Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[bripat9643]

If no third parties imposes their own terms on the transaction, then it's voluntary. There is no third party involved in the transaction I described. The city is a third party when it comes to paying property taxes.

ROFL...
What is the difference between:
1) a fee from a first party that is required property tax to pay for police in which the third party is the city funding the 2nd party which is the police and
2) a fee from a first party that is required homeowner's fee to pay for private police in which the third party is the property owner/property owner's association funding the 2nd party which is the private police

Both are voluntary only at the point of purchase. Both involve at least three parties. Both are required to have the service. Both are required for the sale.

There is no "point of purchase" in the case of property taxes. Furthermore, the city often changes the terms of the deal after the fact. Property taxes are often increased, and anyone who didn't vote for the increase didn't agree to it.

There's no way to get to the proposition that property taxes are voluntary via logic.

Furthermore, association fees are commonly used to pay for maintenance of the common areas and sometimes for security. They don't pay for fire or police protection. However, I suppose they could if people weren't already forced to pay for these things via taxation.

What you are arguing is that there is no difference between driving into a car wash and getting your windshield cleaned and driving into the ghetto and some kid wiping a dirty rag across your windshield when you stop at an intersection and then demanding that you pay him. You're arguing that in both cases it's payment for services rendered, so there is "no difference."

 

[RKMBrown]

Is that what RKM was suggesting? I see it just the opposite. The entire point of civilization (and government) is to minimize coercion.

Bingo.

As with anything.. no two humans are going to agree on everything. So we need some rules some framework. I like the Constitution as it was originally intended. No surprise that many disagree.

Hmm. OK. I'm still not sure you ever 'got' my point.

By minimize coercion I assume you are discussing things like civil rights, freedom, such as those defined in the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes common property and services funded for by the property owners of the housing development. Just like the common property and services funded for by the property owners of a city.

Nope. the difference is that the developer had to buy all the property before setting aside part of it as common property. All transactions in this arrangement are entirely voluntary.

You think you don't have to pay for the common areas and services of a housing development? You think you can live under a homeowner's association without paying? You think a home owner's association is not a government? The only difference is scale.

Yes, you do have to pay for that, but the terms of the deal are entirely between you and the developer. There are no uninvited third parties imposing their own terms. The developer owned everything you are being asked to pay for before the contract was drawn up. The city never owned any of the property it imposes taxes on. The difference is between voluntary and coercion.

As many pages that go by explaining this, we're still stuck in the hampster wheel. I don't think the poster here has any interest in understanding it.

Yes, I know he doesn't. He wants to think of himself as a libertarian even though he endorses government coercion. I've seen the symptoms many times, but it's useful for explaining to lurkers what the principle really means

 

[g5000]

The billions upon billions in annual sales of homeopathic drugs, magnetic shoe soles, ionic bracelets, acupuncture, reiki, psychic readings, and countless other con jobs disproves the naive Libertarian belief that people behave rationally and will stop using the products of bad actors.

The massive dumping of toxic wastes by corporations disproves the idea that companies will protect the common health and safety out of fear of not being liked or sued.

"The cost of replacing this bad part in millions of our cars will cost more than we would lose in a lawsuit. Therefore, we will not fix it, and let some of our customers die."

Quite frankly, the complete lack of understanding of human nature and ignorance of corporate misdeeds throughout history on the part of Libertarians is breathtaking.

 

[RKMBrown]

If no third parties imposes their own terms on the transaction, then it's voluntary. There is no third party involved in the transaction I described. The city is a third party when it comes to paying property taxes.

ROFL...
What is the difference between:
1) a fee from a first party that is required property tax to pay for police in which the third party is the city funding the 2nd party which is the police and
2) a fee from a first party that is required homeowner's fee to pay for private police in which the third party is the property owner/property owner's association funding the 2nd party which is the private police

Both are voluntary only at the point of purchase. Both involve at least three parties. Both are required to have the service. Both are required for the sale.

There is no "point of purchase" in the case of property taxes. Furthermore, the city often changes the terms of the deal after the fact. Property taxes are often increased, and anyone who didn't vote for the increase didn't agree to it.

There's no way to get to the proposition that property taxes are voluntary via logic.

Furthermore, association fees are commonly used to pay for maintenance of the common areas and sometimes for security. They don't pay for fire or police protection. However, I suppose they could if people weren't already forced to pay for these things via taxation.

What you are arguing is that there is no difference between driving into a car wash and getting your windshield cleaned and driving into the ghetto and some kid wiping a dirty rag across your windshield when you stop at an intersection and then demanding that you pay him. You're arguing that in both cases it's payment for services rendered, so there is "no difference."

The point of purchase of property is the same for land managed by a city and land manged by a sub-divided piece of property of an association of homeowners. The title is managed by government and the association. I'm gonna guess you are a renter and / or owner of a home that is not in an association. I'm in an association. The association is just one more layer. Yes, just as with any person and/or corporation some taxes and / or services like police and fire can be negotiated with the city, county, state, and federal officials.

In your ghetto vs car wash scenario the difference between the two is consent and harm. Your argument appears to be that when the group or association of people carry the title of "government" that somehow that group operates without consent to do harm to you. But if another group that does not have the title "government" that group must somehow have only altruistic motives and only operates with your full consent.

In engineering we like to call this sort of thinking "title" envy. The title does not make the man or group. Their actions do.

 

[dblack]

Bingo.

As with anything.. no two humans are going to agree on everything. So we need some rules some framework. I like the Constitution as it was originally intended. No surprise that many disagree.

Hmm. OK. I'm still not sure you ever 'got' my point.

By minimize coercion I assume you are discussing things like civil rights, freedom, such as those defined in the Constitution.

I'm talking about my earlier point regarding the practice of legislating via the tax code.

 

[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?

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.

No, what i said is nothing is imposed. If people want to band together and create a "public" space, there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't force Tom, who lives several miles away and knows nothing of this new "public" space, to pay for it because he's in the area. They can ask Tom, and he can agree or decline and then either be left alone or meet his agreed upon obligation to the "public" space (Whatever that may be).



Keep your "air" off my property then. Good grief you're reaching and coming up empty handed here.
You obviously no absolutely nothing about libertarian ideas. I suggest going back, reading Mises, Rothbard, etc...

 

[bripat9643]

The billions upon billions in annual sales of homeopathic drugs, magnetic shoe soles, ionic bracelets, acupuncture, reiki, psychic readings, and countless other con jobs disproves the naive Libertarian belief that people behave rationally and will stop using the products of bad actors.

That isn't a libertarian belief, so there's nothing to "disprove."

The massive dumping of toxic wastes by corporations disproves the idea that companies will protect the common health and safety out of fear of not being liked or sued.

Once again, you misstate what libertarians believe. toxic waste dumping occurs only on publicly owned property, such as rivers. If this property were divided up and sole, the problem would be solved. People don't dump toxic waste on their own property.

"The cost of replacing this bad part in millions of our cars will cost more than we would lose in a lawsuit. Therefore, we will not fix it, and let some of our customers die."

That goes on to this day, so how has government solved it? It's also based on the fallacious theory that parts are either "bad" or "good." In reality there is always a trade-off between safety, durability and cost. cars would each cost $1 million if we allowed so-called consumer advocates to design them.

Quite frankly, the complete lack of understanding of human nature and ignorance of corporate misdeeds throughout history on the part of Libertarians is breathtaking.

Your complete lack of understanding of libertarianism is what is breathtaking.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope. the difference is that the developer had to buy all the property before setting aside part of it as common property. All transactions in this arrangement are entirely voluntary.



Yes, you do have to pay for that, but the terms of the deal are entirely between you and the developer. There are no uninvited third parties imposing their own terms. The developer owned everything you are being asked to pay for before the contract was drawn up. The city never owned any of the property it imposes taxes on. The difference is between voluntary and coercion.

