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.
Mental masturbation is fine. But the real world needs real world solutions and so far you are painting your false world as black and white.
No masturbation necessary.
Is it right to initiate force upon another to impose your personal will upon them?
If it is not right to do so, how is running an entire "society" by what you easily see as immoral and evil, justifiable?
If no man has a right to use aggression to coerce his neighbor, how does "government" have that supposed right?
And if "our" so-called government has no such right, and its entire "authority" is based upon "consent", who is it that gave their consent? Again do you willingly, voluntarily, free from violence or the threat thereof, consent to give a right to government (or your neighbor) to initiate force upon you, to extort from you, and to compel you to live according to its personal interests and beliefs?
This is not mental masturbation, this is simple morality that most people understand in early childhood and common sense.
I'd love to see anyone answer those 3 questions with logical consistency.
It will never happen. People know that a "government" that initiates force upon the individual is just as immoral as them doing it themselves to their neighbor. They know that theft is theft. Extortion is extortion. Slavery is slavery. Aggression is aggression. A thug is a thug. But they are comfortable letting "government" commit their crimes against their neighbor on their behalf. They insulate themselves from facing themselves in the foolish fictional costumes of "government", the "collective", and the "majority". As if contracting out their violence and evil towards their neighbor somehow makes them innocent. The image in the mirror is too revolting for them to face.
1. If someone claims the right to give you orders that you must obey, and they take 100% of what you produce, you would be their slave. Assume they let you keep some of what you produce, and they decide not to boss you around quite as much. At what percentage below 100% does it stop being slavery?
There isn't a number that answers that question. The amount of your labor you get in return is irrelevant to your status as being free. If I willingly work for someone who takes 100% of what I do but I can choose to leave at anytime without fear of punishment, I am not a slave. If your free will is not being forcibly taken, you are not a slave, rather you keep 100% of 1% of your labor in return.
Quote:
2. If individual citizens don't have the right to make laws and tax their neighbor, how did Congress get that right?
Well, actually, individual citizens to have the right to make laws. That's the concept behind democracy. Someone runs (or you can run) voicing support for certain policy and principles. Being that every citizen has the right to vote (well, not currently but I do believe that's how it should be and anyone who claims to support democarcy and doesn't think that, I feel, is a hypocrite), they can effectively determine what laws exist. The constitution was designed to prevent certain laws from passing that would be a violation of other people's rights. One can argue that the constitution has failed in preventing that, but that's is a different topic entirely. I answered your question.
Quote:
3. What things should YOU personally be forced to pay for that you don't want to fund?
According to the principles that founded this country, not many things. A police force, military, certain basic infrastructure. Things like that are, considered, to be the most utilitarian option. It's assumed that these things probably would not exist, or would exist in a rather negative context, if a government did not have authority to collect taxes to build these things. Just as an example, a police force under the government can be held to uphold the law. A police force by just anyone has no actual obligation to uphold the law. This is why, while I can make a citizens arrest, I would need a badge sanctioned by the government for me to have any authority over you.
It will never happen. People know that a "government" that initiates force upon the individual is just as immoral as them doing it themselves to their neighbor. They know that theft is theft. Extortion is extortion. Slavery is slavery. Aggression is aggression. A thug is a thug. But they are comfortable letting "government" commit their crimes against their neighbor on their behalf. They insulate themselves from facing themselves in the foolish fictional costumes of "government", the "collective", and the "majority". As if contracting out their violence and evil towards their neighbor somehow makes them innocent. The image in the mirror is to revolting for them to face.
Can you stop using hyperbole to justify your argument? Do you not understand how the argument you put forth is absolute and without much real world application?
I guess Diogenes, Zeno, Lao Tzu, Jean Rousseau, William Godwin, Henry Thoreau, Edmund Burke, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Ludwid Mises, Frederic Bestiat, etc, etc, etc are also all idiots compared to you...
Certainly not. Those things are not like the others (at least, if you take out Warren, Tucker, and Mises).
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Well, tell us in your own words how promissory notes aren't slavery.
I use property taxes as an example because I know anarchists who have cut all ties with the state but still must pay them.
Promissory notes are agreements between a creditor and a debtor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Alright, I have some questions for dv1033 and TheCityTheBridge... I've asked these before and got a lot of deflecting and changing the topic. I'll be shocked if any of the questions are actually answered, but I'll try.
1. If someone claims the right to give you orders that you must obey, and they take 100% of what you produce, you would be their slave. Assume they let you keep some of what you produce, and they decide not to boss you around quite as much. At what percentage below 100% does it stop being slavery?
2. If individual citizens don't have the right to make laws and tax their neighbor, how did Congress get that right?
3. What things should YOU personally be forced to pay for that you don't want to fund?
And to address the hypocrisy thing, our money is taken from us to pay for these things already, so why is it hypocritical to use them? We aren't even given the option to buy from a competitor or provide state services privately, which makes it even more ridiculous. Then you call us ignorant and act like we're naive little kids?? Unbelievable.
1. Fallacious question
2. Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.
3. Per Art. I, section 8, I pay the taxes due, which in one way or another fund everything the federal government does. Per my State's constitution (and the incorporation of my local gov't), I pay further taxes that, in the same way, fund everything my State's government does. That is how representative democracy works.
Your last paragraph reads like a child's reasoning, hence your rhetorical question answers itself.
Alright, I have some questions for dv1033 and TheCityTheBridge... I've asked these before and got a lot of deflecting and changing the topic. I'll be shocked if any of the questions are actually answered, but I'll try.
1. If someone claims the right to give you orders that you must obey, and they take 100% of what you produce, you would be their slave. Assume they let you keep some of what you produce, and they decide not to boss you around quite as much. At what percentage below 100% does it stop being slavery?
2. If individual citizens don't have the right to make laws and tax their neighbor, how did Congress get that right?
3. What things should YOU personally be forced to pay for that you don't want to fund?
And to address the hypocrisy thing, our money is taken from us to pay for these things already, so why is it hypocritical to use them? We aren't even given the option to buy from a competitor or provide state services privately, which makes it even more ridiculous. Then you call us ignorant and act like we're naive little kids?? Unbelievable.
1. Who takes 100% of what you produce? Taxes are clearly defined. Apparently people like giving up some their production to get things like infrastructure, technological innovation, and entitlements.
2. Because of elected representation.
3. Personally, I wish my money doesnt go to our ignorant middle eastern foreign policy.
Certainly not. Those things are not like the others (at least, if you take out Warren, Tucker, and Mises).
Promissory notes are agreements between a creditor and a debtor.
1. Fallacious question
2. Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.
3. Per Art. I, section 8, I pay the taxes due, which in one way or another fund everything the federal government does. Per my State's constitution (and the incorporation of my local gov't), I pay further taxes that, in the same way, fund everything my State's government does. That is how representative democracy works.
Your last paragraph reads like a child's reasoning, hence your rhetorical question answers itself.
Hahahaha.
Promissory notes are agreements between creditor and debtor???
Do you realize how insane that sounds?
You must use their currency. M-U-S-T.
It's only an agreement if it's voluntary.
And when I use promissory notes to pay property taxes I am exchanging current debt with future debt in the form of the promise of future labor. Are you even remotely familiar with how the Federal Reserve works?
That's nothing short of strong-arm robbery and/or slavery.
Rationalize it all you like but it's the exact definition of those two things.
There isn't a number that answers that question. The amount of your labor you get in return is irrelevant to your status as being free. If I willingly work for someone who takes 100% of what I do but I can choose to leave at anytime without fear of punishment, I am not a slave. If your free will is not being forcibly taken, you are not a slave, rather you keep 100% of 1% of your labor in return.
Well, actually, individual citizens to have the right to make laws. That's the concept behind democracy. Someone runs (or you can run) voicing support for certain policy and principles. Being that every citizen has the right to vote (well, not currently but I do believe that's how it should be and anyone who claims to support democarcy and doesn't think that, I feel, is a hypocrite), they can effectively determine what laws exist. The constitution was designed to prevent certain laws from passing that would be a violation of other people's rights. One can argue that the constitution has failed in preventing that, but that's is a different topic entirely. I answered your question.
According to the principles that founded this country, not many things. A police force, military, certain basic infrastructure. Things like that are, considered, to be the most utilitarian option. It's assumed that these things probably would not exist, or would exist in a rather negative context, if a government did not have authority to collect taxes to build these things. Just as an example, a police force under the government can be held to uphold the law. A police force by just anyone has no actual obligation to uphold the law. This is why, while I can make a citizens arrest, I would need a badge sanctioned by the government for me to have any authority over you.
You can't "just leave". We've been over this a million times. You must pay exit fees to renounce citizenship if you take that route. You get taxed in death. I know. I've paid them for deceased family members.
And in any event, renouncing something you never agreed to in the first place is psychotic.
You can't "just leave". We've been over this a million times. You must pay exit fees to renounce citizenship if you take that route. You get taxed in death. I know. I've paid them for deceased family members.
And in any event, renouncing something you never agreed to in the first place is psychotic.
I wasn't making that argument in the context of taxes. I guess I should have known better...
Even then, this only requires a slight amendment to my original point. A slave has no say. You do. Vote for someone who will lower your taxes, and if no one suits your needs, run for public office yourself. Nothing will prevent you from doing either, unlike in a situation where you are a slave and effectively have no rights.
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.
