Libertarianism in One Sentence

[Truth-Bringer]

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE:

Shetland pony rider wrote:
"I have control of my actions and may make choices within certain boundries."

To which I replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Who determines the boundaries? Libertarians say people have a right to control all of their actions as long as those actions are peaceful, honest and voluntary. The only time government steps in is if people initiate violence, fraud or coercion to prevent other people from living their lives in peaceful, honest, and/or voluntary manner.

Under what authority do you claim the right to limit the peaceful, honest, and or voluntary actions of other human beings as long as they're not interfering with your rights? By majority vote?

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND QUIT RUNNING.

Your illogical, irrational positions have been exposed. Your slander of libertarianism has been disproven.

CHECK MATE.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There is no answer.

There is indeed an answer - you just can't answer it because it exposes your position as irrational and illogical.

You unilatarally changed the parameters of the situation to suit your mindset. When I said that society may require that individuals pay taxes, I clearly stated that any individual has the choice to leave should he or she not want to pay those taxes. In your senario, you remove the ability to leave if one doesn't agree with the rest and make it into a situtation in which one doesn't have a choice. The situation you describe is not analogous to the one I described.

I changed nothing. I applied YOUR OWN TERMS to a different circumstance using the EXACT SAME RULES YOU STATED. You are the one who is ok with your rules AS LONG AS IT SUITS YOUR MINDSET. When I applied it to something that DIDN'T SUIT YOUR MINDSET. You suddenly didn't like your rules of:

You stated:
"We the people decide what one may and may not do if one wants to be a member of society. To say that you must pay taxes to support the society doesn't make you a slave, it is only a statement of what you must accept if you want to be a member of this society. You are perfectly free to go somewhere else if this society doesn't suit you. And we as a society give the lawmakers the right. Lawmakers are elected by the citizens. Don't you know how our government works?"

As far as your point about going somewhere else, what if "we the people" in every country of the world allow you to leave their separate countries, but they all have the same law requiring you to murder a 5 year old child every year? Would you comply with the law the lawmakers passed in whatever country you decide to move to?

And also tell me why "we the people" and the lawmakers in your scenario don't have the right to keep people from leaving? Why did Lincoln refuse to let the South leave? They were just trying to leave. They wanted to make a new contract. Why couldn't they? In your system, what prevents lawmakers from deciding people can't leave??? Riddle me that, brat man.

And tell me why our government taxes people in other countries? Also tell me why our government refuses to allow people to renounce their citizenship and leave who say they're leaving to avoid taxes?

 

[vyo476]

There is indeed an answer - you just can't answer it because it exposes your position as irrational and illogical.



I changed nothing. I applied YOUR OWN TERMS to a different circumstance using the EXACT SAME RULES YOU STATED. You are the one who is ok with your rules AS LONG AS IT SUITS YOUR MINDSET. When I applied it to something that DIDN'T SUIT YOUR MINDSENT. You suddenly didn't like your rules of:

You stated:
"We the people decide what one may and may not do if one wants to be a member of society. To say that you must pay taxes to support the society doesn't make you a slave, it is only a statement of what you must accept if you want to be a member of this society. You are perfectly free to go somewhere else if this society doesn't suit you. And we as a society give the lawmakers the right. Lawmakers are elected by the citizens. Don't you know how our government works?"

As far as your point about going somewhere else, what if "we the people" in every country of the world allow you to leave their separate countries, but they all have the same law requiring you to murder a 5 year old child every year? Would you comply with the law the lawmakers passed in whatever country you decide to move to?

And also tell me why "we the people" and the lawmakers in your scenario don't have the right to keep people from leaving? Why did Lincoln refuse to let the South leave? They were just trying to leave. They wanted to make a new contract. Why couldn't they? In your system, what prevents lawmakers from deciding people can't leave??? Riddle me that, brat man.

And tell me why our government taxes people in other countries? Also tell me why our government refuses to allow people to renounce their citizenship and leave who say they're leaving to avoid taxes?

The people keep the lawmakers from deciding that people can't leave. That's the thing that you just don't seem to be getting, Truth-Bringer. America was founded by citizens and has always been run by such. While there is an unhealthy level of corruption present it subsists on the lack of knowledge of the masses - meaning that the power still rests with the people of the United States. If the majority decided to outlaw immigration, it would eventually happen, yes - but there would need to be a reason for the majority, the citizens, the PEOPLE of the United States, to do so.

This country is founded on majority rule. What the majority says everyone puts up with. If you don't like what the majority says you can either learn to deal with it (ie, learn to live with taxes), or you can get up and leave and the rest of us don't much care where you go - you have, at that point, chosen not to live by our standards and you are no longer our responsibility in any way. If none of the rest of the world will let you live how you want than that is certainly no business of ours. This is what it's like here and complaining about how "it isn't fair" is not going to change our minds.

There is, of course, a third alternative. You can begin to operate outside the law by staying but continuing to follow your principles, ie, not paying taxes. The American people own this country and as a group we have decided that people residing in this country will pay taxes. We have also decided that those who remain here but refuse to pay said taxes will be punished for doing so.

We believe in the necessity of having an actual government (Somalia is great example of what happens when there is no government). We believe that, to a limited extent, that government has the right to tax us in order to help us in various ways - whether we're conservatives who believe the government is there to protect us from foreign aggression or liberals who believe the government is there to better the lives of the people domestically. We are willing to listen to other ideas but if we aren't convinced we won't try them; we're willing to take reasonable chances but the key word is reasonable. We are Americans and if you can convince us that your system is worth it, go ahead. If all you want to do is complain about how the system works now, that is within your rights as an American citizen, and doing so keeps us all a little freer.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The people keep the lawmakers from deciding that people can't leave.

Why can't the people keep the lawmakers from spending the country into debt to the tune of $8.5 trillion and counting? Your assertion is irrational and not founded in reality. When you say the people, you mean THE MAJORITY. So if the majority were to vote to deprive you of your right to life, would you accept it since that's what the majority decided? If you're on a desert island with nine other people, and they vote to make you the slave of the group, do you agree with their decision?

This country is founded on majority rule.

False. This is a lie. As I've already shown you, this country was founded as a Republic, with protection for individual rights NOT SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE:

from the 1928 U.S. Army training manual:

"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of ‘direct’ expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

"Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress."

The following is an editorial note by Harry Atwood in the manual: "A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Democracy is the ‘direct’ rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy, and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”

What the majority says everyone puts up with. If you don't like what the majority says you can either learn to deal with it (ie, learn to live with taxes), or you can get up and leave and the rest of us don't much care where you go

What if the majority decides to say you can't go? Can you present a logical proof that they won't ever "change their minds"?

The law here is that people can't leave to avoid taxes. So there is no "escape clause" - they are deprived of the fruit of their labor if they do leave - so your argument therefore is invalid. What gives them the right to impose a penalty for leaving?

 

[vyo476]

No doubt you will interpret this statement as me running away and not facing your arguments and that is your prerogative. That being said, I have said already what I came here to say and that is final. Good day to you, Truth-Bringer.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

No doubt you will interpret this statement as me running away and not facing your arguments and that is your prerogative. That being said, I have said already what I came here to say and that is final. Good day to you, Truth-Bringer.

You can't touch my argument, because you don't understand deductive reasoning. Libertarianism is the only philosophy that can be supported by pure logic. That's why I can ask you guys all these simple, straightforward questions that show the holes in your false belief systems. You can't answer them honestly. If you do, you lose. If you run away, you lose. Either way, I win. It's over. The chess pieces are back in the box. Go home.