Stormfront Supports Ron Paul

[JoeEllison]

Many times the "taxation is theft" mantra is being applied to social programs like social security, welfare, etc, rather than necessities like police. Some may even still view taxation as theft but otherwise necessary because there is no other way--as anarchy itself is even more undesirable.

You really don't see how taxing someone to give another group money is theft in any way, shape, or form, simply because a group of people have declared that you should under penalty of jail time, etc?

To use an extreme, what if Congress decided to give away ALL of your wealth? That's not stealing? If you don't like it, leave!

Yeah, just like I said... the viewpoint you propose is childish and immature. Taxes are the dues you pay as a citizen, in order to enjoy the benefits of being a citizen. Most adults understand that benefits also come with responsibilities. The overall health and well-being of a society benefits every member of that society. EVERY member. I don't have children, but I benefit from a generally well-educated society. Other people's taxes paid for my school, my taxes pay for the next generation. That's just the way it works, and in no sense is that "theft".

Your "extreme" is too silly to even comment on.

 

[JoeEllison]

Something I find interesting is that the more I think about libertarianism, and the more I discuss it with libertarians, the worse it looks.

Funny, after complaining about force left and right, the only thing libertarians seem to want to pay for is the tools of force, namely the military and police. Odd, and interesting, isn't it?

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Not me, dude... I HAVE wealth**, as I've pointed out several times. I resent the arrogance of people who refuse to admit the elements of chance that lead to personal wealth, and don't appreciate their good fortune. That's my issue with libertarians: they have benefited by being born in wealthy countries, and have often greatly benefited from the system of government that they seek to tear down.

Low-quality posting from a low-quality poster.

Everyone recognizes there is luck and fate involved in wealth. We also recognize that freer markets typically mean more economic choices, unlike the more despotic nations such as ones in Africa.

You also seem to have an implicit confusion; libertarians, most of them anyway, don't oppose charity; they oppose simply government doing it as libertarians believe in maximizing individual choice. The government and society are not the same thing, and if they are, then we live in a very rotten society. Actually, given some of the posts on these boards, perhaps we do live in a rotten society.

Additionally, libertarians don't seek to "tear down" the entire system of government. You know that, but you also know that your argument is too weak and thus strawman arguments must be employed or else it would fall flat. Either that, or you're not knowledgeable enough to actually comprehend what it is you're arguing against, in which case you need to educate yourself before you jump into the fray.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Something I find interesting is that the more I think about libertarianism, and the more I discuss it with libertarians, the worse it looks.

Funny, after complaining about force left and right, the only thing libertarians seem to want to pay for is the tools of force, namely the military and police. Odd, and interesting, isn't it?

Because the government is the monopoly on force--the law and the courts! PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING WITH! Your ignorance is not a "counter-point", it is not a "counter-argument";

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Yeah, just like I said... the viewpoint you propose is childish and immature. Taxes are the dues you pay as a citizen, in order to enjoy the benefits of being a citizen. Most adults understand that benefits also come with responsibilities. The overall health and well-being of a society benefits every member of that society. EVERY member. I don't have children, but I benefit from a generally well-educated society. Other people's taxes paid for my school, my taxes pay for the next generation. That's just the way it works, and in no sense is that "theft".

Your "extreme" is too silly to even comment on.

Your selfish attitude non-withstanding, libertarians don't oppose helping other people or don't even refuse to! The simple fact is is that it's an issue of consent and personal choice.

I'll use an example that survive today--the Amish. They don't pay many of the same taxes we do, such as social security, etc, and yet the help their own. To the libertarian, this is very acceptable; perhaps closer to ideal than how the government works. I am not promoting the Amish beliefs or lifestyle or saying they live in a libertarian utopia, of course, but if I didn't say so you'd come out and say that I advocate agrarian lifestyles since you're, well, to be frank, very dishonest.

Are you saying the Amish are irresponsible? Childish? That they oppose society? That they're selfish? I should also note that your taxes did not pay for Amish schools

Should the Amish pay income taxes? Should they be forced into benefits they don't want and won't take, and don't believe in, and pay for others? The Amish, while they have their own close-knit society, do not shelter themselves off completely from the rest of society; they do not avoid non-Amish restaurants, businesses, or people.

Why shouldn't the normal person have the choice of the Amish, to not take the benefits, and not pay for those plans, but to give when one deems the cause worthy or necessary?

Is it because... you, or the government you fondly seem to worship... has less power under that system, to not coerce or make others live and do as you wish? Are you afraid that people will not live their lives the way you want them to live it?


Again, PLEASE educate yourself, because the public schooling you talk about didn't seem to do you much good.

 

[Admiral]

Something I find interesting is that the more I think about libertarianism, and the more I discuss it with libertarians, the worse it looks.

Funny, after complaining about force left and right, the only thing libertarians seem to want to pay for is the tools of force, namely the military and police. Odd, and interesting, isn't it?

First of all, you haven't responded to anything specific in my post.

As for what you say here: police and the military, to the extent that libertarians support them, are examples of defensive or retaliatory force. There's a major difference between the two. Police protect people from each other, and the military protects the country overall (and when they stray from this, with police brutality or preemptive or unnecessary war, libertarians are the first to oppose them- you certainly can't question that).

 

[JoeEllison]

First of all, you haven't responded to anything specific in my post.

As for what you say here: police and the military, to the extent that libertarians support them, are examples of defensive or retaliatory force. There's a major difference between the two. Police protect people from each other, and the military protects the country overall (and when they stray from this, with police brutality or preemptive or unnecessary war, libertarians are the first to oppose them- you certainly can't question that).

I still find it interesting that for a group that claims to be against force, force is the only thing you actually support. You can claim that it is "difference", but I still think it points to a basic inconsistency in the position... not something I've completely worked out yet.

 

[JoeEllison]

First of all, you haven't responded to anything specific in my post.

Here's my entire response: I don't agree that taxation is inherently theft. I find that position to be completely and utterly nonsensical. Anything that follows from that position is inherently flawed. So, discussing whether "theft" is sometimes justified, when we don't even agree on whether or not taxation is theft, seems sort of fruitless to me.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I still find it interesting that for a group that claims to be against force, force is the only thing you actually support. You can claim that it is "difference", but I still think it points to a basic inconsistency in the position... not something I've completely worked out yet.

The reason the only thing we support out of government is law enforcement is because we want force limited!

Ever tax you pass, every program you pass, involves more force, as you cannot opt-out, you cannot opt-in because the decision has been made for you, and if you oppose you'll end up fined and then in prison.

Thus, we are opposing force by minimalization.

If something does not involve force, it is not government, because government IS force. Government is what sends you to jail after a crime whether you agree with the law or not, whether you've agreed to follow the law or not. That is why we generally oppose all laws where both parties consent.

In short: By supporting more and more government, you support more and more force, because the government, by nature, will force you to comply. Social security, you cannot opt out. The inevitable state health care disaster will surely not be opt-in.

And if a program can survive with opt-in or opt-out, then government isn't necessary.

There is no inconsistency, merely your short-sightedness or intelligence that is at fault.

I have a feeling that no matter how much we throw doubt on your mistaken notion, no matter how much we even cause you to question it yourself, you will cling onto it because you find the illusion of irony so appealing that intellectual honesty with even yourself will be impossible.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Here's my entire response: I don't agree that taxation is inherently theft. I find that position to be completely and utterly nonsensical. Anything that follows from that position is inherently flawed. So, discussing whether "theft" is sometimes justified, when we don't even agree on whether or not taxation is theft, seems sort of fruitless to me.

Again, if the government voted that all your wealth be given up to various government programs, that would not be theft, if it went by the books?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm pretty sure citizenship is a choice... no one is forcing anyone to enjoy the benefits of citizenship here.

Joe, you are borrowing the "America my way, love it or leave it" from your ideological opponents. You sure you want to do that?

DR

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Joe, you are borrowing the "America my way, love it or leave it" from your ideological opponents. You sure you want to do that?

DR

What other choice does he have? If you cannot opt-out, when you are forced into programs and services you don't want or at least would want to have some control over in how you deal with them, then the only reply to protestations against such a system I can see is "love it or leave it", because they have already rejected individual choice and consent between individuals as being the basis for a society-government system.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The difference, is private money by choice, or private money by force/threat of violence.

I notice that this is not an answer to my question.

 

[JoeEllison]

Joe, you are borrowing the "America my way, love it or leave it" from your ideological opponents. You sure you want to do that?

DR

Not really... I'm coming at it from a "if you are against the entire idea of society as embraced by pretty much every single Western society, your best bet is to remove yourself from Western civilization."

Maybe they should be Amish?

 

[Dr Adequate]

First of all, you haven't responded to anything specific in my post.

As for what you say here: police and the military, to the extent that libertarians support them, are examples of defensive or retaliatory force. There's a major difference between the two. Police protect people from each other, and the military protects the country overall ...

... and socialized medicine would protect the country from disease, which kills more Americans than crime or foreign invasion.

But for some reason libertarians aren't keen on the notion, what a surprise.

 

[Darth Rotor]

... and socialized medicine would protect the country from disease, which kills more Americans than crime or foreign invasion.

But for some reason libertarians aren't keen on the notion, what a surprise.

Death is the greatest killer of Americans. What have Libertarians done about Death?

/attempt to channel pillory

DR

 

[Dr. Fascism]

... and socialized medicine would protect the country from disease, which kills more Americans than crime or foreign invasion.

But for some reason libertarians aren't keen on the notion, what a surprise.

It's very debatable over how effective socialized medicine is; when the resource is "free" or the price is "hidden", inefficiency can grow.

Anyway, libertarians don't oppose helping or personally paying to help other people, health-wise, they want it to be a matter of individual consent and management over such things, not letting "philosopher kings" run it for them.

I think programs like socialized medicine are like the impulse isle of the grocery store--highly appealing to those who don't think, but those who do, and like to watch their wallet....

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Not really... I'm coming at it from a "if you are against the entire idea of society as embraced by pretty much every single Western society, your best bet is to remove yourself from Western civilization."

Maybe they should be Amish?

Back in the 1600s you would've been an ardent supporter of slavery. "If you don't like slavery, remove yourself from a society that has it!"

Also, you confound "society" and "government", but again, I'm not here to educate you...

 

[Admiral]

Not really... I'm coming at it from a "if you are against the entire idea of society as embraced by pretty much every single Western society, your best bet is to remove yourself from Western civilization."

Maybe they should be Amish?

As I've noted before in this thread, government and society are NOT the same thing, and I'm certainly not against "society" in any sense.

I could name dozens of things about society that I love right now, from television to music to 24-hour ATMs to the pizza place down the road that I can't get enough of. Hell, I enjoy posting on the JREF forum. I would absolutely hate to remove myself from society. It's certainly not my "best bet."

Plenty of people have, like you, asked something along the lines of "Why don't you just go to a desert island by yourself? Wouldn't that be the best government for you?" This argument is simply ridiculous. The vast majority of my quality of life is determined by factors that have little or nothing to do with government- through market interactions. I haven't interacted with government in any direct way today, but I have gained enormously from society- from the restaurants I went to to the job I worked at to the classes I attended to the people I interacted with (including you guys).

Government is not the same thing as society. The idea that America, or any country, can be referred to collectively by referring to its government is just silly.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's very debatable over how effective socialized medicine is ...

Debateable? Yeah, and since you're a newbie ... we had the debate. Socalized medicine won.

when the resource is "free" or the price is "hidden", inefficiency can grow.

And yet funnily enough socialised medicine is much more efficient.

I think programs like socialized medicine are like the impulse isle of the grocery store--highly appealing to those who don't think, but those who do, and like to watch their wallet....

Ah, so you didn't base what you think on any actual facts.

Socialized medicine is cheaper, more efficient, and less bureaucratic. Besides, y'know, preventing sick people from dying and stuff like that.

---

P.S: "Aisle".