Is Libertarianism a Good Idea? - General

[QUOTE=Pepin;37436070]It seems that we can agree that theft is the removal of property by force. So the question is, are taxes the removal of property? Certainly yes. Now the question is, are taxes voluntary. If they are, taxes are not theft, if they aren't, then it clearly is theft.[/QUOTE] They are not the removal of property any more than buying something is. You may not have an option to opt-out short of moving to Somalia but you recieve numerous services in exchange for your taxes. Claiming they are theft is ignoring all of these benefits and pure ignorance.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436038']Because if no one took care of one another then we wouldn't have communities, societies, or humanity. No interaction, no welfare, no people. The most simple interaction of a society is the interaction between people. Denying that you have a duty to care for your fellow man, because of whom you exist, is denying that anyone deserve any fruits of society or others. You're basically saying that you want to be able to but a chair on your own, and own that chair, and never give it up for anyone, but you also don't want to make sure the people who built the chair are taken care of, and you don't want to maintain the chair itself, or the people who maintain the chair. When the chair breaks, you have no one to blame but yourself. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] did you miss my explanation of rights vs liberties? Government gives ALL rights. You do not have rights naturally, you have liberties.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that we shouldn't interact. I'm saying all interaction should be voluntary. And yes, I agree that it is my fault when the chair breaks. That's exactly my point. Liberty and personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other. Yes, I did hear your explanation, but I disagree. Government gives us some rights, but we also have natural rights. Government protects natural rights, but does not give them.

[QUOTE=Noble;37435710]But they benefit everyone else while doing it (by selling them goods and services they want/need). [/QUOTE] They certainly don't benefit the poor or needy, unless they are charitable with their money. Taxes are an involuntary charity of sorts, though the product of that goes to everyone. You have a means to pay taxes, you aren't going to be made poor because of such taxes, why should you complain? After all, you are sharing part of what you make with the world around you.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436055]What else is he going to do? Walk 20 miles through the woods to get home? There's no choice to use public roads, at least not any real/sensible choice.[/QUOTE] He could pay. If you use someone else's property, you must pay.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436078]So? just because someone is born into poverty doesn't mean we MUST care for them. And so what if selfishness kills? if I am not actively using violence against someone, it's not my fault. Plus, it does not kill by the billions. That is a huge overstatement.[/QUOTE] Actually, it is your fault if you refuse to use your publicly accumulated resources using materials, labor, and capital that you yourself did not create with the beginning of the universe, and then hold it, and refuse to return it to the society in which you took it from. And it does kill by the millions, at least. You seem to forget that there are entire continents with billions of people who live in diseased, uneducated, backwards, polluted wastelands that are such because of the abuses by capitalists of the economy, labor, human rights, and environment for their own personal gains. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436162]I'm not saying that we shouldn't interact. I'm saying all interaction should be voluntary. And yes, I agree that it is my fault when the chair breaks. That's exactly my point. Liberty and personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other. Yes, I did hear your explanation, but I disagree. Government gives us some rights, but we also have natural rights. Government protects natural rights, but does not give them.[/QUOTE] The definition of rights is a protection by the state. You have liberties, not rights. A right is a protection, who is protecting your abilities if they come from nature? are the trees going to protect your right to free speech? Are the forest animals going to protect your property?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436162]I'm not saying that we shouldn't interact. I'm saying all interaction should be voluntary. And yes, I agree that it is my fault when the chair breaks. That's exactly my point. Liberty and personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other. Yes, I did hear your explanation, but I disagree. Government gives us some rights, but we also have natural rights. Government protects natural rights, but does not give them.[/QUOTE] The human factor is a major player in this, if those interactions are voluntary, what if a majority of people don't want to have them? The poor and needy would have no way to 'interact' because they don't have a means to do so, unless someone is willing to be charitable, and that certainly would be rare in a purely unregulated monetary system, they are stuck forever.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37436083]"I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO PAY FOR THESE ROADS! ... but i kinda want them you know, keep them there for now" what about the billions in slave labour across the globe then, or dying as a result of perpetual man-made impoverished environments because of trade hundreds of years ago (i.e africa) the fact that your beliefs are based off of the foundation that "people die, get over it" is quite frankly sickening. if you were born into poverty i'm sure you would not be such an advocate of the 'free market'; but as an armchair middle-class internet frequenter it's all too easy to be lured by the wonderful scent of money.[/QUOTE] As I explained, it's not my problem. I didn't cause their deaths, it's not my problem to fix it. I should probably clear this up right now. I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm simply choosing to argue from the point of one. Well, more like a voluntaryist, but whatever.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436162]I'm not saying that we shouldn't interact. I'm saying all interaction should be voluntary. And yes, I agree that it is my fault when the chair breaks. That's exactly my point. Liberty and personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other. Yes, I did hear your explanation, but I disagree. Government gives us some rights, but we also have natural rights. Government protects natural rights, but does not give them.[/QUOTE] Additionally, "voluntary" economic interactions in capitalism are not voluntary when you have to work as a wage-earner. Because you're forced to survive on a wage, you are forced to work or face poverty or death. That's not voluntary, unless you consider disobeying someone's orders holding a gun to your head also voluntary.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436163]They certainly don't benefit the poor or needy, unless they are charitable with their money. Taxes are an involuntary charity of sorts, though the product of that goes to everyone. You have a means to pay taxes, you aren't going to be made poor because of such taxes, why should you complain? After all, you are sharing part of what you make with the world around you.[/QUOTE] Because he doesn't want to pay taxes. Ever heard of free will? he wants to exercise his.

This may be a very, very, unsubtle veil to what I am inadvertently implying, though, maybe the taxation system serves its purpose in making damn well sure that those who are selfish but have a huge amount to give, give. And that would be implying that in turn, they don't fully own what they hold, and they don't in turn own the sweat of their own brow, though it is necessary in a way. Unless, there were a quota where only the richest in the world (or in this case, America) had to involuntarily give off some of their profit for the rest to share. And yeah, I'm speaking in a purely ideological fashion and what I did purpose was far fetched and will never happen.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436163]They certainly don't benefit the poor or needy, unless they are charitable with their money. Taxes are an involuntary charity of sorts, though the product of that goes to everyone. You have a means to pay taxes, you aren't going to be made poor because of such taxes, why should you complain? After all, you are sharing part of what you make with the world around you.[/QUOTE] So if I claim ownership of the sun, and start charging you for sunlight (and I hire armed thugs to enforce it), should I start arguing that you have a means to pay for it, and it won't make you poor, so why should you complain? I promise I'll use the money for funding drug wa- oops I mean helping the poor. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436166]He could pay. If you use someone else's property, you must pay.[/QUOTE] Alright, then I guess I'll send that bill to my neighbor for benefiting from my bug zapper. I suppose I'll go sweep someone's front porch and send them a bill of $100 for benefiting from my labor as well.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436280]So if I claim ownership of the sun, and start charging you for sunlight (and I hire armed thugs to enforce it), should I start arguing that you have a means to pay for it, and it won't make you poor, so why should you complain? [/QUOTE] You'd have a point if you could physically enforce that, but the difference here is that you can not.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436244]As I explained, it's not my problem. I didn't cause their deaths, it's not my problem to fix it. I should probably clear this up right now. I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm simply choosing to argue from the point of one. Well, more like a voluntaryist, but whatever.[/QUOTE] well i'm not sure how partial anarcho-capitalists are to emotion but i think i'll have to pass on the morality argument for this one, however; [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436256]Because he doesn't want to pay taxes. Ever heard of free will? he wants to exercise his.[/QUOTE] it would take quite the miracle to prove that free will exists. about as many miracles as it would take to prove a god exists.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436256]Because he doesn't want to pay taxes. Ever heard of free will? he wants to exercise his.[/QUOTE] Free will shouldn't be that absolute, of course it should cover the right to life and basic liberties and whatnot, though it shouldn't buy someone a ticket to avoiding aiding the needy or 'earning their keep' within a country.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436174']Actually, it is your fault if you refuse to use your publicly accumulated resources using materials, labor, and capital that you yourself did not create with the beginning of the universe, and then hold it, and refuse to return it to the society in which you took it from. And it does kill by the millions, at least. You seem to forget that there are entire continents with billions of people who live in diseased, uneducated, backwards, polluted wastelands that are such because of the abuses by capitalists of the economy, labor, human rights, and environment for their own personal gains.[/QUOTE] How is it my fault? Once I someone takes a resource out of the earth, it's there's. They did not take it from society, they took it from nature. Nature has no will, so it can have no property. And yes, millions do die, and even more life in disease and poverty, but I didn't put them their. My actions did not cause it, so I am not to blaim. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436209]The human factor is a major player in this, if those interactions are voluntary, what if a majority of people don't want to have them? The poor and needy would have no way to 'interact' because they don't have a means to do so, unless someone is willing to be charitable, and that certainly would be rare in a purely unregulated monetary system, they are stuck forever.[/QUOTE] There will always be people to interact with. The unfortunate can interact with the unfortunate, and make all their lives better.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436325]How is it my fault? Once I someone takes a resource out of the earth, it's there's. They did not take it from society, they took it from nature. Nature has no will, so it can have no property. And yes, millions do die, and even more life in disease and poverty, but I didn't put them their. My actions did not cause it, so I am not to blaim.[/QUOTE] So if you took resources and labor from collective society, and kept it for yourself, it's fine, yet taking it from an individual is now theft and you must pay for it? And then because you took those resources, society is damaged because of the lack of the resources and people die because you contributed to that shortage of things people need for their survival. Explain this to me.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436280]So if I claim ownership of the sun, and start charging you for sunlight (and I hire armed thugs to enforce it), should I start arguing that you have a means to pay for it, and it won't make you poor, so why should you complain? [/QUOTE] Claiming to own the sun is a technicality which makes no sense at all, it is a horrible comparison. And I did say that my argument was completely ideological. The drug wars have nothing to do with it. You pay taxes to fund the needy along with the people who provide you with all of your civil services and the protection of your rights (though that may be subjective if you live in a more dictated country). It is too bad that most of the world is settled and organized so you can't escape from paying tax, but society has decided for itself.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436350']So if you took resources and labor from collective society, and kept it for yourself, it's fine, yet taking it from an individual is now theft and you must pay for it? And then because you took those resources, society is damaged because of the lack of the resources and people die because you contributed to that shortage of things people need for their survival. Explain this to me.[/QUOTE] Well you aren't "taking" anything from society. You're just not paying for something, the same way that if someone decided to paint my house while I was on vacation and tries to bill me for $2,000, I'm not going to pay for it even if it did benefit me (because I didn't consent to it). It's only theft/fraud if there actually was a contract with a valid debt which you violated. Some people may argue that there is a social contract, I simply refute this argument however and deny it's existence. Physically stripping an individual of their property however is completely different and involves an initiation of force against them. [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436400]Claiming to own the sun is a technicality which makes no sense at all, it is a horrible comparison. And I did say that my argument was completely ideological. The drug wars have nothing to do with it. You pay taxes to fund the needy along with the people who provide you with all of your civil services and the protection of your rights (though that may be subjective if you live in a more dictated country). It is too bad that most of the world is settled and organized so you can't escape from paying tax, but society has decided for itself.[/QUOTE] All of the taxes aren't even spent funding the needy, they're often spent to pay for things that do nothing to help the poor or even make them worse off.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436325] There will always be people to interact with. The unfortunate can interact with the unfortunate, and make all their lives better.[/QUOTE] And what can they scrap together to buy from the people who own and produce everything?

[QUOTE=Noble;37436438]Well you aren't "taking" anything from society. You're just not paying for something, the same way that if someone decided to paint my house while I was on vacation and tries to bill me for $2,000, I'm not going to pay for it even if it did benefit me (because I didn't consent to it). It's only theft/fraud if there actually was a contract with a valid debt which you violated. Some people may argue that there is a social contract, I simply refute this argument however and deny it's existence.[/QUOTE] Except you are. You are taking limited wealth from society, and you are taking the value of the labor of others if you are a capitalist. You can not exist without other people in society, and unless you magically make the money appear out of thin air you are literally drawing it out from the society in which you reside. You are taking the wealth and services and labor of society. You are taking from society. It's as simple as that. There is a limited amount of wealth. That wealth is NEEDED to allow people to live, and your collection of unnecessarily large amounts of it does not allow them to survive. You are taking from society, and society has decided that it will take some back. That's how it is. A massive collection of wealth that is not obtained solely and completely by the individual is taken from someone else, and is theft no different than taking wealth from an individual. If you're not taking anything from society, then how/where from are you amassing wealth? This is turning into a capitalism vs. socialism debate fast.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436250']Additionally, "voluntary" economic interactions in capitalism are not voluntary when you have to work as a wage-earner. Because you're forced to survive on a wage, you are forced to work or face poverty or death. That's not voluntary, unless you consider disobeying someone's orders holding a gun to your head also voluntary.[/QUOTE] You don't have to work as a wage earner. You choose to work as a wage earner, because you want money. No one forces you.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436438]Well you aren't "taking" anything from society. You're just not paying for something, the same way that if someone decided to paint my house while I was on vacation and tries to bill me for $2,000, I'm not going to pay for it even if it did benefit me (because I didn't consent to it). It's only theft/fraud if there actually was a contract with a valid debt which you violated. Some people may argue that there is a social contract, I simply refute this argument however and deny it's existence.[/QUOTE] You are being ignorant by denying its existence. You live in a house that is protected by police and doctors and military men and firemen, you live in a body that is protected by doctors and police and military men and firemen. If you do not want to aid them with their lives, along with the poor and hungry and your other fellow men, you should not receive any of their services by that logic. You should receive no healthcare unless you pay for it directly, you should receive no police protection when someone mugs you unless you are willing to pay an officer directly. Your house should burn if an outlet were to burst unless you pay the firemen. And a funny thing about privatized services. [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/firefighters-refuse-to-put-out-house-fire-over-unpaid-fees-video[/url] [url]http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html[/url] Taxes should be considered as what gives you the right to a stable and privileged life, and even if it may 'suck' that they are almost unavoidable, it isn't going to make you poor or put you out of work. The human condition should come over the rights of an individual man.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436280]So if I claim ownership of the sun, and start charging you for sunlight (and I hire armed thugs to enforce it), should I start arguing that you have a means to pay for it, and it won't make you poor, so why should you complain? I promise I'll use the money for funding drug wa- oops I mean helping the poor. Alright, then I guess I'll send that bill to my neighbor for benefiting from my bug zapper. I suppose I'll go sweep someone's front porch and send them a bill of $100 for benefiting from my labor as well.[/QUOTE] No, those are completely unrelated. Your neighbor did not choose to benefit from your bug zapper, he had no choice. It's called a public good. And once again, when you sweep someone else's porch, you are FORCING them to benefit. If anything, they could send you a bill for damages (maybe they like dust). But if you purposefully benefit from someone's property, you must pay. To be more exact, you must get permission to use it, and then pay.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436517]You don't have to work as a wage earner. You choose to work as a wage earner, because you want money. No one forces you.[/QUOTE] The fact that I want to live forces me. It's the same way that someone has to use public roadways, because there's no other option. If you don't submit to wage-slavery then you die in poverty. There's no choice, it's not voluntary. Again, it's the same amount of volunteerism that you have when choosing whether or not to obey the man with a gun to your head. By arguing that wage-slavery is unnecessary, you're also arguing that paying taxes is also voluntary (even more so, really), so I don't see why you're complaining on that topic.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436484']Except you are. You are taking limited wealth from society, and you are taking the value of the labor of others if you are a capitalist. You can not exist without other people in society, and unless you magically make the money appear out of thin air you are literally drawing it out from the society in which you reside. You are taking the wealth and services and labor of society. You are taking from society. It's as simple as that. There is a limited amount of wealth. That wealth is NEEDED to allow people to live, and your collection of unnecessarily large amounts of it does not allow them to survive. You are taking from society, and society has decided that it will take some back. That's how it is. A massive collection of wealth that is not obtained solely and completely by the individual is taken from someone else, and is theft no different than taking wealth from an individual.