segregation, do we?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I volunteered to move here. I volunteered to become a land owner. I volunteered to sign the contract. I voluntarily and willfully complied to sign the contract. I volunteered to comply with the rule of law. I would not have moved here if there was no rule of law for which people were required to comply to own property. I would not have moved here if there was no cooperative for police, fire, and rescue. I don't have the time nor the inclination to personally create my own police, fire, and rescue. No one held a gun to my head to move here or sign their agreement to pay their taxes for police, fire, and rescue.

I have no desire to live on or next to a lawless piece of property.

If it was voluntary, you would be able to buy the property without the injection of demands from the state. What you mean to say is you choose to comply. Compliance is not the same as volunteering.

Just as there are legal means for attaching properties to a jurisdiction there are also means for removing property from government jurisdiction.

Of course when you try to do that guido (Lincoln) might show up with an army...

No, Guido WILL show up with an army and point a gun in your face. That's what we're saying here. The ONLY way to remove your property from the grip of State taxation is through incentive based compliance. Hence, nothing involving it is voluntary.

 

[RKMBrown]

Millions of people negotiate the terms of taxation every single day. Hell some cities even pay people to move to their district and spend money, such as by starting up new businesses. The number of negotiated exemptions (terms) for taxation are nearly endless. Only fools pay the full tax requested. When I bought my land 75% of the tax was exempted through negotiation. How? I said I'd use 75% of the land for wildlife management.

This, in my view, highlights the most egregious abuse of the taxation power. Regardless of whether it should be considered 'theft', the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue to fund government. But our leaders have learned that they can use discriminatory taxation laws to coerce behavior in ways they couldn't via straightforward legislation.

In your case, for example, the tax break you received is the functional equivalent of a law requiring 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, with fines for all landowners who don't comply. Regardless of the Constitutionality of such a law, it would likely be seen as an overbearing, intrusive demand on landowners - and be rejected by voters. But repackaged as a 'tax incentive', we fall for it - even though the difference is entirely psychological.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is what is wrong with people agreeing it is a good idea to not cut down all the trees of a region by creating a law that requires 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, while still allowing people to cut them all down if they want to pay extra for the privilege of using 100% of their land any way they want?

 

[RKMBrown]

If it was voluntary, you would be able to buy the property without the injection of demands from the state. What you mean to say is you choose to comply. Compliance is not the same as volunteering.

Just as there are legal means for attaching properties to a jurisdiction there are also means for removing property from government jurisdiction.

Of course when you try to do that guido (Lincoln) might show up with an army...

No, Guido WILL show up with an army and point a gun in your face. That's what we're saying here. The ONLY way to remove your property from the grip of State taxation is through incentive based compliance. Hence, nothing involving it is voluntary.

Not in all states. Some states have unincorporated regions that are not attached to, for example, the nearest city's rules and regulations for taxation.

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't get it. Negotiating with the city over the terms of your property title is the same as negotiating with Guido the leg breaker over the terms of your business lease. Neither is a party to the transaction. Neither has anything at stake in the deal. Neither has any right to be a party to the transaction. They are involved only because they use the threat of force to insert themselves into the transaction.

The terms of any such contract are not voluntary. They are the result of compulsion.

Wrong.

The people of a region are most certainly party to transactions that are associated with that region.

No they aren't. If I move into a particular neighborhood, does the guy living next to the property I buy get to insert his own terms into the sales agreement? No, so why should the city have such authority?

You can't move to a region and demand those people throw their laws away to suit your desire to mooch on what the people of that region built.

The city is mooching off of me, not the other way around. IF the laws the people voted on are immoral, then I have every right to demand they be thrown away. We don't allow any city to impose segregation, do we?

Agreed. Now who is the arbiter? Who decides what is moral and what is not?

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't get it. Negotiating with the city over the terms of your property title is the same as negotiating with Guido the leg breaker over the terms of your business lease. Neither is a party to the transaction. Neither has anything at stake in the deal. Neither has any right to be a party to the transaction. They are involved only because they use the threat of force to insert themselves into the transaction.

The terms of any such contract are not voluntary. They are the result of compulsion.

Wrong.

The people of a region are most certainly party to transactions that are associated with that region.

You can't move to a region and demand those people throw their laws away to suit your desire to mooch on what the people of that region built.

