Coward debaters

[brambrom]

You wish to pay no taxes, yet actively participate in a society in which payment of taxes is requisite. If this is one of your intellectual positions, then I mock it.

 

You wish to pay no taxes, yet actively participate in a society in which payment of taxes is requisite. If this is one of your intellectual positions, then I mock it.

Define society for me.

 

[TDD]

You are.

I was wrong about global warming, among many other things.

Now let me ask you a question.

You come here and presume to insult me by calling me dishonest in the realm of ideas. What is it that you have contributed to the realm of ideas? Upon what authority, by what argument, do you presume to attack my epistemology?

Insult you? I made an observation - one that I am certainly not alone on. You appear condescending in every post I've seen; you needn't take offence, I was merely curious as to whether or not you realized this.

Your first post was the invitation.

 

Insult you? I made an observation - one that I am certainly not alone on. You appear condescending in every post I've seen; you needn't take offence, I was merely curious as to whether or not you realized this.

Your first post was the invitation.

Well I don't know if you realize it or not (I expect you do) but asking a philosopher if he thinks he is infallible is extremely insulting.

And you misidentify scorn as condescension. I morally condemn people who hold evil ideas and refuse to review their premises. I do not apologize for this.

 

[TDD]

Well I don't know if you realize it or not (I expect you do) but asking a philosopher if he thinks he is infallible is extremely insulting.

And you misidentify scorn as condescension. I morally condemn people who hold evil ideas and refuse to review their premises. I do not apologize for this.

Could you elaborate on what an "evil idea" is? This post makes you seem no better than those that condemned others for believing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or that the Earth was not flat. Are these evil ideas specific to your thinking, or ones that the majority of people would agree with?

 

[brambrom]

Define society for me.

The most general definition suffice. Primarily, an organization comprised of interacting human beings.

Naturally, I don't know much about you. But I'm assuming you shop at stores, go to school(s), work for individuals and/or businesses, etc. These are essentially all members of this society. These members have contracted with (in many senses) a government which requires taxes. Are you saying you wish to mingle with these members while separating yourself from said government?

 

Could you elaborate on what an "evil idea" is?

Certainly. Evil ideas in the roughest definition are ideas which get people killed through no fault of their own. War, religion, conscription, inflation, bailouts, communism, socialism, the nuclear bomb, drug criminalization, and government interference with the functioning of the market (yes that most certainly gets people killed.)

Evil ideas generally stem from an evil epistemology, but can also stem from corrupt premises or corrupt reasoning. Such as: "I like cheap goods, therefore slavery is justified" or "I like free healthcare, therefore theft in the form of taxation is justified".

The good and the true are that which conform to reality. The bad and the false is that which is based on whim, emotion, "faith", or any other kind of irrational or corrupt seed point.

I am absolutely the first to point out that I am in no way perfect. But the first thing I will say immediately following that is that evil ideas have cost the lives of billions of human beings, and have caused much if not all of the suffering in the history of the world. If you want to come into the realm of ideas and start splashing around, then expect to be sent out of the room.

The power of ideas is the nuclear bomb, the super computer, the electric motor, and everything that has ever been and will ever be produced by the human mind. It is not something to be toyed with.

 

The most general definition suffice. Primarily, an organization comprised of interacting human beings.

Alright, so to substitute this in:

"You wish to pay no taxes, yet actively participate in an organization comprised of interacting human beings in which payment of taxes is requisite"

So which organization do you refer to? Why would I participate in an organization which steals from me? Help me understand your position.

Naturally, I don't know much about you. But I'm assuming you shop at stores, go to school(s), work for individuals and/or businesses, etc. These are essentially all members of this society. These members have contracted with (in many senses) a government which requires taxes. Are you saying you wish to mingle with these members while separating yourself from said government?

Your argument is a non-sequitur. I interact on a voluntary basis (i.e. no force) with many people in my day to day life. The fact that they are forced to pay extortion money to criminals doing business as a "government" has nothing to do with my voluntary interaction with them. Why would it?

 

[brambrom]

Why would I participate in an organization which steals from me? Help me understand your position.

Don't know. Why would you? You're saying this organization which requires taxes upon interaction with its members doesn't exist?

Your argument is a non-sequitur. I interact on a voluntary basis (i.e. no force) with many people in my day to day life. The fact that they are forced to pay extortion money to criminals doing business as a "government" has nothing to do with my voluntary interaction with them. Why would it?

Would these persons/organizations provide you with the same benefits if there were no taxes paid by anyone? Or would they cease to function as they now do? I understand your view, since these members of society don't explicitly provide services only for tax-payers. But there is no need to explicitly declare something universally applicable to everyone within the state. If society were otherwise, for example, divided between tax-payers and non-tax-payer, don't you think treatment of the two groups would be quite different throughout society?

 

Don't know. Why would you? You're saying this organization which requires taxes upon interaction with its members doesn't exist?

Well its your position that such an organization exists.

From my perspective I go out in the world everyday and deal with individual human beings on a voluntary basis. I don't understand your argument as to why I should stop doing this.

Would these persons/organizations provide you with the same benefits if there were no taxes paid by anyone? Or would they cease to function as they now do?

Well lets suppose that they did. Would this justify theft, slavery and war?

I understand your view, since these members of society don't explicitly provide services only for tax-payers. But there is no need to explicitly declare something universally applicable to everyone within the state.

I refer you here, where you can make your arguments as to the existence of a thing called a "state" and my supposed existence within it:
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=940416

If society were otherwise, for example, divided between tax-payers and non-tax-payer, don't you think treatment of the two groups would be quite different throughout society?

Certainly. Incidentally, your definition of society is such that you continually misuse the term with fallacious consequences.

The two halves of human culture you are looking for are called criminal and non-criminal, also known as the public and the private sector, and as the difference between communism and capitalism; infrequently although more accurately referred to as the political and the economic means.

What it comes down to is very simple: do you support the provision of services at the barrel of a gun? If so, then you are on the criminal side of the coin. If not, then you are on the voluntaryist side of the coin.