U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old Yesterday, 10:39 AM
 
7,154 posts, read 2,596,734 times
Reputation: 3897

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
So government shouldn't exist? If you want fire and police protection, you call a private company to provide it and pay them? The courthouse and city hall should function as private businesses?
What does "fire and police protection" provided by the state offer that you cannot either do or contract for yourself?

Smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, a little knowledge and prep, plus a homeowner's insurance policy cover exactly everything a fire department provides you.

A firearm and some training provide MORE than the police provide you.

Not exactly sure why those two things specifically require an entity possessing a monopoly on force and violence, that funds itself via theft?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:43 AM
 
Location: SGV
25,362 posts, read 9,872,280 times
Reputation: 9855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I would call myself an anarchist, but I zero faith in humanity. Humans are ignorant and emotional. And without a government to force men together, society would devolve into a near-infinite number of families/tribes, with almost no cooperation or trade.

Whether it might be cheaper to privatize industries it doesn't matter, because people would simply refuse to obey. Throw into that racism, tribalism, and other rivalries, there would be nothing left.


Libertarians don't understand just how difficult it is to hold society together. Society is constantly trying to pull itself apart. It requires endless propaganda, social-engineering, and an Army, to hold this country together as it is. If it began to fracture, it would crumble.
I don't think the point of being an anarchist is what the result of a stateless society would be. Ends justifying the means is the mantra of the statist.

Personally, the State has been trying to rob and kill me all my life (I offer free trips to my old ghetto for the non-believers on occasion) so a transition to a stateless society wouldn't phase me there. At least in the ghetto you had independent gangsters not backed by State force who were willing to violate your rights by their own hand. It's something to ask for if you're going to be violated. Call me old fashion.

In any event, the crux of the matter has always been the Social Contract and the fluidity of the definition when it comes to "consent". Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke never convinced me and trust me...I tried to make it fit when I read their works in my early 20's.

So to boil it down again: man is born free from contractual obligation. The only way to enter into a contract is by giving proper consent which means being free from duress and having the cognitive ability to do so. All men have natural rights which are based on the non-aggression principle and respect for private property.

This is nothing new nor does it take an Einstein to figure out (part of my frustration with the statists is the fact that even I, no worldly scholar, was able to see the moral & logical consistency here).

It just is. It exists without pride or prejudice. It doesn't reward or punish.

It just freaking is.

We know this because any deviation from this philosophy automatically, and I mean that without a doubt, grants another man a higher claim on your life than you have on it.

If slavery is the natural state of man that would be one odd twist because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:48 AM
 
13,017 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3907
There's different kinds of consent. Sometimes, most of the time consent is implied. If you live within a jurisdiction you are consenting to the tax laws within. What you are really saying is you don't want anything to be compulsory. But a lot of things are compulsory in life that are not a law or from government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:56 AM
 
13,017 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I would call myself an anarchist, but I zero faith in humanity. Humans are ignorant and emotional. And without a government to force men together, society would devolve into a near-infinite number of families/tribes, with almost no cooperation or trade.

Whether it might be cheaper to privatize industries it doesn't matter, because people would simply refuse to obey. Throw into that racism, tribalism, and other rivalries, there would be nothing left.


Libertarians don't understand just how difficult it is to hold society together. Society is constantly trying to pull itself apart. It requires endless propaganda, social-engineering, and an Army, to hold this country together as it is. If it began to fracture, it would crumble.
If men were angels we would have perfect government but would need no government.

I want people to be allowed to evolve back into compatible tribes/ethnics under their own independent an autonomous jurisdictions. America was a lot more like that and libertarian up until the early to mid 20th century Those of NW European ancestry would prefer and need less government than maybe others. There still would be trade and cooperation with other jurisdiction..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:02 AM
 
16,280 posts, read 4,282,927 times
Reputation: 11473
It seems like conservatives and liberals should be very angry with Libertarians and "anti-statists" for using up air (and the commons) and admittedly trying not to pay for it.

In the modern world that means...they are takers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:20 AM
 
Location: SGV
25,362 posts, read 9,872,280 times
Reputation: 9855
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
It seems like conservatives and liberals should be very angry with Libertarians and "anti-statists" for using up air (and the commons) and admittedly trying not to pay for it.

In the modern world that means...they are takers.
You think you own air?

Yeah, wouldn't doubt it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:23 AM
 
Location: SGV
25,362 posts, read 9,872,280 times
Reputation: 9855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
There's different kinds of consent. Sometimes, most of the time consent is implied. If you live within a jurisdiction you are consenting to the tax laws within. What you are really saying is you don't want anything to be compulsory. But a lot of things are compulsory in life that are not a law or from government.
Regurgitating the same immoral and illogical talking points doesn't make your paradigm true.

I know it works out on the streets with the other statists but the bottom line is you, or a man who you condone/actively support, will initiate violence on another human being today for simply existing.

Live with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:28 AM
 
13,017 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Regurgitating the same immoral and illogical talking points doesn't make your paradigm true.

I know it works out on the streets with the other statists but the bottom line is you, or a man who you condone/actively support, will initiate violence on another human being today for simply existing.

Live with it.
It's not immoral or illogical and is true. By living in a society or jurisdiction you consent to a lot of things you may or may not like. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with initiating "violence". It depends on the situation. For example if you don't pay your taxes even though you are well able to, then you're just a cheat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:43 AM
 
7,154 posts, read 2,596,734 times
Reputation: 3897
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
It's not immoral or illogical and is true. By living in a society or jurisdiction you consent to a lot of things you may or may not like. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with initiating "violence". It depends on the situation. For example if you don't pay your taxes even though you are well able to, then you're just a cheat.
Consent can only happen under the following conditions:
  • it is GIVEN
  • the person GIVING it is free from any form of duress, coercion, threat, etc.
  • the person GIVING it is cognizant of what it is they are consenting to
  • the thing to which they are consenting does not harm, injure, obligate or otherwise interfere with anyone else's natural individual rights.
So your premise is wrong. Simply existing within a specific geography or population in no way equates to consent. Consent must be GIVEN, it cannot be assumed.

But your last sentence clearly defines your statist paradigm. You refer to state sponsored armed robbery as "your taxes" as if my very existence itself is a debt that must be paid incrementally to someone else with a higher claim upon my life than I have, and you refer to avoiding that armed robbery as "cheating."

Clearly you believe in the concept that you (all of us, really) are the property of the government. You wouldn't phrase things in the manner you do otherwise.

Back to topic - obviously, all taxes are armed robbery. They can be defined no other way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:23 PM
 
13,017 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Consent can only happen under the following conditions:
  • it is GIVEN
  • the person GIVING it is free from any form of duress, coercion, threat, etc.
  • the person GIVING it is cognizant of what it is they are consenting to
  • the thing to which they are consenting does not harm, injure, obligate or otherwise interfere with anyone else's natural individual rights.
So your premise is wrong. Simply existing within a specific geography or population in no way equates to consent. Consent must be GIVEN, it cannot be assumed.

But your last sentence clearly defines your statist paradigm. You refer to state sponsored armed robbery as "your taxes" as if my very existence itself is a debt that must be paid incrementally to someone else with a higher claim upon my life than I have, and you refer to avoiding that armed robbery as "cheating."

Clearly you believe in the concept that you (all of us, really) are the property of the government. You wouldn't phrase things in the manner you do otherwise.

Back to topic - obviously, all taxes are armed robbery. They can be defined no other way.
Well I disagree. And I'd go so far to say consent is often implied or assumed and with imperfect information. What you are describing as consent only exists in theory, not reality, kind of like communism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top