Logical inconsistencies in personal beliefs

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

But you would put out a fire if you needed to.

Would/have you shut down the business and raided the bank accounts of a man with a wife and kids?

No I haven't, but I want these things done. This is why we elect/pay people to do them for us. It's not a contradiction to pay other people to do things I don't want to do. This is the same reason why I don't pump my own sewage out of a septic tank.

So this is merely a matter of division of labor?

If that is the case, would you directly hire someone to shut down someone's business, seize their assets, and raid their bank accounts? And furthermore, would you hire them to do this to your kids/relatives/parents/siblings? They are all potential targets.

The entire body of political philosophy is an attempt to explain away the fact that the state is not a simple outgrowth of the division of labor. The state reserves 'powers' that only it can exercise, and 'powers' that almost nobody I know personally would be willing to carry out themselves. They just hide behind the ballot box where the results of their 'desires' are carried out far from view.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

But you would put out a fire if you needed to.

Would/have you shut down the business and raided the bank accounts of a man with a wife and kids?

No I haven't, but I want these things done. This is why we elect/pay people to do them for us. It's not a contradiction to pay other people to do things I don't want to do. This is the same reason why I don't pump my own sewage out of a septic tank.

So this is merely a matter of division of labor?

If that is the case, would you directly hire someone to shut down someone's business, seize their assets, and raid their bank accounts? And furthermore, would you hire them to do this to your kids/relatives/parents/siblings? They are all potential targets.

The entire body of political philosophy is an attempt to explain away the fact that the state is not a simple outgrowth of the division of labor. The state reserves 'powers' that only it can exercise, and 'powers' that almost nobody I know personally would be willing to carry out themselves. They just hide behind the ballot box where the results of their 'desires' are carried out far from view.

Yes, it's a division of labor. You are being deliberately obtuse here.

Why does the government shut down business or 'raid bank accounts'? Due to violations of the law that we voted these people in to enact (be it environmental, taxes, whatever). It doesn't matter if people are willing to do something themselves for this argument, they want them done. Of course people wouldn't hire others to do this to their children, but they recognize the fact that the law needs to apply to everyone or it would be unenforceable.

I don't see what you are arguing. It's a contradiction if people did not think that these things should happen but voted people in who pledged to do it anyway, but I see absolutely no evidence of that. I bet if you asked the average voter if someone should be forced to pay taxes that they had avoided, even through garnishment of wages, they would say yes. I know I would. If you're going to partake in the services provided by society, you're going to pay for them or move somewhere else.

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah for being logically consistent by the OP.

Pro Choice and Pro Death Penalty here.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yes, it's a division of labor. You are being deliberately obtuse here.

So the war in Iraq is a division of labor? Then I guess war is labor and I can start a war myself anytime I want, since there is no law against laboring. I guess the draft during Vietnam war was a 'division of labor' as well? Interesting theory.....

Why does the government shut down business or 'raid bank accounts'? Due to violations of the law that we voted these people in to enact (be it environmental, taxes, whatever). It doesn't matter if people are willing to do something themselves for this argument, they want them done. Of course people wouldn't hire others to do this to their children, but they recognize the fact that the law needs to apply to everyone or it would be unenforceable.

It doesn't apply to everyone. That is the point. I can't raid bank accounts, craig can't raid bank accounts or seize assets. But a man with a gun and a badge with three well known letters can. This is a fundamental contradiction. And it is personal contradiction on your behalf because you believe this ought to be the case. Voters, like yourself are corrupt, and mass corruption is mass corruption. It doesn't suddenly start to become 'good' once it hits critical mass of some sort.

I don't see what you are arguing. It's a contradiction if people did not think that these things should happen but voted people in who pledged to do it anyway, but I see absolutely no evidence of that. I bet if you asked the average voter if someone should be forced to pay taxes that they had avoided, even through garnishment of wages, they would say yes. I know I would. If you're going to partake in the services provided by society, you're going to pay for them or move somewhere else.

But you yourself cannot garnish anyone's wages. That 'power' is reserved for your bureaucratic caretakers.

Vietnam war draft was a 'service?' Yes or no? Would you like fries with your body bag? Yes or no?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yes, it's a division of labor. You are being deliberately obtuse here.

So the war in Iraq is a division of labor? Then I guess war is labor and I can start a war myself anytime I want, since there is no law against laboring. I guess the draft during Vietnam war was a 'division of labor' as well? Interesting theory.....

Why does the government shut down business or 'raid bank accounts'? Due to violations of the law that we voted these people in to enact (be it environmental, taxes, whatever). It doesn't matter if people are willing to do something themselves for this argument, they want them done. Of course people wouldn't hire others to do this to their children, but they recognize the fact that the law needs to apply to everyone or it would be unenforceable.

It doesn't apply to everyone. That is the point. I can't raid bank accounts, craig can't raid bank accounts or seize assets. But a man with a gun and a badge with three well known letters can. This is a fundamental contradiction. And it is personal contradiction on your behalf because you believe this ought to be the case. Voters, like yourself are corrupt, and mass corruption is mass corruption. It doesn't suddenly start to become 'good' once it hits critical mass of some sort.

I don't see what you are arguing. It's a contradiction if people did not think that these things should happen but voted people in who pledged to do it anyway, but I see absolutely no evidence of that. I bet if you asked the average voter if someone should be forced to pay taxes that they had avoided, even through garnishment of wages, they would say yes. I know I would. If you're going to partake in the services provided by society, you're going to pay for them or move somewhere else.

But you yourself cannot garnish anyone's wages. That 'power' is reserved for your bureaucratic caretakers.

Vietnam war draft was a 'service?' Yes or no? Would you like fries with your body bag? Yes or no?

Oh give me a fucking break. This post doesn't even merit a response. If you want to peddle some sort of anarchistic bullshit around here feel free, but don't expect me to indulge you.

It is not inconsistent to grant an outside body powers that you yourself do not exercise. The end.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh give me a fucking break. This post doesn't even merit a response. If you want to peddle some sort of anarchistic bullshit around here feel free, but don't expect me to indulge you.

It is not inconsistent to grant an outside body powers that you yourself do not exercise. The end.

You are what I call a non-intellectual apologist for the state. You don't even know why you believe what you do. Go read some political philosophy and then maybe we can have a real debate, because no intellectual state apologist has ever tried to pawn off the state as a 'division of labor' or simply a 'service.'

Blatantly making a statement for which you have absolutely no logical support for, and is indeed a complete logical contradiction in itself means I win again. Thank you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh give me a fucking break. This post doesn't even merit a response. If you want to peddle some sort of anarchistic bullshit around here feel free, but don't expect me to indulge you.

It is not inconsistent to grant an outside body powers that you yourself do not exercise. The end.

You are what I call a non-intellectual apologist for the state. You don't even know why you believe what you do. Go read some political philosophy and then maybe we can have a real debate, because no intellectual state apologist has ever tried to pawn off the state as a 'division of labor' or simply a 'service.'

Blatantly making a statement for which you have absolutely no logical support for, and is indeed a complete logical contradiction in itself means I win again. Thank you.

Sure it does champ. I've read more then my fair share of political philosophy. More then I ever wanted to actually. You're what I call a high school kid or a freshman in college who happened upon some Ayn Rand books and hasn't realized she was a moron yet.

At least get your definitions right. To make a statement that I have no support for would not be a logical contradiction, it would be an unsupported argument. It is pretty telling that you declared victory by virtue of your poor reasoning skills though.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sure it does champ. I've read more then my fair share of political philosophy. More then I ever wanted to actually. You're what I call a high school kid or a freshman in college who happened upon some Ayn Rand books and hasn't realized she was a moron yet.

At least get your definitions right. To make a statement that I have no support for would not be a logical contradiction, it would be an unsupported argument. It is pretty telling that you declared victory by virtue of your poor reasoning skills though.

Ayn Rand would disagree with me, so that shows how much you know about her.

I said your statement was a logical contradiction and that you provided no support for it, both. But of course, trying to provide support for something that is already a logical contradiction is going to be quite a task, I admit.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Ayn Rand would disagree with me, so that shows how much you know about her.

I said your statement was a logical contradiction and that you provided no support for it, both. But of course, trying to provide support for something that is already a logical contradiction is going to be quite a task, I admit.

I'm not sure if you know what the word contradiction means.

Please explain to me how supporting giving the state rights that you yourself cannot exercise is a contradiction.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Please explain to me how supporting giving the state rights that you yourself cannot exercise is a contradiction.

If you never had it yourself you can't give it away. Game. Set. Match.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Please explain to me how supporting giving the state rights that you yourself cannot exercise is a contradiction.

If you never had it yourself you can't give it away. Game. Set. Match.

Look who thinks he's smart.

You always did have the right to take things away from other people. It was called a rock and the back of their head when they weren't looking. Are you really trying to argue the principle of the formation of the state? Seriously?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Look who thinks he's smart.

You always did have the right to take things away from other people. It was called a rock and the back of their head when they weren't looking. Are you really trying to argue the principle of the formation of the state? Seriously?

I never hit anyone over the back of the head with a rock. But we aren't debating 'pragmatic' reasons for the state's existence, we are arguing purely on the basis of logical consistency. Your statement was clearly not logically valid. Now if you want to make the case that for pragmatic reasons we must be logically inconsistent, that's a whole other realm of absurdity.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Look who thinks he's smart.

You always did have the right to take things away from other people. It was called a rock and the back of their head when they weren't looking. Are you really trying to argue the principle of the formation of the state? Seriously?

I never hit anyone over the back of the head with a rock. But we aren't debating 'pragmatic' reasons for the state's existence, we are arguing purely on the basis of logical consistency. Your statement was clearly not logically valid. Now if you want to make the case that for pragmatic reasons we must be logically inconsistent, that's a whole other realm of absurdity.

Why does it matter if you personally have ever hit anyone on the head with a rock? You said that people do not have the right to confiscate others' property. That is clearly false. Men have been confiscating others' property since the first time he realized that someone else had something he wanted. So, your statement before that you cannot give something away you did not possess is simply false. (hilariously and obviously false at that.)

You keep saying my statements are not logically valid but you seem to be completely unable to show why. I keep asking, but you keep dodging. If it's so clear I'm sure you will have no trouble explaining it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Why does it matter if you personally have ever hit anyone on the head with a rock? You said that people do not have the right to confiscate others' property. That is clearly false. Men have been confiscating others' property since the first time he realized that someone else had something he wanted. So, your statement before that you cannot give something away you did not possess is simply false. (hilariously and obviously false at that.)

Rights are not about what people actually do, they are about what they should do. The fact that men have confiscated property doesn't mean that they should confiscate property or that they have a right to confiscate property.

You keep saying my statements are not logically valid but you seem to be completely unable to show why. I keep asking, but you keep dodging. If it's so clear I'm sure you will have no trouble explaining it.

What else is there to explain? The idea that you can give something to someone that you never possessed yourself is clearly false.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Why does it matter if you personally have ever hit anyone on the head with a rock? You said that people do not have the right to confiscate others' property. That is clearly false. Men have been confiscating others' property since the first time he realized that someone else had something he wanted. So, your statement before that you cannot give something away you did not possess is simply false. (hilariously and obviously false at that.)

Rights are not about what people actually do, they are about what they should do. The fact that men have confiscated property doesn't mean that they should confiscate property or that they have a right to confiscate property.

You keep saying my statements are not logically valid but you seem to be completely unable to show why. I keep asking, but you keep dodging. If it's so clear I'm sure you will have no trouble explaining it.

What else is there to explain? The idea that you can give something to someone that you never possessed yourself is clearly false.

Oh, so now it's based upon what we SHOULD do. According to whom? Based on what?

You have chosen to arbitrarily designate what people should and should not do, what rights they do and do not have, and then say that people are logically inconstant because they endorse a system that believes otherwise. Go back to school.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh, so now it's based upon what we SHOULD do. According to whom? Based on what?

Huh? I was pointing out that the entire concept of rights is about what people should and should not do. I never stated any personal prescription for rights.

You have chosen to arbitrarily designate what people should and should not do, what rights they do and do not have, and then say that people are logically inconstant because they endorse a system that believes otherwise. Go back to school.

Never did such a thing. I merely pointed out the gaping logical inconsistencies in your beliefs. If you would like more information, here are a couple of links. One is a 5 minute refutation of the social contract and the other is a short book:

Social Contract Destroyed in 5 Minutes

Everyday Anarchy

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh, so now it's based upon what we SHOULD do. According to whom? Based on what?

Huh? I was pointing out that the entire concept of rights is about what people should and should not do. I never stated any personal prescription for rights.

You have chosen to arbitrarily designate what people should and should not do, what rights they do and do not have, and then say that people are logically inconstant because they endorse a system that believes otherwise. Go back to school.

Never did such a thing. I merely pointed out the gaping logical inconsistencies in your beliefs. If you would like more information, here are a couple of links. One is a 5 minute refutation of the social contract and the other is a short book:

Social Contract Destroyed in 5 Minutes

Everyday Anarchy

Since you have stated that people do not have the right to confiscate others' property, you have in fact put out your personal view on what constitutes a right.

