Anarcho-Capitalism

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

(My replies in bold.) SOCAL's Rebuttal in RED

 

Feel free to get into my issues, isn’t that what this discussion is about? What circles am I taking his argument in? The one that proves it and government to be a contradiction, which doesn't benefit your argument so you say you won't get into it.

 

Sorry Socal. I think everyone reading this thread except yourself thinks that you are the one talking in circles. I also think I have done an acceptable job of backing my posts with facts. You seem to be getting a little emotionally involved in this and it is showing through in your posts.

 

Let's boil this down to one or two points for the sake of efficiency:

 

A. You claimed that the sole purpose of our government was to ensure personal freedom. I disproved that by showing that the opening statement of our governmental framework (the Constitution) clearly states otherwise. You attempted to bend that very statement to fit with your claim. Your attempt was largely unsuccessful. Then you attempted to claim that the Declaration of Independence provided the framework and purpose for the US government. That was also disproved.

 

B. You claim that an A/C system would rely on a rule of law that is enforced by for-profit businesses. I asked you where these rules would come from and who would interpret them, and you did not provide an answer. (I guess you said that they would be rules we would all agree on . . . but that's impossible and you know it.) Laws don't spring up out of the earth or are just found engraved in stone (unless you are Moses ). Laws must be written by people. Who are these people? How can a supposed anarchist support a body of people who write laws that apply to others? Who interprets these laws? (for example, say you have a relatively simple law that says no one can enter the property of another without permission. What then if person A is tossed (against his will) onto B's property without B's permission? Does the law still apply? How? If you want more complicated examples I'd be happy to oblige.)) Laws don't create themselves, and laws don't enforce themselves. That's the yet another purpose of government.

 

Talk about bending words to fit your argument. Nowhere did I ever say the Declaration of Independence provided the framework for the US government, what I said was it provided the purpose; this being that governments are instituted among men to secure their rights. I agreed with your assertion, the Constitution provides the framework. I do concede my argument that the “sole” purpose of the government is to ensure personal freedom, because you have provided ample evidence that it also serves to promote the general welfare (that it has/can or if general welfare even exists is a different discussion altogether). However; justice, defense, and ensuring domestic tranquility, which you also argue as purposes, are merely ways to ensure and protect the liberties of the individuals of the country, therefore reflecting the purpose to protect personal freedom. The point of even making this argument is to show that governments cannot secure or protect personal rights if personal rights must be surrendered in order for a government to even come into existence. This is impossible.

 

This contradiction is trivial though, when we actually discuss the authority in which the Constitution was implemented. You say that “we” consented, as in “we” the people, as in everyone who is to be ruled. However, how do argue that fact when over half the country at the time of implementation (women, children, slaves, Natives) and all the country today (who were not even born) were never even given the choice to consent. Then you have to factor in those who actually voted against it being implemented and you’re looking at a minuscule amount of people who actually consented to be governed by the Constitution. So, you have a tiny group of people supposedly submitting an entire population to be ruled, and only a fraction of that number is the "all-knowing" who wrote and decided the rules. Does this disparity not strike you as remotely odd? If it doesn’t, maybe we know why the founders figured they could dupe an entire continent into submitting to their rule.

 

The rule of law is looking out for one's best interest while at the same time not using force to restrict or violate the best interest of anyone else. There doesn't need to be any written law in order for humans to follow this. It's natural. If you were always looking out for your best interest, you would never do anything to interfere with anyone else's interest because that would not be in your best interest. You wouldn't steal from anybody because that leave you open to theft and the consequences of theft. You wouldn't kill because you would rather live and not be subject to the consequences of killing. Both would not be in your best interest. It's simple logic, yet you make it seem so hard to understand. There does not need to be any ruler to help me decide what my best interests are. Do you need one?

 

 

1. What you describe is called efficiency. You call it sacrifice, but it is not. Sacrifice is the act of giving up something of greater value for something of less value. Since humans are rational beings, we have the ability to weigh the value of something as it pertains to us. Therefore, if the customer did not think he was getting a fair value he would not buy a product. It is in the best interest of the customer to receive a fair value for what he is giving up. The same goes for the producer. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bigger, better quality products were going for a price cheaper than the actual value of them to the producer. And maybe the producers needed to create a more efficient product to ensure the trade was fair to them? So yes, you are right that maybe the product is cheaper, but that doesn't mean it's still not a fair value for both the producer and the consumer. If neither was happy, the transaction would not take place and neither the producer or the consumer would profit from it.