What he's saying is he does not want their "services". To you, it's fine for a large grouyp (and certainly never all, thats a myth) say that everyone MUST pay into the services whether they want those services or not. The "laws" built on coercion are not voluntary, thats what we're saying here.

Following a law such as not acting out aggression towards another, is entirely different than forcing compliance of payment in a region. If it was voluntary, they would ASK you if you would like to pay for the services, and you would then VOLUNTEER to do so or not on your own accord and be left alone if you declined. It doesn't work that way, and THAT is the point of it being theft. They're NOT ASKING.


It's that simple.

In some sense I do agree with you. The rule of law is not optional.

The question is what laws are moral and what laws are immoral. Is it immoral to impose on people a requirement to pay for services they enjoy? You say it's not optional but you can go live in the desert. Most folks prefer to live in an area that has some security afforded by the police. How would you propose paying for an areas security without some form of payment? Are you saying we should force people to provide said security for free? If some folks buy security and you don't but you do benefit from their purchase, how are you not mooching?

 

[dblack]

Millions of people negotiate the terms of taxation every single day. Hell some cities even pay people to move to their district and spend money, such as by starting up new businesses. The number of negotiated exemptions (terms) for taxation are nearly endless. Only fools pay the full tax requested. When I bought my land 75% of the tax was exempted through negotiation. How? I said I'd use 75% of the land for wildlife management.

This, in my view, highlights the most egregious abuse of the taxation power. Regardless of whether it should be considered 'theft', the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue to fund government. But our leaders have learned that they can use discriminatory taxation laws to coerce behavior in ways they couldn't via straightforward legislation.

In your case, for example, the tax break you received is the functional equivalent of a law requiring 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, with fines for all landowners who don't comply. Regardless of the Constitutionality of such a law, it would likely be seen as an overbearing, intrusive demand on landowners - and be rejected by voters. But repackaged as a 'tax incentive', we fall for it - even though the difference is entirely psychological.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is what is wrong with people agreeing it is a good idea to not cut down all the trees of a region by creating a law that requires 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, while still allowing people to cut them all down if they want to pay extra for the privilege of using 100% of their land any way they want?

You're missing the point. I'm not debating the merits of this particular law. I'm saying that such a law would be much harder to pass if it went through the proper legislative process. Not only would it have to stand up to any Constitutional challenge, it would be much less popular with voters; even though the difference is, as I mentioned, purely psychological, people tend to balk at being told what to do.

Framing such mandates as tax incentives lets government radically expand it's ability to coerce the citizenry.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wrong.

The people of a region are most certainly party to transactions that are associated with that region.

You can't move to a region and demand those people throw their laws away to suit your desire to mooch on what the people of that region built.

What he's saying is he does not want their "services". To you, it's fine for a large grouyp (and certainly never all, thats a myth) say that everyone MUST pay into the services whether they want those services or not. The "laws" built on coercion are not voluntary, thats what we're saying here.

Following a law such as not acting out aggression towards another, is entirely different than forcing compliance of payment in a region. If it was voluntary, they would ASK you if you would like to pay for the services, and you would then VOLUNTEER to do so or not on your own accord and be left alone if you declined. It doesn't work that way, and THAT is the point of it being theft. They're NOT ASKING.


It's that simple.

In some sense I do agree with you. The rule of law is not optional.

The question is what laws are moral and what laws are immoral. Is it immoral to impose on people a requirement to pay for services they enjoy? You say it's not optional but you can go live in the desert. Most folks prefer to live in an area that has some security afforded by the police. How would you propose paying for an areas security without some form of payment? Are you saying we should force people to provide said security for free? If some folks buy security and you don't but you do benefit from their purchase, how are you not mooching?

And under the NAP, coercion is an act of aggression and in so it is immoral to force, or impose on someone for something they do not agree to voluntarily.

No, I'm not saying anyone should receive a "security force" for free. There could be a voluntary force, a private company that you pay to acquire their service or you can defend your property and person yourself. The difference being you aren't being forced to engage in a service you may NOT enjoy, rather than one you do. Such as the theory of volunatry taxation.

Basically, the private sector would handle things such as security, fire protection, etc.. (ni some areas, this actually happens and works well) and would be subject to competition. Where by if their service is lack luster, or is shown to be fraudulent, they are then brought to the arbiter (governments one and only true function) to rule accordingly and settle the dispute. This also drastically reduces the costs of such services due to competitive pricing or advanced and high quality service.

