Some cantons in Switzerland require people to vote and levy monetary penalties on people who do not vote.
Agree or not?
I agree. It is not just a right to vote, it is a duty. There should be heavy fines (e.g. 250 bucks) on people who are too lazy to get their butt to the voting booth to do their civic duty in a democracy.
It's a good thing when morons don't vote in our country
>>71740998
>forcing people to vote
very authoritarian
bad
I have a similar idea, give people tax credit for voting, reward and not punish
Democracy was a mistake.
Evola lives?
>>71742170
>I have a similar idea, give people tax credit for voting, reward and not punish
What is the difference to hand out penalties to people who do not vote? Effectively none.
But ok, I bite. Hand everyone 50 bucks in cash when they go vote. That will bring out even the biggest cockroach!
I think that it's pretty simple; lots of people simply don't vote because the government isn't doing anything that they seriously disagree with, that we consider morally bankrupt behavior.
However, if the government starts to do things the population doesn't agree with they'll start voting again.
>>71740998
All you'll get from mandatory voting is having more idiots vote and have them vote for the party that promises them to stop that mandatory voting shit, or promising them more free shit.
Like >>71742223 said, democracy was a mistake. There's no point trying to fix it.
>>71742385
>>71742170
>giving money for people to vote
what the fuck is wrong with you people
>>71741184
this
Also if every candidate is shit (happens every now and then) mandatory voting sucks ass
>>71742440
>what the fuck is wrong with you people
We want people to be politically interested and make the effort. What is wrong with handing out money to vote.
Alterantively, we could give them the right to spend 50 bucks on their favorite pet project. They can make a second cross for that project.
Not giving out money. Taxing less.
>>71740998
>VOTE OR DIE
It's even dumber when governments endorse it than when just P Diddy does
>>71742587
>government taxes somebody who is morally against taxes
>uses those taxes to bribe people who want higher taxes to vote
you can't be serious, this is bait right?
>>71740998
Agree, if we're going to use democracy, might as well do it right.
People forced to vote are just going to vote retarded to spite the law.
>>71742695
>Dae let taxes is theft
What is the point of forcing people who have absolutely no understanding and are not interested in politics to vote?
>>71742835
>give me your money or i'll throw you in jail or kill you
>not theft
i'd like to hear your mental gymnastics to argue against this, though
I think the easiest solution is to making voting easier and more convenient.
Direct democracy use to be impossible, but now with smart phone technology why can't we give direct democracy an honest attempt?
Even then, when the caucus came to my state I had no idea that it was coming or where to vote.
>>71740998
>Statism
THIS IS NOW A STEFAN MOLYNEUX THREAD
ALL NON ARGUMENTS WILL BE EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE
EXCOMMUNICATE YOUR FAMILY IF THEY DO NOT ACCEPT THE TRUTH
ANYONE WHO DISAGREES, DO YOU SUPPORT ME GETTING SHOT?
mandatory vote makes dumb people who don't know anything about politics vote on the most populist candidate
>>71743262
Do you want to rape me in a gulag at gunpoint or something?
You do not own the money, the government does
>gubmint taking 25% of your paycheck
fine
>gubmint making you vote every 4 years
THIS IS OVER THE LINE, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, DONT TREAD ON ME
>>71740998
Bad. They are going the wrong way. We need less people voting, not more.
Meritocratic, Representative Democracy. Only people with wealth, land, prior military service, or an education should have voting franchise.
>>71743262
peaceful_parenting.jpg
>>71740998
>Agree or not?
Beyond the fact your stupid communist horsehsit is bad in it's own right, morally and otherwise, it will also be the almost immediate suicide of most Western societies.
For example in America (and increasingly European countries) the only reason right wing parties are elected is because white males have a staggeringly higher voting turnout than shitskins, which gives us leverage against them when they want to get authoritarian Marxist catladies put into power. By giving them equal voterturnout via government fiat, you will see things spiral downwards even harder than it is now, and they will NEVER give up this power through any way other than brutal civil war.
Fuck you.
>>71740998
they have it in australia but i never vote because all the parties are jew infested illuminati so fuck wasting my time when they all do the same thing
never got a fine somehow
>>71741184
Actually I think tax incentives to vote would be good, for working class people not autism bucks or welfare. That way poor uneducated people would still blow it off.
>>71743085
Because the majority of our citizens don't care about politics. They vote for who they are told to vote for.
All of our problems are being caused by idiots who just blindly vote along party lines.
The only saving grace is that we usually only have to suffer a 50% voter turn out.
>>71742855
People need to be reminded: they might not have any interest in politics, but politics has an interest in them.
>>71743030
Simple; theft is the unlawful seizure of property, while taxation is the lawful seizure of a portion of citizen's capital for living in the state's territory.
The relation between two individuals, them being equal, is not equivalent to the relation between the citizen and state, them being inferior and superior respectively.
Now pick up that can.
>>71743369
yes
>>71742440
Tax credits you dumb leaf. Poor unemployed niggers don't pay taxes and thus get no benefit..
I advocate antinatalism.jpg
>>71743262
>ANYONE WHO DISAGREES, DO YOU SUPPORT ME GETTING SHOT?
If it makes you shut up, then yes.
>>71743706
There is no such entity as "state." pls explain how the seizure of one's property without consent can be considered both good (tax) and bad (theft) at the same time by the same moral agents (humans).
