Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 106107108109110 269>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 13:53
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I don't have to show sufficient data to prove a negative.  The burden of proof is on you.  Logic 101.  The question posed is "Is a 100% donation-funded military feasible and will it protect the life and liberty of the citizens?"  You are taking the affirmative position here and making a proposition, so the burden of proof is on you.

I don't consider financing the military theft, and you do.  That's a different argument though.

You think a military is not a priority because there are few enemies at our doorstep ready to visit evil upon us.

I say there are few enemies at our doorstep ready to visit evil upon us because our military will destroy them.

By the way, it's difficult to argue with you because you keep running back and forth from "in principle" and "in reality."  In one breath you bring up alien invasion, and in the other you bring up WWII. 

Again, your entire argument is founded on the rocky premise of "I think people would donate money to run the government."  If you can't positively demonstrate that, then your position is nothing more than pure ungrounded speculation.


I disagree. You're trying to state that I'm to take as moral an institution which is to be funded by an immoral act. Your argument is that it is necessary to protect the very freedom that is violated by taxation. I think you must justify that assertion.

How do you define theft then?

I do not think that. I'm a big proponent of a strong defense. I don't think the military we have currently is necessary as I don't believe in the wars we are fighting now or see the need to be in 170 countries.

My premise is actually that it is never justifiable for an individual to infringe upon the rights of another. From this I'm against a tax funded military.


Theft is reaping the benefits of something you should pay for but choose not to.

No individual is infringing on the rights of another individual.  A group is taking what is necessary  to ensure that the group survives.  It is that simple. What is necessary is a secondary subject in this discussion.  Without that continued survival, our rights will be infringed upon- and by a more sinister entity.


No offense Rob but outside the context of this argument I really doubt you would define theft like that.

Shouldn't you alone pay for your defense though?

A group of individuals cannot have a right that an individual itself does not posses. A group is no more entitled to theft than it is to murder.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 13:55
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

^No, theft is taking someone else's property without their permission.

I still agree with you in general though.


That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.


What if you didn't ask him to paint it and he's just weird? Wink

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

^No, theft is taking someone else's property without their permission.



Exactly. But you agreed to be part of a society and pay your dues the moment you were born. You actually didn't sign a paper but we all assumed you do. In exchange, you get all the benefits and rights that this country and this society can give you. 


I agreed to no such thing. If you can consent to something as complex as that at birth, then surely three year olds can consent to sex, drugs and rock and roll, right? Wrong. That's not the point I was making.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 13:57
Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen.

So Pat, tax is theft. Should there be NO tax? I mean there's no way around it....not everything can be paid for  voluntarily. You can't even support a consumption tax in theory because even that is still taking your money against your will.
Unless you would want to move that many services into privatization.



Edited by JJLehto - August 12 2010 at 14:03
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 13:59
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I love Pat. He's always unconcerned of everybody else's opinions, yet he HAS to debate till the end, he HAS to make his position prevail. 

As I have said previously, I dislike cops, I think many people that enter the police force are gun-hungry brutes, but then again, I recognize that without a publicly paid police force we would be much worse off. The same with the military. I can't believe someone would think that in a REAL world a military could survive only on donations... 

Libertarianism as expressed by Pat Shields is just another form of political theory, utopic in a way as communism was (yes Shields, UTOPIC, people considered a world of equals a utopia even if you think that is the ultimate crime... that it turned out to be more of a nightmare is another thing completely). My question is: how can it get to be a reality? Communism had a mechanism in its own theory: revolution, lead by the workers party, by the proletariat. How can libertarianism come to existence? Of course, revolution is not possible; revolution requieres leaders, requires a governing body, thus destroying the movement principles. Gradual change? Only slowly and by law. There would be no other way to tear down the system than to do it from within. Now, do you seriously think it's possible? Or is it just fantasy? Political metal masturbation? Is it doable? Can a libertarian society ever exist in reality? Do you think it will be possible to strip people of the benefits that the government-based system gives them? How will you do it? 




I don't care or expect my position to prevail. I do it for the fun of arguing. Since I prefer winning to losing, I tend to try to win.

I consider a world equals the ultimate goal pretty much, but we would disagree about what equality is. I would say 1/2 = 2/4 where a Communist/Socialist view of equality would say "No No they are not equal. I can make a function to show they're different. Only 1/2 = 1/2!!!". Whereas I would claim their idea of a function is flawed and not my idea of equality.

Why is revolution not possible? There are definitely leaders in the libertarian movement. Our problem is with arbitrary government authority, not really with authority in general. Anyway, it could come into being the same as any other movement, with the consent of the governed.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:00
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen.




This is depressing Cry my whole life I've been "that crazy libertarian extremist" guy. Now Pat has stolen my limelight and I'm just "average."
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:00
 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.


Anyone without a job report to Rob's house. He'll employee you apparently .

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:02
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen.




This is depressing Cry my whole life I've been "that crazy libertarian extremist" guy. Now Pat has stolen my limelight and I'm just "average."


Oh, no no llama. Believe me you are not average. Wink You are quite more so than most I've talked to. Smile
That being said, Pat wins this one. Sorry man.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:07
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I don't have to show sufficient data to prove a negative.  The burden of proof is on you.  Logic 101.  The question posed is "Is a 100% donation-funded military feasible and will it protect the life and liberty of the citizens?"  You are taking the affirmative position here and making a proposition, so the burden of proof is on you.

I don't consider financing the military theft, and you do.  That's a different argument though.

You think a military is not a priority because there are few enemies at our doorstep ready to visit evil upon us.

I say there are few enemies at our doorstep ready to visit evil upon us because our military will destroy them.

By the way, it's difficult to argue with you because you keep running back and forth from "in principle" and "in reality."  In one breath you bring up alien invasion, and in the other you bring up WWII. 

Again, your entire argument is founded on the rocky premise of "I think people would donate money to run the government."  If you can't positively demonstrate that, then your position is nothing more than pure ungrounded speculation.


I disagree. You're trying to state that I'm to take as moral an institution which is to be funded by an immoral act. Your argument is that it is necessary to protect the very freedom that is violated by taxation. I think you must justify that assertion.

How do you define theft then?

I do not think that. I'm a big proponent of a strong defense. I don't think the military we have currently is necessary as I don't believe in the wars we are fighting now or see the need to be in 170 countries.

My premise is actually that it is never justifiable for an individual to infringe upon the rights of another. From this I'm against a tax funded military.


Theft is reaping the benefits of something you should pay for but choose not to.

No individual is infringing on the rights of another individual.  A group is taking what is necessary  to ensure that the group survives.  It is that simple. What is necessary is a secondary subject in this discussion.  Without that continued survival, our rights will be infringed upon- and by a more sinister entity.


No offense Rob but outside the context of this argument I really doubt you would define theft like that.

Shouldn't you alone pay for your defense though?

A group of individuals cannot have a right that an individual itself does not posses. A group is no more entitled to theft than it is to murder.


Yes, that's what theft is, regardless of the context of this conversation.  Am I wrong?  Look at my painting example I just made.  If I accept someone's services but do not pay for them, I am a thief, no?

Now you are reaching, Pat.  I am indeed responsible for my own defense and that of my family.  Sure.  However, you will find that a well organized collective will overrun a bunch of isolated individuals every time.

Let's look at it this way.  I use a percentage of my money to buy a couple of guns and some ammunition.  Everybody here (in this hypothetical country) does that.  We are armed.  The country next door decides to pool their resources for defense and buys a couple of tanks and ammunition and chooses to invade us.  Which side do you think shall prevail?

With rights come responsibilities.  If you want the right to life and liberty, Pat, you have to pay for the right to life and liberty.  Protecting it isn't free, and when people choose not to invest in it, then all of us suffer the consequences.

As far as you calling this theft, I call it responsibility.  Again, this is not the case of everyone paying for the benefit of the few (like welfare).  This is everyone paying for the benefit of everyone.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:08
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.


Anyone without a job report to Rob's house. He'll employee you apparently .



Oh, I could write them some checks, all right!  Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:12
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen.




This is depressing Cry my whole life I've been "that crazy libertarian extremist" guy. Now Pat has stolen my limelight and I'm just "average."

Oh calm down you're crazy as hell, just not as much. Let's say Pat is in antipsychotic-medication/padded-room-stage already while you're still in the common room and taking xanax only... TongueLOL


Edited by The T - August 12 2010 at 14:13
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:12
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.


