Inheritance Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 11:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your definition of 'force' is not entirely clear, regardless of how many times you claim it is.

By your statements above, we can conclude that polluting someone's river must be force because you are willing to use force to prevent it.

Most of the existing laws are pretty much like that. There seem to be only a handful that you idiosyncratically have decided are not - that those laws themselves initiate violence. You personal definitions are unknown to us though you have given a couple of examples, yet you constantly insist that we are being dishonest when we ask you to define the boundaries.

Without laws and police, no agreements are truly enforceable. And if you break an agreement, it is you who are initiating force.

Well, since he's convinced he can read minds, I guess he just assumes everyone else can too?

That would help explain a lot.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-05-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 11:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your definition of 'force' is not entirely clear, regardless of how many times you claim it is. There seem to be only a handful that you idiosyncratically have decided are not - that those laws themselves initiate violence. You personal definitions are unknown to us though you have given a couple of examples, yet you constantly insist that we are being dishonest when we ask you to define the boundaries.

Analyze this scientifically. I'm not using any definitions or stating positions other than what every other libertarian does and what you'll find on wikipedia. So, _IF_ the rules were in fact vague, then even we would have a hard time agreeing on what fit the definition, right? Sure libertarians disagree on things, but what is 'initiation of force' is uncontroversial. You can lay out 1,000 hypothetical and chances are all libertarians will pretty much agree on what is 'force' and what is not. Therefore, this proves it's not vague. It's just that you don't like admitting you're on the side of using force.

Read my prior post to cjlr. I listed 4 scenarios relating to mowing a lawn. Can you tell me which of those 4 scenarios deserves armed men showing up at your door?

Or, let's say that a town desperately needs a bridge that can only be built on a particular farm and the owner won't sell, and the townfolk are outraged, demanding he be hauled out by the police. What should the government do? Defend the farmer against the townfolk, ensuring neither side is allowed to use force on the other? Or should the government give in to the will of the townfolk and initiate whatever force is necessary to remove the farmer?

(18-05-2014 11:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  Without laws and police, no agreements are truly enforceable. And if you break an agreement, it is you who are initiating force.

Now you're just changing the subject. Of course, if you and I enter into a voluntary agreement the contract must stipulate a jurisdiction that is authorized to use force to ensure both parties comply. All libertarians agree there is nothing wrong with that because both parties exercised free will, both executed the contract and agreed that force would be used if they broke it. Nobody's free will was denied. If you didn't want to risk having the police show up at your door, then don't sign the contract. Every libertarian system incorporates this, and we all agree on this. That's not what this debate is about.

This is about when contracts (or laws) are enforced against a party that did not voluntarily enter into the contract. Legal theory holds that any contract is invalid if it's not entered into voluntarily. If I hold a gun to your head and force you to sign a contract, that contract is null and void and unenforceable. Similarly, if you are given a choice of legal jurisdictions to live under, and you voluntarily agree to live in a certain jurisdiction and accept the stipulations that go with it, then fine, you have voluntarily executed a social contract.

As I've said a million times, the only thing we're debating is if you should be able to enforce a contract (law) that somebody did NOT voluntarily enter into and has universal (federal) jurisdiction so that there is nothing the individual can do to escape. Any such (social) contract is thus null and void and unenforceable according to legal theory since it was not entered into voluntarily.

I keep explaining this over and over with very specific examples (like the points 1-4 in my prior post) and you and cjlr keep insisting it's too ambiguous and you can't understand what I mean by force. IMO the reason for that is that I actually HAVE done a decent job of explaining it and, you're trapped because any productive rebuttal must start with "I believe force must be used to coerce individuals into doing things against their will and that individuals must not be allowed to flee BECAUSE ....". But you're just not willing to do that since it requires admitting that your position is the same one cavemen used 10,000 years ago and which never held human progress for millennium. So you're somehow pretending that the distinction between our positions is vague and ambiguous. It's tiring. If you want a productive debate you have to be willing to acknowledge the subject which we are debating. If you seriously can't understand the line that's been drawn between these 2 theories, then how can you debate that you're on the right side of the line?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 09:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:08 PM)Anjele Wrote:  In the way I read it, it didn't sound complimentary at all. If I was wrong, I apologize.

You're not wrong. Drinking Beverage

I did say 'if'. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Just want to make that clear.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 12:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, since he's convinced he can read minds, I guess he just assumes everyone else can too? That would help explain a lot.

Classic. Yet again you threw up the "environmental strawman" issue, and I put the effort in my reply to make sure it was as airtight as I could make it, and I tried being as specific and logical as I could, double checking the facts, and threw up those 4 very specific real-world scenarios to challenge your assumptions. And, your only counter is a personal attack. The only problem is you forgot to go give me more negative reputation. Please I'm still in the positive despite Vosur giving me a -3 last time. If my point was really good, how about giving me like a negative 1,000? And don't forget to once again start your review with the word Quote following by double quotation marks " to indicate a direct quote, and then just make up some crazy shit that I never said to put inside those quotes like the last time when you said I called you a rapist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 12:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 12:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, since he's convinced he can read minds, I guess he just assumes everyone else can too? That would help explain a lot.

Classic.

No, champ. This is a reference the multiple times you have explicitly claimed to understand what someone else thinks better than they do.

You have literally done that exact thing. Repeatedly. It is a highly inexplicable delusion.

(18-05-2014 12:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yet again you threw up the "environmental strawman" issue, and I put the effort in my reply to make sure it was as airtight as I could make it, and I tried being as specific and logical as I could, double checking the facts, and threw up those 4 very specific real-world scenarios to challenge your assumptions. And, your only counter is a personal attack.

wut?

(18-05-2014 12:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The only problem is you forgot to go give me more negative reputation. Please I'm still in the positive despite Vosur giving me a -3 last time. If my point was really good, how about giving me like a negative 1,000? And don't forget to once again start your review with the word Quote following by double quotation marks " to indicate a direct quote, and then just make up some crazy shit that I never said to put inside those quotes like the last time when you said I called you a rapist.

Oh, hey, whining about rep. And so soon on the heels of explaining your brave perseverence in face of persecution and adversity. You are just hitting all the troll targets this week.

The sentence I provided in your rep rating is a literal direct quote from an actual thing you actually said:
(19-09-2013 01:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, I DARE you to give me one example where we disagree on some policy that is not simply a matter of you being a rapist, club-wielding neanderthal using threats of violence and initiating force against others, while I am asking for you to accept a peaceful alternative.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The sentence I provided in your rep rating is a literal direct quote from an actual thing you actually said:

I just did a 'search' with my name and 'rapist' ready to prove to you that you made up the quote. Low and behold, you're right. That was in my quote. Sorry. Obviously it was a typo. You had been pretending that it was impossible to determine what is 'physical violence' and explaining that there's no way identify it and thus impossible to determine what is a proper defense, and I said that a rapist could use that same defense. Since I had asked you a hundred times to name one thing we'd ever disagree on that didn't boil to you wanting to use force to make other people do things against their will, and I couldn't get a response, I did try taunt you into replying by calling that mentality 'club-wielding neanderthal'. But the word 'rapist' must have been an editing mistake stray word from the prior paragraph. Sorry, I obviously did not mean to intentionally suggest you're a rapist. Just a club-wielding neanderthal. Smile

Anyway, why don't you address my points in the prior post? How would you like it if I did to you what I criticize you (collectively) for doing to others and then pretended not to be able to understand what force is? How about my lawn mowing example? Explain what system a pragmatic scientist would use to determine which of those 4 scenarios justified hauling someone off at gunpoint?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The sentence I provided in your rep rating is a literal direct quote from an actual thing you actually said:

I just did a 'search' with my name and 'rapist' ready to prove to you that you made up the quote. Low and behold, you're right. That was in my quote. Sorry. Obviously it was a typo.

Yeah. "Typo". Sure, bud.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You had been pretending that it was impossible to determine what is 'physical violence' and explaining that there's no way identify it and thus impossible to determine what is a proper defense, and I said that a rapist could use that same defense. Since I had asked you a hundred times to name one thing we'd ever disagree on that didn't boil to you wanting to use force to make other people do things against their will, and I couldn't get a response, I did try taunt you into replying by calling that mentality 'club-wielding neanderthal'. But the word 'rapist' must have been an editing mistake stray word from the prior paragraph. Sorry, I obviously did not mean to intentionally suggest you're a rapist. Just a club-wielding neanderthal. Smile

Wow. I provided a direct citation on your statement, but it appears you didn't bother consulting it.

Protip: you weren't addressing me with that statement.

I'm unsure where you picked up the unfortunate impression that such disingenuous and juvenile conduct was in any way productive or reflected well on you. Oh, well.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Anyway, why don't you address my points in the prior post?