As many pages that go by explaining this, we're still stuck in the hampster wheel. I don't think the poster here has any interest in understanding it.

Yes, I know he doesn't. He wants to think of himself as a libertarian even though he endorses government coercion. I've seen the symptoms many times, but it's useful for explaining to lurkers what the principle really means

I don't think you own the definition of what it means to be a libertarian. I'm more of a constitutional conservative aka a libertarian in the mold of the formers of this country. I care not for your anarchistic desire to abolish all forms of government local, state, and federal.

 

[Oddball]

The billions upon billions in annual sales of homeopathic drugs, magnetic shoe soles, ionic bracelets, acupuncture, reiki, psychic readings, and countless other con jobs disproves the naive Libertarian belief that people behave rationally and will stop using the products of bad actors.

The massive dumping of toxic wastes by corporations disproves the idea that companies will protect the common health and safety out of fear of not being liked or sued.

"The cost of replacing this bad part in millions of our cars will cost more than we would lose in a lawsuit. Therefore, we will not fix it, and let some of our customers die."

Quite frankly, the complete lack of understanding of human nature and ignorance of corporate misdeeds throughout history on the part of Libertarians is breathtaking.

Corporate misdeeds pale in comparison to those of gubmint tyrants.

Who lacks understanding of human nature is the fool who thinks that just because someone can manage to get elected or appointed to a political/bureaucratic position, then the laws of human nature don't necessarily apply to them.

Do yourself a big favor...Read and comprehend this: Why the Worst Get on Top - F.A. Hayek - Chapter 10 of "The Road to Serfdom"

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL...
What is the difference between:
1) a fee from a first party that is required property tax to pay for police in which the third party is the city funding the 2nd party which is the police and
2) a fee from a first party that is required homeowner's fee to pay for private police in which the third party is the property owner/property owner's association funding the 2nd party which is the private police

Both are voluntary only at the point of purchase. Both involve at least three parties. Both are required to have the service. Both are required for the sale.

There is no "point of purchase" in the case of property taxes. Furthermore, the city often changes the terms of the deal after the fact. Property taxes are often increased, and anyone who didn't vote for the increase didn't agree to it.

There's no way to get to the proposition that property taxes are voluntary via logic.

Furthermore, association fees are commonly used to pay for maintenance of the common areas and sometimes for security. They don't pay for fire or police protection. However, I suppose they could if people weren't already forced to pay for these things via taxation.

What you are arguing is that there is no difference between driving into a car wash and getting your windshield cleaned and driving into the ghetto and some kid wiping a dirty rag across your windshield when you stop at an intersection and then demanding that you pay him. You're arguing that in both cases it's payment for services rendered, so there is "no difference."

The point of purchase of property is the same for land managed by a city and land manged by a sub-divided piece of property of an association of homeowners. The title is managed by government and the association. I'm gonna guess you are a renter and / or owner of a home that is not in an association. I'm in an association. The association is just one more layer. Yes, just as with any person and/or corporation some taxes and / or services like police and fire can be negotiated with the city, county, state, and federal officials.

There is no "point of purchase" in the case of the city because they never owned the property. The means for establishing title is irrelevant to this discussion. You only "negotiate" with the city in the same sense you negotiate with a mugger. You are given the choice of accepting the muggers terms or taking a bullet in the chest.

In your ghetto vs car wash scenario the difference between the two is consent and harm. Your argument appears to be that when the group or association of people carry the title of "government" that somehow that group operates without consent to do harm to you. But if another group that does not have the title "government" that group must somehow have only altruistic motives and only operates with your full consent.

In engineering we like to call this sort of thinking "title" envy. The title does not make the man or group. Their actions do.

The government does not have my consent. That's exactly the point of this entire discussion. You have failed to prove the government has my consent. End of story.

Any other group that attempted the same thing as government would be arrested for assault, extortion or whatever.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The billions upon billions in annual sales of homeopathic drugs, magnetic shoe soles, ionic bracelets, acupuncture, reiki, psychic readings, and countless other con jobs disproves the naive Libertarian belief that people behave rationally and will stop using the products of bad actors.

That is not a libertarian belief that I'm aware of.

Economics, as a branch of the more general theory of human action, deals with all human action, i.e., with mans purposive aiming at the attainment of ends chosen, whatever these ends may be.~ Ludwig von Mises

No one said human action was rational. In fact, often times it is completely irrational. I suppose to you though, there are humans out there, omniscient humans, that should dictate to others what is rational and what is not and have them follow along or be jailed or shot.

 

[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.

No, what i said is nothing is imposed. If people want to band together and create a "public" space, there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't force Tom, who lives several miles away and knows nothing of this new "public" space, to pay for it because he's in the area. They can ask Tom, and he can agree or decline and then either be left alone or meet his agreed upon obligation to the "public" space (Whatever that may be).



Keep your "air" off my property then. Good grief you're reaching and coming up empty handed here.
You obviously no absolutely nothing about libertarian ideas. I suggest going back, reading Mises, Rothbard, etc...

There is no one small public space that a person can choose to ignore. Public spaces/facilities/utilities are many and ubiquitous. As I said you'll be making micro payments for partial use of way too much stuff to be able to say yeah I don't water plant but I want the water it supplies my house. I don't want to fund lands for electric or cable but I want to use electric and cable? The complexity of allowing folks the opportunity to opt in or out of all of the necessary elements of this civilization is immense. While I agree you should have the opportunity to live pretty much off the grid as I do, I don't agree you should be able to benefit from public funded services for free.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The billions upon billions in annual sales of homeopathic drugs, magnetic shoe soles, ionic bracelets, acupuncture, reiki, psychic readings, and countless other con jobs disproves the naive Libertarian belief that people behave rationally and will stop using the products of bad actors.

The massive dumping of toxic wastes by corporations disproves the idea that companies will protect the common health and safety out of fear of not being liked or sued.

"The cost of replacing this bad part in millions of our cars will cost more than we would lose in a lawsuit. Therefore, we will not fix it, and let some of our customers die."

Quite frankly, the complete lack of understanding of human nature and ignorance of corporate misdeeds throughout history on the part of Libertarians is breathtaking.

The irony is absolutely delicious.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

No, what i said is nothing is imposed. If people want to band together and create a "public" space, there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't force Tom, who lives several miles away and knows nothing of this new "public" space, to pay for it because he's in the area. They can ask Tom, and he can agree or decline and then either be left alone or meet his agreed upon obligation to the "public" space (Whatever that may be).



Keep your "air" off my property then. Good grief you're reaching and coming up empty handed here.
You obviously no absolutely nothing about libertarian ideas. I suggest going back, reading Mises, Rothbard, etc...

There is no one small public space that a person can choose to ignore. Public spaces/facilities/utilities are many and ubiquitous. As I said you'll be making micro payments for partial use of way too much stuff to be able to say yeah I don't water plant but I want the water it supplies my house. I don't want to fund lands for electric or cable but I want to use electric and cable? The complexity of allowing folks the opportunity to opt in or out of all of the necessary elements of this civilization is immense. While I agree you should have the opportunity to live pretty much off the grid as I do, I don't agree you should be able to benefit from public funded services for free.

OK, well. You're not able to grasp what Im laying down for you so at this point we'll just go ahead and agree to disagree. I've lost patience with the ass on fire dance.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no "point of purchase" in the case of property taxes. Furthermore, the city often changes the terms of the deal after the fact. Property taxes are often increased, and anyone who didn't vote for the increase didn't agree to it.

There's no way to get to the proposition that property taxes are voluntary via logic.

Furthermore, association fees are commonly used to pay for maintenance of the common areas and sometimes for security. They don't pay for fire or police protection. However, I suppose they could if people weren't already forced to pay for these things via taxation.

What you are arguing is that there is no difference between driving into a car wash and getting your windshield cleaned and driving into the ghetto and some kid wiping a dirty rag across your windshield when you stop at an intersection and then demanding that you pay him. You're arguing that in both cases it's payment for services rendered, so there is "no difference."

The point of purchase of property is the same for land managed by a city and land manged by a sub-divided piece of property of an association of homeowners. The title is managed by government and the association. I'm gonna guess you are a renter and / or owner of a home that is not in an association. I'm in an association. The association is just one more layer. Yes, just as with any person and/or corporation some taxes and / or services like police and fire can be negotiated with the city, county, state, and federal officials.

There is no "point of purchase" in the case of the city because they never owned the property. The means for establishing title is irrelevant to this discussion. You only "negotiate" with the city in the same sense you negotiate with a mugger. You are given the choice of accepting the muggers terms or taking a bullet in the chest.

In your ghetto vs car wash scenario the difference between the two is consent and harm. Your argument appears to be that when the group or association of people carry the title of "government" that somehow that group operates without consent to do harm to you. But if another group that does not have the title "government" that group must somehow have only altruistic motives and only operates with your full consent.

In engineering we like to call this sort of thinking "title" envy. The title does not make the man or group. Their actions do.

The government does not have my consent. That's exactly the point of this entire discussion. You have failed to prove the government has my consent. End of story.

Any other group that attempted the same thing as government would be arrested for assault, extortion or whatever.

>>> The government does not have my consent. That's exactly the point of this entire discussion. You have failed to prove the government has my consent. End of story.

I never said any government has your consent to do anything. You are making that up. I never intended to prove that some government has your consent. Quite the opposite. This federal government does not have my consent to take my income as federal income tax. They do so against my will only through coercion.

>>> Any other group that attempted the same thing as government would be arrested for assault, extortion or whatever.

Ayup, that sucks. Call me when the revolution starts, I'm all in.

You are mistaking my argument for a need of basic civil services as a means for efficiently providing said services for my authorization to let the federal government take that job away from my home owner's association, city, county, and state.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, what i said is nothing is imposed. If people want to band together and create a "public" space, there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't force Tom, who lives several miles away and knows nothing of this new "public" space, to pay for it because he's in the area. They can ask Tom, and he can agree or decline and then either be left alone or meet his agreed upon obligation to the "public" space (Whatever that may be).



Keep your "air" off my property then. Good grief you're reaching and coming up empty handed here.
You obviously no absolutely nothing about libertarian ideas. I suggest going back, reading Mises, Rothbard, etc...

There is no one small public space that a person can choose to ignore. Public spaces/facilities/utilities are many and ubiquitous. As I said you'll be making micro payments for partial use of way too much stuff to be able to say yeah I don't water plant but I want the water it supplies my house. I don't want to fund lands for electric or cable but I want to use electric and cable? The complexity of allowing folks the opportunity to opt in or out of all of the necessary elements of this civilization is immense. While I agree you should have the opportunity to live pretty much off the grid as I do, I don't agree you should be able to benefit from public funded services for free.

OK, well. You're not able to grasp what Im laying down for you so at this point we'll just go ahead and agree to disagree. I've lost patience with the ass on fire dance.

I understand with full and clear distinction everything you have said. I'm not convinced that is mutual. Most of what you have said are broad scoping statements that apply to much of our current circumstance for most people in the USA. Recognize that I live in the boonies in an UN-incorporated area in TX. Much of what you are railing against does not exist here except in the form of federal abuse. I've seen both voluntary taxation and UN-voluntary taxation in practice, I think I understand the difference.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no one small public space that a person can choose to ignore. Public spaces/facilities/utilities are many and ubiquitous. As I said you'll be making micro payments for partial use of way too much stuff to be able to say yeah I don't water plant but I want the water it supplies my house. I don't want to fund lands for electric or cable but I want to use electric and cable? The complexity of allowing folks the opportunity to opt in or out of all of the necessary elements of this civilization is immense. While I agree you should have the opportunity to live pretty much off the grid as I do, I don't agree you should be able to benefit from public funded services for free.

