Voluntaryism
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: Voluntaryism
I have yet to find an argument against the fact that taxation is theft that is not fallacious in nature. Can anyone present an adequate rebuttal that is is not laced with fallacy and/or euphemism. Common examples:
>You can leave>
If you moved into a neighborhood and the Mafia forced you to pay 'protection money', would it not really be extortion simply because the Mafia gave you the option to move away? This goes into a bigger question of who actually owns land in this country (its all government owned, you pay rent, but you call it property tax)
>It's not theft because you receive goods/services>
If a mugger robs you at gunpoint and buys you a sandwich, does that mean the original transaction wasn't a robbery? The point is, no matter what happens after the initial robbery - it cannot reverse the fact that a robbery took place.
TL;DR You can argue that taxation is necessary, but you cannot argue that taxation is not theft.
>>78901671
arguments don't matter breh
are you willing to get raped by a nigger in prison?
then shut your mouth when you go up against the state
they will put you in a cage at gunpoint.
The only reason we can live in relative safety and with opportunity to pursue a life other than hunting/foraging/scrounging just to survive a very dangerous environment is because of civilization and by that logic, government.
Humans lived short, harsh lives in hunter/gatherer bands until civilization emerged. Governments require funds to function, and the logical way to raise those funds that is fair to all is through taxes.
The system has its flaws, but the fact you get to shitpost on /pol/ in the wee hours of the morning is because of government, which is funded by taxes.
no they are voluntary, duh.
>>78901671
>You are free to leave
Except you fucking aren't. Going /innawoods/ is illegal in most European countries.
>>78901994
civilization is not equal to government. government is the 'ruling body' the group of people with the supposed 'right to rule.'
it does not include everyone in society. government is a subset of society. it is made up of those agents who are employed by the state.
taxation and government 'services' are simply put involuntary trade. one party demands money, the other surrenders is or faces violence. I think people are just brainwashed into viewing government as being above morality, or giving government moral exceptions to commit theft, murder, and various other rights violations.
OP Is retarded.
>Most people on Pol are minimal goverment believers and make fun of libertarians.
>Taxes that majority of people don't agree with on Pol is welfare for lazy fucks and Obese people.
This whole bridges and cops argument is so old and can only be used for libertarian tards.
>>78901671
Tacit consent, based on natural law instead of positive law.
Read: John Locke
>>78901994
and the reason we get to bullshit on /pol/ is because of human invention, not government. Historically we are the most innovative when we have more freedom in the market. that and during war, but it would be hard to argue we should constantly be at war due to the technological advancements
>they're fallacious because I say so
>>78901994
>farming communities need obama to survive
>people didn't get along together fine as farmers just doing their thing
>government didn't act parasitically to tax the poor and tamed farming population in order to satisfy imperial aims of narcissistic politicians
>america isn't the ultimate parasitic government which now exists exclusively to prosper off the backs of its workers in order to funnel money and privilege to its elite, comprised mainly of capital allocators and bankers
>this is the best way to live!
keep deluding yourself.
>>78901671
>"Alright bro, let it be known that if you are living anywhere on earth that I claim 'jurisdiction' over, that every 20th of the month I'm going to rape you. But don't worry, it's justified because after raping you, I will be so satisfied and full of vigor that I will be able to be your protection against rapists and other bad criminals (don't mind the multiple hour plus call to arrival times if you live in a rural environment or dangerous city kappa). Sounds like a great, mutually beneficial, social contract, right, CIVILIAN? Oh and if you don't like it, you can fuck right off to any corner of the world where some other group of rapist/rape defenders HAVEN'T claimed jurisdiction, just good luck finding it. What's that? You AREN'T willing to go live in Antarctica or Mars? Well I guess you are voluntarily agreeing to being Raped monthly after all, I'm glad you saw reason :)"
>>78902281
Even in the US where you can go innawoods, you still can't return to the state of nature without busybodies trying to impose their society's rules on you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VzxxDTnB8
>>78901994
Government doesn't have to be a huge authoritarian bloated monster of bureaucracy and loss of rights tho.
The only thing gov should do is represent the people in foreign policy matters.
Everything else can be done better by the market.
So that could be covered generously by like a 1% vat or whatever.
>>78901671
>plz no steppy mr. gubment
>gubment bad
>>78902522
The internet fucking came into being from government funded research, you uneducated fuck.
>>78902354
>believe in minimal gov
>make fun of libertarians
So they make fun of themselves?
>>78901671
government takes your taxes and uses force to do it. But guess what. If there was no government, anyone else would do it or you would live in the jungle. Government works so well, because it's to big to coordinate to do greater harm against the whole population in a short time.
>>78902354
aren't libertarians FOR minimal government?
income tax means you don't own your labor
property tax means you don't own your land
if you're for minimal government, (presumably because they suck at everything they do, they cost too much, and they enforce every decision with violence) why do you think they would be better than the free market for any job? competition drives up quality, innovation, and drives down price.
>>78901671
Last time I checked, people don't elect their muggers or their mafia.
If people are too dumb to stop voting for people that will tax them, how are they supposed to be intelligent enough to live in a society without taxes?
>>78902596
>I'll just try to reason with my rapist, that'll work.
this meme triggers cuckbertarians
>>78902682
Where did government get the money to fund the research?
>>78902790
>Government works so well, because it's to big to coordinate to do greater harm against the whole population in a short time.
This is rich, coming from a german. M8, our government committed democide not even 100 years ago.
>>78901671
Not all essential services are profitable
>>78902609
>privatize police, law and order
Yea, let me pay a special force that puts you in my personal jail and then my private judge sentences you to death in my private electric chair. Good that there are no regulations on who is a judge and who is a policeman. And if there were any, who is gonna pay a police force to save your ass?
>>78902950
Name one
>>78902735
Things libertarians believe in.
Open Borders.
Privatized Military. Privatized Law Enforcement.
No taxes at all. Zero Taxes.
No they aren't making fun of themselves. I you don't know the difference between a libertarian and the modern conservative you might be retarded.
>>78901671
you lose op
that image you posted is just a false dilemma fallacy
imbecile
>>78902991
Search and rescue
>>78902990
>strawmen arguments
Imprisoning me violates my rights and I would just shoot your 'special force'.
>>78902682
>What I'm saying is that government is not a 'thing' it does not invent anything. humans invent things. government is an intangible thing that humans created to rule each other.
>>78902790
government is too big to do greater harm? did you miss the 20th century?
>>78901671
The government is the sovereign authority and acting lawfully. Theft is an illegal taking. Thus, what the government is doing is not theft.
If you disagree with what and how much the government chooses to take, you are free as a citizen of a democracy to convince your fellow citizens to vote for a candidate who will change the laws.
>>78901671
Related video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s
>>78902992
How are all these things not minimal government?
Do you think conservatives believe in minimal government?
Are you retarded?
>>78903029
>Good evening sir, I searched and rescued you. That will be 299 plus tip.
Btw, the german search and rescue service runs entirely on donations and is very effective.
>"If we didn't have government what would stop us from killing and stealing and raping and pillaging and acting like barbarians?"
>t.Statistcucks
>"If we didn't believe in God, what's to stop us from killing and stealing and raping and pillaging and acting like barbarians?"
>t.Christcucks
hmmm, makes you think
the answer to both of those questions is my gun
>>78902819
>is unaware of classical liberal notions of property and labor
See what John Locke, Rousseau and Thomas Paine had to say about property and labor. Your notion is relatively new, introduced in the US by Rothbard and Nozick within the past 50 years.
>>78903087
>implying I give a fuck about what you think your "rights" are
If you go around thinking might makes right, you're gonna have a bad time
>>78902947
> a short time.
jews were killed because the population was behind it.
The Stasi didn't kill nearly as much people. They were backed by the USSR from the beginning. The people had no power to begin with.
>>78902992
whats to stop the private militaries from taxing you for protection when you have no recourse to stop them?
libertarianism is just cartel country ideology
>>78902841
so if the local mafia had elections and you could choose a different Don from a list of mob families, would that make it legitimate?
if 7 out of 10 people vote to enslave the other 3 is that a legitimate process?
because enough people, or certain people, vote to make evil legal, doesn't make it not evil. voting cannot make something bad into something good.
This is worth reading, also it triggers lolbertarians.
>>78903249
>yeah, there he is, on the mountain top with his legs broken
>what's that? His credit check failed?
>turn this helicopter around, we'll bill his next of kin for the fuel cost
>>78901671
>you cannot argue that taxation is not theft.
of course you can.
all you have to do is define "theft" so as not to include taxation. Like we already do.
and we're done.
>>78902990
Arbitration can be handled in a competing marketplace of security firms so that violence is not used unless absolutely necessary.
https://youtu.be/8kPyrq6SEL0
>>78903285
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were immune to gunshots.
>>78903333
Government is the biggest killer in all of history. Period.
>>78903373
That's what the state is doing right now, idiot.
>>78901671
Theft is a crime, taxation is not.
It's that simple :^)))))))))))))))))
>>78903411
>people would lose all sense of morality in the absence of government
Kill yourself, you're clearly a psychopath.
Or maybe the guy has insurance. Mhmmmm
>>78902609
this. Adam Smith Institute has a statistic called Tax Independence Day which follows at which point in the calendar year does an average employee pay off all the taxes levied upon him.
As little as 100 years ago this Tax Freedom Day would arrive in late January/ early February
for UK. Today it falls around mid July, meaning an average UK employee has to work over half a year just to pay a myriad of various taxes needed to sustain an ever expanding government spending.
One could hardly argue that people were living in barbarism or anarchy 100 years ago, so trying to justify huge taxation by saying: *hurrr if u don liek it, go live inna forest* is plain wrong
>>78902997
it's an example of how not to argue that taxation isn't theft.
taxation is theft and the point is that's a fact, and one can only argue that theft is necessary, but not that taxation is not theft, coercion, or extortion
It is like saying killing is always murder.
Killing in self-defense isn't murder.
It depends on the intention.
Taxes spent to reward political cronies is theft.
Hell I think redistribution of wealth is theft, but I can understand those that don't think it is.
>>78901671
when you say 'taxes' thats pretty broad
are you just implying all taxes are theft?
ie sales tax / payroll tax and everything?
People complaining about taxes being theft are as annoying as the one complaining about genders.
That's reality, life is a bitch, get over it or become an african dictator.
>>78901671
>This goes into a bigger question of who actually owns land in this country (its all government owned, you pay rent, but you call it property tax)
That's correct, in that all property rights within a nation are ultimately derived from a state's authority.
They "own" it in that sense, but you, as the land "owner", are afforded special privileges in relation to that land in relation to other citizens and to the government.
>If a mugger robs you at gunpoint and buys you a sandwich, does that mean the original transaction wasn't a robbery?
The robber tells you that if you step into his sandwhich shop, he will rob you at gunpoint and give you a sandwhich. There are no police, no state, nor any higher authority with which to make his statement illegal, nor to back him or you up.
If you have your own gun and elect to walk into his store, and defend yourself against his robery, you dispute his sovereignty over his store and what he does within it.
Congrats, you, a one-man state, have just declared war on another one-man state.
>>78903629
>nothing has changed in 100 years
>posted from my iphone
>>78903729
>so what if you get robbed every day, get over it that's just how it is
All shall contribute to the sustainment of the common spendings, planned by the legislative power they choose, executed by the Government they elect and under the empire of law that binds society as a whole.
Unless you are an anarchist and dont believe that even a <1M individuals forming society need law to structure its functioning, you will need to establish a funding system to sustain even the smallest form of self-government that emnanates from the individuals to the institution
Now you can debate amounts, the type of system and spendings, but if you still believe that an ordained stable and predictable/forseeable governibg structure can be achieved without contributions, you are retarded
>>78903373
it's a lot harder to rob people when they don't think you have a legitimate right to their money and they also have guns.
>>78903376
>Argue that people aren't fit to vote for good leaders, let alone be their own leader
>be answered by a libertarian that democracy is not always legitimate
k
>>78903821
>having iPhone means we must pay 50%+ taxes
>>78902281
>>78902600
that [Innawoods] isn't yours, it's under the state's jurisdiction.
Going [innawoods] only works if [innawoods] is Terra Nullius, of which none presently exists on earth. No matter where you go, you're under some state's jurisdiction.
>>78903669
>taxation is theft and the point is that's a fact, and one can only argue that theft is necessary, but not that taxation is not theft, coercion, or extortion
I'm not convinced that you aren't just trolling at this point.
What is Tacit Consent?
Who is John Locke?
So many mysteries...
>>78901671
You are correct, taxation is theft. The arguments so far in the thread are laughably bad (e.g. the government is "lawful", therefore it's not theft... wtf?). HOWEVER, it is a necessary evil. The freeloader problem is too real.
>>78901671
> If you moved into a neighborhood and the Mafia forced you to pay 'protection money', would it not really be extortion simply because the Mafia gave you the option to move away? This goes into a bigger question of who actually owns land in this country (its all government owned, you pay rent, but you call it property tax)
If a person named Mafia owned all the land in the US you'd be okay with paying rent instead of taxes?
>>78903927
there must be a good place somewhere to disappear and build a cabin, right?
>>78903995
>Tacit Consent
I'm gonna rob you at gunpoint and force you to eat a sandwich. Since you enjoyed the sandwich I gave you, you gave consent to my robbery.
Great concept
>>78903398
in a competing marketplace of personal protection agencies work out contracts not dissimilar to a car insurance policy. If someone is committing property rights violations that cost those companies money in pay outs for damages, they are going to want compensation for those damages. seeking the culprit is a monetary incentive.
if a larger good was damaged like water supply by pollution for example, there would be even more people with legitimate reason to seek reparations, and more incentive to seek retribution from the perpetrator.
By voting for your government and using the services it provides, also by taking part in wider society, you are giving consent to taxation.
Not so hard, was it?
>>78904267
I didn't vote for my government and I am forced to use its services. I never gave any consent.
>>78904202
>there must be a good place somewhere to disappear and build a cabin, right?
Besides link related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius#Current_terrae_nullius
There are none; the best hope you have is just going so far out from civilization that the state literally doesn't care about you, and making you pay taxes would be more trouble than it's worth. Of particular importance with this plan is that you shouldn't cause trouble, as this would draw the state's attention and they'd quickly bring the hammer down.
This means no militant fascist communes, no meth labs, nothing that will make your worth more than your trouble.
>>78901671
>False, you are free to leave civilization anytime
That is factually incorrect to begin with. You are not legally allowed to "leave civilization," because all of the fucking land is owned by the government. Even land that you privately own isn't REALLY yours because of land taxes. If you just fuck off into the hills to live alone you'll be arrested by park rangers and probably go to jail for trespassing or hunting without a license or any number of other inane things.
>>78904326
>I never gave any consent.
You were born into the nation as a citizen, and have not yet withdrawn your citizenship.
Fucking deal with it, Kraut.
>>78904326
If you were born on the land of a sovereign private land owner your position would be no different.
>>78903502
using a euphemism doesn't change what it fundamentally is. does the state threaten violence if you don't pay? yes. if a person or organization uses the threat of violence to extract money from a person or business that is defined as extortion. it does not matter the organization involved. theft is theft.
>>78901671
taxes do not finance government spending.
This is because money does not grow on trees ... If the state enters 100 coins and then charge 50 coins, how do you finance government spending then? If the state takes back half again, 25 coins the money will ends up soon. So government spending is financed only by using deficit.
Taxes have different functions: to control inflation, promote virtuous behavior (ex. Tax cigarettes), but above all keep society together. For me it is difficult to explain because English is not my first language. Taxes are like a kind of contract between citizens and the State. The government can not force others to readily use its currency in private payments, or to hoard it in piggybanks, but government can force use of currency to meet the tax obligations that it imposes.
For this reason, neither reserves of precious metals (or foreign currencies) nor legal tender laws are necessary to ensure acceptance of the government's currency. All that is required is imposition of a tax liability to be paid in the government's currency. Taxes drive money. The government first creates a money of account (dollar), and then imposes tax obligations in that national money of account. In all modern nations, this is sufficient to ensure that many (indeed, most) debts, assets, and prices, will also be denominated in the national money of account. The government is then able to issue currency that is also denominated in the same money of account, so long as it accepts that currency in tax payment. Why would you accept the government's currency without taxes?
>>78904466
He's right though. There's nowhere to go. You cannot just opt out of civilization.
>>78903825
Yes, with your gun, or don't but complaining doesn't help.
>>78904267
No
By that rational environmentalist are consenting to global warming if they use electricity produced by fossil fuels.
>>78903600
making something legal doesn't make it moral/right
slavery was legal for christ sake
>>78904507
Theft is illegal, taxation is not. Boom, done.
Fiat Lux, let X be equal to 1, and let taxation be legal.
>>78904549
Then I guess you better form a group with like minded people, move to a chunk of land that you'd like to be free from a state's rule, and then defend your sovereign claim to that land with force against the state you're attempting to steal it from.
Oh wait, now you're a state.
>>78904070
>>78901671
Proudhon, the first anarchist, said "property is theft" over a century before Nozick and Rothbard said "taxation is theft".
You guys are into a relatively strange new breed of anti-statism.
"Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"The earth, in its natural uncultivated state was the common property of the human race" - Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice
"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." - Murray Rothbard in Faith and Freedom
>>78903398
>Subway eat fresh and freeze scumbag
Top lel
>>78901671
"Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition" - Rousseau
The initial act of taxation was immoral. However, since you allow it to happen, the continuation of taxation is not.
>>78904690
You assume that the state of nature is good or preferable to the state of civilization or man.
>>78903680
killing that is done in self-defense is not murder. taxes are not levied "in self-defense" they are an act of aggression. give us money or face violence.
>>78904549
But you can choose a country with a better deal on your theft.
>>78904806
Or you can attempt to create your own state that doesn't "steal" at all, and is entirely voluntary.
Good luck defending your sovereignty.
>>78902324
But government DOES have those exceptions. Why isn't imprisonment a kind of kidnapping? Why aren't fines seen as a form of theft?
>>78903696
there are two types of trade: voluntary or involuntary. taxes are involuntary trade, which means one party must trade something they don't want to trade or trade for an amount they don't agree to. forcing people to trade against their will is wrong, even if the state does it.
>>78901671
>you didn't get mugged because you could have just not walked down that street
>you didn't get raped because you could have just enjoyed it
>you didn't get murdered because you could have just lived in a different house the murdered hasn't cased
>>78903523
So what happens to those who are too poor to afford a security firm? What happens when the cost of identifying the mugger exceeds the PR/fine value? What gives Dawn Defense the right to demand payment and use coercive violence?
>>You can leave>
>If you moved into a neighborhood and the Mafia forced you to pay 'protection money', would it not really be extortion simply because the Mafia gave you the option to move away?
Yes, that's literally what would happen in a libertarian utopia
>>78901671
Taxes are required to keep a country running. Overtaxation because of a wasteful government giving money away is theft.
>>78904934
And there is nothing wrong with coercion, only whether the purpose and result of the coercion is evil or good.
>>78905011
> Socialism's cool up until I decide it isn't anymore
>>78903523
If a free market corporations use every possible way to get ahead of competition. Like bribing politicians and stuff. If there were no laws, Walmart would burn down its competition's stores. And your justice firms would kill each other. Kill them before they kill you. And the strongest would win and force a monopoly on everyone. Now we have a tyranny.
>>78903729
soooo, never ever try to stop injustice? what if every influential person in history had that attitude? Slavery is just the way it is - pick the cotton and deal with it.
you can go ahead and wear your chains with pride, I'm going to keep trying to show people how not to used flawed logic.
>>78904858
Sound like the script of that show with the nuclear submarine going rogue.
>>78903523
Bullshit these security firms are basically mafia and there's really no incentive for them to not force their "services" upon others. They are also free to restrict and screw over competition until there's none left and form a corporate republic.
We only have complete free market today, you have the freedom to compete and freedom to restrict the freedom of others via competition.
>>78905023
If I murder you to steal food from you so I don't starve to death for 1 more day, is that good coercion or evil coercion?
The answer is, all coercion is evil.
>>78901671
Only income tax is theft. You should be able to keep what you earn.
>>78904222
Tacit consent doesn't apply in your crazy analogy, at all.
If you do not like the laws of the society you live in, you have four choices:
1. Leave
2. Influence the society to change the law
3. Overthrow the government
4. Do nothing and accept your situation
Now, the harsh reality of the social contract is that it isn't based on manmade positive law. It's based on natural law and your real world options in a real world situation. The point of the social contract in classical liberalism was to enlighten individuals to realize that their own fate rest within their own actions. This radical new idea sparked revolution in people.
>>78904858
Not an argument. The fact that your society is corrupt and violent and cannot be trusted is not a moral condemnation of actual, free, non-nigger-tier societies.
>>78903787
you start out assuming that the government owns everything
government does not own anything, people own things. you prefer that people in government have control of all assets instead of leaving people to their own business and letting them own their own body and property outright.
giving power to the state to control those things is taking the property rights AWAY from those who have rightful ownership and therefor final say.
If you work hard, save money, and buy a farm. at what point does a politician "deserve" any part of what you earned?
>>78904934
Its kinda like the EULA when you download and install a program on your pc though. If you dont want to pay taxes then you should be looking for a way around paying taxes instead of filling out the w2 and accepting the job that makes you pay taxes for example
>>78904222
Literally what a parent is
>>78905049
Yes being a moderate is still a thing.
>>78903829
there would not be a central decision making body, society would be regulated by the free market. guess what the free market is? you and me, deciding what to put up with, what's right and wrong, and what to fund with our own money. OMG SCARY!!!
>>78905230
And sales tax, because you should be able to keep what you earn. And property tax, because you should be able to keep what you earn.
>>78901671
It's only theft if you argue that the government have no just claim to that money. By claiming that they do not, you are disagreeing with both the law and constitution. They clearly state that they have the right to collect taxes.
If you believe that to be objectivly wrong, how do you prove that? They burden of proof is entirely on you if you claim the existence of an objective truth. I say that the law defines theft, and I have consistent proof in saying that taxes are not theft because the law says so. You can't disprove that because it is true, but you can define theft differently yourself and argue that your definition has more merit. If God appeared and said taxes are theft, I'd change my mind and subscribe to his definition of theft. Simply because I believe he has legitimate authority in the matter. Until then I believe the justice system to be the highest authority in the matter.
>>78903882
sorry, better answer would be that you've got it backwards.
If people aren't fit to run their own lives (in statists opinion) then what makes you think they are fit to vote on how to force others to live their lives.
>>78901671
Grow up child.
.
I think your lungs are thiefs of my air btw.
>>78905394
> Moderation is the same thing as arbitrarily picking a midpoint
What's worse is you probably think it is
>>78903927
that's the point, the state has no legitimate claim to that property by any rational standard of legitimate property acquisition.
>If the Mafia did this
>If a robber did this
>If Satan McHitler did this
Your analogies are shit and don't work.
>>78904466
Where will I go after withdrawing my citizenship?
>>78904806
You can't simply choose a country.
>>78905194
That's evil coercion, since the extension of your life by one day does not warrant the loss of hundreds or thousands of days of someone else's life.
Coercion is morally neutral.
>>78905333
You assume that violence is intrinsically bad, or that my society even gives half a shit about your paltry little micro-state.
>>78905336
>you start out assuming that the government owns everything
I didn't say everything, I said all land (in this example); All peoples and citizens within a nation are subsequently subordinate to that nation, and are not sovereign peoples. Since they are not sovereign, their land cannot be sovereign either.
>rightful ownership
Who says what's rightful or not?
>If you work hard, save money, and buy a farm. at what point does a politician "deserve" any part of what you earned?
The part where the politician and the state provided some of the conditions in which a stable nation could be built, in which you have had the opportunity to save up (state) money and to gain "ownership" of the state's land, in exchange for special privileges and protections upon that land.
Everything is owned by someone, and the state has the same legal status as a person. Since you, the citizen, are subject to the laws of the state and are its subordinate, your property is ultimately protected by the state, which has sovereignty over it.
>inb4 groups/governments aren't people.
Fiat Lux. Let the government be a person.
>>78905651
> the state has no legitimate claim to that property by any rational standard of legitimate property acquisition.
Sure it does; the state says it has jurisdiction over that land, no one disagrees with it (person or state), and anyone who does the state will quickly "correct" if it has sufficient force to defend its claims.
If this happens between two states, we call this a war.
>>78905767
>Where will I go after withdrawing my citizenship?
Probably some other country, or you can try and form your own.
Good luck.
>>78904905
Because imprisonment and fines are punishment for breaking the law.
Your rights are being suspended because you violated someone elses.
It's not even remotely the same as taxation.
>>78905336
>government does not own anything, people own things.
The commons. You really should read about classical liberal notions of property. John Locke, Rousseau, etc.
"You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one.” - Rousseau
However natural “owning” land or "private property" may seem in our society, in the long sweep of human existence, it is a fairly recent invention and has only existed with the establishment of a state.
Your claim to private property, is only guaranteed by the state. Without the state, the only property that you can assuredly "own" is that which you readily possess and can defend.
>giving power to the state to control those things is taking the property rights AWAY from those who have rightful ownership and therefor final say
Again, claims to private property have only existed with the establishment of a state. In a stateless society, the only property which you positively "own" is that which you can readily possess and defend.
>If you work hard, save money, and buy a farm at what point does a politician "deserve" any part of what you earned?
Do you want them to guarantee your claim and defend your claim to the property which you farm?
>>78901671
Is it theft if you agree to give the money? Or is it a transaction?
If you are against taxes then you are against democracy.
The government that take you money in the form of tax are given their right to do that by majority consent due to the general election.
If there was a vote of no confidence or a below 50% turnout at a general election then you're argument would stand, but in a democratic society where they majority of citizens in said society bestow the right to tax the population upon a government then it is not theft.
If you do not believe in the supreme right of democracy then your position that tax is theft is a perfectly intellectually integral argument.
>>78905884
To be fair, a singular person defending their claim could be, in of themselves, considered a single-citizen state.
>>78905321
You can not simply leave because there is no place to go.
>>78905454
No, now you're buying something. If you don't want to pay taxes on it you don't have to buy it.
>>78904146
I find it highly improbable that one person could come to legitimately own all the land. Like a comparable argument might be: what if someone owned all the gold and silver in the world? I guess because of that implausible scenario we shouldn't try to back our money with anything of value, right?
