Libertarianism and Inheritance

[shanek]

The estate tax is anything but a tax on income. If I work for 60 years, buy a house, save well, and die with an estate worth $5 million, I have already paid taxes on the income I made in order to buy the house and build a savings account.

And you've paid property taxes on it every year. And you had to pay for the building permits, and more permits every time you wanted to expand or improve it...

The estate tax is a blatant way for the government to tax again what has already been taxed, at the time it was earned.

Taxed and taxed and taxed again. How many times must something we own be "taxed" before everything becomes "fair"?

 

[shanek]

Yes, you have paid the tax. But the person who is inheriting your estate hasn't.

Yes, he has, because he is inheriting less than he would have because of the tax. Especially when you consider all the years of compound interest.

And, in fact, with estate taxes, they are better off in a way, because if it were treated as outright income, they would be put in a higher tax bracket for the year of the inheritance.

Ah. So if I chop off your finger, you're better off because I could have chopped off the whole arm.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Suppose the exemption is 10 million dollars. Are you saying your children could not live comfortably off 10 million dollars?

I and my children aree under no obligation to justify our holdings to you or anyone else as what we can live comfortably off of. So get your selfish nose out of our lives.

Calm down

Calm down? You start yet another thread with yet more strawman Libertarian arguments and say that YOU have some sort of say into what MY children should be left with when I die and you expect me to calm down?

without any supporting justification,

No, YOU are making the claim. YOU justify it. I, by default, am free; therefore YOU must say why YOU get to intrude into MY life.

I have already replied to this criticism by appealing to fairness and equal opportunity. Yes, all of us are products of circumstance -- genetic and environmental -- but that does not prohibit us from seeking to create a more fair society.

You cannot make things fair by the act of force.

As for appeals to authority -- well, you never do that

Quote one.

[more ad homs deleted]

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Another brilliant non-reply!

Originally posted by shanek I and my children aree under no obligation to justify our holdings to you or anyone else as what we can live comfortably off of. So get your selfish nose out of our lives.

Earlier you blathered:

Okay, fine then. When you die we'll just sieze all of your property and throw your kids out onto the streets to fend for themselves. Sheez...

One of the major reasons I work so much is to provide for my kids. And I do want to make sure they're provided for after I'm gone. EXCUUUUSE ME.

So now I earnestly ask you if 10 million (or 100 million) dollars is not enough to provide for your children and you call me selfish. If the rationale is leaving enough for one's children, then a sky- high exemption seriously undermines that objection. But of course that's not the *real* complaint.

Calm down? You start yet another thread with yet more strawman Libertarian arguments and say that YOU have some sort of say into what MY children should be left with when I die and you expect me to calm down?

Here we go with still more unsupported assertions. Where's the straw man? And I never specifically brought your kids (or anybody else's) into the argument. You're the one who insists on personalizing matters.

No, YOU are making the claim. YOU justify it. I, by default, am free; therefore YOU must say why YOU get to intrude into MY life.

*sigh* Yes, and I've supported it with reasons. You consistently fail to produce supporting reasons.
To choose an example almost at random, look at the nonsense immediately above. The claim that you are "by default," whatever that means, "free," whatever *that* means, requires both argumentation and clarification.

You cannot make things fair by the act of force.

This is just another absurd assertion, relying on what I am sure is an idiosyncratic (i.e. loaded) definition of "force." Yes, an estate tax can make things more fair, for reasons enunciated above.

Your (non)rebuttals are all over map. First, you bring your children up, as though they'll starve on sidewalks because of the nasty guvmit. Then, reverting back to typical doctrinare libertarian posture, you allege the government has no authority to institute an estate tax (without bothering to engage any of the reasons provided). Finally, now, you say it wouldn't be "fair" because "force" is involved (whatever that means).

Quote one.

I did; you speak as a final authority (without bothering to provide reasons or evidence:

It's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. PERIOD.

Now I believe I asked you to cite various ad hominems and appeals to authority in my own posting. It comes as no surprise that you failed to do so.

 

[Gem]

Ah. So if I chop off your finger, you're better off because I could have chopped off the whole arm.

Chop off a finger? Where did I hear that? It was in the china workers losing their fingers to heavy machinery.

Wasn't one of your arguments in that thread that the workers were better off in factories rather than the farm because they were better off?

Didn't you reject the argument (Suddenly's) that while the workers had a choice, it wasn't a very good one. In other words, they could stay and starve on the farm or risk losing limbs to the factory.

Am I the only one who sees a double standard here?

