Voluntaryism

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Would you prefer that doesn't seem like a realistic and valid comparison?

Theft in and of itself isn't a thing either. That's also a construct created by [whatever is] your education just like this "free-dom" you keep alluding to. These are not forms as Socrates might have said, they're mental constructs.

You're entire problem is you keep making bald assertions. You can't say "freedom" and just expect everyone to accept your definition, you have to back it up, which you don't do. You just pontificate and say "oh, well prove it's not". That really shows a lack of depth in your argument, which if you ever want to convince anyone of anything is the key to making a solid argument.

You still didn't answer my question before: what if I don't like the free market's solution to my problem and I cannot physically solve it by myself? Who would be there to provide help?

That's a really basic government question.

Since "Freedom" and "theft" are not things, as you believe, then it is irrelevant to discuss them with you. It would be akin to talking about different kinds of mermaids at a zoological conference.

And as for the question regarding the free market, if you can't "physically solve" the issue yourself and the free market can not as well, what is your option? Using a band of men with guns, who call themselves government, to fix it for you?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

Since "Freedom" and "theft" are not things, as you believe, then it is irrelevant to discuss them with you. It would be akin to talking about different kinds of mermaids at a zoological conference.

No, but if you want to talk about things in reality you have to ground your definitions in reality. Not just say "well blah blah freedom is obviously this" because it isn't obviously anything. In realistic terms, it doesn't exist. In legal terms it can and does exist, but that's because the definition is agreed upon until it's changed through exactly what I described -- making a argument and backing it up. You just expect people to go right along with your definitions which again shows you don't think that deeply about these things. All you've done here is just engage in mental masturbation.

And as for the question regarding the free market, if you can't "physically solve" the issue yourself and the free market can not as well, what is your option? Using a band of men with guns, who call themselves government, to fix it for you?

Again, stop throwing around labels like we already agree with you. They don't call themselves the Government, they are the Government. That's a real thing.

However, yes, that's currently an option I have. So if you want to make an argument answer that question: who besides the free market is available to solve an issue I may have with the free market? Don't say the individual, I already said it's beyond his/her capacity.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

No, but if you want to talk about things in reality you have to ground your definitions in reality. Not just say "well blah blah freedom is obviously this" because it isn't obviously anything. In realistic terms, it doesn't exist. In legal terms it can and does exist, but that's because the definition is agreed upon until it's changed through exactly what I described -- making a argument and backing it up. You just expect people to go right along with your definitions which again shows you don't think that deeply about these things. All you've done here is just engage in mental masturbation.
Again, stop throwing around labels like we already agree with you. They don't call themselves the Government, they are the Government. That's a real thing.

However, yes, that's currently an option I have. So if you want to make an argument answer that question: who besides the free market is available to solve an issue I may have with the free market? Don't say the individual, I already said it's beyond his/her capacity.

The Government is nothing but a group of men and women that, through some means, appointed themselves in charge over people, that uses Force to achieve their means. It isn't real like a apple is real or a person is real. They are as real as a forest. A Forest is just a bunch of Trees. There is no such thing as Government.

[Destructus86]

Originally Posted by SuBe

The Government is nothing but a group of men and women that, through some means, appointed themselves in charge over people, that uses Force to achieve their means. It isn't real like a apple is real or a person is real. They are as real as a forest. A Forest is just a bunch of Trees. There is no such thing as Government.

We appointed them...foolishly I might add.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

The Government is nothing but a group of men and women that, through some means, appointed themselves in charge over people, that uses Force to achieve their means. It isn't real like a apple is real or a person is real. They are as real as a forest. A Forest is just a bunch of Trees. There is no such thing as Government.

First of all a Government is not "nothing but", it is a something, a very real something. Frankly, I'd urge you to seek professional help if you honestly believe what you just wrote; that's fairly delusional. Either that or you don't really understand what you're talking about and are now resorting to high levels of existentialism to support your argument.

Also, Forests aren't real? That's really kooky sounding. I'm sure I've been in several. That's what a group of trees is, a forest. It's a word to describe a group of trees. Trees aren't even trees, by the way, they're just a collection of atoms and mostly dead space.

As for Government not being real? No, it pretty much is. I like how you gloss over "through some means". Like you're unaware this country holds elections. You may have a problem with them, to which I say you are not alone, but it is real, like an apple is real. Apples don't call themselves apples by the way. That's an arbitrary language distinction just like anything in language.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

We appointed them...foolishly I might add.