 

[RKMBrown]

This, in my view, highlights the most egregious abuse of the taxation power. Regardless of whether it should be considered 'theft', the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue to fund government. But our leaders have learned that they can use discriminatory taxation laws to coerce behavior in ways they couldn't via straightforward legislation.

In your case, for example, the tax break you received is the functional equivalent of a law requiring 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, with fines for all landowners who don't comply. Regardless of the Constitutionality of such a law, it would likely be seen as an overbearing, intrusive demand on landowners - and be rejected by voters. But repackaged as a 'tax incentive', we fall for it - even though the difference is entirely psychological.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is what is wrong with people agreeing it is a good idea to not cut down all the trees of a region by creating a law that requires 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, while still allowing people to cut them all down if they want to pay extra for the privilege of using 100% of their land any way they want?

You're missing the point. I'm not debating the merits of this particular law. I'm saying that such a law would be much harder to pass if it went through the proper legislative process. Not only would it have to stand up to any Constitutional challenge, it would be much less popular with voters; even though the difference is, as I mentioned, purely psychological, people tend to balk at being told what to do.

Framing such mandates as tax incentives lets government radically expand it's ability to coerce the citizenry.

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

 

[dblack]

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is what is wrong with people agreeing it is a good idea to not cut down all the trees of a region by creating a law that requires 75% of all land be set aside for wildlife management, while still allowing people to cut them all down if they want to pay extra for the privilege of using 100% of their land any way they want?

You're missing the point. I'm not debating the merits of this particular law. I'm saying that such a law would be much harder to pass if it went through the proper legislative process. Not only would it have to stand up to any Constitutional challenge, it would be much less popular with voters; even though the difference is, as I mentioned, purely psychological, people tend to balk at being told what to do.

Framing such mandates as tax incentives lets government radically expand it's ability to coerce the citizenry.

You say that like you believe civilization is a bad thing.

I'm not sure what you mean. That's certainly not what I meant to express.

 

[RKMBrown]

What he's saying is he does not want their "services". To you, it's fine for a large grouyp (and certainly never all, thats a myth) say that everyone MUST pay into the services whether they want those services or not. The "laws" built on coercion are not voluntary, thats what we're saying here.

Following a law such as not acting out aggression towards another, is entirely different than forcing compliance of payment in a region. If it was voluntary, they would ASK you if you would like to pay for the services, and you would then VOLUNTEER to do so or not on your own accord and be left alone if you declined. It doesn't work that way, and THAT is the point of it being theft. They're NOT ASKING.


It's that simple.

In some sense I do agree with you. The rule of law is not optional.

The question is what laws are moral and what laws are immoral. Is it immoral to impose on people a requirement to pay for services they enjoy? You say it's not optional but you can go live in the desert. Most folks prefer to live in an area that has some security afforded by the police. How would you propose paying for an areas security without some form of payment? Are you saying we should force people to provide said security for free? If some folks buy security and you don't but you do benefit from their purchase, how are you not mooching?

And under the NAP, coercion is an act of aggression and in so it is immoral to force, or impose on someone for something they do not agree to voluntarily.

No, I'm not saying anyone should receive a "security force" for free. There could be a voluntary force, a private company that you pay to acquire their service or you can defend your property and person yourself. The difference being you aren't being forced to engage in a service you may NOT enjoy, rather than one you do. Such as the theory of volunatry taxation.

Basically, the private sector would handle things such as security, fire protection, etc.. (ni some areas, this actually happens and works well) and would be subject to competition. Where by if their service is lack luster, or is shown to be fraudulent, they are then brought to the arbiter (governments one and only true function) to rule accordingly and settle the dispute. This also drastically reduces the costs of such services due to competitive pricing or advanced and high quality service.

You want every single person in this country to be forced to have to purchase individualy their own security, fire protection etc? What about new born babies, the injured etc? Do they have to go to work too? And if they can't afford protection we just ignore their calls for help? No civilization at all? 350million islands living on their own?

I'm all for it. Too bad for everyone else who can't pull their own weight.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In some sense I do agree with you. The rule of law is not optional.

The question is what laws are moral and what laws are immoral. Is it immoral to impose on people a requirement to pay for services they enjoy? You say it's not optional but you can go live in the desert. Most folks prefer to live in an area that has some security afforded by the police. How would you propose paying for an areas security without some form of payment? Are you saying we should force people to provide said security for free? If some folks buy security and you don't but you do benefit from their purchase, how are you not mooching?