>>71743461
>>gubmint taking 25% of your paycheck
>fine
who are you quoting?
nice strawman
also not an argument
>>71743706
>lawful and unlawful
define it
>>71740998
In my country, mandatory voting is a mistake.
It forces stupid people, the majority in the country, that have no political interest at all, to make their stupid votes and keep commies in the power.
>>71744030
allowed by law
>>71743811
The state exists in that the people will it to exist, and they subordinate themselves before it's authority, as it is governed by those known as public officials. It is a social construct, but no less real.
It is bad when an individual unlawfully seizes property from another, in that they are equal before the law, but the relationship between that of the state and the citizen is innately hierarchical.
>>71740998
>yaya
It's yea, you dumb Krautposter.
Anyways, state mandated voting is stupid, but as a population you should ostracize people who don't vote
>>71743630
And here's the majority of our problem, man. The only reason those people vote along party lines is because nobody is aware that there are other parties besides the two.
Direct democracy would expose the two party scam, people would see that there are other options. People will vote only when it's convenient for them, not when it's inconvenient.
>>71744211
>>71743706
>>71744215
so if the law allowed me to rape your sister because it was lawful you would be okay with it?
just because something is "the law" doesn't mean it's good
>>71744368
nobody said it's good
>>71744480
so you agree with me then?
cool
>>71740998
Mandatory voting is fine when it works. In reality it doesn't work.
There are to many dumb people with no political interest whatsoever who will be getting forced to vote, so they'll just vote for the party which gives them the most free shit.
>give the power of voting to everybody
a lot of people are morons who don't know what's best for their country, nothing gets done as a result.
>giving the power of voting to a few people
easily corruptible and prioritize themselves over the country.
idk, just feels like there's a no win scenario.
>>71745217
democracy is deeply flawed
it needs to be removed completely or replaced
No
No one here fucking cares. You get charged if you don't vote, so 20 million white niggers who either dont give a fuck or who get all their info from a current affair draw dicks on their ballot paper and waste everyones time and resources, and then tony abbot gets elected.
>>71740998
bad because people who wouldn't vote otherwise likely lean left
>>71740998
>i think the current voting system is crap
>that'll be $200 sir
Could you guys be any more cucked
Duty to vote only if there's a "none of the above" option that actually has some sort of effect.
>>71744368
Correct, unjust and malignant laws ought to be combated.
Taxation is not unjust, and is good.
>>71745783
>the angry mob voted and it's okay to rob your store.
How old were you when you grew out of democracy?
I live in Brazil where voting is required.
Most people here don't know shit about politics (or didn't until the impeachment happened last week and sparked interest) so they would vote at whichever politician had the most ads on TV or based on a poster they found while on their way to voting machines. It's terrible.
>>71745970
That's why we have constitutions and measures to keep the plebes out of government; nobody ever said that democracy was good.
>>71745783
>Taxation is not unjust, and is good.
No.
Theft is morally bad(opposite of good)
Theft is also arguably unjust, because the concept of "justice" is not monopolized by a state's laws.
Thus, taxation is theft, and unjust
>>71746261
>Theft is bad, thus taxation is theft
What
Democracy only works when enough people from over the country are involved enough in it to hold their representatives responsible.
As it is now, literally no one in the entire countries care. They feel utterly disenfranchised. THEY KNOW that this isn't a democracy, but an oligarchy. They feel it without even realizing it.
What we need is a complete purge of politics. By execution. Almost the entirety of the political scene is a show, a carnival at this point. Romes circus and bread.
That's why people don't go out and vote.
>>71746503
>Almost the entirety of the political scene is a show, a carnival at this point. Romes circus and bread.
You know how it got to that point?
Because people lost interest and kept reelecting candidates, no matter what they did.
>>71746578
hence
>Democracy only works when enough people from over the country are involved enough in it to hold their representatives responsible.
>>71746361
Are you dense?
Just because a body with a monopoly on violence like the state says it's okay to take your money, doesn't mean it's not theft.
If you don't agree, then surely it would be okay for the government to take all your money right? It isn't theft after all.
>>71746688
Democracy is flawed for one simple reason:
The conflict of interest between the voters and the state, nothing more, nothing less.
>>71746688
True, but a purge won't help, you mixed up cause and effect.
A purge would help if your population was disinterested because it's disenfranchised, but it's disenfranchies because it's disinterested. People lost interest first and got locked out consequently second, kicking politicians out won't lead to them getting interested, it only leads to a repetition of the process.
>>71746731
Sometimes, it's actually totally okay to take someone's money, even if they don't like it. For example, if they have outstanding debt.
Now, all business in the US uses services provided by the US - contract enforcement and arbitration, protection from foreign invaders, infrastructure, environmental services, quality checks, prosecution of criminals.
Therefore, all business in the US has to pay for those services. That's simply the terms and conditions. So long as you stay on the land of the US, you have to accept the terms of the US. The payment is collected in the form of taxes.
And your analogy is stupid, though the kind of stupid depends on whether it's just my money, or everyone's money, so elaborate on that part, so I know why I should call you retarded.
>>71746261
Why is taxation morally bad? It is the tithe the citizens pay for the protection and service of the state, as is normal for the lesser to serve the superior.
>>71746731
The state has a monopoly on just coercive force, and taxes are used for good.
