Your right. I’ll digress until something of value actually gets posted.
It won’t happen. Jacob has ban dodged numerous times, and he still contributes nothing to any discussion. What he does do, is project a passive interest which posters misconstrue as an invitation to discuss matters of substance. People think he can be won over.
You can no more have a reasonable discussion with Jacob Bloom than you could a cantaloupe. The only difference is that Jacob will give you feedback so you keep posting. Because that seems to be his agenda. To occupy as many people in discussion, with no intent to reason or reach agreement, day after day after day.
What do we know about subsidy? If you subsidize something, you get more of it. It’s time to stop subsidizing Jacob’s self-contradicting posts, because we could certainly do with less of them.
Point Taken LS. I have observed this as well, I just fear for people who end up in that state. I can’t help I’m a bit compassionate. [:(]
You can’t save people from themselves. It’s your kindness that these sorts of folks prey upon.
As am I. But there are lots of honest people out there to be compassionate towards. Isn’t that Rothbard’s rule, that we always specialize in what we are worst at? It seems we’re always drawn to discuss with the people who are the least likely to see our point of view, instead of discussing with those people who will give our premises a fair hearing.
It takes a certain sort of personality to behave like this in a group dynamic. It’s unhealthy for us and for them. And the best way to deal with a problem, consistent with a voluntary society, is to make people figure it out for themselves. Make them accountable, so that when they post contradicting material time after time, withdraw discussion until they can post material which is at least consistent with their stated position.
Jacob has had 3 or 4 accounts, hundreds of posts, and months to come to any one Austrian conclusion. The lack of progress is a testament not to our failure to communicate, but his sincerity to reason.
JB is a perfect example of personal morals. He believes what he believes and that’s it.
It’s funny that advocates of ‘subjective’ morality would ban people who don’t agree with them and talk about reason. What’s the reason for Bloom’s bans, except mere whim ?
He hasn’t been banned.
Oh, so he just forgot the passwords…
edit : regardless, he still is the perfect example of moral subjectivism.
lol
The facade of chivalry is no laughing matter young man.
I just want to say that this is my second account.
flic,
where i used to work, you were the kind of person that got people hurt, sometimes seriously and I mean physically not only emotionally. On top of that, was the kind of crutch criminals also look for in life thereby not actually letting them deal with their own faults. In essence your being a hinderance helping those in need rather than be a helper, kinda like socialized healthcare. it’s about responsiblity and you’re not letting others enjoy the pleasure of such. just tryin’ to be helpful.
There is no real way to justify taxes, since taxes are, by definition, theft. The only thing one can say is that this form of coercion is required to prevent a greater form of coercion (historically omnipresent). From this, you base your argument from past historical episodes, such as the riots/reign of terror during the middle part of the 19th century. The government needs to protect the rich from the angry jealous mob, from domestic criminals, and from hostile foreign enemies. The real question at hand is if one believes that the world can truly exist without any form of coercion. If one denies this proposition, which is only logical, then we must speak about reducing the level of coercion as much as possible, while accepting the fact that coercion will exist. So trying to justify taxation is impossible; you must concede the point and then move from there.
@ the OP
Obviously. the simplest argument to justify taxation is the Hobbesian argument. Namely, security is a public good that would be underproduced in a state of nature. It is necessary to establish a sovereign with the power to tax to provide an adequate level of security.
This begs the question that security is somehow a public good. A public good however is defined entirely arbitrary. What the right considers a public good is entirely different than what the left would consider a public good. There is no clear definition of public goods. If we pretend for a minute that public goods are more economically dispursed than typical market goods we would have to concede that all goods would be better off as public goods and that a socialist utopia would be more ideal.
On the flip side if we beleive that the market is the best solution at dispersing and delivering goods than we cannot arbitrarily exempt security from that.
Oh I keep forgetting this. The argument you provided does not disprove the fact that taxation is still theft. The argument only attempts to justify the theft, get it? [Y]
No, if taxation is justified, thenit is not theft.
But since it is not justified it is theft. So, you are not only clueless about inflation, you are also a ‘minimal’(or worse) statist ?
This doesn’t even make sense.
Circular reasoning anyone?
Well doing that you’d earn a poor reputation pretty easily- a lot less people would want to have any type of relationship with someone who can’t be trusted to keep their word. So if being alienated is the goal- then that’s one way to get there.