Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Fundamental Theorem of Statism (Read 881 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #80 - Dec 3rd, 2018 at 4:46pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 10:47am:
Snarky Sack wrote on Nov 27th, 2018 at 10:35am:


I don't know that any of those things are universally agreed on.   Truth in advertising?  I'm thinking, 'really?
Lying about your product can amount to fraud Sack.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #81 - Dec 3rd, 2018 at 4:49pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Nov 30th, 2018 at 9:35am:
I've also partially considered the enforcement of contracts and truth in advertising.
Enforcement of contracts and punishing fraud are essential to the operation of a free markets. It's a shame that they need enforcement and punishment, but they do.
« Last Edit: Dec 4th, 2018 at 7:41am by Jeff »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8088
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #82 - Dec 3rd, 2018 at 9:41pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 12:23pm:
Hm, this is easy to say, but the trouble is that, in such a world, if you grow anything, thieves will wait for your harvest and then take all your crops.  If you go out to hunt and gather, they'll wait in leisure for you to come home.  At some point, you're going to break down and cry out, this is not a world you want.


Of course it's not a world I want.

I'm just not willing to commit wrongs to get a better one.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #83 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 7:43am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 9:41pm:
Of course it's not a world I want.

I'm just not willing to commit wrongs to get a better one.
What wrongs are you talking about? Creating a police force and paying them with revenue collected by approved taxes?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4379
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #84 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 9:52am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 4:46pm:
Lying about your product can amount to fraud Sack.



So, we are taxed so that nobody will lie about their products?

How’s that working out?  Are we really getting our money’s worth?

I’d love to see some truth in advertising about government spending and the taxing that allows it.  We have an agency dedicated to making sure that gum manufacturers really did survey five dentists before making the claim about “four out of five dentists surveyed.” 

How about an agency that makes sure the government tells us how much its programs actually cost us and our grandchildren?

EDIT:  Never mind.  That proposed agency would be sure to spend most of its time and efforts covering up its own mismanagement of the taxpayers’ money.



« Last Edit: Dec 4th, 2018 at 11:43am by Snarky Sack »  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 715
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #85 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 2:07pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 2:11pm:
I guess it depends on what you mean by "universally."  If it means literally everyone agrees, that would be great for libertarians, because then the government could do nothing since there would never be universal agreement.

Do you mean some kind of very large majority?


Ha ha!  Isn't disagreement great for going back to the law of the jungle!  This is a good place to insert a Laugh icon for the elites.

Yes, literally.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4379
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #86 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 4:01pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 1st, 2018 at 11:29pm:
Probably your best post to date, and not that you haven't had other great ones.

A lot of people probably see libertarians as freeloaders, and the truth is that many probably are. Like your slummy neighbours, they don't want to pay for the police, because that would be aggression, but you can't really test their supposed grievance unless you can exclude them from the benefit, too. Most of them probably just want to pretend to victimhood - no one actually moved to Somalia when it was in anarchy. And yes, this is a virtue-test for those who believe taxes are theft and anarchy is the way to go.

What I think is even deeper than the funding at gunpoint thing is the issue of rights construction. When one person constructs a right, and says, "I have a right; don't you dare do that to me!" not everyone will agree. Who gets to decide, then? You have an absolute right not to be punched? Touched? Stolen from? The matter comes really clear when some people start discovering the right not to be offended - people are really divided on this one.

My greatest wish is to not have a blank, and for everyone to live under the policies they most desire. Nothing will be funded at gunpoint because everyone moving to a community would know what was to be taxed for, and there would be alternatives with few or no taxes.

Obviously it would be hard to cordon off the world and not only logistically impossible but life-disrupting to move everyone, so it's never going to be done.

But I often think, "Wouldn't that be grand?"

Kinda like... if I had one wish for the world.


Only if you see the result of more actual aggression being committed as something that needs to be addressed.

I think we both well understand that in a world without taxes that protect even the poorest from aggression, a world without government, private security companies may well murder their own former customers who decide to cancel their subscriptions, and who to do anything about it? No one, if they're unsubscribed. There is nothing better than this terror factor for keeping everyone subbed, so I even suspect the security companies will share their books.

I think where we part ways is that I accept it. For me it's a moral issue; it's about the means, not the ends. I don't want to live in Somalia either, and I do believe that is the natural result of anarchy. However, if governmental force is wrong, then it's wrong, and I can't support or condone it.

I don't want to live in Somalia the same way I might want a million dollars. I see the safe world as a stolen benefit, and I don't want to steal it.


Hm . . .

Very thought provoking, especially the part about the construction of rights.  I have always taken rights as a given, the only "constructed" right I accept is the government-granted "right" to own land, superseding the rights of all others to walk on "my" land.  I accept this fiction because there are so many benefits to private land ownership that I am willing to bend principle for the sake of it. 

I have in the past argued that "our creator" indeed endowed us with certain rights.  Be "our creator" the natural processes of evolution or a bearded anthropomorphic God or some intelligent force that guided evolution or whatever else it might be.  My evidence for the right to freedom of movement, self-defense, free speech, private ownership of wealth is that our creator gave us the ability to move around, defend ourselves, speak, create wealth, etc.

Now, I don't know.  Where do rights come from?  Could Jeff be right in his claim that we only have rights that government grants us and that they can be taken away at any time by a majority vote or a representative of a plurality in a republic?  Horrifying thought.

*ponder*

*ponder*


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #87 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 4:32pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Dec 4th, 2018 at 9:52am:
So, we are taxed so that nobody will lie about their products?



Fraud is wrong Sacky. If someone defrauds you, it's nice to have the law on your side...

But of course you don't want any law. You want privately decided rules to control. You're a fool.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #88 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 4:35pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Dec 4th, 2018 at 2:07pm:
Ha ha!  Isn't disagreement great for going back to the law of the jungle!  This is a good place to insert a Laugh icon for the elites.

Yes, literally.
I think Sacky is advocating for the kind of "democracy" that Democratic Socialists practice when they gain control of everything.

He says its better because the Party Elites work hard to prevent anarchy after they seize power. Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8088
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #89 - Dec 4th, 2018 at 9:43pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Dec 4th, 2018 at 4:01pm:
Now, I don't know.  Where do rights come from?


I slapped this together to illustrate the matter.

I understand that this comes from my overly cynical self, so be free to adjust the reasonability in the positive direction.



...But this is seriously how the matter strikes me at times. Those who discover rights will discover the rights which benefit them most.

Think about the people who say scamming isn't aggression. Think about the Seussical constraptions (construction + contraption) they use to prove you don't have to keep your agreements. I seriously beg you to read this, or at least skim it.

https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

So, basically, say whatever you want to get the dollar out of the other guy's hand, but he had better not punch you to get it back!

This is the kind of thing that makes me cartoon that. I know it's over-the-top, but please read the article and tell me you don't see it that way, because I understand I need to not be quite this cynical about everything.

  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy