|
On July 02 2011 06:28 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:25 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2011 06:24 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:23 Djzapz wrote:So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario. That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job. If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity. Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in. I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery. So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery? The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun. What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really. You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too. And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there.
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
On July 02 2011 06:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you. You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you. You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else. It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say. Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave. The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend? Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys." Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave. That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
|
On July 02 2011 06:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you. You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you. You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else. It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say. Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave. The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend? Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys." Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave. That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
That fact that I am bitter about it proves it is not consensual, no reason to respond to the rest of your non-sense. Tyranny of the majority is also not consensual. I also agree - having to pay taxes to afford to be allowed to leave the country is tough shit, it's also non-consensual shit.
You basically said "consent of things such as taxation has been established" and then gave reasons why all the reasons it is NOT consensual are okay. Such bullshit.
|
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
|
On July 02 2011 06:33 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:28 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:23 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:22 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:05 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
All human organizations are corrupt. What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil. That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used. No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds. You can't say this for ALL human organization. Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever. Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity." Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian.
In that case sorry, but the confusion is caused by both of us. I was thinking of course about different meaning of corruption that made more sense in the context. That said, using your definition my conclusion is different. No, not all governments are corrupt.
|
On July 02 2011 06:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:28 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:23 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:22 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:05 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
All human organizations are corrupt. What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil. That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used. No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds. You can't say this for ALL human organization. Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever. Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity." Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian. In that case sorry, but the confusion is caused by both of us. I was thinking of course about different meaning of corruption that made more sense in the context. That said, using your definition my conclusion is different. No, not all governments are corrupt.
Maybe you should check into what the fuck you're talking about before accusing someone else of twisting words.
And now here you are as the one staking a claim to "my definition".
lol
|
On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc.
I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not.
Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve?
|
On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc.
I see no problem with that in general as I do not think wars necessarily follow from that. Wars are a separate issue that I have problem with, but they belong to the specific details that we can change as I noted at the bottom of my post.
|
On July 02 2011 06:40 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery? The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
|
On July 02 2011 06:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I see no problem with that in general as I do not think wars necessarily follow from that. Wars are a separate issue that I have problem with, but they belong to the specific details that we can change as I noted at the bottom of my post.
The specific details are simply whatever lies the government feeds you when it decides it wants to go to war for profit.
|
On July 02 2011 06:04 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy. When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms? The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect. It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon. On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote:
I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say. And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.  All human organizations are corrupt. Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive? There are 2 options: Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome. Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct. So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason.
You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right?
I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
On July 02 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:40 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery? The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable. What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
And what is the huge difference between willingly paying a government your money and willingly paying a company your money? In the case that government completely disappears, what in the world would stop a large company from gaining enough capital for their own standing army with which to protect themselves and control you?
The nice thing about living in one nation or the other is that I know I will be treated a certain way by the government, even if I commit a crime. If there is no government, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from having you killed if they desire it. After all, the free market will provide assassination services much more cheaply than the government. In this free market, who will administer justice?
If someone steals my car, and I catch them, who will punish them? I don't want to have to punish them myself, so I will pay the xarthaz company to beat them senseless and hold them in a cell for a year to teach them a lesson. However, I changed my mind and I don't want to have to pay for them to be held in a cell for a year, so why don't you just kill them for me instead. It's a much easier and cheaper solution.
|
On July 02 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:40 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery? The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable. What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
So you basically you own yourself but the earth belongs to government. Nice.
|
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
|
On July 02 2011 06:46 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:04 xarthaz wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy. When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms? The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect. It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon. On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote:
I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say. And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree. All human organizations are corrupt. On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive? There are 2 options: Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome. Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct. So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario. I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right? I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
Being beneficial is not a condition for robbery, it is simply why you think the robbery is okay. Robbery only requires a lack of consent or false consent in the presence of violence and intimidation.
|
On July 02 2011 06:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote:
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Not if you're just collateral damage.
|
Just to add what the Frank One said...treemonkey you say that
The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
I mean you're kind of holding a double standard here. If the whole world or the country you were born in were privatized, the owners would have their own right to demand things of you, that you work for them for as long as you live on their land. That's not fair either is it? I mean there are rational limits to your freedom, regardless of the society you live in. There is always going to be *some kind* of organizational structure, whether its voluntary or not, and you will be born under it, and because of its success you will be forced to submit to certain "laws".
Sure you could move to a different area, thats owned by another private company...but thats identical to moving to a different country with its own government. The only problem is, these companies are solely devoted to profits. What kind of society would you prefer to live in, one in which the rulers are elected by the people and have limitations on their power, or one in which corporations are free to grow and expand and create whatever rules they want?
Secondly, you're also assuming that everything will occur in a completely voluntary way in your free market society, which is obviously just idealistic. You could easily end up with another tyranny by some dictator, because voluntary militia will never stand up against an organized "command" structure. You're basically reducing society back to a "might makes right" world, where those with the most money, power and guns will be in power. There is *nothing* that an anarchy can do to stop this. You're just resetting the clock. People have fought for years to extract liberties from their governments, to fight for democratic representation as a way to control their rulers. What you're proposing is to erase all the progress humanity has made, believing that all the geniuses of the past, that all of humanity for centuries had it wrong, and that the solution was so obvious...
Just stop being violent against each other guys! Lets have an anarchy where we all get along and have voluntary interactions with each other. Lets ignore human nature and hope that no one will try to take over.
Just look how well thats working out in Somalia. As one of the first posters mentioned...20 years of endless war, the region cut up by warlords. One of the worst places to live in the world.
|
On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not. Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve?
Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight.
|
On July 02 2011 06:48 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:46 Fontong wrote:On July 02 2011 06:04 xarthaz wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy. When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms? The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect. It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon. On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote:
I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say. And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree. All human organizations are corrupt. On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote:
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive? There are 2 options: Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome. Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct. So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario. I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right? I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves. Being beneficial is not a condition for robbery, it is simply why you think the robbery is okay. Robbery only requires a lack of consent or false consent in the presence of violence and intimidation.
But I do consent to the government taking my money, and I consent enough that I continue to live in this country. However, I don't really like the way that things are turning out in the United States at the moment, so I am considering moving to someplace like Canada. If I didn't like it in Canada I could move somewhere in Europe if I desired, or even move to Somalia if it fit my wishes.
If you do not consent to whatever country you are in taxing you, why do you not move somewhere where you will not be taxed. Like Somalia, for example.
|
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime
Doesn't matter if it's a crime or not for the State to do something it won't do. Sure it could kill me but hypothetical scenarios don't bother me as long as they remain hypothetical.
Is the State my master? No. The second I dislike it I'll move somewhere else and there's not a thing it can do. I act according to the laws it put in place, some of them suck, some of them are good, but overall it's acceptable and profitable to me.
And how's my claim about making money incorrect? That confuses me. I make money and nobody's going to touch it... Well, they're taking a cut but that's the law. Again, if I don't like it, I can leave.
|
On July 02 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:40 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:28 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:23 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:22 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:05 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
All human organizations are corrupt. What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil. That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used. No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds. You can't say this for ALL human organization. Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever. Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity." Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian. In that case sorry, but the confusion is caused by both of us. I was thinking of course about different meaning of corruption that made more sense in the context. That said, using your definition my conclusion is different. No, not all governments are corrupt. Maybe you should check into what the fuck you're talking about before accusing someone else of twisting words. And now here you are as the one staking a claim to "my definition". lol
What ? I just told you using your definition not all governments are corrupt, and using my definition (misuse of power and/or funds, which makes in my opinion more sense in this discussion about governments, that is why I assumed it) all big organizations are corrupt, does it make it clearer for you ?
|
On July 02 2011 06:44 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 06:43 mcc wrote:On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I see no problem with that in general as I do not think wars necessarily follow from that. Wars are a separate issue that I have problem with, but they belong to the specific details that we can change as I noted at the bottom of my post. The specific details are simply whatever lies the government feeds you when it decides it wants to go to war for profit.
No the specific details are what is the structure of the government, how is it elected, how is it controlled. How exactly works justice system. What are the laws and how can they be changed. And so on.... Well chosen specifics can prevent a war that was decided in small circle against wishes of the rest of the society. There is no way in any society to prevent the wars it really wishes.
Small note, maybe the nuclear weapons you mentioned are actually a good thing as war is then suicide and no society wishes that. But of course a risk of accident makes this hypothesis/policy kind of problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