OK, well. You're not able to grasp what Im laying down for you so at this point we'll just go ahead and agree to disagree. I've lost patience with the ass on fire dance.

I understand with full and clear distinction everything you have said. I'm not convinced that is mutual. Most of what you have said are broad scoping statements that apply to much of our current circumstance for most people in the USA. Recognize that I live in the boonies in an UN-incorporated area in TX. Much of what you are railing against does not exist here except in the form of federal abuse. I've seen both voluntary taxation and UN-voluntary taxation in practice, I think I understand the difference.

this is the part where I ask you for an example of voluntary taxation and we go round and over over the difference between compliance and voluntary. Then we end up right back where we started.

So, go ahead and provide an example of voluntary taxation for the class, if you would.

 

[RKMBrown]

I agreed to pay "my" property tax on 25% of my land and 100% of the value of my house. I carefully selected this location among many others. I moved here of my own volition. I signed the agreement to pay the tax on my property only after observing what I was buying with the contract and of my own free volition deciding that the contract and payments were fair. I was not coerced into signing the agreement even though I knew I did not have to sign it. I could have rented or bought somewhere else, but I freely volunteered to this location and this set of laws and this tax. Further, in my opinion the taxes are fair and equitable for the services rendered.

Additionally "my" state and local sales taxes are also voluntarily paid for by myself. I fully understand and participate in the negotiations for said rate and I volunteer that I agree that the rate is fair and equitable for what I receive.

I bought a lottery ticket a few years back. I fully understand that the lottery ticket carried with it a large percentage of revenue for the state government. I voluntarily bought the lottery ticket. I understand that I do not have to buy a lottery ticket. The purchase of the lottery ticket is only for a chance that I might win money and also to volunteer to pay additional taxes. I agree that the money I volunteered for the lottery tax was spent in a fair and equitable fashion. I understand that it is also my right to gamble in other ways that have a higher chance for earning money.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I agreed to pay "my" property tax on 25% of my land and 100% of the value of my house. I carefully selected this location among many others. I moved here of my own volition. I signed the agreement to pay the tax on my property only after observing what I was buying with the contract and of my own free volition deciding that the contract and payments were fair. I was not coerced into signing the agreement even though I knew I did not have to sign it. I could have rented or bought somewhere else, but I freely volunteered to this location and this set of laws and this tax. Further, in my opinion the taxes are fair and equitable for the services rendered.

Additionally "my" state and local sales taxes are also voluntarily paid for by myself. I fully understand and participate in the negotiations for said rate and I volunteer that I agree that the rate is fair and equitable for what I receive.

I bought a lottery ticket a few years back. I fully understand that the lottery ticket carried with it a large percentage of revenue for the state government. I voluntarily bought the lottery ticket. I understand that I do not have to buy a lottery ticket. The purchase of the lottery ticket is only for a chance that I might win money and also to volunteer to pay additional taxes. I agree that the money I volunteered for the lottery tax was spent in a fair and equitable fashion. I understand that it is also my right to gamble in other ways that have a higher chance for earning money.

You're still mistaking the difference between compliance and voluntary. As for your real estate purchase, you agreed to purchase the property based on your desires. That part is voluntary. The part that is not, is paying the taxes. Just because YOU believe it is a "fair" deal, doesn't mean that everyone else does. The terms of paying the taxation are not negotiable. You MUST pay them or the suffer consequences imposed by the state. That part is compliance. If the TAX was voluintary, everyone would choose whether or not to pay and suffer no consequences in either direction for their decision. But you and I both know it does not work that way. So you're making an invalid point with the real estate example. Yes, you voluntarily bought the property, you do not voluntarily pay the tax.

Your local tqaxes are not voluntary just because you agree with the terms. You can not decide later that the terms are unacceptable and terminate the agreement. paying the taxes are a matter of compliance.

Same goes for the lottery ticket. The purchase is voluntary, the taxation is not. It's compliance.


Ok, I'm done now. This circle is well worn out.