Do you support taxation?

[jkernan7553]

Sythe may i ask what political party you consider yourself to be in?
I think that if we had a true democracy certain taxes would be ok, only for the necessities though.

 

[trumiz]

How else do you expect to pay for your public services? I like the majority of people don't like paying taxes on my wages, as i'm sure when it comes to the end of the month i'd be a lot better off. But it's been going on for hundreads of years and it's not going to stop anytime soon. I'm sure some of the money could be spent in a better way, but hey we vote (not always the right choice, but i'm sure that's a whole different argument) to decide on where and how this money gets spent. There's always going to be factors of how the country's run that people don't agree on, but we're all different. I guess if you don't like it get out.

 

Sythe may i ask what political party you consider yourself to be in?

I don't belong to a political party, because such is ridiculous. Why would you belong to a slavery advocacy group when all you want is the abolition of slavery?

How else do you expect to pay for your public services?

Is the internet public? How do you pay for that?

Use that gray matter. I know it's difficult, but really try.

 

[jkernan7553]

I don't belong to a political party, because such is ridiculous. Why would you belong to a slavery advocacy group when all you want is the abolition of slavery?

Ok, i'm trying to learn your stance here so i can argue
Would you rather have no government whatsoever?

 

Ok, i'm trying to learn your stance here so i can argue
Would you rather have no government whatsoever?

That depends on your definition.

These are my politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

 

[jkernan7553]

That depends on your definition.

These are my politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

So you believe that the government, if there even is one, shouldn't build any public services(roads, etc.) and we should be cooperative in our "region", right?

If that's the case.. i almost agree with you.

I just think that our technology if that were to happen would be so much less advanced.

 

So you believe that the government, if there even is one, shouldn't build any public services(roads, etc.) and we should be cooperative in our "region", right?

If that's the case.. i almost agree with you.

I just think that our technology if that were to happen would be so much less advanced.

I believe that government (as in that which governs behaviour), if there is to be such a thing, should not initiate force.

But then why call it a government? Which leads you to anarcho-capitalism, which is sort of the concrete to which voluntaryism is the abstract.

To my mind politics is a science, with law as its product, just as medicine is a science, with medication and advice as its product. Law is no more arbitrary than medicine; humans have a definite nature from which definite principles can be arrived at. Principles having been established, one may freely reason from them to correct conclusions.

As such it is patently ridiculous to me that everyone should "vote" to determine the law, or that we should have what are essentially kings and queens (albeit by different names) who determine the law. It is quite as ridiculous as having non-experts vote on the best way to perform heart surgery, or having the church give its ecclesiastical opinion on the origin of a disease. It is simply quackery and has no place in civil society.

If you put the law into its proper place, then you find that it doesn't need to be centrally administered, and such was ridiculous to begin with.

So technically, if a "government" just enforces the law -- where the law is just and thereby restricted to the preservation of negative (i.e. proper) rights -- then you might call everyone who is honest in his/her dealings "the government".

But the word "government" so frequently refers to a pack of murderous criminals in common use that it is unrecoverable. So it is easiest to say simply that: No I don't support government.

 

[jkernan7553]

I believe that government (as in that which governs behaviour), if there is to be such a thing, should not initiate force.

But then why call it a government? Which leads you to anarcho-capitalism, which is sort of the concrete to which voluntaryism is the abstract.

To my mind politics is a science, with law as its product, just as medicine is a science, with medication and advice as its product. Law is no more arbitrary than medicine; humans have a definite nature from which definite principles can be arrived at. Principles having been established, one may freely reason from them to correct conclusions.

As such it is patently ridiculous to me that everyone should "vote" to determine the law, or that we should have what are essentially kings and queens (albeit by different names) who determine the law. It is quite as ridiculous as having non-experts vote on the best way to perform heart surgery, or having the church give its ecclesiastical opinion on the origin of a disease. It is simply quackery and has no place in civil society.

If you put the law into its proper place, then you find that it doesn't need to be centrally administered, and such was ridiculous to begin with.

So technically, if a "government" just enforces the law -- where the law is just and thereby restricted to the preservation of negative (i.e. proper) rights -- then you might call everyone who is honest in his/her dealings "the government".

But the word "government" so frequently refers to a pack of murderous criminals in common use that it is unrecoverable. So it is easiest to say simply that no I don't support government.

That's probably the best argument i have heard about government in a long while.
I agree with you pretty much 100%. It's not like it will ever change (soon) so we might aswell deal with it, right?

 

That's probably the best argument i have heard about government in a long while.
I agree with you pretty much 100%. It's not like it will ever change (soon) so we might aswell deal with it, right?

No. It certainly will change. The survival of the species depends on it.

I intend to be a driving force toward that change, even if everyone else gives up.

 

[jkernan7553]

No. It certainly will change. The survival of the species depends on it.

I intend to be a driving force toward that change, even if everyone else gives up.

Do you really believe it will change in your lifetime?

 

Do you really believe it will change in your lifetime?

http://freestateproject.org/

I do, actually, even if we only get a small portion of the globe or space to ourselves. Libertarians are not easily stopped.

 

[jkernan7553]

http://freestateproject.org/

I do, actually, even if we only get a small portion of the globe or space to ourselves. Libertarians are not easily stopped.

wow, never even knew about this....i'll look into it. Do you live in new hampshire atm, haha?

 

wow, never even knew about this....i'll look into it. Do you live in new hampshire atm, haha?

No, there is an entire army of thugs on the North American border which prevent me from moving. Otherwise I might seriously consider it.

 

[Itz Me]

I believe that government (as in that which governs behaviour), if there is to be such a thing, should not initiate force.

But then why call it a government? Which leads you to anarcho-capitalism, which is sort of the concrete to which voluntaryism is the abstract.

To my mind politics is a science, with law as its product, just as medicine is a science, with medication and advice as its product. Law is no more arbitrary than medicine; humans have a definite nature from which definite principles can be arrived at. Principles having been established, one may freely reason from them to correct conclusions.

As such it is patently ridiculous to me that everyone should "vote" to determine the law, or that we should have what are essentially kings and queens (albeit by different names) who determine the law. It is quite as ridiculous as having non-experts vote on the best way to perform heart surgery, or having the church give its ecclesiastical opinion on the origin of a disease. It is simply quackery and has no place in civil society.

If you put the law into its proper place, then you find that it doesn't need to be centrally administered, and such was ridiculous to begin with.

So technically, if a "government" just enforces the law -- where the law is just and thereby restricted to the preservation of negative (i.e. proper) rights -- then you might call everyone who is honest in his/her dealings "the government".

But the word "government" so frequently refers to a pack of murderous criminals in common use that it is unrecoverable. So it is easiest to say simply that: No I don't support government.

This is what I've believed in for a long time, however I never could organize my thoughts in such a way.

 

[TahBreezy]

In my perspective, I am totally against taxes. Especially income taxes, you have to take money out of your hard work.