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.
If it wasn't that EVERY civilized (or 1/2 civilized) country in the world used a similar percentage of GDP to run the country, then Libertarians would have a point. They could say "hey, we use 38% - but Germany only uses 30%".
But the problem in the USA is that that we want to pay for a decent society and civilization - the problem is that our brand of unregulated capitalism (which is, in a way, pushed by libertarians)
Republican's and Democrats voted to end Glass Steagal. Final vote passed Senate with 90% and the House with 83%. Ron Paul abstained from voting.
Your idea of rights is the commonly misunderstood one. Rights are not rights just because they're enforced. A right doesn't stop being a right just because someone violates it. You have the right to not be beaten and mugged, and if someone successfully beats and mugs you it doesn't mean you no longer have the right to walk down the street in peace. It means you still have that right, but it's been violated.
But of course, you need force to stop your rights from being violated. No idea what your point is, since I support living in a society that collectively defends against outside and internal threats.
Do you think rights just come down from the universe and are imbued into human beings by some magical force?
Rights are just abstract ideas about what we are free to do that we have collectively agreed upon. If we have a right to free speech, it's only because our fellow citizens have agreed that we can say what we want. It's only the threat of force that allows us to keep this right. If someone violates my right to free speech, I can try to get my fellow citizens to use their collective force to punish the party that violated my right. It's this threat of force and actual use of force which allows us to maintain our rights.
As for your example of walking down the street in peace, you have no such right. If you go onto another person's property then he can use force to get you off his property. He might even take your money. Doesn't he have a right to defend his property? You would probably agree that he does. Did he violate your rights by taking your money? You might think so, but doesn't he deserve payment for your transgression against him? If he is allowed to beat you up then why shouldn't he be able to take your money too? Some would think that crosses the line; others wouldn't.
The point that I'm making is that these are all just abstract ideas. We decide what is allowable and what isn't through discussion and consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
"We've gone through this before"... Yes, we have, which is why I'm getting sick of repeating this to you: It is not our obligation to leave. It's YOUR obligation to leave us alone. What's even worse is that the society I want to live in doesn't exist yet, so where am I supposed to go? I think the US, philosophically, is still the most open to these ideas, and I hope I can play some kind of role in moving it in that direction. I'm not leaving everyone I care about behind to hide in the woods like an outlaw.
And no, I don't value freedom above all else. I value the non-initiation of force and respecting people's property rights as foundational principles, not freedom. Is that what's confusing you?
I'm not obligated to do anything for you. If you are against being a part of a statist system, then leaving is a real option. Apparently, it's not so burdensome to you that you feel the need to leave. Instead, you demand to be left alone. What does leaving you alone even entail? You want to pay no taxes yet drive on public roads and use a system that you don't contribute to?
In other words, you want to live in your parents' house and ignore their rules. That's not going to work. If you want to stay, then you have to live by the rules that have been set. Otherwise, pack up and move out. Complaining that there is nowhere to go is petulant and short-sighted, much like a grown man who doesn't want to leave his parents' house because he knows that it will be difficult.
Maybe this anarchist society that you dream of doesn't exist because others who share your views are also too scared to move?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I'll try out your reasoning here...
A kid goes to some school and is constantly getting bullied. He says "I just want to be left alone. Just let me go to class, eat my lunch, and participate in activities in peace." You tell him "Well if you hate it so much, you should just transfer to a different school. Seems like you actually like getting bullied if you're still here." He responds, "All the other schools are the same or worse, and it's a huge inconvenience for my social life and money-wise. You can't just leave me alone?"
Your response is what? That he should quit school, and by going to school he's choosing to be bullied?
That's a poor analogy. The bully is acting outside of the framework of the school rules. In your analogy, the bully is not the state. The school is. The school would punish the bully. The bully might be expelled, allowing you to go to class in peace. The school would use their greater force to protect you. If there were no school administration and no rules, much like the anarchist society you want, then it would be up to you to defend yourself. If the bully was bigger than you and you couldn't beat him, then you'd have to convince other kids to join up with you to take him out. If all your friends were weaklings, then tough luck. You'd get beat every day.
