Originally posted by ilikecomics
I don't think there should be countries, that's something the state defines.No, everyone has natural rights. An example of one is the right to life. You have a right to life even if a state says you don't. To say otherwise is a might is right argument, which I don't believe in.
It is amusing to see taxation be word-doctored into being theft through a broad examination of the definition, but 'might is right' is somehow not subject to the same method. Even though 'right' includes among other definitions 'a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.' And in the simple argument "might is right", exercising might to act in accordance with its own legal entitlement justifies any action on behalf of the government. And any and all governments can claim, regardless of context on being morally obligated to do so because of the needs of the citizens, their safety, social contracts, etc.
But that might be why playing fast and loose with definitions is a bad argument tactic, because sophistry can open the road for all sorts of abuses.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
always remember to wear protective gear when burning strawmen. i made no moral or ethical implications.also, sometimes the breaking of certain laws lead to great change, like seen many times over the civil rights movement. but if you refuse to pay taxes then you refuse to be a part of society. if you refuse to pay your share into a society and infrastructure which A- you comfortably live and benefit off of and B- requires the contribution of all it's earning citizens to function, then that would make you a parasite. i don't feel sorry for parasitic hucksters who have their clownshows shut down by the law
solution: make a "tax free" state. no socialist institutions like public schools, police, fire dept, no courts of law, no electricity, no plumbing, no traffic lights, literally nothing funded by the state will be available to you. live there and blindly trust whomever is presumably performing these services.
Beat me to it. Concise counter argument here. You never see these professed libertarians acknowledging their use of the system throughout life, nor are they rushing to go into the woods and live on the sweat of their own brow to avoid being a parasite. It's a great cognitive dissonance going on to realize that you are part of a society and yet somehow aren't allowed to be asked to do your part.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Would you argue an economy not based on slavery is impossible or undesirable during the time where every economy used slavery ?For me morality is timeless and spaceless aka deontological. Therefore it doesn't need a state to legitimize it.
Murder is wrong regardless of if there's a law prohibiting it or not.The state wouldn't just hand over the usps. The usps would be dissolved which create what's called a market opportunity.
For example if the state is supposed to provide security e.g. cops, but they suck and don't prevent violent crime and sit around collecting tickets.
The answer is to start a security business, why would my private security business take on the debts of the police force, that makes no sense to me.
Could you explain it differently ?
Murder is defined as -unlawful- killing specifically. So murder can't exist without a society or government in which to define its legal status.
Try to be consistent bro.