Initiation of Force, for the Statists out there

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Keeper of Time, Sep 10, 2013.

  1. So I have to conform or be exiled. Doesn't that statement just ring of freedom and liberty?

     
  2.  
    I wouldnt mind giving some of my paychecks to charity or some city organized help agency, or giving some money to maintain roads or whatever....
     
    But it should be voluntary.
     
  3. Ugh. Same old cliche and tireless arguments that the indoctrinated citizen continues to spew one by one. Its really quite amazing. 
     
  4. you haven't said one original thing that I've read so far.  so not sure what yer getting at.  i too listen to coast to coast lol!
     
  5.  
    Wow this is worse than a fucking hydra. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.
    Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot.
    Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.
    Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.
    Statist: Well there is a 'social contract,' that binds people to their governments.
    Me: There is no such thing as a 'social contract.' Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a 'contract,' then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it 'charity.'
    Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads.
    Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?
    Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.
    Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?
    Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .
    Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government?
    Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.
    Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?
    Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.
    Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]
    Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.
    Me: Why?
    Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .
    Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.
    Statist: To some degree, of course.
    Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?
    Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.
    Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?
    Statist: Of course not!
    Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?
    Statist: I guess not.
    Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?
    Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.
    Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you arevoluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?
    Statist: I can certainly see that position.
    Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?
    Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.
    Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.
     
  6.  
    Okay so we agree that your analogy is a bad one then?
     
    So fine I will talk about something else.
     
    If I had more money in my pocket I'm sure moving would be easier, lowering taxation would help. But I should be able to live freely where I choose and live my life as I see fit without violating anyone else.
     
  7. @[member="Accident Hero"]
     
    I also think you fail to grasp what socialism is. Either that or you ARE a socialist and know it.
     
    So say... We all get together and vote a new proposal through to create a curfew. Lights out at 9pm. No one's allowed out til 5am. All meals will be provided by the government. Transportation will be public.
     
    You're all dandy with this as long as it's what everyone else votes for?
     
    Cool, welcome to the collective brother.
     
  8. Nice in theory but you can't build a society relying on the kindness of strangers.  I can't see it happening.
     
  9.  
     
    But you can build it on extortion, theft and violence for them to comply? Wut
     
  10. and you can build it on the kindness of strangers?
     
  11.  
    I would rather build a society based around kindness than one based on extortion.
     
  12.  
     
    You build it off free trade and individuals acting freely in a free market. 
     
  13. It's called cognitive liberty and people need to utilize it.
     
  14. Besides the endless wars, where does the rest of your tax money go? Definitely not where YOU intended them to.
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XddjM_efnmk
     
  15. hasn't worked yet.
     
  16. #36 Mairuzu, Sep 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2013
    No shit. We still have people thinking taxation isnt theft. Something so easy to understand.
     
  17. That's because it requires cognitive liberty, and that's something hard to come by in large masses of people. Especially when you still have people seeking to coerce and control others. They steal your cognitive liberty by creating cognitive dissonance in your thinking. (telling you something like taxation isn't theft when it is. great example)
     
  18. That's what happens when government influenced public schools instill false morality in our vulnerable little minds. You think them stealing money from you is good. As if nothing bad can come with giving someone authority over another. However they obtained this authority in the first place....
     
     
    Oh yeah. The monkey and the banana. 
     
  19. #39 forty winks, Sep 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2013
    That's just another point of view.  It's not a sacred position.  I could just as easily claim that yer carrying water for the capitalist pigs that are ruing the earth.  I won't say that, but I could and it would be as true as what you claim about my position.
     
     
    What do we do with this in the context of this debate -
     
    American psychologist and writer Timothy Leary has summarized this concept by postulating two “new commandments for the molecular age”:
    • Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.
    • Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from changing his or her own consciousness.<sup>[2]</sup>
     
  20. I've only ever gone to public schools so why don't you tell me what happens in private schools?
     

Share This Page