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.
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.
You go through one linguistic gymnastic routine after another to convince yourself of that which is not so. You will never convince me, but if it helps stave off the cognitive dissonance associated with accepting that you are someone else's property and you prefer it that way...well, tumble/vault/twist away, I say.
You go through one linguistic gymnastic routine after another to convince yourself of that which is not so. You will never convince me, but if it helps stave off the cognitive dissonance associated with accepting that you are someone else's property and you prefer it that way...well, tumble/vault/twist away, I say.
I just think an armed robber on the street and taxation are two different things. You can say they are the same in theory or principle, but they are not in reality. I don't like the argument that apples and oranges are the same and that everything and everyone is the same, that's the argument similar to communist.
I just think an armed robber on the street and taxation are two different things. You can say they are the same in theory or principle, but they are not in reality. I don't like the argument that apples and oranges are the same and that everything and everyone is the same, that's the argument similar to communist.
The armed robber on the street and taxation are the same act - forcible taking of property from an individual under threat of force/violence.
Where the two differ are:
The armed street robber has the courage to face their victim
The armed street robber doesn't define their robbery in any other way, thus making them more intellectually honest.
The armed street robber doesn't demand that you sanction their actions and then sign off that not only did you sanction the action, but did indeed give a proper accounting off all the money you had on you at the time of the robbery.
In every way you can make them comparable, the armed street robber is the more admirable and honest of the two scumbag thieves.
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.
The armed robber on the street and taxation are the same act - forcible taking of property from an individual under threat of force/violence.
Where the two differ are:
The armed street robber has the courage to face their victim
The armed street robber doesn't define their robbery in any other way, thus making them more intellectually honest.
The armed street robber doesn't demand that you sanction their actions and then sign off that not only did you sanction the action, but did indeed give a proper accounting off all the money you had on you at the time of the robbery.
In every way you can make them comparable, the armed street robber is the more admirable and honest of the two scumbag thieves.
That's an interesting and strange way of looking at it.
The government "armed robber" helped pay for my very elderly mother's living expense with social security, helped pay for a house keeper or aid, and medical related supplies, a few hours a week with a county property tax assessment , and paid for her necessary medical treatment with medicare. The armed street robber shattered my patio door leaving me with a couple grand in damages and would've likely harmed my mother if I hadn't taken her back home to her apartment, or the other armed street robber took all the business's cash never to be seen again.
The government "armed robber" helped pay for my very elderly mother's living expense with social security, helped pay for a house keeper or aid, and medical related supplies, a few hours a week with a county property tax assessment , and paid for her necessary medical treatment with medicare. The armed street robber shattered my patio door leaving me with a couple grand in damages and would've likely harmed my mother if I hadn't taken her back home to her apartment, or the other armed street robber took all the business's cash never to be seen again.
The government armed robber breaks down my door if I refuse to contribute to your elderly mother's living expenses and healthcare. If I resist, I am killed.
That's an interesting and strange way of looking at it.
The government "armed robber" helped pay for my very elderly mother's living expense with social security, helped pay for a house keeper or aid, and medical related supplies, a few hours a week with a county property tax assessment , and paid for her necessary medical treatment with medicare. The armed street robber shattered my patio door leaving me with a couple grand in damages and would've likely harmed my mother if I hadn't taken her back home to her apartment, or the other armed street robber took all the business's cash never to be seen again.
That's the reality vs theory.
That's not reality vs theory, it is an "ends-means" fallacy used to rationalize that which you refuse to admit.
The armed street robber might be robbing you to pay for their very elderly mother's living expenses, housekeeper, aid and medical related expenses. Would their robbery then be justified in your eyes, since the ends are sufficiently noble to forgive/excuse the clearly violent, immoral means? And if you walked down their street, does that mean you implicitly consented to their action, since it is their street after all, since they claimed it by force, same as government does?
Looked at another way, if the government said that yeah, a bunch of your taxes really are for nothing more than them buying booze and hookers, would taxation still be totally different than the armed robber? (hint - they do spend a bunch of your money on booze and hookers, they just lie about it)
You are rationalizing your own victimization as well as trying to convince me of the nobility of your assailant, all because someone you know received some corollary benefit from the ill gotten gains. That isn't a valid logical proof, because "ends-means" is a fallacy.
I am not looking at it strangely, but matter of factly, according to definition. Taxation and armed robbery are EXACTLY THE SAME action - the forcible taking of an individual's property under threat of force/violence.
No matter what ends that action serves, the action itself does not change.
Whether an individual chooses to do it for their own ends, or a collective chooses to do it for their collective ends, the act itself does not change.
Just because the threat of force/violence is represented differently, the act itself does not change.
whether you agree or disagree with terminology, the act itself does not change.
Logical consistency may indeed seem strange if you are unfamiliar with how it works, but I assure you, properly defining taxation as armed robbery is absolutely consistent with logic and the definitions of words.
An easier, more pithy way of saying all that is - there can be no moral end to an immoral means.
The government armed robber breaks down my door if I refuse to contribute to your elderly mother's living expenses and healthcare. If I resist, I am killed.
What's the difference?
The difference among many differences is our elderly mothers' well being and even survival.
Since you are all about theory. In theory, you can vote against Social security and Medicare and definitely against the senior services program. How do I vote against a street robber breaking down my door?
Specifically the income tax. Yes it is. Other taxes, it depends.
Gas tax that goes directly to roads is a user fee so, no problem. If it's a sin tax I can avoid it all together or make my own.
I am more in agreement with user fees based on the weight of the vehicle over fuel mileage. A hybrid SUV which weighs 4500 lbs but gets 30 mpg does more damage than a 20 mpg sports car.
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.