>it would be okay for the government to take all your money right?
The utility generated by the increased taxation is drastically outweighed by the disutility of destroying the economy.
As of now, the utility generated by taxation is (arguably) greater than the disutility caused by taking a portion of a citizen's capital.
>>71747102
The only way to end the lock out however is to kill off the ruling class.
It's merely the most important step. A bullet will never fly if the trigger is not first pulled.
They will never give up their power willfully. They will massacre millions before that.
>>71747604
Half of my country used to be a literal dictatorship that imported russian tanks to suppress demonstrations.
Guess what, they just fucking collapsed. No civil war. No millions dead. Just fell over and that was it.
Your "ruling class" only has the power that the people give them. If the people withdraw the leased power, they're done for. But they have to do this in unison.
So long as most people still believe enough in the system to vote, and to never demonstrate, it won't get done.
>>71740998
In Belgium too. If you don't go voting you risk a 350 euro fine. and like 280 people got that fine last year. In our elections we almost have Stalinist upcome percentages lol.
Well basicly youre not forced to vote but you have to spend time in the vote booth and do your thing. If you dont use a red pencil or you draw something on it or leave it blank it goes to the biggest party youre vote.
>>71747102
>Sometimes, it's actually totally okay to take someone's money, even if they don't like it. For example, if they have outstanding debt.
Is it okay to punch someone if they borrowed $20 from you and didn't pay it back?
>Now, all business in the US uses services provided by the US
Not voluntarily.
>Therefore, all business in the US has to pay for those services. That's simply the terms and conditions. So long as you stay on the land of the US, you have to accept the terms of the US. The payment is collected in the form of taxes.
So you agree that the system of having a state dictating what land is there's and what isn't is wrong? It's ridiculous to claim that just because you were born somewhere you have to follow that omnipotent body's authority.
>And your analogy is stupid, though the kind of stupid depends on whether it's just my money, or everyone's money, so elaborate on that part, so I know why I should call you retarded.
Let's hear both.
>>71747288
>Why is taxation morally bad?
Short answer, because it's not voluntary, long answer, read my other posts. (also tithes are voluntary)
>The state has a monopoly on just coercive force, and taxes are used for good.
Last time I checked, killing children and bombing sandniggers with my money isn't good.
>As of now, the utility generated by taxation is (arguably) greater than the disutility caused by taking a portion of a citizen's capital.
Exactly, arguably the average citizen could benefit by having less taxes, not more.
>>71747288
>The utility generated by the increased taxation is drastically outweighed by
"My assessment of value is absolute and incontrovertible, all must comply or face the penalties."
> (arguably)
Heh.
> Why is taxation morally bad? It is the tithe the citizens pay for the protection and service of the state
It's morally wrong because it's not voluntary. No man is born a slave, nothing is owed and there are no unchosen positive obligations. That is, you have negative moral obligations (not to kill people, not to put nails in the road, not to neglect people who need assistance), but no positive moral obligations that you don't enter into voluntarily.
>>71740998
It used to be like this in Chile until like 5 years ago or something.
>>71748087
>Is it okay to punch someone if they borrowed $20 from you and didn't pay it back?
What kind of stupid question is that? Not by default, but it's okay to do what's necessary to get the $20 back.
>Not voluntarily.
No one forced them to do business on the land of the US.
>So you agree that the system of having a state dictating what land is there's and what isn't is wrong?
What? All land within the border is theirs. That's how states work. Literally all of them.
> It's ridiculous to claim that just because you were born somewhere you have to follow that omnipotent body's authority.
True, which is why we aren't doing it.
What we are doing is that if you are on the land of an entity, you have to follow that entity's authority.
>Let's hear both.
I assume you can't find a non-stupid way to pick either.
If you mean all, it means there's no money left, hence the money is worthless. If you have all the money, people barter instead, they no longer accept money.
If you mean only me, then the state violated the principle of equal treatment, and is hence unjust. Modern states are bound by this principle, and cannot treat individuals differently.
>>71747777
Oh but hans, millions did die.
Eastern germany was part of the soviet Union, do you not remember?
56-62 Million unnatural deaths from Soviet Rule.
>>71748087
>Is it okay to punch someone if they borrowed $20 from you and didn't pay it back?
Maybe not over $20, but if there was a lack of a functional legal system (provided by the state, no less) and they owed me a sizable sum of money, you'd be damn sure I'd take their head to the pavement.
>It's ridiculous to claim that just because you were born somewhere you have to follow that omnipotent body's authority.
Well, yeah; you follow the rules of the household's owner (except those subordinate to the state's), and you follow the state's laws in their jurisdiction. That's the very basic essence of civilization.
>it's not voluntary
So?
>Last time I checked, killing children and bombing sandniggers with my money isn't good.
You have very skewed priorities.
>Exactly, arguably the average citizen could benefit by having less taxes, not more.
Possibly, but at some point the utility generated by taxation (through national works) would outweigh the utility of less taxes to the citizen.
>"My assessment of value is absolute and incontrovertible, all must comply or face the penalties."
That is the nature of the state, yes; which is why we allow citizens to have a limited say in policy, and to change them through peaceable means, rather than leaving it to an absolute monarch.
>it's not voluntary
So?
>not to neglect people who need assistance
That sounds like a positive moral obligation to me, friendo. If you agree that we ought to help those who need assistance (to create or enact good in the world), then it reasonably follows that we ought to maximize utility, and thus enact taxes if they would create utility.
>>71748509
>Eastern germany was part of the soviet Union, do you not remember?
Is this what they teach you in school? No, it wasn't. It was part of the warsaw pact.
>>71740998
Ofcourse nay. We have it. it sucks
>>71740998
We have this idiocy here. The result is that millions of ignorant voters who choose poorly, and are required by law to do so.
We owe it to this cretin system the degeneration of our politics in the past 70 years.
It's a stupid system, and its proponents deserve to be banished to a remote corner of the globe.
>>71740998
Hmm... lets see... I can vote for the jews, the jews, the jews, or... hey who would of have said it, the jews!
Mandatory voting is like forcing yourself into tyrany
>>71748582
Come on now, don't be dense.
That is like saying Nato isn't just US and vassals.
Even had soviet troops in your country the entire time.
>>71740998
Yay, it works wonders in Brazil
:^)
>>71749037
It had soviet troops in them, which were also used for "peacekeeping", i.e. suppressing demonstrations for a good while. Foreign troops aren't subject to the power lease between a government and its people.
But it didn't have the millions of deaths. Those were in the actual USSR.
And what I was actually talking about - the fall of the government - had very little in terms of killing.
>>71748361
>What kind of stupid question is that? Not by default, but it's okay to do what's necessary to get the $20 back.
I guess you're an advocate for murder too, as long as you get that $20 back, retard.
>No one forced them to do business on the land of the US.
An American business is made of Americans, Americans shouldn't have to suspend their moral obligations to benefit their own nation.
>What? All land within the border is theirs. That's how states work. Literally all of them.
That is indeed how all states work, nice assessment.
>What we are doing is that if you are on the land of an entity, you have to follow that entity's authority.
Why?
>I assume you can't find a non-stupid way to pick either.
?
>If you mean only me, then the state violated the principle of equal treatment, and is hence unjust.
>Modern states are bound by this principle, and cannot treat individuals differently.
Nice projection, dumbfuck.
See: Government sanctioned affirmative action, tax brackets, imprisonment, etc.
>>71748549
>>71748549
>Maybe not over $20, but if there was a lack of a functional legal system (provided by the state, no less) and they owed me a sizable sum of money, you'd be damn sure I'd take their head to the pavement.
So I can kill you to get my $20 back. Thanks for the permission.
>Well, yeah; you follow the rules of the household's owner (except those subordinate to the state's), and you follow the state's laws in their jurisdiction.
Cool, that doesn't mean it's morally good.
>That's the very basic essence of civilization.
Not an argument.
>Possibly, but at some point the utility generated by taxation (through national works) would outweigh the utility of less taxes to the citizen.
It's easy to make wide sweeping decisions for other people want without having their input huh? I guess it's also okay to force you to work in a slave camp as long as the utility generated by your labour would outweigh the utility of not having you working as a slave. See the hole in your argument?
>You have very skewed priorities.
The example itself doesn't matter, what matters is if I have a moral issue with something that my money is being spent on, I can't contest it or risk going to jail, if I don't go to jail, I die.
>So?
So it infringes on my right. I've repeated this like 20 times
>>71740998
no because:
1: muh personal freedom
2: muh right to abstention
>>71749342
>I guess you're an advocate for murder too, as long as you get that $20 back, retard.
If nothing else gets him to get out of the way and return your property, I'd say it's justified. However, "nothing else" applies. You first have to exhaust all other means of getting your property back.
>An American business is made of Americans
Duh.
But please not how "Americans" here doesn't mean "all Americans". In fact, it means "a tiny minority of Americans".
>Americans shouldn't have to suspend their moral obligations to benefit their own nation.
What?
First, a business isn't made to benefit a nation, if it does, that's an unintentional side effect. It's made to benefit its owners.
Second, they don't have to. But they do have to follow the terms and conditions that come with starting a business.
>Why?
Because you are on their property. Hence, if you do not follow their rules, you violate their property rights.
>Government sanctioned affirmative action, tax brackets, imprisonment, etc.
None of those are based on laws targeting individuals.
>>71749442
>all these non-arguments
Molyneaux would be ashamed of you.
>it infringes on my rights?
What rights? Natural rights? I had hoped you were smarter than that.
Democracy should be voluntary, otherwise it is a dictatorship and democracy.
>>71740998
No. I would require that, at a minimum, people have to pass a citizenship test before they can register to vote. We have motherfuckers voting over here who don't even know that the US federal government has three distinct branches.
>>71749928
>We have motherfuckers voting over here who don't even know that the US federal government has three distinct branches.
Well, it's hard to notice during times where all branches try their hand at legislation.
>>71749666
>If nothing else gets him to get out of the way and return your property, I'd say it's justified. However, "nothing else" applies. You first have to exhaust all other means of getting your property back.
It isn't your property, you gave it to him. Knowing that you understood the consequences if he were not to pay back. That under no circumstances gives you the permission to infringe on his rights by assaulting him.
>First, a business isn't made to benefit a nation, if it does, that's an unintentional side effect. It's made to benefit its owners.
Business are people, and people have to suspend their moral obligations if they want to do business, which infringes on their rights.
>Second, they don't have to. But they do have to follow the terms and conditions that come with starting a business.
