or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jazzguru

  If that is the mindset with which you approach your study of libertarianism or any other philosophies different from your own, I dare say you will not get much out of your studies.
  You seem to think that I want to use services without having to pay for them. This is not true. I want to pay only for the services I use - and I want the freedom to choose from more than one provider.   You claim I want to steal - that I am being dishonest by not wanting the government to tax me for services I don't use. Your claim would be valid only if I had the opportunity to consent - to opt-in - to this system. I had no such opportunity.   What makes government...
  Money is taken from us  - under threat of violence - to fund these services and other actions whether we use or approve of them or not. Consent is not involved.   If I homeschool my children, am I exempt from paying taxes that fund public schools? No.   If I intend to plan and provide for my own retirement income, am I exempt from paying Social Security taxes? No.   Also, that the government has a monopoly on the provision of some of those services does not imply my...
  Please show me the contract I signed consenting to the provision these services by the government.   Do you really consider Rothbard's perspective to be what all libertarians believe? I certainly don't agree with everything Rothbard ever wrote or said.   I suggest you next read The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman for a different perspective on libertarianism.
  I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Do you consider someone forced to pay taxes under threat of violence a "willing participant" because he prefers to let his money be taken rather than have that violence used against him? Do you consider someone a "willing participant" because he does not have the money and time necessary to expatriate from the country of his birth, or because does not want to leave the company of his dear family and friends?         That quote...
  You love it, do you?    I certainly don't keep posting for the sake of the so-called "other side".
  You have a great talent for combining argumentum ad hominem with straw man fallacy. Sadly, it's not the kind of talent I would consider laudable or list on a resume.
  So you will not admit that your statement about me was utterly false. Got it. I suspect you knew it was false when you posted it.
  I'm sorry, but you're becoming much too condescending for me to want to continue this conversation with you. Every other sentence seems to be a straw man fallacy or argumentum ad hominem.   If you can stick to the issues and refrain from making this personal, then I'd be happy to continue.
  We certainly don't want these kinds of weapons in the hands of fallible, flawed, and corruptible people, do we?   Thank goodness there are no fallible, flawed, or corruptible people in government. Let's give them a monopoly on violence. What could possibly go wrong?
New Posts  All Forums: