Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
Its not voluntary if you under threat of starvation or homelessness. Libertarian society benefits the masters people who own the capital and disenfranchises working class individuals. Libertarians would make it so public services like schools roads and everything in between be privatized this creates a massive burden on the poor. Libertarian society will lead to serfs and masters.
When the Protestants first arrived here and met the natives, one of the first things they did was introduce them to their religion. Now, the natives were religious already in their own beliefs; the natives thought they would transcend their beliefs and broaden their spirituality by incorporating, the Protestant's spiritual beliefs into their own.
The Libertarian, like that of the natives of America in their spirituality, wish to build on what is there and already in use.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
I don't think you're understanding what the OP is trying to say here. It's not that he/she wants the government to control every aspect of our lives but to protect us from those individuals and corporations who wish to deny people their basic rights. They do exist no matter how "non-aggressive" the Libertarian philosophy is. There will always be those individuals who DO wish to deprive people of their rights and companies who DO wish to ruin our environment. Who is supposed to ensure everyone's rights are enforced if not for the government? Who is supposed to regulate businesses in such a way that is fair to everyone if not the government? Who is supposed to administer our social safety nets if not the government?
The Libertarian principle looks really good on paper with minimal government, regulations, etc. But in the real world human nature, being what it is, would dictate a relatively strong government in order to balance the playing field as best as possible to ensure everyone is treated fairly, our environment is protected, and our social safety nets remain solvent.
Quote:
Who is supposed to ensure everyone's rights are enforced if not for the government?
There was a thread on the question I am about to propose ... What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government?
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
It appears to me all the things I have read in these threads that people complain about, basically the gov is up their butt. From Michelle the lunch room lady to the Patriot Act, that we've got a big government, taking in large amounts of money, because the U.S. Citizens, like it that way ... People should stop their complaining, because you've gotten exactly what you have asked for ... less choice, less money in your pockets and more laws, than one can crawl out from under. ~enjoy~
It appears to me all the things I have read in these threads that people complain about, basically the gov is up their butt. From Michelle the lunch room lady to the Patriot Act, that we've got a big government, taking in large amounts of money, because the U.S. Citizens, like it that way ... People should stop their complaining, because you've gotten exactly what you have asked for ... less choice, less money in your pockets and more laws, than one can crawl out from under. ~enjoy~
Oh come on. Americans are not oppressed. Americans have more freedom (to exploit others) than almost any other industrialized country.
Oh come on. Americans are not oppressed. Americans have more freedom (to exploit others) than almost any other industrialized country.
Statist logic and morality 101: the ability to use the State to steal from and kill your neighbor indicates a level of freedom. The more you can get away with...the more free you are.
If a person immigrates to a country, he has agreed to be governed by the government of that country. If a person chooses to stay in a country, then he chooses to be part of the statist system.
You consent through your actions. You have chosen to live here. If you had no ability to leave, then yes, this would be a tyrannical system where you are a prisoner. You are not. You don't even have to leave the country. You could move to Alaska away from a jurisdiction that collects property taxes or even successfully live in the wild being a hunter.
A whole lot of hyperbole. The government is not going to kill you unless you show armed resistance. Is that the problem? Are you scared of dying? In what stateless society could you live where you don't have to worry about death? This is probably a big part of the reason that you refuse to leave. You say that you don't want to interact with the state but you choose to live under its rule. Don't blame statists for that. You've made your choice.
More of the same:
1. Consent is given by standing in a certain geographic area. This is why I'm charging you $10 a month to live in my kingdom. Where's my money?
2. Even if you were to find a way around not paying property taxes (the Unabomber couldn't) you simply can't set up shop wherever you please. No private individual can decide to live in the Grand Canyon even though the land is not privatized. See the homesteading principle and mixing your labor with a resource to rightfully own said resource.
3. You want me to pay exit fees to an entity that I never consented to do business with. I'll pay exit fees to the U.S. government when I get all the statists in this thread to pay the exit fees they owe me for living in my claimed kingdom of No_Recess_Land.
1. Consent is given by standing in a certain geographic area. This is why I'm charging you $10 a month to live in my kingdom. Where's my money?
2. Even if you were to find a way around not paying property taxes (the Unabomber couldn't) you simply can't set up shop wherever you please. No private individual can decide to live in the Grand Canyon even though the land is not privatized. See the homesteading principle and mixing your labor with a resource to rightfully own said resource.
3. You want me to pay exit fees to an entity that I never consented to do business with. I'll pay exit fees to the U.S. government when I get all the statists in this thread to pay the exit fees they owe me for living in my claimed kingdom of No_Recess_Land.
So you didn't ask to be born? That's what your whole argument boils down to. You think it's not fair that you were born into this system and now you want to complain. You don't actually want to take any action to rectify the situation. You could leave the country and renounce your citizenship. But no, that's not fair because you didn't ask to be born.
You actually think that your fictional kingdom of No_Recess_Land is comparable to an actual government. It's not. Like I said earlier, you have a childlike mentality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