And what if those terms and conditions infringe on their rights? Because they do.
>Because you are on their property. Hence, if you do not follow their rules, you violate their property rights.
I've been over this, I'm not on their property voluntarily, even when I'm on "my property" I'm on "their" property, One simple cannot escape.
>None of those are based on laws targeting individuals.
But why would an all-powerful state with the monopoly on violence have to treat you differently?
If you want a specific example, IRS audits.
>>71749780
Nice concession of defeat, run out of mental gymnastics to practice?
>What rights? Natural rights? I had hoped you were smarter than that.
I guess if you believe it's okay for me to kill and hurt people, there's no reasoning with you. Basically, a human is allowed the right to liberty.
>>71750690
>Nice concession of defeat, run out of mental gymnastics to practice?
Oh, so I'm not allowed to meme and call it an argument, but you can?
>I guess if you believe it's okay for me to kill and hurt people, there's no reasoning with you.
It is OK to hurt and kill people, if there is reason to do so. I support you getting shot.
>Basically, a human is allowed the right to liberty.
Why?
>>71750690
>It isn't your property, you gave it to him.
I made a contract with him that involved repayment. Breech of contract is punished by confiscation of assets. Resisting confiscation means you're permitted to use force.
That is, if you exclude the court system.
>Knowing that you understood the consequences if he were not to pay back.
The consequences were reposessed assets. Nowhere in the contract was it mentioned that he'd get not to pay me back. He agreed to repay. He breached the contract, and as such, initiated the conflict.
>Business are people,
Businesses are owned by people.
>and people have to suspend their moral obligations if they want to do business
Life isn't a magical fairyland. Terms and conditions apply. You can't have all cakes and eat them too.
> which infringes on their rights.
Which ones?
>And what if those terms and conditions infringe on their rights? Because they do.
Again: Which ones?
> I'm not on their property voluntarily, even when I'm on "my property" I'm on "their" property,
Sure you are. You're free to leave any time. No one forces you to stay. No one uses force against you to prevent you from leaving. If you stay, it's volunarily.
>One simple cannot escape.
Grab your passport, head on a plane, bam, escaped.
>But why would an all-powerful state with the monopoly on violence have to treat you differently?
Because it's not all-powerful.
Because the state is bound by the people, who have laid out rules which benefit themselves. One of them is that the state has to be neutral, which benefits everyone by ensuring they can't be targeted individually.
>If you want a specific example, IRS audits.
IRS audits aren't done arbitrarily.
>>71750990
>Oh, so I'm not allowed to meme and call it an argument, but you can?
I gave arguments, you didn't nerd
>Why?
If you don't believe this, then I guess you're okay with being my slaveboy fucktoy
>>71740998
No fucking way
If I think no politician represents me I don't vote.
If I don't have any interest or knowledge in current political discussion I don't vote.
People who are not informed should not vote
>>71740998
Nay of course
I sant less people to vote not more, and I want to be part of the people that do vote.
I thought you understood power Germ-... oh wait... yeah I almost forgot. You don't understand power anymore.
>>71751190
>I made a contract with him that involved repayment. Breech of contract is punished by confiscation of assets. Resisting confiscation means you're permitted to use force.
>I made a contract with him that involved repayment. Breech of contract is punished by confiscation of assets. Resisting confiscation means you're permitted to use force.
If you made a contract where he agrees that you can beat him up if you don't pay him back, it's fine. There is no voluntary contract between the individual and the state.
>The consequences were reposessed assets. Nowhere in the contract was it mentioned that he'd get not to pay me back. He agreed to repay. He breached the contract, and as such, initiated the conflict.
see above
>Life isn't a magical fairyland. Terms and conditions apply. You can't have all cakes and eat them too.
not an argument
>Which ones?
the right to liberty and happiness
>Sure you are. You're free to leave any time. No one forces you to stay. No one uses force against you to prevent you from leaving. If you stay, it's volunarily.
There is no choice. There is no stateless society free of monopolized violence. Thus I cannot voluntarily chose to leave anything.
>IRS audits aren't done arbitrarily.
You're right, they're done systematically to target people of certain political alignments, or any specific disposition.
If you want another example, There was a bunch of government agencies during the Red Scare and cold war that targeted individuals for their beliefs.
>Because the state is bound by the people, who have laid out rules which benefit themselves. One of them is that the state has to be neutral, which benefits everyone by ensuring they can't be targeted individually.
see below
>>71751723
>see below
i meant above
>>71751217
>I gave arguments
HAH
>If... fucktoy
That would create more disutility for me than it would create utility to you.
Liberty and freedom are good, but they are neither infinite nor maximally good.
>>71740998
This is idiotic. You can't force anyone to vote. If you did people would simply turn in their paper as invalid.
It is not possible.
>>71751898
>That would create more disutility for me than it would create utility to you.
what if i really really want a fucktoy
you can't measure utility on an individual basis fuckhead, which is why taxes are immoral.
Reminder that living in a country is consenting to it's laws; this include taxes.
If you do not agree with these terms you can leave.
>>71752059
Not an argument
>>71751723
>If you made a contract where he agrees that you can beat him up if you don't pay him back, it's fine.
It doesn't have to say "you can beat him up".
