Killing somebody threatening to kill you is different from killing somebody who threatened to kill you because you threatened to kill him.
How am I defending killing humans? I’m for non-aggression. You have clearly stated that you support aggression. Therefore, you are conflating murder with self-defense.
I never said otherwise. The money will be taxed/printed/borrowed regardless or not if he joins. His inscription did not directly lead to a specific amount of money further taxed.
What if he used his position in a non-combat MOS to spread libertarian ideas to his flight mates?
Have you read any of his posts? He actually thinks he is doing a good thing if he kills who his government calls an enemy.
You want to encourage this guy to go into the military? He doesn’t even know what libertarianism is. How the hell is he going to spread it?
No it will not. That fatalism is nonsense. The state relies on consent. Withdrawing consent weakens the state.
You don’t know that, and you can’t prove that. Seriously J.
It doesn’t matter in this case. The pilot was doing the state’s dirty work.
How does moving out of the country prevent you from being robbed by the state? You are still coerced into paying taxes. How is becoming a slave (going to jail) better than giving up 40% of you income? Either way, you still haven’t proven that paying taxes under coercion is unlibertarian.
If he is not a libertarian and agrees with killing others then I don’t understand why he even asked for advice on these forums. Obviously, he doesn’t care for the advice that you give him, because he disagrees with it off-hand. So I concede the argument there.
But, I disagree with you that somebody joining the military will lead to a direct increase in taxes. You can prove it or disprove it by looking to see if taxes were increased after his inscription, and seeing in the legal code whether or not it was him which catalyzed that increase in tax. One soldier does not lead to an increase in taxes. You are committing a negative proof fallacy.
You defended the killing of the illegal US troops. I do not support aggression. If these people believed killing US troops made them safer, then I may agree with it. But killing in solidarity with others to cause suffering to the United States can be punished with the taking of life. If it is not done in solidarity with others, then it is still murder and still not self-defense.
I don’t know. I draw a clear line, maybe I’m not seeing the clear line you see, but that doesn’t look like self-defense. Now if the pilot initiated aggression against you, then ok.
Knowing from experience, if you do not live in the country you do not have to pay taxes. I lived in Spain for a year without paying taxes and making an income (under the table).
I could make the case that you are trading someone else’s life for your own. Obviously, this is a reductio ad absurdum, but so are a lot of the cases made in this thread, which is what I am really trying to point out.
Yeah, and I would defend the killing of illegal Iraqi troops, illegal Chinese troops and illegal British troops. The operative word here, is illegal.
Sure you do. That is what the US does around the world with its military. It aggresses.
Nonsense. They are killing because the US troops are illegal. You said so yourself.
Again, nonsense. The US troops are illegal. The US troops are the aggressors.
There was a thread where one said utilitarianism leads to murder. This is a perfect example.
That’s like saying that somebody who coerced another has the right to kill him because otherwise the family of the coercer will be upset. It’s nonsensical. The right response is to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, not to kill more.
The lack of withdrawing consent does not equal strengthening.
You can’t prove that it does lead to a specific amount of money further taxed.
Anocter,
If you do not subscribe to libertarian principles in regards to killing, then why do you care so much about our/their opinion? You are trying to defend your opinion. This is obviously not the best place to do it.
The US claims 10 years of tax entitlement once you leave the country. It is exceptionally tyrannical in this regard.
The assumption is that the fighter pilot is using the fighter jet to commit even more aggression for the state. Another assumption is that the guy throwing the monkey wrench had his money stolen by the state, and the fighter jet was bought for using the stolen money. I’m applying Walter Block’s argument that the state must be destroyed and that sabotaging any actions of the state is a goal of libertarians.
I hope for your sake that the IRS doesn’t find out. Btw, you think a billionaire could get away with what you are doing?
How so?
This too.
We can deduce that one less soldier, is one less paycheck, is one less set of gear, is one less college fund. Now the onus on you, is to prove that there are more potential soldiers than spots to be filled. If there are more soldiers, then you are right, someone will take the money. If there are less soldiers (and I know that recruitment is hurting right now from the news) then the spot may go unfilled, the resources may not be allocated, and so there was a net savings, even if it was only a redirect of spending from the war machine to something else.
The issue is the definition of “enemy of the United States.” I define it more narrowly than liberty student. I believe that my opinions in regards to killing are non-aggressive. I believe that pulling out is the right decision, but I believe that killing US troops is almost always a capital offense, even if their presence is illegitimate. This narrow-minded “kill everything that takes a step on my lawn” attitude that you seem to support is immoral.
oh. i don’t think I can go as far as Block here. I need to see somebody coming at me or to know that other libertarians are being aggressed against before I would join anybody else. I will not defend people that will merely rise up and establish another state. Also, though I don’t have a solid A=A argument about repercussions, but I will not kill somebody due to money thief. Now if my money was being stolen to the point, by the state, that I couldn’t survive anymore, my property would have to go bankrupt or something (bills not paid due to high government taxation), then I’d begin to think my counter actions against such would be out of self-defense too. I don’t know if there are other variables to this or not.
Why? Why is it ok for US troops, but not ok for British troops?
Going halfway around the world, murdering and torturing civilians for 8 years is not stepping on my lawn. Stop equivocating.