Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Shame on you, Atheists

Shame on all the pansy liberal Atheists who cheer the jailing of Kent Hovind for tax evasion. Shame on you.

Kent Hovind may be a twisted little man who spreads lies amongst a fearful populace, but his jailing will accomplish nothing. All this is creating is a new martyr for the Creationist cause. He will preach the word of God to a captive audience and come back in a few years, with more followers than ever, and with more publicity for his bullshit theme park/museum/circus tent.

He believes, as a fundamentalist Christian, that his property belongs to God- how does that make any less sense than the statist belief that our property belongs to the State? You have no more justification than Kent Hovind, your belief in statism is just as crackpot as Kent Hovind's belief that atoms are held together by God's love. And you dare cheer his demise? What kind of person cheers at kidnapping an innocent human being for refusing to knuckle over to a criminal gang? Look at yourselves in the mirror, liberal Atheists. I consider you just as twisted and corrupt as Kent Hovind.

Taxation is theft. Only a massive amount of indoctrination and Special Pleading hides that fact from us, just like a massive amount of indoctrination and Special Pleading is required to believe that God is the answer to everything. And the fruit of this theft, which Kent Hovind refused to support, will be used to attack the rights of minorities- like Atheists. To finance churches, religious charities, Ten Commandment displays, religious classes, and the war against secularism.

Shame on you, Atheists. Kent Hovind is no symbol of virtue, but neither are you. Keep trying to justify your little criminal beliefs, and laugh at people like Hovind. You're only laughing at yourselves.

Post a Comment


87 Comments:

At 1/20/2007 7:06 PM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

Well, maybe I'm not hip to all the intricacies of tax laws, so pardon me if the momentary grin brought to my face at the news of Hovind's tax troubles is in error. I could've sworn that tax evasion was illegal.

 
At 1/20/2007 7:20 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

boxx foxx,
I believe you missed the line in Franc's original post: "Taxation is theft."

 
At 1/20/2007 7:51 PM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

Taxation is theft? Yeah. Drifted over that line. Would be interested in hearing the reasoning behind it though.

 
At 1/20/2007 7:58 PM, Blogger Secular Planet declaimed...

The claim that taxation is theft is about as convincing as the view that private property is theft. I may as well condemn you for not giving all of your possessions to the community.

 
At 1/20/2007 9:20 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"The claim that taxation is theft is about as convincing as the view that private property is theft."

Apparently you don't understand what stealing is... You need to go back to primary school, or in jail, because you are a dangerous maniac.

 
At 1/20/2007 9:54 PM, Blogger Ratter declaimed...

You are forced to give a large amount of your hard-earned money to the government. If you don't, they throw you in jail and call you a criminal.
"Tax money goes toward public services!" I hear you cry. But surely, if you didn't pay taxes, you'd be able to afford the far-superior private ones? Taxation is theft.

 
At 1/20/2007 10:08 PM, Blogger beepbeepitsme declaimed...

Taxation isn't theft if the people vote in their government. In a democratic republic, the people vote in a government which they know will tax them. Every party, to my knowledge, will tax the voting public.

Once you vote in a goverment, that government has the consent of the voter. This means the government has your consent to tax the populace, unless you demand a government that doesn't tax its voters. Good luck with that one. ;)

 
At 1/20/2007 10:28 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Taxation isn't theft if the people vote in their government."

Popularity does not change the moral status of an action. Stealing is stealing. Hitmen are hired by other people, but that does not justify their moral status.


"Every party, to my knowledge, will tax the voting public."

Thank you for destroying your own argument, liberal. YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE TO BEGIN WITH. That's democracy.


"Once you vote in a goverment, that government has the consent of the voter."

Most people either do not vote, or did not vote for the "winner." So much for your argument, liberal.

 
At 1/20/2007 10:35 PM, Blogger Aerik declaimed...

I don't cheer or laugh at anybody going to jail. There is nothing entertaining about a person going to a place so damning that it increases suicide rates, drug usage, and where rape of some kind is bound to occur, only to encourage criminal thinking when parolees get out.

 
At 1/20/2007 11:04 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

"Once you vote in a goverment, that government has the consent of the voter."

I don't vote. I do not consent. Taxation is theft.

 
At 1/20/2007 11:06 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Shame on us atheists for the Kent Hovind thing? Fuck that! I am in favor of freeing him! Look at this post:

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/11/kent-hovind-guilty-of-unintelligent.html

 
At 1/20/2007 11:06 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Keep trying to justify your little criminal beliefs, and laugh at people like Hovind. You're only laughing at yourselves.

 
At 1/20/2007 11:09 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

The only difference between rape and love making is consent. As a general principle, we can say that consensual relationships are moral, and non-consensual relationships are immoral. I do not consent to government. I do not consent when the police to come to my door to collect the taxes I "owe" them. If it is wrong for YOU to come to my house and take money without my consent, it is bad for every person, including people who put on blue uniforms and call themselves "police". QED mofos!

 
At 1/20/2007 11:10 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

I meant "liberal atheists" not "us atheists".

 
At 1/20/2007 11:38 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

And what alternative theft would you be subjected to without taxation? Or, do you already sleep with a gun under your pillow? What if it is theft? So is the price of a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Kent Hovind took people's money and gave them a head full of garbage. Hardly a fair exchange of value. Isn't that theft?

BTW, I'm smart enough not to touch this topic with a 10-foot pole, but this is more amusing.

 
At 1/21/2007 12:21 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Hell yeah, down with taxation.


Down with federally funded NASA, road systems, health care and social services (I'm from the UK where we really have those things, not just pretend ones). Down with the armed forces and civilian police forces (those evil criminals in blue). Who needs a judiciary? As long as there are no taxes.

Pfft, who needs health care provided by the state? When I get my taxes back from those facists I can afford it all myself anyway. I mean it would have only cost approximately $8,000 - $11,000 for the birth of each of my two children. Pure pocket change. And the long term care of my terminally ill grandparents? I'm sure my parents would have covered their combined 15+ years of care. That breast cancer treatment my mother just recieved, I'm sure my retired dad could have picked up the cost of that no problem. As long as there are no taxes.

Federally funded disaster relief, who cares? They can fend for themselves as long as everything I make I get. Who cares about anyone else? As long as there are no taxes.

State schools? No one needs education, they can just do what feels right. State universities. Raad a book hippy. As long as there are no taxes.

I mean, everyone makes lots of money and is well paid, so the state doesn't have to provide anything to anyone, especially people who might not be able to afford things themselves. Just as long as there are no taxes.

State pensions? Should have saved your own money. As long as there are no taxes.

As long as there are no taxes, because we all know taxation is theft.

 
At 1/21/2007 12:38 AM, Blogger Inquisitor declaimed...

I'm no fan of social programs or wealth redistribution, but without some form of taxation, how do we pay for police, national defence, courts, etc?

Government is a necessary evil. It is needed to protect the rights of individuals.

 
At 1/21/2007 12:43 AM, Blogger Inquisitor declaimed...

Jimmy,

Ever heard of insurance or savings accounts? If you can't afford a health crisis or retirement, who's fault is that? Mine? I don't think so. Don't punish me for your inability to plan for your future.

I have no problem with taxes to pay for roads or police or courts, because we all have equal access to them. But when you take my money and hand it over to someone else, that is theft, even if by proxy.

 
At 1/21/2007 12:43 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"And what alternative theft would you be subjected to without taxation?"

None from the State, i.e. the people that have all the guns. The police can protect me from anyone else.


"Or, do you already sleep with a gun under your pillow? What if it is theft?"

ARE YOU SERIOUS? What if it's theft? Theft doesn't bother you?

Liberalism, ladies and gentlemen.

 
At 1/21/2007 12:44 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

BTW, I didn't know Starbucks was a criminal organization. Breakerslion, you are officially crazy, or very very stupid.

 
At 1/21/2007 4:24 AM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

inquisitor:

http://www.mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/misescircle2006b/Hoppe.mp3

 
At 1/21/2007 4:25 AM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

...or that link could not-work.

Inquisitor: google "hoppe a world without theft" and listen to the 40 minute lecture.

 
At 1/21/2007 9:40 AM, Blogger Secular Planet declaimed...

"Apparently you don't understand what stealing is... You need to go back to primary school, or in jail, because you are a dangerous maniac."

Apparently you think anyone who disagrees with you is a dangerous maniac. You remind me of the homeless guy walking down the street yelling that the entire world is mad and he's the only sad one. It couldn't possibly be exactly the opposite, eh?

 
At 1/21/2007 9:41 AM, Blogger Secular Planet declaimed...

Sane one. Typo.

 
At 1/21/2007 10:53 AM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

"BTW, I didn't know Starbucks was a criminal organization. Breakerslion, you are officially crazy, or very very stupid."

Well, let's see. They charge an excessive amount of money for an inferior produt and they can do this because it's a habit-forming drug. Part of the price you pay for that coffee props up corrupt South American governments that give their people even less return for their tax dollars. The distributors make the lion's share of the profit, and the farmers get screwed as they have since the time of the Roman Empire. No, I guess there are no criminal acts here to speak of. Next time we'll talk about the poultry industry and the coercive tactics of Frank Purdue. Get some education you anarchist twerp. There are still a few places in the world where you can live unnoticed and not pay taxes, and never have to enjoy any of the benefits we receive in return. Good luck.

And by the way, how do you propose to pay for the huge police force you will need without social programs? Pass-the-hat? You gonna jail theives and murderers, or just cut off their hands and/or kill them? Think about what you're saying next time you open your electric fridge and spread your Kraftco jam on toast. You don't pay taxes? Good for you, you're a parasite. You pay and bitch? So do I. Far too much of my tax dollar winds up in the pockets of the gravy-sucking fear-mongering military-industrial capitalist pigs that you seem to admire.

 
At 1/21/2007 10:59 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Inquisitor said:

Ever heard of insurance or savings accounts? If you can't afford a health crisis or retirement, who's fault is that? Mine? I don't think so. Don't punish me for your inability to plan for your future.

Ah yes health insurance, or tax by another name. Giving your money to an organisation whose services you might never use, but whose capital is then used for people who do call on the services. Sound familiar? Sounds a bit, tax-like, almost.

Of course, like I said, everyone in the world earns so much money that they can afford health insurance and svaings accounts, no problems. Weren't you reading my post? And everyone always has a job under every circumstance. And all jobs provide access to healthcare. And everyone earns enough money that they can set some aside for things that might happen in the future, even though they are hungry, cold and sick now.

Goes without saying that no-one ever needs anyone elses help ever. The attitude of 'As long as I am ok that's all that matters.' Is so very commendable. Its the Amercan way after all. As long as there are no taxes.

I have no problem with taxes to pay for roads or police or courts, because we all have equal access to them. But when you take my money and hand it over to someone else, that is theft, even if by proxy.

Hang on, this is so confusing. Some tax is theft, but not all tax? We all have equal access to healthcare and social services under a welfare system don't we? If you don't use it whose fault is that? Mine? I don't think so.

francois tremblay said:

Taxation is theft

And then he said:

None from the State, i.e. the people that have all the guns. The police can protect me from anyone else.

And how exactly do you have a police force without taxation? Just curious how this works. I guess they might do it out of the goodness of their hearts, is that how you'd have one? While we're on the subject, how will you pay for all the emergency services without taxation?

Anarchists (or whatever ridiculous label you choose for yourself), ladies and gentlemen.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:20 AM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

Starbucks is not theft. It cannot be, by the very definition of theft. Theft is when somebody takes your property from you against your will. When you buy a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. you're making a voluntary trade - however many dollars for the coffee. Voluntary interaction does not equal theft, not in the slightest.

Taxes are theft because you are subject to them whether you consent to the idea or not. You don't have the option of objecting, as the Hovind case illustrates.

If anyone else went around and stole a couple hundred bucks from everyone, people would decry it as a giant ring of theives! But the government - oh, no, that's okay! It's an enormous case of SPECIAL PLEADING, and is no better than a Christian arguing that the Bible must be true, but not the Quran.

The fact that they provide soem services with some of the money is inconsequential. If I stole $10 out of your wallet and got you some crappy shirt you didn't like, isn't it still theft? You never consented to the trade. Same deal here. I don't like Social Security, and I'd rather put my money elsewhere. Same with public schools. And military, and police, etc.

I'm in favor of private defense. It has better incentives, leaves me with actual clout, is bound to be better in quality and cost, etc. You can read my defense of private defense here:
http://freedom224.blogspot.com/
(Security in Gov't vs. The Free Market)

The parasites are the people who want to feed off my hard work. I would gladly see the state fall and the roads become privatized. This means not funding the government. If you want to kill a monopoly, you have to stop feeding it. If there were alternatives already available, you can bet I'd be using and paying for them. But since the gov't has a stranglehold, I have to fight it in whatever way I can to try to bring it down and open the market for REAL providers of services.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:28 AM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

Jimmy, you might want to stop using businesses where people voluntarily choose to use their services as examples of theft. Theft can only be nonvoluntary. If I give you an apple with the agreement tht I'll give you an orange if it snows tonight, you've consented to the trade whether the snow comes or not. When you sign up for insurance, you acknowledge that you're only getting covered if something happens, and you're not liable to your money back if you remain healthy for all your life.

There are likely to be more jobs in a Free Market, and if poor people will be as prevalent as you believe, then it would be a joob business strategy to try to appeal to this block of the market, wouldn't it? Find someway to offer them some sort of service for a fee they can afford? I think it's pretty likely that in a free market, the services of such a business would be far superior to a socialized system in which there's no incentive to do a good job because there's no risk of losing their stranglehold on the business.

I disagree with whoever said the thing about taxes for police and courts being alright - he must be a minarchist. I don't draw such a distinction. Every interaction in choosing what you dow with yourself and your stuff should be voluntary.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:53 AM, Blogger Joe Otten declaimed...

So Kent Hovind believe in the supremacy of property rights for religious reasons, and libertarians believe in it because?.... well just for the hell of it apparently.

As soon as you justify the institution of property in terms of its many advantages, you will find a similar justification for paying for the institutions which protect life and property and civilisation in general.

If you don't even try to justify the institution of property, then you're no better than the Christian presuppositionalist.

 
At 1/21/2007 12:58 PM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

Private property is the results of labor, simply enough. Once the property is established, the person can then sell it, trade it, or give it away to whoever. It then becomes their property.

How does one argue AGAINST private property? Do you deny that you have a right to all that you worked for? If someone wants to give you $20 as a gift, can anyone just come and take that $20 from you? If you seriously deny private property, send me all of your stuff.

I don't see how this is supposed to justify organized theft? If people want to voluntarily pay into a fund for community defense, I'm cool with that - it's their property, and their right to do it. But to force someone to comply is a compeltely different thing.

 
At 1/21/2007 3:30 PM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

Out of curiousity, if all taxation is theft, does this mean that all laws are persecution?

 
At 1/21/2007 5:04 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

Ok, pretend I'm Starbucks. I use my connections and buying power to make take-it-or-leave-it types of deals with coffee growers. In effect, I coerce them into selling me their coffee for less than their labor is worth. This is called a non arms-length transaction. I have taken money out of the growers' pockets but I don't yet have anything to show for it. I then charge you an excessive markup. You do not haggle and you do not go elsewhere, because you want your coffee right now, in that spot. Your time, the opportunity cost of going elsewhere, is valued greater than or equal to the excess that I am charging. I take your money, and hey presto! There's the money I cheated away from the growers. Just because I'm not stealing from you, it isn't theft?

 
At 1/21/2007 8:42 PM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

If the company is engaging in coercion, then of course it's theft! That wasn't part of the original scenario though, as I understood it.

As long as actions are voluntary, though, then it's not theft. If you're tossing 'coercion' in quickly negated the voluntaryism.

If the opportunity cost of me buying a coffee at Starbuck's outweighs that of going elsewhere, then I've deemed the transaction acceptable. I've not been coerced. I made teh decision to get the coffee. I could have not gotten coffee, I could have chosen to walk elsewhere, but I didn't - I decided that at this moment, speed of acquirin the good was my primary concern, and I was willing to sacrifice some quality for it. It's still voluntary and thus not theft.

Besides, the actions you calle coercive aren't really coercive. The growers could quickly refuse to give them the beans at that rate. After all, they've got the beans, right? If they said no, Starbuck's would be screwed. And Starbuck's will surely not be the only coffee shop out there - another coffee franchise would likely jump at the chance to start buying its competitor's goods, leaving it in a poorer position to compete. So it's really in Starbuck's best interest to not jump to such a decision, because it will probably suffer from it.

As far as laws - any law created to restrict freedom is persecution. Any law that reopens freedoms to the public would be decreasing the size of or power of the government itself.

 
At 1/21/2007 10:45 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

May I also note that no one addressed my point that jailing Kent Hovind does absolutely nothing to support the Atheist cause. Bunch of hypocrites, you all are.

 
At 1/21/2007 10:56 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

Alex said:

Besides, the actions you calle coercive aren't really coercive. The growers could quickly refuse to give them the beans at that rate. After all, they've got the beans, right? If they said no, Starbuck's would be screwed.

That would be true if coffee were traded like most perishable crops, but it's not. Coffee will keep several years un-roasted, and is traded and controlled as a commodity, somewhat in the same fashion as De Beers controls the diamond market. The growers are given enough to keep them going, but their daughters won't be going to college, while the men in charge of the wheeling and dealing cut themselves in for a new BMW. In other words, the sellers are not in control of setting or negotiating prices for their goods. They must sell in order to finance next year's operation and make payroll. The buyer, on the other hand, can depress the market by increasing supply at key moments by selling off stored reserves, then replacing those reserves at depressed prices.

I never said that the sale of a cup of coffee by Starbucks was theft, I said the price was.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:01 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

It does call to question his honesty Franc, he's preaching to the "Render unto Caesar" crowd after all. I think the success of a bullshit artist rides at least in part on his reputation, don't you?

 
At 1/21/2007 11:05 PM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

The seller can still choose not to sell them to Starbuck's. And this changes nothing about their ability to sell to other buyers. If Starbuck's had a monopoly on the coffee market, you would have a point. But they don't, and they will never in a free market.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:07 PM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

And you're right, Franc, the issue of this topic seems to have disappeared. Hovind in jail does nothing to help atheists. And it only saddens me that he was nailed for protecting his propery. It's harder to knock down a martyr than it is to knock down a free loon.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:17 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

Alex, the price is fixed. It doesn't matter if it's Starbuck's, or Dunk's or A&P doing the buying, the offer price remains the same within a few pennies. There is, in many cases, only one buyer (agent) in reasonable proximity, who distributes by contract to the buyers. This is a market that the Mafia would love for its protected status.

 
At 1/21/2007 11:39 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

I guess we just found your topic sentence, "Taxation is theft." a little more interesting than the fate of that drip Hovind. While you argue that Special Pleading is required to remove it from this category, I would suggest that it is a special case, and therefore Special Pleading is appropriate. The outcome of the interaction of human nature and too much privatization is well known.

 
At 1/22/2007 12:40 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

This thread is priceless.

To those who consider tax to be theft I have a few questions.

1. Do you pay your taxes?

If you do, you're a hypocrite.

2. Have you ever, or do you now, use any infrastructure, resource, technology or service that has been previously or is still now the beneficiary of federal funding taken from taxation?

If you do or have (and you almost certainly have), you're a hypocrite.

3. Ever used the services or goods of an industry that has recieved government subsidy? Like farming or steel?

If you have, you're a hypocrite.

4. Ever flown on an airliner or used GPS in a car or for hiking? Guess what, GPS is funded by the DoD, paid for by taxes, and that is why it is free. Airliner's use GPS and WAAS to fly safely, which are funded by federal taxes.

If you have, you're a hypocrite.

5. Ever driven on a federal highway? Free to use because they are funded by taxation.

If you have, you're a hypocrite.

6. Ever had your road cleared of snow by a city or state snow plough, guess what?

If you have, you're a hypocrite.

7. Ever enjoyed the benefits of technology that is the result of the space program? You know, the federally funded space program?

If you have, you're a hypocrite.

8. Did you or do you enjoy the benefits of education from a state school?

If you did or are, you're a hypocrite.

Long story short, your hypocrites.

Enjoying all the benefits of government and society funded by taxation, and bitching about it being theft and yet still paying and enjoying. Pretty much the dictionary definition.

Now to specifics.

Alex Ramos said:
Jimmy, you might want to stop using businesses where people voluntarily choose to use their services as examples of theft.

I'm sorry I must have missed something, where did I use businesses as an example of theft? What I did was point out the similarities of insurance and tax. Please don't put words in my mouth. Building up strawmen to knock them down undermines your argument, such as it is.

Theft can only be nonvoluntary. If I give you an apple with the agreement tht I'll give you an orange if it snows tonight, you've consented to the trade whether the snow comes or not. When you sign up for insurance, you acknowledge that you're only getting covered if something happens, and you're not liable to your money back if you remain healthy for all your life.

That's very nice, but none of it disagrees with my assertion that there are elements of insurance that are tax-like. Specifically however I was responding to inquisitor who said:

But when you take my money and hand it over to someone else, that is theft, even if by proxy.

Which is exactly what banks, mortgage lenders and insurance companies do, consent or not.

There are likely to be more jobs in a Free Market, and if poor people will be as prevalent as you believe, then it would be a joob business strategy to try to appeal to this block of the market, wouldn't it? Find someway to offer them some sort of service for a fee they can afford?

On what evidence do you believe there would be more jobs available than there are now? What do you mean by poor people being as prevalent as I believe? Do you ever look outside at the real world as it occurs outside your little fluffy existence? I don't consider myself poor, I earn more than minimum wage, and yet I can only just afford the health care provided through my company at a discount. How is someone earning minimum wage (which incidentally wouldn't exist without government oversight) expected to pay for health care which their company does not provide at a discount rate? How would this get any better in a society without government or taxation?

Companies now, when they are heavily regulated, screw their employees. Please explain how they would miraculously become models of moral business practise with the removal of government and legal oversight.

I think it's pretty likely that in a free market, the services of such a business would be far superior to a socialized system in which there's no incentive to do a good job because there's no risk of losing their stranglehold on the business.

Oh well if you think it then it must be true I guess, what with your boundless years of experience. See the question above, on what basis do you believe businesses get morally more acceptable with less legal oversight?

Francois Tremblay wrote:
May I also note that no one addressed my point that jailing Kent Hovind does absolutely nothing to support the Atheist cause.

OK. It doesn't. I am not saying it does. Strawman, congratulations. It punishes a criminal, who also happened to be an odious moron of the christian faith. The fact that a few hypocrites think he is not a criminal does nothing to dispute the fact that he is.

May I also note that you have not addressed my question. How would you fund and control and found a police force without taxation? Please do be detailed as I'm sure you've given it plenty of thought, a long time has passed since I asked after all.

Bunch of hypocrites, you all are.

Oh the irony.

I'm not usually one for quoting the bible, but I believe this is appropriate:

'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone '

Or perhaps more significantly:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 
At 1/22/2007 2:14 AM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

So because we don't want to be thrown in jail we're hypocrites? Hypocritical would be speaking out against the gov't and then participating in a voluntary act to support them (like joining the military or voting). Trying to protect our asses from being flayed by the arm of the state is not hypocrticial - it's acknowledging that the state has the monopoly of power. Same with roads. We can't help that the state currently has a monopoly on roads. You make it seem as if we should pretend that the state doesn't have the ability to come and smack us down.

Damnit, these conversations always roll into this task of trying to explain Market Anarchy in one post. I would answer your questions, but the size of each post would only get longer and longer, and I haven't the time or patience to deal with that. The questions you asked have already been addressed here: http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/ Please, read the applicable and spare me the trouble of having to go through this from square one. Thanks

 
At 1/22/2007 5:10 AM, Blogger BlackSun declaimed...

Taxation may be theft, but since it's the law, we have no choice but to insist on a level playing field. Therefore, under the current regime, Hovind's conviction was just.

There's another guy holed up in his house right now, (can't find the link, but I saw it a few days ago) hoping to be attacked by federal agents so as to draw attention to the "sovereignty" movement. The government is basically ignoring him for the time being. It's a joke.

At such time as MA or whatever non-kleptocratic system looks to be ready for implementation, I'm all for it. If it can be shown to work intellectually, and tested with detailed economic modeling, there's no reason it shouldn't be possible to bring about.

But in the meantime, we can't have a bunch of jackasses refusing to pay their taxes while the rest of us are forced to continue to do so.

Removing taxation from modern government would take the equivalent of civil war. I'm hoping it can be done more gradually and peacefully.

 
At 1/22/2007 9:59 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Alex Ramos said:
So because we don't want to be thrown in jail we're hypocrites?

Yes, that's right. Since you assert taxation is theft as a fact, it would be self evident in court and you could prove it so. And yet you refuse to stand up for your principles and convictions and continue to pay tax. So, you are by definition a hypocrite. Did the threat of prosecution by the government stop the civil rights movement?

If your cause is so worthy and just, but you say one thing and do another, how can you be anything but a hypocrite regardless of circumstance?

The rest of your back pedalling and avoidance tactics just further highlight your hypocrisy.

 
At 1/22/2007 1:22 PM, Blogger olly declaimed...

@jimmy_blue:

So all dialogue without action should cease? Is that your point? Anyone who disagrees with the status-quo must either stand up and be thrown in jail, or shut the hell up?

Sorry, but that's not how the real world works. You bring up the civil rights movement, and yes, there were those that took action, such as Rosa Parks, etc, and were jailed for it. But does that mean anyone else who had something to say about it, and did so, but didn't directly act because, oh, I don't know, they had families to support, should have just kept their mouths shut?

Please, that is the most asinine elitist argument I've ever heard. You are saying that anyone who is not an activist should just be mute? Please, part of why the Civil Rights movement was successful was that in addition to all of those that were participating in direct action, there was an overwhelming ground swell of support from those that couldn't act, for fear of reprisal from the State or others, but still raised their voices in support.

Arguing that anyone who doesn't take direct action is not being 'supportive enough' or somehow doesn't have the right to speak (because their a hypocrite, right?) is abandoning discussion and education in favor of a further polarized dichotomy of 'us' and 'them' actors.

The Civil rights movement may have been about action, most certainly, but it was also about a dissemination of ideas, and an education for those being oppressed that they had the RIGHT to desire freedom and equality, even if they themselves were incapable of acting upon it in their situation.

Activism alone gets you nowhere -- it is the education and voices of the 1000's that aren't in a position to act that propels those that ARE capable forward.

Get off your high horse for a few minutes... not everyone is in a feasible position to throw their lives away for their principles.

-olly

 
At 1/22/2007 5:08 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Taxation may be theft, but..."

Jeffrey Dahmer may have been a murderer, but... (he was a really good guy!)

 
At 1/22/2007 7:32 PM, Blogger Alex Ramos declaimed...

I can do more benefit to the movement out of jail, at this point, than in jail. My defense would not hold up in court, because it's not 'illegal' for the gov't to pay taxes, since it determines what the laws are. If courts made rulings based on morality, then I surely I could win.

 
At 1/22/2007 7:42 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

BlackSun said...

"Taxation may be theft, but since it's the law, we have no choice but to insist on a level playing field. Therefore, under the current regime, Hovind's conviction was just."

And so was the holocaust, right ;)

 
At 1/22/2007 11:57 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Boy it just keeps getting dumber in here.

Olly said:
So all dialogue without action should cease? Is that your point? Anyone who disagrees with the status-quo must either stand up and be thrown in jail, or shut the hell up?

I'm sorry, I must have missed where I wrote that. I'm sure you can point it out because obviously you wouldn't be building a strawman argument to knock down, would you?

hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

So, if you publically claim taxation is theft and government is wrong, and yet continue to pay taxes and have or continue to benefit in any way from taxation collected by a government, you are a hypocrite. In that summation of my argument, please point out where I say dialogue must cease.

Sorry, but that's not how the real world works.

Bloody hell, my irony chip nearly exploded when I read this. Anarchists claiming I don't understand how the real world works.

Excuse me? It's not me on here that seems to think people, and particularly business, will behave better without lawful oversight. It's not me that seems to think everyone earns enough money for everything they need and there are virtually no poor people. It's not me who assumes everyone can have access to healthcare. It's not me who assumes that jobs will miraculously become available once government is abolished.

You see, anarchy looks great on paper and in theory, and when you are using it to try and get laid at college. However when faced with the real world it crashes and burns faster than the Hindenburg.

But does that mean anyone else who had something to say about it, and did so, but didn't directly act because, oh, I don't know, they had families to support, should have just kept their mouths shut?

Jeez, you guys love building up strawmen to knock down don't you? Please do point out where I said this.
Would you like me to explain the idea of passive protest? Do I need to point out that whilst these people may not have directly acted they did so by their actions and beliefs. You know, like not being racist. Don't want to stop paying taxes? Fine, don't use GPS (cars, hiking or air travel), or the highways or any of the other ways/means I pointed out. I'm sure for instance that you will all be sending your children to non-state schools, right? Kind of like not riding the bus in Montgomery isn't it...

You are saying that anyone who is not an activist should just be mute?

Again with the strawmen, give it up already. Please note how people who did not take direct protest action during the civil rights movements, but who still acted in concert with its aims, do not meet the definitions of hypocrite I posted above, taken from dictionary.com. The anarchists on here however do.

Get off your high horse for a few minutes...

I'm on my high horse? Did you even read the pompous, smug, self congratulatory original post?

Francois Tremblay said:
"Taxation may be theft, but..."

Jeffrey Dahmer may have been a murderer, but... (he was a really good guy!)


I'm torn between whether you are a brilliant satirist, or something a whole lot less complimentary. This statement is of course an argument from spurious similarity, as well as being an argument by emotive language (using Jeffrey Dahmer). It does nothing at all to disprove anything Blacksun said. It is now all to obvious that you refuse to actually deal with anyone's counter arguments at any level other than the kindergarten playground. Which of course speaks volumes.

Again I note that you have not addressed the one very simple question I asked you. So, for the third time:

Without taxation or government, how will you found and fund the police force you will rely on to protect you?

Alex Ramos said:
I can do more benefit to the movement out of jail, at this point, than in jail.

How convenient. And egotistical. And typical of your average 'anarchist'.

You don't think then that your brilliantly argued and concieved ideas could attract an enormous amount of publicity were you to be taken to federal court? You don't think that your support might increase massively when your ideas are exposed to people who may not have considered your position at all? You don't think the argument that we should get rid of tax could be popular if given the right national coverage?

In other words, you think arguing with me or preaching to other like minded individuals on a small internet site is better than actually doing something for your cause. Wow. Vive la revolucion.

My defense would not hold up in court, because it's not 'illegal' for the gov't to pay taxes, since it determines what the laws are.

As I understand American Law, the courts could actually set legal precedent and rule taxes illegal if your defence is lawfully sound. In other words if you can establish tax to be theft, which you all claim to be able to do, then the courts can decide in your favour. What are you waiting for? Isn't it funny how apart from smashing up McDonalds joints at every opportunity anarchists are a little lacking in action.

andrew greve said:
"Taxation may be theft, but since it's the law, we have no choice but to insist on a level playing field. Therefore, under the current regime, Hovind's conviction was just."

And so was the holocaust, right ;)


What? Hopefully the smiley is supposed to show this is just a crap and very crass joke. Or it could just be an attempt on your part to be able to claim it was a joke when someone points out the absolute absurdity of what you wrote. The Hitler Zombie rears its ugly head, didn't take that long really.

Yes Andrew, taxation under democratic governments is just as lawful as the Holocaust was under the Nazis and it is morally equivalent. You're so smart and/or funny.

What next, will you be joking/arguing that just like liberal athiests deserve to be taxed the Jews deserved the Holocaust? ;)

Poor taste? Absolutely, but no worse than what you started. And with the smiley I can claim that I was joking too.

With the posts from tremblay and greve this thread certainly took an unpleasant turn.

 
At 1/23/2007 1:02 AM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

"Yes Andrew, the Holocaust under the Nazis [was just]."

Simply amazing.

 
At 1/23/2007 2:53 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

This thread demonstrates that at least some liberals are utterly insane. And Sean, you highly dissapoint me. I used to count you as a friend. The things seemingly intelligent people can say...

 
At 1/23/2007 3:14 AM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

Atta boys. I knew we could work in a reference to the Nazis in there somewhere. Nice.

 
At 1/23/2007 3:31 PM, Blogger BlackSun declaimed...

"And Sean, you highly dissapoint me. I used to count you as a friend."

Why, because I advocate a reasoned, balanced approach? I didn't disagree with you at all on principle. I simply said we can't all just stop paying our taxes. It's not a solution.

Change takes work and time Franc, otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.

 
At 1/23/2007 3:46 PM, Blogger BlackSun declaimed...

"And Sean, you highly dissapoint me. I used to count you as a friend."

Why, because I advocate a reasoned, balanced approach? I didn't disagree with you at all on principle. I simply said we can't all just stop paying our taxes. Civil disobedience is good to make a point, but for lasting change, it's not a solution.

Change takes work and time Franc. Rigidly espousing extreme positions you know damn well have no chance of being implemented in the short-term is just tilting at windmills. And--you can alienate yourself from people such as myself who are, in every other way, your allies.

 
At 1/23/2007 3:47 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Andrew Greve wrote:
"Yes Andrew, the Holocaust under the Nazis [was just]."

Simply amazing.


You really are spectacularly dishonest. You quote mine and distort unashamedly and then act like its something astonishing, when people can read what I actually wrote in the very post previous to yours. For an atheist you imitate creationist and christian tactics very well, I'll give you that.

Just in case you live in some kind of bubble that restricts the detection of sarcasm and irony, let me define it for you. From now on I'll make it much simpler for you and will apply a sarcasm or irony tag to anything sarcastic or ironic I say.

sar·casm (sär'kāz'əm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm.

irony (ī'rə-nē, ī'ər-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies
The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.


You sir are truly one of the worst debaters I have come across.

Let's just be absolutely clear here shall we so that any outside observers can be certain about how dishonest you are?

You made a ridiculously absurd and offensive statement, possibly intended as a joke but more than likely not. I highlight this and use the reduction to absurdity of your argument to highlight how utterly worthless it was, then you misquote it, add something I didn't say or imply to it, and act as if you've highlighted some truly astounding and horrific statement by 'liberal atheists'. Incredible!

Given the complete context rather than your cut and deliberately altered version of what I said, it's obvious to everyone except those who are only willing to read what they want that I was mocking you by deliberately highlighting what you said. If you didn't see this, I'll try and be a lot less subtle in future.

It's like arguing with 5 year olds, and only reinforces my opinion of the general maturity of your average anarchist.

Francois Tremblay said:
This thread demonstrates that at least some liberals are utterly insane. And Sean, you highly dissapoint me. I used to count you as a friend. The things seemingly intelligent people can say...

Do please explain how this is demonstrated.

And how very mature of you. 'I don't like you any more, you don't agree with me.' Remember how I said you seem only capable of argument at the kindergarten level?

And once again, you fail to address the extremely simple question I ask, so for the fourth time:

How would you found and fund a police force to protect you without government or taxation?

Your failure to answer speaks volumes to those who may be observing this thread. You've given this so much thought that you contradict yourself and can't or won't answer simple questions on the subject.

boss foxx said:
Atta boys. I knew we could work in a reference to the Nazis in there somewhere. Nice.

The only thing that surprised me was how long it took these nutters to bring them up. Paying taxes is morally equivalent to the Holocaust? WTF? {IRONY} You know, because paying your taxes to a democratic government is exactly the same as helping the Nazis with the Holocaust. Isn't that right Andrew? {/IRONY}

This thread has certainly been informative of the anarchist mentality at least.

 
At 1/23/2007 11:43 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

"You know, because paying your taxes to a democratic government is exactly the same as helping the Nazis with the Holocaust. Isn't that right Andrew?"

If by "helping" the Nazis you mean paying your taxes, sure!

 
At 1/24/2007 12:42 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Andrew Greve said:
If by "helping" the Nazis you mean paying your taxes, sure!


What? Oh wait I see. If you lived in Nazi Germany and you paid your taxes you were helping the Nazis, therefore all taxes are like helping the Nazis. {SARCASM}Genius.{/SARCASM} {IRONY} Because the modern western democracies are so similar to Nazi Germany.{/IRONY}

So let me guess, you are all now hereos like those who resisted the Nazis, right? {SARCASM}Oh, you're so brave and noble.{/SARCASM}

Do yourself a favour, if you want to bring up Nazi Germany, at least read a book on it first. The only people who would consider the modern democracies to be anything like Nazi Germany are those with a limited understanding of the Third Reich, its rise, nature and actions.

So, any more red herrings you want to throw in to try and deflect attention from you 'anarchists' and your miserable failure to say anything remotely intelligent or above the level of the kindergarten playground so far?

All anyone who disagrees with you lot has had so far is name calling, distortion, tantrums, misdirection and refusals to answer just simple questions.

If the sample here is the future of the anarchist movement, I don't think the government has anything to worry about. {SARCASM}Except Alex obviously, because he is doing so much for your movement.{/SARCASM}

 
At 1/24/2007 1:46 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"You know, because paying your taxes to a democratic government is exactly the same as helping the Nazis with the Holocaust. Isn't that right Andrew?"

It differs in gravity... but not in kind. Both are crimes committed against society.

 
At 1/24/2007 3:11 AM, Blogger BlackSun declaimed...

Whenever anyone brings up Hitler or Nazi Germany on a web forum, (unless it's a forum about the Holocaust) it's a pretty good rule of thumb that civil discussion is over.

I think we can all agree on atheism, and on the evils of government excess.

But religion and governments aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We can agree that taxation and indoctrinating children into religion are both immoral. But neither will probably end completely in our lifetimes.

We can advocate and make the intellectual case. The more we talk about it, the more we raise consciousness.

But crossing the line into some kind of loyalty test for not siding with tax-protesters is just divisive.

Still, Franc, I respect your arguments 98% of the time.

 
At 1/24/2007 4:38 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

francois tremblay wrote:
It differs in gravity... but not in kind. Both are crimes committed against society.

In your opinion, an opinion you fail to defend with any significance at all.

Just because you state it like a fact, doesn't mean it is one.

Fifth time:

Without government or taxation, how would you found and fund a police force to protect you?

blacksun said:
Whenever anyone brings up Hitler or Nazi Germany on a web forum, (unless it's a forum about the Holocaust) it's a pretty good rule of thumb that civil discussion is over.

Couldn't agree more. Elbert Hubbard said:
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.

And I would further add..Or compare something he said to the Nazis.

However:
We can agree that taxation ... are both immoral.

Actually we can't. I don't think taxation is immoral, and no-one here has even come close to demonstrating that it is.

In fact, not having taxation is in my opinion more immoral since taxation can be used to help those who need it and can't help themselves, in the form of a welfare state along European lines. Healthcare available to all, free at the point of service. Welfare housing to get people off the streets and into homes. Unemployment benefits. State pensions.

If you have the resources to help others in a worse position than you and you don't, who is being immoral? What a taxation funded welfare state does is say 'Hey, were in this together so lets contribute and if any of us needs help, its there.' If that's immoral, then sign me up.

We can advocate and make the intellectual case. The more we talk about it, the more we raise consciousness.

When you see someone on here doing that please let me know. The first person to question the original post was labelled a dangerous maniac just 5 posts in, and it got worse from then on. My consciousness was raised only in regards to how your average anarchist thinks and acts, and I will eventually leave this discussion with my preconceptions thoroughly reinforced by those who took part in it. Congratulations to those of you who proved that at least.

Like I said previously, if this thread is indicative of the level of maturity and intellectual integrity of the average anarchist, the state has nothing to worry about.

 
At 1/24/2007 5:20 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

Jimmy_Blue:

What is the difference between rape and love making?

Which act is moral and which is immoral? Why?

 
At 1/24/2007 6:31 PM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

Maybe I'm just not reading between the lines (i.e., the direct comparisons to rape, murder, and the Holocaust), but wouldn't it be fair to say that it's less the problem of "Democracy" and other forms of government than it is with just human nature in general?

 
At 1/24/2007 6:51 PM, Blogger Andrew Greve declaimed...

Boss Foxx said...

"Maybe I'm just not reading between the lines (i.e., the direct comparisons to rape, murder, and the Holocaust), but wouldn't it be fair to say that it's less the problem of "Democracy" and other forms of government than it is with just human nature in general?"

If it's true that human nature is to be corrupt, then we certainly don't want to create positions in society where corrupt individuals will be able to exercise power over others. I refer you to Stefan Molyneux's article "Proving Libertarian Morality". Give it a Google--I tried to paste links here before but it just cuts them off.

 
At 1/24/2007 8:30 PM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

An interesting article, but I didn't find it gave me any insight on how anarchism is better than any form of government. If there's a link for that, I wouldn't mind taking a look at it.

 
At 1/24/2007 10:34 PM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

Not sure if anyone will care, but my own two cents are on my blog. I left it in the trackbacks - No Sympathy for the Dino. (At least, I hope I left the trackback thing right - I'm still mostly a luddite at anything more sophisticated than posting and commenting on blogs...)

 
At 1/25/2007 6:37 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

greve said:
Jimmy_Blue:

What is the difference between rape and love making?

Which act is moral and which is immoral? Why?


If you haven't figured this out then taxation is the least of your worries.

There really is no depth to which you won't sink in order to dredge up a poor analogy is there?

The Holocaust, and now rape. Charming.

{IRONY}Yes Andrew, rape and taxation are both the same. You're so smart, you really got me with that one.{/IRONY}

1. Why is it even relevant?
2. Are you going to now draw comparisons between rape and taxation?
3. Why are you and the other anarchists unable to answer the simple questions I've put forward?

Just remember only a few posts before your latest pointless one I wrote:

So, any more red herrings you want to throw in to try and deflect attention from you 'anarchists' and your miserable failure to say anything remotely intelligent or above the level of the kindergarten playground so far?

Sure enough, you didn't disappoint. Maybe with this kind of prescience I should get a lottery ticket this week.

What's the matter, Holocaust not working for you anymore?

Ladies and gents I give you, anarchists. No depth is too murky, no analogy too convoluted, no nonsense too stupid to be expressed.

Still think these people are making an intellectual case for anarchism blacksun?

Almost forgot. Andrew, don't forget to remove the irony tags when you try to misquote this post.

 
At 1/25/2007 9:53 PM, Blogger Young Physicalist declaimed...

TREMBLAY, IT'S BEEN ASKED A MILLION TIMES: HOW DO YOU FOUND AS WELL AS FUND A POLICE FORCE WITHOUT TAXATION?

 
At 1/25/2007 11:21 PM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

Private security in lieu of the thugs in blue. Duh.

(And before you ask about how to pay for it, remember that people will be earning at least 33% more than they are now since they won't be paying it out in taxes, and since there will be multiple companies out there providing security services the costs will GO DOWN.)

Really, do the knee-jerk anti-anarchists arguing here even put the least little bit of thought into trying to answer these questions they toss at the anarchists? Instead of pretending you're right from the outset, pretend you might be wrong for a minute and actually THINK about the question...

 
At 1/26/2007 3:11 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"TREMBLAY, IT'S BEEN ASKED A MILLION TIMES: HOW DO YOU FOUND AS WELL AS FUND A POLICE FORCE WITHOUT TAXATION?"

How do you found as well as fund hospitals without taxation?
How do you found as well as fund schools without taxation?
How do you found as well as fund television stations without taxation?
How do you found as well as fund grocery stores without taxation?
How do you found as well as fund charities without taxation?
How do you found as well as fund the Internet without taxation?

Yea, great argument buddy.

 
At 1/26/2007 8:14 PM, Blogger Young Physicalist declaimed...

Vic & Francis, it was a question and not an argument. I found the question interesting from the start. The fact that vic had an outburst at the question and you descend into snide sarcasm shows how fanatical anarcho-capitalists are.

 
At 1/26/2007 8:16 PM, Blogger Young Physicalist declaimed...

And since your talking about prviates protection forces, only those with enough money could pay. Inevitably, those with little income would be screwed, as the rich only have such money.

And infastructure would be reduced to toll roads, causing inefficiency espeically for ambulances.

 
At 1/26/2007 11:09 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

vic said:
Private security in lieu of the thugs in blue. Duh.

Ok at last, someone who thinks they have an answer.

So:
1. If I don't contribute to the private security firms do I get protection from criminals or not?
2. If I don't get protection from criminals, then I have no choice but to contribute to these private security firms. So, how is this any different to me having to pay taxes to the state for them to provide a police force?
3. How do the private security firms bring people to trial?
4. Would we have trials?
5. How would justice be administered?
6. Would we have private companies running courts as well? Buy one trial and get your second free?
7. How much more does it cost to get a private firm to provide policing than a state police force?
8. How would this cost be represented in terms of proportion of a citizens income?
9. Who would calculate and enforce this?
10. Could you pay more and get more protection than others?
11. Could you pay more to have your crimes given higher priority than others regardless of their seriousness?
12. Who would monitor the private security firms?
13. Who would create the laws these private security firms would enforce?
14. Could you pay to have your own laws enforced?
15. How would you ensure that the poor got the same protection as the rich?
16. How would you stop private security firms from accepting money to not enforce the law?

And before you ask about how to pay for it, remember that people will be earning at least 33% more than they are now since they won't be paying it out in taxes, and since there will be multiple companies out there providing security services the costs will GO DOWN.

Ok, but since the state will be removed, the private citizen will have to make contributions elsewhere in order to maintain infrastructure etc, so the 33% 'saved' in tax will still have to go to maintaining the roads etc. In other words the money previously going to tax will still have to go to private firms in order to provide the services the state already does. So money is not saved but redirected, genius. If you want to enjoy the benefits, you still have no choice but to pay.

17. Or do you? Are you allowed to opt out but still enjoy all the benefits?
18. How would this be enforced and by whom?

Now, multiple companies means prices go down. So presumably car insurance is extremely cheap now, right? How about house insurance? Cars, those prices have dropped dramatically haven't they? I mean, it's not like companies would ever get together to ensure artificially high prices is it? Oh right, the state has laws against that. Oh, hang on...

19. Oh but wait, I forgot, removing the government enforced regulations suddenly makes people and businesses more moral doesn't it? Please do explain the mechanisms behind this.
20. How and by whom would the private citizen be protected from monopolies or cartels?

Really, do the knee-jerk anti-anarchists arguing here even put the least little bit of thought into trying to answer these questions they toss at the anarchists?

Yes, apparently more than you do. From your {IRONY}brilliantly considered and critically examined rebuttal{/IRONY} we now have 20 more questions for you to answer.

francois tremblay:
At least vic had the guts to try and answer, instead of try and avoid. Anyway, some short and sometimes flippant answers for you.

Private hospitals could be founded by fees given to private companies, which if you want medical treatment you would have no choice but to pay. No choice, just like taxes.

You could have schools you pay for. Like private schools. And like private schools, only the rich could afford the best ones. Very noble of you.

Television stations. Are you for real? Are television stations provided from your taxes? No, so how is this relevant to the discussion? Do you consider television an essential service now?

Grocery stores. Now I know you're joking. How many state run grocery stores do you shop at? None? So why would the ending of taxation affect them as an essential service? Again, other than as a red herring, why bring them up?

Charities? Are you serious? People voluntarily give to charity. This wouldn't change with the removal of the state and taxation, so again it's a non-entity in your non-answer.

The internet? Oh for god's sake...

Yeah, great answer buddy.

 
At 1/27/2007 2:42 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

BTW, to whoever posted objections against Capitalism: we are not Capitalists. We are Anarchists. So I think you are confused there. We don't support capitalism OR socialism, but we support the right of anyone to live in either system if they so desire, as long as they don't use the State to force us to do the same.

 
At 1/27/2007 11:41 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

Capitalism

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

Investopedia Commentary

In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are
used and allocated.
The U.S. is a capitalistic system.

cap·i·tal·ist (kāp'ĭ-tl-ĭst)
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3.A person of great wealth.


{IRONY}Yeah seriously. How could anyone mistake an anarchist for a capitalist?{/IRONY}

Sources: dictionary.com and investopedia.com.

 
At 1/27/2007 2:01 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Capitalism requires the State to exist. Corporations are a construct of the State. Anarchists are against all States and all State constructs.

 
At 1/28/2007 1:00 AM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

francois tremblay wrote:
Capitalism requires the State to exist. Corporations are a construct of the State. Anarchists are against all States and all State constructs.

Oh goody, we finally get to the quoting of dogma.

Where in the definition I posted does it say capitalism requires the state to exist?

But since you bring it up:

What would the companies that would provide all the services the state no longer does be, if not corporations?

And just in case it needs pointing out. So far the anarchist argument here has been that private corporations would provide services, and that the market would ensure low cost services. Gee, does that sound like capitalism, just a little maybe?

Just because you call it a different name doesn't change what it is, whether you like it or not.

 
At 1/28/2007 10:38 PM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

No, jimmy_blue, you haven't 'put more thought into it'. I had to GIVE you that answer because you were too interested in showing how anti-anarchist you were instead of actually being seriously interested in honest discussion.

Your extra 20 questions only prove that. Instead of me giving you more pat answers you'll only ignore from your high horse, why not take off your pre-mis-conceptions and try to formulate your own answers?

Really, your behavior is no different than the swooping evangelists who love to drive-by atheist blogs saying how everyone's going to burn in hell and how they'll do nothing (pray) for them.

If I thought you were the least bit intellectually honest or really looking for dialogue, I might dance. Hell, if you had that attitude from post one you might have gotten much better answers from the regulars here.

But, as we see from all dogmatists (yes, I note the crushing irony with which you try to tar others. As Franc often says, projection is common among statists and theists...), you prefer to inflict your lack of imagination onto others. Goodbye.

 
At 1/29/2007 1:21 PM, Blogger Boss Foxx declaimed...

Well, sufficed to say that most mature conversation in this thread went out the window a long time ago ... thanks to both sides of the argument.

 
At 1/29/2007 4:51 PM, Blogger Hellbound Alleee declaimed...

It's pretty simple. A-theism. No-god. An-archy. No-rulers. Anyone who doesn't get it is a retard.

 
At 1/29/2007 10:59 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

vic said:
No, jimmy_blue, you haven't 'put more thought into it'. I had to GIVE you that answer because you were too interested in showing how anti-anarchist you were instead of actually being seriously interested in honest discussion.

Oh right. I didn't know that before you told me, thanks for pointing that out to me. Obviously you knew I've never come across anarchists before, having known me so well for so long. I especially didn't meet any during my three year philosophy degree. In particular I didn't meet any anarchists or hear anything about anarchism when I did my term on rationality, ethics and economics. No sir, no anarchists encountered there.

I hate to burst your self satisfied smugness bubble, but posters previous to you had given that answer. I was specifically referring to something tremblay stated that seemed at odds with the rest of his argument. Something he still hasn't explained.

But anyway, it's not like maybe I wanted to hear tremblay answer it or anything, or that maybe it gave the anarchists the chance to actually discuss their ideas rather than just label anyone who disagrees with them as dangerous maniacs. You know, ask a question, elicit a response, discuss. Silly me for thinking that might work. I certainly know better now anyway.

I'm sure it's never occurred to you that you might be wrong and I may be anti-anarchist because I've thought about the argument, has it? As far as you're concerned, because you are so sure that you are right, anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

What was it you said now?
'Instead of pretending you're right from the outset, pretend you might be wrong for a minute and actually THINK about the question... '

It's been obvious from the start that the anarchists here think they are right, because they took the position that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. It's been obvious from much of the reaction that they don't like having their cherished beliefs questioned and are used to simply having yes men agree with them.

Perhaps you would be better served taking your own advice before say, getting on your high horse.

Your extra 20 questions only prove that. Instead of me giving you more pat answers you'll only ignore from your high horse, why not take off your pre-mis-conceptions and try to formulate your own answers?

So it doesn't occur to you that I might examine your answers and respond, giving you the chance to respond to me? You know, debate, discussion, the one thing you all seem so afraid of. I want to understand your position, you want to act like a spoilt child when someone dares to say 'No' to them. What are you afraid of?

Do you really think that coming up with 20 more questions provoked by your response counts as ignoring it? Do you think your one line answer was enough to override any objections to it?

Really, your behavior is no different than the swooping evangelists who love to drive-by atheist blogs saying how everyone's going to burn in hell and how they'll do nothing (pray) for them.

Jeez, my irony meter is taking a hit on this thread.

We all at least know that fundies will avoid questions asked of them don't we? We all know that fundies are quick to label anyone not of their religion as dangerous, evil or immoral, don't we? We all know that fundies will use the 'Oh, that's been answered somewhere else go there.' tactic, don't we? We all know fundies are happy to state something as fact without backing it up, don't we? We all know how upset fundies get when asked to justify their beliefs, don't we?

I'm sure I wouldn't have seen any anarchists on here do anything like that though, right? Good thing I'm the one who sounds like a fundie then. Good spot. Not the least bit hypocritical. The response that the 'anti-anarchists' have recieved here is precisely identical to the one atheists posting on fundie blogs get. Only we haven't been banned, yet.

Hell, if you had that attitude from post one you might have gotten much better answers from the regulars here.

Oh yes right, because they started so nice and it was only when I came on that things got bad. Let's prove it shall we?

francois tremblay says:
Apparently you don't understand what stealing is... You need to go back to primary school, or in jail, because you are a dangerous maniac.


In post 5. I came in at post 16. Oh you're right, the anarchists responded so maturely they were obviously ready to answer questions. You don't like being spoken to a certain way, then don't speak to others that way or grow thicker skin.

Who brought up the holocaust and rape? Anarchists. Who responded to counter points and questions with insults and avoidance? Anarchists. Who distorted quotes and meaning to try and make a point? Anarchists. Your pious preaching and false gravitas simply highlight the hypocrisy I've already encountered here.

But, as we see from all dogmatists (yes, I note the crushing irony with which you try to tar others. As Franc often says, projection is common among statists and theists...), you prefer to inflict your lack of imagination onto others. Goodbye.

And there goes my irony meter.

vic says:
your behavior is no different than the swooping evangelists

Franc says projection is common among statists and thiests. Now we can add anarchists.

Anyway. If franc says it, then I guess it must be true. Kind of like a dogma really. How very evangelical of you. Yes, I'll try to stop making people think in future, it appears to be a dangerous habit. But please, do point out where I use dogma.

But wait, ever heard a woo believer or a fundie refer to a skeptic's or atheist's lack of imagination? You owe me for one fried irony meter and a bucket load of hypocrisy.

hellbound alleee says:
It's pretty simple. A-theism. No-god. An-archy. No-rulers. Anyone who doesn't get it is a retard.

Gosh vic, you're so right. I mean, an evangelical would never take a position like that would they? I've {IRONY}never{/IRONY} seen a fundie say anything like that, ever.

So, some more questions which occurred to me today.

21. Who would print and control the currency used to pay for all the private goods and services?
22. How would international trade work without a kind of gold standard agreement between states?
23. Who would gain control of a state's gold reserves when the state was abolished?
24. How would this be determined and distributed and by whom?
25. How would private citizens and companies arrange imports of vital resources from overseas entities?
26. How would international trade be regulated and by whom? How would trade disputes be resolved?
27. What measures would be in place to prevent private corporations funding their own private 'security' forces in order to commit industrial aggression or espionage?
28. Where alleee says there are no rulers, does that mean all private companies have no 'ruler'? What about the private security firms, no leaders?

I await your next feigned outrage or avoidance tactic with barely controlled apathy. I am a liberal atheist after all.

 
At 1/30/2007 2:59 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Apologies about that latest post there... I am the one who posted it. I did not notice I was on my wife's account.

 
At 2/05/2007 6:59 AM, Blogger AndrewGreve declaimed...

I am not as educated as all you posters here but...

jimmy seems to be the only one forming a real argument in between his sarcasm and insults. where as the rest are mostly just make bad analogies or throwing insults. No counter-points or even any real concrete statements about taxes being immoral and equivalent to theft. besides just that it was true.

jimmy hasn't made a super strong case or anything. He has left room for response but you guys just say he isn't really thinking about it or really trying to answer his own questions. usually when i ask questions i wait for the person to give his/her answer before answering my own question, especially in an argument. give them an opportunity to actually give an answer i might agree with before throwing out why i think they are wrong.

anyways, i haven't really read all that much on this topic but thats the way it seems to me, at the very least you got an example of an average reaction to your movement.

I found this thread because I goggled my own name. I am not the Andrew Greve you are familiar with.

 
At 2/20/2007 5:29 PM, Blogger Francisco declaimed...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please do not use the term "Liberalism" to denote what accounts to crass statism or downright fascism (which is what the Democrats and Republicans preach).

Liberalism, in its correct definition, is the belief in the philosophy and ethics of human liberty. The misnamed "liberals" are actually socialists or, like I said above, fascists. Please use those terms instead of *liberal* - it will be more exact and precise.

 
At 2/20/2007 7:15 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

fas·cism –noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

fas·cist –noun
1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.


The anarchists got to name calling a long time ago francisco, you're playing catch up now but I'm glad you didn't disappoint. I mean, the anarchists are putting together such an intelligent argument here.

But like the people who brought up the Nazis, maybe you should actually learn about what you are claiming before you resort to overblown hyperbole.

There is much wrong with the Democrats and Republicans in this country, but fascists they are not and naming them so undermines your credibility and weakens your position simply because your opponents simply have to point out how quick you are to resort to exaggeration and unfounded name calling.

What annoys me the most about the Nazi/fascist labelling in cases like this is it weakens the real horror with which Nazis and fascists should be viewed. So congratulations.

Anyway, why don't you follow the form of previous anarchists and bring up rape now. Or you could try answering the 30+ questions that still remain unanswered.

 
At 9/19/2007 6:04 AM, Blogger Ratter declaimed...

1. Do you pay your taxes?
I don't have to. However, due to GST, tariffs, embargoes, corporate taxes, unions and hopeless regulations, all of us have paid thousands of dollars of tax in the form of artificial price increases.

2. Have you ever, or do you now, use any infrastructure, resource, technology or service that has been previously or is still now the beneficiary of federal funding taken from taxation?
Yep.

3. Ever used the services or goods of an industry that has recieved government subsidy? Like farming or steel?
Yep.

4. Ever flown on an airliner or used GPS in a car or for hiking? Guess what, GPS is funded by the DoD, paid for by taxes, and that is why it is free. Airliner's use GPS and WAAS to fly safely, which are funded by federal taxes.
You bet.

5. Ever driven on a federal highway? Free to use because they are funded by taxation.
Yep.

6. Ever had your road cleared of snow by a city or state snow plough, guess what?
Nope. It doesn't snow here.

7. Ever enjoyed the benefits of technology that is the result of the space program? You know, the federally funded space program?
Almost certainly.

In response to the above questions, I have one of my own:

Have you ever entered into an agreement with another person, completely free from the threat of violence or theft? If so, you're a hypocrite.

1. If I don't contribute to the private security firms do I get protection from criminals or not?
I assume it would depend on the security firm and what they were offering. Given that they want to reach the maximum number of customers, there are several possibilities:
- When you bought your house, the real estate company may have included the cost of X years' discounted police protection in the price. Bear in mind that the price of housing would be many times lower in a stateless society than it is now: zoning laws, tariffs on building materials and out-of-date building regulations are keeping prices up.
- In emergencies, it's extremely doubtful that a private cop would stand around asking for money or a membership card. In fact, basic emergency service, when an officer is in the vicinity, could be an effective tool for attracting more customers. But if a person wants to do more than just hope a cop walks past at the crucial moment, then yes, they may want to pay.
- Private firms could offer varying levels of protection for different needs and budgets.

2. If I don't get protection from criminals, then I have no choice but to contribute to these private security firms. So, how is this any different to me having to pay taxes to the state for them to provide a police force?
Because a private firm cannot legitimately use violence against you if you choose not to use its services.

3. How do the private security firms bring people to trial?
4. Would we have trials?
5. How would justice be administered?
6. Would we have private companies running courts as well? Buy one trial and get your second free?

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf
Also, see if you can find a PDF of "Chaos Theory", by Murray Rothbard. He covers the topic in a typically Rothbardian way (with insurance upon insurance), but it's still pretty insightful.

7. How much more does it cost to get a private firm to provide policing than a state police force?
Given the amount of money spent on the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs" and victimless crimes; certainly a lot less.

8. How would this cost be represented in terms of proportion of a citizens income?
I have no idea.

9. Who would calculate and enforce this?
Enforce what?

10. Could you pay more and get more protection than others?
Can you pay more for anything and get more of it than others? Of course. What sort of question is that?

11. Could you pay more to have your crimes given higher priority than others regardless of their seriousness?
Almost certainly not. That would be terrible for business.

12. Who would monitor the private security firms?
Who governs the government? They'd monitor each other, of course. Or, rather, if a firm started turning into a Mafia, its customers would be quick to switch to a better company - one that actually protected them.

13. Who would create the laws these private security firms would enforce?
"Enforce laws"? You're still thinking with governments. The job of a policeman is to keep the peace and defend people, not to enforce laws.

I've got to eat now, but I'll deal with the rest of these questions after dinner (I've answered them before, so it looks like a copy-and-paste job). If you'd like a more in-depth answer, check Mises.org (it's a goldmine).

 
At 9/19/2007 6:49 AM, Blogger Ratter declaimed...

Here's a section from "For A New Liberty" that deals with the concept of private courts. I suggest you read it. And here's "Chaos Theory". I would summarize Rothbard's arguments here, but he's a far better writer than I.

 
At 11/14/2007 11:47 PM, Blogger Jimmy_Blue declaimed...

ratter:

Do you admit that answering yes makes you a hypocrite then?

Have you ever entered into an agreement with another person, completely free from the threat of violence or theft? If so, you're a hypocrite.

In what sense am I a hypocrite if I answer yes to this?

When you bought your house, the real estate company may have included the cost of X years' discounted police protection in the price. Bear in mind that the price of housing would be many times lower in a stateless society than it is now: zoning laws, tariffs on building materials and out-of-date building regulations are keeping prices up

An addition on to the cost of something for a service. Sounds like a sales tax, does it not? What guarantee for the quality of housing is there if all of these things are removed? Remember, building firms regularly cut corners now when these things do exist. Why do they become better when they are removed?

In emergencies, it's extremely doubtful that a private cop would stand around asking for money or a membership card.

Why is it doubtful?

In fact, basic emergency service, when an officer is in the vicinity, could be an effective tool for attracting more customers.

As would be the threat of not lifting a finger to help unless a person was a member, correct?

But if a person wants to do more than just hope a cop walks past at the crucial moment, then yes, they may want to pay.

Ah, so the threat of violence is to be used to encourage people to pay up. And this would be different to how you percieve taxes how, exactly?

Private firms could offer varying levels of protection for different needs and budgets.

So the rich get better treatment than the poor. This is equality of protection in what sense? How would this be an improvement on the state police force where all are guaranteed protection (in theory if not in practise).

Because a private firm cannot legitimately use violence against you if you choose not to use its services.


Ah, so as long as they only do things legitimately everyone will be ok. And we all know how morally responsible companies are now, don't we?

Given the amount of money spent on the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs" and victimless crimes; certainly a lot less.


Please define victimless crime. This statement is pure speculation because who knows what other expenses may be incurred with the removal of the state.

I have no idea.

That's my point.

Enforce what?

Enforce how cost is determined and how it is collected. Let me guess. The market?

Can you pay more for anything and get more of it than others? Of course.

So people can pay to have better rights than others? So human rights become a matter of wealth?

What sort of question is that?

Apparently one you missed the point of.

Almost certainly not. That would be terrible for business.

Of course. Because people who charge more for a service never do well at all, ever. Being exclusive and catering to the rich never ever paid off for any company ever. Did it?

Who governs the government?

The governed.

They'd monitor each other, of course.

What would they monitor though, there is no law to be broken? What prevents them all from forming a monopoly? What prevents them all agreeing to exploit the customer?

Or, rather, if a firm started turning into a Mafia, its customers would be quick to switch to a better company - one that actually protected them.

Oh right. Because we all know that everyone immediately resists those with force behind them. Just like people go straight to the police when presented with a Mafia protection racket. No-one is ever scared of the threat of force, ever.

"Enforce laws"? You're still thinking with governments.

So what would these private firms do, exactly?

The job of a policeman is to keep the peace and defend people, not to enforce laws.

And how is keeping the peace and defending people determined? Why, by laws of course.

Sorry ratter. Close, but no cigar.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home