Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2013, 08:52 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
I provided direct quotes from you... not paraphrases. And I never said I didn't intentionally ignore something. One cannot ignore that which he doesn't see.

"1) I provided why the Founding Fathers could accurately be called
liberal over libertarian, by the definitions and examples I supplied.
You agreed, but only in part. I still held that realm of the definition
of libertarian wasn't applicable, providing both the definition and
addressing context. You still didn't provide why you feel the definition
of libertarian extends to the overall views of the Founding Fathers,
but still seem to hold that it does."

Not to be derogatory but, I don't care what your definitions are. I care what the definitions are. Libertarians agitate for a small, constitutionally limited federal government. The US was founded on the rules set forth in a constitution which strictly limited the role of the federal government. The only things that matter with regard to the time the constitution was written is that unknown technological innovations could not be included in the rules of the constitution. It can even be argued that the authors of the constitution tried to frame it in such a way that new technologies would be covered by the words within it but evidence has born out the fact that that isn't possible. Other than that, the things you laid out as important contextual differences are not so. For instance, it doesn't matter how many people are on a spot of land. Taxing one of them or all of them is the same. Regulating free trade in 1776 is the same as regulating free trade in 2013. What's being regulated is irrelevant.

"2) I provided that a government was not a violent monopoly by the
traditional definition of monopoly, but giving you the benefit of a
favorable definition, said that the violence was not necessary (mean
nothing in government makes in inherently violent, so using it as part
of a general description would be, by definition, incorrect), and beyond
that the power was not indefinitely legitimate or exclusive (the
legitimate part was also just favorable benefit)."

No, you posited that government was not a violent monopoly. The traditional definition of monopoly is not exclusive to trade and it's painfully easy to find that out. In as much as government is concerned, taken out of the context of this discussion, you have a point. The governor on my lawnmower's carburetor is not violent. Likewise, me governing the amount of alcohol I consume at a party is not violent. But we weren't talking about self governance or combustion engines, we were talking about the state. And whether you accept it or not, nation states, by definition, are violent monopolies. Even if a nation state never has to use violence, it is still compelled to do so when and if need occasions its use. If the state weren't allowed to use violence, it wouldn't be the state... it would be a vendor with whom people voluntarily traded. To wit: If I weren't forced to pay taxes I wouldn't be paying taxes but, rather, I'd be offering charity or paying for a product or service that I chose to consume. Any time an action is made compulsory, it must necessarily contain a consequence for non compliance. Where the state is concerned, that consequence is ultimately death. To be sure, it isn't always death but that does not matter. The simple fact that the act of not paying my taxes could lead to me being murdered is enough. To labor the point further, if I refuse to pay taxes and I ignore the letters and court dates, the police will come to my house. If I defend myself against their attempts to kidnap me and I wind up being shot to death, the official report will be resisting arrest and/or attacking law enforcement. But, the original cause of that effect doesn't change. My refusal to pay taxes is the action that precipitated my death, regardless of what is written on a report.


I'd be happy to debate the merits of the state as opposed to a stateless society with you but, like I said above, if we can't agree on the truths I won't pretend to have a debate.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 12:56 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(19-02-2013 11:33 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "There isn't one government offering a commodity... no government is a
monopoly in a world where one has the ability to uproot and attempt to
be under the service of another government or none in the varying areas
the situation exists."

If that's true then there is no such thing as monopoly. After all, if Nike is the only shoe you can buy in North America, you can always go to Malaysia or Pakistan to get shoes. Thus... no monopolies exist.


"I supposed it could boil down to what you would declare your "services" of government to be..."

My declaration is that government does not provide any services to me. It takes my money under the threat of murder and spends it in ways that I would not. Moreover, it has absolutely no obligation to either protect me or ensure that, if I am harmed, I receive restitution from the perpetrator. Yet money is taken from me, ostensibly, for those purposes.

"By that thinking I suppose one could say government has a monopoly on
societies; others would probably argue that government creates or equals
society."

Government is a concept that can create nothing. People create and equal governments and societies. Therefore, if I cannot expect my fellow human to care about me if I voluntarily contract him for services, what should make me think I can expect him to care about me if I make him my master?


Syllogistically, your argument that monopolies on violence can not be violent monopolies can be refuted as such:

1. Violence is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

2. Monopoly is exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

3. A monopoly on violence compels the monopolist to use violence.

4. Therefore, a monopoly on violence must necessarily be a violent monopoly.
First, Nike isn't a monopoly and never was a monopoly. Standard Oil controlled 90-95% of it's industry, that was a monopoly. Nike though is apart of an oligopoly perhaps because those few athletic brands that control probably over 3/4 of the market.

I never tried to argue that monopolies on violence can not be violent monopolies... I'm just noting that they are two distinct phrases meaning different things but you were arguing your case on them as if they were inclusively the same. Besides that, your 4th point is an unsound assertion because it's missing the point of whether you are a monopoly or not.

If you think government doesn't provide any services to you.. that's the most exaggerated ignorant comment I've seen in awhile. Unless you've been cooped up in a dark room by supplying your own service, or are in some international waters; you've been granted a service; by simply using a road, the government have provided you a service. By using the power to access this website, you've utalized the government service supplied by their infrastructure that aids that transfer of energy and information.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(20-02-2013 08:52 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Not to be derogatory but, I don't care what your definitions are. I care what the definitions are. Libertarians agitate for a small, constitutionally limited federal government. The US was founded on the rules set forth in a constitution which strictly limited the role of the federal government. The only things that matter with regard to the time the constitution was written is that unknown technological innovations could not be included in the rules of the constitution. It can even be argued that the authors of the constitution tried to frame it in such a way that new technologies would be covered by the words within it but evidence has born out the fact that that isn't possible. Other than that, the things you laid out as important contextual differences are not so. For instance, it doesn't matter how many people are on a spot of land. Taxing one of them or all of them is the same. Regulating free trade in 1776 is the same as regulating free trade in 2013. What's being regulated is irrelevant.

For one, I like how I limited it to technology.

The Constitution was made to be amendable for future generations. That, in itself, takes into account the fact that over time things change, new situations, circumstances, information, technologies arise, that might make it necessary to change the powers granted to, or restricted from the federal government, and the guidelines for governance. They weren't limiting it, they were being liberal about it. Article V, US Constitution. Yep, it's damned impossible to be a liberal, and take into account that over time, shit changes. I mean, why would things change in the future?

Quote:Not to be derogatory but, I don't care what your definitions are. I care what the definitions are. Libertarians agitate for a small, constitutionally limited federal government.

Even if it was the case that was a proper definition, which it's not, then why, were they in support of a constitution that granted, arguably broad power to a federal government, including the ability to tax for general welfare and defense purposes, and to regulate commerce? That also included, as I pointed out, the ability to amend it by future generations? Wouldn't they have wanted it restricted, with less enumeration, and static, so it could never be the case that the more powers were granted and restrictions changed?

To address you definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism is, by definition, avocation for voluntary association, and freedom, specifically from a state and authority. "Small" government, is a pretty meaningless statement, and is just a term used for the reification of government. People who use it are really talking about limited power and authority, which would be addressed by the definition I gave. A constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the term, directly. A libertarian would be for a constitution that gave the ability to limit the power of a state, otherwise, they would likely, almost deductively, be completely against the state.

The Founding Fathers might have appeared somewhat libertarian, or be libertarian is some specific regards, but the context does matter when look at if that as a view/ideology. You can't confuse, skepticism, about what was a relatively experimental process of establishing that type of government, and the skepticism about abuse of power, with people being against a governmental power, fundamentally, in a broad spectrum of circumstances and situations, which is what the term applies to. In an economical sense, you definitely have to take it into context, because the economy was completely different. Abolishing slavery, the Industrial Revolution, World Wars, the Great Depression, Civil Rights, the Great Recession, all are individual scenarios that I could point out, all of which, on their own, mainly the Industrial Revolution, sculpted and changed the way people in society, in general, viewed the world in socio-economic terms.

As I already pointed out, liberalism and republicanism, already encompasses and accurately describes the things that have been addressed, or could be addressed, toward the views, or outlook, our our founders had. But, you know, fuck definition. The Founding Fathers were astronaut ass-clowns, all of them. Doesn't matter, everyone today can be astronaut ass-clowns too, if they want to model themselves after the countries founders.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Quote:It is still compelled to do so when and if need occasions its use.

That is completely irrelevant to the argument. Completely.

To be a part of something, by definition, that thing actually has to be an inherent part. You can't call government, by definition, a violent monopoly, then turn around and say that there are cases when they wouldn't be violent. Violent apart of the definition of something, would mean the thing you are describing is inherently violent. Example: a violent criminal. If a criminal is not violent, the criminal is not a violent criminal. To be a violent criminal, violence is actually necessary.

Quote:If the state weren't allowed to use violence, it wouldn't be the state...

Who, or what, allows a state to be violent? This is also completely irrelevant. See the above.

But, you also came pretty close to a circular argument there, I'd have to say; you toe was definitely in the water: a state is violent, because if a state isn't violent, it is not a state. That would be like me saying a criminal is only a criminal if they are violent, without providing an accurate definition making violence a necessity to crime.

Quote:If I weren't forced to pay taxes I wouldn't be paying taxes

You are not forced to pay taxes. You never heard of tax criminals. You ever heard of paying people, "under the table".

Besides all of that. You still didn't address a point. A monopoly by a dictionary, and the definition I was using since you failed to give any: The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something. With exclusive being: Excluding or not admitting other things.

Counter examples: Other states (if they exist), civil society (in general), slaves of the state, prisoners of the state, you (if you don't pay taxes and the cops come), gangs, criminals.

All of those are things within or external to a state, and all can, at any point, use violence. There have been revolutionary wars, civil wars, etc.

I might as well just give up with this conversation. If you're right, at least I know that the Nazi party wasn't violent because they had assholes for parents; they were violent because Europe owed them income tax. And Native Americans forgot to pay property tax to Europeans.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(20-02-2013 08:52 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'd be happy to debate the merits of the state as opposed to a stateless society with you but, like I said above, if we can't agree on the truths I won't pretend to have a debate.

Agree on truths?

You just have a problem with truth.

As long as you are not a right-wing libertarian, we don't have much to discuss, beyond what we already have; but if you were a person of the right, I doubt I want another go at another conversation where I'll be shut out and ignored; if you are left-wing and libertarian, we only disagree about direction, and I've already addressed main points on why I'm for a state vs. no state, in the immediate sense.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 11:09 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
I don't mean to be rude but, are you familiar with metaphoric expression? I never claimed Nike to be a monopoly, I used it metaphorically.

"I never tried to argue that monopolies on violence can not be violent monopolies..."


You sad: "A monopoly of violence and a violent monopoly are not the same things by any means."

If they are not the same thing by any means, then a monopoly on violence cannot be a violent monopoly. Likewise, a violent monopoly cannot be a monopoly on violence. By any means excludes all possibilities of the two being similar with relationship to violence.

"If you think government doesn't provide any services to you.. that's the most exaggerated ignorant comment I've seen in awhile."

Great. What's your address?I'm thinking you need a new car. Therefore, I'm going to go buy a new car, put it in your driveway and send you the bill for it. And you shall call me provider of a service. And if you act ungrateful for this service I provide you, you are a bad person.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?




Cool

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?


Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
22-02-2013, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2013 05:15 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(21-02-2013 11:09 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I don't mean to be rude but, are you familiar with metaphoric expression? I never claimed Nike to be a monopoly, I used it metaphorically.

"I never tried to argue that monopolies on violence can not be violent monopolies..."


You sad: "A monopoly of violence and a violent monopoly are not the same things by any means."

If they are not the same thing by any means, then a monopoly on violence cannot be a violent monopoly. Likewise, a violent monopoly cannot be a monopoly on violence. By any means excludes all possibilities of the two being similar with relationship to violence.

"If you think government doesn't provide any services to you.. that's the most exaggerated ignorant comment I've seen in awhile."

Great. What's your address?I'm thinking you need a new car. Therefore, I'm going to go buy a new car, put it in your driveway and send you the bill for it. And you shall call me provider of a service. And if you act ungrateful for this service I provide you, you are a bad person.

Not the same by any means does not mean something could not be both; It means they are two distinct concepts, and Any way you read the terms, they are different. The point was your using of one to support the other despite then not being interchangeable.

A universal ruling dictator, such as Yhwh could use both. You interpreted that in some black/white way that I don't get at all.

You could use that car buying idea.. But I've never agreed in principal to that arrangement. Like it or not, by being a citizen, even just on birth, that principal is pushed upon your life.

Besides, it still would be a service, being ungrateful vs not being served as well are different. It's not a WANTED service but that's not your position as stated toward me.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 05:32 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"Not the same by any means does not mean something could not be both; It
means they are two distinct concepts, and Any way you read the terms,
they are different. The point was your using of one to support the other
despite then not being interchangeable."


You keep telling me it's so but you can't seem to tell me how. That it is doesn't advance your argument. How it is does.

"Like it or not, by being a citizen, even just on birth, that principal is pushed upon your life."

What principle? Being born into servitude is not a principle. It's slavery. And again, you're telling me that it is so and not how it is so. And with all due respect, I'm not so stupid as to not know what's been foisted upon me.

What no one seems to be able to do is square this moral circle that says some people can steal but others can't. I get the argument from effect wherein some people think the state is benevolent and that it does good with its ill gotten booty but, I'm not interested in arguments from effect. I can justify stealing my neighbor's groceries with an argument from effect.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: