Anarchism, Libertarianism, etc...

[EspiKvlt]

i love that "who will build the roads" has become a fucking meme

 

[Behemoth]

And when it becomes profitable to ignore freedom and liberty? When market pressures lead to situation where morals and ethics are ignored in favor of profits?

Not relevant to the point? Setting up society based on the principles is the point. Saying 'well, what if x happens' isn't relevant, in as much as the basic responses are a. how is that different from now and b. the entire point is to minimize those things. Incidentally, given again I've made the argument that, in the case of this sort of morality, the only way morals and ethics get ignored would be if a company starts violating folks rights, at which point you shoot them in the face until they stop doing that.

I could agree with this if there were no legitimate needs for the state to exist.

Ok, good, because there aren't. You've failed to supply any examples where they are, and the burden is on you to prove its necessity.

WAHHHH!!! THE FARES ARE TOO HIGH!!!

Give me a break. I had a friend who fled. He spent several weeks hiding in the woods and digging in garbage for food. He got shot in the process. He was living with real, physical slavery. Real daily violence. Not sure if he sent a check to cover his ransom after he got out.

This is a case of pure fallacy of relative privation; just because someone else has it "worse" doesn't make things not bad for someone else, and you missed the point where there is no where else to go.

My question was rhetorical. Its premise was that arguing "all taxes are violent theft" is absurd.

Which you say, and yet still don't argue. Then @WebcamStartup came along and basically laid it out in more exhaustive detail.

By god, you should fault those companies.

I do, in as much as they're doing wrong. I just understand that the state incentivizes and necessitates their behavior.

What if it becomes profitable to set up a state? What if market pressures mean you MUST, or else you will be driven out?

That's not how states work.

 

[WebcamStartup]

i love that "who will build the roads" has become a fucking meme

I love the 'Muh Roads!' memes! There's no winning the classic roads argument. neither side will ever convince the other, so might has well add a little humor to it!

 

[justjoinedtopost]

steal
stēl/
verb
gerund or present participle: stealing
1.
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

This is where I parted ways with the libertarianism I am familiar with; the idea that taxes are always theft.

What drew me to libertarianism was my disgust for the corporate monstrosity of a state we have now. What drove me from it was the simplistic, black and white thinking.

Which you say, and yet still don't argue.

Dissappointed?

 

[Behemoth]

This is where I parted ways with the libertarianism I am familiar with; the idea that taxes are always theft.

What drew me to libertarianism was my disgust for the corporate monstrosity of a state we have now. What drove me from it was the simplistic, black and white thinking.

The failure here is that you accuse it of being simplistic, black and white thinking, then fail to explain why something being simple is bad, or why that 'black and white thinking' is wrong. Just because you lacked the conviction of principles doesn't mean the ideology is wrong.

Dissappointed?

No? I know why you present things like this. It's a rather interesting coping mechanism. You see, by acting haughty and detached, by making quips about this, you avoid the mental stress of realizing you've failed to actually stand for something or make a point, tricking your brain into thinking you HAVE or you're 'above it all' somehow, and thus managing to avoid ever having to defend your views, even to yourself.

The reality is, of course, that it just makes you look like an idiot with no backbone.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

No? I know why you present things like this. It's a rather interesting coping mechanism. You see, by acting haughty and detached, by making quips about this, you avoid the mental stress of realizing you've failed to actually stand for something or make a point, tricking your brain into thinking you HAVE or you're 'above it all' somehow, and thus managing to avoid ever having to defend your views, even to yourself.

The reality is, of course, that it just makes you look like an idiot with no backbone.

You bring out the best in me Chuckles.

 

[EspiKvlt]

I don't think "taxes are theft" is black and white thinking? There are tons of gray areas for me personally where I have to stop and say, "Yes, I can see why they're a good thing, and yes, I can understand why people think they're necessary, and yes, it's hard to say we shouldn't all be creating schools."

It my decision to be anti-tax despite that that makes me have the ideology I do. But "taxes are theft" is not "simplistic" at all. It's a very complicated idea that I've struggled with a great deal. To say it's "simplistic" feels like a simplistic way of looking at it, imo.

 

[Behemoth]

You bring out the best in me Chuckles.

But for me... it was Tuesday.

I don't think "taxes are theft" is black and white thinking? There are tons of gray areas for me personally where I have to stop and say, "Yes, I can see why they're a good thing, and yes, I can understand why people think they're necessary, and yes, it's hard to say we shouldn't all be creating schools."

It my decision to be anti-tax despite that that makes me have the ideology I do. But "taxes are theft" is not "simplistic" at all. It's a very complicated idea that I've struggled with a great deal. To say it's "simplistic" feels like a simplistic way of looking at it, imo.

I mean, you hit the nail on he head of why uses of terms like 'simplistic,' 'absurd,' or 'ridiculous' are simultaneously both loaded and empty. They're value judgement masquerading as arguments masquerading as opinions masquerading as quips.

That premise too, that "well, it's hard to say we shouldn't be creating schools" question was the one that I struggled with too, resolved for me, personally, only when two points were made to me. Firstly, if schools are desired, and people WANT schools, than it stands to reason the government is not necessary to make them, because people will make and fund them. If folks won't, it's an implicit statement that you're not actually following the 'will of the people,' and are rather imposing a desire of one group onto the other regardless of consent. I happen to just think that pretty much all the 'good' the government does will be done even more so without the government, precisely because it is good and desired by folks. This links into point two which is, secondly, that we often miss the unseen costs. We will never know what we DON'T get due to the drain of the state on people. How much more could be funded, innovated, etc if the state wasn't draining wealth? The state may take money, and funnel it into doing something, but there is inherent loss due to the inefficiency of the state, furthered by the fact that the people whose wealth was taken will never be able to UTILIZE that wealth either. How much innovation was never funded, and how much could if the state hadn't took a third or half or more of the innovators funding?

The problem is, we don't see those costs, so its hard to think about them.

 

[WebcamStartup]

So what about the "hidden taxes" that states and municipalities hide in citations? Technically it's not a tax. If it was, it would be blatantly illegal because it bypasses TABOR laws. It's also a form of class-warfare as it's a lump sum and not a percentage of spending or revenue. Also leads to policing for profits.

In that case, is it theft?

Or is policing for profits also justified as long as it keeps government solvent so they can provide value. Ya know, like muh roads!

 

[WebcamStartup]

Which all the states that claim to be solvent are really only solvent because of policing for profits. The tax money we pay isn't the only thing keeping government afloat. They still need to contract the police to go out there and physically extort people. Sometimes at gun point. If that's not extortion and theft, I don't know what is.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I don't think "taxes are theft" is black and white thinking? There are tons of gray areas for me personally where I have to stop and say, "Yes, I can see why they're a good thing, and yes, I can understand why people think they're necessary, and yes, it's hard to say we shouldn't all be creating schools."

It my decision to be anti-tax despite that that makes me have the ideology I do. But "taxes are theft" is not "simplistic" at all. It's a very complicated idea that I've struggled with a great deal. To say it's "simplistic" feels like a simplistic way of looking at it, imo.

1. Call them theft.
2. Call them a gray area.
3. Call them for the common good.

I view 1 and 3 as the black and the white. So yes, I consider it black and white thinking.

Many people struggle a great deal with complicated ideas. The amount of energy one spends wrestling with it is not why I referred to it as simplistic thinking.

Which all the states that claim to be solvent are really only solvent because of policing for profits. The tax money we pay isn't the only thing keeping government afloat. They still need to contract the police to go out there and physically extort people. Sometimes at gun point. If that's not extortion and theft, I don't know what is.

An excellent argument. Anyone who seriously believe a police force guided by profits is a good idea needs to look no further than this to see the folly of such an idea.

 

[WebcamStartup]

An excellent argument. Anyone who seriously believe a police force guided by profits is a good idea needs to look no further than this to see the folly of such an idea.

But what if the revenue is needed to provide government services for the population? Wouldn't that make policing for profit just as justified at other forms of government revenue-generation?

Where do we draw the line on what's justified and what's not? What if those citations are completely necessary for muh roads?

 

[Behemoth]

An excellent argument. Anyone who seriously believe a police force guided by profits is a good idea needs to look no further than this to see the folly of such an idea.

Except the model already exists. We call them private security. This argument fails for the exact reason @WebcamStartup lays out. You can't say that's bad if that's exactly what the current police are doing, and indeed must do for the state to remain solvent. The fundamental difference of truly private police is the boss. Private police would answer to you, the consumer, and their interests would be YOUR interests. This is in contrast to the current status where they are instead driven by the State's interests.

They're hired guns either way. The change is in who pays them. Plus the fact that the false idea that the state has a (near) monopoly on the use of force.

I view 1 and 3 as the black and the white. So yes, I consider it black and white thinking.

Many people struggle a great deal with complicated ideas. The amount of energy one spends wrestling with it is not why I referred to it as simplistic thinking.

Ok, but if you want something actually simplistic, as @EspiKvlt said, is CALLING them simplistic, as evidence by your extremely overly simplified chart, which, itself, doesn't make sense, namely because you didn't list anything on a continuum. Taxes could be both theft AND for the common good AND thus there is a 'grey area' all at the same time. The point is, taxes are always theft, no matter how you try to argue otherwise. The point that you have never attempted to argue otherwise stands out. However, the argument that it is not theft, because it is for the common good is a purely non sequitur argument. It being for the common good does not invalidate the claim that it is theft.

Though, I'd argue that them being for theft thus invalidates claims they're for the common good, because using evil for good ends corrupts those ends in the process.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You can't say that's bad if that's exactly what the current police are doing, and indeed must do for the state to remain solvent. The fundamental difference of truly private police is the boss. Private police would answer to you, the consumer, and their interests would be YOUR interests. This is in contrast to the current status where they are instead driven by the State's interests.

They're hired guns either way. The change is in who pays them. Plus the fact that the false idea that the state has a (near) monopoly on the use of force.

They would answer to me? You mean if I had money? If they weren't interested in catering to a more lucrative consumer?

Ok, but if you want something actually simplistic, as @EspiKvlt said, is CALLING them simplistic, as evidence by your extremely overly simplified chart, which, itself, doesn't make sense, namely because you didn't list anything on a continuum. Taxes could be both theft AND for the common good AND thus there is a 'grey area' all at the same time. The point is, taxes are always theft, no matter how you try to argue otherwise. The point that you have never attempted to argue otherwise stands out. However, the argument that it is not theft, because it is for the common good is a purely non sequitur argument. It being for the common good does not invalidate the claim that it is theft.

That's a little simplistic if you ask me.

I may go into more detail later, but right now, the business that controls the hamburger market in my area is extorting me; they are going to starve me to death if I don't pay them.

Though, I'd argue

the hell you say

 

[Behemoth]

They would answer to me? You mean if I had money? If they weren't interested in catering to a more lucrative consumer?

The same reason that not all restaurants are 5 star, not all cars are Porsche, and not all insurance is tailored to the 1%. Think, man, think.

That's a little simplistic if you ask me.

Funny.

I may go into more detail later, but right now, the business that controls the hamburger market in my area is extorting me; they are going to starve me to death if I don't pay them.

Less funny.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The same reason that not all restaurants are 5 star, not all cars are Porsche, and not all insurance is tailored to the 1%. Think, man, think.

Interesting. Varying degrees of justice based on economic power. Just crazy enough to work. I don't see how this could lead to anything but peace and prosperity for all.

Much better than the corrupt state, which has a nasty habit of redefining justice based on socioeconomic status. Ugh.

 

[Behemoth]

Interesting. Varying degrees of justice based on economic power. Just crazy enough to work. I don't see how this could lead to anything but peace and prosperity for all.

There are layers of problems with this. Starting with the fact that you can't say this...

Much better than the corrupt state, which has a nasty habit of redefining justice based on socioeconomic status. Ugh.

And then knock something for apparently doing the same thing, by your standard. By this standard, removing the corrupt state should have no bearing on justice because it will be merely the same as before, thus we must evaluate on entirely different standards because for this one, both are equal. If your argument is that my position is bad because its exactly the same as your position, I'm not sure what you hope to gain. Of course all of this is bunk for one because we weren't talking about 'justice,' we were talking about privatized police forces, which have to do with protection, which inescapably has an economic element. The common remark that folks will talk about issues from behind a gated community, or politicians push gun control while being escorted by armed guards illustrates this. Further, to reinforce the point of private police, you have to remember that ostensibly, the point of police is to 'serve and protect,' yet we all know this is a joke, and that in reality they serve as the state's enforcers. Yet in the absence of the state, what do privatized police do then? They serve and protect. Which is to say they actually engage in the behavior they're supposed to, responding to the people who are actually paying them.

You might have a contract with a local security company on a personal level, there might be one for your entire suburb or apartment complex that gives a deal due to large size, maybe it's included in your rent if do that. These are just a few possible versions, because the unrestricted market is going to produce a whole panoply of them based on demand. If you go to a shopping area, its likely that areas merchants have security on hand to enforce the rules as dictated by the property owner and protect that area, as they are.

Keep in mind, there is actually less demand for police in most cases for the same reason so much 'police work' is related to restricting market activities they deem to be illegitimate. IE: FSSW, drugs, even stuff like what led to the state murder of Eric Garner, 'selling loose cigarettes' (though he actually wasn't even doing that at the time but I digress from the state's murderous habits.) The driving force behind so much gang activity is a lack of economic and social opportunity precisely BECAUSE of government regulations, and that makes the drug trade and other activities attractive, but also violent. With no laws restricting drug use or production, suddenly that no longer is viable, because you're going to get higher quality, cheaper drugs at a local pharmacy/dispensary than anything you'd get on the streets. Further, with that economic avenue gone, and the barriers to other things gone as well, the issue resolves itself, and in doing so, the crime of an area and need for police diminishes as well.

However, to claim somehow because something has a variable based on 'economic power' means its bad is to ignore the inevitably of that fact. It's a tautology: folks that have access to more resources have access to more resources. There is no escaping that unless you create a world where everyone has equal resources, which you can't do because to do so would require a force on high to impose it, and that force to have greater resources as a result. In short, you'd need the inevitable state of a communist society.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

There are layers of problems with this. Starting with the fact that you can't say this...

...Of course all of this is bunk for one because we weren't talking about 'justice,' we were talking about privatized police forces, which have to do with protection, which inescapably has an economic element...

Wait just a minute. You want to sieze the high ground with lofty claims of morals and ethics, howl about theft and ransom, then turn right around and dissect words like society and justice when they are inconvenient? Bollocks. You are riding a mental merry-go-round.

You might have...

Does not sound like a scenario I would want to be part of. Watch from a safe distance? Maybe.

 

[Behemoth]

Wait just a minute. You want to sieze the high ground with lofty claims of morals and ethics, howl about theft and ransom, then turn right around and dissect words like society and justice when they are inconvenient? Bollocks. You are riding a mental merry-go-round.

You are absolutely, to a t, a sophist; you seize on one aspect of something I say, spin it off into something else, then make a non sequitur argument and pretend that is something while ignoring everything else I say. The fact you use things like 'lofty' and 'howl about' to color your language, making it SOUND like you're saying far more than you actually are, makes it even worse. Even more, you pick up an abandon arguments at will, only to circle back later, but you rarely bother to DEFEND your points. Case in point, we were talking about why you think private policing was bad, and you shifted the argument, I broke down why your response was wrong not merely from the term you used (justice) but also why it was more broadly wrong, yet you seize upon the justice part, don't actually prove me wrong, and then ignore the rest.

How does me having the moral high ground, and legitimately bringing up issues of morals and ethics, and making direct arguments about theft and ransom have to do at all with dealing with other words. These are not even in the same category. Theft and ransom are acts, ones that can be clearly broken down and addressed, and drawn directly into taxes and the like, and as a result, one and directly address morals and ethics because so long as both parties agree theft and ransom are immoral (which I'm assuming you do,) than the moral high ground goes to whoever is arguing against theft and ransom, to which point the argument becomes are taxes theft or not, an argument you never dispute. You merely make an argument for common good or necessity, but that wouldn't change them being theft or not.

On the other hand, terms like society and justice are far more nebulous. Society is an abstract concept with broad potential meanings, and at the core, a non-entity. There is no existent thing called 'society,' merely billions of individuals with individual rights. Likewise, justice is abstract, but one that at least has a more established meaning. The point is, though, that police are not about dispensing justice. So your use of 'justice' was in error, which I pointed out. Just like I pointed out even using that term, your argument was still terrible.

The words justice and society aren't inconvenient. They're just wrong. That would be you and terms like theft or ransom, hence why you never bother to address the core points, and instead dance around it.

You engage in rampant projection; the only one riding a 'mental merry-go-round' is you.

Does not sound like a scenario I would want to be part of. Watch from a safe distance? Maybe.

Why, exactly? I was laying out potential options, none of which you bothered to explain why they were bad. Further, given I DO have the moral high ground, this is is just you refusing to acknowledge your support for a system that is neither moral nor ethical. I'd have more respect if you just admitted you had no principles.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You are absolutely, to a t, a sophist; .....

On the other hand, terms like society and justice are far more nebulous. Society is an abstract concept with broad potential meanings, and at the core, a non-entity. There is no existent thing called 'society,' merely billions of individuals with individual rights. Likewise, justice is abstract, but one that at least has a more established meaning. The point is, though, that police are not about dispensing justice. So your use of 'justice' was in error, which I pointed out. Just like I pointed out even using that term, your argument was still terrible.

The words justice and society aren't inconvenient. They're just wrong. That would be you and terms like theft or ransom, hence why you never bother to address the core points, and instead dance around it.

You engage in rampant projection; the only one riding a 'mental merry-go-round' is you.

The words society and justice. Many meanings. You like to argue against the colloquial, because you are a sophist.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. I am less inclined to say the same for your fanaticism.

Why, exactly?

That is what you must ask yourself.

 

[Behemoth]

The words society and justice. Many meanings. You like to argue against the colloquial, because you are a sophist.

Thats not how that works. The 'colloquial' meaning has no bearing, and I've pointing out why. You continue to dodge any semblence of an argument. You keep accusing me of 'fanaticism,' which is a base form of ad hominem. Try reason instead.

That is what you must ask yourself.

You are less interesting and less filling than a fortune cookie. False elusiveness is no stand in for actual arguments. It just makes you look like an asshole.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Try reason instead.

You cannot reason with a fanatic.

The 'colloquial' meaning has no bearing, and I've pointing out why.

It does if you are trying to communicate. But you are not interested in communication. You are interested in indoctrination. You are a fanatic.

 

[WebcamStartup]

Because Muh Roads! memes have been invoked earlier in this thread. Imma break away from the 2-person debate and drop the latest and most controversial of them all.

So. If roads = government, does that mean ISIS = government?

.....Now, ya'll return to your 2-person debate. Don't mind me over here.

 

[Behemoth]

You cannot reason with a fanatic.

This sounds like the exact thing you'd make to never have to defend your positions. Label anyone who opposes you a fanatic and presto, instant out.

Its funny, because between us, I've consistently defended my points with reason. You? Not so much.

Perhaps the fanatic is you?

It does if you are trying to communicate. But you are not interested in communication. You are interested in indoctrination. You are a fanatic.

And this is you enganging in sophistry again. I have responded to you with far and above more reason and logic to communicate, wheras you have engaged in run arounds and attempts ar word play. You attempted to use 'society' in terms of things that have rights or can be owned, but society even in the colloquial sense can't be 'owned,' for the same reason it had no rights. Likewise, you invoked 'justice,' but the way you dod made no sense.

When I pointed these out, you accuse me of wanting to 'indoctrinate,' and that goes on the pile of ad hominems that joins the pile of fallacies you've invoked in place of an argument.

You accuse me of being fanatical, yet you're the one who dogmatically reguses to argue and exchanges platitudes and attempts at pithy comebacks for any sort of reason.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Because Muh Roads! memes have been invoked earlier in this thread. Imma break away from the 2-person debate and drop the latest and most controversial of them all.

So. If roads = government, does that mean ISIS = government?

.....Now, ya'll return to your 2-person debate. Don't mind me over here.

Please, for the love of god, let's go no further down this road path.

When I pointed these out, you accuse me of wanting to 'indoctrinate,' and that goes on the pile of ad hominems that joins the pile of fallacies you've invoked in place of an argument.

ad hominems. fallacies. These are abstract concepts. They cannot be placed on a pile.

 

[Behemoth]

ad hominems. fallacies. These are abstract concepts. They cannot be placed on a pile.

See, this would be funny if you weren't basically all fluff and no substance.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

But what if the revenue is needed to provide government services for the population? Wouldn't that make policing for profit just as justified at other forms of government revenue-generation?

Where do we draw the line on what's justified and what's not? What if those citations are completely necessary for muh roads?

Here is where I stand on that. I don't think policing ought to be done for profit at all. It's asking for trouble. I mentioned in another thread about observing a drug interdiction task force over a couple of years, and it is something that disgusted me. Maybe the cure for that is to divert proceeds for citations and such into something non-governmental, idk. Have a lottery every month, donate the proceeds from it to a random charity. I'm sure you've heard of the traffic light cameras being adjusted...

 

[WebcamStartup]

Or just remove them and force the states to become solvent off their tax revenue

 

[Behemoth]

That would still at best remove the incentive to act badly without giving one to act well. They'd be subject to the same problems all other government agencies, really the government on the whole, has. It would be a step, but at best a minor one.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Or just remove them and force the states to become solvent off their tax revenue

Remove the financial penalties of smaller violations? What would you use as a deterrent for minor things that called for punishment of some sort?