There are occasionally other things I do with by time besides feeding trolls.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 11:21 AM)frankksj Wrote:  How would you like if I, as an individual, did to you precisely what I'm criticizing you for? I tell you to do something and if you don't, I bust down the door to your home, haul you off at gunpoint, tase you if you resist, and lock you my basement for 20 years. And then when you ask me why I'm using force against you, I reply “Gosh, I can't really tell if this is force or not. Hmm... The dictionary definition is too ambiguous.” Well I find it no less irritating when you do it.

I know, right? Because I totally literally assaulted and abducted people.

See, that's the kind of pathetic disingenuous horseshit that underlies most of your inane blathering. It's also generally considered poor form.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The idea of forcing people to do things against their will is pretty obvious. Your inability to get your head around it is what made me question how you could possibly be a real physicist, able to grasp infinitely more complex concepts like relativity.

What I'm more puzzled by is the part where you are literally incapable of self-reflection.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 11:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember the part where I mentioned environmental regulations?

Of course. The fact that I've addressed this repeatedly and you never dispute my position proves that you're quite trapped. As I've said a million times before, the idea of using force is not vague. What IS vague and subjective is the idea of 'property'. If I break your arm, unquestionably I'm using force. But is your arm really your property? You didn't make the matter in your arm. At some point those atoms made up somebody else's arm. Or a tree. Most will accept that all the 'matter' within your body is your property. So what if you have a prosthetic arm which I break? What if it wasn't even attached to your person at the time, but was far away? Is that still your property? And why would it be any different for me to break your arm than, say, your car? If I break your windshield, nobody except you questions that this was force, what real intellectuals question is if you have the same right to defend your car, through counter force, as you would if I were breaking your arm.

Indeed. You can think of some unambiguous examples. Congratulations! I'm so proud.

That does not mean no ambiguous examples exist.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Early libertarians split on this with the eastern Europeans generally saying 'no'--people don't have the right to use counter-force to defend property. Property belongs to the state. Western European libertarians, however, did believe property was an extension of your personhood, and you're entitled to defend it.

So, if I am in one jurisdiction (say Germany) and I damage somebody else's property in another jurisdiction (say a French person's land by dumping pollution in a river that drains into it), then if you are a propertarian libertarian as I am, then, sure, there must be some intra-jurisdictional way to compensate for property damage.

And since some level of pollution is inevitable those jurisdictions need to agree on the rules when someone in one jurisdiction damages property in another. Dumping mercury into a river, not allowed. Your son pees in the river, that's immune from property damage claims.

It's nice that you've finally made that explicit.

Getting to that point was a herculean labour, but okay.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  See, nobody but you thinks the concept of 'force' is vague. The issues are pretty obvious and clear-cut.

No, asserting that doesn't make it true. I like the fallacious and unsubstantiated ad populum, though - classy touch!

You've elsewhere shown serious difficulty with the idea of other people thinking other things. Alas, I see no sign of that ever changing.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And there's nothing in environmental laws that is remotely contradictory to libertarian principles. Pollution is one person damaging (initiating force upon) the property of another, something that is clearly not allowed in a libertarian system.

Man, you're so close with this one.

You believe in the use of force to defend property. And you just acknowledged that notions of property are subjective.

Gee.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I keep shooting down this ridiculous claim over and over.

You don't even understand my claim. But nice try. It's good to know your self-absorption is as beautifully undimmed as ever.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You never dispute my rebuttal. It goes in one ear and out the other and you just keep bringing it up over and over and over as an example of where the idea of 'force' is somehow ambiguous.

No. Let me try once again to explain to you what the distinction is. I just did this. You blithely ignored it. Ninety-seventh time's the charm, perhaps.



(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's a pathetic attempt because no doubt you DO advocate all sorts of barbaric rules that are unquestionably initiating force.

Ah - more deranged straw men are incoming, no doubt. Why listen to someone else's position, when you can just make it up?

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  For example, here's some scenarios:

1. My neighbor had a heart attack so I mow his lawn to help him out, but I don't report it to my government minder.

2. After several months my neighbor feels guilty that he's taking advantage of me, so he agrees to tutor my son in exchange for my mowing his lawn, as an even barter. But we don't report it to our government minders.

3. After a few more months my neighbor's health deteriorates more so he no longer has the energy to tutor my son, and so each week in exchange for mowing his lawn, he instead gives me something that I can exchange to get someone else to tutor my son (like a $50 bill). Again, we don't report it to our government minders.

4. What if instead of spending it now on a tutor I save it to send my son to boarding school? And what if I give it to a Swiss bank for safekeeping?

I hope you're going somewhere with this.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Most liberals would say that #3 should be against the law and, if we kept this up and flagrantly refused to comply, we should eventually be hauled off at gunpoint. And #4, even though it's a peaceful, voluntary exchange between two individuals, that's a win-win which both benefit from, and which doesn't hurt anybody but the nebulous "society" which just wants a cut, well that's the worst and deserves a harsher punishment even than rapists. But, they're less barbaric with #1 and #2, even though essentially nothing has changed. See, in nearly all cases like this it IS very clear-cut when force is being used. There is NOTHING ambiguous about someone hauling you off at gunpoint that you can't decide if it's force or not. BUT, liberals can't explain why force should be used in case #3, but not necessarily in #2 or #1. There is no logic or reason.

I see that once again you're feverishly challenging me to justify someone else's position. 'Cause that's productive.

The answer, of course, is that reality is complicated and it depends. You seem to have a pathological hatred of complexity, so you don't like that answer, but that's not my problem.

I would imagine that most people (see, I can play the "most people" card too) are capable of recognising both that taxation serves a useful purpose in maintaining order in modern society and that it is neither productive nor beneficial to tax literally everything.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So rather than addressing these clear-cut cases which account for 99% of the things we disagree on, liberals keep desperately trying to find some extreme example where you can argue that force is ambiguous--like my favorite that liberals always use 'if you shoot with a laser gun is it force since photons don't have matter'.

I've got a bet going with myself to see whether you can make it through a whole post without falling back on hivemind composition fallacies. So far the answer is no.

Let me attempt to illustrate the vacuity of your terminology. Your originally said to me "force" required physical contact - you were very insistent, since that's what your magical dictionary said. I gave a trivial example which did not involve physical contact. You said of course that's still force, and now you say everybody knows that - everyone, presumably, except those going by the actual definition you actually provided.

"It just is" and "I feel like it" are not adequate justifications. Certainly not philosophical definitions.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you wanted a productive debate then forget about silly fringe games like that, and address the obvious issues, like the one I just presented, where we disagree.

Apparently "silly fringe games" are any and all issues which actually admit of ambiguity.

Funny thing, though; most people find those the ones most interesting to discuss.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, that one issue IS the core, central doctrine of libertarianism. The fact that you won't address it, but just dismiss it is 'facetious and idiotic' shows that you're mind is closed and you're not even willing to consider libertarianism anyway.

Bingo - mind-reading again.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So why debate? And you tell me I'm pompous and arrogant, when who the fuck are you to dismiss the core tenet of respected intellectuals, like Locke, Jefferson, and recent nobel prize winners like Friedman and Hayek? Sure, it's fine to disagree. But to refuse to even consider it, just dismissing it as “idiotic”?

Not them. You. There's a difference.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Actually, just one. As I've said before the only thing I believe force should be used for is to block the initiation force, since nothing can stop force but force. As I keep saying, my goal is to eliminate force across the board. That means one person can't hit you in the face, can't break your arm, can't burn down your house, can't pollute your river.

Aaaaaaaand as we've established (I say "we", but it amounts to other people saying and you either ignoring or denying) that there is an inevitable element of subjectivity and thus difference in opinion.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Every law and rule I advocate, like the ones in the bill of rights, exist to BLOCK force—not to create it.

According to you.

Someone who believes in less expansive definitions of property than you will see you as the one initiating force against them.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  However, as I've said a million times, I accept it's inevitable that people will always want to gang up (such as with a 51% vote) and initiate force to coerce people into doing things against their will (such as laws and police).

You can't accept what you merely invent.
(or, your old nemesis: citation needed)

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm fine accepting that, I ONLY ask for one thing: when you draw the jurisdictional lines where these laws apply...

Oh, so, you don't want a say in where they're drawn?

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... draw them so that people can relocate if they find the force too oppressive. That's it.

Which is once again ignoring that tired old example, environmental regulations. One cannot relocate to avoid a global regulation on atmospheric pollutants. To name just one obvious exception.

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I have never been inconsistent. I have never wavered on this point. I have never advocated any position that goes against it.

Indeed. No one ever claimed so.

Your constant fallacies, misrepresentations and falsehoods, on the other hand...

