Anarchism

[Arkolon]

Implied consent? IMPLIED CONSENT?! If I wear a short skirt is that implied consent to rape me???taxation is literally worse than rape.
^^ shit arkolon says

Piss poor comparison. One doesn't consent to rape. One does consent to paying for a meal, because if they don't, then they've broken a law.

One doesn't necessarily consent to taxation, and apparently living here is "implied consent" to theft.

[MERIZoC]

Hey now. 4 years would be a new record.
Calling it successful would still be like calling the original Tacoma bridge a stable structure.

99.8% of human history is quite a feat, and is arguably longer than 4 years.

Nah man. We just got here last week.

[Geilinor]

Implied consent? IMPLIED CONSENT?! If I wear a short skirt is that implied consent to rape me???taxation is literally worse than rape.
^^ shit arkolon says

Taxation on labour is slavery, and "implied consent" is almost an oxymoron.

Taxation is not slavery. You are not being bought or sold nor being forced to work against your will. If you don't work and have no income, you don't pay taxes.

[MERIZoC]

Piss poor comparison. One doesn't consent to rape. One does consent to paying for a meal, because if they don't, then they've broken a law.

One doesn't necessarily consent to taxation, and apparently living here is "implied consent" to theft.

While you and I don't really see eye-to-eye (sort of) on taxation, you're right, one doesn't consent to it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Except you enter the restaurant willingly and voluntarily, and imply that you are going to pay for the food. You do not enter the state willingly or voluntarily. And the services the state provides would be equivalent to your neighbor mowing your lawn for you for free without your consent/knowledge and then threatening to hold you hostage at the barrel of the gun if you don't pay up his services. (implicitly)

I believe that the definition of "force" (in this context, aggression) can be compromised into something near the Libertarian definition of force. Say you have a group of communists - in the voluntary minimal state, these communists who believe that capitalism is forceful may withdraw from capitalist society and establish their own communes. Same with white nationalists or any other group. The only thing that doesn't make such a pluralist society possible is the insistence by some that their ideology doesn't allow for compromise.

Implied consent? IMPLIED CONSENT?! If I wear a short skirt is that implied consent to rape me???taxation is literally worse than rape.
^^ shit arkolon says

I'm not Arkolon.

Nobody consents to rape. That's contradictory to the very definition of rape.

[Geilinor]

One doesn't necessarily consent to taxation, and apparently living here is "implied consent" to theft.

While you and I don't really see eye-to-eye (sort of) on taxation, you're right, one doesn't consent to it.

Not explicitly, but it is implied by citizenship and/or residence.

[Arkolon]

Taxation on labour is slavery, and "implied consent" is almost an oxymoron.

Taxation is not slavery. You are not being bought or sold nor being forced to work against your will. If you don't work and have no income, you don't pay taxes.

If a third of my income is taxed, a third of my time being spent earning income is not for me, but for the state. Slavery has many definitions, and if you disagree with it being used here because it doesn't fit your particular definition for one particular instance of slavery, then have "taxation on income is forced labour" instead. Slavery has a master-slave relationship and is an overriding of self-ownership, which applies to everything I have called slavery so far.

[Arkolon]

One doesn't necessarily consent to taxation, and apparently living here is "implied consent" to theft.

While you and I don't really see eye-to-eye (sort of) on taxation, you're right, one doesn't consent to it.

From a libertarian position, how is taxation even justifiable without a weak resort to consequentialism, though?

[Arkolon]

While you and I don't really see eye-to-eye (sort of) on taxation, you're right, one doesn't consent to it.

Not explicitly, but it is implied by citizenship and/or residence.

I was given citizenship by birth, and I didn't choose where I got to live. And who gave the state the authority to have a monopoly on violence where I live? And what if I disagree?

[MERIZoC]

While you and I don't really see eye-to-eye (sort of) on taxation, you're right, one doesn't consent to it.

From a libertarian position, how is taxation even justifiable without a weak resort to consequentialism, though?

Why can't one resort to consequentialism? After all, the end result is what taxes are about.

[MERIZoC]

Not explicitly, but it is implied by citizenship and/or residence.

I was given citizenship by birth, and I didn't choose where I got to live. And who gave the state the authority to have a monopoly on violence where I live? And what if I disagree?

Become a primitivist, live in the woods.

[Arkolon]

From a libertarian position, how is taxation even justifiable without a weak resort to consequentialism, though?

Why can't one resort to consequentialism? After all, the end result is what taxes are about.

Consequentialism is usually used to justify the overriding of self-ownership because the means, overriding human rights, would justify the ends, which are instituting various positive freedoms. The means there are never justifiable.

[Arkolon]

I was given citizenship by birth, and I didn't choose where I got to live. And who gave the state the authority to have a monopoly on violence where I live? And what if I disagree?

Become a primitivist, live in the woods.

I actually hate the outdoors. I'm a city rat, after all.

[The Liberated Territories]

I was given citizenship by birth, and I didn't choose where I got to live. And who gave the state the authority to have a monopoly on violence where I live? And what if I disagree?

Become a primitivist, live in the woods.

I like primitivists. Thoreau actually helped get me into libertarianism. Thoreau was also a badass tax resister.

[MERIZoC]

Why can't one resort to consequentialism? After all, the end result is what taxes are about.

Consequentialism is usually used to justify the overriding of self-ownership because the means, overriding human rights, would justify the ends, which are instituting various positive freedoms. The means there are never justifiable.

Ah, man, I can only hold on for so long. You're gonna have to give that to me in layman's terms.

[Arkolon]

Consequentialism is usually used to justify the overriding of self-ownership because the means, overriding human rights, would justify the ends, which are instituting various positive freedoms. The means there are never justifiable.

Ah, man, I can only hold on for so long. You're gonna have to give that to me in layman's terms.

Well, do you own yourself?

[MERIZoC]

Ah, man, I can only hold on for so long. You're gonna have to give that to me in layman's terms.

Well, do you own yourself?

Of course.

[Maqo]

99.8% of human history is quite a feat, and is arguably longer than 4 years.

Nah man. We just got here last week.

Seriously, can you quit it with that 99.8% number? It means nothing, at all.
Even with the absurdity of the metric, it's counting creatures that aren't even human.
But more to the point, the majority of humans that have ever lived have lived under a state. The first states began to establish ~3000 BC, by which time we had (by most calculations) barely reached 5 billion humans to have EVER lived. The cumulative world population is now ~110 billion.
I can't say exactly when the majority of the living began to live within a state, but populations within a state grew at much faster rates than those without - perhaps for the simple reason that the state exists to manage large populations effectively.
It is much more revealing that 95%+ of humans that have ever lived have lived under a state.

[Arkolon]

Well, do you own yourself?

Of course.

This means that what you can or cannot do with your body is only up to one person: yourself. Whether or not you want to snort cocaine or prostitute yourself, that's your decision. Whether or not you want to freely express yourself or continue to live as a human being, that's your decision. Just checking if you're still on board with this.

From this, we realise that you therefore have natural rights-- rights that arise out of you owning yourself. A right to freedom of speech, expression, as well as a right to life (forget about abortion at the moment cos it's tricky), and other elementary rights. Correct? Follow-on if yes: your rights therefore end where another's begins, correct?

[MERIZoC]

Nah man. We just got here last week.

Seriously, can you quit it with that 99.8% number? It means nothing, at all.
Even with the absurdity of the metric, it's counting creatures that aren't even human.
But more to the point, the majority of humans that have ever lived have lived under a state. The first states began to establish ~3000 BC, by which time we had (by most calculations) barely reached 5 billion humans to have EVER lived. The cumulative world population is now ~110 billion.
I can't say exactly when the majority of the living began to live within a state, but populations within a state grew at much faster rates than those without - perhaps for the simple reason that the state exists to manage large populations effectively.
It is much more revealing that 95%+ of humans that have ever lived have lived under a state.

But you were claiming that anarchism can only last for a few years, a patently false statement, not that anarchism only works on smaller groups.

[MERIZoC]

Of course.

This means that what you can or cannot do with your body is only up to one person: yourself. Whether or not you want to snort cocaine or prostitute yourself, that's your decision. Whether or not you want to freely express yourself or continue to live as a human being, that's your decision. Just checking if you're still on board with this.

From this, we realise that you therefore have natural rights-- rights that arise out of you owning yourself. A right to freedom of speech, expression, as well as a right to life (forget about abortion at the moment cos it's tricky), and other elementary rights. Correct? Follow-on if yes: your rights therefore end where another's begins, correct?

Sure.

[Arkolon]

This means that what you can or cannot do with your body is only up to one person: yourself. Whether or not you want to snort cocaine or prostitute yourself, that's your decision. Whether or not you want to freely express yourself or continue to live as a human being, that's your decision. Just checking if you're still on board with this.

From this, we realise that you therefore have natural rights-- rights that arise out of you owning yourself. A right to freedom of speech, expression, as well as a right to life (forget about abortion at the moment cos it's tricky), and other elementary rights. Correct? Follow-on if yes: your rights therefore end where another's begins, correct?

Sure.

The follow-on question was natural law, which came from your acceptance to natural rights. Let us continue to the following axiom. Overriding self-ownership, or natural rights, or natural law, would be illegitimate, correct? They would be wrong for the very reason that the things it breaches are, as you and I agree, right. This means that murder would be illegitimate, as it breaches self-ownership. As would rape. As would slavery. As would theft. As would all else in... the non-aggression principle.

So where does, in your left-libertarian eyes, does the NAP fall short of being consistent?

[MERIZoC]

Sure.

The follow-on question was natural law, which came from your acceptance to natural rights. Let us continue to the following axiom. Overriding self-ownership, or natural rights, or natural law, would be illegitimate, correct? They would be wrong for the very reason that the things it breaches are, as you and I agree, right. This means that murder would be illegitimate, as it breaches self-ownership. As would rape. As would slavery. As would theft. As would all else in... the non-aggression principle.

So where does, in your left-libertarian eyes, does the NAP fall short of being consistent?

I feel that taxation is justified because something good comes out of it. Is it preferable to all alternatives? No. Could it be made better by allowing people to choose where their tax burden falls? Absolutely. But in cases like murder, or slavery, very few, or no people benefit from it. With taxation (in most cases) everyone does.

[Sociobiology]

which might be possible if people never died, no further humans were ever born, and all exchanges had to happen at the exact same time. Under that definition skipping out on a check at a restaurant is completely OK because otherwise they are forcing you to meet an obligation you no longer wish to meet.

also by your argument the state still owns the majority of the land, by investing in expeditions to map unoccupied territory, thus mixing their labor.

Except you enter the restaurant willingly and voluntarily, and imply that you are going to pay for the food. You do not enter the state willingly or voluntarily.

which is going to be true of any society that lasts long enough for people to be born.

And the services the state provides would be equivalent to your neighbor mowing your lawn for you for free without your consent/knowledge and then threatening to hold you hostage at the barrel of the gun if you don't pay up his services. (implicitly)

actually they would be equivalent to a hotel room that has a bar, pool, gym, and a dozen other services, some of which you pay when you use and others you pay as part of the room fee.

I believe that the definition of "force" (in this context, aggression) can be compromised into something near the Libertarian definition of force.

wanna bet, people have vastly different definitions of what is wrong, and what is force.

Say you have a group of communists - in the voluntary minimal state, these communists who believe that capitalism is forceful may withdraw from capitalist society and establish their own communes.

which is different than modern states do it how?
you can leave at any time, if anything they have made it far easier than it would be without a state.

Same with white nationalists or any other group. The only thing that doesn't make such a pluralist society possible is the insistence by some that their ideology doesn't allow for compromise.

which is not going to go away, if anything a minimal state empowers such people.

[Maqo]

Why can't one resort to consequentialism? After all, the end result is what taxes are about.

Consequentialism is usually used to justify the overriding of self-ownership because the means, overriding human rights, would justify the ends, which are instituting various positive freedoms. The means there are never justifiable.

Why not? Why are good outcomes automatically rejected because you have some ethical issue with the way we get there? Why are 'ethical' actions praised no matter how detrimental their outcome?
You're simply asserting that consequentialism is 'wrong' and self-ownership is 'right', without any proof. Which I guess there can't be, considering its a philosophical discussion. Which essentially leads us to the conclusion that what is ethical depends on your system of ethics imagine that.