Also, you have pointed out NO logical inconsistencies. Your basis was that you do not believe that people have a right to confiscate others' property as the government does, so they cannot delegate this authority. I said that history clearly proves you false. In response you said rights were based on what we SHOULD do, and that is inherently a subjective argument. You cannot prove my stance logically inconsistent when relying on a definition of a word that I do not accept nor ever attempted to put forward.

As far as the idea of not accepting the social contract we're a part of goes, you implicitly give consent when you accept services from our government. If you don't like the way in which society is going, there are still plenty of places on this earth where you can escape its evil clutches and live out your anarcho capitalistic fantasy in the jungles of South America or the African veldt.

I can't believe I've had to argue this.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

I think one of those is very easily answered.

Pro-life and pro-choice are just names of the sides of the issue, not to be taken literally. They're slogans, not definitions. Pro-life really means anti-abortion, and pro-choice really means pro-abortion.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Since you have stated that people do not have the right to confiscate others' property, you have in fact put out your personal view on what constitutes a right.

Logical consistency is a personal view? I pointed out that people who do not confiscate property themselves are advocates for others to do so. And further, they have arbitrarily designated a group of people with this 'power,' called the state. Logical inconsistency. Either everyone has a right to do something or no one does, since humans are fundamentally the same.

Also, you have pointed out NO logical inconsistencies. Your basis was that you do not believe that people have a right to confiscate others' property as the government does, so they cannot delegate this authority. I said that history clearly proves you false.

How can history prove a statement that is to be judged on the merit of logic independent of the actions of individuals true or false?? Legitimate authority is not derived from what one can do. Otherwise you would have to believe that Kim Jong II and Mugabe are legitimate rulers since they are doing something that they can get away with.

In response you said rights were based on what we SHOULD do, and that is inherently a subjective argument. You cannot prove my stance logically inconsistent when relying on a definition of a word that I do not accept nor ever attempted to put forward.

Oh ok, so we have to argue based on your personal definitions of a word, and you are calling me subjective? What a joke.

As far as the idea of not accepting the social contract we're a part of goes, you implicitly give consent when you accept services from our government. If you don't like the way in which society is going, there are still plenty of places on this earth where you can escape its evil clutches and live out your anarcho capitalistic fantasy in the jungles of South America or the African veldt.

I can't believe I've had to argue this.

So if I mow your lawn without your consent and then charge you $1 million, I can throw you in jail if you don't pay? Just to see where we stand.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh, so now it's based upon what we SHOULD do. According to whom? Based on what?

Huh? I was pointing out that the entire concept of rights is about what people should and should not do. I never stated any personal prescription for rights.

You have chosen to arbitrarily designate what people should and should not do, what rights they do and do not have, and then say that people are logically inconstant because they endorse a system that believes otherwise. Go back to school.

Never did such a thing. I merely pointed out the gaping logical inconsistencies in your beliefs. If you would like more information, here are a couple of links. One is a 5 minute refutation of the social contract and the other is a short book:

Social Contract Destroyed in 5 Minutes

Everyday Anarchy

I don't understand trying to refute the social contract. It's like trying to refute that a sidewalk is for walking on.

He starts with a wrong premise. The social contract does not say that the citizen must obey the state, not even implicitly. That would be foolish. The state doesn't exist without the citizen. We create the state. At any rate, the Social Contract exists for the following reasons:

- In order to not live in chaos, we elect a government to secure our property and interests.
- Government must be able to affect us, even harm us, if it is to be allowed to protect our property and interests. (If it can't imprison us for stealing, how can it protect the victims property?)
- Therefore, we cede some liberties to the state, so that it may act.

I don't see how that's so horrible. If there's no social contract, then there is chaos.

The car dealership example is foolish. We didn't elect the car dealership. If we did, and it acted that way, we'd simply recreate it. The state is an extension of the citizen. We created it. We are responsible for it. Only we can abolish the Social Contract. If the government abuses it, the contract is voided, and we must create another. This "love it or leave it" nonsense is ridiculous.

I don't see how people can believe that the State simply "is." It's not something that just happens. We create it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Craig234

I wondered if you were making the tired old hyperbolic point about the nazis are taking my money at the point of a gun' speech. I guess you are.

No, my point is that you have probably not seized anyone's assets, raided anyone's bank account, garnished anyone's wages, or thrown anyone in prison.

Yet in this sphere of 'politics,' you support men who do this on a regular basis. Bonified logical contradiction.

Maybe they don't seize assets, raid bank accounts, or throw people in prison because they specifically choose to leave that sort of thing to those they vote for. I don't put out fires for a living, I pay for a firefighter to do that for me.

But you would put out a fire if you needed to.

Would/have you shut down the business and raided the bank accounts of a man with a wife and kids?

What does it matter whether I put them in prison *for criminal behavior in not paying taxes*, or have someone else put them in prison for it?

Yes, I'd put him in prison, if he chose to criminally break our normal tax laws, and I'd even put him in prison if I disagreed with the tax laws but not to the point where I thought he was morally justified to break them (in other words, if I vote against a 2% tax increase but it passed and he breaks it, off to jail. If I vote against a tax for death camps and he doesn't pay it, I would not put him in jail, but the government probably wouldn't ask for my opinion).

I'd feel bad for him for making the decision not to pay the taxes he owes and going to prison, but I'd still do it, because not doing it has a higher cost to society.

I hate to see anyone go to prison, ever, I'd prefer they were empty. I hate prisons. But they seem necessary to lock up the dangerous and deter the would-be wrongdoer.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Since you have stated that people do not have the right to confiscate others' property, you have in fact put out your personal view on what constitutes a right.

Logical consistency is a personal view? I pointed out that people who do not confiscate property themselves are advocates for others to do so. And further, they have arbitrarily designated a group of people with this 'power,' called the state. Logical inconsistency. Either everyone has a right to do something or no one does, since humans are fundamentally the same.

Also, you have pointed out NO logical inconsistencies. Your basis was that you do not believe that people have a right to confiscate others' property as the government does, so they cannot delegate this authority. I said that history clearly proves you false.

How can history prove a statement that is to be judged on the merit of logic independent of the actions of individuals true or false?? Legitimate authority is not derived from what one can do. Otherwise you would have to believe that Kim Jong II and Mugabe are legitimate rulers since they are doing something that they can get away with.

In response you said rights were based on what we SHOULD do, and that is inherently a subjective argument. You cannot prove my stance logically inconsistent when relying on a definition of a word that I do not accept nor ever attempted to put forward.

Oh ok, so we have to argue based on your personal definitions of a word, and you are calling me subjective? What a joke.

As far as the idea of not accepting the social contract we're a part of goes, you implicitly give consent when you accept services from our government. If you don't like the way in which society is going, there are still plenty of places on this earth where you can escape its evil clutches and live out your anarcho capitalistic fantasy in the jungles of South America or the African veldt.

I can't believe I've had to argue this.

So if I mow your lawn without your consent and then charge you $1 million, I can throw you in jail if you don't pay? Just to see where we stand.

I don't even know where to start with you. First of all we don't have to argue with my definitions of a word, it's just that you can't call someone else logically inconsistent because they choose not to use YOUR definition. It's not like it's some sort of widely accepted definition like what a tomato is or something. God, this is basic.

Just because people DO NOT do something does not mean that they CANNOT do it. This is another basic point you seem to be missing. They have chosen that instead of doing it themselves, they will have a different entity do it. You are starting to argue in circles though, because before when we talked about it I referenced the idea that the people have delegated this authority to the state. (for obvious reasons) Now you're saying everyone has to have the right to do something or no one does. (why this is so I can't possibly imagine)

I don't want to even get into what you consider "legitimate authority". Undoubtedly it's another arbitrary distinction you've conjured up. Also your idea of services is absurd. If you happened to be driving on our roads, drinking from our water fountains, etc. until you suddenly learned that you were expected to pay taxes for this and then stopped you would have a point. I sincerely doubt you do this however.

It's not like you don't know the score of the society you live in, yet you choose to do so anyway. I normally hate the 'love it or leave it' argument but in this case you are arguing against the very structure of our society... something that is never going to change. If you truly value this anarcho-capitalist bullshit then go live it man, because you will NEVER see it here.

Are you done yet?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Craig234

What does it matter whether I put them in prison *for criminal behavior in not paying taxes*, or have someone else put them in prison for it?

Yes, I'd put him in prison, if he chose to criminally break our normal tax laws, and I'd even put him in prison if I disagreed with the tax laws but not to the point where I thought he was morally justified to break them (in other words, if I vote against a 2% tax increase but it passed and he breaks it, off to jail. If I vote against a tax for death camps and he doesn't pay it, I would not put him in jail, but the government probably wouldn't ask for my opinion).

And what if he resists and pulls out a gun? Would you shoot him dead in front of his family? If you aren't willing to do that then no point in trying to put him in jail in the first place, because that is ultimately what it could come down to. Interesting how the enforcement comes down to your own personal opinion of what is a 'just law.'

I'd feel bad for him for making the decision not to pay the taxes he owes and going to prison, but I'd still do it, because not doing it has a higher cost to society.

I hate to see anyone go to prison, ever, I'd prefer they were empty. I hate prisons. But they seem necessary to lock up the dangerous and deter the would-be wrongdoer.

Would you feel sorry for him if he was shot dead in cold blood?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because people DO NOT do something does not mean that they CANNOT do it. This is another basic point you seem to be missing. They have chosen that instead of doing it themselves, they will have a different entity do it. You are starting to argue in circles though, because before when we talked about it I referenced the idea that the people have delegated this authority to the state.

Once again, you have failed to explain where the authority they granted the state came from in the first place.

(for obvious reasons) Now you're saying everyone has to have the right to do something or no one does. (why this is so I can't possibly imagine)

Why? Because of logical consistency. Fundamentally we as human beings are the same, so to be consistent the same ethical standards must apply to all exactly the same at the same time. A political process does not turn a politician into something that is fundamentally different than anyone else.

I don't want to even get into what you consider "legitimate authority". Undoubtedly it's another arbitrary distinction you've conjured up. Also your idea of services is absurd. If you happened to be driving on our roads, drinking from our water fountains, etc. until you suddenly learned that you were expected to pay taxes for this and then stopped you would have a point. I sincerely doubt you do this however.

If you watched the 5 minute refutation of the social contract you would realize the fallacy of your argument. You cannot 'give away' services to people and then force them to pay for them. If this were a proper code of conduct then as I said before, I could mow your lawn and charge you $1 million. When you refuse to pay I could imprison you and kill you if you resist.

It's not like you don't know the score of the society you live in, yet you choose to do so anyway. I normally hate the 'love it or leave it' argument but in this case you are arguing against the very structure of our society...

So when you disagree with someone on a political issue you do not claim the same thing, that they are arguing against the very structure of society by promoting a particular 'public policy' that you consider to be undermining the structure of society? Or do you whip out the 'love it or leave it' argument when you encounter a particular egregious violation of what you consider to be the 'very structure of society?'

I'm going to mow your lawn, then I am going to present you with a bill, if you do not pay you go to prison. If you do not like the situation, love it or leave it.

something that is never going to change. If you truly value this anarcho-capitalist bullshit then go live it man, because you will NEVER see it here.

Us anarcho-capitalists are already forming groups on the Internet, so never say never. BTW, here is a 10 minute 60 minutes video clip explaining that the federal government is already heading towards fiscal disaster:

Text

Your system is already doomed. I offer you a logical alternative and you just want to shut me out.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because people DO NOT do something does not mean that they CANNOT do it. This is another basic point you seem to be missing. They have chosen that instead of doing it themselves, they will have a different entity do it. You are starting to argue in circles though, because before when we talked about it I referenced the idea that the people have delegated this authority to the state.

Once again, you have failed to explain where the authority they granted the state came from in the first place.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

(for obvious reasons) Now you're saying everyone has to have the right to do something or no one does. (why this is so I can't possibly imagine)

Why? Because of logical consistency. Fundamentally we as human beings are the same, so to be consistent the same ethical standards must apply to all exactly the same at the same time. A political process does not turn a politician into something that is fundamentally different than anyone else.

You are incoherent. There are leadership positions withnecessariy different powers.

I don't want to even get into what you consider "legitimate authority". Undoubtedly it's another arbitrary distinction you've conjured up. Also your idea of services is absurd. If you happened to be driving on our roads, drinking from our water fountains, etc. until you suddenly learned that you were expected to pay taxes for this and then stopped you would have a point. I sincerely doubt you do this however.

If you watched the 5 minute refutation of the social contract you would realize the fallacy of your argument. You cannot 'give away' services to people and then force them to pay for them. If this were a proper code of conduct then as I said before, I could mow your lawn and charge you $1 million. When you refuse to pay I could imprison you and kill you if you resist.

We really need to start teaching high school civics again. Your power as an individual and the state power, derived from the authority of the voters, are not the same.

something that is never going to change. If you truly value this anarcho-capitalist bullshit then go live it man, because you will NEVER see it here.

Us anarcho-capitalists are already forming groups on the Internet, so never say never.

You're free to waste your time on harmful, flawed ideologies.

BTW, here is a 10 minute 60 minutes video clip explaining that the federal government is already heading towards fiscal disaster:

Text

Your system is already doomed. I offer you a logical alternative and you just want to shut me out.

Define 'doomed'. OUr system is in big trouble and does need fixes. It doesn't need your snake oil and poison.