Pelease help me prove these arguments wrong!
In taxation I wasn’t given a choice in what services I want to pay for or not. Somebody else is choosing for me and I have to comply no matter how much I don’t use the service or am against the service. And if somebody could track down that my $1 went to a road I use, then why can’t I pay that $1 for the road use directly. I’m coerced to pay for all kinds of stuff that I may or may not pay if it was out of my own liberty.
I tried to post the following. Altered a bit of wilderness’s example. I tried to post a compulary section below but some ass deleted it stating that I needed to cite a source. The thing is we have a whole damn library of ssources. At any rate I am too lazy to go looking stuff up for those goofs right now. Feel free to copy what I wrote below and use your own sources. A new section “Compulsion” needs to be made. I re-worded wilderness’s comment to make more sense. All thats left are citation.
Use me, edit it, do what you want with the below text.
Compulsion
Taxation is compulsory and therefore breaks the [Non-aggression principle]. Government is therefore in a moral dilemma of hypocrisy. All of it’s benevolence then is based on compulsion. This also reveals that government does not actually produce any new real wealth. Wealth is only taken from the payers and redistributed to various goods and services provided by government. Nothing new is created.
In taxation a taxpayer wasn’t given a choice in what services to pay for. Somebody else chooses on behalf of the payer what services to pay for, even if the payer does not use that service or believes against the service. If somebody could track down that the payer’s $1 that went to a road that the person used, then why doesn’t the payer pay that $1 for the road use directly. The payer is coerced to pay for all kinds of stuff services that he or she may otherwise have chosen not to.
Another section also needs to be made to refute that horrendous social contract argument some idiot posted.
Sounds familiar. My reply to the “non-libertarian FAQ” should suffice.
I updated the page. We will see if someone else deletes it.
If they can delete my content for not having citations can I then go a head and delete the entire “Counter argument” section? At any rate I have citations now…
Two tips for Wikipedia.
-
Don’t try to be a super editor. Tit for tat will leave you banned.
-
Play the game. You have to jump through hoops to rewrite a page. As soon as you start arguing with the super editors, you’ll never get anything past them, because they have the power, and the capacity to attract a consensus, interpret the rules.
Someone very clever could make changes to a page, slowly, over time. But if you go in, trying to perform wholesale surgery, you’ll get nailed for sure.
Well we will see what happens. I don’t really want to be involved in wiki. I think its great but don’t have the time. I just hated to the taxation is theft argument outweighed by the counter-arguments. I won’t lie though, I suck at wiki. I had to look up all that wiki text and crap! Thanks for the advise though.
Is Glenn Beck a libertarian?
I saw some anti-Beck signs during the Tea Party in Washington. And also lots of anti-abortion and pro-Israel signs. Not very libertarian IMO.
I think that Glenn Beck like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin etc etc. are all stooges. They have no solid foundation of philosophy. They are just as emotionally determined as leftists. Going on about how they love liberty yet drugs should be banned,or we should pray in school, or recite the pledge of allegiance. They look for the facade of the nuclear family, apple pie and white picket fences with fourth of July fireworks going off. Petty nationalists each of them, trumpeting the deeds of a social construct with the name of the United States, claiming they know what is best for such an institution and implying they know what is best only for us. Jingoists to the end, desiring the destruction of all things so that a new fair city may arise from the ashes.
If I came to you and demanded that you give me a portion of your income,
because I want to do something for the “public good” using your money…
How would you name this? How would you name me?
I know, it’s very simple! But how can so many allegedly smart people reject that socialism is theft? I’m being labeled “nut” every time I mention it.
honestly, I have a lot to learn, but for me it’s boiling down to an explicit Assault on Logic. Jeffery Tucker has written about what Mises has called polylogism. It’s basically the socialism of logic that creates artificial divides between people. As to a solution, when Mises was asked by a student what economics book he should read first Mises stated the student should read an Intro. to Logic book first (same as what Thomas Aquinas had said centuries before). Gene Callahan lectured on this which was blogged at Bob Murphy’s “Free Advice”. I recently posted two links 1) Yates “The Assault on Logic” I found here at Mises and 2) “What Empiricism Can’t Tell Us, and Rationalism Can” by Crovelli which was a Mises Daily too.
It’s about learning boundaries.
Because it is far more a question of their atavistic “faith / fear”, than a question of their alleged “smartness”.
Think about an infant and its condition…
When in need - it cries and some big and powerful being shows up and delivers everything it (i.e. the infant) possibly needs.
Unfortunately many parents raise their children caring about them in the same way through all the childhood and teenage years.
Until someday…
Independent individual?
Or…
Crying socialist?
Etatism is a similar problem…
Its roots are in the upbringing in the spirit of imposed strict obedience - compare with the spirit of trust, liberty and responsibility.