For my Libertarian friends

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Damn, Pat is officially most extreme Libertarian. Not just of these guys, but that I've ever seen. This is depressing my whole life I've been "that crazy libertarian extremist" guy. Now Pat has stolen my limelight and I'm just "average."

Don't worry I don't believe any of this. I just wanted to out do you in libertarianism.

JJLehto wrote: 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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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.

What is the point of being a nation to you?  Is there one?

Try again, since you still didn't address this fact:

Epignosis wrote: 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.

Without a proper military that everyone is invested in whether they like it or not, we will have zero rights (because someone else will eventually take us over).  I made bold the "all of us" because you can preach every man for himself all you like, but if only a few people pay for a military, and the majority do not (for whatever reasons), then the few of us have paid for the security of our country, but we are either 1) overrun because it is insufficient or 2) paying for the security of those who aren't.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: JJLehto wrote: 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. Sorry I missed this. Yes no tax at all. No city tax, no state tax, no federal tax, no consumption tax, no income tax, no death tax, no ____ tax, nothing. I would move every service into privatization except the military, the police, and the courts. Literally everything except that. They would be funded through donations.

Well as long as those are off limits.  Unfortunately, the military has already been severely privatized in this country with disastrous results.  But what the hell does it matter as long as the rich get richer off it?

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: JJLehto wrote: 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. Sorry I missed this. Yes no tax at all. No city tax, no state tax, no federal tax, no consumption tax, no income tax, no death tax, no ____ tax, nothing. I would move every service into privatization except the military, the police, and the courts. Literally everything except that. They would be funded through donations. Well as long as those are off limits.  Unfortunately, the military has already been severely privatized in this country with disastrous results.  But what the hell does it matter as long as the rich get richer off it?

I think privatization of military technology makes sense. The problem is the way war is structured in this country. The way "defense" spending is handled in this country. The problem is more with a standing military in perpetual war.

This causes those rich people to keep getting richer. If people actually held politicians accountable for war, cared about war, would realize that a cut in the defense budget doesn't "endanger" the troops, would realize that we don't still need troops in Germany, etc. these profits would come back down to Earth. However, this will never happen voluntarily.

Good. In Pat's view, all people are as willing to donate as Robert is. Good to know that. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: What is the point of being a nation to you?  Is there one? Try again, since you still didn't address this fact: Epignosis wrote: 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. Without a proper military that everyone is invested in whether they like it or not, we will have zero rights (because someone else will eventually take us over).  I made bold the "all of us" because you can preach every man for himself all you like, but if only a few people pay for a military, and the majority do not (for whatever reasons), then the few of us have paid for the security of our country, but we are either 1) overrun because it is insufficient or 2) paying for the security of those who aren't. The point of a nation? Just to have some apparatus to organize the courts and police really. I've already addressed that point Rob. Look, by me not donating my paycheck to Lockheed Martin's Force Field Research Project we all suffer. By me not growing food in my backyard, and distributing the produce amongst the population, we all suffer. Just because an act of mine will make the world better for everyone, and the lack of the act therefore will make it worse, does not oblige me to make it. If I do not donate to "our" military, I have then in no way infringed on your rights. No way whatsoever. Your rights require nothing of me besides leaving you alone. 1) Then people should donate. Not arguing against that. The great vigor with which your argue this point only attests to the willingness people will have to give their money. It makes perfect sense to do so, and none to not do so. 2) Who cares? Why do you care? Isn't your security all that matters? What does it change if some people sneak along and get the benefit. When you put change into a parking meter, and after you leave someone parks in the spot using your surplus time, do you get angry? Who cares if a freeloader attaches himself. It doesn't make your life any worse.

1) You don't know people very well, apparently.  Do you think everyone has sense?  If they did, would they not be espousing Libertarian or conservative views about the government?

2) No, my security is not all that matters to me.

You've addressed the nicer of the two scenarios- the freeloaders.  Sure that's easy.  Oh wait, it's not.  I don't get upset about a parking meter because it's less than 25 cents.  If I have to donate thousands of dollars for the defense of those who don't want to pay, then it's a big damn problem.  I'm sure you'll jump in and proclaim a black and white principle, that the amount shouldn't matter, but it does.  That's real life.  I may give a bum a dollar, but I won't give him $100.

But turn your attention to the worse scenario- being overrun.  I see you haven't touched that one yet.  For the third time: If only some of us donate, our military will likely not be able to compete with a war on our own soil.  Is it right that those of us who paid are taken over or killed along with those who didn't pay?  If you're cool with this, then we may as well have no military at all, and then see what happens to the rights you hold so dearly.

Epignosis wrote: 1) You don't know people very well, apparently.  Do you think everyone has sense?  If they did, would they not be espousing Libertarian or conservative views about the government? 2) No, my security is not all that matters to me. You've addressed the nicer of the two scenarios- the freeloaders.  Sure that's easy.  Oh wait, it's not.  I don't get upset about a parking meter because it's less than 25 cents.  If I have to donate thousands of dollars for the defense of those who don't want to pay, then it's a big damn problem.  I'm sure you'll jump in and proclaim a black and white principle, that the amount shouldn't matter, but it does.  That's real life.  I may give a bum a dollar, but I won't give him $100. But turn your attention to the worse scenario- being overrun.  I see you haven't touched that one yet.  For the third time: If only some of us donate, our military will likely not be able to compete with a war on our own soil.  Is it right that those of us who paid are taken over or killed along with those who didn't pay?  If you're cool with this, then we may as well have no military at all, and then see what happens to the rights you hold so dearly.

1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical.

Political opinion is different than rationality. I assume people are rational on the whole. Yes I'm well aware of how they are not, but overall I think you can say man is a rational creature. Why are people unwilling to ever cut the defense budget? They like a good defense.

Are we going to beat this into the ground? You and I disagree on this. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind. I'm being honest there. My mind will either be changed by a much more eloquent argument than you're going to post on this forum, or via some internal change in my value system. I doubt I'm going to change your mind. I love arguing, and I'm too stubborn to stop if you continue. However, we haven't touched any new ground in at least the last 2 posts, nor here.

2) What else does?

Of course you won't give a bum a large sum of money, but that's totally different. Suppose the parking meter was $1000 dollars. You still get your use independently of the guy coming after you and using the surplus. This isn't a wealth transfer, you still get your service.

Okay, so I'll assume that for whatever reason not enough people donate to keep our military competitive. Is it right that the payers are slaughtered by a foreign army? Well obviously, no it is not. Does the moral responsibility rest on those who did not donate? No it does not. It rests on the invaders. People are not obliged to put up for your defense, nor their own.

Am I cool with that? What does that mean? I'm cool with the logic of it, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it happening. Your implication that if something could possibly fail then it useless to try is ridiculous and you know it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical.

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical.  Damn! So all that stupid-calling (not just to me of course) and all that "your opinion is irrelevant to me" was only good debating... Well, I guess that explains why you really think a donation-based army would be as well funded as a taxes-based one... Again, inconsistency is not one of your flaws. Consistency for consistency's sake is quite dangerous though...

Well, it is certainly possible to be consistently dumb...