And under the NAP, coercion is an act of aggression and in so it is immoral to force, or impose on someone for something they do not agree to voluntarily.

No, I'm not saying anyone should receive a "security force" for free. There could be a voluntary force, a private company that you pay to acquire their service or you can defend your property and person yourself. The difference being you aren't being forced to engage in a service you may NOT enjoy, rather than one you do. Such as the theory of volunatry taxation.

Basically, the private sector would handle things such as security, fire protection, etc.. (ni some areas, this actually happens and works well) and would be subject to competition. Where by if their service is lack luster, or is shown to be fraudulent, they are then brought to the arbiter (governments one and only true function) to rule accordingly and settle the dispute. This also drastically reduces the costs of such services due to competitive pricing or advanced and high quality service.

You want every single person in this country to be forced to have to purchase individualy their own security, fire protection etc? What about new born babies, the injured etc? Do they have to go to work too? And if they can't afford protection we just ignore their calls for help? No civilization at all? 350million islands living on their own?

Holy shit, dude. No, the idea is no one if forced to comply. if they dont want fire protection, then dont pay for a service. This may not make you eligible for insurance and if your house burns down and you can not stop the blaze and no help shows up except to protect your neighbors who have a paid service, that's your problem. You lose your house.

You could have a community or state run service like there are now that you can opt into if you like, or the service could be provided through the community where you volunteer your time and donations to help run that service or any number of combinations. As long as it is not imposed on someone. In a free society, imposing such things on people is contradictory.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As for charity in your scenario, if someone calls for help who does not pay a service provider, the service (or several) can either kindly help them out as an act of good faith in a community, or could stipulate a payment for services rendered. The options are endless and on first hand accounts, people will help one another in times of need. It's when compulsion forces others to pay for a service that everyone stands around and waits for the service to take care of it.

Another reason compulsory programming is immoral and makes man lazy.

 

[RKMBrown]

And under the NAP, coercion is an act of aggression and in so it is immoral to force, or impose on someone for something they do not agree to voluntarily.

No, I'm not saying anyone should receive a "security force" for free. There could be a voluntary force, a private company that you pay to acquire their service or you can defend your property and person yourself. The difference being you aren't being forced to engage in a service you may NOT enjoy, rather than one you do. Such as the theory of volunatry taxation.

Basically, the private sector would handle things such as security, fire protection, etc.. (ni some areas, this actually happens and works well) and would be subject to competition. Where by if their service is lack luster, or is shown to be fraudulent, they are then brought to the arbiter (governments one and only true function) to rule accordingly and settle the dispute. This also drastically reduces the costs of such services due to competitive pricing or advanced and high quality service.

You want every single person in this country to be forced to have to purchase individualy their own security, fire protection etc? What about new born babies, the injured etc? Do they have to go to work too? And if they can't afford protection we just ignore their calls for help? No civilization at all? 350million islands living on their own?

Holy shit, dude. No, the idea is no one if forced to comply. if they dont want fire protection, then dont pay for a service. This may not make you eligible for insurance and if your house burns down and you can not stop the blaze and no help shows up except to protect your neighbors who have a paid service, that's your problem. You lose your house.

You could have a community or state run service like there are now that you can opt into if you like, or the service could be provided through the community where you volunteer your time and donations to help run that service or any number of combinations. As long as it is not imposed on someone. In a free society, imposing such things on people is contradictory.

So no public facilities no public areas at all? All lands are to be made fully private? No city owned lands? The people who refuse to pay for the fees for the city lands must pay a toll each time they cross the city limits? People will have to pay a toll every time they leave their property to cross on to another person's property or city property?

Micro payments for every single agreed to use of "air, water, food etc." that did not originate on your own land?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What? You're hopping around again like your ass is on fire. Are we moving on now to discuss what would happen if the city or state or in the biggest case of them all, the federal government, didn't "own" any land?

 

[RKMBrown]

What? You're hopping around again like your ass is on fire. Are we moving on now to discuss what would happen if the city or state or in the biggest case of them all, the federal government, didn't "own" any land?

You said no public anything, everything goes private, and everything is optional. Thus everything requires individual agreement for payment because nothing is free or presumed to be "included" except what happens on your own land. You want to make a phone call? You have to pay for the use of my air you are borrowing to transmit your radio waves across my land.