QC - again with the taxation v rent? We already made it clear that it’s about legitimate land ownership or not.
Thank you, Vive. Finally someone called Auto out on his little definition game. I suggest he ought to reference the Oxford Dictionary before responding with a post like, “How do you define…” It would save a few of us the headache of playing along, I presume.
Some day you will realize how foolish you sound.
? Is this geared toward me and my comment to Vive about Auto? Seriously? On this site, some people really have a difficult time comprehending why it gets annoying when someone’s reply is always “How do you define…” Just take it as it is man, just saying. Lots of sensitive people today eh? Listen to this and relax a bit. It’s an opinion, get over it!
You do realize that words often have multiple meanings? Considering that rebuttal typically means “The act of refuting something by making a contrary argument, or presenting contrary evidence”, vive was implying that the argument presented did not actually refute by etc. If you watched the video or even read the argument, you would see that this is a false claim.
So, instead of Autolykos saying, “Hey, man, you are wrong!”, he said, “Hey, man, what did you mean by what you said?”.
It’s a far more charitable response, even if you don’t think so.
EDIT: It’s also a real pain in the ass to have a huge debate with someone, only to realize that you have both been talking past each other because you were using the same word in different ways. Two of the most common words this happens with regarding libertarians are “anarchist” and “aggression”. So, yeah, it’s pretty foolish to demean defining words by calling it a game.
I know, but that wasn’t the libertarian guy’s argument in the video of his interview with Harry Ried. Hence, the video in the OP is much better than that one. It’s too bad the better video has <10,000 views and the Ried video has >2,000,000.
The Bastiat argument is better than the “Dontcha hate it when you got a gun in your face” thing. To apply Bastiat’s point to landlords, it would be like the landlord of another apartment building wants to charge you rent. What gives this other landlord the right…'sides nothin. It’s an excellent point.
so government can’t tax because individuals can’t tax
government can charge rent because individuals can charge rent.
government can has licence charges for use of government owned property as individuals can have licence charges for individual owned property.
a individual can own property, so a government can own property delegated to it by individuals and the power to gain more property through delegated individual rights.
cab21.
-
Yes
-
If the government has acquired the land legitimately, sure
-
I don’t quite understand
-
Sort of. The problem with this is that you cannot sell yourself into voluntary slavery - you can only transfer property.
Typically, you voluntarily sign a lease/mortgage and agree to those terms. When you don’t pay, the terms of the contract are effected.
I never signed a contract to be taxed.
Fkin’ governments, how do they work?
-
The people
-
The government.
-
??? (The Constitution)
-
PROFIT!
More or less.
Because the relevant body that does it, and the relevent jurists who inerpret the law are still doing the action in question.
it is actually a rebuttal, because under democratic theory - in fact under most consent theories - the government is delegated rights, which it is meant to protect. This is certainly the case with the theory behind the US government. Therefore, if government, being constituted is by humans, has the authority to deal with things those individuals do not, on an individual basis, have the authority to delegate to it, where does it derive it from?
The burden of proof is on the advocate for government, and given the assumptions I just outlined, they have a rather tough case to make.
And just what effect do you expect this “calling out” to have? Please go right ahead and enlighten me.
Have you heard of such a thing called a Double Standard? Are you aware that it is a logical fallacy? Do you not think that logic can be used to refute an argument?
He just kept repeating himself about “if the poeple authorize the government, blah blah blah.” That’s not an argument.
I think an important detail here is that the people before and after the delegation are different social actors. Before they were individuals within a state of nature and after they are citizens (Hobbes, Rousseau) or members of civil society (Locke). These different identities have different rights and obligations.
Aside: I’m not a proponent of state of nature theory but this is an aspect of the narrative that that seems to be overlooked here.
Ask him if parents have the right to sign a contract that their children and children’s children should be forced to also abide by.
Ask him if parents have the right to sign a contract that their children and children’s children should be forced to also abide by.
Ah, but the children can always leave! Playing the devil’s statist’s advocate, mostly.
Too bad the interviewer believes in having taxation.
I don’t see how that necessarily follows from the notion of delegation. Perhaps you’d like to (try to) prove otherwise.
I’ve never seen someone so unable to take criticism, especially over the Internet. I can’t imagine how you handle it in real life. I made one brief comment in the RANT/VENT forum (hence, the title) about how I find your insistent badgering about people defining this or that, and you can’t let it go. Others even “call you out” (as you put it) on it, yet you persist. Please stop, man. I’m through with this. If you insist on being such a forum Nazi when people disagree with you or refuse to play your little definition game, I will persist in responding with an appropriate picture that captures the essence of your online persona in some way. Otherwise, for the record, I will politely ask that you please stop trying to entice me to converse with you unless I first initiate the conversation by directly addressing you. I’m here to learn more about economics, trade theories with others on here and enjoy my experience while doing it. If I actually ranted/vented in the RANT/VENT forum, forgive me for hurting your Web ego; apparently you have trouble letting things go, but if not for me, please, for those actually paying attention to this pointless back-and-forth, let it go buddy.
