Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

And if you don't think it is, what happens if you don't pay it?

Since it's not theft, it's voluntary.

Right?

Libertarianism is sociopathy.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Libertarianism is sociopathy.

Originally posted by Klaw
And if you don't think it is, what happens if you don't pay it?

Since it's not theft, it's voluntary.

Right?

Pretty sure you've made the same or similar thread with one of your former accounts. Anyhow, I'll bite.

As someone who doesn't like to see the bite taxes take each time, but understands a society needs money to function, what do you propose as a viable alternative to paying for the things we all use and make a society function?

At the risk of sounding like an utter moron, hasn't the government shut down before?

Isn't taxation basically to fund your country's government?

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty sure you've made the same or similar thread with one of your former accounts. Anyhow, I'll bite.

As someone who doesn't like to see the bite taxes take each time, but understands a society needs money to function, what do you propose as a viable alternative to paying for the things we all use and make a society function?

It's not just that they take your taxes whether you want to pay them or not, it's also in the fact that they use your stolen wealth to fund wars and colonialistic nation building efforts, use it to give billionaires welfare while crushing smaller businesses, and offer sub par services.

The roads suck and way more people die of car crashes, which is partially due to poor central planning, than of co vid.

The lockdowns caused millons of deaths i.e. lack of cancer screenings, lack of doctor visits for pregnant women, etc.

Licensing requirements, minimum wage, and zoning laws increases homelessness and unemployment.

Welfare doesn't work and isn't virtuously accrued, as opposed to charity.

If taxes didn't exist the state would either and private enterprise would fill the voids left by state monopolies.

Competition, thus production goes up, and prices go down.

Something like that.

Sorry, the free market wouldn't come in and save everyone. Corporations have,with very few exceptions, always done whatever best helps them maximize profits, at the expense of the environment and/or people.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, the free market wouldn't come in and save everyone. Corporations have,with very few exceptions, always done whatever best helps them maximize profits, at the expense of the environment and/or people.

How can you make a profit while not providing value* to your customers ?

For example, how long would a lemonade stand stay open if they put fatal poison in their lemonade ?

Your scenario is ridiculously extreme, because a poison lemonade stand would be hard to hide.

But there's many examples that kinda touch on it. eg DuPont and PFOA poisoning

Originally posted by Robtard
Your scenario is ridiculously extreme, because a poison lemonade stand would be hard to hide.

But there's many examples that kinda touch on it. eg PFOA poisoning

Is that forever chemicals or something else ?

Has teflon proved to be dangerous ?

I see that it's teflon.

Maybe read up on it, it's a well known story.

But DuPont poisoned over 70k people in that instance, knew it was happening and tried to cover it up so it could keep on business as usual because the profits were there to be reaped.



edit: To your edit. Listen, I don't care that you're a sock, but if you're going to be a bad faith poster, don't bother.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe read up on it, it's a well known story.

But DuPont poisoned over 70k people in that instance, knew it was happening and tried to cover it up so it could keep on business as usual because the profits were there to be reaped.



edit: To your edit. Listen, I don't care that you're a sock, but if you're going to be a bad faith poster, don't bother. And don't get me started on Big Tobacco or fast food chains, and soft drinks firms.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe read up on it, it's a well known story.

But DuPont poisoned over 70k people in that instance, knew it was happening and tried to cover it up so it could keep on business as usual because the profits were there to be reaped.



edit: To your edit. Listen, I don't care that you're a sock, but if you're going to be a bad faith poster, don't bother.

I'm not being bad faith. I have teflon pans so it confused me.
I see that they poisoned drinking water.

Dupont's website says that work with the government.
To me I would consider dupont an extension of the state less so than free market principles.
No one chooses to be poisoned knowingly.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
And don't get me started on Big Tobacco or fast food chains, and soft drinks firms.

^Bingo

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm not being bad faith. I have teflon pans so it confused me.
I see that they poisoned drinking water.

Dupont's website says that work with the government.
To me I would consider dupont an extension of the state less so than free market principles.
No one chooses to be poisoned knowingly.

So examples that prove you wrong suddenly become part of the "state".

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, the free market wouldn't come in and save everyone. Corporations have,with very few exceptions, always done whatever best helps them maximize profits, at the expense of the environment and/or people.

See the current gas shortage. The private sector failed to protect itself from cyberattacks, even though it is in the best financial interest of the company to do so, and the consumers suffer.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm not being bad faith. I have teflon pans so it confused me.
I see that they poisoned drinking water.

Dupont's website says that work with the government.
To me I would consider dupont an extension of the state less so than free market principles.
No one chooses to be poisoned knowingly. Smokers do.

As much as I am not a fan of the state, I do not see a viable alternative.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
How can you make a profit while not providing value* to your customers ?

For example, how long would a lemonade stand stay open if they put fatal poison in their lemonade ?


Youre wrong. We are seeing it right now with the vaccine patent waiver. Private companies put profits above saving lives.

Notice how people can't argue the point, so they have to change the subject to "well how are we going to pay for roads?"

Originally posted by Klaw
Notice how people can't argue the point, so they have to change the subject to "well how are we going to pay for roads?" You had a point Eon? Really?

I never payed taxes 🤣

Originally posted by Klaw
Notice how people can't argue the point, so they have to change the subject to "well how are we going to pay for roads?" The problem is you've presented such an extreme view point on the topic that anything trying to bring it back to the realm of reality will seem like changing the subject to you.

The truth is taxes are not automatically theft in the traditional sense you are painting it as.

You've purposely over-simplified the topic and while that might work on social echo chambers the truth is most of the people here are intelligent enough to know it's not so simple a topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
So examples that prove you wrong suddenly become part of the "state".

No, large corporations working with the state, the way dupont does, doesn't describe the free market.
It describes state capitalism/fascism.

For example when minimum wage laws are passed and mom and pops can't compete, but companies like amazon or Walmart can, I consider that a market distortion via the violence of statism.

Similarly, some of the biggest companies mades some of their biggest profits ever during lockdown, while something like 20 percent of small businesses shut down.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Smokers do.

There's psychological effects like cognitive dissonance that prevents smokers, or the obese, or drug addicts, etc. From recognizing the damage they do to their self.

You don't really see people doing what they do with the health consequences of smoking with something like a flat tire, meaning pretend they don't have one when they do.
So it's probably an ego thing imo

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
As much as I am not a fan of the state, I do not see a viable alternative.

If you earnestly want to learn about a viable alternative you should check out the works of von mises, rothbard, and hoppe.

Most of it is free on the von mises institute

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Youre wrong. We are seeing it right now with the vaccine patent waiver. Private companies put profits above saving lives.

I'm not familiar with this. Could you explain a bit more what this is about ?

Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is you've presented such an extreme view point on the topic that anything trying to bring it back to the realm of reality will seem like changing the subject to you.

The truth is taxes are not automatically theft in the traditional sense you are painting it as.

You've purposely over-simplified the topic and while that might work on social echo chambers the truth is most of the people here are intelligent enough to know it's not so simple a topic.

So is it theft in a non traditional way ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So is it theft in a non traditional way ? So you can only point out one thing and ignore the rest?

When I was using the term traditional I was specifically talking about the average's persons notion of what theft is ie you were to ask someone to describe theft they would point to shoplifting, car jacking that type of thing.

To present taxes as theft like above is basically an appeal to emotions and tries to paint a complex topic in an absurdly simplified manner

Originally posted by ilikecomics
No, large corporations working with the state, the way dupont does, doesn't describe the free market.
It describes state capitalism/fascism.

For example when minimum wage laws are passed and mom and pops can't compete, but companies like amazon or Walmart can, I consider that a market distortion via the violence of statism.

Similarly, some of the biggest companies mades some of their biggest profits ever during lockdown, while something like 20 percent of small businesses shut down. I don't know why you think mom and pop stores would fair any better your version of a "real" capitalists society.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
If you earnestly want to learn about a viable alternative you should check out the works of von mises, rothbard, and hoppe.

Most of it is free on the von mises institute
Rothbard and Hoppe are Ancap kooks and the best they can offer are pipe dreams. Von Mises is not much better.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Rothbard and Hoppe are Ancap kooks and the best they can offer are pipe dreams. Von Mises is not much better. Yup, it truly is a good Will Hunting moment

Pipedreams are just that.

Why I asked Klaw "what do you propose as a viable alternative", and he dodged.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pipedreams are just that.

Why I asked Klaw "what do you propose as a viable alternative", and he dodged.

That's why I refer you to the work of ancap and libertarian scholars. You call them names then move on, as if that is some kind of victory.
It would be alot better to attack their actual positions, but that would take being familiar with their work.

The tannehils wrote a book that explains how a free market society would operate.

https://mises.org/library/market-liberty-1

Here's a link for a free download.

Is Klaw a 17 year old who has just smoked their first joint? 'Tax is bad, we should do away with what is a relatively minor inconvenience for most competent people in spite of what it actually provides to the vast majority including the vulnerable.'

I'll be waiting for you here in 1998 and we can discuss alien abductions.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's why I refer you to the work of ancap and libertarian scholars. You call them names then move on, as if that is some kind of victory.
It would be alot better to attack their actual positions, but that would take being familiar with their work.

The tannehils wrote a book that explains how a free market society would operate.

https://mises.org/library/market-liberty-1

Here's a link for a free download. "Libertarian Scholars" , now there is a non sequitur.

Originally posted by samhain
Is Klaw a 17 year old who has just smoked their first joint? 'Tax is bad, we should do away with what is a relatively minor inconvenience for most competent people in spite of what it actually provides to the vast majority including the vulnerable.'

I'll be waiting for you here in 1998 and we can discuss alien abductions. Nah, Klaw is Eon Blues sock account routed through a vpn.

Originally posted by samhain
Is Klaw a 17 year old who has just smoked their first joint? 'Tax is bad, we should do away with what is a relatively minor inconvenience for most competent people in spite of what it actually provides to the vast majority including the vulnerable.'

I'll be waiting for you here in 1998 and we can discuss alien abductions.

I think he recently discovered Ayn Rand, who by the way took government handouts in her later years.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he recently discovered Ayn Rand, who by the way took government handouts in her later years.

Ayn rand supported government throughout her entire career.
She also supported big business, which as I mentioned is in bed with government.

Ayn rand personality wise was a little abrasive and cultish, but her work does have some merit in terms of literary achievement for creating the randian hero and philosophically for her views on idealism, which is that it's shit.

Rothbard clashed with rand and wrote a satirical play on it.

Overall she's kind of weak sauce, as is Objectivism.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
"Libertarian Scholars" , now there is a non sequitur.

Think you meant oxy moron, sir.

This is the definition of non sequitur:

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.



Which doesn't make sense because I was talking about libertarian scholarship.

Originally posted by samhain
Is Klaw a 17 year old who has just smoked their first joint? 'Tax is bad, we should do away with what is a relatively minor inconvenience for most competent people in spite of what it actually provides to the vast majority including the vulnerable.'

I'll be waiting for you here in 1998 and we can discuss alien abductions.

Couldn't I also paint a parody of the lefty commie college kids that thinks helping the underdog' justifies robin hood like stealing ?

Pretty boring schtick, I stick to making arguments.

Points for making me laugh on the abduction joke tho.

Didn't really see boot strap conservatism as a central theme in Atlas Shrugged. It seemed more of promoting the idea that government is a poor regulatory agency, and individual entrepreneurs are where progress comes from.


But I'm no expert on Objectivism, that's only what I got from the story.

Steve Ditko was deep into it though. His Hawk and Dove and The Question were steeped in the philosophy. As was the creative himself, who refused to compromise his vision when pressured to do so, and so quit.


You have to admire a man who's willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Originally posted by cdtm
Didn't really see boot strap conservatism as a central theme in Atlas Shrugged. It seemed more of promoting the idea that government is a poor regulatory agency, and individual entrepreneurs are where progress comes from.


But I'm no expert on Objectivism, that's only what I got from the story.

Steve Ditko was deep into it though. His Hawk and Dove and The Question were steeped in the philosophy. As was the creative himself, who refused to compromise his vision when pressured to do so, and so quit.


You have to admire a man who's willing to put his money where his mouth is. Steve Ditko was a right wing loon. Mr A. Is hilarious, Frank Miller also has some disturbing ideas.

Originally posted by cdtm
Didn't really see boot strap conservatism as a central theme in Atlas Shrugged. It seemed more of promoting the idea that government is a poor regulatory agency, and individual entrepreneurs are where progress comes from.


But I'm no expert on Objectivism, that's only what I got from the story.

Steve Ditko was deep into it though. His Hawk and Dove and The Question were steeped in the philosophy. As was the creative himself, who refused to compromise his vision when pressured to do so, and so quit.


You have to admire a man who's willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Being a lefty artist isn't courageous or novel, being a right wing artist however... Mmmm yummy.

Originally posted by Klaw
And if you don't think it is, what happens if you don't pay it?

Since it's not theft, it's voluntary.

Right?

Naw, that's dumb.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Steve Ditko was a right wing loon. Mr A. Is hilarious, Frank Miller also has some disturbing ideas.

If he was, that didn't come through in Ditko's work. His Question I found highly relatable.

He was on a team with Batman, and came out and admitted "What am I even doing here? There is literally nothing I bring to this teamup when you have freakin BATMAN."



Frank Miller I'll give you, he's out of his mind. Holy Terror was just ridiculous.


But Mark Miller could bring the left wing crazy, he did Wanted, and some comic where George W Bush's daughter has her womb booby trapped with a bomb if she tried getting an abortion from her fathers sperm, or something sick..

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Being a lefty artist isn't courageous or novel, being a right wing artist however... Mmmm yummy.

Ditiko was a lefty?


Sure didn't seem that way to me. More libertarian, with a right wing bias.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Steve Ditko was a right wing loon. Mr A. Is hilarious, Frank Miller also has some disturbing ideas.

Frank Miller is trash. His work sucks. Daredevil is a secret ninja. Batman is a violent psychopath who loves guns. It is like he does not enjoy the characters he is writing, so he turns them into something wildly different.

Originally posted by truejedi
Naw, that's dumb.

I agree, forcing people to pay under threat of violence is dumb.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Frank Miller is trash. His work sucks. Daredevil is a secret ninja. Batman is a violent psychopath who loves guns. It is like he does not enjoy the characters he is writing, so he turns them into something wildly different.

Do you even read comics?

Originally posted by cdtm
Ditiko was a lefty?


Sure didn't seem that way to me. More libertarian, with a right wing bias.

Oh definitely, I was congratulating him for his views.
They anticipating the idea that left wing artists are courageous or interesting.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Frank Miller is trash. His work sucks. Daredevil is a secret ninja. Batman is a violent psychopath who loves guns. It is like he does not enjoy the characters he is writing, so he turns them into something wildly different.

Yeah, but every comic street is a secret ninja.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Frank Miller is trash. His work sucks. Daredevil is a secret ninja. Batman is a violent psychopath who loves guns. It is like he does not enjoy the characters he is writing, so he turns them into something wildly different. I've liked some of his work, but it's difficult to disagree with what you are saying. I could argue he deconstructs and reimagines etc. But isn't that really just what you are saying?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I've liked some of his work, but it's difficult to disagree with what you are saying. I could argue he deconstructs and reimagines etc. But isn't that really just what you are saying?

More like disregards and reconstructs. He is only popular with edgelords and incels, because his work is gratuitously violent and casts all women as whores.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
More like disregards and reconstructs. He is only popular with edgelords and incels, because his work is gratuitously violent and casts all women as whores. A lot of his work really does fit that description. All star Batman springs to mind.

That's when he went off the deep end, along with tripe like Holy Terror. Batman Year One and The Dark Knight Returns are like Knight and day from the DKR sequels and All Star Batman and Robin.

The Dark Knight Returns is awesome.

You guys have no taste.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
A lot of his work really does fit that description. All star Batman springs to mind.

All Star Batman is well after he lost his marbles. I still loved it for its stupidity, but it is not a good book, nor is it indicative of his best work.

I really liked Daredevil and Batman Year One. I think they're really good. I'm not a fan of his "Future Bastard Batman" work though. Not because I think it's good or bad; I just don't like the direction he took with the character(s).

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Think you meant oxy moron, sir.

This is the definition of non sequitur:

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.



Which doesn't make sense because I was talking about libertarian scholarship. Whilst Libertarian Scholar is also an oxymoron (one word) it's also a non sequitur because it will never logically follow as an answer to the arguments of other people This post also clearly shows the ironic thing about irony.

Originally posted by -Pr-
All Star Batman is well after he lost his marbles. I still loved it for its stupidity, but it is not a good book, nor is it indicative of his best work.

I really liked Daredevil and Batman Year One. I think they're really good. I'm not a fan of his "Future Bastard Batman" work though. Not because I think it's good or bad; I just don't like the direction he took with the character(s).


Batman Beyond Bruce is best Old Man Batman.

Originally posted by cdtm
Batman Beyond Bruce is best Old Man Batman.

Yeah, he's all right.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Whilst Libertarian Scholar is also an oxymoron (one word) it's also a non sequitur because it will never logically follow as an answer to the arguments of other people This post also clearly shows the ironic thing about irony.

Kind of sounds like you made a category in your mind so you don't have to deal with arguments.

It's a nice cognitive labor saving device, but it won't help you get closer to the truth.

Originally posted by Klaw
And if you don't think it is, what happens if you don't pay it?


Ask the billionaire capitalists what they do with the taxes they don't pay.

What does that have to do with the question?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Ask the billionaire capitalists what they do with the taxes they don't pay. Exactly.

Originally posted by Klaw
What does that have to do with the question?

If you want to know what happens if you don't pay your taxes you should ask the people who are the best at avoiding paying their taxes.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you want to know what happens if you don't pay your taxes you should ask the people who are the best at avoiding paying their taxes.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you want to know what happens if you don't pay your taxes you should ask the people who are the best at avoiding paying their taxes.

Yeah isnt weird that high iq highly competent people would manipulate the monopoly of force ?

It's kind of like bashing the shoe shop owner, In a mob controlled area, who pays less in protection money because he's better at negotiating.

Kind of districts from the point that the mob is violent and non desirable.

Yes because corporations are innocent victims of the corrupt and powerful state and every example of a corporation effectively running a country in place of the state has resulted in far better outcomes for the populace.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yes because corporations are innocent victims of the corrupt and powerful state and every example of a corporation effectively running a country in place of the state has resulted in far better outcomes for the populace.

I'm not saying they're innocent whatsoever. I'm trying to highlight cronyism.

When has a corporation ever ran a country ?

United Fruit Company
United East India Company
British East India Company
Abir Congo Company
Royal Niger Company

Pretty much take your pick of any chartered Company during colonialism.

Even look at Iraq after the 2003 war. Effectively run by oil companies. They were able to force the iraqi government to spend their meagre military resources to create an army specifically to protect the oil pipelines that the western oil companies used to pump billions of barrels of oil out of the countries without being taxed because the government was deliberately kept too weak to do anything about it. As a nice byproduct of this they were also too weak to do anything about the rise of ISIS.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yeah isnt weird that high iq highly competent people would manipulate the monopoly of force ?

It's kind of like bashing the shoe shop owner, In a mob controlled area, who pays less in protection money because he's better at negotiating.

Kind of districts from the point that the mob is violent and non desirable. You keep inherently tying Government to undesirable entities. Now they are the mob.

It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.

Originally posted by Newjak
You keep inherently tying Government to undesirable entities. Now they are the mob.

It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history. That's Libertarianism tbh.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
That's Libertarianism tbh. Yeah it really is.

Like how everything in history that doesn't align with what they want is Crony Capitalism even though it's the nature of capitalism for some groups to achieve more success and then use that success to generate more wealth for them.

You're close.


Tax in itself is a necessity. You have to pay for those roads and emergency response units somehow. And the politicians need to be paid, they aren't working for free.


When it becomes theft is with pork barrel projects. Tax payer money spent strictly for political favor, at everyone elses expense.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah it really is.

Like how everything in history that doesn't align with what they want is Crony Capitalism even though it's the nature of capitalism for some groups to achieve more success and then use that success to generate more wealth for them. Bingo!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yes because corporations are innocent victims of the corrupt and powerful state and every example of a corporation effectively running a country in place of the state has resulted in far better outcomes for the populace.

Lesser of two evils tbh.

Neither extreme is desirable, but North Korea, Communist Russia, or Nazi Germany beats Walmart, Amazon, and Opec on the evil scale by a mile.

Originally posted by cdtm
Lesser of two evils tbh.

Neither extreme is desirable, but North Korea, Communist Russia, or Nazi Germany beats Walmart, Amazon, and Opec on the evil scale by a mile. Ummm, Nazi Germany integrated the corporations into the machinery of Government.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah it really is.

Like how everything in history that doesn't align with what they want is Crony Capitalism even though it's the nature of capitalism for some groups to achieve more success and then use that success to generate more wealth for them.

Its human nature in general to find advantage. The difference between evil businesses and evil governments, is that evil governments have more potential to oppress entire populations.


That's what statists don't seem to understand, that power to do good that you desire can just as easily be turned against you. That's why some people want limited power of governments, so that an uprising isn't the only option in the event they become corrupt.

Originally posted by cdtm
Lesser of two evils tbh.

Neither extreme is desirable, but North Korea, Communist Russia, or Nazi Germany beats Walmart, Amazon, and Opec on the evil scale by a mile.

The Bengal famine, deliberately engineered by the British East India Company is the single biggest genocide in history.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The Bengal famine, deliberately engineered by the British East India Company is the single biggest genocide in history. incredibly sad. Weather played its part, but the East India companies policies were key.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
United Fruit Company
United East India Company
British East India Company
Abir Congo Company
Royal Niger Company

Pretty much take your pick of any chartered Company during colonialism.

Even look at Iraq after the 2003 war. Effectively run by oil companies. They were able to force the iraqi government to spend their meagre military resources to create an army specifically to protect the oil pipelines that the western oil companies used to pump billions of barrels of oil out of the countries without being taxed because the government was deliberately kept too weak to do anything about it. As a nice byproduct of this they were also too weak to do anything about the rise of ISIS.

Wow, those oil companies must be wildly powerful to not only go against the wishes of the united states' government and it's armies, but to also overthrow the Iraq government.

So you're saying, without any state interference whatsoever, a private company invaded a foreign country and set up shop against the local government's wishes ?

I'll look into the other examples after we deal with this.

Originally posted by cdtm
You're close.


Tax in itself is a necessity. You have to pay for those roads and emergency response units somehow. And the politicians need to be paid, they aren't working for free.


When it becomes theft is with pork barrel projects. Tax payer money spent strictly for political favor, at everyone elses expense.

Didn't take you for a statist

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Wow, those oil companies must be wildly powerful to not only go against the wishes of the united states' government and it's armies, but to also overthrow the Iraq government.

So you're saying, without any state interference whatsoever, a private company invaded a foreign country and set up shop against the local government's wishes ?

I'll look into the other examples after we deal with this.

I was thinking the same thing.

Didn't the East India Company have the blessing and backing of governments?


Or lets look at another example: Hawaii. Private businesses enacted a coup, yet the United States Federal Government played a role. So is it an example of the evils of capitolism or the evils of government?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Didn't take you for a statist

I'm not. Not a pure libertarian either.


The fact is, taxes do have their place. Every time you use an interstate highway is one of them.

Originally posted by Newjak
You keep inherently tying Government to undesirable entities. Now they are the mob.

It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.

Imagine a playground.

Imagine there's a violent bully who takes candy from others, who buy it at full price, then the bully sells it for cheaper.

Imagine after a while the threat of violence has largely replaced actual violence. This would allow the prime bully to employ smaller bullies, who never engaged in actual violence, to go around and collect the candy.

The prime bully makes money because his acquisition of candy is free. The prime bully represents the state.

The lesser sub bullies are companies like WalMart and amazon. They don't use violence, but still capitalize from it.

The children who buy the discounted bully candy are the wall-e couch people buying their lifestyles from Amazon.

Now imagine that a child and his father who develop a healthy tasting candy that people will gladly pay double what they pay for the stolen candy of their friends.
The inventor child has made the violence of the bully obsolete, and because he knows the principles of recipe creation can continue to increase his stock.

The inventor child is the entrepreneur, who sacrifices labor to fill a market opportunity, makes the playground safer and provides the children with choice instead of fear.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm not. Not a pure libertarian either.


The fact is, taxes do have their place. Every time you use an interstate highway is one of them.

If you support taxes you are de facto a statist Imo. It's more of a categorization thing than a value judgement.

Edit: imo hayek was a socialist lol

Have you read libertarian cases for why the highway/roads are a bad argument for taxation ?

Originally posted by cdtm
I was thinking the same thing.

Didn't the East India Company have the blessing and backing of governments?


Or lets look at another example: Hawaii. Private businesses enacted a coup, yet the United States Federal Government played a role. So is it an example of the evils of capitolism or the evils of government?

Of the state ! It's literally impossible for companies to have a LEGAL monopoly on violence, only the state can.

it's kind of like how if a child and an adult commit a crime together the child isn't seen as equally guilty, it in fact adds to the crime that the adult would conscript a child.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Imagine a playground.

Imagine there's a violent bully who takes candy from others, who buy it at full price, then the bully sells it for cheaper.

Imagine after a while the threat of violence has largely replaced actual violence. This would allow the prime bully to employ smaller bullies, who never engaged in actual violence, to go around and collect the candy.

The prime bully makes money because his acquisition of candy is free. The prime bully represents the state.

The lesser sub bullies are companies like WalMart and amazon. They don't use violence, but still capitalize from it.

The children who buy the discounted bully candy are the wall-e couch people buying their lifestyles from Amazon.

Now imagine that a child and his father who develop a healthy tasting candy that people will gladly pay double what they pay for the stolen candy of their friends.
The inventor child has made the violence of the bully obsolete, and because he knows the principles of recipe creation can continue to increase his stock.

The inventor child is the entrepreneur, who sacrifices labor to fill a market opportunity, makes the playground safer and provides the children with choice instead of fear. Imagine reading my previous comment about creating ultra simple scenarios and tying what you don't like to undesirable entities.

It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.

I mean in your scenario you forgot to add the part where the inventor child eventually overtakes the market and becomes the new micro-bully pushing out other competition because they've gained power after all.

And that's only one of a million different scenarios that happen in the rich history that is humanity.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The Bengal famine, deliberately engineered by the British East India Company is the single biggest genocide in history. on the flip side, Norman Borlaug helped save Mexico, India, Pakistan, China and Turkey amongst others from starvation by growing mass production of wheat and other crops, mostly wheat to feed billions of people by working with the farmers and talking to their governments begging for help and funding to create what is now known as "the green revolution"

That isn't crony capitalism or theft, that's science and taxation.

Ever been to a Chinese, Indian or Mexican place and order some form of flat bread with your meal or even have it before you order?

Now you know why.

Originally posted by Newjak
Imagine reading my previous comment about creating ultra simple scenarios and tying what you don't like to undesirable entities.

It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.

I mean in your scenario you forgot to add the part where the inventor child eventually overtakes the market and becomes the new micro-bully pushing out other competition because they've gained power after all.

And that's only one of a million different scenarios that happen in the rich history that is humanity.

And yet here we are picking a side, and assuming we have the right of it.

Honestly, a great majority of my gripes with modern politics comes down to what you're saying. The bully creates an even bigger bully, and the two sides escalate into a blood feud. Each side with legitimate greviences, yet neither side really caring because they have legitimate greviences.

This whole thing is asinine. Any sharing of resources is taxation, and without sharing resources, there is no civilization.

Originally posted by Newjak
Imagine reading my previous comment about creating ultra simple scenarios and tying what you don't like to undesirable entities.

It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.

I mean in your scenario you forgot to add the part where the inventor child eventually overtakes the market and becomes the new micro-bully pushing out other competition because they've gained power after all.

And that's only one of a million different scenarios that happen in the rich history that is humanity.


Calling my arguments simple and calling history complex isn't an argument I know how to address and it seems to be one of your favorites.

Why couldn't a second inventor child invent a new healthier snack, that didn't damage teeth as much ? Less dentist trips is a good selling point to a child.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Imagine a playground.

Imagine there's a violent bully who takes candy from others, who buy it at full price, then the bully sells it for cheaper.

Imagine after a while the threat of violence has largely replaced actual violence. This would allow the prime bully to employ smaller bullies, who never engaged in actual violence, to go around and collect the candy.

The prime bully makes money because his acquisition of candy is free. The prime bully represents the state.

The lesser sub bullies are companies like WalMart and amazon. They don't use violence, but still capitalize from it.

The children who buy the discounted bully candy are the wall-e couch people buying their lifestyles from Amazon.

Now imagine that a child and his father who develop a healthy tasting candy that people will gladly pay double what they pay for the stolen candy of their friends.
The inventor child has made the violence of the bully obsolete, and because he knows the principles of recipe creation can continue to increase his stock.

The inventor child is the entrepreneur, who sacrifices labor to fill a market opportunity, makes the playground safer and provides the children with choice instead of fear. you are not DS0 or one of the other star wars kids are you? They were always coming up with simplistic shit like this, I'd hoped they'd have grown up by now.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Calling my arguments simple and calling history complex isn't an argument I know how to address and it seems to be one of your favorites.

Why couldn't a second inventor child invent a new healthier snack, that didn't damage teeth as much ? Less dentist trips is a good selling point to a child. erm, Originally posted by Blakemore
on the flip side, Norman Borlaug helped save Mexico, India, Pakistan, China and Turkey amongst others from starvation by growing mass production of wheat and other crops, mostly wheat to feed billions of people by working with the farmers and talking to their governments begging for help and funding to create what is now known as "the green revolution"

That isn't crony capitalism or theft, that's science and taxation.

Ever been to a Chinese, Indian or Mexican place and order some form of flat bread with your meal or even have it before you order?

Now you know why.

Originally posted by truejedi
This whole thing is asinine. Any sharing of resources is taxation, and without sharing resources, there is no civilization.


If any sharing of resources is taxation then why do we have charity ?

Originally posted by Blakemore
erm,

Working with governments doesn't legitimize them.

Entrepreneurs work around or with the government all the time. As of now the state exists. Doesn't prove much for me.

Originally posted by truejedi
This whole thing is asinine. Any sharing of resources is taxation, and without sharing resources, there is no civilization.

I'm not the one arguing against all taxes.



In a vacuum, his principle makes enough sense, I think. Assuming I'm right about what he really means:


Use of force is the problem.


From his side, he is hyper-focused on the idea that taxation is compulsory on threat of imprisonment. He thinks forcing yourself on a person is wrong. He thinks other people deciding how much tax is fair, and dictating to you how much you need to pay, all without your input or consent on the basis of where you happened to be born, is a terrible injustice.

Its clearly more complex then that, and society would indeed stop functioning if everyone had the choice to opt out while using public goods and services, but you don't get to that point in logic untill you can get past the idea that you are entirely powerless as an individual before an unjust state.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Calling my arguments simple and calling history complex isn't an argument I know how to address and it seems to be one of your favorites.

Why couldn't a second inventor child invent a new healthier snack, that didn't damage teeth as much ? Less dentist trips is a good selling point to a child. Assuming that second inventor can improve on the snack or that the the first inventor doesn't just use their resources to crush the smaller second inventor by putting multiple obstacles in front of them. Heck the first inventor might just buy out the second inventor to take the competition off the market.

Like I said so many scenarios.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
you are not DS0 or one of the other star wars kids are you? They were always coming up with simplistic shit like this, I'd hoped they'd have grown up by now.


No, I am just ilikecomics. I think star wars is kind of boring because it's just the heroes journey with a space paint job.

Creating simple constructs can have explanatory power, but they don't prove anything. Kind of like an analogy.

I'm not trying to win any arguments, this is just what I like talking about most outside of religion, but religion has a sub forum that is pretty dead.

I don't think I'll change anyone from a statist to an anarchist, but I get alot from the exchanges.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm not the one arguing against all taxes.



In a vacuum, his principle makes enough sense, I think. Assuming I'm right about what he really means:


Use of force is the problem.


From his side, he is hyper-focused on the idea that taxation is compulsory on threat of imprisonment. He thinks forcing yourself on a person is wrong. He thinks other people deciding how much tax is fair, and dictating to you how much you need to pay, all without your input or consent on the basis of where you happened to be born, is a terrible injustice.

Its clearly more complex then that, and society would indeed stop functioning if everyone had the choice to opt out while using public goods and services, but you don't get to that point in logic untill you can get past the idea that you are entirely powerless as an individual before an unjust state.

Yeah, I try to have universalized deontological morals. Taxes suck to me and always will because of that.

People's lack of creativity to be corroborative in a non zero sum capacity usually comes from being subjected to cruel parenting. So in every statist I see a victim crying out for a society that would have been fair and compassionate enough to save people from childhood's like theirs. Obviously people concoct personal mythologies on top of this fact and out comes something about how collectivism is a morally scrupulous political philosophy.

Have you ever read on why market failures and public goods are state mythologies ?

Originally posted by Newjak
Assuming that second inventor can improve on the snack or that the the first inventor doesn't just use their resources to crush the smaller second inventor by putting multiple obstacles in front of them. Heck the first inventor might just buy out the second inventor to take the competition off the market.

Like I said so many scenarios.

Well if he provides a better product and no one wants to buy the first guy's that is fine and dandy. Flavoring it by using the word crush instead of saying more efficient with his factors of production.

If the first inventor wants to sell his invention and sales infrastructure, why is this immoral ?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
you are not DS0 or one of the other star wars kids are you? They were always coming up with simplistic shit like this, I'd hoped they'd have grown up by now. that was a really nerdy way of calling someone single track minded.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Working with governments doesn't legitimize them.

Entrepreneurs work around or with the government all the time. As of now the state exists. Doesn't prove much for me. governments have the knowledge to work on the public's behalf; they're working for the public, not the other way around.

Corruption comes when a government deliberately goes against the will of the people.

Originally posted by Blakemore
governments have the knowledge to work on the public's behalf; they're working for the public, not the other way around.

Corruption comes when a government deliberately goes against the will of the people.

So the will of the people is to be in unwinnable wars in the middle east ?

How can their be a will of the people when 70 million americans wanted trump as president ?

I'm an anarchist who doesn't believe in political leaders at all, how can a government express my will without being in performative contradiction ?

The will of the people is a fascist concept.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So the will of the people is to be in unwinnable wars in the middle east ?

How can their be a will of the people when 70 million americans wanted trump as president ?

I'm an anarchist who doesn't believe in political leaders at all, how can a government express my will without being in performative contradiction ?

The will of the people is a fascist concept. mob rule isn't fascism. 😒 Like it or not, the majority of Americans wanted the Iraq invasion. Even Clinton bombed it several times to prevent a war happening there.

Originally posted by Blakemore
that was a really nerdy way of calling someone single track minded.

You've never heard the joke that libertarians are autistic and like scifi ?

I put everything I encounter through the religion lens, then the political lens.

I'm an atheist and an anarchist, and for whatever weird reason I'm met with alot of eye rolls

Originally posted by Blakemore
mob rule isn't fascism. 😒 Like it or not, the majority of Americans wanted the Iraq invasion. Even Clinton bombed it several times to prevent a war happening there.

Would you give me your definition of fascism ?

I find most people don't really know what it means and just say it's right wing, without defining what they mean by that.

Originally posted by Blakemore
that was a really nerdy way of calling someone single track minded. Originally posted by ilikecomics
You've never heard the joke that libertarians are autistic and like scifi ?

I put everything I encounter through the religion lens, then the political lens.

I'm an atheist and an anarchist, and for whatever weird reason I'm met with alot of eye rolls O.K..that made me laugh in a good way

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You've never heard the joke that libertarians are autistic and like scifi ?

I put everything I encounter through the religion lens, then the political lens.

I'm an atheist and an anarchist, and for whatever weird reason I'm met with alot of eye rolls that's because you're an anarchist.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Would you give me your definition of fascism ?

I find most people don't really know what it means and just say it's right wing, without defining what they mean by that. I already did.
Originally posted by Blakemore
governments have the knowledge to work on the public's behalf; they're working for the public, not the other way around.

Corruption comes when a government deliberately goes against the will of the people.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
O.K..that made me laugh in a good way

Yeah I'm aware I'm a parody of a real person, but I'm willing to take the hit on social capital to soap box.

I try to do it politely as well, if only to help spread the idea more effectively.

In-between this chat I'm talking to someone about how public schools are maleficent and if you spank you're adding to totalitarianism.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yeah I'm aware I'm a parody of a real person, but I'm willing to take the hit on social capital to soap box.

I try to do it politely as well, if only to help spread the idea more effectively.

In-between this chat I'm talking to someone about how public schools are maleficent and if you spank you're adding to totalitarianism. As I read that, I'm thinking of Homer Simpson, going backwards into a hedge.

Originally posted by Blakemore
that's because you're an anarchist.

I already did.

I know, that was the joke. I have beliefs most people consider silly.

Would you mind re explaining what you think fascism is ? I clearly missed where you said it the first time, otherwise I wouldn't have asked again.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
As I read that, I'm thinking of Homer Simpson, going backwards into a hedge.


Do you spank your kids ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Do you spank your kids ? No, my kids are either too old or too young. Now, rephrase your question.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
No, my kids are either too old or too young. Now, rephrase your question.

Did you spank them ?

This isn't a gotcha or some larger point, just curious now that I thought of it.

I don't have children. See: libertarian

@ Blake

I can't quote for whatever reason.

All dictators represent the will of the people.

Do you think dictators have telepathy ?

Each follower of tyranny makes the individual choice to do so

Democracy sucks.

If america was as racist as some people make it seem, the racists could use democracy to make life hell for racial minorities for example.

The 49 percent should not be subjugated to the whims of the 51 percent. Each human is sovereign, and I worry for the scruples of those who think otherwise.

I think any form of government is dictator ship

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you want to know what happens if you don't pay your taxes you should ask the people who are the best at avoiding paying their taxes.

The wealthy get away with it since they use loopholes and buy off politicians.

The poor cannot do that.

John locke talks about natural law, meaning law that focuses on what's called negative rights. These are the basis of the non aggression principle, which is a quintessential pillar of libertarian thought.

Laws form as generalized rules that prevent the freedom of individuals to commit violence freely, but are rewarded with the fruits of civilization.

Many confuse the government with civilization.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
John locke talks about natural law, meaning law that focuses on what's called negative rights. These are the basis of the non aggression principle, which is a quintessential pillar of libertarian thought.

Laws form as generalized rules that prevent the freedom of individuals to commit violence freely, but are rewarded with the fruits of civilization.

Many confuse the government with civilization. Libertarians need a slap imhi.

Originally posted by Klaw
The wealthy get away with it since they use loopholes and buy off politicians.

The poor cannot do that. hi Eon.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Libertarians need a slap imhi.

That's sad you'd hit an adult, but it does answer my question about whether youd hit a child or not.

Originally posted by Klaw
The wealthy get away with it since they use loopholes and buy off politicians.

The poor cannot do that.


A relatively small number of the rich pay half the tax burden currently.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Wow, those oil companies must be wildly powerful to not only go against the wishes of the united states' government and it's armies, but to also overthrow the Iraq government.

So you're saying, without any state interference whatsoever, a private company invaded a foreign country and set up shop against the local government's wishes ?

I'll look into the other examples after we deal with this.

Odd inference because I didn't say any of those things.

The things I did say are in my post and are facts.

Predatory, powerful companies exert far more influence than weak governments. How the country's governance became weak isn't relevant.

In many country's cases they never had functional government in the first place.

@ Blake political theory has evolved since Locke.

Von mises also believed in a night watchmen state, but his protege, rothbard, was radically anarchist.

@ Jaden

My argument is big destructive companies can only do what they do with state approval.

The same way big destructive states can only do what they do with the approval of the masses, at least a critical amount.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's sad you'd hit an adult, but it does answer my question about whether youd hit a child or not. It does nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ Blake political theory has evolved since Locke.

Von mises also believed in a night watchmen state, but his protege, rothbard, was radically anarchist.

@ Jaden

My argument is big destructive companies can only do what they do with state approval.

The same way big destructive states can only do what they do with the approval of the masses, at least a critical amount. I mentioned Locke because he was arguably the father of liberalism.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It does nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I was being catty because I feel as tho we can play despite you seeing me as whacky/absurd/annoying /whatever and you being a dirty commie

@ Blake

I'm addressing you saying Locke is the father of liberalism.

Yes, and libertarianism is the natural outgrowth of classical liberals after progressives hijacking the term.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ Blake political theory has evolved since Locke.

Von mises also believed in a night watchmen state, but his protege, rothbard, was radically anarchist.

@ Jaden

My argument is big destructive companies can only do what they do with state approval.

The same way big destructive states can only do what they do with the approval of the masses, at least a critical amount.

And yet the less a government is able to restrain them, the more destructive corporations behave.

@ Blake

The Ludlow massacre was a result of the trade union, which is an extension of the state.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yeah, I was being catty because I feel as tho we can play despite you seeing me as whacky/absurd/annoying /whatever and you being a dirty commie I am not a commie, I am a Trade Unionist.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
And yet the less a government is able to restrain them, the more destructive corporations behave.

And yet when the state interferes in trade like prohibition or the war on drugs it's also catastrophic.

The state doesn't restrain them, it's a discount for the company.

For example, if du pont contaminates drinking water and has to pay the state a couple million instead of paying out restitution to it's victims (how justice would work in a free market with justice based retributive justice), which would include massive inter generational fertility rates, baby mortality, lower IQs, etc. The bill would be immeasurable, again in contrast to a million dollar bill that only a destructive company, who wasn't accountable to it's victims, could afford to pay.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I am not a commie, I am a Trade unionist.

Yeah, I was pushing into the autistic persona on my end. Commie is flagrant and reminds me of king of the kill (show about fictional rednecks) or people smashing lite beer cans in their heads.

Not trying to misrepresent you, good sir.

Edit: I do think your beliefs if enacted would lead to coercion, however, just to be clear.

This is an article that shows where my reasoning comes from

https://mises.org/library/history-labor-unions-colonial-times-2009

Why is it either a monopoly of coercion or dark ages for you ?

So you don't know about Regan declaring the war on drugs ?

****ing stupid ipad!

Actually during the dark ages Ireland was unconquerable because they didn't have a centralized government.

You don't conquer a people during war, you conquer the state, which is the apparatus of control.

Originally posted by Blakemore
****ing stupid ipad!

I can quote you again. Yay

You're doing good, man.