Anyone without a job report to Rob's house. He'll employee you apparently .



Thank you. You just made me spit bits of peach all over from laughing at that. LOL
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:13
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen.




This is depressing Cry my whole life I've been "that crazy libertarian extremist" guy. Now Pat has stolen my limelight and I'm just "average."

Oh calm down you're crazy as hell, just not as much. Let's say Pat is in antipsychotic-medication-stage already while you're still in the common room... TongueLOL


Aw, you guys. That's so sweet! Heart
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:13
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.


Anyone without a job report to Rob's house. He'll employee you apparently .



Oh, I could write them some checks, all right!  Wink


Yeah? I'll work as a day a laborer for you. You're a trustworthy guy, you'd never bounce any checks on me right?
Long as you let me sit lazily on your stoop


Edited by JJLehto - August 12 2010 at 14:14
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:14
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen.




This is depressing Cry my whole life I've been "that crazy libertarian extremist" guy. Now Pat has stolen my limelight and I'm just "average."

Oh calm down you're crazy as hell, just not as much. Let's say Pat is in antipsychotic-medication-stage already while you're still in the common room... TongueLOL


Aw, you guys. That's so sweet! Heart

Our love is not free though. You've earned it by paying your taxes.. Tongue
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:16
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


That falls under my broader definition of theft.  If someone paints my house and expects payment, and I don't pay, I have stolen the painter's services.  I am a thief.


Anyone without a job report to Rob's house. He'll employee you apparently .



Oh, I could write them some checks, all right!  Wink


Yeah? I'll work as a day a laborer for you. You're a trustworthy guy, you'd never bounce any checks on me right?
Long as you let me sit lazily on your stoop


I'd let you stoop lazily on my sit.  Wink

Wait...

Ermm

Confused
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:20
And I love everyone in this thread, regardless of extremity in their views.
Too bad Pat doesn't love me back Cry
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:24
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

And I love everyone in this thread, regardless of extremity in their views.
Too bad Pat doesn't love me back Cry


Pat? Love? 

Now who's being naive? WinkTongueLOL

Oh I kid Pat.... 
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:25
First, there was that Angle in Nevada who suggested a "2nd amendment" solution to Congress

Then this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4

I know politics is politics, the image, all that....but this whole call to arms thing is at least a bit unnerving.

At least this is milder, and I lol Obama is mexican tax lord
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4jiqYcUoOk
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:30
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Yes, that's what theft is, regardless of the context of this conversation.  Am I wrong?  Look at my painting example I just made.  If I accept someone's services but do not pay for them, I am a thief, no?

Now you are reaching, Pat.  I am indeed responsible for my own defense and that of my family.  Sure.  However, you will find that a well organized collective will overrun a bunch of isolated individuals every time.

Let's look at it this way.  I use a percentage of my money to buy a couple of guns and some ammunition.  Everybody here (in this hypothetical country) does that.  We are armed.  The country next door decides to pool their resources for defense and buys a couple of tanks and ammunition and chooses to invade us.  Which side do you think shall prevail?

With rights come responsibilities.  If you want the right to life and liberty, Pat, you have to pay for the right to life and liberty.  Protecting it isn't free, and when people choose not to invest in it, then all of us suffer the consequences.

As far as you calling this theft, I call it responsibility.  Again, this is not the case of everyone paying for the benefit of the few (like welfare).  This is everyone paying for the benefit of everyone.


Your definition is so subjective them. What should we pay for? What if the painter doesn't ask you if you want your house painted? Then do you have to pay?

Rob, your example shows that those people should pool their resources together to form a collective to keep from being overrun. It does not show anyhting more than that. It does not show that people, who do not want to, have to pay into this collective fund.

The only responsibility that comes with a rights is the responsibility to leave other people alone and not infringe on their rights. You have no responsibility to secure your own rights nor the rights of others. To do so is a choice.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 14:31
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

And I love everyone in this thread, regardless of extremity in their views.
Too bad Pat doesn't love me back Cry



Sorry Ayn Rand taught me love is weak and immoral. Nothing personal
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 106107108109110 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.461 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.