Gem

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

So now I earnestly ask you if 10 million (or 100 million) dollars is not enough to provide for your children

It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS whether or not it is enough to provide for my children. Why do you think you somehow get to intrude into someone else's life just because they have something you want and want to sidestep the process of actually going out and earning it?

and you call me selfish.

Because you are. Your entire argument is selfish to the core. You look at what other people have worked and saved and invested their whole life to acquire and you just want to stamp your little foot, scream "unfair," and take it.

If the rationale is leaving enough for one's children,

The rationale is it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Here we go with still more unsupported assertions. Where's the straw man?

Where ISN'T a strawman? I have stated the Libertarian position several times, in all caps no less, and you still have yet to even acknowledge it, talking about "leaving enough for one's children" and "enough to provide for your children," crap like that.

And I never specifically brought your kids (or anybody else's) into the argument.

Yes, you did. You're wanting to dictate to others what they can and can't leave to their kids. That is EXACTLY what you're talking about.

You're the one who insists on personalizing matters.

You're talking about an intrusion into MY life. It IS personal.

*sigh* Yes, and I've supported it with reasons.

No, you haven't. You've "supported" it with strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to authority, but you refuse to answer the key question: How is it any of your business?

You consistently fail to produce supporting reasons.

I don't HAVE to. YOU'RE making the claim. YOU'RE the one saying we should intrude into people's lives. YOU justify it.

To choose an example almost at random, look at the nonsense immediately above. The claim that you are "by default," whatever that means, "free," whatever *that* means, requires both argumentation and clarification.

If no one else intrudes into my life, I'm free. I'm sorry, I thought that progression was so simple even you could understand it. I'll never underestimate your inabilty to see the obvious when it contradicts your narrow and selfish world-view again.

This is just another absurd assertion,

No, it's not. You are talking about the taking of property by force from its rightful owner.

relying on what I am sure is an idiosyncratic (i.e. loaded) definition of "force."

Oh? How are you going to collect this tax without the use of force? Suppose my progeny just refuses to pay it? What are you going to do?

Your (non)rebuttals are all over map. First, you bring your children up, as though they'll starve on sidewalks because of the nasty guvmit.

Another strawman.

Then, reverting back to typical doctrinare libertarian posture, you allege the government has no authority to institute an estate tax (without bothering to engage any of the reasons provided).

Yet another strawman. I'm trying to make YOU support YOUR assertion; there's a big difference.

Finally, now, you say it wouldn't be "fair" because "force" is involved (whatever that means).

Geez, they aren't even multisyllabic words! Ever heard of a "dictionary"? And YOU were the one who brought up fairness, not me.

I did

Liar. Quote me directly using an appeal to authority or retract the accusation.

Saying "it's none of the government's business" is NOT an appeal to authority. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You have NOTHING to contribute...As usual.

 

[michaellee]

I see where both Cain and shanek's posts come from, and know why shanek might come across as uncalmed or angry.

Cain- Believes that an estate tax, with an exemption that would cover everyone but the "super rich" ($10 million for instance), would allow the government to use the money to provide services or programs to those in less fortunate circumstances, those who have or will not be so lucky to inherit anything at all. By providing a large exemption, Cain can't see how this would not be fair; to those covered completely by the exemption; and even to those not- as their inheritors still get a whopping amount of untaxed inheritance, and can surely afford the tax on the amount over the $10 million.

shanek- Believes an estate tax, regardless of an exempted amount or not, is another way that the government seizes it's citizens hard earned money. In this case, it amounts to being taxed twice on the same money.

shanek responds in the way he does due to the fact that in previous threads regarding government vs. libertarian views, most of those arguing against shanek refuse to, or simply cannot, comprehend where he is coming from. shanek has repeated his stance numerous times, so when asked to repeat something over, even though the request may be honest, he doesn't see it that way, and may come across as angry or uncalm.

I understand completely where shanek 's frustration comes from, as in my many years of following politics and living in the heart of liberal, socialist, and wacko villes, it is virtually impossible to speak my beliefs anywhere. If I can or do, the response I receive is one of deaf ears, or in most cases, personal attacks. Rarely does one respond with a valid argument, or for that matter, feel one is even merited, regardless of what my stance might be on any particular matter. Just mention the word "liberty" or "libertarian", and be prepared to be in the ultra minority real quick. After many attempts and years, I too find myself more apt at simply saying something like "it is not the Government's business", or "please direct me to the part of the Constitution that gives authority", or the like. At least these responses are sure to receive the same exact reaction every time, and whats the difference anyway? Arguing something so seemingly basic and which is backed by the U.S. Constitution turns out to be anything but basic with the majority of Americans, and this is an attitude or belief system a libertarian cannot, does not nor will not ever understand. Just as most liberals, socialists and environmentalists will never understand the libertarian viewpoint.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Shanek- you're the best!

