@liberty student
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.
Yes, it is technically doing business with the state. However, both of us through our actions, are legitimizing and doing business with the state. Because portions of the money stolen from you is going into roads, the Post Office, museums, stadiums, food subsidies in the grocery store, etc you justify yourself using these services. I honestly see nothing wrong with doing so, but to argue that I’m in business with the state simply seems unfair and hypocritical. You are in business with the thieves as well, simply because you were one of their victims does not legitimize your dealings with them either.
Also, by your logic it seems you would view an anarcho-capitalist who is refusing to pay taxes, but still uses public roads, post office, and goes to see the occasional Saints game as legitimizing the theft. I’m trying to understand where your line of reasoning logically ends. I think we can both agree the hypothetical person is completely justified in not paying taxes and living more in-line with his principles than one who does pay taxes. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand not wanting to risk jail time and your livelihood by not paying taxes.
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?
No, nobody is entitled to an education. No you are not a victim because education is not a positive right and I never claimed it was, nor did I claim I was a victim in this regard.
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.
I’m not saying it is right, but in essence you will get your money back as soon as I finish schooling and begin paying taxes. You will get all your money back + interest as soon as I repay the loans. Except for the fact you won’t actually get any of it back, the state will simply be reimbursed your stolen property + a little bit of mine. Yes I could not take the loan, but regardless of my decision it effects you in no way.
What anarchist explicitly contracts with and asks for services from the government?
The kind who refuses to let the governments BS influence his decisions and goals in life.
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.
Voting can be logically rationalized in rare cases. I could see the rationale behind voting for Ron Paul. I’m not sure if I ever would, simply because I fear his pro-liberty legislation and fiscal responsibility would simply delay the governments eventual collapse.
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?”
I did not say that, of course I believe in restitution and justice. I have not stolen from you, the government has. If I were to buy a stolen TV on the street should I be prosecuted or should the thief who stole 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”
I do need that credential seeing as the field I’m going into makes it nearly impossible unless you are certified. I also plan to go to law school which requires you have a diploma. By your logic, all An-Caps and Libertarians should simply be welders, contractors, managers, etc. All of which are respectable jobs, but do you really believe simply because of our principles we should not become Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Biologists, Chemists, etc?
Also, do we not want people of our beliefs to find their way into academia?
I’m not playing the “NECESSITY card,” I’m playing the free will card. I’m going to do what I want with my life and not allow government regulations or protectionist practices to hinder me in achieving my goals. I can’t get into law school without a diploma, simple as that. The fact is however, it is a necessity I get a bachelors degree in order to get a law degree. It is not a necessity I get a law degree in which case it is not a necessity I get my bachelors, however as I said before, I’m not going to allow the government to shape my decisions in life.