[quote name='Mist425']I never said what the majority thinks is right is necessarily what is actually right, just that it's obvious what popular opinion is and is not in regards to the issue of taxation.[/quote]
No arguments there. I wasn't saying that you said that either.
When I called straw man, you had actually quoted a piece of my writing and placed it into a different context.
[quote name='Mist425']There is no fraud in the agreement of citizenship. With the exception of those who are under the age of 18, the threshold at which an individual is typically considered an adult, a person is more or less free to be a citizen of what nations they please (granted, for many fucked up reasons it isn't quite so easy from developing --> developed countries, especially the US, but let's limit the discussion to the situation that would most affect libertarians today). [/quote]
There is no agreement of citizenship. The agreement is non-existent. So yea, it'd be hard to find fraud within something that doesn't actually exist.
[quote name='Mist425']There is only one real rule: consent to the law of the land and you are entitled to the protections of one's rights afforded by the state
These 'rights' afforded by the state tend to change on a whim, making them privileges. Furthermore, I never consented to the law of the land. Simply being here doesn't imply consent. The government doesn't own all the land.
[quote name='Mist425']In short, you do not have the right to be absolutely free from the intrusion of a third party into your life.[/quote]
You don't have a right to intrude on my life and property. Note that this contradicts the quoted statement.
This goes back to self-ownership, the non-aggression principle and the homesteading principle as the foundation for property rights.
[quote name='Mist425']There is nothing written into the code of the universe, into your DNA, that says you are entitled to this.[/quote]
Ethics can be logically derived from a small set of assumptions. I posted a link above to Molyneux's proof.
[quote name='Mist425']Rather, the lengths or limits to which this intrusion can legally occur is, naturally, determined by the code of law created by the members of the society in which you reside. I find it very surprising that libertarians can drone on and on about the entitlements of the impoverished while a central foundation of their political viewpoint rests on a much deeper sense of entitlement - very hypocritical. [/quote]
It's not entitlement, it's just ethics.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, let's take a look at the United States' history in contrast to the US Constitution. Can you find one decade where the US didn't violate its social contract? Please start by defining what is actually in this contract, since I've never seen it.
[quote name='Mist425']The United States has its own particular set of laws that its people have developed over the years. In these laws, and obviously, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that outlined some of the most basic ones, the rights of its citizenry is outlined. You are right that laws being on the books does not necessarily make them 'right' in a sort of ethical sense, but again, I never claimed that. All I'm claiming is that a system of taxation is something that the populace consents to, and furthermore, that it is something that does not explicitly violate the rights of the citizenry as outlined in our legal doctrine. [/quote]
If the populace consented to being slaves, would you still defend it?
[quote name='Mist425']Your cries of "theft", therefore, are misguided.
You choose to be an American citizen every day that you remain in this country.[/quote]
I don't choose to be an American citizen. I choose to live here as opposed to another human farm that you would call 'nations'. There's a difference.
Just because I remain in an area that is rampant with theft, doesn't mean I consent to being stolen from.
[quote name='Mist425']It seems obvious that you wish that you could relinquish that title yet remain within the boundaries of the US. It's fair enough to hold that opinion, but you're not entitled to have your wish realized.[/quote]
No one's entitled to anything. Ethics aren't mandatory.
[quote name='Mist425']I'm curious, do you believe in a higher power or some supernatural force that grants humans these rights of which you speak? Does this apply to other animals as well? If not, why not?
I'm trying to understand why you should have this very strong assumption about these inherent rights of humans, external of any accord reached by human society or a collection of humans.
No to the first question. Yes to a degree for the second question. The animal question is a little more difficult because I don't think that say a mouse that's in my house destroying things has the same amount of rights as a domesticated dog that wandered onto my property. The dog deserves a degree of care while I really couldn't care less if the property owner wants to kill the mouse.
In short, animals have rights, just not the same ones that humans have.
[quote name='Mist425']I beg to differ. The assumption being that you can leave the country, this means that you can choose which country to be a citizen of (or I suppose you could just live on international waters or Antarctica if the whole human-society thing wasn't really for you).[/quote]
All of the countries are human farms (see: slave plantations with less restrictions) and the two options in parentheses aren't really feasible if I wanted to survive.
[quote name='Mist425']Choosing to be a citizen of a country means consenting to the rules of that society, as I outlined above as one of the most basic rules of citizenship.[/quote]
You have not outlined this. Not even close. You've yet to describe what the agreement entails and how I agreed to it. Simply being/living in an area doesn't imply consent.
[quote name='Mist425']It's very ironic that you shit all over social contracts due to their being a theoretical construct, while in the same breath praising natural rights, another theoretical construct.[/quote]
No, I shit on them because even if you believe they're a theoretical construct, the other side doesn't hold up their end of the implied bargain, so why the fuck is it a legitimate agreement when one side doesn't have to fulfill their supposed obligations?
Force is defined as violence, fraud or threats thereof.The state is the only institution that is allowed to initiate force. The initiation of force is not ethical in any circumstance because to be in favor of the initiation of force would be contradictory as you would want someone to attack you for no good reason. Therefore, the state is a criminal institution.
The state holds normative power largely due to indoctrination, but when one starts analyzing their actions from an objective standpoint*, one can easily tell that they are not different from any other gang/terrorist organization except perhaps in the scale of their operations.
* An objective standpoint would be similar to what is employed within science and mathematics. One would use logic, rational analysis, empirical evidence, universality, etc. to prove hypotheses.
Edited by kstigs, 04 April 2012 - 10:21 PM.