 

 

You say "humans are rational beings." If you truly believe that then your argument is well and truly lost. Watch the news tonight. You'll see at least one example of completely irrational behavior. A/C MIGHT be a bit more practical if all people were rational, but alas. They are not.

 

Humans are rational beings who can also make the choice to be irrational; this doesn’t hinder the argument I brought forth in any way. Just because a human chooses to be lazy and therefore doesn’t have money to eat doesn’t mean he isn’t rational, it means he made a choice to be irrational and is paying the consequences.

 

2. You are correct about businesses in our current system not caring about the customer, or the long-term impacts they have on anything. This is because of one thing, government intervention. We don't live in a free market society so for you to base your reasoning on that which doesn't currently exists would be false. We live in a fascist, centrally planned economy in which the government controls all business (through regulation, taxes, tariffs, etc) but gives the facade of private ownership. Why do you think every company that has needed to be bailed out has been, because each is essentially owned by the government and the governments "kick-back” would cease if the businesses fail. So they use taxpayer (my, you, our) money to re-inflate a business actually owned by them. Talk about a win-win situation. In a free market society, there is no government intervention and therefore in order for a business to succeed, it had better care about the customer. If not, it would not be in business very long. There is no way to force product on anyone without violating the rights of each individual, so that throws your argument of force out the window. Also, how can a business pollute without violating the property rights of another individual? In a free market society, those who violate the rights of others are held accountable.

 

Hmmm. Governmental intervention blamed once again. It's becoming clearer that you think of this with what some might call a religious fervor. The shining white god of the free market compared with the dark and evil devil of the government. The real world is never as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

Not in any way religious fervor. Strictly rational thought based on logical proof that the government is the cause of the problem.

 

Secondly, nobody said that individuals couldn't band together and pay for security, only that it must be voluntary. If it was voluntary, that is not government. Government is not voluntary. It uses coercion and force to accomplish its ends. Is that not a violation of each individual’s rights? Do I consent to have my wages stolen to provide so-called "national defense" which includes policing every corner the world except for area I choose to defend? Absolutely not!!! I have no say in the matter and that is what government is, a non-consensual organization that robs from everyone, for the so-called betterment of society, in order to protect the interests of few. There is no such thing as “for the good of society.” It is a concept made up, by government and it’s supporters, to further the interests of government. Since society consists of individuals, it is only the betterment of the individual that will actually better society. If any individual gives up something for the betterment of someone else, without the return of something of equal value, which is sacrifice, how are they bettering themselves? If they are not, how can they better society?

 

Our government is indeed voluntary. (assuming you are not incarcerated or otherwise unable to travel). Anyone dissatisfied with US rules is free to choose a more suitable place to live. How is that not voluntary?

 

Oh there you go again, “if you don’t like it, move.” Why don’t you move? You are the one who wishes to be ruled over, I’m sure there are plenty of places that would love to have the fruits of your labor. As if that’s voluntary. Voluntary is a free choice is which one has the ability to do as one pleases. If one must move in order to be free that is not voluntary, that is coercion. Essentially it is saying obey what I say or don’t and face the consequences.

 

3. As for Wal-Mart, see my argument for our current economic system. It should answer any questions you have.

 

Socal, it worries me that you only cite these anarchist sources. It seems that you are falling into the classic trap of only reading those things that you agree with. It'd be similar to a hardcore conservative getting his news exclusively from Limbaugh, or a hardcore liberal only reading his news from the NYT. Branch out a little. This is how people become so blinded and focused that they can't carry on a rational and informed discussion.

 

As I have stated on a previous post:

 

Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist’s take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those who's take is that of no government. Every single day I live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Okay, guys - we put this sub-forum under the BS forum because folks felt that these debates could be conducted within the Board's rules, and doing so would foster true debate. If that's not true, we are going to have to:

 

1. Move this sub-forum to the Woodshed and let folks let fly (within the rules applicable to the Woodshed, of course).

 

2. Start handing out warnings and, ultimately, some suspensions and bans.

 

3. Close down topics about religion and politics.

 

I'd prefer to not do any of those - but that depends on how all of you conduct yourselves. For the most part, the debates have stayed within the rules - let's keep it that way.

 

Carry on...

[huskerjack23]

Okay, guys - we put this sub-forum under the BS forum because folks felt that these debates could be conducted within the Board's rules, and doing so would foster true debate. If that's not true, we are going to have to:

 

1. Move this sub-forum to the Woodshed and let folks let fly (within the rules applicable to the Woodshed, of course).

 

2. Start handing out warnings and, ultimately, some suspensions and bans.

 

3. Close down topics about religion and politics.

 

I'd prefer to not do any of those - but that depends on how all of you conduct yourselves. For the most part, the debates have stayed within the rules - let's keep it that way.

 

Carry on...

could you stay on topic please.

 

lol

[SOCALHUSKER]

Okay, guys - we put this sub-forum under the BS forum because folks felt that these debates could be conducted within the Board's rules, and doing so would foster true debate. If that's not true, we are going to have to:

 

1. Move this sub-forum to the Woodshed and let folks let fly (within the rules applicable to the Woodshed, of course).

 

2. Start handing out warnings and, ultimately, some suspensions and bans.

 

3. Close down topics about religion and politics.

 

I'd prefer to not do any of those - but that depends on how all of you conduct yourselves. For the most part, the debates have stayed within the rules - let's keep it that way.

 

Carry on...

 

I'd prefer #2 and the possibility of leaving this sub-forum where it currently is. It stimulates the debate to require people to post logically rather than with name-calling, slander, etc... We should all be held accountable, even myself, and if I am posting anything that is against the board rules I would appreciate knowing about it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

"What is actually quite funny about this situation (people raising arguments against anarcho-capitalism) is that by taking this approach, people think that they are opposing the idea of anarchy, when in fact they are completely supporting it."

 

Come on Socal. If that's not talking in circles what is? Let me re-phrase it so that you can more easily see how ridiculous this argument is: If you disagree with me and make arguments against my position they you clearly agree with me. This is a classic example of a statement that cannot be disproved; i.e. talking in circles. Let's try another example: I say I'm not stupid. Because you say that I am stupid you clearly agree with me that I am not stupid. (the quote I cited is directly from your article). The author also claims that his argument is more credible because people seldom agree with it. What a joke. I wrote more cohesive arguments as a freshman in philosophy class.

 

For someone who thoroughly enjoys admonishing people for posting or commenting on quotes that are taken with no regard for the content of the entire article, speech, etc... You sure are doing a lot of that on this particular thread. There is nothing you need to re-phrase in order for his statement to be understood or proven correct, one must just read what was written in context to the rest of the piece and logically decipher what he is explaining. That you cannot do so is not the authors, mine or anyone else's problem, that is your own. Talking in circles is definitely not what he is doing.

 

Seeing as how you need to have it further broken down I will attempt to do this in a nutshell.

 

A. Person A says we need to have government and not anarchy in order to solve all the problems that men themselves and the market are not able to solve.

 

B. I say no, this is entirely untrue and proceed to tell him that government is the root of the problem, not men. The free markets when allowed to operate would clearly take care of any such problems and so on.

 

C. Person A then decides to come up with a list of scenarios that he argues, until he finds one that is entirely impossible for any man to solve because of a variety of factors including: time, technology, human action, money, etc, etc, etc.

 

D. The person in favor of anarchy then says. Well, if men or the market cannot solve these problems by themselves (which would be impossible because of the factors stated above) than how can government (which consists entirely of men) solve any of the problems? Do you not see the contradiction in that thinking? Therefore, since person A has already proven that such problems cannot be solved, he can no longer support the argument of government and must support the argument for anarchy. To do any different would prove either the person is choosing to think irrationally or is just a truly sadistic person who enjoys seeing human suffering at the hands of the immoral and sadistic existence of government.

[AR Husker Fan]

I'd prefer #2 and the possibility of leaving this sub-forum where it currently is. It stimulates the debate to require people to post logically rather than with name-calling, slander, etc... We should all be held accountable, even myself, and if I am posting anything that is against the board rules I would appreciate knowing about it.

Well, there is this post below, as an example - although, I should stress that there have been others by other people...which is why I'm giving everyone fair notice.

 

This only proves your true ignorance and lack of ratiuonal thought. Further, it shows there's no point in even discussing or replying to any of your posts. Thanks for contributing though!!

[carlfense]

Sorry if I overstepped some boundaries AR. I tried to keep my posts arguing against the message and not the messenger. I think most of my more offensive comments were directed against outside sources/authors and not against socal.

[AR Husker Fan]

Sorry if I overstepped some boundaries AR. I tried to keep my posts arguing against the message and not the messenger. I think most of my more offensive comments were directed against outside sources/authors and not against socal.

No problem - for anyone. I would rather leave this sub-forum here since I think you were right about having to follow the rules fosters better debates. Just wanted to give a reminder so that we don't have to take other steps.

[carlfense]

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

 

What do you mean can't even hypothesize? Many well-researched, well-documented, factually-based, and historically accurate works have been written, printed and distributed proving the free market would absolutely account for the use of force by any individual or group, and that it would do so in a much more efficient and just way than any government could ever aspire. You obviously haven't read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "The Myth of National Defense", Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" or "To Serve and Protect", Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty", Edward Stringham's "Anarchy and The Law" or "Anarchy, State, and the Public Choice", Wes Bertrand's "Complete Liberty" or the Tanehills "Market For Liberty." If you had, you would not only realize anarchy is a rational reality, but that it is the only possible way for a human being to not live a life of slavery.

 

You ridicule and scold me for not searching out and exploring all the options and opinions available, but it is you who is actually not willing to search out and question the validity and credibility of information. Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those who's take is that of no government. Every single day I live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?

 

You say you don't support our government, except that everything you have said, and more than likely the actions in "your" life, prove that you have absolute support for the government. Do you vote? Do you support taxation? Do you believe in the regulation of the market? Do you sanction a system which allows men to make rules, based on their beliefs and values, that other men are forced to follow? Do you believe or sanction the idea that government knows how to run your life better than you do? If you answer yes to any of these questions, you support government. It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government.

 

Government cannot exist without money to fund its activities. Therefore, to raise money, the government extracts payment from its subjects in the form of taxation through coercion and force. Since you support the government, you must also support theft, coercion and force. If you support theft, coercion and force then it must be ok for everyone else to steal, threaten and kill. If that is not ok, then we have a conflict of interest and therefore a contradiction. You might say it is for the "greater good" (which is a government created myth I have already dispelled in a previous post). But if the "greater good" was theoretically possible, why can't someone else steal for the greater good? You're so eager to disprove or question any arguments for the A/C system, you never bother to answer or question that which you support. Why is that?

 

Here's the problem: you cited an article claiming that it supplied better answers to our questions about justice and national security than you could supply yourself. I pointed out that it provided no answers at all, just that it said "trust the free market." I also pointed out a very, very, obvious example of quackery; that the author claimed that raising questions about his argument is evidence that the questioner agrees with him. You can't have it both ways. You claim it provides better answers than you ever could, but it's a flimsily reasoned and worded article founded soley on circular logic and bland arguments without a rational or factual basis.

 

You make further assertions that A/C is the only alternative to slavery. Excuse me? I'm not a slave. I choose to live in the US, and by making that choice I agree to pay taxes. If I didn't want to pay those taxes I would move elsewhere. A voluntary choice is not slavery.

 

Again, you try to put words into my mouth. You called me an adamant supporter of our government and I disputed that. I never said I don't support our government. I am not an adamant supporter of our government because I don't agree with everything the government does.

 

Where did I ridicule you? I ridiculed some of your sources, but I don't think I ever ridiculed you. Did you write your source material? If not, you probably aren't emotionally involved in defending them.

 

"It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government." -SOCALHUSKER. Really? Where should I go with that? Should we make the obligatory Hitler reference? I think I'll just leave it alone.

 

Taxation is theft through coercion and force? In what way? You choose to live in the US, therefore you choose to abide by US rules. It's a simple concept.

 

You say that I am not defending a system that I support. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't enjoy taxes any more than anyone else. However, I do realize and acknowledge that taxes are necessary for certain functions. If I remember right you are a HUGE Ron Paul fan. Even he acknowledges that some taxes are necessary.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I'd prefer #2 and the possibility of leaving this sub-forum where it currently is. It stimulates the debate to require people to post logically rather than with name-calling, slander, etc... We should all be held accountable, even myself, and if I am posting anything that is against the board rules I would appreciate knowing about it.

Well, there is this post below, as an example - although, I should stress that there have been others by other people...which is why I'm giving everyone fair notice.

 

This only proves your true ignorance and lack of ratiuonal thought. Further, it shows there's no point in even discussing or replying to any of your posts. Thanks for contributing though!!

 

Sorry (AR and huskerjack23) for that and thank you AR for bringing it to my attention. It could obviously be construed as a personal attack, which I did not intend it to be. I should have worded my statement differently and will definitely keep that in mind when writing future posts. Sorry for any problems this may have caused and I hope we can continue this discussion in a civilized and educational manner.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

nope...i'm not gonna read that and think it's the gospel of the free market. jesus is more believable than A/C

 

This only proves your true ignorance and lack of ratiuonal thought. Further, it shows there's no point in even discussing or replying to any of your posts. Thanks for contributing though!!

excuse me...i'm not the one shouting the free market to the rooftop when it's pure form can only be proven in theory. it doesn't take the fallibility of man into account.

 

yes there needs to be less government, but a no government society will strive for some form of government.

 

The free market most definitely takes the fallibility of man into consideration. It's a self-regulating mechanism called profit and loss. Ever heard of it? When man interferes with this process we see distorted markets, bubbles, the business cycle, less prosperity, less freedom and the need for even more regulation.

 

What is your proof that a no government society would strive for government? If man knows and understands government is what is causing the problems we face in society, would it not be irrational for him to strive for more of it. Since this is the case, I think you need to rethink your logic.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

 

What do you mean can't even hypothesize? Many well-researched, well-documented, factually-based, and historically accurate works have been written, printed and distributed proving the free market would absolutely account for the use of force by any individual or group, and that it would do so in a much more efficient and just way than any government could ever aspire. You obviously haven't read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "The Myth of National Defense", Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" or "To Serve and Protect", Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty", Edward Stringham's "Anarchy and The Law" or "Anarchy, State, and the Public Choice", Wes Bertrand's "Complete Liberty" or the Tanehills "Market For Liberty." If you had, you would not only realize anarchy is a rational reality, but that it is the only possible way for a human being to not live a life of slavery.

 

You ridicule and scold me for not searching out and exploring all the options and opinions available, but it is you who is actually not willing to search out and question the validity and credibility of information. Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those who's take is that of no government. Every single day I live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?

 

You say you don't support our government, except that everything you have said, and more than likely the actions in "your" life, prove that you have absolute support for the government. Do you vote? Do you support taxation? Do you believe in the regulation of the market? Do you sanction a system which allows men to make rules, based on their beliefs and values, that other men are forced to follow? Do you believe or sanction the idea that government knows how to run your life better than you do? If you answer yes to any of these questions, you support government. It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government.

 

Government cannot exist without money to fund its activities. Therefore, to raise money, the government extracts payment from its subjects in the form of taxation through coercion and force. Since you support the government, you must also support theft, coercion and force. If you support theft, coercion and force then it must be ok for everyone else to steal, threaten and kill. If that is not ok, then we have a conflict of interest and therefore a contradiction. You might say it is for the "greater good" (which is a government created myth I have already dispelled in a previous post). But if the "greater good" was theoretically possible, why can't someone else steal for the greater good? You're so eager to disprove or question any arguments for the A/C system, you never bother to answer or question that which you support. Why is that?

 

Carlfense regular text. My response is in red.

 

Here's the problem: you cited an article claiming that it supplied better answers to our questions about justice and national security than you could supply yourself. I pointed out that it provided no answers at all, just that it said "trust the free market." I also pointed out a very, very, obvious example of quackery; that the author claimed that raising questions about his argument is evidence that the questioner agrees with him. You can't have it both ways. You claim it provides better answers than you ever could, but it's a flimsily reasoned and worded article founded soley on circular logic and bland arguments without a rational or factual basis.

 

Did you read any of the books I suggested? I highly doubt it if you think any of them state to just “trust the free markets”. As I have already stated the list includes: “well-researched, well-documented, factually-based, and historically accurate works proving the free market would absolutely account for the use of force by any individual or group, and that it would do so in a much more efficient and just way than any government could ever aspire. If you did not read any of the works, how can you assume it is incorrect, irrational, illogical, unfounded, quackery, or circular logic as you say? Read my response to your claim on Post #80. It is both rational and logical. If you do not think so, please prove to me how it is not?

 

You make further assertions that A/C is the only alternative to slavery. Excuse me? I'm not a slave. I choose to live in the US, and by making that choice I agree to pay taxes. If I didn't want to pay those taxes I would move elsewhere. A voluntary choice is not slavery.

 

Yes, you are a slave. The taxes you pay are not voluntary at all. If you do not pay, you go to jail. You state that if I didn’t want to pay that I could move, but that would not be voluntary for there is a legal obligation if I did not volunteer to move. What you state is not voluntary at all, but actually coercion. Voluntary would be not paying the taxes and staying exactly where I want to stay. Since you have an obviously distorted take on the meaning of voluntary, and reasonably so, here’s the dictionary definition for you:

 

Voluntary: adj., 1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job. 2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: voluntary community work. 3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions. 4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will. 5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals. 6. Law. a. Without legal obligation or consideration: a voluntary conveyance of property. b. Done deliberately; intentional: voluntary manslaughter.

 

Therefore, since taxation can no longer be considered voluntary, that makes you a slave. If you need help with the definition of slavery, from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law:

 

Slavery: n., 1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household. 2. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence. 3. A condition of hard work and subjection.

 

Therefore, since you are forced to give up the fruits of your labor, you are a slave. If you cannot do as you please, you are a slave? If you are bound by servitude to anything or anybody, other than yourself, you are a slave. This is not circular logic or anything resembling quackery, rather it the truth. And the truth you must be open to, if you want to know anything other than slavery.

 

Again, you try to put words into my mouth. You called me an adamant supporter of our government and I disputed that. I never said I don't support our government. I am not an adamant supporter of our government because I don't agree with everything the government does.

 

It doesn’t matter if you are adamant or not, if you support any of the government, than you support government. There’s no way to only support some of the government programs without supporting all of the government programs. If you were allowed to pick and choose what you support, what would be the need for government at all? Do you not see the logic of this statement and than contradictions in what you are saying about only supporting some of the government?

 

Where did I ridicule you? I ridiculed some of your sources, but I don't think I ever ridiculed you. Did you write your source material? If not, you probably aren't emotionally involved in defending them.

 

From your post, #64: “Socal, it worries me that you only cite these anarchist sources. It seems that you are falling into the classic trap of only reading those things that you agree with. It'd be similar to a hardcore conservative getting his news exclusively from Limbaugh, or a hardcore liberal only reading his news from the NYT. Branch out a little. This is how people become so blinded and focused that they can't carry on a rational and informed discussion.”

 

Is this not ridicule? My response in post #73 speaks for itself. “It is you who is actually not willing to search out and question the validity and credibility of information. Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion, that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those whose take is that of no government. Every single day I (as do you) live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. To say that I am not in tune with other lines of thinking is not only absurd, but also wrong. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?” If you were attempting to ridicule the sources, maybe if you actually read them, and had rational and logical proof to dispute the claims they bring forth, your response might take on a more meaningful, logical and less ignorant approach.

 

"It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government." -SOCALHUSKER. Really? Where should I go with that? Should we make the obligatory Hitler reference? I think I'll just leave it alone.

 

No, I’d prefer if you did get into it. Are you saying the US government, which has been the cause of millions of deaths, imprisonment, torture, theft, coercion, and all that is heinous since its inception, is any less heinous than the governments of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, or any other ruthless dictator whose governments have also been the cause of millions of deaths, imprisonment, torture, theft and coercion? I didn’t know that murder, theft, torture, or imprisonment was anything but heinous? Or is it that doing so, in the name of liberty and freedom, makes it right? Please tell me you have more sense than to dispute this contradiction!?!

 

Taxation is theft through coercion and force? In what way? You choose to live in the US, therefore you choose to abide by US rules. It's a simple concept.

 

See my post above that discusses slavery, taxation, the definition of voluntary and coercion.

 

You say that I am not defending a system that I support. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't enjoy taxes any more than anyone else. However, I do realize and acknowledge that taxes are necessary for certain functions. If I remember right you are a HUGE Ron Paul fan. Even he acknowledges that some taxes are necessary.

 

I’m not sure what you are saying here, or where you got this from. Please explain? If you are referring to the article on the “Problems of the Commons” see my reply on post #80, I explain it so even you can understand it.

 

Obviously you enjoy paying taxes or you wouldn't be debating me and would instead be educating others about the unneccesary and immoral aspects of them. What functions could not be done without them, please tell me? You are all about proving the free market cannot do so, yet you refuse to read sources proving otherwise. So please enlighten me on what the free market cannot do and why it cannot do it? As for Ron Paul, I continue to admire his honesty and integrity and his ability to work within an illogical system, however if you read my letter to him I also discussed why I can no longer support or sanction that which he supports.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[caveman99]

bump

Question for you SOCAL, didn't you serve/are serving in the Marines?

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

Question for you SOCAL, didn't you serve/are serving in the Marines?

 

That is correct, I was in the Marines from 98-02.