Question for you: If that hypothetical scenario was the case would you be ok with it, if the person was called government? because that's pretty much already the case.
>>78902507
Don't expect retarded /pol/ users to read locke. Mention Leviathan by Hobbes and they'll think that it's a book about monsters.
>>78905471
That's why you get called a statist cuck.
>>78906134
>I find it highly improbable that one person could come to legitimately own all the land.
Alright then, it's a whole bunch of people and, for legal purposes, they consider themselves as a group to be a singular person.
Or, if you really want to have a single person own all the land, have a king. The king has authority over the nobles, who have authority over the vassals, who have authority over the people and the land. The king doesn't directly own anything (except perhaps his own personal land), but he is nonetheless the source of all sovereign authority of those under him.
>>78906109
If you are not able to leave, then you only have the three other options. This is the reality, the social contract is natural law and not manmade positive law.
>>78906118
If there's someone buying, then there is someone selling. The person selling would not be able to keep all the money from the sale if there was sales tax.
We already have complete free market already .
Companies already have the freedom to compete and freedom to restrict the freedom of others via competition.
Without government this would be done through mafia or "optional" "security services"
>>78905049
I need roads, electricity and running water to live. What I don't need are refugees, deadbeats and single mothers with 9 kids who all grow up to be deadbeats and criminals.
>>78904518
people should be allowed to use whatever they want for currency. gold, silver, bitcoins, or potato chips. whatever people want to trade for things is fine as long as no one uses violence for force others to accept their currency.
government only has money that it takes from others, it creates nothing of value on its own. people create value in the free market, and the government steals part of it to fund its campaign to keep people in control. they monopolize important markets like protection and use violence to squash any competition to what they deem 'justice'
>>78906005
You're absolutely right.
I've noticed that this new breed of libertarian is a bit confused about what "right to property" means in natural law vs. manmade law.
>>78906595
>people should be allowed to use whatever they want for currency.
Oh sure, you absolutely can. You can barter if you want to, the government just won't protect any agreements or trade you made without money, nor will they accept it for taxes.
>it created nothing on its own
Didn't you just say that protection is an important market? If protection is a market, then it must create value somehow. The government has a monopoly on protection (unless it delegates that responsibility piecemeal), so it must create -some- value.
It might not be very efficient, but it is creating some value.
>>78904905
most prisoners are non-violent drug offenders anyway. most crimes involving damaged property can be settled with fines or community service of some kind.
jail should be reserved only for people too violent to be in society at their current state. if they are unable to rehabilitate their violent tendencies perhaps this earth would be better off without them (child rapists, serial killers, etc.)
Some people may be willing to pay to keep those people in jail forever, I am not. if you kill innocent people for fun, I'm in favor of dispatching you from this planet, but that's just my personal opinion.
>>78906595
>it creates nothing of value on its own.
It keeps track of owns what, maintains an army for the security of the nation and to an extent, manages criminals.
I for one have no desire to worry about some squatter taking my house while I'm out working or not being able to hand matters to the police or a judge when conversation gets me nowhere.
The difference between taxation and theft for me is; Is this money being gathered for the benefit of the people who pay?
>>78904943
read the words, not just the picture. I agree with you.
>>78906404
Some states manage to do it.
>>78907083
They get tax from other sources.
>>78905801
>>inb4 groups/governments aren't people.
>Fiat Lux. Let the government be a person
They're persons. People is plural of the non-legal word.
>>78907146
As an example, Texas has an average property tax of 1.94%, which is the 4th highest in the US.
>>78907158
Ah, my mistake, thank you Sverje.
Stating that taxation is theft is attacking the lowest hanging fruit while ignoring the full context.
>>78901671
>fallacious in nature
define nature
>>78904957
Dawn defense is just exercising the right of the individual to seek just compensation for damages. because an individual might not be willing or able to do it on their own they hire a defense agency.
without the defense agency they could attempt to seek payment for damages on their own, or ask others in the community for help. if John robs Karl and Karl has no defense, security firms still want to know about John, as he is a liability to their clients who do pay. catching him could be in their interest, and they may help Karl out of self interest.
worst case scenario you get robbed and nobody does shit about it and no one cares - kind of like what we have today. police come and do an incident report but they never find your bike, TV, insert stolen item here. even cars can be lost forever, or turn up crashed and police don't do shit and don't give a fuck. Personally I'd rather my money go to a company that has to do a good job or get fired.
In the end people are paying for it in taxes anyway, so they real question is how is the money best spent - on a monopoly police that doesn't give a shit - or on the free market in a competitive atmosphere
>>78906291
And this is why no one takes you people seriously. Why the fuck would anyone listen to you when you are wrong both in theory and in practice?
>>78905011
if taking 100% of someone's money is slavery, at what percentage is it no longer slavery?
>>78904791
>taxes are not levied "in self-defense"
Some taxes are in self defense
When London's river was so full of shit it was a health hazard, taxes were used to build sewers.
If taxes were used to pay for an asteroid defense system to destroy an asteroid headed at earth, that's self-defense tax.
It would still be coercion, and force to raise the taxes to pay for it, but the motive would be for self-defense.
Some taxes acquired through force are rational.
>>78905010
that's what already happens, but replace the word Mafia with the word Government
>>78907437
When the money takes equals services rendered. I do not wish to live in Somalia but I do not wish for Somalians to come here either.
>>78907485
Except the mafia is operating in an area where this is already sovereign authority, the government (I.E. bigger mafia).
>fuck laws and the social contract and shit
>>78902899
>this meme triggers cuckbertarians
If by triggered you mean irritated at how stupid you are, yes, very very triggered.
"Buh buh, muh roads, without the gubment who will buld muh roads!?"
"Buh buh my government, without the government who will... Fund Isreal, start useless wars fighting for shit skins, allow massive numbers of illegal aliens to infiltrate our society, fund muh abortions, give me muh welfare and muh food stamps for me and my wifes son she left me with. Without the state, what keeps me from starving to death? Without the government my house would burn and no fire dept. would save me! Whahhawahaha I need guvernmend to gibs me dats free healthcare!!!"
>>78907437
Presumably the point that maximizes long term profit for the individual and taxation for the state.
I.E., tax them enough that you maximize how much you tax from them over their life time, and this includes not taxing them so heavily so that it's impossible for them to advance in the markets and make even more money (and thus pay you more taxes).
The equation for this is likely to be not very pretty.
>>78905067
There's no incentive to use violence as a security firm as you would likely be targeted by EVERY OTHER RESPONSIBLE DEFENCE AGENCY. Since violence is expensive and wrong who would hire such a company and how could it survive amongst legitimate businesses?
without the ability to use the government as a tool for power they would have to offer a valuable product or parish among all the other failed business models.
your nightmare vision of what would happen is what government already is. less government control means more control for the people (you and me)
>>78906595
This was what happened in the Middle Ages, any squire could mint its own currency in his hometown and because people needed that currency, used in local trade, in order to live, to buy food, people also had to submit to its laws and rules. Plus a ten kilometers away there was another squire who used another coin you did not have and could not be of any value or at least a very different purchasing power. This is what I mean when I say that taxes are a contract between the state and citizens in order to organize the life of the whole society.
people create value in the free market? how? money goes simply form one hand to another.
>>78907707
I like you as a dreamer op, but molys and yours lmao-anarchism won't work.
>>78907600
Libertarians are for small government. They know that taxation is necessary.
>>78902992
>Open Borders.
Yeah, we also believe in an abolishing of the welfare state which would result in the starvation of millions of shit skins. In a free market whites would reign supreme, unless of course, you think we are not superior?
Also freedom of association means you don't have to give a shit about any dindus.
>Privatized Military. Privatized Law Enforcement.
Not neccisarily, the government may own these means, but it may not initiate physical violence as a way of funding said means. If you want police protection, you give up a chunk of your income, if you don't then you don't pay and you get raped by dindus. It's perty simple senpai.
>No taxes at all. Zero Taxes.
tfw people conflate anarchism with libertarianism,
>>78907816
>It's perty simple senpai.
The state isn't a business, it's a state.
>>78905350
know any good paying jobs that won't land me in jail for not filling out a w2?
>>78907803
>They know that taxation is necessary.
Of course, but it does not have to violate the NAP.
Carbon taxes and tariffs on socialist states do not violate the NAP. Those are just two examples I can give.
Taxation based off the benefits received principal does not violate the NAP.
>>78907888
>The state isn't a business, it's a state.
Bingo senpai. We replace the state with a business in which we elect the CEOs.
>>78907899
ITT: we endorse tax evasion
>>78907933
Go to bed, Moldbug.
>>78905471
you have the right to self-ownership
you have the right not to have aggression used against you
if you believe these 2 things you necessarily cannot also believe in or support the state (without some intense cognitive dissonance)
so, unless you don't think you own yourself, the government is unjustified by your own standards.
>muh libertarian paradise
why don't you move to china? none of those annoying fraud or copyright laws, no inspectors or standards, and only trace amounts of toxic metals in your food and water. just remember not to use the escalators if you don't want to be violently dismembered.
>>78908057
>Go to bed, Moldbug.
tfw when statist has no argument
>>78901671
But in fact all property is a theft.
I don't really see why you are so concerned with trying to make a specific case for State robbery... because all possessions are a theft, except for tools that are strictly necessary for your survival (and even in this case there are a lot of caveats).
>>78907437
>>78907671
Slavery is indentured servitude, bonded and forced labor without choice.
As a citizen, labor is voluntary in a state where you have the choice to influence, leave, overthrow or accept the laws. In a democratic society, you have a chance to decide the laws along with every other citizen.
If you do not like the laws of the society you live in, you have four choices:
1. Leave
2. Influence the society to change the law
3. Overthrow the government
4. Do nothing and accept your situation
Now, the harsh reality of the social contract is that it isn't based on manmade positive law. It's based on natural law and your real world options in a real world situation. The point of the social contract in classical liberalism was to enlighten individuals to realize that their own fate rest within their own actions. This radical new idea sparked revolution in people, and various democratic forms of government.
>>78908091
>>78908165
How is it cognitive dissonance to acknowledge that anarchism is incompatible with human biology?
>>78905607
my lungs are not denying yours of air - government is denying me of my justly acquired property, and you of yours, I'm just trying to show you that.
your ad hominem attack shows your lack of argument and that you let your emotions cloud your judgement
>>78907707
> no incentive
less competition => less supply => more demand => higher prices.
> targeted by EVERY OTHER RESPONSIBLE DEFENCE AGENCY.
People will form alliances to take out enemies or opponents. The 5 biggest agencies take out everyone else and split up territory.
> Since violence is expensive
it will pay
> and wrong
no angels in capitalism
> who would hire such a company
the person that wants to form a monopoly.
>>78908091
>you have the right to self-ownership
Only under the single-person state of yourself; if you are a citizen and subordinate to the laws of a sovereign, you cannot "own" yourself, to be able to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws you do and do not follow.
>you have the right not to have aggression used against you
Coercion is morally neutral.
>>78908165
Do you know what I was referencing, anon?
>>78908223
Just according to whom?
>>78905635
your lack of imagination doesn't discredit the free market's ability to deal with such issues. you can still have unions and such in a free society, for example.
but since you can't think of solutions you conclude violence MUST be used against people to pay for services, because if government didn't tell people they needed police and hospitals people would naturally have no incentive or ability to attain those things, right?
>>78901671
the first one is actually true in countries where they allow you to live without taxation (which i assume is most countries)
>>78908221
>How is it cognitive dissonance to acknowledge that anarchism is incompatible with human biology?
Anarchism (unless your a faggot with some bullshit definition) simply means there are no illegitimate hierarchy.
A state which may not initiate physical violence (corporation) is not an illegitimate hierarchy. Therefore, my belief in a state that isn't really a state by any means is not hypocritical. As my version of a government by all metrics is not a government but rather a business in which the CEOs are elected via money.
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism in the sense there are no rules or rulers, it is anarchism in the sense that all rules and rulers must have legitimate authority.
>>78907447
because nobody would want to stop the asteroid without the government telling them? also you think the government would be better at this task than the free market? I'm pretty sure in the marketplace of competing ideas the best ones rise to the top. in government shit ideas last forever because there is no punishment if they fail to change.
>>78908508
>illegitimate hierarchy.
You forgot to define that first.
>>78907330
well its a big step toward realizing that government is not legitimate at all. if people can accept that taxation is theft it might start the bread crumb trail that leads inevitably to voluntaryism - if you are compassionate and logical and have decent moral principles like self-ownership, for example
>>78908479
>countries where they allow you to live without taxation
>>78901671
>evil govt goys stealing muh hard earned money
Money exist because there is a state to guarantee its value and a state is here because people belonging to it are taking part in it or finance it with taxes
Now you are free to leave for some shitworld places where you could.keep all your rocks and sticks for yourself while.fighting everyday against everything to keep them : protip amerifat doesnt last 2 days
>>78908597
Because there could possibly be multiple competing anti-asteroid firms competing to get the most money to shoot down the asteroid.
With a state, there is no such possibility; all resources are devoted to a singular goal, with the express purpose of achieving that goal, regardless of efficiency or waste.
>in government shit ideas last forever because there is no punishment if they fail to change.
It doesn't need to last forever you fucking retard, it needs to last as long as it takes to destroy the asteroid, as long as it takes to clean up the river, as long as it takes to stop the invading army, as long as it takes to rebuild a city ruined from disaster, as long as it takes TO DO WHAT FUCKING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
FUCK.
>>78908349
>Only under the single-person state of yourself; if you are a citizen and subordinate to the laws of a sovereign, you cannot "own" yourself, to be able to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws you do and do not follow.
You just said if the state exists you can't own yourself. You are a cuck to the government basically. It takes your money and gives it to Tyrone and your wife's son in the form of welfare.
>Coercion is morally neutral.
So putting a gun to your head and telling you to do stuff is morally neutral?
>Do you know what I was referencing, anon?
-Told me to go to bed and called me a "moldbug" so no, I didn't detect any references, just a lack of argumentation skills and butthurt.
>Just according to whom? (in response to >>78908223)
My breathing does not deny you air any more than yours does mine, this is a mutual form of "aggression" that is a result of our circumstance and thus does not violate the NAP.
According to, Reality, anon, according to objective reality.
>>78908223
>government is denying me of my justly acquired property
This is the bizarre argument made by this new breed of Rothbard and Nozick-style libertarian.
More protection for your already state-enforced "right to property".
>>78908768
How is taxation defined as theft a problem in the context of society as a whole? Considering what the money is being used for it seems like a good deal.
>>78908739
>You forgot to define that first.
Illegitimate hierarchies are those which require the initiation of physical aggression.
>>78905801
corporations are legal people, doesn't make them people in reality - you know, where the rest of us live.
you can believe that the state is entitled to your money and control of your body and land, but I'm not so ready to be subservient to political masters that don't give a shit about us - and I think most people believe in self-ownership (at least in theory, maybe not in practice) I'm gunna have to say you are the minority and thank god. most people can realize theft when it's pointed out to them, but you're so disillusioned that you don't even support your own freedom.
I just hope enough people do still believe that this country belongs to the people
>>78908914
>Rand
ohboy
>You are a cuck to the government basically. It takes your money and gives it to Tyrone and your wife's son in the form of welfare.
nice appeal to absurdity, cuckboi.
>So putting a gun to your head and telling you to do stuff is morally neutral?
Depends on what the stuff you're telling me to do is, and for what purpose.
>Told me to go to bed and called me a "moldbug" so no, I didn't detect any references, just a lack of argumentation skills and butthurt.
(Meniscus) Moldbug is a popular neoreactionary blogger who argued for his ideal form of government, a corportation with absolute authority run like a business, pretty much exactly what you described. Google is your friend, famalam.
>>78902522
>it's hard to argue so it's wrong
War unites a country against an enemy (assuming actual war with losses on both sides, not some Afghanistan or Iraq type bullshit), generates innovation, and reduces the risk of overpopulation. It's a natural mechanism humanity used to rise to the top, and now that we have eliminated most struggle, we're declining.
It also has the benefit of strengthening the position of your in-group and weeding out libruls (k-selective environment).
In fact, war is more reasonable than abolishing all taxation. Sure you could reduce quite a lot of bloat and sadly governments are too watered down to actually stand for the interests of THEIR people instead of globalist kikes, but you're part of an in-group no matter where you're born and you need to aid said group.
>>78901671
You are talking under the assumption that there is virtually no need for society to be organized in some loose way for you to be free to pursue your interests.
That's your reasoning:
A. I need no society to pursue my intetests.
B. Society relies on norms and their enforcement.
C. Enforced norms limit my freedom.
D. Therefore society makes me less free to pursue my interests.
So now suppose society doesn't enforce norms, so you are finally happy.
But are you really free? I don't think so.
I will not make an example with petty crime because it happens anyway.
But I will make an example with foreign invasion.
So the Huns arrive and slaughter everyone.
So assuming State is not enforcing norms beforehand and is not getting taxes from you since before the invasion, this means there is no organized army.
>muh self defense
>muh militia
You cannot self defend against a nuke. You need technology. And technology needs maintenance and development. And maintenance needs continuity. And continuity needs intergenerational contributions. And these mean next generation will be born with that system already in place. And it is not convenient to negotiate norms and their enforcement every single time. It already happens a lot thanks to democratic institutions. And if you have a problem with the imposition of taxes to future generations, consider parents have the right (and evolutionary instincts) to ensure a safe future for their offspring.
So I frankly cannot see how taxes are a problem -- especially when you are given a chance at having your say about how they are used.
>>78909041
>corporations are legal people, doesn't make them people in reality
As soon as reality, God, or whatever starts enforcing its own laws without having to do so through proxy via people, then perhaps you have a point. Until then, man's law is the law by which man lives.
>>78901671
If I were a lawyer, I'd agree on the principle of accepting legislation as logic.
But where language is more fluid than it is "legislative", let's analyze it.
"Theft" is defined as "taken by force" or something to that effect; its meaning, NOT its definition, gives off a negative connotation, to the effect of "personal harm".
I personally don't mind if taxes are taken out to pay for some kid's medical bills. Is it theft? Does it have the same connotation as theft anyway? Not at all.
To say that it is theft because it's still in theory just as wrong to hold a gun to my head and make me pay money, what you're doing is re-framing unjustifiably, because nobody is pointing a gun at my head.
Do you follow the law because the law tells you to? Or do you follow your own morals, and it happens to be in line with the law?
Confucius once said that if you govern people legalistically, they will avoid crime for punishment sake; but if you govern with propriety, they will avoid crime for shame sake.
>>78905801
and who says rightful or not? you can argue semantics and whether rights are god-given or inherent and all that deep shit. but at the end of the day most people need only to apply to government the morals they already apply when considering the moral action of an individual.
government is immoral by most people's standards of morality, they are just convinced that government gets an exemption for some evils. I simply don't judge government actions differently than i would judge any private individual or organization
>>78909027
>initiation of physical aggression.
Doesn't this require the non-compliance of society rules. Aren't all societies, independent of what kind, based on the general compliance of the law?
Also, if you define the state to be illegitimate. How is it a bad thing? >>78908990
>>78909254
Government may be a person, but it is far, far more than just an individual.
People consider those actions immoral precisely because those people are citizens under a state; they do not have the monopoly of force, and as such it is immoral for them to act as if they did.
>>78908990
>Considering what the money is being used for it seems like a good deal.
The answer lies in consent.
You need a swimming pool anon. No no, don't give me that "I already have one and or I don't need one" bullshit. You need a swimming pool. And trust me, it's a good deal, all your neighbors elected me, So I represent the entire neighborhood. You need a swimming pool anon, so Imma come to your house while your gone, and build you an ugly ass above ground pool full of wholes and if you refuse to pay me for my service you are going to jail. You gotta pay your fair share after all, and this shitty swimming pool isn't going to build it self.
What's that anon? You'd rather pay a more efficient person to come along and build you a pool? Too bad. I am your democratically elected representative and you cannot question me because I represent you. Even if you didn't vote for me it's still my job to decide what's best for you, God forbid you be left to your own devices and have to make decisions for yourself.
>>78909137
You are right but those hipster dont really want no more society
They want to live in free places with state services and technology while not paying for it or following their rules they never intend to live in some far west or lone mountain
So basicaly drugged dreaming hippy or total punk parasite who cant step ahead from.when father was paying everything
>>78905942
in America Independents outnumber democrats or republicans, so already most people disagree with the major parties themes. the election is not decided by the majority, but by the largest minority. so even if tyranny by the majority was legitimate its not actually the case - its the actually the largest minority forcing its will on the majority.
>>78909041
>I just hope enough people do still believe that this country belongs to the people
>still
I highly suggest reading classical liberal works, starting with Adam Smith and eventually touching on Thomas Paine.
The arguments you've made in this thread, are fresh from a handful of 20th century radical intellectuals like Rothbard and Nozick who proposed them (not to much fanfare) within the past 50 years.
Our founding fathers, and classical liberals in general had very different notions of government's role and right to property than the ones you are purporting.
I want to make that clear, that your ideas are new to America.
"The earth, in its natural uncultivated state was the common property of the human race." - Thomas Paine
>>78906951
you lost. you moved the goalposts. Yet another one of these threads.
>>78906315
how did he acquire such authority? how did he come to attain rights that no individual himself possesses. a king has no more rights than a regular person. just because people use violence on his behalf does not make it just/right/fair/etc.
>>78902507
Tacit consent does not work since the state, and borders, are concepts.
>>78909673
>how did he acquire such authority?
He said he had authority, people agreed with him, and he brought the hammer down on anyone who disputed his claim to sovereign authority.
>just because people use violence on his behalf does not make it just/right/fair/etc.
That's, like, your opinion, man
>>78906352
social contract is not a legitimate contract by any standards of what constitutes a legitimate contract
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4LKX8_zTMg
>>78902992
>Not knowing the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist
>>78909499
This is a good post.
Obviously money isn't always spent wisely in a democracy. I actually tend to like the idea of giving more power to the corporations in order to drive competition up and therefor accelerate technical progress. But I am unsure if freedom and rights can be secured in the long run in such a system.
Overall it seems to me a technocracy would be rational choice to balance freedom, safety and technology.
>>78909088
>nice appeal to absurdity, cuckboi.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
The state takes your money.
The state uses this money to pay for welfare.
Your wife and her son move out of your house to live with Tyrone.
Where did I go wrong? Even if you don't have a wife or a "son" and Tyrone is just a metaphor, how is this in any way "absurd", how is this not a representation of exactly what the state does. The state replaces men and women marry welfare and raise fatherless degenerate kids. How is this not realistic when we already know that this is happening? There is nothing absurd about it in the least bit.
>Depends on what the stuff you're telling me to do is, and for what purpose.
And on what Objective universally applicable axiom do you decide whether or not something is a legitimate purpose.
>Moldbug is a popular neoreactionary blogger who argued for his ideal form of government, a corportation with absolute authority run like a business, pretty much exactly what you described. Google is your friend, famalam.
So, do tell me, why would running the state like a business be worse than what we have now?
>>78909885
>thinks the social contract is manmade positive law
This is an old meme, the social contract is natural law you idiot.
>>78906481
completely free means you can buy or trade with any willing party without having violence used against you. government butts in on all transactions, tells you who you can do business with and how you can do that business. it says what you can sell how much you should pay or earn for wages and how much of your hard earned labor is the property of politicians. you can't sell raw milk, collect rainwater, buy or sell land without government approval. i will stop for brevity, suffice to say what we have is far from a free market.
>>78909978
>The state uses this money to pay for welfare.
Welfare isn't a fundamental result of democracy. Welfare is younger than democracy. Its obviously bad decisions putting those faulty mechanism into our system.
>>78901842
BUT MUH SECOND AMENDMENT! MUH FREEDUMBS! MUH GUNS!
>>7890655
you can earn money to but those things or try to trade for them other ways or even grow your own food and build your own shelter. you do not have the right to force people to pay for those things, just like the deadbeats, criminals and octomoms don't have the right to take your money from you
>>78909978
For one, in practice, welfare could possibly be good, and even then, the state spends tax dollars on more than just welfare.
>And on what Objective universally applicable axiom do you decide whether or not something is a legitimate purpose.
>Objective universally applicable axiom
That's where you made your mistake, anon.
>So, do tell me, why would running the state like a business be worse than what we have now?
Because I personally, subjectively, believe that the state has a purpose beyond maximizing profit, and that maximizing profit is not a valid utility function to measure the goodness of people or a nation. It's certainly useful, but not the be-all, end-all.
>>78903029
Our current search and rescue bills you if they search for you, even if they don't find you. Why am I paying libertarian services and taxes? I don't think I understand why we have a government now.
>>78908223
>implying you have a right to the Kings air. That air is a privilege.
>>78909367
> Doesn't this require the non-compliance of society rules. Aren't all societies, independent of what kind, based on the general compliance of the law?
Laws which enforce the NAP do not violate the NAP.
Throwing someone in jail for rape is not an act of aggression, it's justice. Force yes, but not the initiation of force as the person committing the rape is the person violating the NAP.
>How is it a bad thing?
Because it violates the NAP.
The NAP is legitimate because it is the objective moral principal that has the most evidence backing it up.
I have yet to come across any moral axiom which has nearly the amount of evidence supporting it as the NAP does.
>>78909545
I fully endorse your view.
>inb4 these same people who post like OP would act like kings if given a chance to exercise power
>>78909499
So is Trump wrong to make Americans pay for his wall?
>>78906757
where did the money come from? did it come from productive citizens who earned it? yes. the state did not offer services and exchange them upon payment - they took money from others whether the others approved or not - and used the stolen money to fund a police squad.
they created a service with the value they stole from civilians - they did not earn it or create it on their own.
>>78910110
>Welfare isn't a fundamental result of democracy. Welfare is younger than democracy. Its obviously bad decisions putting those faulty mechanism into our system
So are you saying welfare is legitimate because it was voted in? Well, Obama was voted in, so there goes that argument in 3 seconds.
>>78905801
So It's in my best interest to not work, and simply vote for more benefits and immigration laws to increase the people voting with my beliefs until the system collapses. Thanks buddy.
I'm with her now.
>>78910275
I understand that the NAP is probably the most rigorous moral concept and therefor I agree with it being used, but what about it is objective?
To clarify: I agree with your post, but I am interested in the semantics you used.
>>78907083
i live in Alaska we have no sales tax or state income tax. we still pay federal income tax and super high property tax.
>>78909713
>the state, and borders, are concepts
t. mexican intellectual
>>78910447
>where did the money come from?
The state, they have a thing called a mint.
>they created a service with the value they stole from civilians
That service then goes on to create and promote an environment in which the citizens can safely create more value for themselves, under an orderly and stable set of laws.
>>78910560
Sure, that's the magic of democracy. According to my subjective values, however, I'd call you a selfish nigger.
>>78909673
What is the evolution of society.
What is itergenerational care.
What is culture.
What is heritage.
What is legacy from a time past.
You Ameriburgers speak all like society was created two seconds ago in the blink of an eye.
But that's fucking wrong. Human history is a decision tree and you are standing on one of its branches. Like it or not, you cannot saw the branch you are standing on.
>>78910488
Obama was legitimately voted and therefor his seat in society is legitimate. As is his policy. But this doesn't make bad politics and legitimacy exclusive.
>>78903821
>iPhones were invented because of taxes
>>78910290
hence, no one should have said power. giving someone the authority to rule others always ends poorly for those being ruled. only when people cooperate can we achieve peace, not by allowing one person or group to violently control everyone else, even if it is by voting. hitler was elected for fuck's sake.
>>78910447
>they created a service with the value they stole from civilians - they did not earn it or create it on their own.
But who the fuck is *they*?
Are you talking the people you elect?
>>78910667
I'll nigger it up long before I lick a boot.
The ideal society, and the only one worth supporting is the one that works solely for the benefit of those who belong to that society, and to only that society and to them all within it equally.
>>78910811
Computers were originally created as a military venture.
>>78910993
>The ideal society, and the only one worth supporting is the one that works solely for the benefit of those who belong to that society, and to only that society and to them all within it equally.
Cool, you can have that kind of society while "licking boot".
In fact, I want that kind of society as well.
You're still a retarded nigger.
>>78910835
So how do you suggest we create this society in which everyone happily cooperates and shares without any ruler of any sort?
I.mean, for fuck's sake... you talk like disputes don't exist at all and lole there is no need for professionals or nominated who are able to solve them.
>>78910674
history is a the story of how people have slowly been recognizing the inalienable rights of the individual while standing up to unjust authority. from the devine right of kings to the magna carta, constitution and on. end of slavery in the US, start of women rights and workers rights. one day hopefully people will realize they own themselves outright, but once upon a time everyone thought the king had legitimate right to rule because of GOD, now everyone believes in the divine right of politicians, but we know they aren't chosen by God, just regular idiots. seems to me it should be easier to see advocating whatever idiots vote for doesn't make for very good moral principles.
>>78910225
>For one, in practice, welfare could possibly be good, and even then, the state spends tax dollars on more than just welfare.
Yeah your right. The state spends money on more than just welfare anon. It spends it on Israel. On affirmative action for shit skins.
First of all. Welfare cannot be a good thing because it incentivizes work. Also, it is inherently anti darwinistic as keeping those in poverty alive only allows them to reproduce in order to have yet more of them in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZlsR3tNI_c
It is better to let 1 person starve today than to let them reproduce until there are so many poor people it's impossible to keep them all fed.
Just look at Africa. They have way to many people and before long they are going to start flocking to places that have welfare... Oh wait... They already have.
>That's where you made your mistake, anon.
So you don't believe in objective reality?
It's official everyone the sky is green.
>Because I personally, subjectively,>
>subjectively
>SUBJECTIVELY
"believe that the state has a purpose beyond maximizing profit, and that maximizing profit is not a valid utility function to measure the goodness of people or a nation. It's certainly useful, but not the be-all, end-all."
Well then I'll just subjectively tell you that gang rape is moral based on the idea of utilitarianism.
Rape is good now guys, I just subjectively declared it so therefore, Hand over your daughters.
>>78910856
government, yes the people who run the state take the stolen money and reallocate it to... whatever the fuck they want i guess. i mean what are you going to do about it? they don't care what happens to your money. its free money to them.
>>78906204
I have read Locke. Molynazi did an episode on it you should check it out
>>78911005
nah m8, computers appeared out of nowhere, birthed out of ayn rands vagina
>>78911211
Anon, I'm really sorry to say this, but I don't think any further argument is going to sway either of us.
This entire post of yours just further proves to me that our subjective values are utterly irreconcilable, and that I nor you will be able to convince the other.
Also, your post is so thick with fallacies, projection, and
>implications
That I feel like I'm reading Das Kapital.
Have a good morning, anon.
>>78911005
Huh? I guess that depends on how you define "computers" and the word "originally." Obviously government funded programs made some of the advancements along the way but if you think computers exist because of the government, you are a complete moron.
>>78911064
You literally cannot. You don't agree with me.
I may be a retarded nigger to you, which is fine, yet you're complacency towards our nations rapidly growing statism, class divide, and immigration is rather sickening. Now lick my boot or I'll rape your wife, since after all, I'm wealthy and influential. You wouldn't want to be on my bad side, would you?
>>78911484
>Obviously government funded programs made some of the advancements along the way but if you think computers exist because of the government, you are a complete moron.
Literally the earliest computers, the very forefront of the field, were created because of government funding.
Hell, fucking Babbage built his stuff because the UK funded it.
It is utterly and totally dishonest to claim that government and states had anything less than a major role in the state of computing technology today.
>>78911211
How do you define good and bad ?
>>78911484
>first computer was literally funded by the UK military to decrypt nazi communications
>ignoring 50 years and trillions in government RD between public universities, grants, etc etc etc
you're a maniac to argue we'd have computers absent without the government
>>78911432
look faggot here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgGlFcM_es
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcb9bKSZ2VU
>>>>78911211
>Well then I'll just subjectively tell you that gang rape is moral based on the idea of utilitarianism.
>Rape is good now guys, I just subjectively declared it so therefore, Hand over your daughters.
that shit made me laugh. I dunno how many more posts I can address before my tiredness deteriorates my argument.
If this is alive in the morning i'll be back, otherwise yawl have a good night and try considering advocating a theft free society where everyone keeps what they earn
>>78911669
>You literally cannot. You don't agree with me.
You literally cannot. You don't agree with me.
>yet you're complacency towards our nations rapidly growing statism, class divide, and immigration is rather sickening.
Statism is good, and I support it.
I don't mind the class divide, hierarchy is the proper form of being for human society.
I do not agree with immigration, and I am frankly offended at the fact that, in your mind, everyone you disagree with has been reduced to identical strawmen. You're better than that, anon.
>Now lick my boot or I'll rape your wife, since after all, I'm wealthy and influential.
Sorry, but you're not the state, and have no sovereign authority. Even if you did, you'd be damn sure that I wouldn't accept it.
Unlike the real state, you are blatantly malignant with no redeeming quality.
>>78911829
Anon, I'm not going to watch the bald cucknadian an-cap, nor am I going to listen to 34 minutes of libertarian drivel. Provide me with a TL;DW, or fuck off.
>>78910577
>I understand that the NAP is probably the most rigorous moral concept and therefor I agree with it being used, but what about it is objective? To clarify: I agree with your post, but I am interested in the semantics you used.
I came to the conclusion based off the argument morality was subjective. Rather ironically. If morality is subjective, you cannot force your morals onto others, therefore, which ever moral axiom does not require force must be the only moral one as it is the only one that would not contradict itself.
After lots of thought I came to the conclusion all knowledge is objective, and whether or not something is objectively true is based on the amount of evidence proving it true.
Basically it works like this. (this is very very simplified.)
Utilitarianism means happiness for the maximum amount of people.
NAP means no aggression.
We have to prove one of these is more moral than the other, so we use universally preferable behavior as our evidence.
The behavior I will use for this example is gang rape. Universally objected to by society at large.
So now we see which principal has the most in common with reality.
According to utilitarianism, gang rape is perfectly fine because the only requirement of utilitarianism is that the maximum amount of people are happy. In gang rape you have 5 happy people and 1 not so happy person, so we know that utilitarianism does not coincide with universally preferable behavior.
With the NAP however gang rape is aggression and is thus immoral.
Basically which ever moral principal has the most evidence is the objectively true one, just as we do with all other forms of knowledge.
It's hard to wrap your mind around this concept but at one time the world was "objectively" flat because that was all the evidence we had.
Maybe the NAP isn't perfect, but until someone comes up with something better, we can logically come to the conclusion it is the moral objective axiom.
>>78911432
fair enough fellow shitlord
>>78911956
>If morality is subjective, you cannot force your morals onto others
Sure you can, why couldn't you?
If someone thinks its moral to rape, and I don't, I am perfectly justified (under my own morals) to stop him from raping, so long as I also accept that forcing morals onto someone else isn't immoral, or is, at the least, amoral.
>>78911716
Government funds things that are too risky on paper to get private investor, the government know that it can invest in the long run as it depends of the "theft" of citizens not on the private market.
The exception would be the porn industry.
>>78911716
without WWII there would never be the iPhone
i believe this fallacy is Post Hoc, ergo propter hoc
just because the state funded it, doesn't mean it couldn't exist independent from it. even if it had an instrumental role, human beings created the internet and claiming without "the right to rule" (a.k.a. government) the internet would never have come to pass is to assume humans could not invent things (or at least certain things) without the force of violence that is the state.
there are some exceptions like nazis chopping up identical twins to see how they work inside, but i don't think you could argue that we need governments because without them we couldn't have the huge deadly wars that advance technology further. i dunno, unless ur a sadist maybe...
>>78902899
I could afford a brand new tax-free Landcruiser that requires no roads to drive on solely on my gross minus net earnings that were redistributed from my pocket during last 5 years in order to support fucking pensioners, the budget from income tax and """universal""" healthcare monopoly suppliers
>>78912371
True, Who needs roads when the amount of money you could save by not paying taxes buys you a helicopter.
>>78912324
>even if it had an instrumental role, human beings created the internet and claiming without "the right to rule" (a.k.a. government) the internet would never have come to pass is to assume humans could not invent things (or at least certain things) without the force of violence that is the state.
Except the internet was literally and explicitly created as a government project, starting out as ARPANET.
Your entire argument is fallacious, as it can be used to argue that anything can and will happen regardless of what happens.
"the theory of gravity would have been eventually formed without Newton"
Is a valid statement, and it's likely correct. It's also utterly meaningless.
What matters is what DID happen, and arguing about what COULD have happened is worthless, since you have know idea what WOULD have happened.
Newton DID formulate the theory of gravitation.
Einstein DID formulate the theory of relativity.
Washington and the founding fathers DID create America.
Government money and programs DID create and advanced computation, the internet, and myriad other fields of science and technology.
>>78912103
>Sure you can, why couldn't you?
If someone thinks its moral to rape, and I don't, I am perfectly justified (under my own morals) to stop him from raping, so long as I also accept that forcing morals onto someone else isn't immoral, or is, at the least, amoral.
tfw anon ignores the rest of your post
That was my intiatal thought, my intiatal thought was that morality cannot be forced onto people, and Then I realized that objective moral axioms can be forced onto people so long as they do not violate them selves.
Which in your rape example, forcing the NAP on the person who committed the rape does not violate the NAP because the person violating the NAP is the rapist.
>>78912103
he is forcing his moral preference (that rape is acceptale) onto his victim. you are standing up for the victims rights. your moral principles are still in line with the NAP - the rapists is not
>>78912371
And who paid for your school tutition that get you this earning and this ego ?
>>78901671
Holy shit Americans get dumber every day.
If you don't want to pay taxes then go live in the middle of nowhere and don't use any public infrastructure.
If you want to live in a society you have to pay taxes, or else you're the one who is robbing your government.
>>78901671
What is a non secuitur
>>78911949
>Statism is good, and I support it.
Please tell me how.
>I don't mind the class divide, hierarchy is the proper form of being for human society.
Literally lap dog eager to be beaten by his owner for him having a bad day.
>I do not agree with immigration, and I am frankly offended at the fact that, in your mind, everyone you disagree with has been reduced to identical strawmen. You're better than that, anon.
I fucking know you agree with me on immigration, stating that our fucking government is actively pushing for more of it to maintain control and increase their power is the problem.
>you are blatantly malignant with no redeeming quality.
:(
>>78911949
I do not have to argue with you. All I have to do is gather enough supporters of libertarianism to have you shot rather than the other way around
>>78908597
I don't honestly believe gofundme would work for stopping an asteroid.
Well....maybe a small asteroid.
Someday free enterprise will make it to the moon. Government got there first because it could use the force of taxation and didn't have to turn a profit.
They'd probably be the first to stop the asteroid for the same reason.
>>78901671
Theft is defined by the state, not through your NAP agreements.
>>78912668
>>78912672
Alright, in that case, I think it's immoral for someone to eat shrimp on a Friday. I see someone eating shrimp on a Friday, and I stop them.
Unless other people share my morals and values, I'm likely not going to be successful, but it's still moral within my subjective framework because eating shrimp on a Friday makes you literally Hitler.
As another example, let's say that I think it's utterly immoral for someone to be more than ten times richer than the average person. Or that it's immoral to engage in poly amorous relationships. Or that it's immoral to not devote your life and all resources to the development of biological immortality.
The point is, it's of no moral consequence to me unless I myself believe that it is a moral consequence. Morals are subjective.
>>78912711
i gave a statement: taxation is theft
I said all rebuttals i have heard are fallacious
I gave a few examples and asked for a not-shitty argument that taxation isn't theft
you failed to provide one
>>78912684
>Holy shit Americans get dumber every day.
Americans are idiots, now let me tell you why I think government education is a good idea.
>If you don't want to pay taxes then go live in the middle of nowhere
"If you don't want to get raped don't walk alone at night."
>and don't use any public infrastructure.
We can fund public infrastructure voluntarily anon. If I want to use those services I'll pay for them, If I don't want those services I don't.
>If you want to live in a society you have to pay taxes,
True, but there is no reason why those taxes would require force.
>or else you're the one who is robbing your government.
I don't pay taxes that go towards roads.
I never step foot on a road in my life.
Am I still stealing from the government anon or is your argument shit? Which is it.
>>78911956
I see your point. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say that "NAP is objectively the best form of morality we currently have" (In contrast to "NAP is the best moral principle")
Again this is not a critic of the content of your post itself, but rather the semantics of your post.
>>78912684
your statement assumes that the government owns all of everyone's money and that they have a higher claim on it than the people who earned it - who actually worked hard and created value.
the money in society belongs to whomever legitimately acquires it though voluntary trade. government does not engage in voluntary trade, therefore it has no legitimate claim on any of the money it confiscates.
>>78912713
>Please tell me how.
Authority begets order, order begets civilization. All of humanity is a complex web of interaction, but as a whole it is ultimately a blind process. It could deal with a prod or poke here or there.
>Literally lap dog eager to be beaten by his owner for him having a bad day.
There are those above to be obeyed, and those below to be commanded. All power is hierarchical, the only difference is the number of steps and branches.
>stating that our fucking government is actively pushing for more of it to maintain control and increase their power is the problem.
And is that an argument against all governments or all states in the abstract?
>>78912850
Sure, that's how authority and sovereignty works. Ultimately it comes down to who has more guns, and who is willing to use their guns.
Luckily for me, a vast majority of the people enjoy civilization, and enjoy being a comfortable little cog in the grand machine of civilization. Libertarians are just leaders who haven't found their place, and lash out because of it. It's pitiful, really.
>>78912956
>Alright, in that case, I think it's immoral for someone to eat shrimp on a Friday. I see someone eating shrimp on a Friday, and I stop them.
Whoa, stop right there anon.
... On what objective moral axiom do you deem it immoral to eat shrimp on Friday?
>>78911683
>>78911716
>Early 19th century
>Nazis
Funny how the two of you retards can't seem to agree on what the first computer was.
>It is utterly and totally dishonest to claim that government and states had anything less than a major role in the state of computing technology today.
Good thing I never said that then I guess, as I even alluded to in the line you quoted. I'm just pointing out that the idea of the computer and many advancements made in computing existed without the government and if you think "Dur, without the military we wouldn't have computers" you are either intellectually dishonest or a retard. Probably both.
>>78912682
statist logic? force people to pay for public school then tell them they should be grateful for their education because without government humans would be physically incapable of educating each other.
without the government no hospitals could exist - because you know, nobody wants a doctor
no police without government because humans don't want protection
see where the logic doesn't line up. supply and demand exist without government, or in spite of it - not because of it
>>78907083
Yeah, they rape you with other taxes. Do you know why sales tax and property tax are so expensive in Florida?
Because they got rid of income tax.
You also still pay medicaid and other local taxes.
Did you really think it was that simple?
>>78901671
The state is a scheme of reciprocal benefits. You have obligations to the state, and the state has obligations to you.
>why do I have obligations to the state?
Because the state has been doing things for you long before you paid your first set of taxes.
>I never consented to these obligations
Sure you did. Every time you received a benefit willingly you consented. You can't take something when offered with the full understanding that you will be expected to pay for it and then complain that because you didn't explicitly sign a contract no contract exists. Every sale that is made is a contractual arrangement. You don't need pen and paper to form a contract - just offer, acceptance, and consideration. Those are the three elements of a contract. That's all it takes. Writing, signing, or anything of the sort, is not an element of a contract.
>I can't opt out
Yes you can. All you have to do is meet your obligations (you can't just leave a contract whenever you want, you have to fulfil it first) and you can leave the state.
>BUT THERE'S NOWHERE FOR ME TO GO THE WHOLE WORLD IS STATES
So what? It's not all one state. You can leave America any time you like - why is it America's problem that you have nowhere to go? Is America REQUIRED to provide a stateless country for you to live in? Why is it required to do this?
>>78906204
>thinks babby-tier literature is deep stuff
>>78903261
I know that if I had no fear of imposed consequences beyond a mob of dumb ass cucks, I kill you for being a dumb ass cuck.
>>78913184
>On what objective moral axiom do you deem it immoral to eat shrimp on Friday?
I don't, I think subjectively that anyone who eats shrimp on a Friday are sub-human scum. My reasons are my own, and others may or may not share them.
One possible reason is that the Great Destroyer Fhlub-targ set forth that holy commandment in his sacraments of holy behavior, or some similar reason. What matters is that I think it's immoral.
>>78913186
>I'm just pointing out that the idea of the computer and many advancements made in computing existed without the government
You don't know that for sure, it may very well be that the earliest pioneers in computing wouldn't have received private funding, and would have died with their designs still in their heads. Perhaps humanity rediscovers computing and finally gets private funding a decade later, or a century later, or a millennium later, or perhaps never.
This is precisely why I said that your argument was retarded, because "What-ifs" are retarded.
>>78912886
SpaceX - private space travel becoming a thing? where's government on that? nowhere because government sucks when compared to the free market. Elon Musk will get human colonies on Mars long before NASA - unless they step up their game like the USPS when they finally had to compete with other service providers
>>78912899
theft is defined in the dictionary. if that is too semantically ambiguous for you how about coercion or extortion. taxation is coercion by definition.
>>78913467
>SpaceX - private space travel becoming a thing? where's government on that?
NASA, when they went through all the hard work of getting space travel off the ground (kek) in the first place with "liberated" Germans.
>Elon Musk
Is a sham and a bastard, he is a futurist who is scared of the future and is more concerned with enshrining himself in the past.
He will never get to mars, and I hope for the sake of our nation, and humanity as a whole, that the first boots to set foot on mars are not private.
what political ideology does dwight schrute fall under /pol/?
>>78913454
Except it doesn't rely on "what if". These people were real and existed and though about this shit before they got any funding. Thinking "lol well I guess all of humanity would have stopped thinking without government assistance" is the retarded argument here famalamdingdong.
>>78913454
>I don't, I think subjectively that anyone who eats shrimp on a Friday are sub-human scum.
Well you cannot force subjective morals on people. You can however force objective morals on people, of which there is only one. The NAP.
"My reasons are my own, and others may or may not share them."
So it's purely subjective and not based on empirical facts. So then it's simply not an objective moral axiom and thus you have no right to enforce it. Unless of course, You can provide more evidence in favor of your principal than I can mine.
Let's say eating shrimp on friday is immoral because I say so.
And that's my argument.
Then someone comes along and says, well based off of universally preferable behavior I have come to the logical conclusion that my moral principal deems yours immoral because punishing someone for a nonviolent crime does not coincide with the rest of the worlds morals.
Who ever has the most evidence wins.
That's how objective knowledge works and it's the reason we don't still think the earth is flat.
"One possible reason is that the Great Destroyer Fhlub-targ set forth that holy commandment in his sacraments of holy behavior, or some similar reason. What matters is that I think it's immoral."
No, what matters is objective reality and evidence. And the NAP has more evidence then the DESOF principal.
>>78913467
>unless they step up their game like the USPS when they finally had to compete with other service providers
You mean like how you can't send a business sized envelope by any means other than the USPS? NASA will probably make it illegal for Space-X to do scientific experiments in orbit.
>>78913355
that's like saying you must pay for white privilege, even tho you didn't ask for it, because you benefit from it. the difference is in the state's case they would be 'bestowing' white privilege then since you have it forever you must pay they tithe forever - however much they ask - and obey whatever rules they make.
I call bullshit. just because someone does something nice for you (for your benefit*) doesn't mean they can demand money from you later under threats of violence. can you name any other scenario where that is acceptable logic?
>>78913179
>Authority begets order, order begets civilization. All of humanity is a complex web of interaction, but as a whole it is ultimately a blind process. It could deal with a prod or poke here or there.
I really don't follow. I believe human nature is the progenitor of order. I do not factor authority in decisions, I way consequences, risk of being caught, and morality of my decision. Not once in my life has authority factored into my choices.
>There are those above to be obeyed, and those below to be commanded. All power is hierarchical, the only difference is the number of steps and branches.
You've clearly never had some stupid in charge of you. I've met people who've died because of incompetent leaders.
>And is that an argument against all governments or all states in the abstract?
bureaucracy must expand to accommodate the expanding bureaucracy. It's inevitable.
>>78914120
>just because someone does something nice for you (for your benefit*) doesn't mean they can demand money from you later under threats of violence
But that's not the situation here. You've known since you were old enough to know anything that people pay taxes, and taxes pay for government services. You accepted the services.
Now you are obliged to pay the taxes.
This shit wasn't forced on you. You could have left very, very easily a long time ago. You might have died, you might have had nowhere to go, and you might not have had a job when you did - but it's not the state's obligation to ensure that you have somewhere nice to live and somewhere nice to go even after you divest yourself of your obligations to the state.
This is literally equivalent to a man saying "I will give you this meal if you work tomorrow helping me harvest."
Sure, you might starve to death without the meal, but you still had the fucking choice.
You are confusing unsolicited goods with pay-later goods. You knew you would have to pay later, and now you claim ignorance. It's literally fraud. You're a fucking fraud.
>>78913706
thank you!
>>78913053
>If you don't want to get raped, don't walk alone at night.
No shit, that's a great idea
The problem with your system is that that you indirectly use services.
Don't want to pay for roads? Great, now transporting anything has an increased cost because the businesses that keep your society alive have to pay extra for moving goods.
That means any food you buy now costs more, posting anything costs more anything that you purchase that has traveled along a road at any point now costs more.
The problem isn't with taxes, it's with tax rates and allocation of tax dollars. So instead of trying to Jew your way out of taxes, you should stop being a lazy fuck and contribute to society.
>>78913706
>Thinking "lol well I guess all of humanity would have stopped thinking without government assistance" is the retarded argument here famalamdingdong.
I never said it was, only that it was a possibility. Just as someone else thinking up those things if those original people died.
You're not getting the point, senpai.
>>78914044
>Well you cannot force subjective morals on people.
Sure I can, I just did in that example. What's keeping me from doing so?
>ou can however force objective morals on people, of which there is only one. The NAP.
It can't be objective if I don't agree with it, now can it? If I subjectively say "I don't agree with axiom 3A.2.b.1", then guess what, you're fucked.
>and thus you have no right to enforce it.
According to who? I have no compunctions about enforcing it.
>universally preferable behavior
Fuck off, Stefan
>does not coincide with the rest of the worlds morals
I'm sure I could find a few dozen people who agreed with me.
>Who ever has the most evidence wins.
According to who?
>That's how objective knowledge works and it's the reason we don't still think the earth is flat.
>Objective
>Knowledge
Anon, please.
>I believe human nature is the progenitor of order.
Human nature, on the average, is brutish, nasty, plebeian, and shallow. Those rare few men of a finer clay than the proles ought to, and must, lead humanity to a greater future.
>You've clearly never had some stupid in charge of you. I've met people who've died because of incompetent leaders.
The (in)competence of leaders has nothing to do with the nature of power. Having an incompetent leader does not suddenly shatter the system in abstract, one which would preferably have competent leaders.
>bureaucracy must expand to accommodate the expanding bureaucracy. It's inevitable.
And it can be reduced through technology, through more efficient management, and through simply setting limits of what is and is not within the scope of the state.
De Minimis Non Curat Lex
>>78914617
>>I believe human nature is the progenitor of order.
>Human nature, on the average, is brutish, nasty, plebeian, and shallow. Those rare few men of a finer clay than the proles ought to, and must, lead humanity to a greater future.
>>You've clearly never had some stupid in charge of you. I've met people who've died because of incompetent leaders.
>The (in)competence of leaders has nothing to do with the nature of power. Having an incompetent leader does not suddenly shatter the system in abstract, one which would preferably have competent leaders.
>>bureaucracy must expand to accommodate the expanding bureaucracy. It's inevitable.
>And it can be reduced through technology, through more efficient management, and through simply setting limits of what is and is not within the scope of the state.
>De Minimis Non Curat Lex
>>78914357
*
I haven't seen a single argument in this thread that isn't "get over it xDDDDD", or "just leave xDDDDD".
I know that /pol/ isn't supposed to be a bastion of intelligence, but this is depressing.
>>78901671
Is is still theft if you get the money back in a different form?
>>78914617
>It can't be objective if I don't agree with it, now can it? If I subjectively say "I don't agree with axiom 3A.2.b.1", then guess what, you're fucked.
>According to who? I have no compunctions about enforcing it.
Your morals are less rigorous than the NAP, hence why his arguments have more weight.
>>78912682
I'll give you that but only because I'm a child of long-gone analog times pre-information era
nowadays I'd cut it completely from public spending via total privatization and leave it up to the parents to sort out their childrens' education
>>78914887
>Your morals are less rigorous than the NAP, hence why his arguments have more weight.
To him, those who agree with him, and those who can be convinced with his arguments.
Me, people who agree with me, and those I can convince to my side? We don't give half a shit.
>>78914617
>You're not getting the point, senpai.
Glad you're here to tell me what I do and don't understand. I'd be lost without you. All I'm pointing out is that the argument "Without the government we wouldn't have these things" is false, regardless of whether or not that's your position.
>>78914397
except its not here's a meal now, work for me tomorrow, its I'm gunna force this sandwich down your throat and tomorrow you're my slave.
then the biggest insult is to insinuate that without the state i would never be able to acquire my own sandwich.
similar to my point about education, you can't FORCE some service onto someone at a time when they can't really refuse it (childhood education for example) then tell the kid they owe you for life. if you don't think people will be able to build schools or roads or offer protection for one another without government u feel bad for you, for lack of imagination.
not only that its quite a dangerous idea to say humans need a violent ruling class in order to provide themselves with basic services - it's simply insane and not based in reality.
>>78914397
>
But that's not the situation here. You've known since you were old enough to know anything that people pay taxes, and taxes pay for government services. You accepted the services.
So government brainwashed you since you were little that government is good? Say it ain't so.
>Now you are obliged to pay the taxes.
You exist, therefore I have the right to your stuff, now give me your stuff. After all the government represents me so this is just like cutting out the middle man you know?
>This shit wasn't forced on you.
Right, if I throw you in jail for not being my slave I didn't force it on you, you forced it on yourself by not being my slave.
>You could have left very, very easily a long time ago.
If you wanted to stop being raped why didn't you just escape my basement sooner?
>You might have died, you might have had nowhere to go, and you might not have had a job when you did - but it's not the state's obligation to ensure that you have somewhere nice to live and somewhere nice to go even after you divest yourself of your obligations to the state.
Even if it was the government job to do so it would fail miserably, just at it has everything else.
>This is literally equivalent to a man saying "I will give you this meal if you work tomorrow helping me harvest."
If you want me to stop beating you you have to be my slave and if you do so, I will do some nice things for you like let you keep some of the cotton so you can make your own clothes.
>Sure, you might starve to death without the meal, but you still had the fucking choice.
I starve you if you don't comply, but you still have a choice.
>You are confusing unsolicited goods with pay-later goods.
I didn't know that people get to force me to accept their pay later goods and then throw me in jail for not paying for them.
>You knew you would have to pay later, and now you claim ignorance. It's literally fraud. You're a fucking fraud.
Anon, your "argument" is shit.
>>78914972
You don't understand. Disagreeing with NAP doesn't make that principle less rigorous. You see rigorousness is a objective measurement.
Your arguments stand on personal opinions only, while his stand on empirical data.
>>78914802
If i steal $20 from you and buy you a $20 hat, did I steal from you?
>>78914617
>>78914974
And further, people DID think up those things. It's not like the government went "Here's some money guys try to think of something." and then they magically though up computers. The ideas were already there...and so were the thinkers.
>>78914974
>All I'm pointing out is that the argument "Without the government we wouldn't have these things" is false, regardless of whether or not that's your position.
Except you can't know whether it's false or not. History is a very complex and obscure affair, human relations in general even more so.
It is entirely possible that:
Without government funding, computers would have never been created, and would have never been rediscovered until humanity goes extinct.
Without government funding, the inventors got private funding a week /year/decade later, and we're right back on track.
The original creators died with/out government funding, and no one stepped in to finish the job.
The original creators died with/out government funding, and someone entirely unrelated to them stepped in and finished the job.
The point is that your argument is meaningless, because we can throw and infinite number of "what-if"s at each other. Do you get it now?
>>78915151
>You see rigorousness is a objective measurement.
According to you, and people who agree with you.
>Your arguments stand on personal opinions only, while his stand on empirical data.
My opinions very well could be formed on empirical data; perhaps I was raised in a nation where every person who ate shrimp on Friday was a rapist, and every rapist ate shrimp on Friday.
Now, I'm really curious on this supposed "empirical and objective evidence" that you claim the NAP has going for it.
>>78914977
>I'm gunna force this sandwich down your throat
What a stupid, baseless assertion.
It takes the BAREST effort to avoid receiving services from the state. You don't have to do fucking anything, pretty much. Don't go to school. Don't use the courts. I'm not even counting "ambient benefits" because that would be unfair, but I can guarantee that you have actively sought out benefits from the state at least once in your adult life.
You are too servile and sycophantic to even imagine a world where you put even the slightest bit of effort into your principles.
Yes, you do owe the state. Not because they shoved the sandwich down your throat - it's not as if a child can object - but because once you became an adult you BEGGED for that sandwich knowing full well what it entailed, and now you lie, kick, and scream to evade the consequences because responsibility is an alien concept to you.
Furthermore, did you ever even stop and consider that this is the state's land? The US government is the owner of all land and titles in the United States. That's why they have the power to resume land (I think you people call it eminent domain). You're literally trespassing on their property.
>but i didn't choose to be here!
Yeah, but you haven't tried to leave either. You're clearly not opposed to being a trespassing squatter for your entire life.
>then the biggest insult is to insinuate that without the state i would never be able to acquire my own sandwich.
I never insinuated this. You're free to go and start your own stateless society on whatever unowned land you can find.
>b-b-b-but there is no unowned land
Not. My. Problem. It's not the state's responsibility to give non-citizens free shit.
>>78914595
>No shit, that's a great idea
Still does not excuse the rapist.
>The problem with your system is that that you indirectly use services.
-makes statement. Provides no examples.
>Don't want to pay for roads? Great, now transporting anything has an increased cost because the businesses that keep your society alive have to pay extra for moving goods.
So you admit that roads don't need to be funded through force. Good job.
I don't care if I have to pay for the roads.
>That means any food you buy now costs more, posting anything costs more anything that you purchase that has traveled along a road at any point now costs more.
So you admit I am still paying taxes however this time it is voluntary. Where is the issue here?
>The problem isn't with taxes, it's with tax rates and allocation of tax dollars. So instead of trying to Jew your way out of taxes, you should stop being a lazy fuck and contribute to society
So me only paying for what I use is me not contributing to society, but if I pay for things I don't use that's not society stealing from me.
That is some serious cognitive dissonance you got there.
>>78915334
Just because someone thinks of something doesn't mean jack shit until it's brought into reality.
Those thinkers could have died, never having had the resources to bring their ideas into reality, and it could have been such that new thinkers weren't born who thought of such things until decades, centuries, millennia, or eons into the future.
>>78915493
now you're coming up with "what-ifs"
>>78915346
>Do you get it now?
Except my whole point is that "LOL WE NEED GUBMMENT OR WE DON'T HAVE COOL SHIT LIKE IPHONES" is false. Your own arguments even admit that this is the case. Do you get it now?
>>78915087
>force me to accept their pay later goods
Nobody forced you to do shit. You signed up to the internet carriage service you use today knowing full well how involved the government is in managing it. You bought a car knowing full well the government services involved. I'm not counting ambient benefits, just the explicit shit that you agreed to.
>b-b-but i can't own a car without accepting government services
Then don't own a car.
>b-b-but that's too hard
So? Nobody owes you an easy life. If you want the government services then you owe the government your obligations.
>b-b-but what gives the government the right to impose rules
It's their land. They own it. If you don't like their rules, stop trespassing.
Your entire argument stems from this fallacious notion that you can just exist wherever the fuck you want for free and nobody can complain. If you come and exist on my porch I can fucking shoot you. If you exist in its country, the state can fucking tax you.
>I didn't ask to be here
So what? The law allows for a reasonable period of time for you to vacate someone else's property. That time period passed a long time ago, and now you're fucking trespassing.
>>78901671
No theft.
They dont take everthing.
The tax money alowes you to live how you live. It provides you an others with work.
And yes you dont like the taxation move somwhere where its more that you like it.
Freedom is a lie child. You will always pay. They will make you pay.
>>78915346
>According to you, and people who agree with you.
Yet again: The advantage of rigorousness is that it doesn't depend on personal opinion. You can like it or not, but its merit stand despite your opinion.
>Now, I'm really curious on this supposed "empirical and objective evidence" that you claim the NAP has going for it.
Do you know what 'rigorous' means?
>>78915606
That's the point you illiterate fucking serf.
>>78915630
>Do you get it now?
HOLY FUCK, CAN YOU READ.
My argument is not that "government is required for all technological advancement", my argument is that any and all technological advanced will happen regardless of the presence of a state is absolutely false.
Just as I can't say "without the government, X would have never been invented", you can't say "X would have been invented with or without the government".
The entire fucking point is that "what-ifs" are absolutely useless.
>>78914617
>Sure I can, I just did in that example. What's keeping me from doing so?
The fact that it violates the NAP. The only moral axiom which has evidence supporting it, seeing as how you have provided no evidence supporting yours.
>It can't be objective if I don't agree with it, now can it?
I don't think the sky is blue therefore it is not blue.
You are mentally retarded anon, get help.
>According to who? I have no compunctions about enforcing it.
According to objective reality and the evidence supporting the NAP. That's who anon, that's who.
>Fuck off, Stefan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cP6g-zqi9Q
>I'm sure I could find a few dozen people who agreed with me.
So then I will just find 13 people who agree with me. But that's now what matters, what matters is reality and evidence.
>According to who?
The evidence.
>Anon, please.
Oh fucking shite, you're one of those people who stefan warned me about, I'm not supposed to talk to people that think the earth is flat.
>>78915728
>You can like it or not, but its merit stand despite your opinion.
Again, only for those who care.
>Do you know what 'rigorous' means?
Do you want me to just copy paste off google, or would you like an honest answer?
>>78915982
>The fact that it violates the NAP.
I don't care about the NAP. What now?
>I don't think the sky is blue therefore it is not blue.
Sure, you can think that, but your eyes likely have some serious problems. Knowledge is not objective.
>According to objective reality and the evidence supporting the NAP.
Guess what, I don't care about the NAP. What now?
>what matters is reality and evidence.
Or I could find 14 people who care more about my evidence, than they do about your evidence.
>The evidence.
What evidence you fucking plebe.
>I'm not supposed to talk to people that think the earth is flat.
I don't think the Earth is flat, but it's good to see that you so willingly wag your tail at the word of your lord and savior.
>HE WARNED ME ABOUT THESE PEOPLE
>PRAISE STEFAN
>>78915907
>Just as I can't say "without the government, X would have never been invented"
HOLY FUCK CAN YOU READ
That's literally been my point the entire time. Glad you finally agree. Retard.
>>78916231
>That's literally been my point the entire time. Glad you finally agree. Retard.
Did you even read the rest of my post? You're so dense, you'd probably sink faster than the Pound.
>>78915907
The goverment keeps work domestic. Makes sure inventions stay at in the country and are producet there.
Other goverments do that too.
Sure inventions will be made but where is the question. And the answer should be here.
Its a capitalist world. Money rules.
To get money you need jobs. Jobs dont drop out of heaven. They must be created. To be created there must be a reason for.
>>78915378
if the core of your assertion is that i owe the state because i begged for its services you are sadly mistaken. As i was indoctrinated like everyone else top think the state was good an necessary i decided not to run away from home and all my friends as a small child. As an adult I have not asked for shit from the government except my money back and the right to pay for my own goods and services.
do i drive on roads? yes. do i use government programs or assistance, no. if i could stop paying taxes tomorrow and pay the schools and hospitals that me and my family attend that would be awesome, voluntary, and fulfilling my 'duty to society' of paying for necessary services. of course, like the point that was made earlier - if i don't use it then fuck off i don't owe you shit because if I'm not using the service I'm not stealing from those who are.
>>78915635
> implying government is necessary for those functions
>Then don't own a car.
Are you fucking retarded anon?
If I want a car I will pay for a licence plate and that money will pay for the road. Then I use the road. NO force needed anon, no force needed.
Communist faggot.
>So? Nobody owes you an easy life. If you want the government services then you owe the government your obligations.
If I want those services from the government I will voluntarily pay for them.
Very simple anon. Try harder your argument is shit.
>It's their land. They own it. If you don't like their rules, stop trespassing.
No, I own my land because I own my body you retard. My body produced my labor which I used to purchase my property, that's mine anon, you communist faggot.
>Your entire argument stems from this fallacious notion that you can just exist wherever the fuck you want for free and nobody can complain.
Wrong, My argument is I should only pay for what I use, nothing less, nothing more.
>If you come and exist on my porch I can fucking shoot you. If you exist in its country, the state can fucking tax you.
So then the government can shoot you for being on your porch? After all its the governments property and you are trespassing. You are suggesting people only have rights that the government grants them. Do they not teach you about unalienable rights in kangaroo land?
>So what? The law allows for a reasonable period of time for you to vacate someone else's property. That time period passed a long time ago, and now you're fucking trespassing.
Not an argument.
>>78916355
Very good points anon, but that has literally nothing to do with anything that my post was talking about.
>Sure inventions will be made but where is the question
Not necessarily, there is no guarantee that something will be invented if it was invented in different conditions.
For example, had Germany won WW1, someone could possibly say that rocketry would have never been developed, or at least so early, because there was never a WW2.
However, it is just a "what-if", and no conclusions can be drawn from it.
>>78916543
But none of that changes the fact that you're still trespassing.
Until you leave the geographical region that the United States government owns - i.e., the United States - you are going to be either following their rules, or trespassing.
You do not have the right to exist anywhere you please. The US is US government property.
Furthermore
>i was indoctrinated
When claiming that a contract is void due to misleading or deceptive conduct the onus is on the plaintiff.
You're entire argument is "I signed a contract and now I want out, so I should just be able to leave. Also, I want free shit from the very people whose contract I am fucking over - namely, I want them to give me land!"
>if i could stop paying taxes tomorrow
You can't. If you exist on US land, you pay taxes. Either that, or you're trespassing.
>>78916543
Your still asuming its theft.
Realety is you cant afford to pay for it. Like 60% of all americans for the services.
Knolage will be again only avalibel for the
upper 1%.
Back to the dark ages.
You taxes allow you to write that stupid shit. If not for the tax money i would invade the usa and shit on its constitution and its ppl.
But because there are americans paying taxes i cant invade.
Leech.
>>78916304
You replied to
>Except my whole point is that "LOL WE NEED GUBMMENT OR WE DON'T HAVE COOL SHIT LIKE IPHONES" is false
with
>I can't say "without the government, X would have never been invented"
I never claimed
>"X would have been invented with or without the government".
I used the position that intelligent resourceful people exist with or without the government (which you erroneously interpreted as "Everything ever of all time gets invented no matter what") to point out that inventions like computers aren't dependent on the existence of a government, which you have agreed to more than once.
>>78916569
>My body produced my labor which I used to purchase my property
So you own your land because a contract that only exists inside the legal system that the US government runs, the very system that says unequivocally that the US government reserves the right to resume control of the land - i.e. says that they own it and simply lease or permit you to use it - says so?
The US government existed long before you did, pal. I think it has put far more labour into that land than you have.
>i built a house
Nice, well done. The US government built literally everything else. All the roads in the region. All the pipes. All the copper, all the wires, all of it. It pays for the army that defends it and the police that police it, as well as the clerks that administer it and the maps that chart it.
The US government has put vastly more labour into that land than you. In a labour = ownership system, the US government owns it. In the legal system, the US government owns it.
You don't own shit in terms of land. You just have permission to use it from the real owners.
>So then the government can shoot you for being on your porch? After all its the governments property and you are trespassing.
Not if you're not trespassing. If the government says "anyone welcome so long as you follow these rules" then you're not a trespasser.
>You are suggesting people only have rights that the government grants them
Correct.
>Do they not teach you about unalienable rights in kangaroo land?
They cover them briefly in religious education, faggot.
>>78917144
>I used the position that intelligent resourceful people exist with or without the government
You're right.
They do.
That doesn't necessarily translate into computers and rockets and iPhones.
Lots of smart people exist who never amount to ANYTHING, and human society and history is such a deeply interconnected web that you cannot link cause and effect to a singular individual, you can only describe what has happened.
People are not atoms, and someone being smart and resourceful is still not a guarantee that they will create something. I have no idea why this is so hard for you to grasp.
>>78916186
>I don't care about the NAP. What now?
Now you are objectively wrong as demonstrated by the evidence in favor of the NAP.
>Sure, you can think that, but your eyes likely have some serious problems. Knowledge is not objective.
Knowledge is not objective? u w0t m8? lmfao
>Guess what, I don't care about the NAP. What now?
You are objectively wrong.
>What evidence you fucking plebe.
Here, have an almost 6 hour long audio book by stefan molyneux on universally preferable behavior you communist faggot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvTXFxPwb0
That evidence. Now debunk it. I'll wait.
>I don't think the Earth is flat, but it's good to see that you so willingly wag your tail at the word of your lord and savior.
You must believe the earth is flat, after all, knowledge is subjective... So you can't prove you don't. I mean, since knowledge is so subjective, I am the supreme ruler of the universe and the only way you could disprove that is which objective evidence, which we all know doesn't exist.
>>78917183
>They cover them briefly in religious education, faggot.
Hot damn Straya, these fucking bantz; keep it up.
>>78916889
i never signed shit, there is no such thing as an implicit contract you fucking twat.
>I decided that because you're my neighbor you owe me half of your food. you agreed to this by being my neighbor when you were a fetus, and now that you're all grown up you want to back out of the blood oath you swore from your mothers womb that you would pay me half your income forever. stop denying your responsibility to pay me what you owe freeloader
>>78917446
>evidence in favor of the NAP
fuck the NAP
>>78917446
>Knowledge is not objective? u w0t m8? lmfao
It literally cannot be objectve, anon. This is basic 101 shit.
>You are objectively wrong.
Cool, I don't care, and I'm going to continue punching people who eat shrimp on Fridays.
>You must believe the earth is flat, after all, knowledge is subjective
From my sensory experience, sensory experience including explanations and sensory data from other people, I have concluded that the Earth is not, in fact, flat.
>I am the supreme ruler of the universe and the only way you could disprove that is which objective evidence
Or I could simply not believe you, since all of my sensory information, and sensory information shared with me by others, has led me to conclude that you are, in fact, nothing more than a retarded plebe.
>>78917446
>watch this 6 hour video about the NAP
rofl.
Taking out competition works really well and helps the individual pursue their goals. I want your stuff, I steal it, now it's mine. I either don't care to justify my behavior or I just assume I will use your stuff in a better or morally better way.
>>78915473
Sure, if the goods have a tangible cost attached you can come to pay for an indirect service such as roads. However if that indirect service doesn't have a tangible cost attached to it you have to "give" your money away.
What your proposing would make all the government funding for science, arts, sports, foreign aid, disaster relief, space programs, military programs, food stamps, public housing, charity and infrastructure all 'tickable' boxes. Meaning you could opt out of any of those things.
Your system is fundamentally flawed by human nature. Most people would take the stance of "someone else will cover it", then your society as a whole will turn to shit. Arts will be the first sector to fail, then science followed by foreign aid and charity.
It won't work. Stop being a Jew and pay taxes.
>>78916889
also government doesn't have legitimate ownership of anything. it is not a person, it does not have rights, and even if it did and was by no standard of legitimate property acquisition did the US come to 'own' any of it's land.
If you believe that might makes right then all one has to do is acquire the means to take what they want and it's legitimately theirs!
>>78917597
>there is no such thing as an implicit contract
Correct. There are only contracts and implied terms.
However, I'm not talking about an implicit contract, or implied terms.
The elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, and consideration.
"Hey, I'll give you $5 for that peanut."
offer.
"Okay, sure."
acceptance
>the peanut and the $5
consideration
That's a contract. No pens, no paper, nothing signed, no lawyers.
There are other things - a meeting of the mind, an intention to be legally binding, some other situational things like employment contracts with people under 18 - but these are fringe technicalities. They don't alter the fact that contracts do not need to be in writing in Commonwealth legal systems (with some exceptions - real estate contracts must be in writing).
Implied terms can be created by judges, but only to the minimum possible extent to give the contract the effect intended or to make it valid.
>>78917843
>it is not a person, it does not have rights, and even if it did and was by no standard of legitimate property acquisition did the US come to 'own' any of it's land.
Fiat Lux. Let the government be a legal person.
>>78917843
>it is not a person
Government is made up of people. Those people own shares in the property. The government is the body of employees who execute the will of the shareholders.
Or, alternatively, the government is the employees of the individual owner - i.e. in a monarchy.
>by no standard of legitimate property acquisition did the US come to 'own' any of it's land.
Anon LITERALLY just said that if you put work into something, you own it.
>>78917403
>I have no idea why this is so hard for you to grasp.
It's not, you just have a hard time either reading or understanding...maybe both. What I've been pointing out all along is that government is not necessary for these people to invent things - something you have agreed to multiple times, as I have already pointed out. e.g.
> I can't say "without the government, X would have never been invented"
The fact that someone can be smart and capable and follow a path that doesn't lead to them coming up with some ground-breaking discovery doesn't mean that government is needed for them to make such a discovery, or that the only possibility of such discoveries is through government funding. Do you get it yet? Or do you want to call me dense again to make yourself feel better?
>>78917833
humans want science, arts, sports, space programs, etc.
yet somehow without thieves stealing money to spend on those endeavors, no honest man or woman would possibly pay for them - therefore we need thieves because only they want what's best for society and the world
do you even think before you type words?
people will want X regardless of what the government says. They will get X with the government, they will get X without the government.
Government isn't supply and demand for all necessary services. supply and demand exist independently of government, in it's absence, in spite of it, but NOT because of it.
>>78918184
>What I've been pointing out all along is that government is not necessary for these people to invent things
And what I've been pointing out, that while not necessary, the government does help people invent things. It is useful, and often spurs ahead technological innovation.
People don't need the government to invent, however, it certainly helps, especially if they're doing stuff that will have no appreciable ROI for decades or even centuries.
Do you fucking get it now?
>>78917994
>Those people own shares in the property. The government is the body of employees who execute the will of the shareholders.
you might have a point if it did not fund itself through taxation, as opposed to EVERY OTHER ENTITY THAT HAS STOCK AND SHAREHOLDERS
in short, your analogy is shit because all other entities that have shareholders operate on VOLUNTARY agreement of the consumer to use their product or services
>>78917926
>let unicorns be a real person
please join us in reality, repeating something doesn't make it a valid argument.
>>78917994
>putting work
killing thousands of natives and anyone who disagrees with you is now considered a legitimate way to acquire property?
>>78918369
that would not justify tony soprano if he helped you with some of the money he took from you
so it would not justify the government either
>>78918507
>you might have a point if it did not fund itself through taxation, as opposed to EVERY OTHER ENTITY THAT HAS STOCK AND SHAREHOLDERS
How the government funds itself is up to the government. You don't get to dictate the internal affairs of organisations that don't belong to you. If you want to control it, get a majority share.
Oh wait, you can't. Seems pretty clever to me.
>shareholders operate on VOLUNTARY agreement of the consumer to use their product or services
So? Government isn't called business because government isn't run like a business. It doesn't change the fact that government is the owner of the land in trust for the shareholders.
>>78918560
>killing thousands of natives and anyone who disagrees with you is now considered a legitimate way to acquire property?
It's certainly work.
You're also ignoring all the improvements that were built by government employees, or by people voluntarily operating under a legal system which entitled the government to ownership of the properties that they homesteaded.
Git gud, faggot.
>>78917661
>fuck the NAP
I'm glad you finally understand. Just make sure that when you fuck the NAP it's consensual. Because rape violates the NAP.
tfw your joke works on multiple levels
>>78901671
Shut up faggot.
>>78918778
>Government isn't called business because government isn't run like a business.
then your attempt to justify government, which hinged on acceptance of the principles of actual business, has failed
>>78917710
>It literally cannot be objectve, anon. This is basic 101 shit.
So reality doesn't exist.
>Cool, I don't care, and I'm going to continue punching people who eat shrimp on Fridays.
That's assault anon, id hate for your wifes son to call the cops on you and have them throw you in a cage, actually, that wouldn't violate the NAP because communists don't have rights.
>From my sensory experience, sensory experience including explanations and sensory data from other people, I have concluded that the Earth is not, in fact, flat
So you came to the objective conclusion the earth is not, in fact, flat? Because what you described is literally how objective knowledge is obtained.
>Or I could simply not believe you, since all of my sensory information, and sensory information shared with me by others, has led me to conclude that you are, in fact, nothing more than a retarded plebe.
So you used the facts of reality to come to the objective conclusion I am a retarded plebe? Welcome to the libertarian right anon. You will receive your signed copy of Anthem by mail.
>>78918255
Most people won't voluntarily pay for things they can avoid. It's common sense, your argument is a selfish one that would ruin your country.
Growing up America was a beacon of Western civilization because of the progress of public works, military power and your presence in the outside world.
If you have a choice to throw away money to a library you will never use, a school you'll never attend, science projects that you won't benefit from, food stamps for poor people you'll never see, space flight you're not interested in, foreign aid in a country you have never heard of, to a military that over spends or a museum you won't visit you will never part with your money. And if you're acting for self betterment (a new car, guns, a better home) then it's justifiable. However it will be to the detriment of your country.
The small minority will pay for things for the betterment of society, but the large majority would rather act selfishly and let all the aforementioned areas of your country start to fail.
Your country is already turning into a shit tier nation, please don't fuck it up anymore than it already is Anon.
>>78919250
Wrong.
All that is required is the acceptance that you can own part of something, and that these shares give you proportional legitimate control.
Business has nothing to do with it.
The United States is owned by the nation of the United States, who took possession after a legitimate rebellion against the previous owner, the British Crown. Upon taking possession the majority proportion of legitimate control was in favour of establishing a trust body, who administer the property of the United States according to the wishes of the owners. These people, who govern, are (funnily enough) called the United States government.
What a fucking shock.
They have rules, and to be permitted on the land you must follow them. If you don't, you are a trespasser. Trespassers can be shot. Or beaten. Or jailed. Or whatever you want to do to them, because you have a right to self-defence and it does not require that you exercise proportional force. Right?
You're falling apart at the fucking seams, mate. You're scrambling on the back foot now: "I-I-I-IF IT'S NOT A BUSINESS THEN YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL THEM SHARES!!!!"
Fucking pathetic.
![images[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/2Lifhbc.png "images[1]")