I'll leave you to figure it out. You understood what my argument was. If you want to adjust your argument, do it correctly.
I don't know what your argument is. That's why I'm asking.
Just like how I had no idea what the mentioning of the Unabomber was about. He paid property taxes up until the last year or so of his 25-year-stint in the wild.
Hard to blow up folks if the armed agents of the State put you in a cage.
But we're born with the fetters of the social contract?
The issue isn't the use of force to maintain what is or is not mine. The issue is that the monopoly of force is centralized in the state. If the state wants anything or everything I possess do I have the right to defend against that state? Patently no given the historical record. So by definition the state does not provide property rights, but permits my claimed ownership unless they choose that they need it more
The state doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force. In many places, you can legally kill an intruder in your home and you will face no punishment from the state for doing so. In some states, you can kill a person in a public place if that person threatens your life. That is a high degree of legal autonomy for the greatest use of force there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
They're not? OK where do I sign? You know the form that relinquishes me from the burden of taxes and provides me the allodial title on my real estate. That unbinds those fetters of social contract.
There's not much point in leaving the state when the state wants it's pound of flesh regardless and will enforce it's regulations even if you legally withdrew from it. If say someone moved to say Afghanistan and still earned income, the IRS is entitled to its cut of that income. Oh I can renounce citizenship except it's at the choice of the state, and THIS state will refuse if they believe renouncement is to remove tax obligations.
You can't expect to be part of a statist system and have no obligations to the state. The US has legal obligations to its citizens, whether they are abroad or in the country. I am a dual citizen, so I understand that US tax laws are burdensome. If I ever decide to move out of the country, I will have to decide whether to renounce my US citizenship and lose the benefits that citizenship brings.
The point is: You CAN renounce your citizenship. Many do it every year and there is a record number of persons renouncing their US citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
So yes An-Caps and libertarians live in the state, and you can believe they take advantages from the monies THEY pay for THEIR state supplied services, because THEY'RE not morons. If I pay 25% of my salary and thousands more in property taxes I'm going to try as much as possible to reclaim that 25% plus thousands so the net income of the state is as close to zero as possible. That's not hypocrisy, it's reality, the alternative is like refusing to go to a restaurant you hate (because you hate it) but still paying for what you would have ordered had you gone. It makes zero sense and is it hypocrisy that if you are forced to go and pay, you order something for your money (you can eat it, take it to the homeless guy on the corner, feed it to your dog, whatever).
Sure people can and do reduce their cash incomes to reduce their support of the state for political reasons, but it requires reductions in living standards not many are prepared for, not because the state provides these things but because the areas that have zero property taxes also have little infrastructure, and as soon as the infrastructure is extended (by private companies not the state) the taxes follow. Even then they're not living by true an-cap/libertarian principles because government regulation still applies, you can't own more than X chickens without registering with the USDA as an egg producer, the IRS bases it's determination is on value not just income so receiving say $25k in goods traded for other goods is still considered by the IRS as taxable income, but they won't accept 5 cords of firewood and daisy the jersey cow to pay the taxes.
So it's not as simple as you make out.
It all goes back to choice. The argument that you don't have one isn't valid. It's hypocrisy to point fingers at the "statists" and accuse them of holding you back all while you choose to live as part of the statist system. Is it simple to leave? No, but that's a weak argument. Striking it out on your own is always going to be hard, but if you want true independence, then it can be done.
I am the government. Each statist in this thread is required to pay me a tribute of $10 via PayPal. This payment must be made daily. The only way out is to pay an exit fee of $5 also via PayPal.
If you choose to pay the exit fee and leave my government you must sign a document saying that you are no longer a subject to the Government of No_Recess.
*clicks on PayPal account waiting for the tribute to roll in*
I don't know what your argument is. That's why I'm asking.
It wasn't my argument.
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.
