Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. At some point the county sheriff will come and kick you out of your house. He'll have a gun.

Ever heard of a tax auction? The properties the county is auctioning off formerly belonged to people who didn't pay their property taxes.

Also, even if they sell your property after you die, that means they took it from your heirs by force.

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, the government owns all the property adn allows you to rent (serf) some of it as long as you follow their rules and pay their taxes. In other words, Guido owns all the land and you can either pay him to rent some, leave the area immediately or Guido will break your legs or worse.

Government is nothing more than an extortion racket.

Property is a natural right. It's not arbitrary in ethics. If you build a house and till a plot of land that was vacant, it now belongs to you. You own yourself, and therefore your labor. What you're suggesting is absolutely no different than what happened in times of kings. They owned the land and allowed the peasants to serf it as long as they paid the taxes and gave up whatever other demand was instilled. At the threat of brute force. I suppose you believe government has the divine right to rule?

It was a reading comprehension test, and you failed.

Rights, such as property rights are not the same as property. He is correct that government manages and arbitrates contracts, such as by granting property rights. The idea is that in order to make purchases lawful some form of arbiter needs to preside over the sales and management of the land for all of the interested parties. Otherwise there would be conflicts as different people claimed the right of ownership for particular properties.

How would you do it differently?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Talk about comprehension failures. I've already dismissed you, Cork.

 

[RKMBrown]

Talk about comprehension failures. I've already dismissed you, Cork.

XXXOOO No means yes, no? You're sexy when you're mad.

 

[FA_Q2]

After all this I still am left with the same questions as well.

No one ever spoke to how it is possible to fund things like a modern military, police, fire and the hundreds of other things that the government across all levels takes care of with a ‘voluntary’ system. Again, a question I asked a many posts ago, how do you take a voluntary use charge for those services? It is not like I am going to ‘use’ police, fire or military (the last one is the most stark and federal).

I also submit that a use charge like taxing gas transactions for roads is just as voluntary as property taxes for purchasing a piece of property. BOTH are forced charges for the purchase of an item and both are aggressive in that manner.

Personally, I don’t see ANY way for government to obtain any funds that are not forcible purchases. That is simply how the government operates. IF fees are applied to international goods, the government is FORCING you to pay a charge that you are not consenting to if they purchase that product. The same applies to any charge.

TASB, if you have not already walked away in frustraition I would like some more insight on this. As you have explained property taxes as forced, I don’t see how that explanation cannot be applied to ANY use charge from the government.

AS I've said, it's arguable about whether user taxes on goods is not compulsory. I don't necessarily hold that to be true, but some good arguments have been put forth to me for it to actually be arguable (vs. running in a 6 page circle).

All right. I guess I’ll leave this here then.

As for police, fire and military, you can most certainly use those. For instance, I explained earlier regarding fire, if you have no contract with a private fire brigade, they could issue that out on services rendered. They show up, and you sign for their service. It could be done as an act of faith in the community to show and give their service free to show it is rather essential to get folks onboard, etc...

The core problem with that is the fact that there will be a ton of freeloaders if the service is free on good faith and therefore not funded enough to cover expenses and there will be so few that buy into it that the service itself would become ineffective. That is not to mention that the ineffective system would encourage even more people to not pay for it.

People, in general, are VERY poor planners for things that are unlikely to happen. Just sorting out whether or not that particular house paid fire or that victim paid police would make the system largely inefficient. I don’t think that such services have any alternative to being universal. They are simply not needed until they are and at that point, they are needed right now. I don’t see that method of payment for these services (or any emergency services for that matter) as being workable at all.

Same with police or security. To me, these items are better left to a private contractor in order to foster the most competition. Which will raise service levels and cost less ultimately.

Again, I would disagree for the same reasons above. It sounds good in practice but a hundred police offices for a thousand people is simply not going to work at all. That is also not to mention the broad powers that police have so they are intimately connected with the government anyway.

The military should be, or could be funded through a war bonds program when needed. Frankly, it's only due to out LONG running standing armies that all warfare is so sophisticated in the first place. We'd have been much better off not creating a war society. Now that it is here, there is no turning back. So we'll have to ride it out and taxation will be needed to maintain it.

While I agree that we would be better off not being a war society there is the point that you brought up that there is no going back. I think it is also important to add that such a reality is not entirely dependent on what we want either. If our enemy is creating one, then we must respond in kind or face elimination. In that, no matter what ‘society’ we establish the war aspect of it is a guarantee as another is likely to force that on us.

As to the last statement though, you are admitting that taxes are a necessity! I would not have thought that as you were pretty hard against that. If you are saying what I think you are, what kind of taxation would you accept and would you lock it into just defense spending?

 

[Oddball]

The core problem with that is the fact that there will be a ton of freeloaders if the service is free on good faith and therefore not funded enough to cover expenses and there will be so few that buy into it that the service itself would become ineffective. That is not to mention that the ineffective system would encourage even more people to not pay for it.

People, in general, are VERY poor planners for things that are unlikely to happen. Just sorting out whether or not that particular house paid fire or that victim paid police would make the system largely inefficient. I don’t think that such services have any alternative to being universal. They are simply not needed until they are and at that point, they are needed right now. I don’t see that method of payment for these services (or any emergency services for that matter) as being workable at all.

Were that true, the thousands of volunteer fire departments across the nation couldn't exist....But they do.

Again, I would disagree for the same reasons above. It sounds good in practice but a hundred police offices for a thousand people is simply not going to work at all. That is also not to mention the broad powers that police have so they are intimately connected with the government anyway.

Check out this book sometime: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200]Anarchy, State, and Utopia: Robert Nozick: 9780465097203: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The late professor Nozick goes into great detail how this could be accomplished.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The core problem with that is the fact that there will be a ton of freeloaders if the service is free on good faith and therefore not funded enough to cover expenses and there will be so few that buy into it that the service itself would become ineffective. That is not to mention that the ineffective system would encourage even more people to not pay for it.

People, in general, are VERY poor planners for things that are unlikely to happen. Just sorting out whether or not that particular house paid fire or that victim paid police would make the system largely inefficient. I don’t think that such services have any alternative to being universal. They are simply not needed until they are and at that point, they are needed right now. I don’t see that method of payment for these services (or any emergency services for that matter) as being workable at all.

I put it as an option for a private entity. i didn't say they should provide a free service to everyone. If they are on an as needed bases, then they can require payment on services rendered. In most areas, large corp entities and smaller business firms would want to protect their property and would pay a provider for that service. Including inspection, etc.. It would work no differently than any other service that you use on a need basis. if people dont plan ahead and then need the service, there are options for the provider in terms of payment. Or the person whos house burnt down can then stand in the rubbly pile. It's not that difficult to understand.

As to the last statement though, you are admitting that taxes are a necessity! I would not have thought that as you were pretty hard against that. If you are saying what I think you are, what kind of taxation would you accept and would you lock it into just defense spending?

i'm simply talking the reality of things. You dont think that the military is going to cut its own head off at this point, do you? The government is not going to turn around and cut taxation out. The argument from here was based on whether the tax is compulsory, not whether the current system can do without it. Of course it can not. It would mean a drastic change in all services "provided". In that, it's simply a theory of how it would work, not whether or not it's going to be done that way.

So yes, taxation is required if we're going to have an empire and imperial policies. Just the same as other forms of theft will occur to handle the mismanagment of the other services provided.

And we dont need to respond to another nation having a standing army by having one too. If the citizenry is armed, invasion is a shit ton less likely. The Japanese realized this long ago when we had our "stand off". We beat the british, and we did so through guerilla tactics mainly. The idea that we to have an offense "because they have a military too" is agains the interventionist principles and the NAP.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Wrong. At some point the county sheriff will come and kick you out of your house. He'll have a gun.

Ever heard of a tax auction? The properties the county is auctioning off formerly belonged to people who didn't pay their property taxes.

Also, even if they sell your property after you die, that means they took it from your heirs by force.

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, the government owns all the property adn allows you to rent (serf) some of it as long as you follow their rules and pay their taxes. In other words, Guido owns all the land and you can either pay him to rent some, leave the area immediately or Guido will break your legs or worse.

Government is nothing more than an extortion racket.

Property is a natural right. It's not arbitrary in ethics. If you build a house and till a plot of land that was vacant, it now belongs to you. You own yourself, and therefore your labor. What you're suggesting is absolutely no different than what happened in times of kings. They owned the land and allowed the peasants to serf it as long as they paid the taxes and gave up whatever other demand was instilled. At the threat of brute force. I suppose you believe government has the divine right to rule?

You are welcome. You can characterise it however you please.
Building a house and tilling the land are quite arbitrary.

 

[Oddball]

If I don't pay my property taxes? They will bump up the bill with late fees and interest. If I do so after I turn 65 or after I make a claim to be "disabled" they will do nothing other than place a lien on the property that they will collect by selling my property after I die.

Wrong. At some point the county sheriff will come and kick you out of your house. He'll have a gun.

Ever heard of a tax auction? The properties the county is auctioning off formerly belonged to people who didn't pay their property taxes.

Also, even if they sell your property after you die, that means they took it from your heirs by force.

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thank you for that primer in Soviet communism, Uncle Joe.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. At some point the county sheriff will come and kick you out of your house. He'll have a gun.

Ever heard of a tax auction? The properties the county is auctioning off formerly belonged to people who didn't pay their property taxes.

Also, even if they sell your property after you die, that means they took it from your heirs by force.

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thank you for that primer in Soviet communism, Uncle Joe.

Yeah cause the rule of law is the same as soviet communism.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, the government owns all the property adn allows you to rent (serf) some of it as long as you follow their rules and pay their taxes. In other words, Guido owns all the land and you can either pay him to rent some, leave the area immediately or Guido will break your legs or worse.

Government is nothing more than an extortion racket.

Property is a natural right. It's not arbitrary in ethics. If you build a house and till a plot of land that was vacant, it now belongs to you. You own yourself, and therefore your labor. What you're suggesting is absolutely no different than what happened in times of kings. They owned the land and allowed the peasants to serf it as long as they paid the taxes and gave up whatever other demand was instilled. At the threat of brute force. I suppose you believe government has the divine right to rule?

You are welcome. You can characterise it however you please.
Building a house and tilling the land are quite arbitrary.

You are dumber than a sack of dirt, fella. There is nothing arbitrary about settling land that is vacant in ethics. The act is done. Unless you thinkg that anyone who builds a house should have to share it with anyone else who happens to come by. Which makes total sense for LOLberals and their "fair share" notions, etc...

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, the government owns all the property adn allows you to rent (serf) some of it as long as you follow their rules and pay their taxes. In other words, Guido owns all the land and you can either pay him to rent some, leave the area immediately or Guido will break your legs or worse.

Government is nothing more than an extortion racket.

Property is a natural right. It's not arbitrary in ethics. If you build a house and till a plot of land that was vacant, it now belongs to you. You own yourself, and therefore your labor. What you're suggesting is absolutely no different than what happened in times of kings. They owned the land and allowed the peasants to serf it as long as they paid the taxes and gave up whatever other demand was instilled. At the threat of brute force. I suppose you believe government has the divine right to rule?

You are welcome. You can characterise it however you please.
Building a house and tilling the land are quite arbitrary.

You are dumber than a sack of dirt, fella. There is nothing arbitrary about settling land that is vacant in ethics. The act is done. Unless you thinkg that anyone who builds a house should have to share it with anyone else who happens to come by. Which makes total sense for LOLberals and their "fair share" notions, etc...

Definition of ARBITRARY
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority
b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will


Yeah, building a house and tilling the land are most definitely arbitrary.

 

[paulitician]

Lets face it, we all do what the Gang tells us to. It is rule by way of fear & intimidation. Like i said before, our Gang probably isn't the worst Gang, but it is a Gang.

 

[RKMBrown]

Lets face it, we all do what the Gang tells us to. It is rule by way of fear & intimidation. Like i said before, our Gang probably isn't the worst Gang, but it is a Gang.

The point of having the rule of law is to replace fear and intimidation with civility. If the rule of law operates as a gang and is not civil then that goes out the pooch. However, replacing the rule of law with anarchy is no answer either.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Wrong. At some point the county sheriff will come and kick you out of your house. He'll have a gun.

Ever heard of a tax auction? The properties the county is auctioning off formerly belonged to people who didn't pay their property taxes.

Also, even if they sell your property after you die, that means they took it from your heirs by force.

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thank you for that primer in Soviet communism, Uncle Joe.

I like our system much better than communism, thank you very much, but the truth is the truth. Property rights are a good idea but not a natural right. If a dog pisses on a tree in your yard does that mean that he now owns it? Is his mind maybe but you still have the deed (government document).

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You are welcome. You can characterise it however you please.
Building a house and tilling the land are quite arbitrary.

You are dumber than a sack of dirt, fella. There is nothing arbitrary about settling land that is vacant in ethics. The act is done. Unless you thinkg that anyone who builds a house should have to share it with anyone else who happens to come by. Which makes total sense for LOLberals and their "fair share" notions, etc...

Definition of ARBITRARY
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority
b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will


Yeah, building a house and tilling the land are most definitely arbitrary.

No, it is not. Unless of course you believe that you have no sefl ownership and that only a government can grant you a right to anything. Which it is obvious that you do.

So I'll ask, someone who built a house on a vacant plot and began tilling it for agriculture, do they own the house and land of their labor? If someone shows up one day and says "hey! This is now my land!" Does the person who showed up have any moral or ethical grounds to acquire the property by force? If the second man kills the first, even without a government to come and take him in, was his murder ethical? Is it still murder even without a government to punish this person?

The answer is obvious.

This works the same way under contract. If Joe owned land and voluntarily agreed to sell it to Tom via contract, does Tim have the right to lay claim to the land? Of course not. Morals and ethics are not derived from governments, Corky. They are rules of nature and the right of man to own himself and his labor.

Now, if Tim shows up to take the land from Tom by force and began shooting at Tom, and Tom killed Tim. Was Tim's use of defense ethical and moral? Of course it is. As Tim initiated violence against Tom who already made a peacefull exchange.

Just admit you're a government loving LOLberal and lets move on. You know nothing of the ethical and moral implications of libertarians. Which is the foundation of most principles. Only a boot licker who requires a ruler would deem government the owner and arbiter of all land.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, the government owns all the property adn allows you to rent (serf) some of it as long as you follow their rules and pay their taxes. In other words, Guido owns all the land and you can either pay him to rent some, leave the area immediately or Guido will break your legs or worse.

Government is nothing more than an extortion racket.

Property is a natural right. It's not arbitrary in ethics. If you build a house and till a plot of land that was vacant, it now belongs to you. You own yourself, and therefore your labor. What you're suggesting is absolutely no different than what happened in times of kings. They owned the land and allowed the peasants to serf it as long as they paid the taxes and gave up whatever other demand was instilled. At the threat of brute force. I suppose you believe government has the divine right to rule?

You are welcome. You can characterise it however you please.
Building a house and tilling the land are quite arbitrary.

You are dumber than a sack of dirt, fella. There is nothing arbitrary about settling land that is vacant in ethics. The act is done. Unless you thinkg that anyone who builds a house should have to share it with anyone else who happens to come by. Which makes total sense for LOLberals and their "fair share" notions, etc...

Sack of dirt says "There isn't a whole lot of vacant (unclaimed) space so your point is moot."

There have been tons of philosophers muse about ethics over the years but who is right? Is there an authority on ethics?

au·thor·i·ty

Noun
1 The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates".
2 The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, you require a ruler. You've made that clear, ding bat.

 

[Eric Cartman]

You are dumber than a sack of dirt, fella. There is nothing arbitrary about settling land that is vacant in ethics. The act is done. Unless you thinkg that anyone who builds a house should have to share it with anyone else who happens to come by. Which makes total sense for LOLberals and their "fair share" notions, etc...

Definition of ARBITRARY
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority
b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will


Yeah, building a house and tilling the land are most definitely arbitrary.

No, it is not. Unless of course you believe that you have no sefl ownership and that only a government can grant you a right to anything. Which it is obvious that you do.

So I'll ask, someone who built a house on a vacant plot and began tilling it for agriculture, do they own the house and land of their labor? If someone shows up one day and says "hey! This is now my land!" Does the person who showed up have any moral or ethical grounds to acquire the property by force? If the second man kills the first, even without a government to come and take him in, was his murder ethical? Is it still murder even without a government to punish this person?

The answer is obvious.

This works the same way under contract. If Joe owned land and voluntarily agreed to sell it to Tom via contract, does Tim have the right to lay claim to the land? Of course not. Morals and ethics are not derived from governments, Corky. They are rules of nature and the right of man to own himself and his labor.

Now, if Tim shows up to take the land from Tom by force and began shooting at Tom, and Tom killed Tim. Was Tim's use of defense ethical and moral? Of course it is. As Tim initiated violence against Tom who already made a peacefull exchange.

Just admit you're a government loving LOLberal and lets move on. You know nothing of the ethical and moral implications of libertarians. Which is the foundation of most principles. Only a boot licker who requires a ruler would deem government the owner and arbiter of all land.

All this importance put on a man's labor sounds somewhat reminiscent of Marx.

 

[Oddball]

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thank you for that primer in Soviet communism, Uncle Joe.

Yeah cause the rule of law is the same as soviet communism.

You misspelled "rule of the mob", tovarich.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Definition of ARBITRARY
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority
b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will


Yeah, building a house and tilling the land are most definitely arbitrary.

No, it is not. Unless of course you believe that you have no sefl ownership and that only a government can grant you a right to anything. Which it is obvious that you do.

So I'll ask, someone who built a house on a vacant plot and began tilling it for agriculture, do they own the house and land of their labor? If someone shows up one day and says "hey! This is now my land!" Does the person who showed up have any moral or ethical grounds to acquire the property by force? If the second man kills the first, even without a government to come and take him in, was his murder ethical? Is it still murder even without a government to punish this person?

The answer is obvious.

This works the same way under contract. If Joe owned land and voluntarily agreed to sell it to Tom via contract, does Tim have the right to lay claim to the land? Of course not. Morals and ethics are not derived from governments, Corky. They are rules of nature and the right of man to own himself and his labor.

Now, if Tim shows up to take the land from Tom by force and began shooting at Tom, and Tom killed Tim. Was Tim's use of defense ethical and moral? Of course it is. As Tim initiated violence against Tom who already made a peacefull exchange.

Just admit you're a government loving LOLberal and lets move on. You know nothing of the ethical and moral implications of libertarians. Which is the foundation of most principles. Only a boot licker who requires a ruler would deem government the owner and arbiter of all land.

All this importance put on a man's labor sounds somewhat reminiscent of Marx.

A man has self ownership. You do not own me and can not tell me what to do ethically. Nor vice versa. Nor does any man have that ethical and moral right over another. it is the foundation of libertarian principles. if a man owns himself, which he does. Then all his effort belong to him as well unless it is under contract that he provide labor for compensation. Which is a voluntary exchange.

you know nothing of this topic and rely on semantical arguments to try and pry out a point you dont have.