In fact, it doesn't have to say anything on the subject at all. He agreed to repayment. He violated the contract, and hence initiated force. Not keeping your end of a contract is a form of fraud. Hence, you get to recover your assets.
>There is no voluntary contract between the individual and the state.
There doesn't have to be. You are on property that isn't (just) yours. You stick with the rules, or you leave. The property owners don't have to make a contract with you, staying on the property means you agree with the terms and conditions of doing so. That's how all property works.
>the right to liberty and happiness
Your right to liberty is the right to get out.
It's not your right to do whatever the fuck you want. Conflicting rights don't mean you win every time.
Your right to happiness doesn't fucking exist, only to the pursuit thereof. Which you have to do in a world where you're not alone, and that won't bend over for you.
> There is no stateless society free of monopolized violence.
That's not our problem. We have no duty to provide an alternative. You stay on our property, you stick with our rules. You don't want our rules, you get the fuck out. Maybe you'll like someone elses rules better.
You want your own country, see if you can find a seller. NO ONE has an obligation to provide unclaimed land to you.
>If you want another example, There was a bunch of government agencies during the Red Scare and cold war that targeted individuals for their beliefs.
And that, I agree, was unjust, but doesn't invalidate the system, only the corrupted instance. Hence, it ought to be fixed, and returned to neutrality.
>>71751978
And I really, really don't want to be your fucktoy.
However, in the case of reasonable taxes with efficient agencies, the disutility to tax payers is marginal while the benefits to the nation as a whole are greater than the total disutility to the citizenry (which is nonetheless marginal to the individual)
>>71752059
This is false. Can the people of North korea leave? Can some uneducated faggot of some third world country leave? This is a privilege of the rich and the west.
Good lord no. The amount of retarded people voting is high enough.
>>71752337
>However, in the case of reasonable taxes with efficient agencies, the disutility to tax payers is marginal while the benefits to the nation as a whole are greater than the total disutility to the citizenry (which is nonetheless marginal to the individual)
So, communism?
fuck off
How fucking dumb are you if you think that people that don't want to vote should be punished? Seriously, fuck off.
>>71740998
The type of people who don't care enough to vote are also more likely to not be informed about the issues. Therefore their vote is not as important as the vote of a politically active and engaged citizen.
>>71740998
>mandatory voting.
The fundamental tenant of democracy is that there is a choice.
You choose to vote, and you choose to not vote.
compulsory voting is not democratic.
It should be the other way around, you should have to pay to be able to vote. Everyone knows that rich people are more intelligent. And the two groups without and income; the elderly and the young will have less of a say. The elderly won't be alive long enough to benefit from the government that they are voting for. And young people are retarded.
>>71752448
In the case of communism, the disutility of each individual is not marginal, and the overall utility is outweighed by overall disutility.
Communism is an example of unreasonable taxes and inefficient agency.
>>71752204
> Not an argument.
You gotta be fucking kidding me
>>71740998
Mandatory voting is a shit idea
Do you know what kind of people don't vote voluntarily? The kind of people that don't give a shit about politics, and know absolutely nothing about politics.
You're going to make them the voter majority by doing that. "Golly gee my friend says candidate X is a decent fella maybe I'll just vote for them idk who cares"
>>71752548
Agree 100%, well said
>>71744258
I vote green party and try to tell all my friends about it and really anyone if politics come up. They'll say stuff like "our two party system is pretty bad" and you offer them an alternative and they say "yeah, but I don't want to throw my vote away." It's pretty infuriating, honestly .
Whoever came up with that is a viper. You cannot throw your vote away unless you simply don't vote. Democracy works when you have a choice in who you support, not just in who you're told to support. Why do people think there's a write-in option? Why are people so stupid to think that not voting for ______ gives a vote to ______? WHY
>>71752287
This argument is going around in circles.
If you can prove that me being on somebody's property means I signed a contract then I will concede, but you can't because that's not true. And everything relies on that contract.
Additionally, even when I'm on my property, their laws and their voluntarily contract apply. Which is OBJECTIVELY immoral and unjust.
>>71740998
Voting is a privilege we should reserve exclusively for veterans that can pass a certain level on related tests. Example, if you can't point to Syria on a map you don't get a fucking say in what we do there. If you can't name or rightly identify what a white leader did, you get no say in banning history about him in favor of more diverse things. You at least have to have basic knowledge on the current issues. This way you don't get a say in a country just because you were born here, you have to risk your life for it, you have to contribute to it. You have to care about it on some level.
>>71740998
Statism is cancer.
People who don't want to vote, are the ones who usually moan, and complain all the time, but they're too lazy to get off their arse to do anything about it! Better they don't vote, as the majority won't be informed enough to vote sensibly.
>>71740998
Awful idea. Forcing people to vote just means more high time preference retards at the polls picking whatever superficially appealing nigger is on the ballot.
Universal suffrage is bad enough
>>71753016
>If you can prove that me being on somebody's property means I signed a contract then I will concede, but you can't because that's not true.
Cool, I'll come visit and crash on your couch then. I'll leave... whenever.
>Additionally, even when I'm on my property, their laws and their voluntarily contract apply.
Land ownership still works a whole lot like during feudalistic times. The state awards you a fee, in exchange for money, but the actual owner of the land is still the state. It's much like the exchange between landlord and tenant, the rent is the property tax.
>>71740998
A lot of people have no business voting.
>>71753016
Implicit social contract.
>Additionally
It's not your property, it's the state's property that, because you hold the deed to it, you are privy to extra rights and privileges upon it. Your property is not sovereign from the state, and is thus subordinate to the state's laws.
>>71753016
He's German. Germans cannot understand law.
>>71753249
fascist
>>71753371
The canuck is the one with no idea of law here, amigo.
>>71753204
>Land ownership still works a whole lot like during feudalistic times. The state awards you a fee, in exchange for money, but the actual owner of the land is still the state. It's much like the exchange between landlord and tenant, the rent is the property tax.
Exactly, to think we've advanced at all since feudal times when it comes to property rights is preposterous. You don't really "own" anything. It's all the property of the immoral, violent state. The only way to fix it is to reduce it to a minuscule size, or abolish it completely.
>Cool, I'll come visit and crash on your couch then. I'll leave... whenever.
Might as well, since it's not even my property according to you.
>Implicit social contract.
Can I see the terms and conditions for this? Then I'll let you know if I agree.
>>71740998
i'm for mandatory voting with a box to abstain
you have the right to refuse to give a opinion
your government still must ask you
>>71753468
>Can I see the terms and conditions for this? Then I'll let you know if I agree.
Sure, it's called the constitution. The jurisdiction of the state is defined by consensus of all the world's states, and their people. Real simple stuff.
>>71753634
i didnt agree to no constitution
>>71753468
>You don't really "own" anything.
Most things that you own you really do own. Land is a special case.
>Might as well, since it's not even my property according to you.
It's not, but you hold special rights to it. Which you'd understand, if you bothered to see more than black and white.
But I'm sure you won't mind. I'll bring friends, it'll be fun. Once we've trashed the place, we'll probably leave.
Unless, of course, having property actually does grant you rights.
Because this is where you get in conflict: Either property grants you rights, or your personal property doesn't either and any junkie can just crash at your place for a while. The power to kick out the junkie without having a contract with him is the power of the state to punish you for violating the law.
>>71753735
Well, that's how it works in America. If you don't like the law, either attempt to peaceably change it, move somewhere where you like the laws better, or attempt a revolution/rebellion if you can't change the law and don't feel like moving.
>>71753904
>peacably change it
Doesn't work, pal. The only way things change is through sacrifice. With iron and blood.
>>71753904
"if you don't like it leave" is not a coherent argument
try giving me an argument that doesn't sound like a youtube comment
>>71741184
Yeah, there are a lot of people in the country who I would rather didn't vote
>>71754071
Recent history shows otherwise, but yes, rebellion is an effective method.
>>71754182
I'll give you an argument as soon as you stop channeling molyneaux.
>>71753735
Nobody agreed to the country or world that they were born into.
>>71754071
Gold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."
So he made rebellion 'gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
"Nay!" said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- shall be master of you all!"
Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid 'em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron -- Cold Iron -- was master of it all!
>>71740998
The fact that voting is an act of will is the only reason US isnt dead yet due to democratic voters.
>>71740998
I think they should only have to vote in presidential elections.
>>71754757
>Nobody agreed to the country or world that they were born into.
yup, it infringes on my rights since birth
>>71754920
Natural rights are a farce, no one owes you anything.
>>71753204
>Land ownership still works a whole lot like during feudalistic times.
The state didn't own the land though the landowner did you might have rented your land from him but, especially early in the Feudal period, unless the specific Aristocrat's land you were on at the time belonged to the king the state didn't own the land. Other Aristocrats would pay the king a fee in exchange for protection but it was done by contract more or less.
It's mandatory in Uruguay, and it's seen as op put it: not just a right -- a duty.
We're becoming a lefty shithole though, since it's amazingly easy for populist parties to convince the plebbery.
All in all, I'd keep it at all costs.
>>71754982
*tips fedora*
>>71755190
Ebin meme you fucking niggerfaggot.
>>71755099
>The state didn't own the land though the landowner did you might have rented your land from him but, especially early in the Feudal period, unless the specific Aristocrat's land you were on at the time belonged to the king the state didn't own the land.
Please, next time, take a bit more time writing your posts. That was hard to decipher.
Now, if any of those aristocrats didn't get their land as a fiefdom from their king, or any other higher authority, they clearly held an allodial title on the land, and hence were actual land owners. The only difference between them and a king was a crown, i.e. a formality. If they paid a fee for protection, that's something countries still do.
It doesn't invalidate what I said at all - they were simply their own countries. Even if they formally had said king above them, it still applies, seeing how we still have cases of foreign royality "ruling" over sovereign nations.
>>71755293
>niggerfaggot
Either way I'll bite, if you're not a robot and have free will, you naturally have the right to exercise that free will, your natural rights are derived from that.
>>71755438
You have the ability to exercise freewill, but not the right to do so.
>>71755565
>I don't have the right to exercise free will
fugg off u gommie
>>71754920
>>71755190
>>71753735
>>71753468
>>71753016
>>71751723
>>71750690
>>71749342
>>71748087
I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN
>Is stopped for speeding
AM I BEING DETAINED
>Gets protected from terrorists by his countries police and military
AM I BEING DETAINED
>Is tazed
AM I BEING DETAINED
>Uses infrastructure
AM I BEING DETAINED
>Calls police after being mugged
AM I BEING DETAINED
>>71755674
Only positive rights exist, and are either enforced through consensus or through coercion.
>>71755763
not
an
argument
>>71755791
nice buzzwords, what the fuck are you actually saying
>>71755674
Go fuck off into the middle of the wilderness and stop leaching off infrastructure you clearly don't want to pay for.
>>71755791
>Only positive rights exist
U wot m8
Free speech is a negative right.
>>71755851
>Nice buzzwords
>>71755190
>Uses le ebin fedora tip maymay
>>71740998
>Laissez-faire capitalism
>An Idea so good less than 1/10 of the species benefits from it
>>71755851
>nice buzzwords, what the fuck are you actually saying
You don't do very much reading, do you? These are very basic terms.
>>71755904
Only in the sense that others cannot stop you from engaging in free speech, not in the sense that you are given the right to free speech by virtue of being human. It is granted and enforced by the state, or by consensus of your peers.
>>71755942
i tipped my fedora because he implied we didn't have free will, which is a comically sterotypical thing for usually deterministic athiests to do, you stupid fucking mick
>>71756111
>Only in the sense that others cannot stop you from engaging in free speech
That... that is what a negative right is.
Do you even know what you're talking about?
>>71756111
>You don't do very much reading, do you? These are very basic terms.
theyvery basic terms with absolute nonsense behind them, what the fuck are you even saying?
>>71756069
I WANT YOU FUCKING FAGGOT COMMIES TO GO BACK TO FUCKING REDDIT AND GET THE FUCK OFF MY POLE
>>71756153
Negative rights are often conflated with natural rights, which I assumed what was happening here.
>>71756213
Think it out, faggot, I'm sure you're smart enough.
>>71756381
>Negative rights are often conflated with natural rights
The entire concept of natural rights is retarded.
But glad we could clear up the misunderstanding.
>>71756381
you dumb fucking shit cunt even this pseudo-statist german
>>71756153
doesn't even understand what the fuck you're even saying, because it's literally nonsense and you have no idea what you're implying
>>71756603
No, just a difference in vocabulary.
You however, I'm afraid, literally are retarded.
Go on, what do you think I meant?
>>71740998
Only landowners that pay taxes should vote.
>>71756742
you're inadvertantly implying that natural rights don't exist
which is dead wrong
>>71756804
I'll say it straight on, natural rights don't exist.
Nature won't send a squad of bears to enforce them on your behalf.
>>71756804
I'm not implying it, I'm straight out saying it.
Natural rights do not exist.
>>71756875
see
>>71755438
Basically an expanded version of, "I think, therefore I am"
>>71756979
Yeah, that's not a right. It's an ability. Much like moving your limbs, it's an ability that can be taken from you, and nature won't do shit to stop your lobotomy, or to stop the drugs from working.
The right to retain and use free will is a negative right granted to you by society. It's not weasels and butterflies that will stop someone drugging you, it's men with guns.
>>71757159
Are you at all religious?
>>71756979
You existing does not grant you the right to certain things; only your own force, the force of someone on your behslf, or the consensus of others can create rights in relation between men.
>>71757221
I'm not. And I'll start believing in god-given rights the moment god sends a squad of angels to enforce them.
>>71741184
If there was 100% turn out rate in the US we would elect a democrat president every single time without competition. Republicans would be absolutely crushed. Nearly every state would go blue except for Alabama or Mississippi. It would be a blatant one party system and it would be a race for the Democrat nomination.
>>71757159
>It's not weasels and butterflies that will stop someone drugging you, it's men with guns.
To expand on this; it's either you with your own gun, other men with guns, or everyone agreeing (truthfully) to not drug or lobotomize you.
>>71757380
Systems have a way of fixing themselves in such a case. You'd have massive democrat wins for a while, but that would eventually tear the democratic party apart. After a short three party period, you'd be back to two, roughly split in the middle.
>>71757265
>>71757294
I'm stumped, moreso at the fact that I'm having a trouble coming up with an argument against this.
I'll definitely have to rethink a lot of things if I can't come up with the logic that my argument requires.
Thanks, you might have actually changed an opinion on /pol/
Regardless, it's been a very fun thought exercise between you two. Keep it up.
>>71757765
>Thanks, you might have actually changed an opinion on /pol/
Never thought I'd actually see that happen.
>>71757871
Keep in mind I said might ;^)
>>71757765
That's good to hear, anon; there is some definite philisophical work put into natural rights, but it's important to always reexamine the axioms upon which your morality is based.
>>71740998
Switzerland also doesn't have a minimum wage. Pretty cool country desu senpai
>>71757982
Hey, it's a lot more than you normally see. Didn't expect more out of this than some brain exercise. Glad to see even people on the internet will rethink things sometimes, it's gotten rare these days.
You have a good time.
>>71758036
Any recommendations on books/podcasts addressing this issue?
>>71758242
The very first book you should read is Leviathan, by Hobbes.
It's not perfect, it's not totally correct, and it's a rather primitive treatise on the subject, but it does an excellent job of setting the stage. I'm sure /pol/ would be more than happy to provide good expansions and refutations of the subject if you made a thread.
>>71758634
The thing with /pol/ is it usually filled with half-truths and non-arguments, and it's really difficult to hold an actual philosophical discourse without it descending into solipsism. Which is just fucking annoying to argue with because of it's nature.