[/quote] I don't understand how the money is taken away from society and is theft. It was obtained through voluntary exchange (in which both parties gained a subjective benefit from the transaction). Also what about the business owners who invest in projects which hire people? The money is rarely drawn out of society and hoarded away, especially when it's much more profitable to invest and get a bigger return. In the process of doing this, they often have the side benefit of benefiting others in society (people getting employed, shareholders getting richer, more choice of goods and services, a more vibrant economy). [quote]If you're not taking anything from society, then how are you amassing wealth?[/QUOTE] It's done through voluntary exchange, I don't understand how that is taking anything away.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37436304]well i'm not sure how partial anarcho-capitalists are to emotion but i think i'll have to pass on the morality argument for this one, however; it would take quite the miracle to prove that free will exists. about as many miracles as it would take to prove a god exists.[/QUOTE] hey, I'm not a partial anarcho-capitalist. For the sake of this argument, I am a full-blooded voluntaryist. And you are right, it is hard if not impossible to prove that free will exists. But seeing as we can all make choices (or atleast have the illusion of being able to) I will assume that we have free will until you can prove that we don't. And in that case, you will also have to prove that the government has a right to control us. I think it might be better to except free will. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37436307]Free will shouldn't be that absolute, of course it should cover the right to life and basic liberties and whatnot, though it shouldn't buy someone a ticket to avoiding aiding the needy or 'earning their keep' within a country.[/QUOTE] why not? If I can control myself, why shouldn't I have full control over myself.

[QUOTE=Noble;37435866]The fact that someone benefits from a service they never agreed to pay for doesn't automatically mean they are in debt for it. Try mowing your neighbor's lawn while they're out of town and sending them a bill for $400, because they benefited from your services and now supposedly owe you a debt.[/QUOTE] that's not a valid comparison in the slightest. i don't even understand the analogy. you choose to buy or earn money in our society when you use infrastructure. it's a choice you make by taking part in society.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37436350']So if you took resources and labor from collective society, and kept it for yourself, it's fine, yet taking it from an individual is now theft and you must pay for it? And then because you took those resources, society is damaged because of the lack of the resources and people die because you contributed to that shortage of things people need for their survival. Explain this to me.[/QUOTE] Resources are do not belong to society, they belong to whoever owns the resource (i.e. the person who owns the piece of land). If no one owns the land, then it is a free resource. You can't steal labor from society, because laborers have minds. They can choose not to work. Society is not damaged if I do share my goods, because my goods would not exist if I did not exist.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37436517]You don't have to work as a wage earner. You choose to work as a wage earner, because you want money. No one forces you.[/QUOTE] If you didn't, you would risk starvation and disease and homelessness if you can't pay the firemen or insurance companies or a mortgage from a shitty bank. With an organized government that receives tribute, at least you have a safety net with free healthcare and education and shelter until you get back onto your feet. You could have the same with a humanitarian organization, though some of the largest ones receive funding [i]from[/i] world governments. Pure capitalism is anarchism, taxes are what make large government bodies possible and without them we'd have to rely on souly humanitarian effort for basic civil services if we can't pay up.

[QUOTE=Noble;37436567]I don't understand how the money is taken away from society and is theft. It was obtained through voluntary exchange (in which both parties gained a subjective benefit from the transaction). Also what about the business owners who invest in projects which hire people? The money is rarely drawn out of society and hoarded away, especially when it's much more profitable to invest and get a bigger return. In the process of doing this, they often have the side benefit of benefiting others in society (people getting employed, shareholders getting richer, more choice of goods and services, a more vibrant economy). It's done through voluntary exchange, I don't understand how that is taking anything away.[/QUOTE] A) Capitalism is not voluntary. B) The money you amass comes from society, whether voluntarily or not. C) Wealth is a limited resource. If it was food, you would be singing a different tune when your pantry is stuffed with goods yet millions starve because they don't have enough. D) Riddle me this: If it was voluntary exchange, then why is the majority suffering from it? Does someone voluntarily suffer? Why are there more poor and sick and starving, than there are well-off? At which point did everyone in the world say "I'm going to voluntarily give this limited resource away that is necessary for my survival"? Would you voluntarily give away all of your food, that you need to not starve, or do you do it because it is necessary for you to obtain the basic necessities to live? At what point is it voluntary?