More silliness. Go read, if you feel like it.
And, in the meantime, here is the comment I just posted there:
Dale- You say a lot without understanding what you are saying.
The US is a republic, not a democracy. But both are "tyranny of the majority". I do not consent to the violation of my worst enemy's rights. I do not consent to "governing" him. This doesn't make me "helpless". Withdraw consent and stop being a part of the problem.
I just want to have the cake I baked, so that I can eat and share it, voluntarily, as I see fit. Statists are the ones who want everyone else's cake, to eat without baking their own. If I didn't bake a cake I have no problem buying one from someone else. Pay for what I use, and use only what I pay for. Once again, completely unlike collectivists of whatever stripe.
I can't make civilization by myself, as you say I think I could, but I also know it takes individuals to make civilization, not institutions that feed on theft.
And yes, I am sorry but when you take something through force of threat of force ("arrest", "fines", garnishment, etc.) that belongs to an individual, when that individual would rather not give it up, it is theft. Even if you have a piece of paper saying you have the authority to do it. You can pretend otherwise all day long but it doesn't change the foundational act one iota.
One old furniture-abusing criminal in a black dress was once quoted as saying "taxes are the price we pay for civilization". He had it backwards. Civilization is what humans manage to create in spite of the parasites that feed off the productive people.
Nice job with the personal insults based upon your perception of my appearance. I'm sure it takes a "higher education" to be that childish.
If you knew anything about Somalia (beyond what you are told by other government-extremists), you would see that the Somalis are pretty good people (other than the remnants of the former government- the "Warlords"- who are still around the population centers doing their best to continue to act like a functioning State- murder, kidnapping, theft, and all).
The US is a republic, not a democracy. But both are "tyranny of the majority". I do not consent to the violation of my worst enemy's rights. I do not consent to "governing" him. This doesn't make me "helpless". Withdraw consent and stop being a part of the problem.
I just want to have the cake I baked, so that I can eat and share it, voluntarily, as I see fit. Statists are the ones who want everyone else's cake, to eat without baking their own. If I didn't bake a cake I have no problem buying one from someone else. Pay for what I use, and use only what I pay for. Once again, completely unlike collectivists of whatever stripe.
I can't make civilization by myself, as you say I think I could, but I also know it takes individuals to make civilization, not institutions that feed on theft.
And yes, I am sorry but when you take something through force of threat of force ("arrest", "fines", garnishment, etc.) that belongs to an individual, when that individual would rather not give it up, it is theft. Even if you have a piece of paper saying you have the authority to do it. You can pretend otherwise all day long but it doesn't change the foundational act one iota.
One old furniture-abusing criminal in a black dress was once quoted as saying "taxes are the price we pay for civilization". He had it backwards. Civilization is what humans manage to create in spite of the parasites that feed off the productive people.
Nice job with the personal insults based upon your perception of my appearance. I'm sure it takes a "higher education" to be that childish.
If you knew anything about Somalia (beyond what you are told by other government-extremists), you would see that the Somalis are pretty good people (other than the remnants of the former government- the "Warlords"- who are still around the population centers doing their best to continue to act like a functioning State- murder, kidnapping, theft, and all).
Added Update:
Want more? He replied, so I added this comment (I put it here just in case he stops approving my comments):
"...You just fling out the same slogans over and over again without engaging with anything I ever say..."
Exactly the same could be said about you. I do address your points, you simply won't face reality. You deny that an act is the same no matter who is doing it, or what costume they wear.
"...the tea-tard GOP is the closest you ever get to your libertopian dream..."
Hardly. They are not pro-liberty any more than you are. They want a theocracy where homosexuals, drug users, Muslims, "illegal immigrants" (sic), and anyone else who doesn't do what they want is punished. They support unending Empire and "bringing democracy" to people across the globe, even if they have to kill people to save them.
If you think this even remotely resembles a free society, then I don't know what to say to you.
As for the rest- the more you write the more you expose your utter lack of understanding what you write about. As one example: "...The self-nominated 'producers' appropriate the historical archive, the commons, their indebtedness to their fellows (usually derided as 'parasites,' as gentle Kent would have it) and then pretend they create these goods as rugged individuals..."
Those who produce are not parasites. Those who feed off of the production of others, through "taxation" or appropriation of other property, ARE parasites. People who do this are not my "fellows". I do not pretend I have created this civilization (I already told you this). It takes a great many people, each accomplishing something, to make a civilization. It does not take people confiscating the things the productive people are producing. What is your definition of theft, if it varies so much from mine that "taxation" doesn't qualify?
" "We are all caught in an escapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny."
Absolutely! But mutuality does not require coercion or theft. It does not EVER require a State.
"... there is no perfect "planned" allocation of a more just distribution..." Right, because you can't "plan" an economy; it just happens through the individual decisions made by each individual person who decides if they want item A more than they want item B. This is perfectly just, and any interference with their individual decisions is completely unjust.
"...the sensible (sic) progressive taxation of those who benefit most from society..." Those you claim "benefit most from society" are those who benefit society the most. By your "progressive taxation" you remove incentives for them to create jobs and innovations.
"...should fund those general welfare programs which function to ensure that the scene of consent to enterprise be as genuinely informed and nonduressed as may be..."
And exactly how do these "general welfare" (no such thing) programs ensure that? No one has the necessary information to make that decision on the behalf of everyone else. You are being Utopian. It is a statist trait.
Exactly the same could be said about you. I do address your points, you simply won't face reality. You deny that an act is the same no matter who is doing it, or what costume they wear.
"...the tea-tard GOP is the closest you ever get to your libertopian dream..."
Hardly. They are not pro-liberty any more than you are. They want a theocracy where homosexuals, drug users, Muslims, "illegal immigrants" (sic), and anyone else who doesn't do what they want is punished. They support unending Empire and "bringing democracy" to people across the globe, even if they have to kill people to save them.
If you think this even remotely resembles a free society, then I don't know what to say to you.
As for the rest- the more you write the more you expose your utter lack of understanding what you write about. As one example: "...The self-nominated 'producers' appropriate the historical archive, the commons, their indebtedness to their fellows (usually derided as 'parasites,' as gentle Kent would have it) and then pretend they create these goods as rugged individuals..."
Those who produce are not parasites. Those who feed off of the production of others, through "taxation" or appropriation of other property, ARE parasites. People who do this are not my "fellows". I do not pretend I have created this civilization (I already told you this). It takes a great many people, each accomplishing something, to make a civilization. It does not take people confiscating the things the productive people are producing. What is your definition of theft, if it varies so much from mine that "taxation" doesn't qualify?
" "We are all caught in an escapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny."
Absolutely! But mutuality does not require coercion or theft. It does not EVER require a State.
"... there is no perfect "planned" allocation of a more just distribution..." Right, because you can't "plan" an economy; it just happens through the individual decisions made by each individual person who decides if they want item A more than they want item B. This is perfectly just, and any interference with their individual decisions is completely unjust.
"...the sensible (sic) progressive taxation of those who benefit most from society..." Those you claim "benefit most from society" are those who benefit society the most. By your "progressive taxation" you remove incentives for them to create jobs and innovations.
"...should fund those general welfare programs which function to ensure that the scene of consent to enterprise be as genuinely informed and nonduressed as may be..."
And exactly how do these "general welfare" (no such thing) programs ensure that? No one has the necessary information to make that decision on the behalf of everyone else. You are being Utopian. It is a statist trait.
And More!!
"...you and a few of your superior white skinned superhuman friends..."
What does skin color have to do with anything? Are you racist?
"...the rest of us billions of subhuman parasites to serve you..."
Parasites do not serve, they take. And, fortunately, the productive humans outnumber, vastly, the parasites. Even some people, acting as minor parasites, are still producing more than they are taking. Probably very few people are "all parasite" or "all producer" anymore. That's a shame. When that changes and more are taking than producing, your Utopian People's Democratic Kleptocracy will collapse.
"...I think you are far too dangerously stupid to waste time talking to, and apparently you think the same, which is pretty much how I think it should be given how very low an opinion I have come to form of you by now..."
I don't think that of you at all or I would have stopped talking. I don't have a low opinion of you; I have a low opinion of the ideas you have bought in to.
"...and you can build your internment camp for me (did I say death camp? I meant happy camp)..."
That would violate my principles. I have no problem allowing people to choose to live in any sort of voluntary society they choose. Even outright communist, if that makes them happy. As long as they allow those around them to opt out without forcing those people to leave their homes, families, and friends. The difficulty I keep observing is that statists rarely reciprocate, but insist it is their way or the highway. To me that is not civilized behavior.
"...you can wave your your big gun around..."
That would be irresponsible and I don't do that. There are rules to the safe handling of firearms, and that violates them all.
"...Kent is far too deep down the Randroidal rabbit hole..."
While I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, I am most definitely NOT an Objectivist or a "Randroid".
"...the GOP spouts many of your anti-government anti-tax anti-civilization slogans..."
The GOP is not any of those things. They LOVE "taxes" as long as they get to use them to pay for "border patrol" or the military or their farm subsidies, or whatever other big government program they like. And they like a lot of them. Now, I just think the GOP has a different idea of civilization than I do, as do you, but I don't see them (or you) as anti-civilization. You just advocate some things that make civilization a lot harder to maintain, and more fragile.
"...as close as you will ever get to seeing any materialization of any of your world view..."
Really? I am seeing it now. In my own life. Just because my neighbor might not respect my liberty doesn't mean I seek to violate his.
There will always be bad guys trying to harm their fellow man. Right now the majority work for The State, but if you can't be free under a State, you couldn't be free in a free society either. Someone will always provide you an excuse to act like a slave.
"...these are lives being smashed..."
This is why it is important for people to understand that government gives power and false legitimacy to the worst of those who seek to do the smashing, without the risk of being a freelance thug. Yes, it is real; it is happening now. And it is completely unnecessary.
But you are right, this is not a high school debate. Keyenesian "economics", just for one example, is destroying lives even now. And because statists are caught in the trap of thinking this way, the disaster is being "solved" by doing even more of the same that caused it in the first place. People are dying due to this sort of delusion.
"...they are pampered and insulated from the consequences of their maurading and mistakes and waste..."
Those who do the "maurading" are among the parasites and will get no sympathy or assistance from libertarians. Those who make mistakes can be helped by charity (a libertarian concept) better than by welfare. And those who waste might be helped once or twice, but if they don't learn, then life will be very rough. I believe you are projecting again.
"...defining as "coercion" and "threat" plenty that does not deserve the designation in my view..."
Coercion is making someone do something they don't want to by using physical force, or the threat thereof, or by using deceit to get them to do what you want.
A threat is making known your intention to use coercion. A legitimate threat is when that intention has been made and the one making the threat has the ability to carry it out.
Theft is taking property, through coercion, threat, or deceit, that belongs to another, because he traded his time or other property in order to obtain it, when that person would rather not give it to you.
"People who share the world are actually different from one another, they have different capacities and different aspirations."
Exactly! That is why "one size fits all" statism is doomed to failure every single time it is imposed!
"Violence and the threat of violence pre-exist states, state-like institutionalizations of order are responses to the permanent possibility of violence inhering in human plurality itself."
Yes, again! So why set up an institution that attracts those who seek to employ that violence without consequences?
"Violence is not created by the state and would obviously persist in a world in which everything "statelike" were smashed."
I never claimed differently. I am simply saying it is foolish to give that violence a veil of ligitimacy. Let people defend themselves (and their neighbors) from those thugs without facing legal barriers that punish the good guys.
"You can declare by fiat that there are no rational conflicts among people, you can declare their are no problems of harm arising from complex modalities of association...
Why do that? Of course there are rational conflicts among people. There doesn't need to be a monopolistic institution to settle those conflicts. And if that institution is one of those concerned with the conflict it is a conflict of interest to allow that institution to adjudicate the dispute.
"...you can declare violence unnecessary by fiat..."
Never said that. Self-defensive violence is often the correct response to being attacked. Violence is neither good nor bad- it depends on whether the violence is initiated or as a response to initiated violence.
"And this is because the world is not like your favorite Ayn Rand novel, and the problems and promises of human plurality and social struggle and stakeholder politics and public goods (sic) are all real whether you understand them or not, whether you ignore them or not, whether you lie about them or not."
Yep. And many of those problems are completely manufactured by the existence of The State, and the best way to deal with this reality is NOT to violate the life, liberty, and property of those around you.
What does skin color have to do with anything? Are you racist?
"...the rest of us billions of subhuman parasites to serve you..."
Parasites do not serve, they take. And, fortunately, the productive humans outnumber, vastly, the parasites. Even some people, acting as minor parasites, are still producing more than they are taking. Probably very few people are "all parasite" or "all producer" anymore. That's a shame. When that changes and more are taking than producing, your Utopian People's Democratic Kleptocracy will collapse.
"...I think you are far too dangerously stupid to waste time talking to, and apparently you think the same, which is pretty much how I think it should be given how very low an opinion I have come to form of you by now..."
I don't think that of you at all or I would have stopped talking. I don't have a low opinion of you; I have a low opinion of the ideas you have bought in to.
"...and you can build your internment camp for me (did I say death camp? I meant happy camp)..."
That would violate my principles. I have no problem allowing people to choose to live in any sort of voluntary society they choose. Even outright communist, if that makes them happy. As long as they allow those around them to opt out without forcing those people to leave their homes, families, and friends. The difficulty I keep observing is that statists rarely reciprocate, but insist it is their way or the highway. To me that is not civilized behavior.
"...you can wave your your big gun around..."
That would be irresponsible and I don't do that. There are rules to the safe handling of firearms, and that violates them all.
"...Kent is far too deep down the Randroidal rabbit hole..."
While I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, I am most definitely NOT an Objectivist or a "Randroid".
"...the GOP spouts many of your anti-government anti-tax anti-civilization slogans..."
The GOP is not any of those things. They LOVE "taxes" as long as they get to use them to pay for "border patrol" or the military or their farm subsidies, or whatever other big government program they like. And they like a lot of them. Now, I just think the GOP has a different idea of civilization than I do, as do you, but I don't see them (or you) as anti-civilization. You just advocate some things that make civilization a lot harder to maintain, and more fragile.
"...as close as you will ever get to seeing any materialization of any of your world view..."
Really? I am seeing it now. In my own life. Just because my neighbor might not respect my liberty doesn't mean I seek to violate his.
There will always be bad guys trying to harm their fellow man. Right now the majority work for The State, but if you can't be free under a State, you couldn't be free in a free society either. Someone will always provide you an excuse to act like a slave.
"...these are lives being smashed..."
This is why it is important for people to understand that government gives power and false legitimacy to the worst of those who seek to do the smashing, without the risk of being a freelance thug. Yes, it is real; it is happening now. And it is completely unnecessary.
But you are right, this is not a high school debate. Keyenesian "economics", just for one example, is destroying lives even now. And because statists are caught in the trap of thinking this way, the disaster is being "solved" by doing even more of the same that caused it in the first place. People are dying due to this sort of delusion.
"...they are pampered and insulated from the consequences of their maurading and mistakes and waste..."
Those who do the "maurading" are among the parasites and will get no sympathy or assistance from libertarians. Those who make mistakes can be helped by charity (a libertarian concept) better than by welfare. And those who waste might be helped once or twice, but if they don't learn, then life will be very rough. I believe you are projecting again.
"...defining as "coercion" and "threat" plenty that does not deserve the designation in my view..."
Coercion is making someone do something they don't want to by using physical force, or the threat thereof, or by using deceit to get them to do what you want.
A threat is making known your intention to use coercion. A legitimate threat is when that intention has been made and the one making the threat has the ability to carry it out.
Theft is taking property, through coercion, threat, or deceit, that belongs to another, because he traded his time or other property in order to obtain it, when that person would rather not give it to you.
"People who share the world are actually different from one another, they have different capacities and different aspirations."
Exactly! That is why "one size fits all" statism is doomed to failure every single time it is imposed!
"Violence and the threat of violence pre-exist states, state-like institutionalizations of order are responses to the permanent possibility of violence inhering in human plurality itself."
Yes, again! So why set up an institution that attracts those who seek to employ that violence without consequences?
"Violence is not created by the state and would obviously persist in a world in which everything "statelike" were smashed."
I never claimed differently. I am simply saying it is foolish to give that violence a veil of ligitimacy. Let people defend themselves (and their neighbors) from those thugs without facing legal barriers that punish the good guys.
"You can declare by fiat that there are no rational conflicts among people, you can declare their are no problems of harm arising from complex modalities of association...
Why do that? Of course there are rational conflicts among people. There doesn't need to be a monopolistic institution to settle those conflicts. And if that institution is one of those concerned with the conflict it is a conflict of interest to allow that institution to adjudicate the dispute.
"...you can declare violence unnecessary by fiat..."
Never said that. Self-defensive violence is often the correct response to being attacked. Violence is neither good nor bad- it depends on whether the violence is initiated or as a response to initiated violence.
"And this is because the world is not like your favorite Ayn Rand novel, and the problems and promises of human plurality and social struggle and stakeholder politics and public goods (sic) are all real whether you understand them or not, whether you ignore them or not, whether you lie about them or not."
Yep. And many of those problems are completely manufactured by the existence of The State, and the best way to deal with this reality is NOT to violate the life, liberty, and property of those around you.
.
