or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 13

post #481 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And clearly, since self control has served humanity so admirably throughout history, it is also quite unnecessary¡

You prefer being governed to governing yourself?

 

If I were the only inhabitant of the planet I would happily self-govern, but since that is not the case I prefer a structured society to anarchy. But that is trivially obvious, and you are playing games.

post #482 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If I were the only inhabitant of the planet I would happily self-govern, but since that is not the case I prefer a structured society to anarchy. But that is trivially obvious, and you are playing games.

 

You can't have a structured society without government?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #483 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Libertarianism, more than another other political philosophy  (e.g., Democrats & Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives, socialists, Marxists, fascist and statists of all flavors), demands that the same rules apply to everyone. Where these other groups often want special privileges and rights to certain groups and for certain rules to not apply or apply differently.

 

The simple, honest fact is that you don't actually want everyone to follow the same rules. Think carefully about that.

 

Well said. You reminded my of a great passage from For a New Liberty:

 

 

Quote:
The State! Always and ever the government and its rulers and operators have been considered above the general moral law. The "Pentagon Papers" are only one recent instance among innumerable instances in history of men, most of whom are perfectly honorable in their private lives, who lie in their teeth before the public. Why? For "reasons of State." Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by "private" citizens. The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #484 of 735
Hmm.. Seems like I see a couple of guards with shotguns accompanying every armored car transporting money between banks... I guess they must be part of the government, since the government has a "monopoly on initiative force".
post #485 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Hmm.. Seems like I see a couple of guards with shotguns accompanying every armored car transporting money between banks... I guess they must be part of the government, since the government has a "monopoly on initiative force".

 

But you'd be wrong if you consider that an example of initiative force, coercion or violence. Try again. You're smarter than this tonton.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #486 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Hmm.. Seems like I see a couple of guards with shotguns accompanying every armored car transporting money between banks... I guess they must be part of the government, since the government has a "monopoly on initiative force".

But you'd be wrong if you consider that an example of initiative force, coercion or violence. Try again. You're smarter than this tonton.
No. The only difference of opinion we have here is that I see an equivalency between stealing from an armored car and stealing from the government by not paying your taxes. Both acts of theft are deterred by an equal threat of force. There is no monopoly.
post #487 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. The only difference of opinion we have here is that I see an equivalency between stealing from an armored car and stealing from the government by not paying your taxes. Both acts of theft are deterred by an equal threat of force. There is no monopoly.

 

You're mistaken. The stealing in the tax situation is the state stealing from people. Get it straight. Think about it. The state is the one doing the stealing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #488 of 735
So is the Mormon church stealing from you, then? Is your HOA stealing from you?
post #489 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So is the Mormon church stealing from you, then? Is your HOA stealing from you?

 

I don't know about the Mormon church. I don't attend. But with the HOA, no.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #490 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. The only difference of opinion we have here is that I see an equivalency between stealing from an armored car and stealing from the government by not paying your taxes. Both acts of theft are deterred by an equal threat of force. There is no monopoly.

You're mistaken. The stealing in the tax situation is the state stealing from people. Get it straight. Think about it. The state is the one doing the stealing.
And as i pointed out, that's the difference in our opinion. It has nothing to do with the use of force. The use of force, whether it's done by the police or by a security guard or by your neighbors (and it's done by all)... is pretty much the only way to enforce the rules. Whether you call it a "government" or an "association" or a "church", there's no difference.
post #491 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So is the Mormon church stealing from you, then? Is your HOA stealing from you?

I don't know about the Mormon church. I don't attend. But with the HOA, no.
So do you 100% own your home if your neighborhood or your building is managed by a HOA?
post #492 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And as i pointed out, that's the difference in our opinion.

 

No it isn't.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It has nothing to do with the use of force.

 

Yes it does.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The use of force, whether it's done by the police or by a security guard or by your neighbors (and it's done by all)... is pretty much the only way to enforce the rules. Whether you call it a "government" or an "association" or a "church", there's no difference.

 

There is a massive and fundamental difference, you're just not seeing it. Whether this is because you cannot or will not, I don't know.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #493 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So do you 100% own your home if your neighborhood or your building is managed by a HOA?

 

Yes. Though with a condominium/townhouse there is shared ownership of some aspects of the property.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #494 of 735
Double post
post #495 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So do you 100% own your home if your neighborhood or your building is managed by a HOA?

Yes. Though with a condominium/townhouse there is shared ownership of some aspects of the property.
And a gated community, I would presume. But the thing is, absent of city government, every home owner would be required to have some sort of association, presumably at a minimum to arrange trash collection, electricity, water, communications infrastructure and road maintenance. What if you decide you don't want to pay your HOA fees? What if part of your fees go to trash collection, but you take your own trash to the landfill in your own truck so you don't want to pay? How would that be enforced if you didn't pay?
post #496 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But the thing is, absent of city government, every home owner would be required to have some sort of association, presumably at a minimum to arrange trash collection, electricity, water, communications infrastructure and road maintenance.

 

Why? Some of these things can certainly be handled individually. Others, admittedly, would benefit from coming together as a group of homeowners. There's nothing special or magical about that. But there's nothing that fundamentally requires it. In any case, there's nothing wrong with voluntarily engaging in contracts and associations to achieve these things. Some of these things may have the superficial appearance of being no different from the state...but this is indeed a superficial similarity. There are fundamental underlying differences.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What if you decide you don't want to pay your HOA fees? What if part of your fees go to trash collection, but you take your own trash to the landfill in your own truck so you don't want to pay? How would that be enforced if you didn't pay?

 

Most HOA agreements involve a foreclosure and collections process if you have violated the agreement you voluntarily entered into.

 

No one said there aren't contracts and dispute arbitration agencies. There's actually some good literature on this. In fact...when you asked (a while ago...in this thread I believe) about about defense absent the state. I posted some things that actually addressed all of this. And there's certainly more literature that discussed how private dispute resolution can be achieved. You, of course, may disagree and dispute the effectiveness of such approaches, but at least be intellectually honest and curious and read some of it. Think about it rather than simply waving it off. There's some very interesting and thought-provoking things out there.


Edited by MJ1970 - 1/21/13 at 8:25pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #497 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If I were the only inhabitant of the planet I would happily self-govern, but since that is not the case I prefer a structured society to anarchy. But that is trivially obvious, and you are playing games.

 

You can't have a structured society without government?

 

What structural mechanism do you propose?

post #498 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But the thing is, absent of city government, every home owner would be required to have some sort of association, presumably at a minimum to arrange trash collection, electricity, water, communications infrastructure and road maintenance.

Why? Some of these things can certainly be handled individually. Others, admittedly, would benefit from coming together as a group of homeowners. There's nothing special or magical about that. But there's nothing that fundamentally requires it. In any case, there's nothing wrong with voluntarily engaging in contracts and associations to achieve these things. Some of these things may have the superficial appearance of being no different from the state...but this is indeed a superficial similarity. There are fundamental underlying differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What if you decide you don't want to pay your HOA fees? What if part of your fees go to trash collection, but you take your own trash to the landfill in your own truck so you don't want to pay? How would that be enforced if you didn't pay?

Most HOA agreements involve a foreclosure and collections process if you have violated the agreement you voluntarily entered into.

No one said there aren't contracts and dispute arbitration agencies. There's actually some good literature on this. In fact...when you asked (a while ago...in this thread I believe) about about defense absent the state. I posted some things that actually addressed all of this. And there's certainly more literature that discussed how private dispute resolution can be achieved. You, of course, may disagree and dispute the effectiveness of such approaches, but at least be intellectually honest and curious and read some of it. Think about it rather than simply waving it off. There's some very interesting and thought-provoking things out there.
Once again... Enforcement?

Arbitration doesn't go your way, so you walk away from the process. What's to stop you?
post #499 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Once again... Enforcement?

Arbitration doesn't go your way, so you walk away from the process. What's to stop you?

 

Perhaps you'll read the paper I posted to start with rather than trying to deal with this through a series of internet forum posts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #500 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Once again... Enforcement?


Arbitration doesn't go your way, so you walk away from the process. What's to stop you?

Perhaps you'll read the paper I posted to start with rather than trying to deal with this through a series of internet forum posts.
Everything in that paper is rebuffed by BR's cartoon. There is so much naivety in that paper that it is a sad caricature in itself of the libertarian mindset.

Not to mention that it didn't address my question of enforcement (not security).

I can only presume it was intended as a red herring.
post #501 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Everything in that paper is rebuffed by BR's cartoon. There is so much naivety in that paper that it is a sad caricature in itself of the libertarian mindset.

Not to mention that it didn't address my question of enforcement (not security).

I can only presume it was intended as a red herring.

 

So you're not really interested in a serious discussion. I might have guessed. Oh well. I'm tired of dealing with children. Goodbye.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #502 of 735
Not my fault that the "response" to my question was a five page essay that didn't provide an answer.

What about enforcement?
post #503 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So is the Mormon church stealing from you, then? Is your HOA stealing from you?

 

 

My church doesn't send armed thugs after me if I choose not to tithe.

 

You can choose whether or not you live in a community with a HOA.

 

Is taxation is voluntary? No. It is not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #504 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

What structural mechanism do you propose?

 

There are several I think would be much better than what currently exists. Here are a few:

 

Voluntaryism

 

Anarcho-capitalism

 

Panarchy

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #505 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not my fault that the "response" to my question was a five page essay that didn't provide an answer.

What about enforcement?

 

If you refuse to read and seek to understand suggested libertarian literature, then you obviously have no intention of believing or understanding a word we say, so it really is pointless to ask us questions, isn't it?

 

However, in the hope that some part of you does want to learn about and understand libertarian philosophy, I strongly suggest you read For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard. I think he puts forth some compelling arguments regarding the courts and law enforcement. Here is a sample:

 

 

Quote:
How, then, would the courts operate in the libertarian society? In particular, how could they enforce their decisions? In all their operations, furthermore, they must observe the critical libertarian rule that no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal — otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.
 
Let us now take the case we mentioned before. Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of "international anarchy" there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.
 
It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and [p. 226] this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon — a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.
 
What, however, if Brown does not recognize the Prudential Court? What if he is a client of the Metropolitan Court Company? Here the case becomes more difficult. What will happen then? First, victim Jones pleads his case in the Prudential Court. If Brown is found innocent, this ends the controversy. Suppose, however, that defendant Brown is found guilty. If he does nothing, the court's judgment proceeds against him. Suppose, however, Brown then takes the case to the Metropolitan Court Company, pleading inefficiency or venality by Prudential. The case will then be heard by Metropolitan. If Metropolitan also finds Brown guilty, this too ends the controversy and Prudential will proceed against Brown with dispatch. Suppose, however, that Metropolitan finds Brown innocent of the charge. Then what? Will the two courts and their arms-wielding marshals shoot it out in the streets?
 
Once again, this would clearly be irrational and self-destructive behavior on the part of the courts. An essential part of their judicial service to their clients is the provision of just, objective, and peacefully functioning decisions — the best and most objective way of arriving at the truth of who committed the crime. Arriving at a decision and then allowing chaotic gunplay would scarcely be considered valuable judicial service by their customers. Thus, an essential part of any court's service to its clients would be an appeals procedure. In short, every court would agree to abide by an appeals trial, as decided by a voluntary arbitrator to whom Metropolitan and Prudential would now turn. The appeals judge would make his decision, and the result of this third trial would be treated as binding on the guilty. The Prudential court would then proceed to enforcement.
 
An appeals court! But isn't this setting up a compulsory monopoly government once again? No, because there is nothing in the system that requires any one person or court to be the court of appeal. In short, in the United States at present the Supreme Court is established as the court of final appeal, so the Supreme Court judges become the final arbiters regardless of the wishes of plaintiff or defendant alike. In contrast, in the libertarian society the various competing private courts could go to any appeals judge they think fair, expert, and objective. No single appeals judge or set of judges would be foisted upon society by coercion. [p. 227]
 
How would the appeals judges be financed? There are many possible ways, but the most likely is that they will be paid by the various original courts who would charge their customers for appeals services in their premiums or fees.
 
But suppose Brown insists on another appeals judge, and yet another? Couldn't he escape judgment by appealing ad infinitum? Obviously, in any society legal proceedings cannot continue indefinitely; there must be some cutoff point. In the present statist society, where government monopolizes the judicial function, the Supreme Court is arbitrarily designated as the cutoff point. In the libertarian society, there would also have to be an agreed-upon cutoff point, and since there are only two parties to any crime or dispute — the plaintiff and the defendant — it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding. This will cover the situation when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's courts come to the same decision, as well as the situation when an appeals court decides on a disagreement between the two original courts.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #506 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So is the Mormon church stealing from you, then? Is your HOA stealing from you?


My church doesn't send armed thugs after me if I choose not to tithe.

You can choose whether or not you live in a community with a HOA.

Is taxation is voluntary? No. It is not.
I challenge you on that. Stop tithing, and keep attending church functions, going to temple, even after they've told you you're no longer welcome in the church. See how long it is before they send armed thugs (call the police for trespassing).

Yes, you can choose whether you go to the Mormon church. You can choose whether you live in a gated community. You can choose whether you live in the United States of America.
post #507 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I challenge you on that. Stop tithing, and keep attending church functions, going to temple, even after they've told you you're no longer welcome in the church. See how long it is before they send armed thugs (call the police for trespassing).

 

You are wrong. I would not be harassed by armed thugs at my home if I chose to stop tithing, and to my knowledge nobody has ever been arrested for trespassing at our church buildings solely on the basis of not tithing. In fact, all are welcome to worship with us at our church buildings, member or not, tithe-payer or not.

 

Temples are different from church buildings. We believe they are very sacred places, and we agree to try to live our lives according to certain standards to enter the temple. If you want to attend the temple, you get a "Temple Recommend" from your ecclesiastical leaders after going over and agreeing to those standards with them. One of those standards is paying a full and honest tithe, as commanded in the Holy Scriptures.

 

But you don't care about the doctrine or theology behind it, do you? What it really comes down to is this: when I was old enough to understand and determine for myself what becoming a member of the church entailed, I consented - of my own free will and choice - to become a member.

 

However, the moment I was born, individuals calling themselves a government automatically deemed me a "citizen" and laid claim to a portion of any income I might eventually earn, whether or not I wanted the "services" they provided or consented to the things they did with my money. I had no opportunity to consent - of my own free will and choice - to become a citizen and accept all that it entailed.

 

Do you not see the difference?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #508 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I challenge you on that. Stop tithing, and keep attending church functions, going to temple, even after they've told you you're no longer welcome in the church. See how long it is before they send armed thugs (call the police for trespassing).

 

Care to back that incredible assertion up with a link or two?

 

My (non-Mormon) denomination believes in tithing, and our pastors are not even made aware of what an attendee's record of giving looks like.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #509 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

What structural mechanism do you propose?

 

There are several I think would be much better than what currently exists. Here are a few:

 

Voluntaryism

 

Anarcho-capitalism

 

Panarchy

 

They sound wonderful. It's a shame that they have never worked. Where do you see any evidence that collections of individuals behave like this?

post #510 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

They sound wonderful. It's a shame that they have never worked. Where do you see any evidence that collections of individuals behave like this?

 

Have they really ever been tried?

 

Many British colonists had your same attitude toward declaring independence from Britain and establishing a new and "radical" government in North America circa 1776.

 

"It'll never work."

 

"People need a monarch to look after them."

 

"I don't want to break with tradition."

 

"It's always been this way and it'll always be this way."

 

I'm thankful enough of them had the courage to try something new and different.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #511 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I challenge you on that. Stop tithing, and keep attending church functions, going to temple, even after they've told you you're no longer welcome in the church. See how long it is before they send armed thugs (call the police for trespassing).

Care to back that incredible assertion up with a link or two?

My (non-Mormon) denomination believes in tithing, and our pastors are not even made aware of what an attendee's record of giving looks like.
Jazzguru has already verified my claim. If you don't tithe, you're not welcome at the temple. If you go to the temple anyway, they may ask you to leave. What happens if you don't leave when they ask you to leave?
post #512 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Jazzguru has already verified my claim. If you don't tithe, you're not welcome at the temple. If you go to the temple anyway, they may ask you to leave. What happens if you don't leave when they ask you to leave?

 

What happens if you enter into a voluntary association or contract with another party and then fail to uphold your part of the agreement? Is the other party obligated to fulfill their part of the contract, regardless?

 

You ignored my point. My association with my church is voluntary. My association with my government is not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #513 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I challenge you on that. Stop tithing, and keep attending church functions, going to temple, even after they've told you you're no longer welcome in the church. See how long it is before they send armed thugs (call the police for trespassing).

You are wrong. I would not be harassed by armed thugs at my home if I chose to stop tithing, and to my knowledge nobody has ever been arrested for trespassing at our church buildings solely on the basis of not tithing. In fact, all are welcome to worship with us at our church buildings, member or not, tithe-payer or not.


Temples are different from church buildings. We believe they are very sacred places, and we agree to try to live our lives according to certain standards to enter the temple. If you want to attend the temple, you get a "Temple Recommend" from your ecclesiastical leaders after going over and agreeing to those standards with them. One of those standards is paying a full and honest tithe, as commanded in the Holy Scriptures.


But you don't care about the doctrine or theology behind it, do you? What it really comes down to is this: when I was old enough to understand and determine for myself what becoming a member of the church entailed, I consented - of my own free will and choice - to become a member.


However, the moment I was born, individuals calling themselves a government automatically deemed me a "citizen" and laid claim to a portion of any income I might eventually earn, whether or not I wanted the "services" they provided or consented to the things they did with my money. I had no opportunity to consent - of my own free will and choice - to become a citizen and accept all that it entailed.

Do you not see the difference?
Of course I see the difference. You're perfectly happy allowing a representative official of the church to allocate communal funds to which you contribute, however they see fit, whether it be to send teenagers overseas in rich accommodations, or to build glass castles in the sky, because it spreads "the word". (Little do you know it's mostly the word of excess.)

Meanwhile, you vehemently oppose allowing a representative official of the government to allocate spending of communal funds to build roads, defend the country, take care of the poor, and encourage research and education.

You are free to choose not to go to Temple, or you are free to use limited resources of the church ("off the grid") and not tithe. Or you can go to another church. Likewise, you are free to choose to live off the grid legally in the states (limit your monetary income) and pay no taxes, and still be granted access to many resources of the state. Seems like a pretty good fucking deal to me. Or you can move to another country.

It is not I who fails to see the difference. It is you who fails to see the blatant parallel.
post #514 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jazzguru has already verified my claim. If you don't tithe, you're not welcome at the temple. If you go to the temple anyway, they may ask you to leave. What happens if you don't leave when they ask you to leave?

What happens if you enter into a voluntary association or contract with another party and then fail to uphold your part of the agreement? Is the other party obligated to fulfill their part of the contract, regardless?

You ignored my point. My association with my church is voluntary. My association with my government is not.
Of course your association with your government is voluntary. You can partially sever it by simply moving overseas. You can fully sever it by revoking your citizenship. Look at that kunt Depardieu for inspiration.
post #515 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It is not I who fails to see the difference. It is you who fails to see the blatant parallel.

 

You completely ignore the concept of consent.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #516 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Of course your association with your government is voluntary. You can partially sever it by simply moving overseas. You can fully sever it by revoking your citizenship. Look at that kunt Depardieu for inspiration.

 

It is not voluntary. It was imposed upon me the moment I was born.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #517 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course your association with your government is voluntary. You can partially sever it by simply moving overseas. You can fully sever it by revoking your citizenship. Look at that kunt Depardieu for inspiration.

It is not voluntary. It was imposed upon me the moment I was born.
You had to pay taxes the moment you were born?

It would have been a simple process to have left the country the moment you turned 18. You chose not to, so you entered into a contract. When you go to the park, you enter into a contract. When you drive in a parking lot, you enter into a contract. When you go to church, you enter into a contract. When you voluntarily choose to live in the States (which you did when you turned 18), you voluntarily entered into a contract.
post #518 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


You had to pay taxes the moment you were born?

It would have been a simple process to have left the country the moment you turned 18. You chose not to, so you entered into a contract. When you go to the park, you enter into a contract. When you drive in a parking lot, you enter into a contract. When you go to church, you enter into a contract. When you voluntarily choose to live in the States (which you did when you turned 18), you voluntarily entered into a contract.

 

I was deemed a citizen the moment I was born, not when I turned 18.

 

I paid income tax when I got my first job at age 16.

 

Your argument is absurd. I signed no contract. I did not have the opportunity to opt-in to anything. The U.S. government laid claim to me the moment I was born.

 

I hereby declare you a citizen of Jazzguruland. You are required to pay the government of Jazzguruland 50% of your income, which will be used use to provide its citizens with an endless supply of bendy-straws, pogo sticks, and toothpaste. If you refuse to comply, I will send armed thugs to collect. This is, of course, completely voluntary on your part and you can move to Antarctica if you wish to opt-out of becoming a citizen of Jazzguruland. Have a nice day.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #519 of 735
My argument stands. You could easily have left when you turned 18. You chose not to. It's not so easy now, and you will have to settle taxes first, sell stationary assets, transfer your remaining assets, and pay taxes on that transfer, but you can still do it now. Again, you choose not to. That's a 100% voluntary choice.
post #520 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You had to pay taxes the moment you were born?


It would have been a simple process to have left the country the moment you turned 18. You chose not to, so you entered into a contract. When you go to the park, you enter into a contract. When you drive in a parking lot, you enter into a contract. When you go to church, you enter into a contract. When you voluntarily choose to live in the States (which you did when you turned 18), you voluntarily entered into a contract.

I was deemed a citizen the moment I was born, not when I turned 18.

I paid income tax when I got my first job at age 16.

Your argument is absurd. I signed no contract. I did not have the opportunity to opt-in to anything. The U.S. government laid claim to me the moment I was born.

I hereby declare you a citizen of Jazzguruland. You are required to pay the government of Jazzguruland 50% of your income, which will be used use to provide its citizens with an endless supply of bendy-straws, pogo sticks, and toothpaste. If you refuse to comply, I will send armed thugs to collect. This is, of course, completely voluntary on your part and you can move to Antarctica if you wish to opt-out of becoming a citizen of Jazzguruland. Have a nice day.
I've never used any of the infrastructure or benefits of jazzguruland, so I respectfully decline.

I'm sure your house is lovely, but I don't live there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism