And don’t forget to ethically justify theft.
How is this faith in markets?
Anarchism has worked everywhere it has been tried:
In Medieval Europe and West New Guinea with Private Merchant Law
Roderick Long refutes many misconceptions about Anarchism here:
http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
My answer was that we don’t need “public wealth sharing” as we have it today. More than enough wealth is shared via private charities and even more would be shared if we abolished the government. The fact of the matter is that even in the absence of charities, anarchism would be a superior form of organizing the civilized world, as it would make government services cheaper and more efficient, helping everyone.
I exist. Therefore, I must be forced to take on the responsibilities of others.
How does that follow? Your argument is a complete non-sequitur.
That’s exactly what free markets are about! It’s about everyone putting in their fair share. In a free market, nobody can leech off of the productive people of society, as everyone can only survive by means of voluntary cooperation.
Anarchism isn’t about getting rid of any formal rules. It is about removing government from the equation and allowing private institutions to compete for the protection and enforcement of individuals. You might want to read this.
I just have one question here; what if someone was a completely productive member of society? Then, through no fault of his own he became disabled and couldnt work. What about him? He has no family and no one to turn to. The only people who want to help him out dont have the means. The people that do have the means dont want to help him out. Do we just let him starve? Or do we slap the hoarders on the behind and say “now share children.”
Time to end the emotive pleas. Either provide a rational argument or leave. Period. We’ve humored your childish nonsense long either.
yea we tell people to pay up, and when they are slow to do so, we hit a few. and then one guy says we can hit him all we like but he wont give. and the others slow down to watch what we’ll do… so naturally we kill him and the people stood next to him. that keeps the money flowin’. who are my bitches now.
because violence is cooler than been dissapointed by what other people do or dont do.
even though your example doesnt have you who feel sooooooo bad about it sharing your wealth till you have nothing left to give.
Have you never heard of charity? For the small amount of people in the situation you describe, private charity as it is today in the United States would be MORE than enough to keep them alive and in good conditions. Now imagine we removed the high income, corporate, and capital gains taxes which often prevent people from donating as much as they would like to charities. Charities would be flush with cash. Moreover, lower taxes and less regulation would increase economic growth and technological innovation, improving the lives of everyone.
You know as well as I that the vast majority wealth sent to charities is only sent becuase you get a tax write-off for it. You know as well as I that only a few people care about anyone other than themselves and their family.
You all know as well as I that people tend to do what they think is right for them regardless of the consequences. Were you never disciplined as a child? Was that not forcible coercion?
Im not bringing emotives Im asking a simple question. What if someone who had worked their whole lives was accidentally diabled and only those without the means were trying to help him? Would you rather see him starve to death, or would it be ok to force the well-to-do to help him out.
Private property is a contract made with the people to insure the general welfare of the nation as a whole. To serve yourself at the behest of all others is a violation of that contract and is a crime.
Yes, you are. Stop it now. If you can’t–leave.
Are you just making these things up?
this is a lie. there is no such contract.
when i read this question i get “would you rather observe a sad a harsh reality, or would it be alright to be evil?”
and you havent even recognised that if any sees stuff that they’d rather ‘not see’ they arent limited to simply tolerating it, or getting other people against their will to fix the problem. they can do things with their own resources, and they can encourage other people to help them.
regardless, if you truly believed that the majority of people dont have a charitable bone and that the only way to fix the world is to have a strong government with the power to tax, you are at a loss to explain how a democracy that was capable of transmitting the will of the citizens into law could install taxation for charity, since the citizens by your premise are against it. ergo. if you believe the ridiculous nonsense you have spouted you must be a proponent of some benevolent dictator. i would not be suprised if you would nominate yourself for the Honour(!?).
O jesus christ! My benevolant dictator is progress. No man or woman alone has any power to do anything. I dont believe big government is the only way to do things. Its the already established way. I never said the majority of people dont SUPPORT charity, I said they dont practice it on their own. I dont start with people are inherently good or evil. I leave it up to time and circumstance, and I realize that many times its hard to see when putting others first is for the best. So, people tend to serve themselves at the behest of everyone else.
You can keep trying to twist this argument around but I operate from a simple and basic premise; we have an obligation to provide for our brothers and sisters. And I consider that to be everyone.
AM I MY BROTHERS KEEPER?..Yes
A contract made with the people ? Made by whom ? Aliens ? Ah, maybe it’s a contract with the people made by the people ? Interesting. I do a lot of contracts with myself. The nice thing is, I can breach them whenever I want. They are make believe contracts…just like your social contract…
and my premise is : I fully support cops who beat and kill people who don’t pay taxes.
why are people obliged to each other?, just because they are people?
are jesus-freaks obliged to satanists?
are fathers obliged to rapists?
are the crippled obliged to the healthy?
are you obliged to the kid that beat you up at school?
are you obliged to people who ask you not to be obliged to them?
Support that. WITHOUT, and I mean WITHOUT, emotive pleas. No appealing to “what if someone loses his/her job”. No appeal to “what if some woman gets pregnant and doesn’t have enough money”. None of that nonsense.
Either present a logical, reasoned, thoughtful argument or get lost.
That actually isn’t true at all. Most people contribute to charity despite the fact that they don’t get a full write-off on their taxes for it.
First, notice the implicit contradiction in these sentences. You say people do things regardless of the consequences, then you mention discipline. As a field test of your theory, how many people jump off a cliff without a parachute or any life saving device and expect to live? Not very many, except for the few insane.
Second, disciplining is not forcible coercion because the child lives on the parents’ property and thus is subject to the parents’ rules. It simply is an unspoken contract. If the child wishes to break that contract, the child may escape.
Yes you are. You’re using emotions about death to try to justify theft.
And again, private charities and churches would do more than enough to help that person. Your argument that people wouldn’t donate to charities could only be true if:
- No churches which engage in charity existed.
and
- People didn’t donate to charities unless they could get a 100% write-off on their taxes.
Neither is true. Churches routinely engage in charitous acts and people donate their time, not because they’re forced to or because they’ll get a tax deduction, but because they care. Secondly, people routinely donate to charities even if they don’t get full write-offs for their taxes. It is, in fact, impossible for people to donate money and get a FULL refund on their tax money.
How so? Prove it.
Murray Rothbard explains that private property is the result of your self-ownership:
If every man owns his own person and therefore his own labor, and if by extension he owns whatever property he has “created” or gathered out of the previously unused, unowned, “state of nature,” then what of the last great question the right to own or control the earth itself? In short, if the gatherer has the right to own the acorns or berries he picks, or the farmer the right to own his crop of wheat or peaches, [p. 34] who has the right to own the land on which these things have grown? It is at this point that Henry George and his followers, who have gone all the way so far with the libertarians, leave the track and deny the individual’s right to own the piece of land itself, the ground on which these activities have taken place. The Georgists argue that, while every man should own the goods which he produces or creates, since Nature or God created the land itself, no individual has the right to assume ownership of that land. Yet, if the land is to be used at all as a resource in any sort of efficient manner, it must be owned or controlled by someone or some group, and we are again faced with our three alternatives: either the land belongs to the first user, the man who first brings it into production; or it belongs to a group of others; or it belongs to the world as a whole, with every individual owning a quotal part of every acre of land. George’s option for the last solution hardly solves his moral problem: If the land itself should belong to God or Nature, then why is it more moral for every acre in the world to be owned by the world as a whole, than to concede individual ownership? In practice, again, it is obviously impossible for every person in the world to exercise effective ownership of his four-billionth portion (if the world population is, say, four billion) of every piece of the world’s land surface. In practice, of course, a small oligarchy would do the controlling and owning, and not the world as a whole.
But apart from these difficulties in the Georgist position, the natural-rights justification for the ownership of ground land is the same as the justification for the original ownership of all other property. For, as we have seen, no producer really “creates” matter; he takes nature-given matter and transforms it by his labor energy in accordance with his ideas and vision. But this is precisely what the pioneer — the “homesteader” — does when he brings previously unused land into his own private ownership. Just as the man who makes steel out of iron ore transforms that ore out of his know-how and with his energy, and just as the man who takes the iron out of the ground does the same, so does the homesteader who clears, fences, cultivates, or builds upon the land. The homesteader, too, has transformed the character of the nature-given soil by his labor and his personality. The homesteader is just as legitimately the owner of the property as the sculptor or the manufacturer; he is just as much a “producer” as the others.
In other words, if you own yourself (which you undoubtedly do), you own your labor and your efforts. If you own your labor and efforts, when you mix your labor and efforts with physical objects such as soil and transform them, they become yours.
By serving yourself, you serve others. When I work hard to get a higher wage, I produce more and/or better products, thereby enriching society. When I spend my money, I increase demand, thereby giving people higher wages and more jobs. When I save my money, I allow businesses to borrow it in order to spend it on capital, thereby increasing production and the amount of jobs.
also i assume because you didnt respond to my point abot benevolent dictatorship that you either
a) felt addressing it directly would compromise your position
b) forgot about it despite mentioning it in passing
c) have a million more ideas you’d like to spill out before we tear you to shreds over the first few poor positions you adopted
d) didnt understand it.
Then how do you explain the literally millions of charities worldwide which operate DESPITE the fact that people have to take out of their own pocket to pay; i.e. they don’t get tax breaks?
Markets allow people to serve themselves AND better others. Again, as I’ve said before, when I serve myself in a market system, I inherently serve others. When I work, I produce for others. When I consume, I raise the wages of others and create jobs. When I save, I provide credit for capital projects which allow more production, higher real wages, and greater employment.
If you’re your brothers keeper, then why support government? Public government is simply and institution which supports one group over another, whether it be a small group of corporate elites or Marxist dictators or whether they be the majority against the minority. Private, self-government is when everyone serves themself in a market and uses their money to purchase private protection and legal services, which are better than public protection and legal services. In such a society, economic growth is greater due to a lack of government constraints and charity is able to improve the lives of millions simply because those who cannot work for physical and mental reasons are supported by charities.
Oh, im sorry. I thought I started by saying that progress is my dictator. That I dont think any one person has the power to do anything. That only through collective action can we create and maintain a better society and more productive future.
Ok. Lets take the case of Stalin. Is it right to forcibly coerce him out of his power and wealth?
Stalin stole and murdered to get what he had, I say take it all.
Do you understand libertarian views on property or not?