So we aren’t entitled to public goods because we didn’t pay for them? So if we do pay taxes, we are able to use public services, like getting financial aid…
How is that reasoning different than taking money from the government for financial aid?
First of all, sorry, I’m not familiar with this forum yet and don’t know how to quote specific things from individual posts. Regardless, I would like those who feel he is incorrect in taking the government scholorship to answer this question. I currently have government loans in order to attend school; seeing as the government has eliminated most private school loans. Now in my case, if I decide defaulting on them will be less of a burden than paying the interest plus taxes, is that more in line with my principles (seeing as I ensentially took welfare)? To those who oppose him taking the money, is it better I repay YOUR money back to the government, plus interest? Or is it better I simply default on the loans, so as not to provide the government with even more resources? You say you don’t want him taking your money, but are you as sure about me repaying your money back to the state, for the pure benifit of the state?
For the record, I say take the grant. I have to agree with Dr. Block here, if you use the money to help destroy the state, I think it is completely just.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
So we aren’t entitled to public goods because we didn’t pay for them?
[/quote]
What is so difficult to understand about this?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
How is that reasoning different than taking money from the government for financial aid?
[/quote]
I don’t understand your question. How is what different?
It’s your principles. You tell us.
That’s your call, since you decided to take welfare. It’s up to you to decide how you will deal with it. You’re now in business with the state, so its between you and your ally how you handle the loot taken from productive members of society. If the victim had a say in this, he probably would have asked not to have been stolen from.
This is more shifting of the burden of responsibility. I am a victim. You’re in business with the state. How you choose to do business with the state says nothing about me being a victim.
So why not take all the money in my bank account if you need it to destroy the state? If the ends justify the means, then don’t pussy foot around. Come to my house and take everything I have to fight the state, don’t just take what has already been stolen from me.
I love Dr. Block dearly, he has been an enormous influence on me as an economist, not so much as a libertarian. I’m not judging his own choices, but his pragmatic libertarianism is completely without consistency. It is regretful that his logic in one domain doesn’t carry over to the other.
It’s your principles. You tell us.
I don’t view it as welfare unless I don’t pay the money back.
That’s your call, since you decided to take welfare. It’s up to you to decide how you will deal with it. You’re now in business with the state, so its between you and your ally how you handle the loot taken from productive members of society. If the victim had a say in this, he probably would have asked not to have been stolen from.
So are you suggesting we should bow down before the state and delay our education, simply because it has limitied our options? Why be a victim? You can simply not pay taxes same as I can simply not continue my education?
This is more shifting of the burden of responsibility. I am a victim. You’re in business with the state. How you choose to do business with the state says nothing about me being a victim.
You either missed the point or simply chose to ignore it. The question is this:
Your money is gone, it’s not coming back to you. In no way am I justifitying this seeing as I’m an anarchist and oppose taxes and the government, I’m simply stating the obvious. Would you rather your money + interest go back to the state, or would you rather it remain in the hands of someone who will promote liberty through donations, writings, legal assistance, etc?
So why not take all the money in my bank account if you need it to destroy the state? If the ends justify the means, then don’t pussy foot around. Come to my house and take everything I have to fight the state, don’t just take what has already been stolen from me.
I completely understand your sentiment, but the state already has it. Is it not better to have your money go to people who will continue to promote these ideals rather than a lifetime welfare recipient popping out a child a year? I would happily choose not to accept the loans if it did not mean delaying my education and in return delaying my ability to become a productive member of society.
From Liberty Student,
“I don’t know how hard it is to understand the conflict between libertarian ethics and stealing.”
It is only stealing if one believes in natural-rights based libertarianism, which is total hogwash. You’re presupposing every libertarian believes in that religion. I wonder, do you refuse to read the works of economists who benefited from government sponsored scholarships? In your opinion they stole in order to receive their training, I’d hate to think your personal ideology is influenced by thieves (you are a libertarian afterall).
‘I think the question you proposed is loaded and a strawman of the issue.’
Thank god you have already answered it as you have stated previously.
'I think the answer to this is simple.
If you`re a net-taxpayer, you have every right to use the roads and any public property. It belongs to you rightfully.
If youre a welfare bum, a public servant, a Goldman Sacs exec., a subsidized student, or the like, you have no right whatsoever. Its not your`s. And if you want to use it, you should beg honest ppl for their permission.’
Well how do you propose enforcement of this idea?
Well, if one pays taxes, then they are entitled to government services…right
In order to get financial aid, one of the key requirements is to show proof that the person does pay taxes (atleast in the United States anyway). Financial aid is a government service, so why aren’t we entitled to that?
This reminds me of our discussion on public choice, where you thought being dismissive and name calling constituted a sound argument.
NO YOU’RE HOGWASH!
NO U!
NO U R!
No, I am not.
I do a lot less reading these days and a lot more doing.
None of us are without sin, that doesn’t mean sin isn’t sin. I’m not into the rationalization or confirmation biases of humanity at large.
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. I don’t think that is too unreasonable although it sounds like you are doing business for the use of stolen property. I’m not sure how you feel about that.
Are you entitled to an education? Is government sponsored schooling the only way to learn? Has no one been educated by LvMI, which rejects government sponsorship? Are you made a victim if your positive right to education is not fulfilled?
If I don’t pay taxes, the state will attack me violently. If you don’t take education money, who beats you up?
This is the BS part of your side of the argument. It isn’t coming back to me, but apparently it is coming back to you. Right? It’s ok for you to get my money, but I have to just accept it is gone.
What anarchist explicitly contracts with and asks for services from the government?
It is a false choice. It’s like rationalizing voting because SOMEONE is going to get elected. We have to vote for the lesser of two evils, because some evil will be elected. C’mon, no one buys this stuff.
So you don’t believe in restitution or justice? If someone has harmed or stolen from me, your answer will be “too bad, they already have it?”
You don’t need a government loan to be a productive member of society. There are billions of us producing every day, some of us doing quite well, who haven’t fallen into the mind trap of needing some government credential to participate in the market.
The fact is, you want to go to school, for whatever reason, and you want to get that credential, which you do not necessarily need, and it has nothing to do with necessity, which is always the excuse for violating a law or principle.
Whether it is a lifeboat or this discussion, people always play the NECESSITY card when they want to violate rights or principles. In fact, most legal dictionaries cover necessity, as something , paraphrasing, “outside the (scope of the) law”
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Well, if one pays taxes, then they are entitled to government services…right
[/quote]
No, they are entitled to their property back in whatever form they can get it.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
In order to get financial aid, one of the key requirements is to show proof that the person does pay taxes (atleast in the United States anyway). Financial aid is a government service, so why aren’t we entitled to that?
[/quote]
Do you pay as much taxes as you’re taking back? Or do you think if you paid $500 in taxes, that entitles you to $50,000 in restitution?
No matter how you want to justify it, the simple fact of the matter is that by taking the money you prove that welfare works.
It will not “destroy” the state. It will only strengthen it. You give it all the justification it needs to continue. You can not pay it back, they’ll just throw you in prison to clean up roads and they will make the money back that way.
So, one good thing about this thread; it’s clear to me that welfare IS in fact pragmatic, no matter how much so-called libertarians want to moralize against it. It’s always been pretty clear that the right wing generally only dislikes welfare when someone else is taking it.
Welfare is without a doubt pragmatic whether you are stolen from or you are just lining up to get some loot. It’s a rare person who can reject convenient pragmatism for principles.
What if using the state subsidy is your only option?
Get food stamps = kids are fed
Don’t get them = kids go hungry
Your income barely meets your expenses. You desire to improve your living standard and determine furthering your education is the best way. It is entirely possible to work full time, afford a home and food, and pay for school if your income is high enough. But since the state has screwed up education it becomes difficult to get one free from the system.
As a matter of principle I side with you. In a perfect world it makes sense to stand on principle. But there comes a point in the real world where standing on principle means you may have to starve.
The single mother on food stamps makes the same justification. As long as you’re fine with that, take the money.
Well you cant have that kind of reasoning with using other goods, say public roads… one does not know how much of their money is put into public roads. One cant say, “well I paid my taxes, so I could use all public roads,” if you use that reasoning because surely, the Government paid more in public roads than what a regular joe pays in taxes.
Sounds like necessity.
Work more. Stop smoking pot and playing Xbox. Take the bus. Learn to cook your own food.
What are the principles of freedom worth to you? How much do you value your libertarian position?
If you won’t suffer any inconvenience or pay any opportunity costs to be a libertarian but the time to blog and forum post, then it’s pretty shallow and weak as a political/social ideology, isn’t it?
Massive jump here from a premise to a conclusion.
Are you entitled to a free education? Do you believe that education is a human right?
But I am not a Utopian. There are thousands of people who do what I am talking about. It is not some perfect world fantasy, it is just an uncomfortable alternative for people looking for an easier way out.
You let me know when you can’t find any work for food, and then we will talk about necessity, ok? You show me how no one is willing to give you anything in exchange for any labor, and it is life or death, and then we can have this conversation about the opportunity cost of having principles.
Personally, I have a hard time taking a “libertarian” seriously if he insists welfare is ok, while at the same time arguing against welfare. I also have a hard time wanting such “libertarians” in my clan or community if they think that when I get stolen from, its fair game for them to keep any loot they can get from the thief in return for their obedience.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Well you cant have that kind of reasoning with using other goods, say public roads…
[/quote]
What reasoning? I asked you two questions. Answer them.
My point is that if you think the reason to justify using public roads is because one pays texes, then one can justify using financial aid because one pays taxes…
now saying this, “Well, if financial aid = $50,000, and you only paid <$50,000 in taxes, how can you justify it as ok,” does not rule out my position because one doesn’t justify using other public goods the same way. For example, on public roads, you cant just list the amount you paid in taxes in order to justify using public roads because (1) one does not know how much of his tax money is going to fund public roads and (2) one does not know the location of the roads his taxes contributed in. The only way I can see this as justified is if one just said , “I pay taxes, I am entitled to this service.”