No, that is not my argument, you idiotic dimwit. That comment was made merely as a side note against all your constant defamatory insults against libertarians since this thread started. [/quote}
More name calling. Once again, it is not a suitable substitute for actual debate. You seemed to be making the claim that one couldn't hold to certain tenets of a philosphy without embracing them all. That was clearly not true.
Yes, it does dimwit. It proves majority opinion does not equal truth or validity. You were arguing that since the majority of people don't support libertarians, that our philosophy must be flawed based on that reason. Again, please stop lying. Please stop trying to defraud people on this forum with your deception and truth-twisting.
No, I was arguing that the libertarian philosophy is flawed whether the majority agree or not and I prove the flaw. The fact that the majority of people don't support it is simply evidence that the majority of people don't support it. My bet is that most couldn't even describe the philosophical paradox at the heart of libertarianism. For all I know, the majority of americans don't like libertarianism because of their exposure to name calling, insult hurling folks like yourself.
Oh there has been no name calling. Now, if I would have said these things to members vyo476 or USMC the Almighty or Rokerijdude, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NAME CALLING. But for you, those terms are ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE LIES AND UTTER NONSENSE YOU HAVE POSTED IN THIS THREAD. I have proven you are a liar a fraud and a *****.
I have pointed out that you are a liar. Case closed. Unfortunately, you can not spin or cute your way out of this one. You have indeed decended to name calling and insult hurling in lieu of actual argument.
What has also been proven is that you started with the arrogant know-it-all attitude and the Ad Hominem attacks in this thread. And your arrogance has been shown to be a complete and total cover for your lack of intelligence and lack of integrity.
You keep saying it but have yet to prove it.
Yes, you did ignore my definitions, as evidenced by your above statement touting the same "argument" as before. I've dodged nothing. I presented these facts in support of my argument to which you had no reply:
"the U.S. is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens if they leave and go to other countries - and it also forbids anyone from renouncing their citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxation."
And this has exactly what to do with literal or figurative slavery?
I also stated partial de facto slavery was possible, to which you had no valid response.
I pointed out that de facto means in fact. In fact, I am not a slave as no one owns me. Then you brought in the term de jure which means by right or according to the law. Well, by right or the law, I am not owned by another individual or the state.
If de facto slavery is possible, then you are saying that in fact, one can be a slave. In fact, there are no legal slaves in this country.
"It's based on the fact that over 50% of the vast majority's income is taken from them at gunpoint if necessary and we basically have to ask the government's permission to do all manner of peaceful and/or honest behavior. And in addition, we continue to lose freedoms in this country at a slow but steady pace."
I didn't respond because it is not a valid point. I don't pay my taxes at gunpoint any more than I refrain from killing my neighbors at gunpoint. The law is the law and breaking the laws invites punishment. Are you arguing that if libertarians were in charge, there would be no enforcement of the laws since expecting for one to obey the law amounts to (by your definition) being forced at gunpoint.
"the INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE/PEONAGE laws corrected (this). So that one person may not be taken as the property of another. If you want to define yourself as property, then you are only property IN RELATION TO YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP as far as the libertarian philosophy is concerned."
So now are you arguing that you do not own yourself, because anything that may be owned may be considered property. This is at the heart of the paradox within libertarian philosophy. You keep arguing as if it is not there, but there it is. This leads me to believe that you aren't really familiar with libertarian philosphy at all but instead simply parrot talking points that you get from other libertarians on the web.
You seem to be either a complete and total nitwit or a complete and total fraud. Which is it?
More name calling in lieu of answer to a philosophical question about your position. I am no longer surprised, and you are not being cute.
Again, why do you keep arguing straw men??? Look back at the very first post on this thread. The basic tenet the author puts forward is OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. We are all self-owners, and ONLY self-owners. We can not sell ourselves to other people precisely because OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT BE OUR PROPERTY.
So are you arguing that you do not own yourself? Ownership implies property so either you are your own property or you are not. Which is it?
One possible base defintion of Libertarianism is that OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. So what does that mean? IT MEANS NO HUMAN CAN OWN ANOTHER HUMAN. You're the one using distortion and obfuscation to try and muddy the waters, but my point remains: A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY SOLELY IN RELATION TO SELF-OWNERSHIP AND ONLY IN REGARDS TO SELF-OWNERSHIP.
You have no property that you can not sell to another and you have no property that another can not lay claim to as payment for debt or damages. If you own yourself, then you are property and the laws of property are quite explicit. Once again, the paradox within libertarianism.
What do you claim is the difference between INVOLUNTARY servitude and slavery? Because both should be illegal, and would be under a libertarian system.
Involuntary servitude involves the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion to compel a person to work against his/her will. Threatening an illegal immigrant to work for free in exchange for you not calling immigration services would constitute involuntary servitude. Slavery is a situation in which one person literally owns another.
And I am sure that you believe that both slavery and involuntary servitude would be illegal under a libertarian system, but making legal, the principle that human beings own themselves and are therefore property opens the legal door to both voluntary and involuntary slavery. Once again, it is the paradox within libertarianism. Examine the philosophy closely, it is there and it is undeniable.
As I said, the voluntary servitude that you were fearmongering about is completely legal in our present system, and since it isn't happening now, that means your argument is dead. Since, in a libertarian system, slavery and involuntary servitude will also continue to be illegal.
There is a difference between voluntary servitude and selling oneself into slavery. And under a libertarian system in which the concept of property becomes associated with human beings, they would no longer be illegal.
Explain PRECISELY and VIA THE LEGAL SYSTEM (BY WHICH SPECIFIC LAWS) how people will be owned by others under a libertarian system since slavery and involuntary servitude will be illegal.
First off, laws may be repealed. If you legally introduce the concept of self ownership to the legal system for reasons such as prostitution, or drug use, then you create precedent. Once precedent is established within the legal system, it may move in directions that one wouldn't expect. Since we are theoretically talking about libertarians holding sway in congress and the senate and possibly the presidency, then the idea of libertarian supreme court, circuit court judges also becomes part of the discussion. Do you believe that a libertarian judge would overrule the concept of self ownership and write off the arguments for prostitution and drug use or would he or she uphold the concept of ownership of one self and thus create precedent that human beings are property.
No once again you have distorted, obfuscated and resorted to Straw men... You're arguing a side comment made as a joke - not part of the argument, loser. Now the joke's on you. 