(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I think it is a reasonable compromise, and that it's actually a win-win for both of us because if, instead of trying to boil the ocean and get a whole country to do things your way, you just focused on a local community of like-minded individuals, you'd probably be able to live in a place with laws that and a society that reflected your world view. I think you guys are hurting yourselves when liberals and conservatives refuse to accept this compromise and insist that they will only draw the jurisdictional lines at the one place where escape is impossible and will fight to the death to get the ruling majority, aware that when their side loses, the other side will beat the shit out of them with their own inescapable laws. I think it's dogmatic that liberals and conservatives refuse to just agree to disagree, narrow the jurisdictional lines, and agree to peacefully coexist. Instead they spend all their resources which could be spent actually doing good, fighting the other side.

Continuum fallacy. False choice.

Is there any point in asking you if you understand why other people's opinions are not the same as yours? Is there likewise any point in asking you if you understand that other opinions are as innate and valid as yours? I suspect not.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The answer, of course, is that reality is complicated and it depends. You seem to have a pathological hatred of complexity, so you don't like that answer, but that's not my problem.

How convenient. As always, you won't go on the record and take a position. You accuse me of assuming your position. Of course I have to read between the lines and infer your position because you don't want to commit to any position. I asked you, of those 4 scenarios, which ones YOU, in your opinion, thought justified being hauled away at gunpoint. As always, your answer is 'it depends'. Depends on what??? If the guy mowing the lawn is tall or short? You love to just attack other people's positions, but refuse to put your own ones out there for criticism.

(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I know, right? Because I totally literally assaulted and abducted people.

Probably. Assuming you've voted on the matter, or for a representative to vote on your behalf, my guess is that you probably DID use the power at your disposal (ie a vote) to criminalize at least activity #4 in my scenario. Therefore, when the police haul off people gunpoint for engaging in a given activity you ARE responsible for it just as much as if you held the gun in your hand yourself. Scale it down. Imagine you live in a town with only 5 people, and a proposition comes up to require the women to wear burkhas or else face stoning (sadly a real possibility in some parts of the world). 2 vote 'no', 2 vote 'yes', and you're the tie breaker. If you vote 'yes', and then a woman gets stoned, to me you ARE responsible. I guess it's easier for you to tell yourself that there's no blood on your hands unless you physically picked up a stone. But, to me, hiring a hit man to kill your wife is no different than doing it yourself. And appointing enforcement agents to assault and abduct on your behalf is no different than doing it yourself. You threw in the word literally as your scapegoat, because if you instead used the word 'effectively' the answer is probably 'yes, you did'.

(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  See, nobody but you thinks the concept of 'force' is vague. The issues are pretty obvious and clear-cut.

No, asserting that doesn't make it true. I like the fallacious and unsubstantiated ad populum, though - classy touch!

No, what makes it true is that every time I ask you to identify one example where 'force' is vague, you can't come up with anything other than silly games like the photon gun. If it really were vague, you'd have ended this a long time ago by citing a clear example. Regardless, I vow that if you kind find examples where force is vague I'll acquiesce, and only push back on cases where it's indisputable that you're using force.

(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You believe in the use of force to defend property. And you just acknowledged that notions of property are subjective.

YES, YES, YES. This IS subjective. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours. That is why I advocate the classic liberal position that whenever laws are made to enforce subjective opinions like this you simply limit the jurisdiction to make room for other jurisdictions to have their own differing opinions. For example, I've said I'm totally fine with one state having a communist system where there is no concept of private property at all. Just make room for other states to have their own opinions.

Why is this so unreasonable?

(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I would imagine that most people (see, I can play the "most people" card too) are capable of recognising both that taxation serves a useful purpose in maintaining order in modern society and that it is neither productive nor beneficial to tax literally everything.

Fine, and since you've conceded this is a subjective matter with varying opinions why not accommodate those positions by having taxation, as much as possible, at the state/local level? That's the way it works here in Switzerland. For most the federal income tax rate is only 2% or so; virtually all taxation is done at the local level. And we can prove the system works very well because we pay less in taxes and still get much better services from the government.

(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not them. You. There's a difference.

Name one thing I've said that conflicts with something that, say, Milton Friedman said? All the points which you dismiss as 'idiotic' and refuse to consider were ones that Friedman and others made long before me.

(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Someone who believes in less expansive definitions of property than you will see you as the one initiating force against them.

Nope. Because if I were to ever vote on a matter of expanding property definition I would always vote to keep the jurisdiction as local as possible to make it as easy as possible for dissenters to escape. I'm only criticizing these when laws when you draw the jurisdiction lines specifically to make escape impossible.

Besides, why are you off on such a silly tangent? What % of the laws that are being passed have anything to do with the definition of property, or are vague in terms of whether 'force' is used or not. 99% of the time the laws are clearly using force to coerce people into doing things against their will and have nothing to do with defending property. But you keep grasping for fringe cases to avoid addressing the overall issue.