Originally posted by shanek It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS whether or not it is enough to provide for my children. Why do you think you somehow get to intrude into someone else's life just because they have something you want and want to sidestep the process of actually going out and earning it?

There are several related problems here: First, it is not really intruding in anyone's life considering that they're dead. Sort of a basic fact. Second, the wealth bestowed to the recipient is unearned. Finally, it's important, as a background issue, to remember that wealth is not single-handedly created by any particular individual; it's socially created. Redistributing to foster social justice, or a meritocratic society, or equal opportunity are other considerations to keep in mind.

Because you are. Your entire argument is selfish to the core. You look at what other people have worked and saved and invested their whole life to acquire and you just want to stamp your little foot, scream "unfair," and take it.

I let this Orwellian turn pass without comment earlier (it's difficult to take a libertarian's accusations of "selfishness" seriously), but now you've reminded me of this humorous cartoon (posted earlier, and the "owners" do not care if it's redistributed):

The rationale is it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

And again that presumably rests on other, prior beliefs or axioms, yes?

Where ISN'T a strawman? I have stated the Libertarian position several times, in all caps no less, and you still have yet to even acknowledge it, talking about "leaving enough for one's children" and "enough to provide for your children," crap like that.

First let me chide you for failing to distinguish between Libertarianism and libertarianism. There's a difference you've never quite fully grasped. There are actually several libertarian views, all based on different premises. Again, you've never understood this (as evidenced by the link posted earlier).

There are natural-rights libertarians (Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand). Utilitiarian libertarians (Hayek, David and Milton Friedman). Though comparatively smaller and less influential, there are social contract libertarians (Jan Naverson).

Yes, you did. You're wanting to dictate to others what they can and can't leave to their kids. That is EXACTLY what you're talking about.

So I specifically brought your kids into this? Wonderful. You enjoy flaunting your incompetence, don't you?

No, you haven't. You've "supported" it with strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to authority, but you refuse to answer the key question: How is it any of your business?

This nonsense has grown reptitious. If there's straw man, identify it and demonstrate how it mischaracterizes a libertarian position. Same for ad hominems -- idenfity them (and try not to say others' beliefs are motivated by selfishness). Same goes for appeals to authority. The "key question", if we wish to get back to serious matters, IS addressed above in the first post, which you have yet to substantively answer.

I don't HAVE to. YOU'RE making the claim. YOU'RE the one saying we should intrude into people's lives. YOU justify it.

Once again: meritocracy; free choices rather than circumstances; efficency; fairness (as equal opportunity). Those are the reasons. You have yet to understand that your belief rests on other, more fundamental beliefs (which require justification).

If no one else intrudes into my life, I'm free. I'm sorry, I thought that progression was so simple even you could understand it. I'll never underestimate your inabilty to see the obvious when it contradicts your narrow and selfish world-view again.

And that's a hollow definition of freedom. So if your plane crashes and you're stranded on a desert island, then you're free? Suppose Dr. Strangelove kidnaps me, and puts me on the same island. In that case, I am presumably unfree (because a conscious force interfered in my life). But you, you're perfectly free.

That definition, those arguments, have been addressed ad nauseum on these forums (see positive versus negative liberty threads).

No, it's not. You are talking about the taking of property by force from its rightful owner.

Here again loaded terms. A rightful owner does not necessarily have absolute control over a piece of the earth. Where did *that* right come from? Again, prior considerations.

See Jonathan Wolff's arguments on this point specifically: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/wolff_2.html

Oh? How are you going to collect this tax without the use of force? Suppose my progeny just refuses to pay it? What are you going to do?

Suppose one of your children hires a catering company to celebrate your death. After the party, when the balloons are a little softer and the cake is a little harder, the caterer wants to settle the bill. Your child refuses. Uh oh, it's going to take "force" in order for one disgruntled party to gain compensation.

Another strawman.

originally posted by Shanek- " Okay, fine then. When you die we'll just sieze all of your property and throw your kids out onto the streets to fend for themselves. Sheez... "

Yet another strawman. I'm trying to make YOU support YOUR assertion; there's a big difference.

You're now invoking "strawman" more hapazardly than usual. What next, are you going to call me a "liar"? My claims have been supported (or at least I attempted to support them). You're comical.

Geez, they aren't even multisyllabic words! Ever heard of a "dictionary"? And YOU were the one who brought up fairness, not me.

Right on, brother! But wait, there's one slight problem: words such as "fairness," "justice," "force," and "freedom" are highly disputed, and a vast literature has grown around them. To think, philosophers could have merely consulted their dictionaries. If you'll excuse me I'm going to look up "love," (one syllable!) "beauty," and "courage."

Liar. Quote me directly using an appeal to authority or retract the accusation.

Ah, I was waiting for that. It feels good. Read closely: I've quoted "directly" -- twice, in fact. You fashioned yourself as an authority because you make claims without support (or reason).

Saying "it's none of the government's business" is NOT an appeal to authority. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It requires what people commonly call an "argument".

My dear Shanek- I'm still waiting for you to produce those ad hominems and appeals to authority. Is this the third I've asked? Also, I'm interested in a certain Carl Sagan... oh, never mind.
__________________________________

shanek- Believes an estate tax, regardless of an exempted amount or not, is another way that the government seizes it's citizens hard earned money. In this case, it amounts to being taxed twice on the same money.

Whether it has been taxed "twice" is not a relevant consideration in this context. Suppose all government revenue came through an estate tax. Most libertarians, especially natural rights proponents, would still oppose the tax.

shanek responds in the way he does due to the fact that in previous threads regarding government vs. libertarian views, most of those arguing against shanek refuse to, or simply cannot, comprehend where he is coming from. shanek has repeated his stance numerous times, so when asked to repeat something over, even though the request may be honest, he doesn't see it that way, and may come across as angry or uncalm.

Why are the true prophets always misunderstood? Or maybe, just maybe, he fails to understand where others are coming from.

 

[corplinx]

I knew I was going to die on Friday, and sold my estate to my son for a dollar, would you have a problem with that?

Now, what is the difference between the man who parcels out his estate before he dies manually in lieu of his death and he who signs a legally binding will because he does not knowwhen he dies.

In either case, what business is it for you or George Bush to know how much my estate is worth or who it goes to?

Leftists only seem to believe in privacy until it comes to income, then they have to know what everyone else is making or how big their estates are.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Yes, he has, because he is inheriting less than he would have because of the tax. Especially when you consider all the years of compound interest.



Ah. So if I chop off your finger, you're better off because I could have chopped off the whole arm.

You've missed the point, shanek. Let me explain it another way.

Person A is about to die. He has lived all his life paying tax, and has built up an estate, X. Person A has paid tax for X. Person A bequeaths his estate to Person B.

Person B, however, hasn't paid any tax whatsover for X. It's another form of income. A one-off form of income, to be sure, but nevertheless one that the government can argue that it has the right to tax.

Over to you.

Oh... and, the amputation analogy is what we call 'apples and oranges'. I know you like to whine about tax as if you're giving up a limb permanently every time you pay it, but it isn't really that bad now, is it?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I knew I was going to die on Friday, and sold my estate to my son for a dollar, would you have a problem with that?

Interesting point, but somewhat moot since most people don't know exactly when they are going to die. In any case, I assume laws have been forumlated to prevent this type of loop-holing.
edit to add In other words, yes I do have a problem with it, because it allows people who can predict when they are going to die to take advantage over people who cannot.

In either case, what business is it for you or George Bush to know how much my estate is worth or who it goes to?

See above.

Leftists only seem to believe in privacy until it comes to income, then they have to know what everyone else is making or how big their estates are.

Uhh... How did this become a privacy issue? Are you seriously saying income tax is a violation of privacy?

edit to add If so, upon what basis to you make this assertion?

 

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx I knew I was going to die on Friday, and sold my estate to my son for a dollar, would you have a problem with that?

Now, what is the difference between the man who parcels out his estate before he dies manually in lieu of his death and he who signs a legally binding will because he does not knowwhen he dies.

Not sure if this is directed at me. There are already laws in place to investigate individuals who sell off their assets at below fair market value. There's also a gift tax in place to discourage people from simply giving away their wealth to their heirs.

In either case, what business is it for you or George Bush to know how much my estate is worth or who it goes to?

Leftists only seem to believe in privacy until it comes to income, then they have to know what everyone else is making or how big their estates are.

Yeah, and conservative law-and-order types do not support the tax cops. It's curious one would talk about "privacy" in a society that worships conspicious consumption.

Wealth is a socially relevant consideration, and besides, "taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

Returning to the corpse example because I'm rather fond of it and I want to see at least some type of reply.

Suppose we modify it slightly. This time grandpa dies in a hospital (again under suspicious circumstances) and leaves a will saying his remains are to be disposed of according to the wishes of his eldest son.

The police come in to investigate and decide they want to take the body back to their crime lab. The eldest son protests. He owns the body, right? He can do with it as he pleases, right? It's basically his property, right?

But even here I think even libertarians will acknowledge that the state has a legitimiate claim. So property -- voluntarily bequeathed, or transferred -- is not inviolable. There are over-riding considerations; trumps (which nearly all sane people understand without much difficulty).

A libertarian may say there are significant differences between a possible homicide (or negligence) and the social good with regard to equal opportunity, fairness, and all of that. Fine, that's a debate I want to see happen, but First we have to overcome simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk reactions like "it's mine!"

 

[Mr Manifesto]

A libertarian may say there are significant differences between a possible homicide (or negligence) and the social good with regard to equal opportunity, fairness, and all of that. Fine, that's a debate I want to see happen, but First we have to overcome simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk reactions like "it's mine!"

Could be a long wait. Not for nothing does shanek identify with the Finding Nemo seagulls (and for those who've come to this forum recently, he actually had the gulls as his avatar with mine mine mine repeatedly in his sig line. Or, as Dave Barry might say, I'm not making this up).

Don't hold your breath unless you want your complexion to reach this hue --->

 

[Darat]

I think an argument could be made for saying all inheritance should be 100% taxed (or seized by force if you like that term) by the state.

Once you are dead and therefore cannot own any property yourself the state should take all your estate. This taxation replaces income tax (or at least allows income tax to be significantly reduced).

To me this seems very much in the spirit of the free-market. It removes the lottery of birth and means that people will only be able to accumulate what they can earn through the free-market economy. Also it increases the incentive to work hard if you want anything extra for your children or yourself.

Can’t see why anyone would then object, lower (or perhaps zero income tax ), no unfair advantages for anyone based on hoarding capital and a level playing field for everyone to do well out of the free-market system.

New slogan:

Inheritance out! Free-market economy IN!

Snappy eh?

 

[Ed]

I think that if you look into it, few people actually pay inheritance taxes. Unless the government "keeps" your wealth there is really nothing that they can do if you plan your estate wisely. I don't really get most of the argument for estate taxes, they smack of jealousy to me.

I read that a purpose is to not empower children of rich people. It seems that there are two ways this could play out. First is you (Mr. Moneybags) snuff it when the kid is young. Is the logic that the poor orphan should not be brought up as well as he would have been if dear old Dad didn't die? On the other hand, the kid is now 25 when Dad pushes up the daiseys. Well, by then the "damage" is done. Yale, Skull and Bones, DC law firm, all done and a new princeling emerges.

I suppose I would be a bit more sensitive to the notion of redistributing some wealth if the Government was not involved. I wonder how many pennies on the dollar actually go to worthwhile causes and how much supports worthless buerocrats.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think the definitive argument against inheritance is Paris Hilton.

 

[shanek]

shanek responds in the way he does due to the fact that in previous threads regarding government vs. libertarian views, most of those arguing against shanek refuse to, or simply cannot, comprehend where he is coming from.

And Cain in particular is one of the worst offenders here. But also look at the tactics here: insult, degrade, refuse to answer questions, and then demand that I provide support against his argument (when we all know the burden of support is on the claimant), then act all indignant when I call him on it.

The question shouldn't be why am I upset with this woo-woo; the question is, why aren't more skeptics upset with him? He's behaving exactly the same way as the religious or psychic woo-woos, and so he deserves exactly the same treatment.

Just mention the word "liberty" or "libertarian", and be prepared to be in the ultra minority real quick.

And be prepared to be labeled a "radical extremist." What's radical or extreme about freedom and liberty I have no idea; it seems to me that government encroachment in our lives is the radical and extreme position. That's NOT why this country was founded.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

And Cain in particular is one of the worst offenders here. But also look at the tactics here: insult, degrade, refuse to answer questions, and then demand that I provide support against his argument (when we all know the burden of support is on the claimant), then act all indignant when I call him on it.

Now you're saying you don't even know what a claimant is.

The system already in place is a tax on estates. You are proposing a change to this system, ie, no such tax. You are the one who has to back up your claims, not Cain.

 

[Darat]

As a follow on to my theory of 100% inheritance seizure/tax.

If libertarianism holds the principle of "it's mine I can do what I like with it", what is the objection from libertarianism principles to 100% seizure/tax?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

First, it is not really intruding in anyone's life considering that they're dead. Sort of a basic fact.

Ah. So I guess murder isn't a crime because the person's dead. Desecrating a corpse or a grave isn't a crime because the person's dead. Basic fact, right? (Here's a basic fact: there are some still-living people in this scenario you're deliberately ignoring.)

Second, the wealth bestowed to the recipient is unearned.

Support this ridiculous assertion. If the progeny didn't earn it, who did?

Finally, it's important, as a background issue, to remember that wealth is not single-handedly created by any particular individual;

More of your crap. Individuals create wealth all of the time. I create wealth every time I mow my lawn or design a web page.

it's socially created.

Show me ONE example of wealth being "socially created." (Note: being created by a group of individuals is NOT the same thing.)

Redistributing to foster social justice, or a meritocratic society, or equal opportunity are other considerations to keep in mind.

So you think it's perfectly all right to pick someone's pocket as long as you give the money to the needy.

I let this Orwellian turn pass without comment earlier (it's difficult to take a libertarian's accusations of "selfishness" seriously), but now you've reminded me of this humorous cartoon (posted earlier, and the "owners" do not care if it's redistributed):

Ah. Argument by political cartoon. How pathetic.

And again that presumably rests on other, prior beliefs or axioms, yes?

No, it rests on the fact that if you want to use force to intrude into my life you'd better have a damn good reason.

So I specifically brought your kids into this?

You brought EVERYONE's kids into this, including mine. And you have NO RESPONSE for my criticism.

This nonsense has grown reptitious. If there's straw man, identify it

I did.

and demonstrate how it mischaracterizes a libertarian position.

I did.

Same for ad hominems -- idenfity them

I did.

Same goes for appeals to authority.

Again, I did. Yet, you refuse to aupport your accusationt hat I use appeal to authority all of the time.

The "key question", if we wish to get back to serious matters, IS addressed above in the first post, which you have yet to substantively answer.

I have answered it many times. You simply refuse to support your assertions. Answer straight: How is this any of the government's business?

And that's a hollow definition of freedom. So if your plane crashes and you're stranded on a desert island, then you're free? Suppose Dr. Strangelove kidnaps me, and puts me on the same island. In that case, I am presumably unfree (because a conscious force interfered in my life). But you, you're perfectly free.

Freedom is the absence of force. In the former scenario, I can use my intellect and whatever resources I can get together to get off the island. In the latter scenario, you can't. The fact that you refuse to grasp this basic difference shows why you have nothing of all to offer to any debate about freedom. You refuse to even see the concept. You base everything on what YOU have, and if one person has something and another doesn't, even if the first person earned it and the second didn't, you scream "unfair."

That definition, those arguments, have been addressed ad nauseum on these forums (see positive versus negative liberty threads).

And I have responded to them. Your claim that I have ignored them or have no response to them is just another one of your lies.

Here again loaded terms. A rightful owner does not necessarily have absolute control over a piece of the earth. Where did *that* right come from?

Rights don't "come from" anywhere. They are inherent in us as human beings, because we have them unless someone else uses force to stop us from exercising them. That's not a radical view; that's the very idea this country was founded on.

Suppose one of your children hires a catering company to celebrate your death. After the party, when the balloons are a little softer and the cake is a little harder, the caterer wants to settle the bill. Your child refuses. Uh oh, it's going to take "force" in order for one disgruntled party to gain compensation.

Because he specifically hired the caterer to perform a service. He entered into the agreement voluntarily. This just shows the depths you will go to in order to try and distract from your complete and utter failure to support your point, by bringing up a completely irrelevant example. Regardless of whether or not anyone died, caterers cost money to hire. You're just so pathetic.

originally posted by Shanek- " Okay, fine then. When you die we'll just sieze all of your property and throw your kids out onto the streets to fend for themselves. Sheez... "

Right, because YOU said they didn't earn it. Therefore, it's not their money, therefore we're completely justified in taking it.

What next, are you going to call me a "liar"?

Yes, because you've lied and you know it.

My claims have been supported

No, they haven't. NONE of my requests for you to support your assertions have been fulfilled.

You fashioned yourself as an authority

Now that's COMPLETELY bogus and pathetic. You've just taken away whatever miniscule justification people had for taking you seriously.

Okay, where did I say I personally was any kind of authority here? I'm just taying it's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS, and challenging you to prove that it is, which you REFUSE to do.