I'm not talking about the men and women that rule the United States, I'm talking about the concept of Government in General. In the past they would be the "elders", the "warlords", "Appointed by God", etc. In today's society, they are elected in a system where the overwhelming majority of voters are indoctrinated into the system where Government is Constant. This is why it is so hard to imagine life differently, because we are molded by the State as always being there.

But, what happens when we have this construct in our minds? Problems don't really get solved, they have the false answer attributed to it. Magic spells called laws are put into place with the hopes that it will go away, and often times, it makes the matters worse. Look at what happened with Katrina or Hurricane Sandy. People are still waiting for or completely dependent on Government solutions that may not ever come. And even then, those "answers" are at the cost of other people without their voluntary consent.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

I'm not talking about the men and women that rule the United States, I'm talking about the concept of Government in General. In the past they would be the "elders", the "warlords", "Appointed by God", etc. In today's society, they are elected in a system where the overwhelming majority of voters are indoctrinated into the system where Government is Constant. This is why it is so hard to imagine life differently, because we are molded by the State as always being there.

But, what happens when we have this construct in our minds? Problems don't really get solved, they have the false answer attributed to it. Magic spells called laws are put into place with the hopes that it will go away, and often times, it makes the matters worse. Look at what happened with Katrina or Hurricane Sandy. People are still waiting for or completely dependent on Government solutions that may not ever come. And even then, those "answers" are at the cost of other people without their voluntary consent.

Yes, but humans created Government, so it's not a just a line of thinking. It wasn't inflicted upon us, it's very much self-imposed. Also we created it the world over, without consulting every human about it, so it's safe to assume these are fairly common tendencies for our species, not something that can be claimed isn't real.

You call these things "magic" and "fiction" but they are real.

This all seems very self-centered frankly. Like just because you aren't the authority there is no authority. Authority is a real thing. It's not magic. Most high order mammals construct "governments". The reason you're not the authority is no one of any consequence thinks you should be. Sorry.

You're just making a very stubborn existentialist argument.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by The Question

I can.

Taxation is an arrangement in which a person is given citizenship of a nation and all of the protection and services that entails, and in return for that they give a small portion of their earnings to that nation to contribute toward paying for expenses those protections and services require. Paying taxes is the equivalent of paying rent.

Now, you might argue that it's not totally analogous because when you don't pay your rent, your landlord simply kicks you out, he doesn't imprison you. But when the scaled up equivalent of that is deportation, well, I think a relatively short sentence in a minimum security prison for tax evasion is a much more preferable consequence than deportation.

The only area in which I agree with you is when people who live completely off the grid and manage to be self sufficient and not ever use outside resources, a lifestyle I would never choose for myself but fully respect, are bullied by local authorities to force them into a situation where they legally have to pay up to the government. That is wrong. But that doesn't mean that taxation itself is wrong, I don't believe that at all. I'm happy to pay my fair share, and I think other people who use the same public resources I do should as well. It's a perfectly reasonable system, it's just that forcing people to exist inside of that system when they don't want to and manage not to without hurting anyone is overstepping a boundary.

But taxation, in of itself, is absolutely not theft.

Sooooo... nothing to say to that?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by The Question

Sooooo... nothing to say to that?

No, don't you know, it's all magic and fairy tales.

Maybe he should write a letter to the President threatening to murder him so he can verify how real the Government is.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Also laws are not there to eliminate crime. They are created so you can prosecute crime. Most laws don't necessarily lessen the criminal activity (like rape, rape hasn't really decreased much ever). Only through funding the proper agencies and enabling the proper method of carrying out enforcement will decrease crime. Laws in and of themselves are only a guide on policy, a prescription for carrying out said policy. However if the law lacks any teeth (i.e. funding) it won't do anything except sit on the books symbolically.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

First of all a Government is not "nothing but", it is a something, a very real something. Frankly, I'd urge you to seek professional help if you honestly believe what you just wrote; that's fairly delusional. Either that or you don't really understand what you're talking about and are now resorting to high levels of existentialism to support your argument.

Also, Forests aren't real? That's really kooky sounding. I'm sure I've been in several. That's what a group of trees is, a forest. It's a word to describe a group of trees. Trees aren't even trees, by the way, they're just a collection of atoms and mostly dead space.

As for Government not being real? No, it pretty much is. I like how you gloss over "through some means". Like you're unaware this country holds elections. You may have a problem with them, to which I say you are not alone, but it is real, like an apple is real. Apples don't call themselves apples by the way. That's an arbitrary language distinction just like anything in language.

What is real is what you have the ability to manipulate. An apple is an apple. a Bunch of apples is a descriptor for a number, which as I'm sure you know is not real. It's still just apples. A Forest isn't real, it is a descriptor for the amount of Trees. A Crowd isn't real, it is a descriptor for more than one person. A Government isn't real. It is a descriptor of people. Like I said, it is nothing but men and women who have assumed control over other men and women.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by The Question

Sooooo... nothing to say to that?

I'm getting to it. I'm trying to answer as I can since I am at work. My apologies.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

What is real is what you have the ability to manipulate.

Bald assertion. Prove this. I can't manipulate another galaxy, but that galaxy is real. I can't manipulate gravity, quite the opposite in fact, and it's real. I can't manipulate atoms, also real. I can't manipulate the planet Jupiter, very real.

Originally Posted by SuBe

An apple is an apple. a Bunch of apples is a descriptor for a number, which as I'm sure you know is not real. It's still just apples. A Forest isn't real, it is a descriptor for the amount of Trees. A Crowd isn't real, it is a descriptor for more than one person. A Government isn't real. It is a descriptor of people. Like I said, it is nothing but men and women who have assumed control over other men and women.

A tree is just a descriptor of a grouping of atoms. The tree isn't truly separate from anything. It's atoms are constantly exchanged with other things, and it never keeps any atoms, nor does it have a single atom in it that it had yesterday. So our word tree is just a descriptor of a thing we've decided to call "tree". Just like crowds, governments and forests.

This line of argumentation is beyond bizarre and has no point.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by The Question

I can.

Taxation is an arrangement in which a person is given citizenship of a nation and all of the protection and services that entails, and in return for that they give a small portion of their earnings to that nation to contribute toward paying for expenses those protections and services require. Paying taxes is the equivalent of paying rent.

It is not an arrangement (or agreement) because at no point are you asked whether you would like to opt out. There isn't such a thing as a Social Contract because the this "contract" is forced upon the masses. Just because the taxes are forced from you and a portion of that wealth is used for your benefit doesn't mean that it is moral or voluntary. I can mug you, take your wallet and leave you $5 out of it and I am not doing you a favor, just as much as I can take your money, buy you a hot dog and say "If it wasn't for me, you wouldn't have a meal. To be able to live without force and coercion would be that you these "protetions, etc" would be achieved voluntarily. If I wished protection, I would pay for it or provide it myself. It wouldn't be forced from me whether I wanted it or not.

Now, you might argue that it's not totally analogous because when you don't pay your rent, your landlord simply kicks you out, he doesn't imprison you. But when the scaled up equivalent of that is deportation, well, I think a relatively short sentence in a minimum security prison for tax evasion is a much more preferable consequence than deportation.

But if Government's role is supposed to be protection of life and property, or more accurately, providing justice where injustice has occurred, would that warrant being able the ability to take without voluntary measures? Paying "Rent" isn't analogous because renting is a consensual and voluntary act. It is a contractual obligation that is taken for the benefit for both. In Taxation, it can be taken whether you want it or not and if you don't, you are put into a cage and your future liberty is taken from you. That's not any more voluntary than a women being raped at knife point submitting for fear of further harm.

The only area in which I agree with you is when people who live completely off the grid and manage to be self sufficient and not ever use outside resources, a lifestyle I would never choose for myself but fully respect, are bullied by local authorities to force them into a situation where they legally have to pay up to the government. That is wrong. But that doesn't mean that taxation itself is wrong, I don't believe that at all. I'm happy to pay my fair share, and I think other people who use the same public resources I do should as well. It's a perfectly reasonable system, it's just that forcing people to exist inside of that system when they don't want to and manage not to without hurting anyone is overstepping a boundary.

But taxation, in of itself, is absolutely not theft.

Even living "off the grid" would be an effect because of the unjust laws. It's altering one's life to conform the the laws and threats that would go along for living under the Government. It's not allowing one to live their life without threat and coercion.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

It is not an arrangement (or agreement) because at no point are you asked whether you would like to opt out.

Just because you agree to something doesn't mean that person has to ask whether you'd like to opt out. That doesn't even apply in the free market.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Bald assertion. Prove this. I can't manipulate another galaxy, but that galaxy is real. I can't manipulate gravity, quite the opposite in fact, and it's real. I can't manipulate atoms, also real. I can't manipulate the planet Jupiter, very real.

A tree is just a descriptor of a grouping of atoms. The tree isn't truly separate from anything. It's atoms are constantly exchanged with other things, and it never keeps any atoms, nor does it have a single atom in it that it had yesterday. So our word tree is just a descriptor of a thing we've decided to call "tree". Just like crowds, governments and forests.

This line of argumentation is beyond bizarre and has no point.

The Term "atom" is used to describe the make up of what you can manipulate. It's used to explain what they are, but it doesn't change what you can physically manipulate with your own hands.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

The Term "atom" is used to describe the make up of what you can manipulate. It's used to explain what they are, but it doesn't change what you can physically manipulate with your own hands.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Lol whut

You have fun trying that.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Just because you agree to something doesn't mean that person has to ask whether you'd like to opt out. That doesn't even apply in the free market.

What obligation do I have in the free market that I didn't consent to?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

What obligation do I have in the free market that I didn't consent to?

I can coerce you into buying something under false pretenses, then make it impossible for you to nullify the contract after the fact.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by SuBe

It is not an arrangement (or agreement) because at no point are you asked whether you would like to opt out. There isn't such a thing as a Social Contract because the this "contract" is forced upon the masses. Just because the taxes are forced from you and a portion of that wealth is used for your benefit doesn't mean that it is moral or voluntary. I can mug you, take your wallet and leave you $5 out of it and I am not doing you a favor, just as much as I can take your money, buy you a hot dog and say "If it wasn't for me, you wouldn't have a meal. To be able to live without force and coercion would be that you these "protetions, etc" would be achieved voluntarily. If I wished protection, I would pay for it or provide it myself. It wouldn't be forced from me whether I wanted it or not.

It is absolutely a social contract. Your mugging analogy is erroneous. The government isn't taking money from you and then leaving you a percentage of it. They are offering services and you can pay for it. You can choose not to pay for it, but then you can no longer enjoy those services. It is entirely possible to opt out. You can live off the grid and not partake of any public services. But if you do you have to pay for it. That is not theft by any stretch of the imagination.

As for it being more "free" to have to pay for such services individually, perhaps that is true, but many people are not able to do that themselves or, for whatever reason, can only get by with the help of the community and public resources. And for most other people, having public resources makes their lives a lot easier. Paying taxes makes my life significantly simpler than the way of life you describe, I'd definitely prefer it to that.

Originally Posted by SuBe

But if Government's role is supposed to be protection of life and property, or more accurately, providing justice where injustice has occurred, would that warrant being able the ability to take without voluntary measures? Paying "Rent" isn't analogous because renting is a consensual and voluntary act. It is a contractual obligation that is taken for the benefit for both. In Taxation, it can be taken whether you want it or not and if you don't, you are put into a cage and your future liberty is taken from you. That's not any more voluntary than a women being raped at knife point submitting for fear of further harm.

There are voluntary measures: You can leave. You can no longer be a citizen of this country and benefit from it's protections and services. You could live in the wilderness, or come kind of libertarian village, or become Amish, or whatever. It is 100% voluntary because you have the option of opting out.

It's exactly like paying rent: If you want to live here, you have to pay your fair share. If you don't pay, leave. If you refuse to pay and yet stick around, the authorities will get involved.

Originally Posted by SuBe

Even living "off the grid" would be an effect because of the unjust laws. It's altering one's life to conform the the laws and threats that would go along for living under the Government. It's not allowing one to live their life without threat and coercion.

It is exactly that. If you don't want to pay taxes, then you don't get the protections and services that taxes pay for. That seems completely fair to me.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by SuBe

What obligation do I have in the free market that I didn't consent to?

You can be put into a financial situation where you have no other options but to consent to the whims of others. It happens all the time.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by The Question

You can be put into a financial situation where you have no other options but to consent to the whims of others. It happens all the time.

And this "financial situation" has absolutely no responsibility to the individual? What decisions would have been made by the individual that would have lead them to be responsible for any debt that is not the fault of their own?

If I take out a loan, I am obligated to pay back that loan? If I consent to a contract, I am obligated to delivered what I promise. The only entity that supplies debt onto others without their consent is Government.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by SuBe

And this "financial situation" has absolutely no responsibility to the individual? What decisions would have been made by the individual that would have lead them to be responsible for any debt that is not the fault of their own?

Getting sick. A death in the family. Natural disaster. Being a victim of theft. Being lied to during a business transaction. Suffering a serious, debilitating injury.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I can coerce you into buying something under false pretenses, then make it impossible for you to nullify the contract after the fact.

Then that agreement is based on fraud.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by SuBe

Then that agreement is based on fraud.

Yes. And as fraud is one of the easiest ways to make money easily and quickly, there's likely to be a lot of that in a world with no government regulation of business.

You say that market forces would eliminate fraud. It's entirely possible that they could also encourage more people to engage in it. It makes making money quick and easy, and when making money is the goal I don't see why everyone wouldn't do it.

I think you're underestimating how often it is that the truly cold and ruthless are the ones who rise to power in the world of business and would be the ones making these decisions.