The 'lawn mowing' scenario I presented, for example, is a very common example. It's something that's debated constantly, and hundreds of laws a year are written on the subject. It's one of the most contested issues in most political races. And you refused to take a stand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 11:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your definition of 'force' is not entirely clear, regardless of how many times you claim it is. There seem to be only a handful that you idiosyncratically have decided are not - that those laws themselves initiate violence. You personal definitions are unknown to us though you have given a couple of examples, yet you constantly insist that we are being dishonest when we ask you to define the boundaries.

Analyze this scientifically. I'm not using any definitions or stating positions other than what every other libertarian does and what you'll find on wikipedia. So, _IF_ the rules were in fact vague, then even we would have a hard time agreeing on what fit the definition, right? Sure libertarians disagree on things, but what is 'initiation of force' is uncontroversial. You can lay out 1,000 hypothetical and chances are all libertarians will pretty much agree on what is 'force' and what is not. Therefore, this proves it's not vague. It's just that you don't like admitting you're on the side of using force.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I ask you for clarification and that's what you give me? More horseshit claims of my position? Fuck you, you disingenuous cunt.

Quote:Read my prior post to cjlr. I listed 4 scenarios relating to mowing a lawn. Can you tell me which of those 4 scenarios deserves armed men showing up at your door?

Or, let's say that a town desperately needs a bridge that can only be built on a particular farm and the owner won't sell, and the townfolk are outraged, demanding he be hauled out by the police. What should the government do? Defend the farmer against the townfolk, ensuring neither side is allowed to use force on the other? Or should the government give in to the will of the townfolk and initiate whatever force is necessary to remove the farmer?

No, you don't get to sidetrack the issue with more made-up scenarios.

Quote:
(18-05-2014 11:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  Without laws and police, no agreements are truly enforceable. And if you break an agreement, it is you who are initiating force.

Now you're just changing the subject. Of course, if you and I enter into a voluntary agreement the contract must stipulate a jurisdiction that is authorized to use force to ensure both parties comply. All libertarians agree there is nothing wrong with that because both parties exercised free will, both executed the contract and agreed that force would be used if they broke it. Nobody's free will was denied. If you didn't want to risk having the police show up at your door, then don't sign the contract. Every libertarian system incorporates this, and we all agree on this. That's not what this debate is about.

No, I am not changing the subject. It's about laws. That is precisely the subject that is being discussed. You are trying to evade the issue.

Quote:This is about when contracts (or laws) are enforced against a party that did not voluntarily enter into the contract. Legal theory holds that any contract is invalid if it's not entered into voluntarily. If I hold a gun to your head and force you to sign a contract, that contract is null and void and unenforceable. Similarly, if you are given a choice of legal jurisdictions to live under, and you voluntarily agree to live in a certain jurisdiction and accept the stipulations that go with it, then fine, you have voluntarily executed a social contract.

You do not understand 'social contract'. I'm sorry you don't like being born into a society with pre-existing laws. Tough shit. If that is what you want, go find an island because you are delirious if you think it is possible to make your own deal independent of the existing rules.

Quote:As I've said a million times, the only thing we're debating is if you should be able to enforce a contract (law) that somebody did NOT voluntarily enter into and has universal (federal) jurisdiction so that there is nothing the individual can do to escape. Any such (social) contract is thus null and void and unenforceable according to legal theory since it was not entered into voluntarily.

We have to abide by the pre-existing rules of the society in which we exist. You can accept them, work to change them, or you can leave. You can't ask for your own specially constructed set of laws.

Quote:I keep explaining this over and over with very specific examples (like the points 1-4 in my prior post) and you and cjlr keep insisting it's too ambiguous and you can't understand what I mean by force. IMO the reason for that is that I actually HAVE done a decent job of explaining it and, you're trapped because any productive rebuttal must start with "I believe force must be used to coerce individuals into doing things against their will and that individuals must not be allowed to flee BECAUSE ....". But you're just not willing to do that since it requires admitting that your position is the same one cavemen used 10,000 years ago and which never held human progress for millennium. So you're somehow pretending that the distinction between our positions is vague and ambiguous. It's tiring. If you want a productive debate you have to be willing to acknowledge the subject which we are debating. If you seriously can't understand the line that's been drawn between these 2 theories, then how can you debate that you're on the right side of the line?

No, instead of explaining clearly, you keep making up little stories.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: