Do voters have a right to decide where their tax money goes?

[Tony]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/09/PROPN.TMP ..full article

Voters have no right to decide how much money should go to the poor, a San Francisco judge ruled Thursday in tossing out a divisive homeless-aid reform measure approved in November.

In throwing out Proposition N -- the "Care Not Cash" initiative pushed by mayoral hopeful Gavin Newsom -- Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said only county officials can set welfare standards for the downtrodden, not voters.

Quidachay did not address the merits of Prop. N, which would cut city welfare payments to about 3,000 homeless residents from about $395 a month to $59 a month while promising shelter and food. Prop. N would have taken effect July 1.

Quidachay's ruling was applauded by homeless advocates but throws into question how a city so politically divided will address a homeless crisis that has stymied two decades of city politicians.

Quidachay's ruling also will play in the mayoral campaign of Newsom, a San Francisco supervisor and author of the Care Not Cash measure that thrust his campaign into the spotlight months ahead of other candidates.

Prop. N won nearly 60 percent of the vote in November, with solid support from businesses as well as famously liberal neighborhoods.

This judge doesnt think so.

[apoger]

>Do voters have a right to decide where their tax money goes?

No. They only have a right to replace politicians they disagree with, and only from a limited pool of candidates at that!

I don't know if that's the best system we can come up with, but it's what we have right now.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/09/PROPN.TMP ..full article



This judge doesnt think so.

I doubt the judge thinks elections are unconstitutional. If the politicians in power spend tax money in a way you don't like, vote for someone who will spend it better. Allowing everybody to refusing to sponsor government programs they don't like, just because they don't like it, is the equivalent of allowing people to refuse to obey traffic laws they don't like, just because they don't like it.

[corplinx]

That is correct, voters do not have a right to earmark their tax money. Its part of that whole representative democracy concept.

[shanek]

Originally posted by apoger
>Do voters have a right to decide where their tax money goes?

Do robbery victims have a right to decide where the money the thief took from them goes?

No. They only have a right to replace politicians they disagree with, and only from a limited pool of candidates at that!

In increasingly rigged elections to keep the incumbent parties in power.

I don't know if that's the best system we can come up with, but it's what we have right now.

It's not, but the Republicans and Democrats use dishonest tactics to keep real election reform from being considered:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18701

[Skeptic]

(sigh)

Shanek, taxes aren't robbery. Without them the government would collapse and anarchy would rule: if you want to know how life without taxes is like, where everybody is free to do as they choose, look at Sudan, Ivory Coast, or Haiti.

Frankly, while there is much wrong with the US government, the claim that it is a "dictatorship" that "robs" the people "without real elections" is irresponsible hyperbole. Obviously, those who say such things have no idea how life in a REAL kleptocratic dictatorship is like. Ask someone from Iraq or Libya, for example, or from virtually anywhere in sub-Sharan Africa.

[DrBenway]

City governments are corporate entities. Corporations have to draw up budgets outlining estimated expenses and revenues. If taxpayers can ear mark their dollars to a particular program, how will the overall budget be controlled?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(sigh)

Shanek, taxes aren't robbery. Without them the government would collapse and anarchy would rule:

(sigh)

There are other ways of paying for government programs other than taxes. As I have elucidated time and time again over the history of this forum.

And people wonder why I get exasperated...

[pathetic strawman excised and ignored]

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by shanek
There are other ways of paying for government programs other than taxes. As I have elucidated time and time again over the history of this forum.
I've lived under the present taxing system so long that I tend to forget the details of other plans that are proposed. But would your setup allow each citizen to pay the various government entities only for programs and activities he favors. And if that were the case, how would he know how much to pay? Would he be allowed to not pay from time to time if money were short? And if these payments weren't called "taxes," what would they be called?

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek

In increasingly rigged elections to keep the incumbent parties in power.


How are these elections being rigged?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I've lived under the present taxing system so long that I tend to forget the details of other plans that are proposed. But would your setup allow each citizen to pay the various government entities only for programs and activities he favors.

Pretty much. You'd pay your local fire department directly, for example, like paying your electric bill. If you've been paying, and they respond to a fire at your house, there's no charge, just like there is now. If they respond to a fire at your house and you haven't been paying, they send you a bill. There are several counties in Arkansas that do this, and probably more in other states.

And if these payments weren't called "taxes," what would they be called?

User fees, tolls, excises... ways of targeting exactly the people who use the service, and how much.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
How are these elections being rigged?

Remember that each state runs its own elections. In North Carolina, all but the incumbent parties have to spend over $100,000 just to petition to get on the ballot, and have to redo it every four years. (Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have had to do this even once.) They also have exorbitant fees and petitioning for independent and even write-in candidates. In the 2000 presidential election, they ignored Constitutionally-valid write-in votes for Ralph Nader (after denying the Green Party ballot access) and refused to let anyone examine the ballots to tell exactly how many votes were ignored. In 1998, the LP's Senate candidate's votes were "undercounted"—due to "administrative errors." But they refused to recount the votes to reflect the genuine number because there wasn't a chance of him actually winning. I myself in my 2002 bid for County Commissioner experienced restrictions on fundraising, talking to the press, etc. that did not apply to the Democrat and Republican candidates for the same office. The LP has to scrape up money and bankrupt itself to get on the ballot, while the Democrats and Republicans get millions of dollars of taxpayer money to run their party and fund their candidates. On and on and on. Similar things are happening in almost every state (although NC is one of the worst).

By the way, we recently got the NC House Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform Committee to recommend to the House bill H867, the Electoral Fairness Act, which would bring NC's ballot access requirements down to the national average (not a total solution, but a good first step). Word around the House was that it would pass easily. But the House's two speakers (BTW, the NC Constitution only calls for one Speaker for the House) conspired to even keep the bill from coming onto the House floor. One of them stated, "Although there are some legitimate political parties in existence that have not yet met this threshold in North Carolina, there are even more parties that are illegitimate that this policy has been able to keep at bay."

These are exactly the kind of things the US complains about Saddam and banana republics doing, yet the US does exactly the same thing.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by shanek
You'd pay your local fire department directly, for example, like paying your electric bill. If you've been paying, and they respond to a fire at your house, there's no charge, just like there is now. If they respond to a fire at your house and you haven't been paying, they send you a bill.
How does a community set up a fire department, or a sanitation department, or other public service? Does it float bonds or otherwise borrow the money? And how much does a house call from the fire department cost. If you pay only for the service you receive, I'd think that cost would be pretty steep in a small community. Would the same arrangement obtain for the police?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
This judge doesnt think so.
Neither do I. The fact that I oppose the invasion of Iraq does not mean that I get to deduct all the money spent on that war from my taxes. That is as it should be.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
How does a community set up a fire department, or a sanitation department, or other public service? Does it float bonds or otherwise borrow the money? And how much does a house call from the fire department cost. If you pay only for the service you receive, I'd think that cost would be pretty steep in a small community. Would the same arrangement obtain for the police?

How about a real-world example? One of those Arkansas fire departments I mentioned:

http://departments.firehouse.com/dept/ArmorelAR

Armorel-Huffman V.F.D. proudly protects 3000 people living in an area of 110 square miles. We operate out of 2 stations that protect a primarily rural area. Our department is a private department whose members are on a volunteer status.

Our department is now 11 years old. We are a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation. We are located in Northeast Arkansas in Mississippi County. We protect the small communities of Armorel, Huffman, Hickman, Number Nine, Barfield, Tomato, and a large rural area around these comunities. Also included in our area are several Steel related Industries with a total of 5000 employees. We are 100% volunteer. We are not tax supported but rather operate from donations, grants, and fundraisers. We have a 50 x 60 Fire Station in Armorel and a 30 x 40 sub-station in Huffman. We meet each monday night at 7:30 and the public is welcome. We are very proud to be servents of our community!

[Tmy]

OK lets pretend you could control where your taxes went. Imagine the costs in administering the tax allotment! What a waste.

Some of these ya-hoos think the whole government exists on the $20k they pay in taxes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
OK lets pretend you could control where your taxes went. Imagine the costs in administering the tax allotment! What a waste.

Yes, administering it would be prohibitive. That's why, wherever possible, taxes should be replaced with user fees.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I doubt the judge thinks elections are unconstitutional. If the politicians in power spend tax money in a way you don't like, vote for someone who will spend it better.

That sounds good if you don't think about it too much, but for some of us, it's pointless, because the rest of you keep voting for politicians who think their judgment about how to spend our money is better than our own.


Allowing everybody to refusing to sponsor government programs they don't like, just because they don't like it, is the equivalent of allowing people to refuse to obey traffic laws they don't like, just because they don't like it.

:rolleyes: Please. There is nothing about being expected to obey the rules while using property that does not belong to you (public roads) that involves taking something from you without your consent. Back to the drawing board for you.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(sigh) Shanek, taxes aren't robbery.

Yeah, robbery would be taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent. Oh, wait a minute ...


Without them the government would collapse and anarchy would rule:

:rolleyes:


if you want to know how life without taxes is like, where everybody is free to do as they choose, look at Sudan,Ivory Coast, or Haiti.

How did you get from "life without taxes" to "everybody is free to do as they choose"? :confused:


Frankly, while there is much wrong with the US government, the claim that it is a "dictatorship" that "robs" the people "without real elections" is irresponsible hyperbole.

Has anyone ever actually made that claim? If not, then isn't a bit hyperbolic to suggest that they have?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, administering it would be prohibitive. That's why, wherever possible, taxes should be replaced with user fees.

I can sort of agree with that.

Although it would be kind of a hoot that when you paid your taxes you would get a postcard telling you where it went.

"Dear Sir,

Your taxes helped to repaint the lines on a 13 mile section of Interstate 95 in south New Jersey. If you have any complaints about the paint, please let us know. After all it was your money that we used.

-Uncle Sam"

Of couse you'd only be able to complain about the lines on I-95
and nothing else.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tricky
Neither do I. The fact that I oppose the invasion of Iraq does not mean that I get to deduct all the money spent on that war from my taxes. That is as it should be.

Damn, no wonder the politicians can pick our pockets with so little resistance. Did you guys sleepwalk your way to these conclusions, because that's what you'd always been told by Mommy & Daddy, or did you actually apply any critical thought to them? Where the hell did you get the idea that "that is as it should be"?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
OK lets pretend you could control where your taxes went. Imagine the costs in administering the tax allotment! What a waste.

What the hell are you talking about? They have to do that now. Hell, private business do too, if they offer a variety of services from which customers may choose. You're looking for problems where they don't exist.


Some of these ya-hoos think the whole government exists on the $20k they pay in taxes.

And where is the basis for this conclusion? If you can't come up with any better points than this, you probably shouldn't go around referring to others as a "ya-hoos".

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/09/PROPN.TMP ..full article

This judge doesnt think so.

That judge is right, the voters do not have a right to decide where their tax money goes.

Voters do have a right to vote for the people running for elective offices and those representatives can have considerable influence on how the tax money is actually spent. Therefore, the voters can indirectly influence how taxes are spent, but they cannot provide detailed instructions and rules for doing so.

There are several things the Federal Gov't does that I am opposed to, however I, nor anyone else, can tell the feds how to spend my taxes.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by WMT1


, you probably shouldn't go around referring to others as a "ya-hoos".

But what if they are from Virginia!?


If Im not mistaken I think theres an old Supreme Ct case saying you dont control where your taxes go.

How would you do this. have a checklist on your taxes

"If you would like your money to go to the living expences of Chuck Smith, a CIA spy living at 321 Jihad Ave in Damascus Syria, please check here."

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
Although it would be kind of a hoot that when you paid your taxes you would get a postcard telling you where it went.

"Dear Sir,

Your taxes helped to repaint the lines on a 13 mile section of Interstate 95 in south New Jersey. If you have any complaints about the paint, please let us know. After all it was your money that we used.

-Uncle Sam"

:rolleyes: Again, you're grasping for problems. I haven't seen anyone argue that the choices need to be offered at this level of detail.


Of couse you'd only be able to complain about the lines on I-95 and nothing else.

If that's the only service you agreed to pay for, that's the only one where you'd have grounds for complaining about quality of service. It does not alter your right to complain if government does something it shouldn't be doing.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
But what if they are from Virginia!?

:confused:


If Im not mistaken I think theres an old Supreme Ct case saying you dont control where your taxes go.

Again, you guys just seem to be substituting observations about what the laws are for arguments about what they should be. Can anyone out there come up with anything better?


How would you do this. have a checklist on your taxes

"If you would like your money to go to the living expences of Chuck Smith, a CIA spy living at 321 Jihad Ave in Damascus Syria, please check here."

:rolleyes:

[Tmy]

Originally posted by WMT1


:rolleyes: Again, you're grasping for problems. I haven't seen anyone argue that the choices need to be offered at this level of detail.


So whos going to draw the line then?

Will the government be able to put to gether a budget if they dont know how much money will be available in the different pots. It just doesnt seem realistic to have all those taxpayers directing the budget. Its bad enough when you have a few poloticians trying to do it.

[Tmy]

U of Virginians are know as "yahoos".


I really dont have an emoticon that can propery express my point of view but I'd be interested to know just how your tax direction system would work.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy

It just doesnt seem realistic to have all those taxpayers directing the budget. Its bad enough when you have a few poloticians trying to do it.

In total agreement with you on that one! But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
So whos going to draw the line then?

Um ... that would be the individual taxpayer. I thought that was clear.

Will the government be able to put to gether a budget if they dont know how much money will be available in the different pots. It just doesnt seem realistic to have all those taxpayers directing the budget. Its bad enough when you have a few poloticians trying to do it.

If this is your big objection, how about making taxpayers commit to their allocations for a year, two years, whatever duration it takes to achieve the stability you seem to be looking for? These are not insurmountable problems. Moreover, for individual taxpayers who don't particularly want be bothered with such decisions, how about simply providing a box that allows them to choose to continue to allow their portion to be used as the politicians see fit?


U of Virginians are know as "yahoos".

Sorry about that.

I really dont have an emoticon that can propery express my point of view but I'd be interested to know just how your tax direction system would work.

I don't have any particular "system", nor is it necessary for me to outline one. It's not that damn complicated, and there are probably any number of relatively easy way to work this stuff out that would allow for far more taxpayer choice than currently exists.

But more to the point, protesting the lack of choice is not accompanied by any obligation to resolve these concerns anyway.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by BillyTK
In total agreement with you on that one! But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Your last sentence does not follow logically from the one that preceded it, as you seem to think it does. Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by WMT1


Damn, no wonder the politicians can pick our pockets with so little resistance. Did you guys sleepwalk your way to these conclusions, because that's what you'd always been told by Mommy & Daddy, or did you actually apply any critical thought to them? Where the hell did you get the idea that "that is as it should be"?
It's the way a representative democracy works, or did you sleepwalk through civics class? If you wish to repeal the 16th amendment, give it your best shot.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tricky
Neither do I. The fact that I oppose the invasion of Iraq does not mean that I get to deduct all the money spent on that war from my taxes. That is as it should be.

Originally posted by WMT1
Damn, no wonder the politicians can pick our pockets with so little resistance. Did you guys sleepwalk your way to these conclusions, because that's what you'd always been told by Mommy & Daddy, or did you actually apply any critical thought to them? Where the hell did you get the idea that "that is as it should be"?

Originally posted by Tricky
It's the way a representative democracy works, or did you sleepwalk through civics class? If you wish to repeal the 16th amendment, give it your best shot.

Your reactionary attempt at a counter-insult might be appropriate if I had expressed some ignorance about how things are. If you'll take a closer look, I was responding to your comment about how things should be. That so many of you can't seem to make the distinction between the two only makes my comments seem that much more appropriate. Where the hell did all the skeptics go anyway?

[Thanz]

shanek -

I may be wrong, but it seems that all of the real-world examples that you posit as showing libertarian ideals in practice are from small rural communities. The examples I can remember off the top of my head are the mayor who cut his salary, and this fire department in this thread.

Don't you think that there is a fundamental difference between providing fire service for 3000 people in a rural setting and providing fire service for a city 1000 times that size? While this fire department may be able to get by on donations and fundraisers, with a 100% volunteer force, a city fire department needs full time staff that must be paid for. And I would rather see that cost spread out over the entire community via taxes than have to worry about paying the fire department bill if my house catches on fire.

Maybe the libertarian ideals aren't scaleable - they work on a small level, but not with large groups. Kind of like communism.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
Maybe the libertarian ideals aren't scaleable - they work on a small level, but not with large groups. Kind of like communism.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, this comparison never gets old.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by WMT1


:rolleyes:

Yeah, this comparison never gets old.

Wow! What a comeback! So filled with logic and water tight arguments I don't know what to do. Libertarianism is for me! Where do I sign up?

Seriously, can you provide any examples of how a volunteer fire department would work for a large city (for example)? Or is libertarianism all about selfishness?

Do you have any actual plan for how things could work in amore efficient manner for large scale projects?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by WMT1


Your reactionary attempt at a counter-insult might be appropriate if I had expressed some ignorance about how things are. If you'll take a closer look, I was responding to your comment about how things should be. That so many of you can't seem to make the distinction between the two only makes my comments seem that much more appropriate. Where the hell did all the skeptics go anyway?
My apologies if I misconstrued what you were trying to say. But yes, I do believe our system of government is basically a good one, which can always use some tweaking. As Thanz points out, the "user fee" system is simply not workable on a large scale. do you set up toll booths at every road? Will police not answer 911 until they check your credit rating? Will the Anti-Pollution company charge you more based on your lung capacity?

The system we have in the US has led to us being the richest, most powerful nation in the world. I'm not anxious to completely dismantle it simply because I'm afraid I might be paying more taxes than Joe Blow.

Now if you want to stop with the insults, then perhaps we can discuss this calmly.

[Tmy]

There are problems with "pay for play" arrangements. namely public safety.

Do I not call the firedepartment because I dont want to pay the fee. In turn my fire gets out of contro land suddenly the whole neighborhood burns down.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK
In total agreement with you on that one! But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Originally posted by WMT1
Your last sentence does not follow logically from the one that preceded it, as you seem to think it does.
Oh good grief. Please explain the alleged lapse in logic, with examples, so we can be clear in where the fault lies.
Originally posted by WMT1
Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?
Is this in reference to anything I've said? If so, be more specific in future. If not, be more careful with your responses.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
Wow! What a comeback! So filled with logic and water tight arguments I don't know what to do. Libertarianism is for me! Where do I sign up?

Spare me your over-the-top sarcasm. Such reactions would be more appropriate in response to someone trying to associate libertarianism with communism. Anyone who knows anything about the two knows they are nearly polar opposites.


Seriously, can you provide any examples of how a volunteer fire department would work for a large city (for example)? Or is libertarianism all about selfishness?

Thanks for presenting this choice, as it reveals the level of your open-mindedness. Libertarianism is about as unselfish as it gets. If you think otherwise, good luck making a case to the contrary that will withstand any scrutiny.

And I'm not about to try to answer the "how would it work" question a hundred different times, for a hundred different types of services. User fees, subscriptions, whatever gets you there. If 80% of a population want a particular service, then 80% of the population can commit their own damn resources to making it happen. So how about applying a little thought to this yourself? I've been through these discussions before, investing time in answering a never-ending litany of questions, only to have people respond at the end "well, I just don't think it would work" or "we'll just have to agree to disagree". Until I know I've got a fair-minded, receptive audience, it's not worth the trouble.

Besides, this discussion is not about how to run a society without taxes anyway, it's about whether to allow those paying them to allocate where the money goes.


Do you have any actual plan for how things could work in amore efficient manner for large scale projects?

Whether I do or not is irrelevant, as it's not my responsibility to provide one. An outline of how to run a society, particularly a comprehensive one, is not necessary to challenging the views expressed in this thread about what taxpayers don't have a right to do.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are problems with "pay for play" arrangements. namely public safety.

Do I not call the firedepartment because I dont want to pay the fee. In turn my fire gets out of contro land suddenly the whole neighborhood burns down.

How's this? If you call, you're billed, whether you're a subscriber or not. If you don't, you're liable for any damages to anyone else that resulted from a fire that started on your property. Can't you guys work anything out for yourselves?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by BillyTK
In total agreement with you on that one! But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Originally posted by WMT1
Your last sentence does not follow logically from the one that preceded it, as you seem to think it does. Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Oh good grief. Please explain the alleged lapse in logic, with examples, so we can be clear in where the fault lies.

Oh good grief yourself. Don't try to shift the burden of proof for your own insupportable conclusion to someone else. You expressed it. It's up to you to establish the logical connection. But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.


Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

Is this in reference to anything I've said?

Yes. That would be the part about concluding that voters have no right to something for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up. You couldn't figure this out for yourself?


If so, be more specific in future.

That's funny, coming from someone who's been so hard to pin down in previous threads himself.


If not, be more careful with your responses.

And that's funny coming from someone who expressed the conclusion that prompted my response in the first place.

[Thanz]

[Originally posted by WMT1


Spare me your over-the-top sarcasm. Such reactions would be more appropriate in response to someone trying to associate libertarianism with communism. Anyone who knows anything about the two knows they are nearly polar opposites.

It was you who decided to ignore my actual questions and instead put in a snarky comment, complete with roll eyes. I think the sarcasm was quite an appropriate response to the snark.

And yes, I am well aware that communism and libertarianism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. I didn't say that libertarians were communists, I just said that the ideals seem difficult to implement on a large scale. Just like communism. May sound hunky-dory in theory, but we have seen that communism doesn't work on a large scale. Perhaps the reason is that extreme ideologies do not work as well as a system that tries to incorporate the best of both extremes.

Thanks for presenting this choice, as it reveals the level of your open-mindedness. Libertarianism is about as unselfish as it gets. If you think otherwise, good luck making a case to the contrary that will withstand any scrutiny.

Okay, explain how libertarianism is about as un-selfish as it gets. It seems that the major concern of libertarians is "stop taking MY f***ing money".

And I'm not about to try to answer the "how would it work" question a hundred different times, for a hundred different types of services. User fees, subscriptions, whatever gets you there. If 80% of a population want a particular service, then 80% of the population can commit their own damn resources to making it happen. So how about applying a little thought to this yourself? I've been through these discussions before, investing time in answering a never-ending litany of questions, only to have people respond at the end "well, I just don't think it would work" or "we'll just have to agree to disagree". Until I know I've got a fair-minded, receptive audience, it's not worth the trouble.

Cry me a river. We are all just picking on the poor libertarians. If you ever presented an argument rather than simply insisting that you have already on other threads, etc., maybe then a discussion would break out. And just because someone does not agree with your arguments, it does not make them closed-minded. Maybe your arguments are not as persuasive as you think they are.

As for applying thought, I have. And I think that certain services are best run by the government to spread the cost over the entire community - such as fire, garbage pick up, policing, etc. Also, certian functions need to be carried out with an overall rather than individualistic view, such as land use planning. How do you determine who directly benefits from land use planning or policing? The benefits are spread over the community, so the cost should be as well. The best way to do this is with taxes.

Besides, this discussion is not about how to run a society without taxes anyway, it's about whether to allow those paying them to allocate where the money goes.

Actually, the discussion went off that track when shanek called taxes robbery.

Whether I do or not is irrelevant, as it's not my responsibility to provide one. An outline of how to run a society, particularly a comprehensive one, is not necessary to challenging the views expressed in this thread about what taxpayers don't have a right to do.

The discussion has broadened from that small point. But unless you have at least some clue about how things could be done better, your opinion won't carry as much weight. There is a difference between just saying "that's wrong" and saying "this is what's right".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by WMT1


How's this? If you call, you're billed, whether you're a subscriber or not. If you don't, you're liable for any damages to anyone else that resulted from a fire that started on your property. Can't you guys work anything out for yourselves?
And if the person at fault refuses to pay? Do you have to hire some police to have him arrested? Who pays for that? Do you then take it to the local "pay-per-verdict" court to decide whether it was his fault or not? If the guy has no money, do you have to pay to have him kept in jail? Who pays that?

As you can see, the simplest problems would cause this pay-for-service society to become a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Tmy]

I sure if they cant afford the fees they probably dont have the money to cover everyone elses damage.

What happens during natural disasters? Are you still liable? Or do you send the bill to the church since its an act of God?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK
In total agreement with you on that one! But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Originally posted by WMT1
Your last sentence does not follow logically from the one that preceded it, as you seem to think it does. Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Oh good grief. Please explain the alleged lapse in logic, with examples, so we can be clear in where the fault lies.

Originally posted by WMT1
Oh good grief yourself. Don't try to shift the burden of proof for your own insupportable conclusion to someone else.You expressed it. It's up to you to establish the logical connection. But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.
Asking for clarification over an accusation is not switching the burden of proof; if you recall, I made no commitment over where the error lay. However, accusing someone of an error but not actually being specific about that error is kinda futile dontcha think?
Originally posted by WMT1
But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.
This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.
Originally posted by WMT1
Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Is this in reference to anything I've said?

Originally posted by WMT1
Yes. That would be the part about concluding that voters have no right to something for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up. You couldn't figure this out for yourself?
Well, as the way a government is set up pretty much defines what rights people can have (at least wrt influencing the government), your statement is strange, to say the least. And as your statement doesn't actually refer to anything I've said, then no--I couldn't figure that out.
Originally posted by BillyTheKat
If so, be more specific in future.

Originally posted by WMT1
That's funny, coming from someone who's been so hard to pin down in previous threads himself.
It is funny to reflect back at someone one of their criticisms of others. As for being hard to pin down; you mean here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=373012#post373012), where I refused to be "pinned down" on your characterisation of my viewpoint; or here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=268298#post268298), where apparently your criticism was that I was wrong because I favoured a definition you weren't aware of, or here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=237505#post237505), where your charge was mis-characterisation of Libertarianism, and using big words and phrases you didn't understand?
Originally posted by BillyTK
If not, be more careful with your responses.

Originally posted by WMT1
And that's funny coming from someone who expressed the conclusion that prompted my response in the first place.
It is funny to reflect back at someone (&c &c). Especially when I didn't actually express the conclusion you attributed to me and attacked me for. Hmmm, am I detecting a pattern here?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky

It's the way a representative democracy works, or did you sleepwalk through civics class? If you wish to repeal the 16th amendment, give it your best shot.

Are you saying our country was not a representative democracy before the passage of the 16th Amendment?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I may be wrong, but it seems that all of the real-world examples that you posit as showing libertarian ideals in practice are from small rural communities. The examples I can remember off the top of my head are the mayor who cut his salary, and this fire department in this thread.

What about Houston, TX? I've used that one quite a bit.

Maybe the libertarian ideals aren't scaleable - they work on a small level, but not with large groups. Kind of like communism.

Or maybe it's easier to enact small government policies if you have a smaller government, ya think?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Seriously, can you provide any examples of how a volunteer fire department would work for a large city (for example)? Or is libertarianism all about selfishness?

SELFISHNESS???? With a big government run by a bunch of people going "me, me, me!" you accuse Libertarians of SELFISHNESS??? :rolleyes:

Do you have any actual plan for how things could work in amore efficient manner for large scale projects?

Why would it have to be large scale? Ever heard of "fire districts"?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are problems with "pay for play" arrangements. namely public safety.

Do I not call the firedepartment because I dont want to pay the fee. In turn my fire gets out of contro land suddenly the whole neighborhood burns down.

Oh, so the neighbors are just going to sit on their thumbs and not call the fire department? All because you are too STUPID to make a call and pay a $300-$1000 fee, instead choosing TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of fire damage???

Yeah, you really think your posts through.... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I didn't say that libertarians were communists, I just said that the ideals seem difficult to implement on a large scale. Just like communism. May sound hunky-dory in theory, but we have seen that communism doesn't work on a large scale. Perhaps the reason is that extreme ideologies do not work as well as a system that tries to incorporate the best of both extremes.

Hate to break this to you, but America was pretty much libertarian (although not totally) from after the Civil War to just before WWI. And it was the period of greatest prosperity, education levels and literacy rates soared, the poorest Americans (except for blacks and indians, due to stringent governmental policies) got better and better off, we invented things right and left at a breakneck pace...by any measurement you choose, things were working out a lot better under smaller government than they are under large.

Okay, explain how libertarianism is about as un-selfish as it gets. It seems that the major concern of libertarians is "stop taking MY f***ing money".

Is it unselfish to say a burglar shouldn't have your money? You worked for it, you earned it, it's yours.

Selfishness is the wish to coerce others into doing your will. Libertarianism isn't about that at all; just the opposite. Big government is what's selfish, with all the people involved wanting money they didn't earn and power they don't deserve.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
What happens during natural disasters? Are you still liable? Or do you send the bill to the church since its an act of God?

Whoever said the same solution would be put in place for natural disasters? You're not trying to learn; you're just looking for excuses to dismiss it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
Are you saying our country was not a representative democracy before the passage of the 16th Amendment?
No Shanek. (Why do I envision this pulsing vein in your forehead?:D) I am saying that the 16th Amendment was passed by the rules of our representative democracy and is now a part of our law. You can rant and rail against it to your heart's content, but unless you can get enough support to overturn it, then you are just crying in the dark.

Perhaps the government was more libertarian once upon a time. That doesn't mean it would work now. Actually, the Mayflower Compact, one of the first governmental documents for European colonists, was strongly communistic. It was what the struggling colonists needed to make sure the maximum number of people survived.

Different governments work for different situations. I cannot see a Libertarian government addressing the issues we face today. But, like Miniver Cheevy, you are free to indulge in your anachronistic nostalgia for a bygone era. It is not going to come back.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Hate to break this to you, but America was pretty much libertarian (although not totally) from after the Civil War to just before WWI. And it was the period of greatest prosperity, education levels and literacy rates soared, the poorest Americans (except for blacks and indians, due to stringent governmental policies) got better and better off, we invented things right and left at a breakneck pace...by any measurement you choose, things were working out a lot better under smaller government than they are under large.


Inventions or science? The US had no scientific base to compare to that of Europe. Thomas Edison doesn't count, he was just a maniac.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky

No Shanek. (Why do I envision this pulsing vein in your forehead?:D) I am saying that the 16th Amendment was passed by the rules of our representative democracy and is now a part of our law. You can rant and rail against it to your heart's content, but unless you can get enough support to overturn it, then you are just crying in the dark.

Geez, take it easy. I was just asking for clarification.

Perhaps the government was more libertarian once upon a time. That doesn't mean it would work now.

I'm very tired of chasing these moving goalposts. I cite an example, they say it's just because it's a rural area. I cite a big city, they say it's not the country. I cite the country back when it was more libertarian, they say it won't work now...

And, of course, all this is to distract from the fact that big government clearly isn't working!

Actually, the Mayflower Compact, one of the first governmental documents for European colonists, was strongly communistic.

Yes, and they all almost ended up starving to death until they switched to a more libertarian free market model.

It was what the struggling colonists needed to make sure the maximum number of people survived.

Not the case. Read your history. In particular, read Of Plymouth Plantation by Plymouth governor William Bradford. You'll learn that by 1623, after 3 years of this communistic rule, the pilgrims experienced a famine which Bradford compares to that of Jacob's.

At this point, everything the families planted was thrown into this big kitty and everyone was supposed to just take what they needed. The end result was that not many people grew and many more just took. Hence, famine. The drought of 1623 just made it worse.

Then, according to Bradford, "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular..."

So now, corn was considered private property that would be used for the farmer's own family. Now, everyone had a motivation to provide enough for his own, resulting in "a fruitful and liberal harvest, to their no small comfort and rejoicing. For which mercy, in time convenient, they also set apart a day of thanksgiving."

Different governments work for different situations. I cannot see a Libertarian government addressing the issues we face today.

Like?

But, like Miniver Cheevy, you are free to indulge in your anachronistic nostalgia for a bygone era. It is not going to come back.

Blah blah blah. I've pointed out the failings of big government, and this is the best people can come back with...

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Inventions or science? The US had no scientific base to compare to that of Europe. Thomas Edison doesn't count, he was just a maniac.

:rolleyes:

Why were most of these European scientists coming to America?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


:rolleyes:

Why were most of these European scientists coming to America?


America was generating more money, while Europe was still enamoured with the ideals of pure research.

It is an endless problem for big money, they need the pure research, but don't like funding it. The Australian government has just taken it's pure research organisation, the CSIRO, and made it more 'commercial'. That is, they are only supposed to undertake research that will generate a commercial return, or be useful to ensuring the profitability of industry, hence the continued funding of greenhouse research.

However, who is supposed to perform the pure research, much of which generates nothing in terms of dollars, but some of which turns out to be essential for it.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


What about Houston, TX? I've used that one quite a bit.

I obviously have not read all of your posts. I don't recall you using Houston as an example, so I can't comment on that.

Or maybe it's easier to enact small government policies if you have a smaller government, ya think?

Well, yes it's easier to enact small government policies when there is not much for the government to do. A mayor of a small village has much less to do than a mayor of a major city, even if they wanted to enact the same level of services.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Selfishness is the wish to coerce others into doing your will. Libertarianism isn't about that at all; just the opposite. Big government is what's selfish, with all the people involved wanting money they didn't earn and power they don't deserve.

I love how you keep defining things to your own advantage. Is there some sort of libertarian dictionary I can get my hands on?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Selfish: Devoted to or concerned with one's own advantage or welfare to the exclusion of regard for others.

Selfishness: The condition or quality of being selfish; selfish disposition or behaviour; regard for one's own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.

Nothing in there about "the wish to coerce others into doing your will". Selfish is about the disregard for others. I see nothing in the libertarian philosophy that requires any regard for others welfare. As I understand it, the basis of libertarianism is as long as you don't actively hurt someone else, you can do what you want. I'll agree that it is not the most selfish ideology (that would require complete disregard for others welfare - including actively harming them), but it is hardly the opposite of selfish or "as unselfish as it gets". If you want "as unselfish as it gets", look at Mother Teresa. I can be a good libertarian and not help anyone with anything.

Your rants against "big government" do nothing to show "selfishness". Governement in Canada is much "bigger" than in the U.S., with higher taxes. But that state of affairs has kept us at the top of the UN's list of best places in the world to live for many years, constantly ahead of the US.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, so the neighbors are just going to sit on their thumbs and not call the fire department? All because you are too STUPID to make a call and pay a $300-$1000 fee, instead choosing TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of fire damage???

Yeah, you really think your posts through.... :rolleyes:

Of course they would be dealing with a big raging fire instead of a small manageable one.

Its easy to say "lets revamp the system" and ingnore the practicle applications. The current system isnt as broke as you make it out to be. Police, fire and other public works do a fine job of protecting us and keeping us healthy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I love how you keep defining things to your own advantage. Is there some sort of libertarian dictionary I can get my hands on?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Selfish: Devoted to or concerned with one's own advantage or welfare to the exclusion of regard for others.

Selfishness: The condition or quality of being selfish; selfish disposition or behaviour; regard for one's own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.

The highlighted parts are what make selfishness inconsistent with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a system which acts for everyone's advantage and interest and happiness. Government, through coercion, harms people by taking money they have earned, destroying jobs, and raising prices, ostensibly to help others but effectively only helping politicians and bureaucrats.

Selfish is about the disregard for others. I see nothing in the libertarian philosophy that requires any regard for others welfare.

What kind of libertarianism have you been reading about? Liberty benefits everyone, and we're calling for liberty for everyone, not just a privileged few with political connections.

Oh, yes, I'm soooo selfish... That's why I'm fighting for the right to keep and bear arms even though I don't own guns. That's why I'm fighting for the end of the insane War on Drugs even though I don't do drugs. That's why I fight for so many rights that I do not wish to exercise myself. Because I'm soooo selfish... :rolleyes:

[Thanz]

shanek -

I did a search on Libertarianism and came across "the world's shortest political quiz". I took the quiz, and this is what it said about me:

According to your answers, your political philosophy is left-liberal.

Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.

Therefore, I expect that we would agree on many personal issues such as gay marriage, drug laws, etc. Where we differ is on economic issues and the role of the state in those issues.

I think that there are many areas where government run services funded by taxes is the best way to do things. This includes areas that benefit everyone: fire protection, police protection and the justice system, garbage pickup, health and safety regulation, the environment, land use planning, etc.

I also think that the state should help out those in the lower end of society who need a hand. This is where I find libertarianism to be "selfish". Libertarianism says nothing about actually helping the disadvantaged. I never claimed that libertarians were just for liberty of some - that is a strawman on your part. I just claimed that helping other people is less selfish than not helping other people.

When you say: The highlighted parts are what make selfishness inconsistent with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a system which acts for everyone's advantage and interest and happiness. you are either missing or avoiding the point. You say that libertarianism acts for everyone's advantage - but that is not the point of libertarianism. Libertarianism is very much an individualistic philosophy - it is concerned with the rights of individuals for their own sake, not necessarily because it will lead to better outcomes for all. As a libertarian, I could say "I make $100,000 a year, and I don't care if someone else can't afford a place to live. I am not taking away their place to live - but I'll be damned if I am going to pay for it." and be completely within the libertarian philosophy. I would argue that it is better to take some of that person's income to care for those who need it.

We have discussed government run health care before. On a proportional basis, I pay more for the health care system than others as I pay more taxes. Do I use the health care system more than others? I doubt it. But I like that I have access when I need it, and that those who otherwise would not be able to afford it have access when they need it too. Libertarians would advocate only paying for what you use - I would pay less, those who need the system but can't afford it would pay more. Some would be turned away as they can't afford it. I am willing to pay more for a government run health care system that gives basic care to all. Libertarians are not. Who is more selfish?

Another area that has extensive goevernment involvement here is the sale of alcohol. Almost all beverage alcohol is sold in government run stores. I am sure that Libertarians would be appalled by such governemtn involvement. But the stores provide excellent service, make a profit that reduces my tax bill, and without a profit motive, there is no incentive to sell to minors or intoxicated persons.

In short, I disagree with your characterization of government as "Government, through coercion, harms people by taking money they have earned, destroying jobs, and raising prices, ostensibly to help others but effectively only helping politicians and bureaucrats."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Therefore, I expect that we would agree on many personal issues such as gay marriage, drug laws, etc. Where we differ is on economic issues and the role of the state in those issues.

That's usually the case. Keep in mind that the quiz, while it's as good as I think it can be and still be so short, is known to give people a wildly incorrect answer abotu 5% of the time. But if you understand and agree with the results, it's most likely true.

I think that there are many areas where government run services funded by taxes is the best way to do things. This includes areas that benefit everyone: fire protection, police protection and the justice system, garbage pickup, health and safety regulation, the environment, land use planning, etc.

If you'll check other threads, you'll find that we're currently discussing many of these. Fire protection in this thread, health and safety in another, we've discussed the environment at length, Houston, TX was my example of land use planning (they've never had one zoning law)...I have private garbage pickup where I live, and the service is much better than in areas with municipal pickups, and I have a choice of no less than 12 companies all competing for my business.

The first three, I agree should be done by government, although I think we could do a better job of paying for them. The rest, I see government hindering more than it helps.

I also think that the state should help out those in the lower end of society who need a hand.

Even though charities can do it much better? In other threads, I've used data from Giving, USA to show that the poor would be much better off if we got rid of those programs and repealed the Income Tax.

Libertarianism says nothing about actually helping the disadvantaged.

That is total and complete BS! There are reams of Libertarian arguments about helping the disadvantaged. But government, time and time again, hurts those it intends to help. The poor, the disabled, the unskilled laborers would clearly be much better off in a Libertarian society than they are in a big government welfare state. Look in the Minimum Wage thread for some examples.

When you say: you are either missing or avoiding the point. You say that libertarianism acts for everyone's advantage - but that is not the point of libertarianism.

That is exactly the point of Libertarianism!

Libertarianism is very much an individualistic philosophy

So? Individualist ≠ selfish. In fact, it's those who insist on making everyone conform who are being selfish, thinking they know what's best for others even better than they do. YOU are the one proferring a strawman.

Libertarians would advocate only paying for what you use - I would pay less, those who need the system but can't afford it would pay more.

No, nobody would pay more because it would be cheaper for everybody! Government is the very reason health care is so expensive to begin with! And Libertarians are very much in favor of free clinics and charity hospitals that have been regulated away by the government.

Who is more selfish?

The ones who insist on maintaining failed policies that cause the price of health care to skyrocket, resulting in more Americans being unable to afford it than at any other point in history!

Another area that has extensive goevernment involvement here is the sale of alcohol.

With no noticeable improvement. And I'm sure you're aware of the complete and total failure that Prohibition was.

I think you have a lot to learn about Libertarianism.

(edited to fix formatting glitch)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


If you'll check other threads, you'll find that we're currently discussing many of these. Fire protection in this thread, health and safety in another, we've discussed the environment at length, Houston, TX was my example of land use planning (they've never had one zoning law)...I have private garbage pickup where I live, and the service is much better than in areas with municipal pickups, and I have a choice of no less than 12 companies all competing for my business.

The first three, I agree should be done by government, although I think we could do a better job of paying for them. The rest, I see government hindering more than it helps.

I will check out those other threads.

Even though charities can do it much better? In other threads, I've used data from Giving, USA to show that the poor would be much better off if we got rid of those programs and repealed the Income Tax.

I remember some of those threads, but I don't recall being convinced. I remember stats about giving, but nothing about how well of the poor would be.

That is total and complete BS! There are reams of Libertarian arguments about helping the disadvantaged. But government, time and time again, hurts those it intends to help. The poor, the disabled, the unskilled laborers would clearly be much better off in a Libertarian society than they are in a big government welfare state. Look in the Minimum Wage thread for some examples.

I will look for those examples. But answer my question about the hypothetical man who doesn't want to give any money to help anyone. Is he still within the libertarian philosophy?

That is exactly the point of Libertarianism!

Now that I think about it, this is being hashed out in another thread(s) started by Victor. I'll leave the discussion there.

So? Individualist ≠ selfish. In fact, it's those who insist on making everyone conform who are being selfish, thinking they know what's best for others even better than they do. YOU are the one proferring a strawman.

I disagree. You are only selfish if you advocate things for your own benefit to the exclusion of others. A highly individualistic philosophy makes it much easier to be selfish.


No, nobody would pay more because it would be cheaper for everybody! Government is the very reason health care is so expensive to begin with! And Libertarians are very much in favor of free clinics and charity hospitals that have been regulated away by the government.

[my comment - snip]

The ones who insist on maintaining failed policies that cause the price of health care to skyrocket, resulting in more Americans being unable to afford it than at any other point in history!
Again, I live in Canada, which spends less on health care for more universal coverage than the United states, which is much more individualistic.


With no noticeable improvement. And I'm sure you're aware of the complete and total failure that Prohibition was.

Did you even read the rest of what I said about alcohol sales? I told you what the improvements and benefits were. Why are you bringing up Prohibition? What relevance does this have at all?

I think you have a lot to learn about Libertarianism.
I probably do. But what I have seen so far doesn't impress me much.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I will look for those examples. But answer my question about the hypothetical man who doesn't want to give any money to help anyone. Is he still within the libertarian philosophy?

Yes. And I would also submit that this person is not being selfish, since he's merely deciding the best way to spend his own money. Selfishness would be if he did so to the detriment of others.

I disagree. You are only selfish if you advocate things for your own benefit to the exclusion of others. A highly individualistic philosophy makes it much easier to be selfish.

But remember that Libertarianism also holds you responsible for your actions.

Did you even read the rest of what I said about alcohol sales?

Yes, and I addressed it above. There's no indication that it wouldn't be better under a free market system. In fact, many alcoholic beverages are sold by free market companies, much more efficiently than by government-run stores.

Why are you bringing up Prohibition? What relevance does this have at all?

To show that government regulation hurts more than it helps.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Spare me your over-the-top sarcasm. Such reactions would be more appropriate in response to someone trying to associate libertarianism with communism. Anyone who knows anything about the two knows they are nearly polar opposites.

Originally posted by Thanz
It was you who decided to ignore my actual questions

Questions that were not directed at me, by the way.


and instead put in a snarky comment, complete with roll eyes.

Well deserved.


I think the sarcasm was quite an appropriate response to the snark.

You're not the first to have poor judgment about using sarcasm, and you won't be the last.


And yes, I am well aware that communism and libertarianism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. I didn't say that libertarians were communists,

Then why mention communism at all? Your statement was ...

Maybe the libertarian ideals aren't scaleable - they work on a small level, but not with large groups.

... which was clear by itself, without drawing the association. Sorry, but it's a tactic I've seen too many times, used in an attempt to marginalize libertarian philosophy when someone can't think of any other way to do so.


I just said that the ideals seem difficult to implement on a large scale. Just like communism. May sound hunky-dory in theory, but we have seen that communism doesn't work on a large scale.

But we have not seen that libertarianism does not work on a large scale, have we? Would you say that everything we have that "works" on a large scale today is based completely, or even mostly, on authoritarianism?


Perhaps the reason is that extreme ideologies do not work as well as a system that tries to incorporate the best of both extremes.

That's nice, but what does that have to do with libertarianism? Aren't you really just talking about the fact that a relatively unknown approach isn't as popular as the ones that are known?


Okay, explain how libertarianism is about as un-selfish as it gets.

No problem. At its core is a respect for the individual sovereignty of everyone, not just oneself. Put another way, it's support for maximizing the ability of everyone to run their own lives. Anyone who wants freedom only for himself might be something, but it's not libertarian.


It seems that the major concern of libertarians is "stop taking MY f***ing money".

Yeah, and liberals want to remove all religion from society, and conservatives want to starve all the children. :rolleyes:

The more of these same tired old misrepresentations I see from you, the more I'm gonna be convinced that my reaction to your "communism" comment was actually quite mild. Incidentally, which is more selfish, someone wanting to keep what they have earned, or someone wanting to take what belongs to someone else without their consent?


And I'm not about to try to answer the "how would it work" question a hundred different times, for a hundred different types of services. User fees, subscriptions, whatever gets you there. If 80% of a population want a particular service, then 80% of the population can commit their own damn resources to making it happen. So how about applying a little thought to this yourself? I've been through these discussions before, investing time in answering a never-ending litany of questions, only to have people respond at the end "well, I just don't think it would work" or "we'll just have to agree to disagree". Until I know I've got a fair-minded, receptive audience, it's not worth the trouble.

Cry me a river. We are all just picking on the poor libertarians.

More unwarranted sarcasm in response to sound, rational, well thought-out point. You should probably set your sights a little higher.


If you ever presented an argument rather than simply insisting that you have already on other threads, etc., maybe then a discussion would break out.

The irony is that you really just seem to be lashing out here in the absence of any real argument yourself. Perhaps you should provide us all with a definition of just what you think constitues an argument, and then give us a shining example from one of your posts. Then I'll see if I can come up with something from one of mine in response.


And just because someone does not agree with your arguments, it does not make them closed-minded.

No, that's pretty much taken care of by implications about libertarians being selfish, and superfluous comparisons to communism, stuff like that.


Maybe your arguments are not as persuasive as you think they are.

Sure they are. They tend to do quite well when addressed to those who are genuinely interested in hearing alternative points of view, and who don't already have an axe to grind, as reflected in some of your comments. Besides, what matters is whether those arguments are sound, and so far nobody has managed to come up with better ones - ever. Persuasiveness, however, is not entirely a reflection of the arguments themselves, as it can suffer simply from the closed-mindedness of the person they're addressed to.


As for applying thought, I have. And I think that certain services are best run by the government to spread the cost over the entire community - such as fire, garbage pick up, policing, etc.

And no libertarian would stop you, and those who agree with you, from committing a portion of your own resources to the funding of institutions to provide these services in that fashion. The point of contention is forced participation and/or contribution, for which no justification has been established.


Also, certian functions need to be carried out with an overall rather than individualistic view, such as land use planning.

How about leaving the "use" of land up to whoever owns the land, as long as the choices they make don't interfere with, or create safety hazards for, anyone else, or their property?


How do you determine who directly benefits from land use planning or policing?

Again, I don't. Why should I be making such determinations about someone else's land?


The benefits are spread over the community, so the cost should be as well.

What "benefits" are you talking about? You're not making much sense.


The best way to do this is with taxes.

Actually, taxes aren't the best way to do anything, since they generally have the unfortunate disadvantage of taking from people without their consent, to pay for something they may not even want.


Besides, this discussion is not about how to run a society without taxes anyway, it's about whether to allow those paying them to allocate where the money goes.

Actually, the discussion went off that track when shanek called taxes robbery.

I strongly disagree. The merit of that comparison is quite relevant to the question of how much input anyone should have in where that money is going.


But unless you have at least some clue about how things could be done better, your opinion won't carry as much weight.

Actually, I've already identified the "better" - user fees, or subscriptions, if you prefer. Such approaches include the added benefits of more direct accountability, people paying only for what they want, rather than imposing something on everyone and making everyone pay for it, whether they want it or not, stuff like that.


There is a difference between just saying "that's wrong" and saying "this is what's right".

:confused: If you're talking about some statement of mine, would you identify it, and also identify what you're comparing it to? Then I'll be happy to comment.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Oh good grief yourself. Don't try to shift the burden of proof for your own insupportable conclusion to someone else. You expressed it. It's up to you to establish the logical connection. But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Asking for clarification over an accusation is not switching the burden of proof;

It is if you expect anything more than pointing out that you did not establish the logical connection.


However, accusing someone of an error but not actually being specific about that error is kinda futile dontcha think?

Yes, but irrelevant. I was specific about the error. I pointed out that your conclusion (you know, the one that began with "So no ..."?) did not follow logically from the one that preceded it. If you think otherwise, it is up to you to demonstrate the logic, not up to me to prove what isn't there.


But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.

This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.

:confused: Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes? Or are you referring to some other statement?


Yes. That would be the part about concluding that voters have no right to something for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up. You couldn't figure this out for yourself?

Well, as the way a government is set up pretty much defines what rights people can have (at least wrt influencing the government), your statement is strange, to say the least.

What I find strange is the inability of some people to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells them.


And as your statement doesn't actually refer to anything I've said, then no--I couldn't figure that out.

Baloney. Your exact words:

But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

For your convenience, I've highlighted the relevant portions. The first would be the "observation about the way the government is set up" that I referred to, and the second is "the part about concluding that voters have no right to something", which you seemed to be basing on the first part. I hope this clears things up for you.


It is funny to reflect back at someone one of their criticisms of others. As for being hard to pin down; you mean here, where I refused to be "pinned down" on your characterisation of my viewpoint;

No, this was not the thread I was referring to. But, on first glance at least, this one does at least seem to provide a further demonstration of chronic evasiveness on your part. I'm surprised you mentioned it.


or here, where apparently your criticism was that I was wrong because I favoured a definition you weren't aware of,

This is the one, but you're being too easy on yourself. It was actually a rather self-serving definition that you just seemed to make up, since it was not only incompatible with common usage, but also most dictionaries. Did you ever even provide any kind of source for it?


or here, where your charge was mis-characterisation of Libertarianism,

Yeah, and if you'll recall, when you cited a source to support your characterization, it kind of backfired on you. Remember, upon reading beyond the statements you quoted from it, it turns out that it actually said just the opposite of what you were trying to support, and it did so in the very next sentence. And after I pointed this out, you became strangely silent on this particular point. (You're not faring too well regarding these past threads, are you?)


and using big words and phrases you didn't understand?

And which most college-educated adults couldn't understand without reading several times. Some people don't see the confusing use of language as an asset.


It is funny to reflect back at someone (&c &c). Especially when I didn't actually express the conclusion you attributed to me

It's pretty clear to anyone actually following this that I've shown otherwise. Do we need to go through it again?


and attacked me for.

:confused: Attacked? Some people are waaaay too sensitive when it comes to handling criticism.


Hmmm, am I detecting a pattern here?

I certainly am.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
How's this? If you call, you're billed, whether you're a subscriber or not. If you don't, you're liable for any damages to anyone else that resulted from a fire that started on your property. Can't you guys work anything out for yourselves?

Originally posted by Tricky
And if the person at fault refuses to pay?

You guys are setting some new kind of record for asking ridiculous questions.. How the hell do you deal with people who refuse to pay for stuff today? And if that's not good enough for you, then confiscate their property to satisfy their debt if necessary, or throw their ass in jail, for all I care. Good grief. Do I have to determine every f*****g penalty for every f*****g infraction?

For some reason, some of you seem to be laboring under the misconception that there can only be one possible option to anything if taxes are not involved. No wonder you all have so much trouble working any of this stuff out for yourself.


Do you have to hire some police to have him arrested? Who pays for that?

If you also subscribe to police services (and for the life of me, I can't think of why anyone of means would choose not to), then you're already paying for that service.


Do you then take it to the local "pay-per-verdict" court to decide whether it was his fault or not? If the guy has no money, do you have to pay to have him kept in jail? Who pays that?

(*sigh*) And so it continues. Again, how the hell are these things dealt with today? If 90% of the population wants to be served by a complete criminal justice system, then 90% of the population can contribute from their own resources to its maintenance, and set it up however they like. They can even call their contributions "taxes" if it makes them feel better. And if they want to pay a little extra for a fund to cover the indigent, they can even do that too. That does not mean the 10% who don't choose to contribute are criminals, it just means they have no grounds for calling on the protections of that system as a subscriber. And there are even ways of dealing with the problems associated with that too. Would you like to see if you can figure out what they are on your own?


As you can see, the simplest problems would cause this pay-for-service society to become a bureaucratic nightmare.

:rolleyes: As you can see, your questions aren't nearly as tough as you think they are. They're only time-consuming. So rather than just going on with this never-ending search for a "gotcha", how about cutting to the chase, and coming up with what you consider to be the toughest 2 or 3 questions about all this stuff, and going ahead and submitting them?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes. And I would also submit that this person is not being selfish, since he's merely deciding the best way to spend his own money. Selfishness would be if he did so to the detriment of others.

No, it doesn't have to be to the detriment of others - just the disregard of others. You don't actually have to actively hurt others to be selfish - you just have to not give a damn about them. So the man is being selfish.

But remember that Libertarianism also holds you responsible for your actions.

But not for your inactions. People could give zero dollars to charities and be well within libertarian principles. If everyone did that, the charities that you champion would have no funds to work with.

Yes, and I addressed it above. There's no indication that it wouldn't be better under a free market system. In fact, many alcoholic beverages are sold by free market companies, much more efficiently than by government-run stores.
"With no noticeable improvement" does not really account as addressing the points I made. There has been talk of privatizing the LCBO here, and it has met with much resistance as it would NOT be better under a free market system.

What do people want from a liquor store? Good service, good selection, good price, and responsibility (not selling to minors/intoxicated persons).

Service

The service at the LCBO is excellent - they will order in any quantity of a product that you request to your local store if they don't carry it. The stores are clean and efficient, the staff knowledgable. They also run events like wine tastings, cooking demonstrations, etc. at select stores. Under a private regime, chances are the store you go to will not carry the full range of products. If they do, how willing are they going to be to order one bottle of wine for you at $12.00 if they don't carry it at your store?

Selection

The LCBO currently offers a huge selection of products. A private regime has an incentive to only carry those items that produce the most sales. That leads to a narrowing of selection.

Price

The majority of the price of liquor is in taxes. These taxes would nbot be repealed under a private regime. The government will still want to take in the same revenue from alcohol sales as it does now. If you add in a profit for the retailer, the only way the gov't gets the same revenue from alcohol is if the private retailer raises prices or reduces service. Also, the LCBO is the single largest purchaser of beverage alcohol in the world. That gives them buying power that simply can't be matched.

Responsibility

Without a profit motive, there is no incentive to sell to minors or intoxicated persons. With a profit motive, there is that incentive.

How exactly does private enterpise improve in any or all of these areas?

To show that government regulation hurts more than it helps.

Come now shanek. Do you not see a difference between regulation and prohibition? This is a ridiculous argument and has no bearing on who should sell the legal beverage of alcohol.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
I sure if they cant afford the fees they probably dont have the money to cover everyone elses damage.

If they can't afford user fees, they probably wouldn't have a home in the first place. Think!


What happens during natural disasters? Are you still liable?

Liable for what?


Or do you send the bill to the church since its an act of God?

:confused:

Sorry, but you're all over the map here, and you're not making much sense.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tricky
You can rant and rail against it to your heart's content, but unless you can get enough support to overturn it, then you are just crying in the dark.

So, given that you keep falling back on stating how things are, as if that's in dispute, have you just completely abandoned trying to make any arguments about how things should be?


Perhaps the government was more libertarian once upon a time. That doesn't mean it would work now.

Based on what definition of "work"?


Different governments work for different situations.

Baloney. With libertarian government, if enough people want to make something "work", there is less government to get in their way. And if you don't have enough people, then there is no basis for forcing others to contribute to whatever it is you're trying to make "work" in the first place. There is absolutely no justification for anything that deviates significantly from libertarianism. The further you get from it, the more tyranny you have.


I cannot see a Libertarian government addressing the issues we face today.

Who's "we", and what would be stopping whoever "we" is from facing any issues "we" want to face under a libertarian government?

(*crickets)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Selfish: Devoted to or concerned with one's own advantage or welfare to the exclusion of regard for others.

Selfishness: The condition or quality of being selfish; selfish disposition or behaviour; regard for one's own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.

And you thought this would somehow help make the case that libertarianism is selfish? :confused:


Selfish is about the disregard for others.

Yes, including disregard for their right to run their own lives. Keep talkin'.


I see nothing in the libertarian philosophy that requires any regard for others welfare.

This is it? This is your big case for the "selfish" thing? The fact that it doesn't support using the bullying force of law to impose some common, arbitrary standard of unselfishness on everyone?

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif



As I understand it, the basis of libertarianism is as long as you don't actively hurt someone else, you can do what you want. I'll agree that it is not the most selfish ideology (that would require complete disregard for others welfare - including actively harming them), but it is hardly the opposite of selfish or "as unselfish as it gets".

I don't know whether it's the "opposite" or not, but in terms of political philosophy, it most certainly is "as unselfish as it gets", because it respects the right of other people to make choices for their own lives like no other. Can you think of any other philosophy whose adherents are less likely to try to use the force of government to get something for themselves that someone else worked for? Perhaps trying to answer this question might help you see things more clearly.


If you want "as unselfish as it gets", look at Mother Teresa. I can be a good libertarian and not help anyone with anything.

(shrug) So what? You can be a good anything and not help anyone with anything. You can also be a good libertarian and help people all the time. Did you think you had an actual point here? Could it be that you're laboring under the impression that the truest demonstration of unselfishness is how much you're willing to use force to make others be unselfish?


Governement in Canada is much "bigger" than in the U.S., with higher taxes. But that state of affairs has kept us at the top of the UN's list of best places in the world to live for many years, constantly ahead of the US.

Oh, then it must be true, right? :rolleyes:

Incidentally, here's a thought. Have you considered that it might just actually be a better place for people who like benefitting from the labor of others? And if so, can you explain how that supports a case for unselfishness?

Give it up. You've lost this point badly, and clinging to it only makes clear your lack of interest in understanding libertarianism for what it really is.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
Therefore, I expect that we would agree on many personal issues such as gay marriage, drug laws, etc. Where we differ is on economic issues and the role of the state in those issues.

And by definition, believing in a strong role for the state is to believe in imposing your will about such things on others.


I also think that the state should help out those in the lower end of society who need a hand. This is where I find libertarianism to be "selfish". Libertarianism says nothing about actually helping the disadvantaged.

:rolleyes: That isn't its job, of course, and this view that somehow unselfishness can only be manifested through government demonstrates just how blinded you are by your own pro-government bias. "Helping the disadvantaged" in this sense is really just forcing everyone to meet some minimum standard of charity. Is it really your position that that is somehow the only true barometer for unselfishness?


I just claimed that helping other people is less selfish than not helping other people.

Except that you're spinning here, because, based on what you've posted, what you really mean by "helping other people" includes bullying others into helping other people, which itself demonstrates a profound lack of respect for other people. Your comments would have more credibility if you would at least start calling it what it is. If you say it enough times, you might just begin to see that it isn't the "high road" approach that you think it is.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
As a libertarian, I could say "I make $100,000 a year, and I don't care if someone else can't afford a place to live. I am not taking away their place to live - but I'll be damned if I am going to pay for it." and be completely within the libertarian philosophy. I would argue that it is better to take some of that person's income to care for those who need it.

And can you now explain clearly how this position is anything other than support for legalized theft? No spin please.


We have discussed government run health care before. On a proportional basis, I pay more for the health care system than others as I pay more taxes. Do I use the health care system more than others? I doubt it. But I like that I have access when I need it, and that those who otherwise would not be able to afford it have access when they need it too.

And there is nothing about libertarianism which would prevent you, and anyone else who agrees with you, from committing a portion of your own resources to the maintenance of an organization to do this for you. Forcing contributions from others is another matter, and something nobody has yet made a case for.


Libertarians would advocate only paying for what you use - I would pay less, those who need the system but can't afford it would pay more.

Actually, that's not exactly what they would advocate. The point would be that the choice remain with you. If you wanted to pay more to subsidize others, they would support you in exercising that right. Choice. Some people have so much trouble grasping the concept for some reason.


Some would be turned away as they can't afford it. I am willing to pay more for a government run health care system that gives basic care to all. Libertarians are not. Who is more selfish?

You are, because you would also force others to pay more for that system, because it is what you want. Libertarians understand where the choice rightfully belongs. You didn't expect this to be a tough call, did you?


In short, I disagree with your characterization of government as "Government, through coercion, harms people by taking money they have earned, destroying jobs, and raising prices, ostensibly to help others but effectively only helping politicians and bureaucrats."

There are several components to this statement. Can you identify which parts he got wrong, and which parts he got right?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
You are only selfish if you advocate things for your own benefit to the exclusion of others.

That clearly does not apply to libertarians. Thanks for the help.

[Thanz]

Allright, let's stop some of the BS going back and forth (you're snarky! You're sarcastic.. blah blah) and focus on some real issues. Fair?

Originally posted by WMT1


And no libertarian would stop you, and those who agree with you, from committing a portion of your own resources to the funding of institutions to provide these services in that fashion. The point of contention is forced participation and/or contribution, for which no justification has been established.

The problem is one of free riders. In one of your replies to another poster, you stated that if 90% of people wanted a justice system, those 90% could pay for it and the other 10% would not be able to utilize it. Is that a fair summary?

Assuming my summary is fair, the problem is that criminals do not know who is a subscriber and who isn't. Any disincentive on a criminal not to commit criminal acts provided by the justice system will be spread among those who pay and those who don't. Those who don't pay are the free riders. They enjoy a benefit without paying for it. Taxing everyone makes everyone pay for the benefit.

How about leaving the "use" of land up to whoever owns the land, as long as the choices they make don't interfere with, or create safety hazards for, anyone else, or their property?

Certain uses would never be allowed then. Certain uses, such as a rendering plant, really suck for the surrounding neighbours. One of the purposes of proper land use planning is to keep compatible uses together and incompatible uses apart, to the highest and best use of the land.

Actually, taxes aren't the best way to do anything, since they generally have the unfortunate disadvantage of taking from people without their consent, to pay for something they may not even want.

Taxes help eliminate the free rider problem.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by WMT1


It is if you expect anything more than pointing out that you did not establish the logical connection.

Yes, but irrelevant. I was specific about the error. I pointed out that your conclusion (you know, the one that began with "So no ..."?) did not follow logically from the one that preceded it. If you think otherwise, it is up to you to demonstrate the logic, not up to me to prove what isn't there.

Well, you're wrong! But I'm not going to tell you why! :rolleyes: But seriously, you weren't specific about the error. I had to pin you down to identify where the alleged error was. It was then we discovered the error was on your part rather than mine, which it appears you're having some difficulty in coming to terms with.
:confused: Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes? Or are you referring to some other statement?
You are confused. I made a statement about the condition of representative democracy, how this condition constrains voters rights, and then identified what those rights are under that condition. I made no statement that voters have no rights to influence how their tax money is spent. I suspect you are referring to some other statement, or more precisely, a rather selective interpretation of one of my statements. Which isn't the first time for you, is it (see below)?
What I find strange is the inability of some people to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells them.
Are you claiming special powers again? Or could you point out which part of my statement leads you to the conclusion that I'm unable to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells me? If you're not referring to anything I've said, could you be clearer on that in future? Hmm, I do believe I'm repeating myself here...
Baloney. Your exact words:
But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.
For your convenience, I've highlighted the relevant portions. The first would be the "observation about the way the government is set up" that I referred to, and the second is "the part about concluding that voters have no right to something", which you seemed to be basing on the first part. I hope this clears things up for you.
Baloney indeed! I see where your problem originates; it's clearly indicated by your selective highlighting. You missed a significant bit; the conditional at the end? Here, I'll requote it for you:
other than through the ballot box.
So I'm not saying voters have no rights to do something, I'm saying voters have some rights to do something. I hope that this clears it up for you, and you'll be prepared to accept your error and move on.
No, this was not the thread I was referring to. But, on first glance at least, this one does at least seem to provide a further demonstration of chronic evasiveness on your part. I'm surprised you mentioned it.
I figured the honest thing to do was link to it to at least let interested parties make their own decisions. It is interesting though how you construe refusal to address mischaracterisations of my views as evasion. Hmm...
This is the one, but you're being too easy on yourself. It was actually a rather self-serving definition that you just seemed to make up, since it was not only incompatible with common usage, but also most dictionaries. Did you ever even provide any kind of source for it?
I see; so favouring definitions you aren't aware of = a rather self-serving definition that the other poster just seemed to make up? Interesting. Btw, no I didn't provide a source for that view. You didn't ask for one. But we're kinda straying from the point here, which is another of your strategies.
Yeah, and if you'll recall, when you cited a source to support your characterization, it kind of backfired on you. Remember, upon reading beyond the statements you quoted from it, it turns out that it actually said just the opposite of what you were trying to support, and it did so in the very next sentence. And after I pointed this out, you became strangely silent on this particular point.
Limited government is the opposite of the end of government? Since when? Btw, those were happy days. I remember not only supplying you with the website, but having to give you specific instructions to find the relevant passage as you were incapable of finding it yourself. Of course, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
(You're not faring too well regarding these past threads, are you?)
In your--um--idiosyncratic interpretation of events, clearly not. But I'm quietly confident, which is why I linked to the specific threads in question. You introduced the subject; do you think I would pass over it without comment?
And which most college-educated adults couldn't understand without reading several times.
Fallacious appeal to the majority noted
Some people don't see the confusing use of language as an asset.
Shouldn't that be you don't like people to use language you find confusing? By the way, have you overcome your confusion over the meaning of "individualist/materialistic", or what the term "diametrically opposed" means? Or how about asking for clarification of words and terms you're unfamiliar with, rather than attempting to construe it as failure by the other party? Hmmm, clearly not (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15340&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post375585).
Originally posted by BillyTK
It is funny to reflect back at someone (&c &c). Especially when I didn't actually express the conclusion you attributed to me
Originally posted by WMT1
It's pretty clear to anyone actually following this that I've shown otherwise. Do we need to go through it again?
Ah, back to the point! Look, be my guest to keep going through it until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that what you charged me with me bears absolutely no resemblance to what I've actually said. In fact, just to help you, I'll requote my statement and your criticism here, to see how they compare:
Originally posted by BillyTK
But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Originally posted by WMT1
That would be the part about concluding that voters have no right to something for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up.

Originally posted by WMT1
The first would be the "observation about the way the government is set up" that I referred to, and the second is "the part about concluding that voters have no right to something", which you seemed to be basing on the first part.
If you're still having problems with the source of your confusion, I'll clear it up for you here: limited rights ≠ no rights. What I said ≠ what you claim I said.
:confused: Attacked? Some people are waaaay too sensitive when it comes to handling criticism.
Well, as your initial criticism has been demonstrated to be erroneous and a clear failure on your part, I wonder how else you'd characterise such?
Originally posted by BillyTK
Hmmm, am I detecting a pattern here?

Originally posted by WMT1
I certainly am.
Excellent! Perhaps you're making some progress after all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
But not for your inactions. People could give zero dollars to charities and be well within libertarian principles. If everyone did that, the charities that you champion would have no funds to work with.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$ a-hoppin'. I've posted reference to Giving USA several times showing that people on average give the same amount to charity regardless of tax level. So this BS about if no one gave to charities is just that, BS.

"With no noticeable improvement" does not really account as addressing the points I made. There has been talk of privatizing the LCBO here, and it has met with much resistance as it would NOT be better under a free market system.

Oh, of course, the only time people resist something is because they know their position for sure. :rolleyes:

No, all that is required for that is the perception that it would not be better under the free market, an attitude that governments all over the world work to encourage, but there is little empirical evidence to support, and much to rebut it.

What do people want from a liquor store? Good service, good selection, good price, and responsibility (not selling to minors/intoxicated persons).

It may surprise you to know that private bars and restaurant owners don't sell booze to minors and the intoxicated.

Under a private regime, chances are the store you go to will not carry the full range of products.

I'd LOVE to see you try and support this!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
No, all that is required for that is the perception that it would not be better under the free market, an attitude that governments all over the world work to encourage, but there is little empirical evidence to support, and much to rebut it.

I notice that you haven't provided any evidence (or even argument) supporting the position that it would be better to privatise alcohol sales in Ontario. If there is much to rebut it, how about just a little bit?

It may surprise you to know that private bars and restaurant owners don't sell booze to minors and the intoxicated.

Really? None of them do? How did I get served in a bar at age 15 then? And you have never seen a drunk guy get served another beer? I'm not saying that all bars serve minors or intoxicated persons. I'm just saying that some do. And that the reason they do is because they have an incentive: more profits. Without that profit motive, the incentive to sell to minors/intoxicated persons disappears as well.

I'd LOVE to see you try and support this!

Did you miss the section under the nice bolded headline "Selection" in my previous post? I have already supported this with common sense. Private stores are only going to carry the highest sellers. The selection will vary by store size and community demographics. It is only logical that not every store will carry every product. If you think this is incorrect, tell me where my logic is wrong.

I notice that you haven't addressed any of my other points. I guess you just agree with them.

You also completely ignore my direct question, "How exactly does private enterprise improve in any or all of these areas?" in favour of a few off the cuff remarks. Do you not have any arguments at all? Come on shanek - I thought you worshipped at the altar of the free market. You say that there is much evidence to rebut it. So far, you haven't provided even a shred of an argument.


edited for formatting

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I notice that you haven't provided any evidence (or even argument) supporting the position that it would be better to privatise alcohol sales in Ontario.

I don't need to. Your logic was flawed; I only needed to point out that flaw to rebut your argument.

If there is much to rebut it, how about just a little bit?

[worthless anecdote deleted]

Did you miss the section under the nice bolded headline "Selection" in my previous post? I have already supported this with common sense.

The problem with "common sense" explanations is that, all too often, they are neither common nor sensical. How about facts? Studies? References? Any empirical data at all?

Private stores are only going to carry the highest sellers.

Ask any store owner if he'll stay in business carrying only the "highest sellers" and see what he tells you.

The selection will vary by store size and community demographics. It is only logical that not every store will carry every product.

That wasn't what you said above, though. If there is any amount of demand for it, a store will carry it. The only reason they wouldn't is if there's not enough demand, because that would be a waste of money. But many stores stay in business selling things that are only bought by 0.01% of the population!

Come on shanek - I thought you worshipped at the altar of the free market.

Comments like that are exactly why I ignore many comments from people like you. It's just not worth the time and effort. I spent over AN HOUR yesterday gathering source material, composing and typing a reply for Victor Danilchenko, only to have him respond with a dismissive post only NINE MINUTES later!!! I'm sick and tired of this. I have a job, you know. I have a family. Why should I put in all this work when people are just going to ignore me anyway? Answer me that!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't need to. Your logic was flawed; I only needed to point out that flaw to rebut your argument.

You must have misunderstood my argument, then. I was not arguing "Because people oppose it, it must be bad." I actually laid out the reasons why I thought it was a bad idea, and you have barely addressed any of them.

The problem with "common sense" explanations is that, all too often, they are neither common nor sensical. How about facts? Studies? References? Any empirical data at all?

I am not trying to present a business model here. If you think that my explanation is non-sensical, tell me why. Otherwise, I assume you have no argument.

Ask any store owner if he'll stay in business carrying only the "highest sellers" and see what he tells you.

That wasn't what you said above, though. If there is any amount of demand for it, a store will carry it. The only reason they wouldn't is if there's not enough demand, because that would be a waste of money. But many stores stay in business selling things that are only bought by 0.01% of the population!

Let me try and explain my selection point again. Right now the LCBO supplies the entire province. They can use their buying power to purchase a lot of specialty products that are demanded by the population, but not enough that would make it economically feasible for a private retailer. A private retailer is not going to stock a wine in his store that will only sell one unit a month. The LCBO can stock this wine(but not in all stores), as the demand across the province will be higher than the local demand of on a month. The service point I was getting at is that I can go to my local store, and if they don't carry the wine I want, they will order it to that store (even one bottle) and sell it to me for no extra charge. This is not economically feasible for a private retailer. The effort would not be worth the return.

Comments like that are exactly why I ignore many comments from people like you. It's just not worth the time and effort. I spent over AN HOUR yesterday gathering source material, composing and typing a reply for Victor Danilchenko, only to have him respond with a dismissive post only NINE MINUTES later!!! I'm sick and tired of this. I have a job, you know. I have a family. Why should I put in all this work when people are just going to ignore me anyway? Answer me that!

I am sorry that I got a little snarky. I also spent time putting together a comprehensive post, most of which was then ignored by you in your reply. That is the reason for the snark.

Please realize that I am not Victor. I read your post in that thread and I think that my post later indicates that I understood your main point (without gov't intervention you don't need UI as the only unemployment is frictional). Please don't misapply your anger at Victor and the nine minutes at me. If you think that I am ignoring your points, tell me where.

Also, you have now twice ignored my direct question - How exactly does private enterprise improve in any or all of these areas? I just want your answer. Why can't you give it?

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by shanek
It's just not worth the time and effort. I spent over AN HOUR yesterday gathering source material, composing and typing a reply for Victor Danilchenko, only to have him respond with a dismissive post only NINE MINUTES later!!! I'm sick and tired of this. I have a job, you know. I have a family. Why should I put in all this work when people are just going to ignore me anyway? Answer me that! Your willingness to take on all comers in this forum has probably inspired others to contemplate various governmental issues and may have enlisted some to your point of view. I'm sure you find that the research you do increases your ability to respond. This will serve you in your run for office on the Libertarian ticket or whatever ticket you end up on. Sniping at inefficiencies and waste in the federal government, even though it's like shooting fish in a barrel, does go over well with voters. I'm not so sure how the idea of relying on the market to regulate itself would go over, though. I'd like to see some Libertarian influence in Washington just for a change of pace if nothing else.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
You must have misunderstood my argument, then. I was not arguing "Because people oppose it, it must be bad."

That is exactly what you said! You said:

There has been talk of privatizing the LCBO here, and it has met with much resistance as it would NOT be better under a free market system.

I am not trying to present a business model here. If you think that my explanation is non-sensical, tell me why. Otherwise, I assume you have no argument.

It doesn't work that way. YOU made the claim, it's up to YOU to back it up. No one's asking for a business model, just evidence that your claims match reality.

Let me try and explain my selection point again. Right now the LCBO supplies the entire province. They can use their buying power to purchase a lot of specialty products that are demanded by the population, but not enough that would make it economically feasible for a private retailer.

Again, if it's demanded by even the tiniest minority of the population, it's economically feasible to sell it.

A private retailer is not going to stock a wine in his store that will only sell one unit a month.

Many retailers do exactly that! In fact, many wine sellers stock bottles that only sell two or three a YEAR!

I am sorry that I got a little snarky. I also spent time putting together a comprehensive post, most of which was then ignored by you in your reply. That is the reason for the snark.

Okay. I'm just getting tired of investing all of this personal time to be ignored. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but an extensive reply will have to wait until tomorrow as I had a lot to do in the Giving USA thread.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
In one of your replies to another poster, you stated that if 90% of people wanted a justice system, those 90% could pay for it and the other 10% would not be able to utilize it. Is that a fair summary?
That is a fair characterization of one option. It need not be the only option. If you can think of another one whose funding isn't based on mandatory contributions, I'd certainly consider it.


Assuming my summary is fair, the problem is that criminals do not know who is a subscriber and who isn't. Any disincentive on a criminal not to commit criminal acts provided by the justice system will be spread among those who pay and those who don't. Those who don't pay are the free riders. They enjoy a benefit without paying for it. Taxing everyone makes everyone pay for the benefit.
First things first. "Benefit" is in the eye of the beholder, and isn't sufficient grounds for making someone pay for something. If I live near an establishment that plays live music, the possibility that I might get the "benefit" of hearing the music from my home does not entitle them to send me a bill and expect payment. It's up to those providing a service to resolve how to withhold benefit from anyone who hasn't agreed to pay for it.

Having said that, I don't mind trying to address some of your concerns. I just don't want to get into a marathon session of explaining virtually every aspect of how a society could be run, especially when, for any given area, there could be several possibilities. And in this case, if the spreading of the criminals' disincentive to commit crimes is really your concern, nothing is stopping the law enforcement agency from publishing a list of subscribers.

These are not insurmountable problems. But that is actually less relevant than whose problems they are, and the boundaries within which solutions should be sought. And it exceeds those boundaries to force everyone to pay for something whether they have agreed to or not, just to resolve the challenges associated with distributing "benefit".


Certain uses would never be allowed then. Certain uses, such as a rendering plant, really suck for the surrounding neighbours.
No problem. You want a rendering plant? Buy up some land that is nowhere near homes, and put it there. If anyone then builds a home nearby, what room do they have to complain?


One of the purposes of proper land use planning is to keep compatible uses together and incompatible uses apart, to the highest and best use of the land.
Frankly, I don't have that much of a problem with this. As long as nobody is changing the rules for property that is already privately owned, zoning isn't one of my big issues, and you'd probably do better to take this point up with a libertarian who feels more strongly about it.


Taxes help eliminate the free rider problem.
So do other options, which have the added benefit of not forcing anyone's contribution or participation. But even if such options could not be found, any challenges you face in solving the "free rider problem" do not give you any rightful claim on anyone else's property or earnings.

Moreover, your statement isn't really true anyway. We have taxes now, yet some people don't pay them, and still get to enjoy "benefits" paid for by the taxes of others. So you see, taxes don't solve the "free rider" problem after all. :D


I realize some of my responses may only prompt more questions, and I don't mind answering them. But discussions this broad in scope have a way of exploding quickly, so please try to keep the number of them in any given exchange from getting out of hand. Or at least understand that, the more there are, the longer it will take to respond.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by BillyTK
However, accusing someone of an error but not actually being specific about that error is kinda futile dontcha think?

Yes, but irrelevant. I was specific about the error. I pointed out that your conclusion (you know, the one that began with "So no ..."?) did not follow logically from the one that preceded it. If you think otherwise, it is up to you to demonstrate the logic, not up to me to prove what isn't there.

Well, you're wrong! But I'm not going to tell you why! :rolleyes:

That's it, just keep right on hiding behind sarcasm. I've looked ahead, and it appears the ability to do so when it's not the least bit warranted is about all you've got going for you. Someone not following too closely might even think you have a point somewhere along the way.


But seriously, you weren't specific about the error. I had to pin you down to identify where the alleged error was.

Hilarious. You're still talking about having to pin anyone else down?

As usual, you're grasping for stuff to bitch about, just to deflect criticism from your own commentary. Your complaint is like someone claiming that "The sky is blue. Therefore God exists", and then complaining because someone else pointing out that the second statement does not follow logically from the first wasn't specific enough about where the "error" was. Sorry, but once again, it's up to you to establish the connection, not up to others to disprove it.


It was then we discovered the error was on your part rather than mine, which it appears you're having some difficulty in coming to terms with.

:rolleyes:

Let's review this once again. Pay close attention. I pointed out that a logical connection was missing from your statements. You have yet to put forth a single argument to establish that logic. Instead, you've decided to try to divert attention from that lapse by trying to spin the mere fact that I pointed it out as some kind of error itself. Another classic case of a libertarian critic covering for his own bungling by spinning his failures as someone else's fault, and something you've done before.


But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.

This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.

:confused: Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes? Or are you referring to some other statement?

You are confused.

About your muddled posts, you bet. You can't seem to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward manner. All you responded with was more spin. Please read my questions again, very carefully, and try to answer what I'm actually asking this time, rather than trying (yet again) to spin your own problems into an insult directed at someone else.


I made a statement about the condition of representative democracy, how this condition constrains voters rights, and then identified what those rights are under that condition. I made no statement that voters have no rights to influence how their tax money is spent.

True, but once again, irrelevant. Despite your attempt to appear as if you've corrected me on something here, my claim was regarding a statement that you did make - "voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box".


I suspect you are referring to some other statement, or more precisely, a rather selective interpretation of one of my statements.

Nope, all along I've been referring to the statement quoted above. :D


Which isn't the first time for you, is it (see below)?

Yeah, I know, if you make enough of this kind of noise, you might be able to create the impression of a valid criticism to anyone who isn't following too closely, to avoid addressing the ones that were directed at your own statements. And this, by the way, isn't the first time for you, is it?


What I find strange is the inability of some people to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells them.

Are you claiming special powers again?

No, but if it makes you feel better to refer to them that way, be my guest.


Or could you point out which part of my statement leads you to the conclusion that I'm unable to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells me?

Well, actually, it isn't a particular part of a statement so much as a combination of statements:

it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Do these statements reflect a lack of recognition of a particular right based on the type of government that happens to be in place, or not?


If you're not referring to anything I've said, could you be clearer on that in future? Hmm, I do believe I'm repeating myself here...

Yes, and your continued attempts to create the impression of failure on the part of your opponent is just as transparent here as it was before.


Baloney indeed! I see where your problem originates; it's clearly indicated by your selective highlighting. You missed a significant bit; the conditional at the end?

Hey, if it makes you feel better, consider those words highlighted too. Damn sure doesn't take anything away from the point I was making. Yet another attempt to create the impression of a valid criticism.


So I'm not saying voters have no rights to do something, I'm saying voters have some rights to do something.

Well, to be more precise, you're saying they have no right to something, "other than through the ballot box". But I can understand why this might be an uncomfortable position for you.


I hope that this clears it up for you, and you'll be prepared to accept your error and move on.

:rolleyes: Get back to me when you find one.


I figured the honest thing to do was link to it to at least let interested parties make their own decisions.

Obviously willing to take the fairly safe gamble that nobody would take too close a look.


It is interesting though how you construe refusal to address mischaracterisations of my views as evasion. Hmm...

Actually, that's not the case. I construe refusal to answer questions of clarification in a straightforward manner as evasion. What is interesting is how people who are evasive like to spin their evasiveness as someone else's fault too. Hmm...


or here, where apparently your criticism was that I was wrong because I favoured a definition you weren't aware of,

This is the one, but you're being too easy on yourself. It was actually a rather self-serving definition that you just seemed to make up, since it was not only incompatible with common usage, but also most dictionaries. Did you ever even provide any kind of source for it?

I see; so favouring definitions you aren't aware of = a rather self-serving definition that the other poster just seemed to make up?

Uh, no. Read very slowly. My point was exactly the opposite - that these two things are not equal. (Hint: getting that across was sort of the point of the words "you're being too easy on yourself".) The former characterization is yours and yours alone. The latter is mine, and does a better job of telling the story.


Interesting. Btw, no I didn't provide a source for that view. You didn't ask for one.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that I didn't. But then again, given your evasiveness in that thread, what would have been the point? As it turns out, I did ask you several questions that related to your use of it, which you were extremely evasive about.

However, if you want to provide a source now, be my guest. But if it's not from an actual dictionary, then please explain why you would choose whatever source you're using, and indicate whether you think it's an unbiased source.

(To anyone looking on, and who wants to get an idea of the level of clarity of thought we're dealing with here, the statement he made regarding his definition was "therefore a racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority of the white race, and the inherent inferiority of the black race")


But we're kinda straying from the point here, which is another of your strategies.

Yeah right. Sorry, but I'll put my track record for point-by-point responses up against those in your sorry posts any day of the week - or anyone else in this forum, for that matter. If you don't want to see my comments on those earlier threads, then don't mischaracterize what happened in them.


or here, where your charge was mis-characterisation of Libertarianism,

Yeah, and if you'll recall, when you cited a source to support your characterization, it kind of backfired on you. Remember, upon reading beyond the statements you quoted from it, it turns out that it actually said just the opposite of what you were trying to support, and it did so in the very next sentence. And after I pointed this out, you became strangely silent on this particular point.

Limited government is the opposite of the end of government?

Nice attempt to cover yourself, but no, that's not what the "opposite" refers to. Damn, I didn't think you'd want attention brought to this. But here goes.

You characterized libertarians as seeking "the end of government". You then attempted to support this characterization from the website with:

All libertarians would agree with the old Jeffersonian motto, "That government is best which governs least." And many would also agree with Henry David Thoreau when he wrote that "I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- 'That government is best which governs not at all'."

But you conveniently left out the very next sentence:

Although a majority of libertarians do believe that a limited government is probably necessary to carry out certain essential functions such as criminal justice and national defense, individualist anarchists (or"anarcho-capitalists") believe there
is nothing that cannot be done (or even done better) voluntarily.

Given the "end of government" characterization you were trying to support, I'm satisfied that this comes close enough to having the opposite effect.


I remember not only supplying you with the website, but having to give you specific instructions to find the relevant passage as you were incapable of finding it yourself.

Amazing. You're actually going to try and extract a criticism out of this, too? :rolleyes:


Of course, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But why let that stop you when you have so little else, right?


(You're not faring too well regarding these past threads, are you?)

In your--um--idiosyncratic interpretation of events, clearly not.

Uh-huh. Can you explain any interpretation of events - you know, that's not playing fast and loose with the facts - in which you do come across well in any of them?


But I'm quietly confident, which is why I linked to the specific threads in question.

I have no doubt that you're "quietly confident" that nobody else will be interested enough to read them, let alone to comment on them here.


You introduced the subject; do you think I would pass over it without comment?

Well, actually, I figured you might comment. I just knew you knew you wouldn't be able to do so without applying some spin.


and using big words and phrases you didn't understand?

And which most college-educated adults couldn't understand without reading several times.

Fallacious appeal to the majority noted.

Nope, sorry. Not fallacious in this case. When communicating effectively is the issue, the audience matters. Now, do you want to go on record saying you'd consider it a badge of honor to unintentionally make a statement that most college-educated adults would have difficulty understanding?


Some people don't see the confusing use of language as an asset.

Shouldn't that be you don't like people to use language you find confusing?

No thanks. Got it right the first time. Are you under the impression that everyone else does?


By the way, have you overcome your confusion over the meaning of "individualist/materialistic",

And the spin continues. I expressed no such confusion, of course. I corrected you on your use of the latter when you described "american libertarianism" as "essentially individualist/materialistic". That does not qualify as "confusion" on my part.


or what the term "diametrically opposed" means?

And it just gets better and better. With regard to "diametrically opposed", I didn't ask you for the definition. I responded to the following:

for instance, their characterisations of human behaviour and action are diametrically opposed.

by asking:

What "characterisations of human behaviour and action"? And what are they "diametrically opposed" to?

and whenever I inquired along these lines, you continued to try to spin it as my lack of understanding of the definition of the term, either to cover for your inability to come up with a single example, or perhaps just demonstrating your confusion. (And you wanted to call attention to this too?)


Or how about asking for clarification of words and terms you're unfamiliar with, rather than attempting to construe it as failure by the other party?

This might have some relevance if I'd pointed out any failures on your part that were based on words I was "unfamiliar" with. :D


Ah, back to the point! Look, be my guest to keep going through it until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that what you charged me with me bears absolutely no resemblance to what I've actually said. In fact, just to help you, I'll requote my statement and your criticism here, to see how they compare:

Actually, all you did was support my case, whether you meant to or not. Thanks.


If you're still having problems with the source of your confusion,

:rolleyes:


I'll clear it up for you here: limited rights ≠ no rights. What I said ≠ what you claim I said.

What the hell is "&ne"? I don't know what you're going for here, but you might want to take another look at how it came across.


and attacked me for.

:confused: Attacked? Some people are waaaay too sensitive when it comes to handling criticism.

Well, as your initial criticism has been demonstrated to be erroneous and a clear failure on your part, I wonder how else you'd characterise such?

Since neither of your premises is true, of course, I'm just fine with the term "criticism". And how curious it is that, with all the attention you apparently gave to your response, not once did you make any attempt to demonstrate the supposed "erroneous" nature of my criticism by actually establishing the logic in question. As with so many of your previous responses to criticism, you just started looking for criticisms to manufacture about me.


Excellent! Perhaps you're making some progress after all.

I never cease to be amazed at the swagger with which some people can fail in this forum.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by WMT1

First things first. "Benefit" is in the eye of the beholder, and isn't sufficient grounds for making someone pay for something. If I live near an establishment that plays live music, the possibility that I might get the "benefit" of hearing the music from my home does not entitle them to send me a bill and expect payment. It's up to those providing a service to resolve how to withhold benefit from anyone who hasn't agreed to pay for it.

A justice system is something of a different character than your music playing neighbour. A working justice system (both civil and criminal) is necessary for a functioning society. Do you not think that everyone benefits from a functioning society? Shouldn't everyone pay for those things that make society function?

Having said that, I don't mind trying to address some of your concerns. I just don't want to get into a marathon session of explaining virtually every aspect of how a society could be run, especially when, for any given area, there could be several possibilities. And in this case, if the spreading of the criminals' disincentive to commit crimes is really your concern, nothing is stopping the law enforcement agency from publishing a list of subscribers.

Which would essentially be a "these are the people you can't rob" list. Everyone else would be fair game. This is not the type of society I would like to live in. I am much more comfortable taking taxes from all so that everyone is protected by the rule of law.

These are not insurmountable problems. But that is actually less relevant than whose problems they are, and the boundaries within which solutions should be sought. And it exceeds those boundaries to force everyone to pay for something whether they have agreed to or not, just to resolve the challenges associated with distributing "benefit".

As should be clear, I think that things like a functioning justice system are everyone's problem, and therefore everyone should pay towards it. People "agree" to pay for it by staying in the country. I'm not a big "love it or leave it" kind of guy, but by staying in a country with an income tax etc., and not leaving to some tropical islend to fleece the tourists, you are agreeing to pay those taxes.

No problem. You want a rendering plant? Buy up some land that is nowhere near homes, and put it there. If anyone then builds a home nearby, what room do they have to complain?
Actually, this may surprise you but the law of nuisance would find in favour of the home owner not the rendering plant. Being there first does not allow you to create a nuisance to adjacent landowners. By keeping rendering plants away from homes, we avoid this problem.

But, as you have indicated no great interest in zoning, I'll drop it as well.

So do other options, which have the added benefit of not forcing anyone's contribution or participation. But even if such options could not be found, any challenges you face in solving the "free rider problem" do not give you any rightful claim on anyone else's property or earnings.

First, what are these other options? I don't need an exhaustive list, just a couple examples.

Next, I think that the free rider problem does give the government the right to some of the free rider's assets. If someone jumps on the back of a bus without pating and rides it for 5 stops, does the owner of the bus have the right to the charge for that? Of course they do. It is the same with taxes.

Moreover, your statement isn't really true anyway. We have taxes now, yet some people don't pay them, and still get to enjoy "benefits" paid for by the taxes of others. So you see, taxes don't solve the "free rider" problem after all. :D

I assume from the smily that this is tongue in cheek. I'd just like to point out that I said that taxes HELP solve the free rider problem. :p


I realize some of my responses may only prompt more questions, and I don't mind answering them. But discussions this broad in scope have a way of exploding quickly, so please try to keep the number of them in any given exchange from getting out of hand. Or at least understand that, the more there are, the longer it will take to respond.

I have tried to keep my questions to a minimum.

I am glad that we are able to stop the mutual name calling and have a discussion like adults.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by WMT1
Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights"
independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

I did a thread on human rights a while back and the answer seems to be no.

Zero Population - no rights at all.
One Person - no rights yet again.
Two People - some limited rights.
Three Persons - bring in the united nations...


How's this? If you call, you're billed, whether you're a subscriber or not.
If you don't, you're liable for any damages to anyone else that resulted
from a fire that started on your property. Can't you guys work anything
out for yourselves?

What if your phone is on fire?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK
However, accusing someone of an error but not actually being specific about that error is kinda futile dontcha think?

Originally posted by WMT1
Yes, but irrelevant. I was specific about the error. I pointed out that your conclusion (you know, the one that began with "So no ..."?) did not follow logically from the one that preceded it. If you think otherwise, it is up to you to demonstrate the logic, not up to me to prove what isn't there.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Well, you're wrong! But I'm not going to tell you why! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by WMT1
That's it, just keep right on hiding behind sarcasm. I've looked ahead, and it appears the ability to do so when it's not the least bit warranted is about all you've got going for you. Someone not following too closely might even think you have a point somewhere along the way.
You’re not doing too bad with the unsupportable self-promotion there yourself :rolleyes:.
Originally posted by BillyTheKat
But seriously, you weren't specific about the error. I had to pin you down to identify where the alleged error was.

Originally posted by WMT1
Hilarious. You're still talking about having to pin anyone else down?
Tell you what, let’s look at the evidence so far:
Originally posted by BillyTK
In total agreement with you on that one! But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.
Originally posted by WMT1
Your last sentence does not follow logically from the one that preceded it, as you seem to think it does. Are any of you out there capable of conceiving of "rights" independently of what the lawmakers tell you they are?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Oh good grief. Please explain the alleged lapse in logic, with examples, so we can be clear in where the fault lies.

Originally posted by WMT1
[/b]Oh good grief yourself. Don't try to shift the burden of proof for your own insupportable conclusion to someone else.You expressed it. It's up to you to establish the logical connection. But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.[/b]
Originally posted by BillyTheKat
Asking for clarification over an accusation is not switching the burden of proof; if you recall, I made no commitment over where the error lay. However, accusing someone of an error but not actually being specific about that error is kinda futile dontcha think?

Originally posted by WMT1
But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.
This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.[/quote]
No such error was made, as will be demonstrated again further on.

Originally posted by WMT1
As usual, you're grasping for stuff to bitch about, just to deflect criticism from your own commentary. Your complaint is like someone claiming that "The sky is blue. Therefore God exists", and then complaining because someone else pointing out that the second statement does not follow logically from the first wasn't specific enough about where the "error" was. Sorry, but once again, it's up to you to establish the connection, not up to others to disprove it.
Your usual self- aggrandising narrative aside, this is another irrelevancy you’ve introduced to cover up the failure on your part to support your accusation. In fact, now you’re making the same lapse in logic that you’re accusing me of; you introduce an example of a lapse in logic and make an equivalency between that and my alleged lapse to support your case. Which has the completely opposite effect, because it once again illustrates your basic lack of comprehension of my original statement, which I will demonstrate again. Clue: things that look the same, aren’t the same.
Originally posted by BillyTheKat
It was then we discovered the error was on your part rather than mine, which it appears you're having some difficulty in coming to terms with.

Originally posted by WMT1
:rolleyes:
Let's review this once again. Pay close attention. I pointed out that a logical connection was missing from your statements. You have yet to put forth a single argument to establish that logic. Instead, you've decided to try to divert attention from that lapse by trying to spin the mere fact that I pointed it out as some kind of error itself. Another classic case of a libertarian critic covering for his own bungling by spinning his failures as someone else's fault, and something you've done before.
Yawns. The logical connection is there. You’re just incapable for whatever reason of seeing it. By the way, when in hell did we start debating libertarianism—whether big “l” free market variety or little “l” European variety—fergoshsake? And you’ve yet to establish there is a lapse of logic, other than as a result of your selective perception.
Originally posted by WMT1
But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.

Originally posted by BillyTK
This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.

Originally posted by WMT1
:confused:Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes? Or are you referring to some other statement?

Originally posted by BillyTK
You are confused.
Originally posted by WMT1
About your muddled posts, you bet. You can't seem to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward manner. All you responded with was more spin. Please read my questions again, very carefully, and try to answer what I'm actually asking this time, rather than trying (yet again) to spin your own problems into an insult directed at someone else.
It’s interesting that spin is a significant issue to you. Transference possibly? Btw, if you ever manage to ask a http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq ( straightforward question, I’ll be happy to answer.
Originally posted by BillyTK
I made a statement about the condition of representative democracy, how this condition constrains voters rights, and then identified what those rights are under that condition. I made no statement that voters have no rights to influence how their tax money is spent.
Originally posted by WMT1
True, but once again, irrelevant. Despite your attempt to appear as if you've corrected me on something here, my claim was regarding a statement that you did make - "voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box".
Thank you for finally acknowledging what I did say. Please keep this up as it makes these exchanges with you infinitely less tedious (see, for instance, the “Equality…” thread). However, the point is relevant; if I remind you your original claim of a lapse in logic:
Originally posted by WMT1
But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.
Originally posted by WMT1
That would be the part about concluding that voters have no right to something for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up.
Originally posted by WMT1
Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes?
Originally posted by WMT1
The first would be the "observation about the way the government is set up" that I referred to, and the second is "the part about concluding that voters have no right to something", which you seemed to be basing on the first part
Now I seem to recall having covered this in my previous post—ah yes; towards the end, and your response to this was a rather odd:
Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, all you did was support my case, whether you meant to or not. Thanks.
What a strange response! Is this the five-minute argument, or the full hour? Anyway, just to remind you of my initial statement:
Originally posted by BillyTK
But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.
Now, remember, your accusation is that the statement is logically inconsistent, as in “The sky is blue. Therefore God exists". This is an example of the non-sequitur fallacy, in which the conclusion is not logically connected with the premises used to support it. So let’s apply this analysis to my statement:

The first premise is that representative democracy is a type of government which imposes limitations: “it’s one of the constraints of representative democracy”. The second premise identifies which particular limitation we are discussing: that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited.” Well, we seem to be doing okay so far. You could question whether these premises are an accurate characterisation of representative democracy, but as this isn’t the basis of your challenge we can dismiss it.

Then we have the final statement, which demonstrates what those limited rights are: “So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes other than through the ballot box”. The first premise here illustrates that this is an exclusive set (no… other than) and the subsequent premise provides an example of the characteristics of a member of that exclusive set (through the ballot box).

Your challenge is that this final statement doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement (the two are unrelated); that the concluding demonstration of the characteristics of a particular set of rights doesn’t logically follow from the explanation of the conditions that define those characteristics :eek: Well, we’re still talking about rights; we’re still talking about a limited set of rights as a result of the condition of representative democracy. We haven’t jumped from blue skies to god here. We haven’t jumped from (something else) to (the subject of limited rights) and we haven’t jumped from (the subject of limited rights) to (something else). What we have done is moved from statement 1 (the subject of limited rights) to statement 2 (the subject of limited rights) with no logical lapse inbetween.

Btw, ≠ is the character code for the “not equal to” sign. As you’re seeing the actual characters, this suggests that your browser is incapable of rendering it correctly. Let me know which browser type and version and I’ll see what I can do.
Originally posted by BillyTK
I suspect you are referring to some other statement, or more precisely, a rather selective interpretation of one of my statements.
Originally posted by WMT1
Nope, all along I've been referring to the statement quoted above. :D[/quote]
Well, again I’ve demonstrated your initial error (damn those pesky qualifiers which change the meaning of a clause!) but I strongly suspect you’ll need to return to it again. Is that cow bells I hear?
Originally BillyTK]
I suspect you are referring to some other statement, or more precisely, a rather selective interpretation of one of my statements. Which isn't the first time for you, is it (see below)?
Originally posted by WMT1
Yeah, I know, if you make enough of this kind of noise, you might be able to create the [I]impression of a valid criticism to anyone who isn't following too closely, to avoid addressing the ones that were directed at your own statements.
I thought you know about that particular strategy… is there a point arriving anytime soon?
Originally posted by WMT1
And this, by the way, isn't the first time for you, is it?
Ah, the famous “you too” fallacy...
Originally posted by WMT1
What I find strange is the inability of some people to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells them.
Originally posted by BillyTK
Are you claiming special powers again?
Originally posted by WMT1
No, but if it makes you feel better to refer to them that way, be my guest.
Ah, would these be your amazing powers of deduction, which you so ably demonstrated here? (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=375585#post375585)
Originally posted by BillyTK
Or could you point out which part of my statement leads you to the conclusion that I'm unable to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells me?
Originally posted by WMT1
Well, actually, it isn't a particular part of a statement so much as a combination of statements:
Originally posted by BillyTK
it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.
Do these statements reflect a lack of recognition of a particular right based on the type of government that happens to be in place, or not?
Here we go again, another typical WMT1 strategy—the many questions fallacy—here used to cover up the previous fallacy of begging the question. Once again, could you please explain how my statement about the conditions of a certain type of government leads you to believe that my ideas are the result of what government tells me?
Originally posted by BillyTK
If you're not referring to anything I've said, could you be clearer on that in future? Hmm, I do believe I'm repeating myself here...
Originally posted by WMT1
Yes, and your continued attempts to create the impression of failure on the part of your opponent is just as transparent here as it was before.
See above.
Originally posted by BillyTK
Baloney indeed! I see where your problem originates; it's clearly indicated by your selective highlighting. You missed a significant bit; the conditional at the end?
Originally posted by WMT1
Hey, if it makes you feel better, consider those words highlighted too. Damn sure doesn't take anything away from the point I was making. Yet another attempt to create the impression of a valid criticism.
Actually it does, in that it counters the apparent logic lapse that was the basis of your original challenge. A minor point, but siginificant one.
Originally posted by BillyTK
So I'm not saying voters have no rights to do something, I'm saying voters have some rights to do something.

Originally posted by WMT1
Well, to be more precise, you're saying they have no right to something, "other than through the ballot box". But I can understand why this might be an uncomfortable position for you.
Well, to be completely precise—you’ve simply paraphrased what I said originally. I was providing you with an interpretation of what I’d said to help you identify where your error happened. I was working on the deduction that you’d simply misread my original post and missed that important qualifier bit at the end. But your latest response--which acknowledges the qualifying part, and provides an example of the kind of logical error you believe I commited--leads me to discount that deduction. So if it’s not an error of attention it must be an error of comprehension, or sheer bloody-mindedness and unwillingness to concede the point? Please feel free to supply your own explanation, put please spare me the “you too” fallacy.
[quote]Originally posted by BillyTK
I hope that this clears it up for you, and you'll be prepared to accept your error and move on.

Originally posted by WMT1
:rolleyes:Get back to me when you find one.
* sighs * It was a bit presumptious of me to assume it would be that simple.

[BillyTK]

Now onto the irrelevancies introduced by WMT1 to try and bolster his/her position:

Originally posted by BillyTK
I figured the honest thing to do was link to it to at least let interested parties make their own decisions.

Originally by WMT1
Obviously willing to take the fairly safe gamble that nobody would take too close a look.
Well, yeah, but you’re point’s kind of irrelevant. Is that the best you could do? What a comeback!

Originally posted by BillyTK
It is interesting though how you construe refusal to address mischaracterisations of my views as evasion. Hmm...
Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, that's not the case. I construe refusal to answer questions of clarification in a straightforward manner as evasion. What is interesting is how people who are evasive like to spin their evasiveness as someone else's fault too. Hmm...
So “Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.” (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=373012#post372994) is an example of a question of clarification? Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by BillyTK
or here, where apparently your criticism was that I was wrong because I favoured a definition you weren't aware of,

Originally by WMT1
This is the one, but you're being too easy on yourself. It was actually a rather self-serving definition that you just seemed to make up, since it was not only incompatible with common usage, but also most dictionaries. Did you ever even provide any kind of source for it?

Originally posted by BillyTK
I see; so favouring definitions you aren't aware of = a rather self-serving definition that the other poster just seemed to make up?

Originally posted by WMT1
Uh, no. Read very slowly. My point was exactly the opposite - that these two things are not equal. (Hint: getting that across was sort of the point of the words "you're being too easy on yourself".) The former characterization is yours and yours alone. The latter is mine, and does a better job of telling the story.
Well, considering I didn’t actually introduce the definition then your characterisation is kinda discredited, isn’t it?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Interesting. Btw, no I didn't provide a source for that view. You didn't ask for one.

Originally posted by WMT1
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that I didn't. But then again, given your evasiveness in that thread, what would have been the point? As it turns out, I did ask you several questions that related to your use of it, which you were extremely evasive about.
Actually, it was the idiocy level of your questions; for someone who apparently so values accuracy, clarity and clear thinking, it’s never actually reflected in your questioning. As you demonstrate here, again.

Originally posted by WMT1
However, if you want to provide a source now, be my guest. But if it's not from an actual dictionary, then please explain why you would choose whatever source you're using, and indicate whether you think it's an unbiased source.

(To anyone looking on, and who wants to get an idea of the level of clarity of thought we're dealing with here, the statement he made regarding his definition was "therefore a racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority of the white race, and the inherent inferiority of the black race")
Well, for the sake of accuracy, what I said was that “i favour the original meaning”, (the subtlety of which seemed to escape you, astonishingly enough). I think we’ve been through the dictionary thing before, but I’ll happily remind you: dictionaries are compiled from current common usage, regardless of how much that usage deviates from the original meaning of a particularly word. Which is not a bad thing in itself (before you take this to mean I don’t like or use dictionaries)), but unhelpful if you want to examine anything in any depth beyond current, common usage (. Dictionary level definitions may be acceptable to you, but sorry, I want to know more. Anyway, otherwise congratulations on a relatively accurate description of a definition I favour. Keep this up, and we might actually get somewhere.
Originally posted by BillyTK
But we're kinda straying from the point here, which is another of your strategies.

Originally posted by WMT1
Yeah right. Sorry, but I'll put my track record for point-by-point responses up against those in your sorry posts any day of the week - or anyone else in this forum, for that matter. If you don't want to see my comments on those earlier threads, then don't mischaracterize what happened in them.
Yeah, that’s something only you could be proud of…
Originally posted by BillyTK

or here, where your charge was mis-characterisation of Libertarianism,

Originally posted by WMT1
Yeah, and if you'll recall, when you cited a source to support your characterization, it kind of backfired on you. Remember, upon reading beyond the statements you quoted from it, it turns out that it actually said just the opposite of what you were trying to support, and it did so in the very next sentence. And after I pointed this out, you became strangely silent on this particular point.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Limited government is the opposite of the end of government?

Originally posted by WMT1
Nice attempt to cover yourself, but no, that's not what the "opposite" refers to. Damn, I didn't think you'd want attention brought to this. But here goes.

You characterized libertarians as seeking "the end of government". You then attempted to support this characterization from the website with:

All libertarians would agree with the old Jeffersonian motto, "That government is best which governs least." And many would also agree with Henry David Thoreau when he wrote that "I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- 'That government is best which governs not at all'."
But you conveniently left out the very next sentence:

Although a majority of libertarians do believe that a limited government is probably necessary to carry out certain essential functions such as criminal justice and national defense, individualist anarchists (or "anarcho-capitalists") believe there
is nothing that cannot be done (or even done better) voluntarily.
Given the "end of government" characterization you were trying to support, I'm satisfied that this comes close enough to having the opposite effect.
So, the characterisation (which was adequate for the point of the debate, about the superficial and significant differences between political groups) of the end of government (actually being a minority view), is close enough opposite of the limited government (believed to be probably necessary by the majority)? :eek:

Originally posted by BillyTK
I remember not only supplying you with the website, but having to give you specific instructions to find the relevant passage as you were incapable of finding it yourself.
Originally posted by WMT1
Amazing. You're actually going to try and extract a criticism out of this, too? :rolleyes:

Originally BillyTK
Of course, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by WMT1
But why let that stop you when you have so little else, right?
It’s a deliberate example of introducing irrelevancies in an attempt to discredit your opponent. Damn, but I thought you’d be smart enough to pick that up. I figured that last line was the giveaway. Oh well…
Originally posted by WMT1
(You're not faring too well regarding these past threads, are you?)

Originally posted by BillyTK
In your--um--idiosyncratic interpretation of events, clearly not.

Originally posted by WMT1
Uh-huh. Can you explain any interpretation of events - you know, that's not playing fast and loose with the facts - in which you do come across well in any of them?
Damn, but your narration’s so convincing, you almost had me going there for a moment! Shame it’s not supported by anything other than an attempt to spin events in your favour.

Originally posted by BillyTK[/I]
But I'm quietly confident, which is why I linked to the specific threads in question.

Originally posted by WMT1
I have no doubt that you're "quietly confident" that nobody else will be interested enough to read them, let alone to comment on them here.
You figured that out through what—telepathy? Your famed powers of deduction? Yet more unsupported commentary..


Originally posted by BillyTK
You introduced the subject; do you think I would pass over it without comment?

Originally posted by WMT1
Well, actually, I figured you might comment. I just knew you knew you wouldn't be able to do so without applying some spin.
:rolleyes: More irrelevancies


Originally posted by BillyTK
and using big words and phrases you didn't understand?

Originally posted by WMT1
And which most college-educated adults couldn't understand without reading several times.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Fallacious appeal to the majority noted.

Originally posted by WMT1
Nope, sorry. Not fallacious in this case.
Why doesn’t it surprise me that you’d attempt to defend a fallacy? Look, here’s the problem; your appeal is meaningless. What’s the level of qualification of “most college-educated adults”? In what subjects? By which country’s standards—the US? Britain? Germany? Any other country in the rest of the world? And are you seriously suggesting there should be an upper limit imposed on the level of complexity of language used by any particular poster? Good grief!

When communicating effectively is the issue, the audience matters. Now, do you want to go on record saying you'd consider it a badge of honor to unintentionally make a statement that most college-educated adults would have difficulty understanding?
Fallacy compounded by fallacy. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? By the way, you do realise that communication is a two-way deal; that being understood is balanced by effective understanding techniques? And at forums like this “the audience” isn’t passive, and can take part in debates and use strategies like requesting clarification or asking for definitions? Unless they’re too proud to or something…:rolleyes:

Originally posted by WMT1:

Some people don't see the confusing use of language as an asset.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Shouldn't that be you don't like people to use language you find confusing?

Originally posted by WMT1
No thanks. Got it right the first time. Are you under the impression that everyone else does?
I’m not in the habit of making sweeping generalisations about what “everyone else” sees, does, or how they’re qualified, come to think of it.

Originally posted by BillyTK
By the way, have you overcome your confusion over the meaning of "individualist/materialistic",

Originally posted by WMT1
And the spin continues. I expressed no such confusion, of course. I corrected you on your use of the latter when you described "american libertarianism" as "essentially individualist/materialistic". That does not qualify as "confusion" on my part.
Yup, there’s spin alright, but not on my part. Let’s examine the evidence:
BillyTK: but in terms of american libertarianism--if my understanding is correct--it's essentially individualist/materialistic

WMT1: You appear to have been at least partially misinformed. It's essentially pro-individual liberty, if that's what you mean by "individualist", but "materialism" is irrelevant to it.

BillyTK: so libertarians don't believe in materialism? thanks for the clarification.

WMT1: Well, some might, just as some libertarians might prefer pizza to hamburgers. But there is nothing about believing in materialism that is inherent in libertarianism.

BillyTK being suspicious that WMT1 doesn’t actually understand the meaning of materialism in this context, introduces a definition of it.
so there is no common stance about ownership of wealth and property in libertarianism? thanks for the clarification.

WMT1: You started out talking about libertarians as "materialistic". That is what I was addressing. Now you've responded here by asking a different question, and implying that it is the one I just answered. That doesn't exactly reflect well on your interest in accuracy. So rather than playing these word games, how about figuring out precisely what it is you want to know, and I'll try to help you get there.
:rolleyes:

Materialism (http://www.infoplease.lycos.com/ipd/A0531010.html) (n) : preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
Materialist (http://www.infoplease.lycos.com/ipd/A0531013.html ) (a): a person who is markedly more concerned with material things than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.

concerned with material things; materialistic.

Originally posted by BillyTK
or what the term "diametrically opposed" means?

Originally posted by WMT1
And it just gets better and better. With regard to "diametrically opposed", I didn't ask you for the definition. I responded to the following:
Originally posted by BillyTK

for instance, their characterisations of human behaviour and action are diametrically opposed.
by asking:
What "characterisations of human behaviour and action"? And what are they "diametrically opposed" to?
and whenever I inquired along these lines, you continued to try to spin it as my lack of understanding of the definition of the term, either to cover for your inability to come up with a single example, or perhaps just demonstrating your confusion. (And you wanted to call attention to this too?)
You bet I wanted to call attention to this! For the sake of accuracy, my first reply was:
the characterisations of human behaviour and action held by libertarians and anarcho-socialists (the two groups Victor and i have been discussing). these characterisations are diametrically opposed to each other (the clue is "diametrically").
And hell, I’d already given you one of the characterisations already; you know, that “individualist/materialist” thing you were bugging me about, because you didn’t understand it (clue was “the two groups Victor and I had been discussing”)? Like I went on to say, if you knew what diametrically opposed actually meant, you wouldn’t be asking what these two characterisations are diametrically opposed to, as that term tells you precisely what they are opposed to. If you didn’t know, as you clearly illustrate, all you had to do was ask.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Or how about asking for clarification of words and terms you're unfamiliar with, rather than attempting to construe it as failure by the other party?

Originally posted by WMT1
This might have some relevance if I'd pointed out any failures on your part that were based on words I was "unfamiliar" with. :D
Evidence to the contrary above, subject to your spin of course.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Ah, back to the point! Look, be my guest to keep going through it until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that what you charged me with me bears absolutely no resemblance to what I've actually said. In fact, just to help you, I'll requote my statement and your criticism here, to see how they compare:

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, all you did was support my case, whether you meant to or not. Thanks.
Okay. Whatever you say.

Originally posted by WMT1

What the hell is "&ne"? I don't know what you're going for here, but you might want to take another look at how it came across.

Dealt with above.
Originally posted by WMT1
Since neither of your premises is true, of course, I'm just fine with the term "criticism". And how curious it is that, with all the attention you apparently gave to your response, not once did you make any attempt to demonstrate the supposed "erroneous" nature of my criticism by actually establishing the logic in question. As with so many of your previous responses to criticism, you just started looking for criticisms to manufacture about me.

I never cease to be amazed at the swagger with which some people can fail in this forum.

Bored now.

Edited to fix tags

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
A justice system is something of a different character than your music playing neighbour.

Not sufficiently different to negate the example as a response to your arguments about "benefit".



A working justice system (both civil and criminal) is necessary for a functioning society. Do you not think that everyone benefits from a functioning society?

Probably, but the whole concept of "functioning" is kind of vague anyway, so it's extremely subjective. And when it comes to paying for it, that's not my call, or yours. I might think you're benefitting from my wisdom in this discussion, but that doesn't entitle me to bill you for it. :D

In a free society, one person's assessment of "benefit" isn't grounds for forcing payment from someone else. Agreement from the person doing the paying is what matters.



Shouldn't everyone pay for those things that make society function?

No. Everyone who wants those things, and agrees to pay for them, is who should pay for them.



And in this case, if the spreading of the criminals' disincentive to commit crimes is really your concern, nothing is stopping the law enforcement agency from publishing a list of subscribers.

Which would essentially be a "these are the people you can't rob" list. Everyone else would be fair game. This is not the type of society I would like to live in.

I thought you were concerned about the criminals not knowing who is a subscriber and who isn't. If you're going to decide now that everyone's ability to be protected is your main concern, I can address that, too. I just wish you'd make up your mind.

I would prefer a system in which non-subscribers could call on the service if they need to, but where the result of making such a call would be that they would automatically become a subscriber for some minimum term of service. Additionally, there would also be significant penalties attached (or perhaps a much higher subscription rate than normal) for having called on the service without having subscribed first. This puts the system there for anyone who really needs it, and with the prospect of such penalties, I don't see much incentive for anyone of means to be a freeloader.



I am much more comfortable taking taxes from all so that everyone is protected by the rule of law.

Sorry, but satisfying your comfort zone is no justification for taking what does not belong to you. And if the majority shares your desire to see that everyone is protected, then you, and those who agree with you, should have no trouble sustaining a fund from your own resources to cover the cost of the service for those who cannot afford it.



As should be clear, I think that things like a functioning justice system are everyone's problem, and therefore everyone should pay towards it.

Then it is up to you, and those who agree with you, to convince "everyone" of that, not decide it for them.



People "agree" to pay for it by staying in the country.

:rolleyes:

Good grief. Not this again. Spare me the jumping-through-hoops to support an argument. This one's gotta be the crown jewel. And falling back on it is a demonstration of just how weak and poorly thought-out your position actually is, and how dependent it is on rhetoric you've probably just picked up from others.

But if you think it's something worth sticking with, does that mean you think that, by staying in one's country, one agrees to anything government might do, as long as he/she retains the option to emigrate? And if not, then what makes you think agreement to paying taxes can be inferred from doing so?



I'm not a big "love it or leave it" kind of guy, but by staying in a country with an income tax etc., and not leaving to some tropical islend to fleece the tourists, you are agreeing to pay those taxes.

No, I most definitely am not. Try looking up the word "agree". My agreement is my agreement. If you think otherwise, then by having this conversation with me, you have agreed to send me half of your paycheck for the next year. Shall I forward you my address?



Taxes help eliminate the free rider problem.

So do other options, which have the added benefit of not forcing anyone's contribution or participation. But even if such options could not be found, any challenges you face in solving the "free rider problem" do not give you any rightful claim on anyone else's property or earnings.

First, what are these other options? I don't need an exhaustive list, just a couple examples.

User fees, subscriptions, stuff like that. If you want something more specific, then present me with a couple of specific problems. I already responded with regard to the criminal justice system, and your response appears to have been to change your mind about what concerned you the most.



Next, I think that the free rider problem does give the government the right to some of the free rider's assets.

Whoever told you that the government has rights? And if the government has this particular "right", then why shouldn't any business that needs some extra capital be able to apply similar solutions?



If someone jumps on the back of a bus without pating and rides it for 5 stops, does the owner of the bus have the right to the charge for that? Of course they do. It is the same with taxes.

:rolleyes: No, it's not. And the fact that you can't see the difference is another indication of just how well you've thought this through. The bus is someone else's property. You shouldn't owe a damn thing to the government just to keep what is already yours, unless you've contracted with them to help you protect it.



Moreover, your statement isn't really true anyway. We have taxes now, yet some people don't pay them, and still get to enjoy "benefits" paid for by the taxes of others. So you see, taxes don't solve the "free rider" problem after all. :D

I assume from the smily that this is tongue in cheek.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you. I meant every word.



I'd just like to point out that I said that taxes HELP solve the free rider problem.

Actually, under the current tax system, freeloaders abound. They are, in fact, largely enabled by it.



I am glad that we are able to stop the mutual name calling and have a discussion like adults.

Me, too, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out ridiculous arguments when I see them.

[WMT1]

And regarding BillyTK, I'm gonna have to take the same approach I took with Cain. I think the two of you must be competing for how much ******** you can post to avoid dealing honesty with criticisms of your statements. (At one point I was even starting to wonder if Cain might be paying you to keep me busy.)

I also noticed that your responses, as long as they are, were almost all either unrelated to the points they appeared to be in response to, designed to give the impression of a valid response, or were misplaced accusations of "fallacies' to support that impression (that "many questions fallacy" thing was particularly amusing), insupportable insults, implications of things to be demonstrated that you never get around to, links to things that don't seem to support whatever point you're trying to make (why does that sound familiar?), definitions that don't help your point, declarations that things you don't like are irrelevant, and some of your responses simply made no f*****g sense at all. To a great extent, you just keep quoting things from my post that are perfectly reasonable, and then jumping through hoops to try to support your assertions about why they aren't, and in the process, applying a considerable amount of sarcasm and condescension where it is not warranted.

In any case, I'll pick your voluminous nonsense apart in greater detail at some point, but due to some time contraints coming up, I may not get to it until after Memorial Day weekend. And in any case, I won't let more than a couple of weeks pass without at least posting to let you know I haven't forgotten to do so.

But in the meantime, if there is anyone out there paying attention to this thread who buys an ounce of BillyTK's ********, and thinks his responses to me contain anything remotely resembling a valid point, simply identify it, and I'll make it a point to get to it sooner.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by WMT1
But in the meantime, if there is anyone out there paying attention to this thread who buys an ounce of BillyTK's ********, and thinks his responses to me contain anything remotely resembling a valid point, simply identify it, and I'll make it a point to get to it sooner.
Yeah, I've been watching, WMT1, and I'd say that BTK is pretty much wiping up the floor with you. Of course, I understand that since I disgree with you too, my opinion is not important to you. I will admit that you are quite adept at creating varieties of the "You're so stupid" style of insult. You'd be good in a flame war, but in this debate, you're badly out-gunned.

I've been a bit busy lately and not able to join in the fray as much, but since Billy seems to need no help, I'll let him continue his "mopping up" operation.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tricky
Yeah, I've been watching, WMT1, and I'd say that BTK is pretty much wiping up the floor with you.

Then how come you didn't manage to identify a single valid point of his, as I asked? And if you manage to find one, are you willing to defend your agreement? Or is throwing bombs like "mopping the floor" more your style?

Incidentally, did you bother to read my characterization of his responses in my last post? Identifying which of them you agree with, and which ones you disagree with, might be a start.
And while you're at it, I'd like to get you on record with something else, too. If someone expresses a conclusion, clearly basing it on a particular statement, and someone else claims there is no logical basis for the conclusion in that statement, where do you see the burden of proof?


Of course, I understand that since I disgree with you too, my opinion is not important to you.

What is important is whether you can defend your opinion, and respond to any challenges to the arguments on which they are based. Sadly, many in this forum cannot, and Billy is no exception.


I will admit that you are quite adept at creating varieties of the "You're so stupid" style of insult.

See, here's one of those things where, if you want to make a real point, you might do better to actually quote one of those insults, and either tell me where I went wrong, or ask me to defend it. No wonder you think he's winning. So far, your comments have about as much substance as casting a vote in a popularity contest.


You'd be good in a flame war,

Riiiiight. If anything, it's usually the guys whose arguments I'm challenging that try to turn these things into an insult fest. You haven't been paying attention.


but in this debate, you're badly out-gunned.

Then it should be that much easier for you to provide a few examples. That is, if you're not just into flame wars yourself.


I've been a bit busy lately and not able to join in the fray as much, but since Billy seems to need no help, I'll let him continue his "mopping up" operation.

Actually, since you took the time to weigh in with this "mopping up" stuff, it would be sporting of you to defend your characterization by responding to the points I've raised.

Take your time. I'm probably out of pocket until about Tuesday.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Thanz

Next, I think that the free rider problem does give the government the right to some of the free rider's assets. If someone jumps on the back of a bus without pating and rides it for 5 stops, does the owner of the bus have the right to the charge for that? Of course they do. It is the same with taxes.

[

This is a terrible analogy. Taxation involves paying for something whether or not you want to use the service.

A better analogy would be that the bus operator sets up a new route, allows anyone to travel for no fare and demands payment from every house in town to pay for it. They then justify this by saying that there is a risk that charging fares wouldn't work as someone could get off without paying.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by WMT1

[snip]

But if you think it's something worth sticking with, does that mean you think that, by staying in one's country, one agrees to anything government might do, as long as he/she retains the option to emigrate? And if not, then what makes you think agreement to paying taxes can be inferred from doing so?

[snip]

No, I most definitely am not. Try looking up the word "agree". My agreement is my agreement. If you think otherwise, then by having this conversation with me, you have agreed to send me half of your paycheck for the next year. Shall I forward you my address?



Let's cut to the chase here. Your argument seems to centre on the fact that you didn't specifically agree to pay taxes. I'd like to address this point.

The government has certain powers and responsibilities. They are set out, for the most part, in the constitution. The government has the power to tax the people. In return, the government provides certain services. Part of the agreement you make in order to live in a certain country is to obey all of the laws of that country. If you don't like the laws, you can lobby for change. You can't just pick and choose which laws to obey.

Your stance implies that you can pick and choose which laws to obey. By calling taxation "robbery", you are saying that the state does not have a right to collect those taxes. The law clearly says that they do.

Did you ever specifically agree or disagree to obey any of the other laws? Can I say that I disagree with the law that says I can't punch you in the nose and then pop you one?

Your argument is crap. If you think that taxes are unconstitutional, bring a court application to have your case heard. I doubt you will get far. OUtside of this, you are just full of hot air. If you agree that taxes ARE constitutional, quit the whining and rhetoric about robbery, because you know it isn't true.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


This is a terrible analogy. Taxation involves paying for something whether or not you want to use the service.

A better analogy would be that the bus operator sets up a new route, allows anyone to travel for no fare and demands payment from every house in town to pay for it. They then justify this by saying that there is a risk that charging fares wouldn't work as someone could get off without paying.

What makes you think this doesn't happen already? Most mass-transit systems are supported by tax dollars. The people who ride them pay a fare, but it does not cover the whole cost of the transit system.

"Every house" pays a fee for it (through taxes) because every house enjoys the benefits from it. Anyone who ever rides it enjoys the benefit of its availability when they need it. That constant availability is a benefit. Those who never ride it enjoy the positive externalities generated by the system, llike less traffic and cleaner air. Charging them for it matches the benefit to the cost.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's cut to the chase here.

Why do people always say stuff like this when they can't address the specific points that are raised?



Your argument seems to centre on the fact that you didn't specifically agree to pay taxes.

Actually, I've made several arguments, many of which you've ignored. And in the case of what you just described, it has more to do with the fact that taxes, by their very nature, are imposed on people without regard to their agreement.



The government has certain powers and responsibilities. They are set out, for the most part, in the constitution. The government has the power to tax the people.

Yes, the power to, not the right to. Glad we're clear on that.



In return, the government provides certain services.

Never said otherwise. You're ignoring an awful lot of points I've made to bring up stuff I haven't disputed.



Part of the agreement you make in order to live in a certain country is to obey all of the laws of that country.

:rolleyes: And again, you're just parroting the same, tired nonsense about "agreement" that most people rely on in the absence of anything of substance. I made no such agreements, and I've never met anyone who can clearly identify when they did. Did my point about you agreeing to send me half your paycheck fly right over your head?

Just exactly who is it that decided what constitutes "agreement" for everyone else anyway, and by what authority did they do so? And incidentally, does this assumed "agreement" you refer to mean that, by living here, one also agrees to never express disagreement with a law, and to never refer to anything as an unjust or immoral law?



If you don't like the laws, you can lobby for change.

Virtually impossible to do effectively in a society full of voters who haven't thought these things through any better than you have.



You can't just pick and choose which laws to obey. Your stance implies that you can pick and choose which laws to obey.

:rolleyes:

Just curious, is this what you would infer from anyone criticizing existing laws, or just from someone criticizing the laws that you agree with?



By calling taxation "robbery", you are saying that the state does not have a right to collect those taxes.

I'm okay with that. Did you think this would present a problem?



The law clearly says that they do.

The law once clearly said that men had a right to own slaves too, didn't it? Was it right then?

Incidentally, thanks for helping to make my point about how some people can't seem to formulate ideas about such things beyond what the law says.



Did you ever specifically agree or disagree to obey any of the other laws?

No, I didn't. Does asking this question mean you're starting to understand that no such agreements can automatically be assumed?



Can I say that I disagree with the law that says I can't punch you in the nose and then pop you one?

Well, you probably could. But then, having committed an act of aggression against someone else, you wouldn't exactly have much room to complain if the law responded by punishing you for doing so, without considering whether you agreed with it or not. Do you suppose, if you try real hard, you could figure out how a law against punching someone in the nose might be justified in a way that taxation isn't?



Your argument is crap.

This from the person who said "People 'agree' to pay for it by staying in the country". :rolleyes:



If you think that taxes are unconstitutional, bring a court application to have your case heard. I doubt you will get far.

I'd be inclined to agree. But then, in case you haven't noticed, I don't base my views on the Constitution. So isn't this just argumentum ad populum, or is there some other point in there?



OUtside of this, you are just full of hot air.

Well, I'm glad to see that having a "discussion like adults" is still a priority of yours. In any case, I've raised several valid points and questions along the way that you've completely ignored, while you've simply relied on commentary about power, based on what the current system happens to be, and on nonsensical assumptions about "agreement". If you can't hold your own in a point-by-point debate any better than that, you probably shouldn't be going around referring to anyone else as "full of hot air".



If you agree that taxes ARE constitutional,

Again, I don't give a rat's ass about whether they're "constitutional". I don't base my assessment of the merit or morality of a practice on whether it is supported by law. Do you? Would slavery become acceptable to you if it became constitutional? After all, you can't just pick and choose which laws to obey, right?



quit the whining and rhetoric about robbery, because you know it isn't true.

Isn't "whining" just a way of trying to put a negative spin on a complaint you disagree with, when you can't come up with any valid arguments against it?

And as far as the "robbery" thing, good luck making any kind of credible case that the difference between taxes and robbery is anything other than legal status. Or are you willing to take the position that making something legal has the effect of making it moral?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by WMT1


Actually, I've made several arguments, many of which you've ignored. And in the case of what you just described, it has more to do with the fact that taxes, by their very nature, are imposed on people without regard to their agreement.

All laws are imposed on people without regard to their agreement. Does that make all laws immoral? You need more of an argument than non-agreement to make taxes immoral.

Yes, the power to, not the right to. Glad we're clear on that.

They have both the power and the right. The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government. All agree to abide by the terms of this social contract. The contract gives them the right to tax the people, and the people the right to vote for those who represent their interests the most.

And again, you're just parroting the same, tired nonsense about "agreement" that most people rely on in the absence of anything of substance. I made no such agreements, and I've never met anyone who can clearly identify when they did. Did my point about you agreeing to send me half your paycheck fly right over your head?

I didn't miss anything - it was not a point. The constitution is such an agreement. It is a social contract. If you want the benefits of the contract (living in the USA) you need to pay the costs (taxes). How hard is this? Your position conveniently allows you to obey the laws you like, disobey the ones you don't, but still get the benefits of both.

Just exactly who is it that decided what constitutes "agreement" for everyone else anyway, and by what authority did they do so? And incidentally, does this assumed "agreement" you refer to mean that, by living here, one also agrees to never express disagreement with a law, and to never refer to anything as an unjust or immoral law?
You can express disagreement all you like - that is free speech. you seem to be doing a fine job of disagreeing here in this thread. And you can seek to change the law as well. But, in the meantime, you'll still have to obey the law or risk punishment. Up to you.

But, if you are going to disagree with a law, please have more of an argument than "I never specifically agreed to it." Taxes are immoral because you don't like them. Thanks for the insight.

[B][QUOTE]Virtually impossible to do effectively in a society full of voters who haven't thought these things through any better than you have.

This is great. The problem is that everyone is a moron except for you. Physician, heal thyself.

Just curious, is this what you would infer from anyone criticizing existing laws, or just from someone criticizing the laws that you agree with?

If all that they said was - I think this law is wrong because I didn't agree to it, then yes.

The law once clearly said that men had a right to own slaves too, didn't it? Was it right then?

Incidentally, thanks for helping to make my point about how some people can't seem to formulate ideas about such things beyond what the law says.

Allright! A slavery reference! All I need now is for you to compare me to the Nazis or something.....

Maybe you can explain what slavery has to do with anything we are discussing. You haven't presented any argument other than "i didn't specifically agree to it" which is exactly the same for all laws. Clearly, not all laws are immoral - or are they?

No, I didn't. Does asking this question mean you're starting to understand that no such agreements can automatically be assumed?

A specific agreement (as in stating, I agree to x) isn't relevant.

Well, you probably could. But then, having committed an act of aggression against someone else, you wouldn't exactly have much room to complain if the law responded by punishing you for doing so, without considering whether you agreed with it or not. Do you suppose, if you try real hard, you could figure out how a law against punching someone in the nose might be justified in a way that taxation isn't?

Do you suppose, if you tried real hard, you could actually make an argument yourself?

I'd be inclined to agree. But then, in case you haven't noticed, I don't base my views on the Constitution. So isn't this just argumentum ad populum, or is there some other point in there?

Then what do you think of the Constitution? Is it not the ultimate law of the country? Are your rights (in the USA) not governed by it? Are the powers, rights and responsibilities of the government not dictated by it?

Well, I'm glad to see that having a "discussion like adults" is still a priority of yours. It was, until you took all of one post to revert to your "let's just call them all morons" debating style. If you want to act like a child, expect to be treated like one.

In any case, I've raised several valid points and questions along the way that you've completely ignored, while you've simply relied on commentary about power, based on what the current system happens to be, and on nonsensical assumptions about "agreement". If you can't hold your own in a point-by-point debate any better than that, you probably shouldn't be going around referring to anyone else as "full of hot air".

Point by point presented here.
Again, I don't give a rat's ass about whether they're "constitutional". I don't base my assessment of the merit or morality of a practice on whether it is supported by law. Do you? Would slavery become acceptable to you if it became constitutional? After all, you can't just pick and choose which laws to obey, right?

Allright! 2 slavery references! What the heck does it have to do with taxes? What exactly is your moral objection to taxes that would put it on the same level as slavery?

Isn't "whining" just a way of trying to put a negative spin on a complaint you disagree with, when you can't come up with any valid arguments against it?

And as far as the "robbery" thing, good luck making any kind of credible case that the difference between taxes and robbery is anything other than legal status. Or are you willing to take the position that making something legal has the effect of making it moral?

Is legal status not important as to whether something is robbery?

Nice strawman you're contructing here. If it only had a brain....

I never claimed that everything that is legal is automatically moral. But the fact that you did not specifically agree to a law does not make it immoral either....

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, I've made several arguments, many of which you've ignored. And in the case of what you just described, it has more to do with the fact that taxes, by their very nature, are imposed on people without regard to their agreement.

Originally posted by Thanz
All laws are imposed on people without regard to their agreement. Does that make all laws immoral?

No, just the ones that do stuff like take property from people without their consent, or punish them for things that are nobody else's business.



You need more of an argument than non-agreement to make taxes immoral.

Well, it's a little more specific than that, but if what you're talking about by "non-agreement" is the thing about taking property from people without their consent, then no, you don't. If that's an insufficient argument for you, the failure is yours.

And given your reliance on that ridiculous "People 'agree' to pay for it by staying in the country" thing, you have no room to be commenting unfavorably on anyone else's arguments. What was it you said earlier? Oh yeah, "Physician, heal thyself.".



The government has certain powers and responsibilities. They are set out, for the most part, in the constitution. The government has the power to tax the people.

Yes, the power to, not the right to. Glad we're clear on that.

They have both the power and the right.

Um ... what was that you were saying before about needing more of an argument? :confused:



The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government.

Really? Who among "the people" actually agreed to it? You do understand the nature of contracts, right?

Perhaps, at some point, you'll get around to explaining where anyone gets the authority to put together a contract, and simply declare that an entire population agrees to it by staying put? :confused:



All agree to abide by the terms of this social contract.

Because you say so? If not you, then who? Do you have a clue about what the word "agree" means? Please explain clearly who has the authority to speak for everyone in this fashion, and why. Because otherwise, you're still not making much sense. You just keep saying this stuff over and over, as if repetition will make it true.



The contract gives them the right to tax the people, and the people the right to vote for those who represent their interests the most.

No, it gives them the power to do so. Otherwise, please explain how anyone can just put together a contract, and agree to terms that involve confiscating property that belongs to someone who may not have even agreed to the contract in the first place!



Did my point about you agreeing to send me half your paycheck fly right over your head?

I didn't miss anything - it was not a point.

Interesting debating technique, just dismissing points you don't want to address. It was a perfectly valid analogy. If you disagree, then please explain why anyone else has any more authority to impose a contract on someone who hasn't agreed to its terms, just because of some perceived "benefit", than I would have to impose one on you, for the benefit that I am providing?

(If I keep asking questions along these lines, I'm hoping you'll eventually become too embarrassed to keep ignoring them, as they kind of get to the heart of what's wrong with your arguments.)



The constitution is such an agreement.

BFD. Burglars can get together and agree to take what doesn't belong to them too. They could probably even tell themselves that the victims of their theft agreed to it just by living where they do, and have just as much foundation for doing so as what you're arguing for. And incidentally, if they get away with it, does that mean they had a right to do so?



It is a social contract.

And what makes you think this label gives it any more authority over anyone who didn't agree to its terms than any other contract would have?



If you want the benefits of the contract (living in the USA) you need to pay the costs (taxes). How hard is this?

Actually, it isn't "hard", it's mistaken. There is no obligation to pay for the "benefits" resulting from someone else's contract if you did not agree to its terms. Moreover, the "benefits" of living in the USA are not something any one entity can claim credit for, nor something anyone has any business sending anyone else a bill for. For someone who is so dismissive of points he disagrees with, you're sure coming up with some real doozies yourself.



Your position conveniently allows you to obey the laws you like, disobey the ones you don't, but still get the benefits of both.

Damn. On top of everything else, you sure don't mind playing fast and loose with what was actually said, do you? I've argued for nothing of the kind. You should probably be more careful with whatever credibility you have left.



Just exactly who is it that decided what constitutes "agreement" for everyone else anyway, and by what authority did they do so? And incidentally, does this assumed "agreement" you refer to mean that, by living here, one also agrees to never express disagreement with a law, and to never refer to anything as an unjust or immoral law?

You can express disagreement all you like - that is free speech. you seem to be doing a fine job of disagreeing here in this thread. And you can seek to change the law as well. But, in the meantime, you'll still have to obey the law or risk punishment. Up to you.

Then how are you inferring anything about obedience from any of the things I've argued for? Moreover, if no agreements were made to not express disagreement with existing laws, then how do you square that with your assertions that staying in the country qualifies as agreement with the laws? :confused:

And by the way, why did you bother including both of those questions in your post, if you were just going to completely ignore the first one?



But, if you are going to disagree with a law, please have more of an argument than "I never specifically agreed to it."

Credibility isn't really very important to you, is it? Tell ya what. Get back to me with the "have more of an argument" thing again when you're prepared to characterize my arguments accurately and completely, and to start doing a better job - a much better job - of addressing the questions being raised by yours.



Taxes are immoral because you don't like them. Thanks for the insight.

Thanks for ignoring my arguments, just so you can misrepresent my position, and set yourself up for unwarranted sarcasm. I could just as easily represent your position as "taxes are okay because you say so", and given the weakness of your arguments, I could do so with far more credibility than is warranted by your characterization here.



If you don't like the laws, you can lobby for change.

Virtually impossible to do effectively in a society full of voters who haven't thought these things through any better than you have.

This is great. The problem is that everyone is a moron except for you. Physician, heal thyself.

That's three times in a row now that you've had to put your own mangled spin on my position in order to manufacture a point. Is there some reason you can't come up with anything based on stuff I've actually said?



You can't just pick and choose which laws to obey. Your stance implies that you can pick and choose which laws to obey.

:rolleyes:

Just curious, is this what you would infer from anyone criticizing existing laws, or just from someone criticizing the laws that you agree with?

If all that they said was - I think this law is wrong because I didn't agree to it, then yes.

Make that four times in a row. I'm guessing you just didn't want to answer this one without first trying to attribute something to me that I did not say, right?



The law clearly says that they do.

The law once clearly said that men had a right to own slaves too, didn't it? Was it right then?

Incidentally, thanks for helping to make my point about how some people can't seem to formulate ideas about such things beyond what the law says.

Allright! A slavery reference! All I need now is for you to compare me to the Nazis or something.....

Nice evasion. But your further unwarranted sarcasm notwithstanding, the reference has been made completely relevant by your own arguments. Now, do I need to repeat the question?



Maybe you can explain what slavery has to do with anything we are discussing.

No problem. You claimed the state has a right to collect taxes, and one of your reasons was that the law says so. If that's where you're going to hang your hat, then my question becomes a means of determining your consistency in relying on that argument. Now, if you can't answer it, you might want to admit that it's a flawed argument, and that you need to go back to the drawing board.



You haven't presented any argument other than "i didn't specifically agree to it" which is exactly the same for all laws.

:rolleyes: Well, ignoring my arguments and misrepresenting my position seem to be the only way you can get through this. I've made a number of arguments, of course, including the thing about taxes being the use of force to confiscate someone's property without their consent, and I've also asked you a number of questions about yours, which remain unanswered.



Clearly, not all laws are immoral - or are they?

No, but then again, most laws don't take property from people without their consent. If they do, then they would be among the ones that are.



Did you ever specifically agree or disagree to obey any of the other laws?

No, I didn't. Does asking this question mean you're starting to understand that no such agreements can automatically be assumed?

A specific agreement (as in stating, I agree to x) isn't relevant.

Well, actually, you were the one making absurd claims about what constitutes agreement. If it isn't specific agreement, then what kind is it? And who gets to assume any kind of agreement for everyone else, and by what authority? (Are you ever going to address these questions?)



Do you suppose, if you try real hard, you could figure out how a law against punching someone in the nose might be justified in a way that taxation isn't?

Do you suppose, if you tried real hard, you could actually make an argument yourself?

:rolleyes: Yeah, you've been throwing that one out there almost from the beginning, and it's just as silly now as it was the first time. So do you suppose, if you try real hard, you could stop ignoring the arguments I am making, and while you're at it, start answering my questions about yours? Given all the ones I'm having to repeat from previous posts, they're piling up fast, and if you don't start soon, you may not be able to catch up. So once again, can you think of how a law against punching someone in the nose might be justified in a way that taxation is not?



Then what do you think of the Constitution?

Its terms, for the most part, seem designed to protect individual rights rather than violate them. And as far as that goes, I'm okay with it. It's stuff like the 16th Amendment where you get into the latter, and neither of us, nor anyone we designate to represent us, has any authority to impose those kinds of terms on anyone who has not agreed to them.



Is it not the ultimate law of the country?

Sure. But so what? That's just an acknowledgment of how things are, and has no weight in terms of assessing how things should be. In a different situation, you could identify a dictator as the "ultimate law" of a country. Does his power equate to a right to do whatever he wants?



Are your rights (in the USA) not governed by it?

No, what is governed by it is the degree to which people are allowed to exercise their rights.



Are the powers, rights and responsibilities of the government not dictated by it?

Powers, yes. The other two, not so much. Government does not have the right to do everything it does, just because it's written down somewhere that it can. And like anyone else, it has a responsibility not to violate individual rights, whether it's written down somewhere or not.



OUtside of this, you are just full of hot air.

Well, I'm glad to see that having a "discussion like adults" is still a priority of yours.

It was, until you took all of one post to revert to your "let's just call them all morons" debating style. If you want to act like a child, expect to be treated like one.

Well, what a surprise that, yet again, you've had to attribute words to me that I never said, in order to manufacture a point that would not otherwise be there. By the way, isn't continuing to do that a bit childish itself?



Point by point presented here.

Nope, not even close. You seem to have particular difficulty with answering questions - a difficulty I encounter with surprising frequency, given what this forum is supposed to be about. Would it help if I put all the things you have not responded to in a separate post?



I don't base my assessment of the merit or morality of a practice on whether it is supported by law. Do you? Would slavery become acceptable to you if it became constitutional? After all, you can't just pick and choose which laws to obey, right?

Allright! 2 slavery references! What the heck does it have to do with taxes?

Okay, I covered this before, but if you're going to ask twice, I guess I can answer twice, to try and set a good example for you. Please pay close attention. If you are going to claim the state has a right to collect taxes, and cite as one of your reasons that the law says so, then it becomes relevant to explore your consistency in relying on that argument. I can understand why you'd want to avoid the subject enough to spin it as irrelevant, though. Addressing it might mean you'd have to rethink the arguments you've been using.



What exactly is your moral objection to taxes that would put it on the same level as slavery?

The moral objection would be the use of force, or the threat of force, to take what belongs to someone else without their consent. It doesn't have to be "on the same level" in order to be relevant to pinning you down on how consistently you'd apply your own arguments. Re-read my response on the previous point if necessary.



And as far as the "robbery" thing, good luck making any kind of credible case that the difference between taxes and robbery is anything other than legal status. Or are you willing to take the position that making something legal has the effect of making it moral?

Is legal status not important as to whether something is robbery?

Yes, it is. What it cannot do is give something moral status, which is why taxation is the moral equivalent of robbery. One is just a legalized version of the other.

And now that I've answered your question, are you ever going to get around to answering the ones I've been asking? You can start with the one you just repeated from my post, and then did not answer. Just so you don't miss it again, is it your position that making something legal has the effect of making it moral?



Nice strawman you're contructing here. If it only had a brain....

Given all the points you've tried to make based on things I didn't say, this must be a joke, right?



I never claimed that everything that is legal is automatically moral.

And I never claimed you did. I simply asked you a legitimate and relevant question, prompted by your disagreement over the "robbery" characterization, and all you had to do was answer it. Trying to pin you down on your views does not qualify as constructing a "strawman".



But the fact that you did not specifically agree to a law does not make it immoral either....

Since "the fact that you did not specifically agree to a law" isn't the basis for my claim, does this make your statement a strawman? :D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by WMT1


No, just the ones that do stuff like take property from people without their consent, or punish them for things that are nobody else's business.

Allright. So I was wrong when I said that libertarianism is all about "Don't take my @#&%ing money". It is really about "@#&% off and leave me alone".

Well, it's a little more specific than that, but if what you're talking about by "non-agreement" is the thing about taking property from people without their consent, then no, you don't. If that's an insufficient argument for you, the failure is yours.

If you make an insufficient argument, the failure is mine???? How so? How is this any different from me telling you, "if you don't see the difference between the legal taxing of the people by the government and robbery at knifepoint, the failure is yours"?

Really? Who among "the people" actually agreed to it? You do understand the nature of contracts, right?

Perhaps, at some point, you'll get around to explaining where anyone gets the authority to put together a contract, and simply declare that an entire population agrees to it by staying put? :confused:

Why do you insist on comparing taxation laws to a regular contract? They are completely different in kind. Without the system set up by the constitution, there is no context for you to have a contract that is in any way enforceable. The constitution makes your property rights possible.

As for the consent of the people, that is how the relationship between the governed and the government works. We live in a system that recognizes the rule of law. Your insistence on comparing the government to any other person doesn't make sense. No other person does what the government does.

Because you say so? If not you, then who? Do you have a clue about what the word "agree" means? Please explain clearly who has the authority to speak for everyone in this fashion, and why. Because otherwise, you're still not making much sense. You just keep saying this stuff over and over, as if repetition will make it true.

In the constitutional system, the people are sovereign. They are free to vote for whomever they choose. The people agree by participating in the system. The people agree by not overthrowing the government. You implicitly agree to the system everytime you invoke your legal rights.

No, it gives them the power to do so. Otherwise, please explain how anyone can just put together a contract, and agree to terms that involve confiscating property that belongs to someone who may not have even agreed to the contract in the first place!

No, you are ignoring the unique position of the government. They are not just anyone. The relationship between the governed and the government, as regulated by the constitution, gives the government the right to tax people. It is the system that exists. You agree to it by living here. If you don't agree to it, then move. (By repeating this again I am secretly hoping your head will explode.)

And within this system, not just anyone can set up your mythical contract. That is part of the system. And the only way that is enforced is because of the system. You enjoy the benefits of this every day. Every time you buy a pack of gum.
Interesting debating technique, just dismissing points you don't want to address.
Do you mean it is something like "If that's an insufficient argument for you, the failure is yours." as a debating technique?

It was a perfectly valid analogy. If you disagree, then please explain why anyone else has any more authority to impose a contract on someone who hasn't agreed to its terms, just because of some perceived "benefit", than I would have to impose one on you, for the benefit that I am providing?

See above. The government is not "anyone else".

BFD. Burglars can get together and agree to take what doesn't belong to them too. They could probably even tell themselves that the victims of their theft agreed to it just by living where they do, and have just as much foundation for doing so as what you're arguing for. And incidentally, if they get away with it, does that mean they had a right to do so?

Oh please. Do you somehow think that "the government" somehow sprang out of nowhere? The constitution was an agreement of the people as to how they want to be governed. They recognize the necessity of government, and set out the way in which that government performs. The constitution is not a static agreement either - it can be amended. Get enough people to agree to an amendment, and it can be changed. Your burglar analogy only works if the homeowners somehow recognized the need for burglars, and then set up a system in a document that would govern the burglars behaviour.

And what makes you think this label gives it any more authority over anyone who didn't agree to its terms than any other contract would have?

Just trying to make you understand that it is not like any other contract you would have. If you can't understand that, the problem is with you. :p

Actually, it isn't "hard", it's mistaken. There is no obligation to pay for the "benefits" resulting from someone else's contract if you did not agree to its terms. Moreover, the "benefits" of living in the USA are not something any one entity can claim credit for, nor something anyone has any business sending anyone else a bill for. For someone who is so dismissive of points he disagrees with, you're sure coming up with some real doozies yourself.

Dude, you benefit from the system every fricken day. And the benefits of living in the system, in the USA, are directly attributable to the social contract in the constitution, especially your coveted property rights. Without that social contract, everything else crumbles.

Thanz:
Your position conveniently allows you to obey the laws you like, disobey the ones you don't, but still get the benefits of both.

WMT1:
Damn. On top of everything else, you sure don't mind playing fast and loose with what was actually said, do you? I've argued for nothing of the kind. You should probably be more careful with whatever credibility you have left.

It is the inevitable logical conclusion of your arguments. You want personal property rights, but you don't want to actually pay for the system that allows them to flourish. Why? Personal property rights! Great argument.

Then how are you inferring anything about obedience from any of the things I've argued for? Moreover, if no agreements were made to not express disagreement with existing laws, then how do you square that with your assertions that staying in the country qualifies as agreement with the laws? :confused:

On obedience, I assumed that you would not be following such an immoral law. Or am I incorrect?

As to the underlined portion, i have no idea what you are trying to say.

[B]Thanz:
If you don't like the laws, you can lobby for change.

WMT1:
Virtually impossible to do effectively in a society full of voters who haven't thought these things through any better than you have.

Thanz:
This is great. The problem is that everyone is a moron except for you. Physician, heal thyself.

WMT1:
That's three times in a row now that you've had to put your own mangled spin on my position in order to manufacture a point. Is there some reason you can't come up with anything based on stuff I've actually said?

Mangled? Hardly. Your entire post was strewn with comments attacking my intelligence. This one attacked not only my intelligence, but the "society full of voters" as well. You make the erroneous assumption that simply because people disagree with you, they haven't thought things through.

No problem. You claimed the state has a right to collect taxes, and one of your reasons was that the law says so. If that's where you're going to hang your hat, then my question becomes a means of determining your consistency in relying on that argument. Now, if you can't answer it, you might want to admit that it's a flawed argument, and that you need to go back to the drawing board.

Slavery is not authorized by the constitution. In fact, quite the opposite. I am not simply saying that the law says so, I am saying that the constitution says so, and that is the document, agreement, social contract or whatever you want to call it that governs the relationship between the government and the governed.

[QUOTE]I've made a number of arguments, of course, including the thing about taxes being the use of force to confiscate someone's property without their consent, and I've also asked you a number of questions about yours, which remain unanswered.

What are these number of arguments? I only see one in support of your position. What are the other arguments you are making?

Well, actually, you were the one making absurd claims about what constitutes agreement. If it isn't specific agreement, then what kind is it? And who gets to assume any kind of agreement for everyone else, and by what authority? (Are you ever going to address these questions?)

see above
So once again, can you think of how a law against punching someone in the nose might be justified in a way that taxation is not?

Why should I bother? It's your argument.

Its terms, for the most part, seem designed to protect individual rights rather than violate them. And as far as that goes, I'm okay with it. It's stuff like the 16th Amendment where you get into the latter, and neither of us, nor anyone we designate to represent us, has any authority to impose those kinds of terms on anyone who has not agreed to them.

Who do you think imposed them? The people did! The government is not some shadowy entity out there doing things on its own. It is made up of people, representing the interests of the rest of the people.

Powers, yes. The other two, not so much. Government does not have the right to do everything it does, just because it's written down somewhere that it can. And like anyone else, it has a responsibility not to violate individual rights, whether it's written down somewhere or not.

Says who? Your position is that it doesn't have the right to do the things that the constitution says it can, based on some overriding responsibility that is not written down in the constitution? Is that it?

Yes, it is. What it cannot do is give something moral status, which is why taxation is the moral equivalent of robbery. On e is just a legalized version of the other.

And now that I've answered your question, are you ever going to get around to answering the ones I've been asking? You can start with the one you just repeated from my post, and then did not answer. Just so you don't miss it again, is it your position that making something legal has the effect of making it moral?

That has never been my position. I did answer this in the previous post.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
No, just the ones that do stuff like take property from people without their consent, or punish them for things that are nobody else's business.

Originally posted by Thanz
Allright. So I was wrong when I said that libertarianism is all about "Don't take my @#&%ing money". It is really about "@#&% off and leave me alone".

No, but if this is what you get from my statement, thanks for yet another demonstration of your open-mindedness, and your ability to form conclusions.



You need more of an argument than non-agreement to make taxes immoral.

Well, it's a little more specific than that, but if what you're talking about by "non-agreement" is the thing about taking property from people without their consent, then no, you don't. If that's an insufficient argument for you, the failure is yours.

If you make an insufficient argument, the failure is mine????

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but the whole point is that it's not an insufficient argument. The failure is yours for thinking it is in the first place. You tend to dismiss valid arguments as "insufficient" when they help expose the deficiencies in yours. And in this case, the failure would lie in not having a problem with people taking property from others by force. If you don't have such a problem, plainly say so for the record.



How is this any different from me telling you, "if you don't see the difference between the legal taxing of the people by the government and robbery at knifepoint, the failure is yours"?

It just depends on which difference you're talking about. If it's the thing about legal status, that's already been covered, so there is no reason for you to think I am unaware of it.

But if you're trying to suggest that there is some other difference, at least one of any significance, then feel free to explain what it is. And if you cannot, then that would hardly be my failure.

And since I only spoke of robbery in general, and never mentioned anything about "at knifepoint", you seem to be trying to introduce differences that don't actually make a difference. The concept of using force, or the threat of force, to take what belongs to someone else without their consent, is where the similarity lies. The type of force has little if any bearing on whether it's justified. But once again, if you think otherwise, plainly say so for the record.



Yes, the power to, not the right to. Glad we're clear on that.

They have both the power and the right.

What was that you were saying before about needing more of an argument? :confused:



The Constitution is a social contract between the people and the government.

Really? Who among "the people" actually agreed to it? You do understand the nature of contracts, right?

Perhaps, at some point, you'll get around to explaining where anyone gets the authority to put together a contract, and simply declare that an entire population agrees to it by staying put? :confused:

Why do you insist on comparing taxation laws to a regular contract?

That might have something to do with your use of the word "contract" in defending taxation. :D

Now, once again, who among "the people" actually agreed to it? And where does anyone get the authority to put together a contract, and simply declare that an entire population agrees to it by staying put?



They are completely different in kind.

So what? You keep saying stuff like this, but nothing you have said explains where this particular kind of contract gets the authority to take liberties with the, um ... liberties of people who have not consented to it, have you? So far, the only thing about it that seems to make it "different" is that those agreeing to the contract can impose any terms they damn well please on anyone else. But then, you could say that about a dictatorship.



Without the system set up by the constitution, there is no context for you to have a contract that is in any way enforceable. The constitution makes your property rights possible.

But I'm not arguing against having a constitution. I'm specifically challenging the authority of any constitution (or any other kind of contract) to get funding by using force, or the threat of force, to confiscate property from people who have not consented to provide it. Because doing that also has the effect of violating property rights.



As for the consent of the people, that is how the relationship between the governed and the government works.

Except that, in this case, you don't have the consent of the governed. You're merely assuming it to try to rationalize your support for legalized theft.



We live in a system that recognizes the rule of law.

:rolleyes: And how, exactly, is this relevant when assessing which laws are good ones, and which laws are bad ones?



Your insistence on comparing the government to any other person doesn't make sense.

Given the specific comparison I was making, why not? Why should the government be able to violate individual rights, if individuals cannot do so to each other?



No other person does what the government does.

Again, so what? Once again, what was that you were saying earlier about having more of an argument? This is one of the lamest yet.



All agree to abide by the terms of this social contract.

Because you say so? If not you, then who? Do you have a clue about what the word "agree" means? Please explain clearly who has the authority to speak for everyone in this fashion, and why. Because otherwise, you're still not making much sense. You just keep saying this stuff over and over, as if repetition will make it true.

In the constitutional system, the people are sovereign.

Apparently not, since "the people" don't get to decide where their tax money goes.

And by the way, have you just given up even the pretense of answering what I'm actually asking? Your comment seems to have no relevance whatsoever to the portion of my post that you followed with it. Once again, who has the authority to speak for everyone in this fashion - in particular, to make claims about what everyone "agrees" to? And where did they get that authority?



They are free to vote for whomever they choose.

Which is effectively meaningless to someone whose choice isn't supported by the majority.

You wanted to know how slavery was relevant? Well, among other things, I could easily see some of your arguments being used to defend it in a society where that's what the majority wanted. You seem almost completely oblivious to the concept of individual will or sovereignty.



The people agree by participating in the system. The people agree by not overthrowing the government. You implicitly agree to the system everytime you invoke your legal rights.

:rolleyes: Sorry, but when you continue to reflect so much confusion about agreement, it's hard to take you seriously. Everytime someone puts the word "implicitly" together with "agree", and they're talking about someone else, what they're talking about is not an implication, it's an assumption.

And you continue to demonstrate incompetence when it comes to answering the questions I'm actually asking you in a straightforward manner, despite the fact that you include some of them in your posts. So once again, where are you getting your information about what you think everyone else agrees to?



The contract gives them the right to tax the people, and the people the right to vote for those who represent their interests the most.

No, it gives them the power to do so. Otherwise, please explain how anyone can just put together a contract, and agree to terms that involve confiscating property that belongs to someone who may not have even agreed to the contract in the first place!

No, you are ignoring the unique position of the government.

No, I am not. I am challenging the "rights" you and others are attributing to it, but for which you can't seem to make a case. You just keep asserting it. If you believe that "the unique position of the government" gives it the right to do anything it damn well pleases, then plainly state so. But if that's not your position, then continuing to point out this "unique position" is worthless as an argument in support of any particular governmental "right".



They are not just anyone.

True, but once again, not being "just anyone" does not entitle them to do just anything, now does it?



The relationship between the governed and the government, as regulated by the constitution, gives the government the right to tax people.

Sorry, but the "governed" do not speak with one voice, and that "relationship" gives the government no more of a right to tax than it would give them a right to engage in any kind of theft. It would only have the right to tax anyone who had specifically agreed to be taxed.

As I keep pointing out, doing a significantly better job of trying to answer my questions might help clear up your confusion on this point. And here's another one for you to ignore. Is it your position that anything that has ever been, is now, or ever could be, in the Constitution, is automatically "right", and trumps all other considerations?



It is the system that exists. You agree to it by living here.

:rolleyes: And yet more confusion about agreement.



If you don't agree to it, then move. (By repeating this again I am secretly hoping your head will explode.)

Actually, by repeating it again, all you're doing is demonstrating just how pathetically weak your position is. What you've just cited is one of the most common mantras used by someone who's losing a debate about laws or government. Apparently you don't realize just how much of a sign of failure it is, or how embarrassed you should be by resorting to it.



And within this system, not just anyone can set up your mythical contract.

Are you ever going to get around to explaining, specifically, who can do so, and why they can?



That is part of the system. And the only way that is enforced is because of the system.

Spoken like a good little subject. I'm starting to wonder, are you even capable of questioning, or disagreeing with, anything "the system" might ever do?



You enjoy the benefits of this every day.

Sadly, I also have many "benefits" imposed on me that I do not want, and which I am made to pay for anyway. I am also coerced into paying for "benefits" for others without my consent. These are the nasty little details that your vague rhetoric about "benefit" fails to take into account. If you will include them every time you speak of "benefit" from this point on, you might start to realize that your position ain't all it's cracked up to be.

See, the problem with your nonsense about "benefits" is that you don't seem to understand the proper role for such arguments. They are valid for trying to persuade someone to pay for something. But continuing to think they are, in and of themselves, an excuse to collect, is an example of not having thought this through.



Every time you buy a pack of gum.

Um ... I could probably buy a pack of gum, or just about anything else I need, without most of what "the system" has to offer, thanks. And the things I do need from "the system", I'd be willing to pay for. Much of your confusion seems to be based on not understanding where such choices belong.



Interesting debating technique, just dismissing points you don't want to address.

Do you mean it is something like "If that's an insufficient argument for you, the failure is yours." as a debating technique?

Actually, all you've done here is quote my response to another situation where you were dismissing arguments you didn't like. Just kinda reinforces my point. Thanks.



It was a perfectly valid analogy. If you disagree, then please explain why anyone else has any more authority to impose a contract on someone who hasn't agreed to its terms, just because of some perceived "benefit", than I would have to impose one on you, for the benefit that I am providing?

See above. The government is not "anyone else".

This from someone who tells his opponent he needs more of an argument? :eek:

Are you somehow under the impression that this line of argument is a blank check for government to do anything it wants, or not? And if not, then shouldn't you have to actually make the case for the authority to do the specific things it does, without simply proclaiming that it isn't "just anyone"?

Please go back to the drawing board, and take another shot at answering the question I actually asked (I can repeat again it if necessary), or admit that it's one you forgot to ask when forming your opinions.



The constitution is such an agreement.

BFD. Burglars can get together and agree to take what doesn't belong to them too. They could probably even tell themselves that the victims of their theft agreed to it just by living where they do, and have just as much foundation for doing so as what you're arguing for. And incidentally, if they get away with it, does that mean they had a right to do so?

Oh please. Do you somehow think that "the government" somehow sprang out of nowhere?

No, I don't. Now, once again, how about answering the question I asked?



The constitution was an agreement of the people as to how they want to be governed.

What "people"? I was not involved in any such agreement. Were you?

Besides, it went further than that. It was an agreement about how they wanted for people not involved in the agreement to be governed, too, not to mention people who weren't even born yet.

Sorry, but merely describing this agreement is worthless as an argument in defense of any of its terms or amendments, who they are imposed on, or how they are enforced. But just to try to pin you down on this a bit, is it your position that nothing that is in the Constitution could be unjustified?



They recognize the necessity of government, and set out the way in which that government performs.

Again, who the hell is "they"? I certainly never consented to things being set up in this fashion. Did you? You just seem to keep throwing out this stuff about how things are, or how they came to be, as if you think that's good enough to make the case for how they should be. And once again, relying on this sort of stuff doesn't exactly suggest you've applied much critical analysis to this.


(cont.)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
The constitution is not a static agreement either - it can be amended. Get enough people to agree to an amendment, and it can be changed.

The big hurdle is that that requires changing the minds of people like you, who are stuck in the circular mindset that, if it's in the Constitution in the first place, it must mean government has a right to do it. So, why ever change anything, right? I think a simplified version of the arguments might go something like this:

WMT1: The law should be changed.
Thanz: Why?
WMT1: Because the government doesn't have right to do what it's doing.
Thanz: Of course it does. The law says so.
WMT1: But the fact that it says so is why it should be changed.
Thanz: But it should not be changed, because the government is not doing anything it doesn't have a right to do, because the law says it has that right.
WMT1: (bangs head against wall)

See the problem? No, sadly, you probably don't. But if there's any chance it will make it any clearer, feel free to replace the word "law" with "Constitution".



Your burglar analogy only works if the homeowners somehow recognized the need for burglars, and then set up a system in a document that would govern the burglars behaviour.

No, this gets back to your tendency to dismiss arguments that expose the problems in yours. My analogy works just fine as it was presented, because it illustrates the absurdity of assuming the agreement of people to have their property confiscated simply from the fact that they haven't moved.



It is a social contract.

And what makes you think this label gives it any more authority over anyone who didn't agree to its terms than any other contract would have?

Just trying to make you understand that it is not like any other contract you would have. If you can't understand that, the problem is with you.

See, if you're going to try to be clever by using my own lines against me, the key is to get it right. It isn't that I don't "understand" the difference. It's that you haven't identified any difference that doesn't also exist between thieves, and people who respect the property of others. And here's a tip: trying to appear clever at the same time you're being evasive only ends up making you look that much more ridiculous.

Now, once again, what makes you think the label "social contract" gives it any more authority over anyone who didn't agree to its terms than any other contract would have?



If you want the benefits of the contract (living in the USA) you need to pay the costs (taxes). How hard is this?

Actually, it isn't "hard", it's mistaken. There is no obligation to pay for the "benefits" resulting from someone else's contract if you did not agree to its terms. Moreover, the "benefits" of living in the USA are not something any one entity can claim credit for, nor something anyone has any business sending anyone else a bill for. For someone who is so dismissive of points he disagrees with, you're sure coming up with some real doozies yourself.

Dude, you benefit from the system every fricken day. And the benefits of living in the system, in the USA, are directly attributable to the social contract in the constitution, especially your coveted property rights.

Dude, for the umpteenth time, how much I "benefit" from anything in particular is up to me to assess, not you. Whatever else your precious "system" does, it also forces most people to pay for things they do not want, do not benefit from, did not ask for, and did not agree to pay for. And your continued blather about "benefit" is meaningless, unless you're prepared to clearly take the position that any situation in which anyone benefits from anything someone else does places an obligation on them to pay for that benefit, whether they asked for it or not, and whether they agreed to pay for it or not. Either be prepared to go all the way with your position, or acknowledge how muddled and inconsistent it is.



And the benefits of living in the system, in the USA, are directly attributable to the social contract in the constitution, especially your coveted property rights. Without that social contract, everything else crumbles.

Without that particular "social contract"? Sorry, but your inability to discern the difference between what's right and what's wrong with that particular "social contract", or to conceive of any other kind that might be superior, is yet a further demonstration of how little thought you've given to this. Moreover, no matter how much you or I might agree with the terms of this particular "social contract", neither of us has any right to finance its implementation by confiscating the property or earnings of anyone who has not agreed to those terms. And if we don't, why would anyone else have a right to do so in our behalf?



Your position conveniently allows you to obey the laws you like, disobey the ones you don't, but still get the benefits of both.

Damn. On top of everything else, you sure don't mind playing fast and loose with what was actually said, do you? I've argued for nothing of the kind. You should probably be more careful with whatever credibility you have left.

It is the inevitable logical conclusion of your arguments.

Not in the least. Nothing I have argued for supports this. The logical conclusion of my arguments is that the government does not have the right to confiscate private property without the consent of the owner. There's pretty much no way you can wiggle out of this one, you've blatantly misrepresented my position. And trying to spin it as "the inevitable logical conclusion of your arguments" doesn't get you off the hook.



You want personal property rights, but you don't want to actually pay for the system that allows them to flourish. Why? Personal property rights! Great argument.

What ********. I said nothing of the kind. My position all along has been about where the choice rightfully belongs. I don't have the right to make my neighbor pay for a service, just because I might want it, even if I think they will benefit too. So yet again, you've misrepresented my views to try to justify an expression of meaningless sarcasm. Rather than refuting my assertion about playing fast and loose with what was actually said, you've only reinforced it. Nice work.



Then how are you inferring anything about obedience from any of the things I've argued for? Moreover, if no agreements were made to not express disagreement with existing laws, then how do you square that with your assertions that staying in the country qualifies as agreement with the laws? :confused:

On obedience, I assumed that you would not be following such an immoral law. Or am I incorrect?

Why would you make any assumptions about such things at all? Then again, you do seem to rely heavily on them, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. And as far as your question, it isn't clear what law you're talking about. But if it will help to answer it, I pretty much obey all laws, with the exception of an occasional traffic violation.



As to the underlined portion, i have no idea what you are trying to say.

As if you would have answered it anyway. Just to remind you of another one you keep ignoring - Just exactly who is it that decided what constitutes "agreement" for everyone else anyway, and by what authority did they do so?

And let's try some different ones too, to see if you can do any better with them. Is it your claim that, by remaining in the country, one agrees with the laws? And if so, then doesn't that make any disagreement that anyone ever expresses against existing laws something of a contradiction if they're still in the country?

(I find it interesting at this point to notice how many sections you're skipping over that point out how you're not answering questions about your position.)



This is great. The problem is that everyone is a moron except for you. Physician, heal thyself.

That's three times in a row now that you've had to put your own mangled spin on my position in order to manufacture a point. Is there some reason you can't come up with anything based on stuff I've actually said?

Mangled? Hardly.

No, "mangled" fits just fine. Among other things, you've conveniently skipped over some of the other examples I cited of that mangling. Can't say I'm surprised.

But regarding this one in particular, I did not refer to anyone as a "moron", and your comments suggested otherwise. However, if you're worried that failure to think your views through makes you a moron, then you might want to, you know, re-examine them or something. Just a suggestion.



Your entire post was strewn with comments attacking my intelligence.

:rolleyes: Give me a break. Why do people refer to criticism they don't like as "attacking"?

And again, if you don't like my comments about your intelligence, then you should try to make your own commentary reflect a bit more of it. So far, most of the rhetoric you've been using reflects at least some mild brainwashing, and your consistent pattern of not answering most questions about the statements you've made would seem to support that.



This one attacked not only my intelligence, but the "society full of voters" as well.

Most voters cannot defend their views any better than you have, so any disparaging remarks I've made about them are quite justified, thanks.



You make the erroneous assumption that simply because people disagree with you, they haven't thought things through.

No, once again you've misrepresented my position. I reached the perfectly reasonable conclusion that someone who relies heavily on ridiculous arguments that they can't answer questions about hasn't thought things through. Do you disagree with that assessment?



Slavery is not authorized by the constitution. In fact, quite the opposite. I am not simply saying that the law says so, I am saying that the constitution says so, and that is the document, agreement, social contract or whatever you want to call it that governs the relationship between the government and the governed.

Damn, you really are a textbook example of someone who can't seem to work anything out for himself without relying on some document. What the f**k difference does it make whether it's authorized by the Constitution? Would you suddenly be okay with slavery if the Constitution were amended to allow it? And if not, what possible arguments could you make for the repeal of such an amendment, since (to use the logic you've been relying on) all anyone would have to say to refute them is "it's in the Constitution!"? Are you capable of questioning anything that might ever appear in that "document, agreement, social contract or whatever you want to call it that governs the relationship between the government and the governed"?

(In case you're wondering, this is the kind of stuff that makes it clear you haven't thought this through.)



:rolleyes: Well, ignoring my arguments and misrepresenting my position seem to be the only way you can get through this. I've made a number of arguments, of course, including the thing about taxes being the use of force to confiscate someone's property without their consent, and I've also asked you a number of questions about yours, which remain unanswered.

What are these number of arguments? I only see one in support of your position. What are the other arguments you are making?

I'm not inclined to go back and collect all of them, so rather than trying to play this game without knowing the rules, tell me how many it would take for you to admit that your characterization ("You haven't presented any argument other than 'i didn't specifically agree to it'") is in error, and then I'll go do the research to find that many, and repost them for you.

I also find it interesting that you made no mention of those questions about your arguments that remain unanswered. Don't wanna deal with those, do you?



A specific agreement (as in stating, I agree to x) isn't relevant.

Well, actually, you were the one making absurd claims about what constitutes agreement. If it isn't specific agreement, then what kind is it? And who gets to assume any kind of agreement for everyone else, and by what authority? (Are you ever going to address these questions?)

see above

Sorry, just another evasion. There is nothing "above" which even comes close to answering what I've actually asked here.



So once again, can you think of how a law against punching someone in the nose might be justified in a way that taxation is not?

Why should I bother? It's your argument.

One good reason might be to demonstrate that you're not as confused as some of your arguments suggest you are. So, is identifying a difference really such a challenge for you that it would be a "bother"?



Then what do you think of the Constitution?

Its terms, for the most part, seem designed to protect individual rights rather than violate them. And as far as that goes, I'm okay with it. It's stuff like the 16th Amendment where you get into the latter, and neither of us, nor anyone we designate to represent us, has any authority to impose those kinds of terms on anyone who has not agreed to them.

Who do you think imposed them? The people did!

That's nice, but you're still not clear about who you mean by "the people", because I certainly wasn't among them. And merely proclaiming "The people did!" still does nothing to establish that authority I keep asking about, and which you can't seem to explain.

Remember, "the people" once supported slavery, and until relatively recently in history, "the people" also supported institutional segregation. Some polls even have "the people" still supporting things like bans on gay marriage, flag burning amendments, and making school kids say "under God" in the pledge. So, I hope you'll understand if I'm not as impressed with the judgment of "the people" as you are.



The government is not some shadowy entity out there doing things on its own. It is made up of people, representing the interests of the rest of the people.

Give me a break. At best, it represents the interest of some of "the people", and you still can't seem to identify the authority with which even that representation takes place.

You talk about "the people" as if it is a single entity, with a single, common set of interests. (And for some reason, the image of sheep comes to mind.) Damn few of "the people" actually put the Constitution together, and "the people" did not all agree to the terms, not by a long shot. Hell, "the people" don't all agree on much of anything. I think all you're probably talking about here is the majority, and if that's the case, then why not be up front about it and call it that, rather than hiding behind the more vague "the people"?

And if I'm wrong about that, and you're talking about something other than the majority, then once and for all, please clearly identify just who "the people" refers to, and where any of these "people" get the authority to make contracts of any kind that will impose terms on any of "the people" who have not agreed to them.



Are the powers, rights and responsibilities of the government not dictated by it?

Powers, yes. The other two, not so much. Government does not have the right to do everything it does, just because it's written down somewhere that it can. And like anyone else, it has a responsibility not to violate individual rights, whether it's written down somewhere or not.

Says who?

Hilarious, given the utter incompetence you've displayed at answering questions I've asked along these lines.

In any case, just to answer yours - says me. If you want to go on record claiming that government does have the right to do everything it does, just because it's written down somewhere that it can, or that it has no responsibility to respect individual rights, then by all means, go right ahead.



Your position is that it doesn't have the right to do the things that the constitution says it can, based on some overriding responsibility that is not written down in the constitution? Is that it?

Uh ... no. My position is that the government does not have the right to violate individual rights, regardless of what the Constitution says. And this will go more smoothly if you will stop trying to restate my position in your own words, and will stick to what I've actually said.

By the way, some people base their opinions on the contents of written documents, while others base their assessment of the content of written documents on their opinions. Guess which camp most independent thinkers fall into.



And now that I've answered your question, are you ever going to get around to answering the ones I've been asking? You can start with the one you just repeated from my post, and then did not answer. Just so you don't miss it again, is it your position that making something legal has the effect of making it moral?

That has never been my position. I did answer this in the previous post.

First of all, no, you did not answer it. You responded with a question, and then accused me of constructing a strawman.

Having said that, if you do not believe legalizing something can have the effect of making it moral, then why would you be bothered by the comparison of taxation to robbery, especially if the only difference is legal status?



The holiday weekend beckons. Back some time next week.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Thanz,

Ah, WMT1 is once again peddling his "I didn't sign no steenkin' social contract" BS.

First, note that he didn't even know what 'social contract' was -- I ended up having to educate him on most basic political theory, before I put him on my ignore list.

Secondly, and more importantly, what that blowhard doesn't realize is that, no matter the shortcomings of Constitution as a social contract, there isn't a better alternative. Even his libertopian minarchy would have to have some laws, and those laws will be designed based on some form of social contract (or worse, a tyrannical decree by a powerful ruler); and this means that in libertopian minarchy there would still be people who would declare that they didn't sign no steekin' social contract, even if the said contract merely protects property.

WMT1 simply doesn't understand that the legal roles he expects libertopian minarchy to fulfill, are still roles which the state would assume without everyone's consent. The arguments he applies against legitimacy of taxation laws, are the same arguments that can be applied to libertopian laws against theft, for example -- no matter which way you slice it, there is nothing meaningfully pre-legal about property laws that exempts them from being subjected to attacks on their legitimacy; the social contract and its consequent legal framework define the property protection laws, they do not merely recognize some magical natural property laws that precede social infrastructure, and which thus require no consensual social contract to support them.

US Constitution includes the one provision that necessarily distinguishes it from some contract that some people sign on other people's behalf but without those others' consent -- Constitution allows the populace to amend it. There is no stronger criterion that a legitimate social contract could be expected to fit, because actually getting consent of all participants would be impossible, thus necessarily rendering total anarchy as being the sole legitimate form of "government".

[Thanz]

WMT1 -

Billytk may have the time and patience to put up with your crap. I, however, do not. Good luck in your future endeavours.


Edited to add:
Victor-

Thank you for your post. I gues you have been down this road with him before. I have decided to stop know before he mentions how I obey the laws of physics or something.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Ah, WMT1 is once again peddling his "I didn't sign no steenkin' social contract" BS.

Ah, Victor is once again peddling his "social contract" BS, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny nearly as well as he thinks it does.

I'll be happy to pick apart your commentary in greater detail next week, Victor, but in the meantime, will you be any better prepared to answer questions this time than you have in previous discussions, or will you continue to demonstrate your usual patterns of evasiveness?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Thanz

Thank you for your post. I gues you have been down this road with him before.Oh, yes. I basically ended up giving him PoliSci 101... it was outright embarrassing.

I have decided to stop know before he mentions how I obey the laws of physics or something.The funny thing is, he will take this as am implicit admission of your inability to address his iron-clad logical arguments. :rolleyes:

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thanz
WMT1 -
Billytk may have the time and patience to put up with your crap. I, however, do not. Good luck in your future endeavours.

Translation: "I have not thought this stuff through well enough to answer your questions, and I just don't want to admit it."

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Thanz

Oh, yes. I basically ended up giving him PoliSci 101... it was outright embarrassing.

From what I've seen here, he probably believes the same thing... in reverse, of course. :rolleyes:

The funny thing is, he will take this as am implicit admission of your inability to address his iron-clad logical arguments. :rolleyes:

And then, as if on cue, he posts this:

Originally posted by Thanz
WMT1 -
Billytk may have the time and patience to put up with your crap. I, however, do not. Good luck in your future endeavours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Translation: "I have not thought this stuff through well enough to answer your questions, and I just don't want to admit it."

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Oh, yes. I basically ended up giving him PoliSci 101... it was outright embarrassing.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the tendency of libertarian critics to try and spin their own failures as someone else's. What was truly embarrassing was the incompetence you demonstrated in terms of answering questions about your views, and the lack of critical thinking that was exposed by that inability, particularly given the nature of the forum in which it occurred. But you just keep telling yourself that such evasiveness is a way of winning the debate, if it makes you feel better.



The funny thing is, he will take this as am implicit admission of your inability to address his iron-clad logical arguments.

The funny thing is, evasiveness doesn't become something else just because you can express sarcasm about it.

And Victor, you, of all people, don't exactly have much room to be commenting unfavorably on what anyone else considers to be "implicit".

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Oh, yes. I basically ended up giving him PoliSci 101... it was outright embarrassing.

Originally posted by Thanz
From what I've seen here, he probably believes the same thing... in reverse, of course.

Boy, you guys really have this thing of using sarcasm to cover for your own failures down to a fine art. So you tell me, who should be more embarrassed, the one who consistently fails to answer questions about his own views, or the one doing the asking?


The funny thing is, he will take this as am implicit admission of your inability to address his iron-clad logical arguments.

And then, as if on cue, he posts this:

So, basically, with both of these comments, all you're left with is trying to find some kind of shared victory in the ability to predict that I will call you on your evasiveness? How proud you both must be.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Ah, WMT1 is once again peddling his "I didn't sign no steenkin' social contract" BS.

:rolleyes: This from the guy peddling the "you agree by not leaving the country" BS.



First, note that he didn't even know what 'social contract' was -- I ended up having to educate him on most basic political theory, before I put him on my ignore list.

First, just exactly when did being evasive and insulting become synonymous with educating? :confused:

Second, please read the following very slowly. I understand the concept of "social contract" just fine. I also disagree with it, as presented by you.

After all the times this distinction has been pointed out to you, your continuing to try to spin reasoned disagreement as ignorance at least provides some indication of the level of honesty we're dealing with, and has about as much intellectual merit as a Bible-thumper continuing to attribute someone's disagreement with his conclusions to the work of the devil.



Secondly, and more importantly, what that blowhard doesn't realize is that, no matter the shortcomings of Constitution as a social contract, there isn't a better alternative.

Sure there is - a better constitution, one that is limited to protecting liberties, and which does not also violate them in the process. This, too, has probably already been covered.

But be sure to keep up the namecalling. I'm sure most of the skeptics in this forum find that that bolsters your arguments, and makes up for your evasiveness. :rolleyes:



Even his libertopian minarchy would have to have some laws, and those laws will be designed based on some form of social contract

Just to remind you, I haven't argued against laws, I've argued against laws that violate individual rights. I also haven't argued against all forms of social contract, only the kind whose terms violate individual rights. You might want to write it down this time.

You know, if you're having this much trouble keep things straight, you really don't have any business mouthing off about having to "educate" anyone.



and this means that in libertopian minarchy there would still be people who would declare that they didn't sign no steekin' social contract, even if the said contract merely protects property.

So what? If somebody else's contract doesn't violate their rights, then they would have nothing to complain about, would they?

Incidentally, does the fact that you keep repeating that "didn't sign no steekin' social contract" thing mean you think merely expressing sarcasm about someone else's argument passes for a refutation?



WMT1 simply doesn't understand that the legal roles he expects libertopian minarchy to fulfill, are still roles which the state would assume without everyone's consent.

Again with the thing about what someone else doesn't "understand"? As I've asked before, wouldn't a lack of understanding be more consistent with someone who has trouble answering questions about his own arguments?

And on this particular point, if you think you actually have a point, then how about at least citing something from my own statements to support it? Otherwise you're just continuing to make up stuff to accuse me of not understanding, in order to cover for the weakness of your own position.



The arguments he applies against legitimacy of taxation laws, are the same arguments that can be applied to libertopian laws against theft, for example

Like what?

And please, if you think you can come up with any examples, it would be sporting of you to use my own words to do so. As has been pointed out to you before, and as demonstrated by the post I'm responding to, you're not all that reliable when it comes to paraphrasing someone else's views.



-- no matter which way you slice it, there is nothing meaningfully pre-legal about property laws that exempts them from being subjected to attacks on their legitimacy;

I'm pretty sure I haven't said otherwise. So, how many more points will you try to extract from stuff I didn't say?



the social contract and its consequent legal framework define the property protection laws, they do not merely recognize some magical natural property laws that precede social infrastructure, and which thus require no consensual social contract to support them.

Are you ever going to be willing to subject to any scrutiny these claims you keep making about what the "social contract" can define? Or are you just going to continue to emulate the "it's in the Bible" approach to critical thinking?



US Constitution includes the one provision that necessarily distinguishes it from some contract that some people sign on other people's behalf but without those others' consent -- Constitution allows the populace to amend it. There is no stronger criterion that a legitimate social contract could be expected to fit, because actually getting consent of all participants would be impossible, thus necessarily rendering total anarchy as being the sole legitimate form of "government".

Nope, this has been covered too. A "stronger criterion" would be to not violate individual rights. The relationship you've just described would still allow for slavery, if enough of the "populace" thought it was a good idea. You, and others defending this nonsense, seem to think that, by definition, something cannot be a violation of rights if enough people approve of it. And that's the sort of stuff that makes it clear you haven't thought it through very well, and are not in much of a position to "educate" anyone.



And by the way, earlier I ran across this from you in another thread:

Well, it's nice to see that the fundomorons who wish to force their faith down everyone's throat at the gunpoint of law, do have opposition within conservative ranks...

Thanks for the laugh.

[WMT1]

BillyTK -

Still haven't forgotten about you, just haven't found the time yet. Probably some time next week.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by BillyTK
You’re not doing too bad with the unsupportable self-promotion there yourself

It figures that you would spin confidence in one's ability to defend one's own statements as "unsupportable self-promotion". :rolleyes:



No such error was made, as will be demonstrated again further on.

:confused:

You posted the above comment right after quoting your own statement from an earlier post about an error you were referring to. Just to refresh your memory, that statement was:

This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.

But if this means you now realize there was no error in my posts, I'm okay with that.



But seriously, you weren't specific about the error. I had to pin you down to identify where the alleged error was.

Hilarious. You're still talking about having to pin anyone else down?

As usual, you're grasping for stuff to bitch about, just to deflect criticism from your own commentary. Your complaint is like someone claiming that "The sky is blue. Therefore God exists", and then complaining because someone else pointing out that the second statement does not follow logically from the first wasn't specific enough about where the "error" was. Sorry, but once again, it's up to you to establish the connection, not up to others to disprove it.

Your usual self- aggrandising narrative aside, this is another irrelevancy you’ve introduced to cover up the failure on your part to support your accusation.

:rolleyes:

I'm flattered that you've decided to rip off one of my own frequent criticisms of others. In fact, I'm pretty sure you've done that before. But you should only use them where they actually apply, or you just come off as an incompetent mimic. In this case, there is no "failure" on my part to "cover up". (Damn, do we need to go through this whole thing yet again?) Pay close attention: You made a leap of logic. It is up to you to support it, not expect someone else to point out what isn't there. If you want for any of your further commentary on this point to have any credibility, then take a clear, unmistakable stand on the following question: If one person claims that something exists, and someone else disagrees, who has the burden of proof?.



In fact, now you’re making the same lapse in logic that you’re accusing me of;

Boy, you really seem to have gotten yourself stuck into some kind of pattern of trying to use my criticisms against me.



you introduce an example of a lapse in logic and make an equivalency between that and my alleged lapse to support your case.

Sorry, but introducing an example of a "lapse in logic" does not itself qualify as a "lapse in logic". And the analogy can be found in the fact that, in both cases, the second statement is expressed as a logical conclusion of the first, when there is no such logical connection.



Which has the completely opposite effect, because it once again illustrates your basic lack of comprehension of my original statement, which I will demonstrate again.

Man, I never cease to be amazed at the overuse of the "lack of comprehension" thing by those in this forum who have trouble defending their own statements.

In fact, this reminds me that one of the most common themes infecting your last response was the use of unwarranted swagger/condescension/insults and manufactured criticisms to foster the illusion of success. I found at least 20 examples, and I'm not sure how much of a response you would have been able to come up with if you hadn't relied so heavily on this.



Clue: things that look the same, aren’t the same.

Since I haven't said otherwise, this might be another example of what I was just talking about.



Yawns. The logical connection is there. You’re just incapable for whatever reason of seeing it.

And this one definitely is. In fact, it's probably the most common variation on that thing I keep mentioning about spinning your failures as someone else's.



By the way, when in hell did we start debating libertarianism—whether big “l” free market variety or little “l” European variety—fergoshsake?

I give up, when did we? If all you're talking about is the "libertarian critic" reference, as far as I'm concerned, you qualify based on your comments about the philosophy in previous threads. Getting things wrong about it doesn't disqualify you from being a critic, it only means you're not a very good one.

I'm curious about something, though. Mentioning those two "varieties" of libertarianism did not seem to be the least bit necessary or helpful to the question you were asking. But since you did so, does this mean you think that all (or even most) libertarian thought falls into one of those two categories?



And you’ve yet to establish there is a lapse of logic, other than as a result of your selective perception.

Once again, there's that "burden of proof" thing. Get back to me when you've taken a clear stand on that.



But just to help get you started, there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.

This helps, and I think we're getting close to being able to identify the source of the error; I made no such statement.

:confused: Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes? Or are you referring to some other statement?

You are confused.

About your muddled posts, you bet. You can't seem to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward manner. All you responded with was more spin. Please read my questions again, very carefully, and try to answer what I'm actually asking this time, rather than trying (yet again) to spin your own problems into an insult directed at someone else.

It’s interesting that spin is a significant issue to you. Transference possibly?

It's interesting that your statement here is a bit of a spin itself. "Spin" is of no particular interest to me. It just shows up with surprising frequency in this particular forum, usually in the posts of people who don't like having their statements challenged. So when I encounter it, I point it out. And trying to manufacture some nonexistent point about "transference" isn't going to deter me from doing so.

Now, are you ever going to get around to answering my questions? Simply responding by telling someone "you are confused" doesn't actually do so, nor does it do anything to clear up any actual confusion. Your repeated failures in this area certainly contribute to the inefficiency of these discussions.



Btw, if you ever manage to ask a straightforward question, I’ll be happy to answer.

The record would suggest otherwise. Or are you seriously claiming that the following questions ...

Are you seriously claiming you made no statement about representative democracy, or that there is no right to determine where one's tax money goes? Or are you referring to some other statement?

... are something other than straightforward?



Please keep this up as it makes these exchanges with you infinitely less tedious (see, for instance, the “Equality…” thread).

I've reviewed our participation in that thread thoroughly. Those exchanges could have been far more efficient, and far less "tedious", if you had not turned your own participation into a textbook example of evasiveness. In fact, what that discussion had in common with this one was you pulling out all the stops to make me the issue, in order to cover for your inability to defend your own statements.



What a strange response! Is this the five-minute argument, or the full hour?

Now that's a strange response, and would be one of those things I was referring to before that don't make sense.



Now, remember, your accusation is that the statement is logically inconsistent,

Well, even that isn't exactly what I said. I pointed out that the second statement does not follow logically from the first. That doesn't make them inconsistent, it only means that, even if the first one is true, it doesn't automatically follow that the second one is also true.



The first premise is that representative democracy is a type of government which imposes limitations: “it’s one of the constraints of representative democracy”. The second premise identifies which particular limitation we are discussing: that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited.” Well, we seem to be doing okay so far. You could question whether these premises are an accurate characterisation of representative democracy, but as this isn’t the basis of your challenge we can dismiss it.

Then we have the final statement, which demonstrates what those limited rights are: “So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes other than through the ballot box”.

Actually, it doesn't demonstrate anything, it just asserts a conclusion, and one which does not necessarily follow from what you appear to be basing it on. It would be just as supportable to follow your first premise with "So, while people might have the right to decide where their tax money goes, this type of government doesn't allow them to exercise that right". Of course, we'll be better able to assess how much sense your own conclusion would make if you would identify your definition of rights.



The first premise here illustrates that this is an exclusive set (no… other than) and the subsequent premise provides an example of the characteristics of a member of that exclusive set (through the ballot box).

It goes further than that. It expresses that example as a conclusion that can automatically be assumed from the first premise. However, answering the following question might go a long way toward clearing up the matter. Is it your position that there are no rights other than those defined by government?



Your challenge is that this final statement doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement (the two are unrelated);

Actually, you are the one adding the "the two are unrelated" part. I never said that, and it is not synonymous with the thing about following logically.



that the concluding demonstration of the characteristics of a particular set of rights doesn’t logically follow from the explanation of the conditions that define those characteristics :eek:

Again, you seem to feel the need to restate what I said in your own words. Can't you make your point by sticking to what was actually said?



Well, we’re still talking about rights; we’re still talking about a limited set of rights as a result of the condition of representative democracy. We haven’t jumped from blue skies to god here. We haven’t jumped from (something else) to (the subject of limited rights) and we haven’t jumped from (the subject of limited rights) to (something else). What we have done is moved from statement 1 (the subject of limited rights) to statement 2 (the subject of limited rights) with no logical lapse in between.

That's all nice. But I didn't question whether you "moved from" one statement to the other, whatever the hell that means. I said the second did not follow logically from the first. Again, that's did not follow logically. Focus!



Well, again I’ve demonstrated your initial error (damn those pesky qualifiers which change the meaning of a clause!) but I strongly suspect you’ll need to return to it again. Is that cow bells I hear?

:rolleyes: And again, somebody apparently forgot to tell you that asserting something isn't the same as demonstrating it. Something tells me I'll probably have to make that point again.



Which isn't the first time for you, is it (see below)?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I know, if you make enough of this kind of noise, you might be able to create the impression of a valid criticism to anyone who isn't following too closely, to avoid addressing the ones that were directed at your own statements.

I thought you know about that particular strategy… is there a point arriving anytime soon?

And whaddaya know? Just like that, you respond with another example of the very thing I was talking about. Nice work.



And this, by the way, this isn't the first time for you, is it?

Ah, the famous “you too” fallacy...

Ah, someone who likes to rely heavily on debating terms to make insignificant points. Did you fail to notice that you just did the same damn thing in the previous point?

And if it's a fallacy, then you don't really want me to point out all the times you've resorted to it, do you? See, what you can't seem to understand is that, in determining whether something is a "fallacy", it matters whether it is used correctly and appropriately, not who did it first.

Simply saying "Which isn't the first time for you, is it" might be a way to convey the impression of having a point, to someone not following too closely. But when you said it, you were referring to a "selective interpretation" on my part, and it's just another one of those assertions you can't back up. (If you like, we can take a closer look at the validity of the example you used in that case, but then, that would require you to answer some questions, in order to test the accuracy of my "interpretation", and that's one thing you don't seem too crazy about.)

On the other hand, when I said "this, by the way, isn't the first time for you", I was referring to the very tendency I was just now talking about - to foster the impression of a valid criticism where none exists, which is rampant throughout your posts. And look out, here comes another one ...



Ah, would these be your amazing powers of deduction, which you so ably demonstrated here?

Well, as I said, I reviewed our exchanges in that thread thoroughly. And frankly, no "amazing powers of deduction" were necessary for the conclusions I reached there, your sarcasm notwithstanding. Your display of evasiveness was more than enough, thanks.



Or could you point out which part of my statement leads you to the conclusion that I'm unable to formulate any ideas about rights that are not tied to whatever government tells me?

Well, actually, it isn't a particular part of a statement so much as a combination of statements:

it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Do these statements reflect a lack of recognition of a particular right based on the type of government that happens to be in place, or not?

Here we go again, another typical WMT1 strategy—the many questions fallacy—here used to cover up the previous fallacy of begging the question.

:rolleyes:

Here we go again, another typical BillyTK strategy - referring to something as a "fallacy" that isn't - here used to deflect attention from his chronic evasiveness. Now, once again, do those statements reflect a lack of recognition of a particular right based on the type of government that happens to be in place, or not?

Incidentally, having just gone back and reviewed my last post, just exactly how many questions does it take to qualify as "many"? If you think there really is a "many questions" fallacy, and in particular, if you think my last post qualifies, this might not be the best forum for you. :D



Once again, could you please explain how my statement about the conditions of a certain type of government leads you to believe that my ideas are the result of what government tells me?

Well, I've expressed no such conclusions about anything as general as your "ideas", but rather, specifically about your definition of rights. And in that case, my impression is based on your use of the term in those two statements that prompted my initial response to you - in particular, the part about concluding that voters don't have a right to something ("other than through the ballot box", of course) for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up. And that conclusion is being reinforced by the tenacity with which you seem to be standing behind those two statements.

I also recall that, one of the previous times you asked me about this, I asked you a completely reasonable, relevant, straightforward question of clarification, designed to get you to take a closer look at your own statements, and that was when you decided to invent the "many questions" thing to (yet again) spin your own failures as someone else's problem. That one was priceless, particularly given the forum we're in.



Baloney indeed! I see where your problem originates; it's clearly indicated by your selective highlighting. You missed a significant bit; the conditional at the end?

Hey, if it makes you feel better, consider those words highlighted too. Damn sure doesn't take anything away from the point I was making. Yet another attempt to create the impression of a valid criticism.

Actually it does, in that it counters the apparent logic lapse that was the basis of your original challenge. A minor point, but siginificant one.

Nice try, but it doesn't counter it at all, as the logical connection still hasn't been established. I expect this to become clearer if you ever get around to providing your definition of "rights", and in particular, taking a clear stand on whether you think the only rights that exist are those defined by government.



I was providing you with an interpretation of what I’d said to help you identify where your error happened. I was working on the deduction that you’d simply misread my original post and missed that important qualifier bit at the end. But your latest response--which acknowledges the qualifying part, and provides an example of the kind of logical error you believe I commited--leads me to discount that deduction. So if it’s not an error of attention it must be an error of comprehension, or sheer bloody-mindedness and unwillingness to concede the point?

Um ... how many times are you going to use the word "error" before actually identifying one?



Please feel free to supply your own explanation, put please spare me the “you too” fallacy.

Please spare me your continued reliance on all these imaginary "fallacies". It's starting to look like you think if you can say "fallacy" enough times ... well, this just gets back to that thing about creating impressions.



I hope that this clears it up for you, and you'll be prepared to accept your error and move on.

:rolleyes: Get back to me when you find one.

* sighs * It was a bit presumptious of me to assume it would be that simple.

It was a bit presumptuous of you to assume your failure to establish a logical connection was someone else's error to begin with.

[WMT1]

Now onto the irrelevancies introduced by WMT1 to try and bolster his/her position:

You mean the "irrelevancies" that were a direct response to your choice to link to previous threads, and comment on them?



I figured the honest thing to do was link to it to at least let interested parties make their own decisions.

Obviously willing to take the fairly safe gamble that nobody would take too close a look.

Well, yeah, but you’re point’s kind of irrelevant. Is that the best you could do? What a comeback!

:rolleyes: Good grief. After all the lame "comebacks" you've peppered your responses with? And I'd lose that whole "irrelevant" thing. It's starting to look like you don't have a clue what the word means.



It is interesting though how you construe refusal to address mischaracterisations of my views as evasion. Hmm...

Actually, that's not the case. I construe refusal to answer questions of clarification in a straightforward manner as evasion. What is interesting is how people who are evasive like to spin their evasiveness as someone else's fault too. Hmm...

So “Something tells me your idea of equality just means the ability to make others pay for what you can't afford.” is an example of a question of clarification? Thanks for the clarification.

No, but thanks for demonstrating your confusion about what constitutes a question. You're more likely to find them among the sentences with the "?" at the end, and there were several in that discussion that you didn't seem to want to answer. What a surprise that you didn't want to mention any of them here. Now, would you like to go on record claiming that you were not evasive in that thread?



or here, where apparently your criticism was that I was wrong because I favoured a definition you weren't aware of,

This is the one, but you're being too easy on yourself. It was actually a rather self-serving definition that you just seemed to make up, since it was not only incompatible with common usage, but also most dictionaries. Did you ever even provide any kind of source for it?

I see; so favouring definitions you aren't aware of = a rather self-serving definition that the other poster just seemed to make up?

:rolleyes:

Uh, no. Read very slowly. My point was exactly the opposite - that these two things are not equal. (Hint: getting that across was sort of the point of the words "you're being too easy on yourself".) The former characterization is yours and yours alone. The latter is mine, and does a better job of telling the story.

Well, considering I didn’t actually introduce the definition then your characterisation is kinda discredited, isn’t it?

Wow. I'd like to see the hoops you're jumping through to get to this conclusion. What "characterisation" are you now referring to as being "discredited"?



Interesting. Btw, no I didn't provide a source for that view. You didn't ask for one.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that I didn't. But then again, given your evasiveness in that thread, what would have been the point? As it turns out, I did ask you several questions that related to your use of it, which you were extremely evasive about.

Actually, it was the idiocy level of your questions; for someone who apparently so values accuracy, clarity and clear thinking, it’s never actually reflected in your questioning.

Yeah, that's the ticket. It's the questions. First, "many" of them qualifies as a "fallacy". Now it's the "idiocy level".
:rolleyes:

Sorry, but whenever anyone being called on their evasiveness starts trying to make it about the questions, their complaints are never specific, and it's usually long past the point when, if anything was actually wrong with the questions, it would have been the time to point that out.

The problem you (and others) have had with my questions is actually that they do, in fact, reflect clear thinking, and usually expose the lack of clear thinking that went into some of the statements you make. This "idiocy level" thing is yet another in the litany of examples of trying to spin your own failures as someone else's.



As you demonstrate here, again.

And yet amazingly, not a single example provided. Still setting the bar kind of low for what qualifies as a demonstration, I see. What a surprise. If you didn't have these cheap, nonspecific insults to rely on, you'd be lost, wouldn't you?



(To anyone looking on, and who wants to get an idea of the level of clarity of thought we're dealing with here, the statement he made regarding his definition was "therefore a racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority of the white race, and the inherent inferiority of the black race")

Well, for the sake of accuracy, what I said was that “i favour the original meaning”, (the subtlety of which seemed to escape you, astonishingly enough).

Am I going to have to start to keep count of all the baseless insults you just keep pulling out of thin air, to create the impression of having a point? Do you agree with the definition I quoted, or not?



I think we’ve been through the dictionary thing before, but I’ll happily remind you: dictionaries are compiled from current common usage, regardless of how much that usage deviates from the original meaning of a particularly word. Which is not a bad thing in itself (before you take this to mean I don’t like or use dictionaries)), but unhelpful if you want to examine anything in any depth beyond current, common usage (. Dictionary level definitions may be acceptable to you, but sorry, I want to know more. Anyway, otherwise congratulations on a relatively accurate description of a definition I favour. Keep this up, and we might actually get somewhere.

Amazingly, you even have a way of trying to make conceding a point sound like just the opposite. Once again, just to be sure you didn't miss it, do you agree with the definition I quoted, or not? (Or is that question not "straightforward" enough for you?)



But we're kinda straying from the point here, which is another of your strategies.

Yeah right. Sorry, but I'll put my track record for point-by-point responses up against those in your sorry posts any day of the week - or anyone else in this forum, for that matter. If you don't want to see my comments on those earlier threads, then don't mischaracterize what happened in them.

Yeah, that’s something only you could be proud of…

And yet again, just like that, more unwarranted sarcasm to create the impression of having a point. Otherwise, what are you suggesting only I could be "proud" of, and why would it be a problem?



So, the characterisation (which was adequate for the point of the debate, about the superficial and significant differences between political groups) of the end of government (actually being a minority view), is close enough opposite of the limited government (believed to be probably necessary by the majority)? :eek:

Uh, no. Pay close attention. Your attempt to use a website to support a particular characterization about libertarians wound up having the opposite effect, which was to refute it. Damn, you will jump through some serious hoops to try to spin a complete failure as something else, won't you?

(And this is what you called "mopping the floor", Tricky?)



It’s a deliberate example of introducing irrelevancies in an attempt to discredit your opponent. Damn, but I thought you’d be smart enough to pick that up. I figured that last line was the giveaway. Oh well…

At this point, I don't know what it is you're trying to refer to as "irrelevancies", but if pointing out someone's evasiveness in previous threads qualifies as discrediting them, I think that's a worthwhile goal, don't you?



(You're not faring too well regarding these past threads, are you?)

In your--um--idiosyncratic interpretation of events, clearly not.

Uh-huh. Can you explain any interpretation of events - you know, that's not playing fast and loose with the facts - in which you do come across well in any of them?

Damn, but your narration’s so convincing, you almost had me going there for a moment! Shame it’s not supported by anything other than an attempt to spin events in your favour.

And not suprisingly, what's missing from your response is the interpretation I asked for. If it is your position that any portion of my accounting of things is in error, then how about clearly identifying it (in my words, not your version of them), and we can take a closer look.



But I'm quietly confident, which is why I linked to the specific threads in question.

I have no doubt that you're "quietly confident" that nobody else will be interested enough to read them, let alone to comment on them here.

You figured that out through what—telepathy? Your famed powers of deduction? Yet more unsupported commentary.

For some reason, that whole pot/kettle thing comes to mind. In any case, the commentary in question is an expression of skepticism about your comment asserting that you're "quietly confident", and that skepticism is more than sufficiently supported by your chronic evasiveness in those other threads. I see no upside for you in providing the links if you thought anyone would actually take a close look at them.



You introduced the subject; do you think I would pass over it without comment?

Well, actually, I figured you might comment. I just knew you knew you wouldn't be able to do so without applying some spin.

:rolleyes: More irrelevancies

An answer to a question you asked now qualifies as an "irrelevancy" too? :eek:



and using big words and phrases you didn't understand?

And which most college-educated adults couldn't understand without reading several times.

Fallacious appeal to the majority noted.

Nope, sorry. Not fallacious in this case.

Why doesn’t it surprise me that you’d attempt to defend a fallacy?

Why doesn't it surprise me that you'd continue to insist that something you don't like is a "fallacy" when it isn't?



Look, here’s the problem; your appeal is meaningless.

Um ... it wasn't an "appeal". It was an opinion.



What’s the level of qualification of “most college-educated adults”? In what subjects? By which country’s standards—the US? Britain? Germany? Any other country in the rest of the world?

Now who's introducing "irrelevancies"?



And are you seriously suggesting there should be an upper limit imposed on the level of complexity of language used by any particular poster? Good grief!

Not in the least. You're posting to virtual strangers on a message board. Either communicating effectively is important to you, or it isn't. And while your use of words like "upper limit" suggests you think your muddled rhetoric reflects something positive about you, what we're really talking about here is meeting a minimum standard for clarity.



When communicating effectively is the issue, the audience matters. Now, do you want to go on record saying you'd consider it a badge of honor to unintentionally make a statement that most college-educated adults would have difficulty understanding?

Fallacy compounded by fallacy.

:rolleyes: Unsubstantiated assertion of fallacy compounded by unsubstantiated assertion of fallacy. And, oh yes, more evasion as well.


Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

If you're trying to suggest that this question is analogous to the one I asked, now that's what I call a "fallacy". And just to set a good example for you to follow, I'll explain why. Unlike your question, mine could have been answered in a non-self-incriminating way with a simple "no". Was that answer a problem for you, for some reason?



By the way, you do realise that communication is a two-way deal; that being understood is balanced by effective understanding techniques? And at forums like this “the audience” isn’t passive, and can take part in debates and use strategies like requesting clarification or asking for definitions? Unless they’re too proud to or something… :rolleyes:

Sure, and as I recall, I did something along those lines. I just didn't do so as politely as you might have liked.



Some people don't see the confusing use of language as an asset.

Shouldn't that be you don't like people to use language you find confusing?

No thanks. Got it right the first time. Are you under the impression that everyone else does?

I’m not in the habit of making sweeping generalisations about what “everyone else” sees, does, or how they’re qualified, come to think of it.

Well, perhaps not directly. But if you weren't at least assuming something about "everyone else", then what the hell was the point of your question?



By the way, have you overcome your confusion over the meaning of "individualist/materialistic",

And the spin continues. I expressed no such confusion, of course. I corrected you on your use of the latter when you described "american libertarianism" as "essentially individualist/materialistic". That does not qualify as "confusion" on my part.

Yup, there’s spin alright, but not on my part. Let’s examine the evidence:

Uh-huh. All your "evidence" did was demonstrate your own confusion. As I already said, it was not a misunderstanding of any definitions on my part, it was a misapplication of a word (to libertarianism) on your part, and remains so. I hate to break it to you, but the definitions you provided did not bolster your position. They did not describe libertarianism then, and they do not now.



or what the term "diametrically opposed" means?

And it just gets better and better. With regard to "diametrically opposed", I didn't ask you for the definition. I responded to the following:

for instance, their characterisations of human behaviour and action are diametrically opposed.

by asking:

What "characterisations of human behaviour and action"? And what are they "diametrically opposed" to?

and whenever I inquired along these lines, you continued to try to spin it as my lack of understanding of the definition of the term, either to cover for your inability to come up with a single example, or perhaps just demonstrating your confusion. (And you wanted to call attention to this too?)

You bet I wanted to call attention to this! For the sake of accuracy, my first reply was:

the characterisations of human behaviour and action held by libertarians and anarcho-socialists (the two groups Victor and i have been discussing). these characterisations are diametrically opposed to each other (the clue is "diametrically").

Yeah, and that didn't help. My response to your response was:

That still doesn't really tell me anything about what these "characterisations of human behavior and action" actually are, does it? You haven't really provided any information that answers the question being asked. See, the key here would be to say something like "some examples of these characterisations are ...", and then, "some examples of characterisations that these other characterizations are 'diametrically opposed to' are ...".

But that clear, straightforward approach proved to be too much of a challenge for you.



And hell, I’d already given you one of the characterisations already; you know, that “individualist/materialist” thing you were bugging me about, because you didn’t understand it (clue was “the two groups Victor and I had been discussing”)?

Damn, there is so much wrong with this statement.

First, the "materialist" part of the "individualist/materialist" thing was not an accurate description of libertarianism in the first place, as has been pointed out.

Second, like Victor, when your point fails, you seem to have to try to spin it as someone else's lack of understanding. Sorry, but you getting something wrong does not mean someone else didn't "understand".

Third, when what you're talking about is "diametrically opposed", you would want to provide at least two examples to begin with, so that each has something else to be diametrically opposed to, unless you think something can be diametrically opposed to itself. Acting like the fact that you only provided one is some kind of victory suggests you aren't too clear on what "diametrically opposed" means yourself.

Moreover, though you had mentioned the "individualist/materialist" thing in prior statements, you had not specifically identified it as one of the characterizations you were talking about anyway. But leave it to you to spin your lack of clarity as someone else's lack of understanding.



Like I went on to say, if you knew what diametrically opposed actually meant, you wouldn’t be asking what these two characterisations are diametrically opposed to, as that term tells you precisely what they are opposed to.

No, it does not, and your claim that it does is another one of those things that makes no sense. You just seem to be making up a bunch of self-serving rules as you go along.

(Hint: Even now, you have not yet clearly identified any two characterizations as being diametrically opposed to each other, let alone any two that actually apply to libertarians.)



If you didn’t know, as you clearly illustrate, all you had to do was ask.

I did. That would be when I posted:

What "characterisations of human behaviour and action"? And what are they "diametrically opposed" to?

and again, when I said

the key here would be to say something like "some examples of these characterisations are ...", and then, "some examples of characterisations that these other characterizations are 'diametrically opposed to' are ...".

And you just continued to tapdance around your inability to present the requested examples in this straightforward manner. Any chance you're up to it now?



Or how about asking for clarification of words and terms you're unfamiliar with, rather than attempting to construe it as failure by the other party?

This might have some relevance if I'd pointed out any failures on your part that were based on words I was "unfamiliar" with. :D

Evidence to the contrary above, subject to your spin of course.

You've got some strange ideas about what constitutes "evidence". But just in case that's not clear enough, do you suppose you could identify any words that you can clearly establish my lack of familiarity with, based on statements I've made? (Hint: Asking you for examples to support your use of such words doesn't count.)



In closing, I'll ask you not to waste any more of my time (or yours) unless you're going to get over this problem you have with questions, and, you know, actually answer the ones I've asked in this latest round. Take all the time you need.