I’m sure they give all manner of reasons and justifications. Fear, true belief, faith, hope, love, kindness, justice …
I wasn’t the one trying to justify intent. [;)] I prefer to judge a tree by it’s fruit. People who would give out of altruism would not take deductions. They also wouldn’t need to give it to the state first. They could directly donate to charity, and frequently do, in order to decrease their tax burden. But again, I only want to judge them by their actions.
Yes, their bleeding hearts are gushing your blood. It’s very compassionate of them.
They are saying, we are all our brother’s keeper, but I more so than them, as I have generated more wealth and thus surely could afford to pay more.
It’s a great way for them to defer their so-called moral duty onto someone else. I like to tell people who lecture me about social democracy, “How come your heart bleeds with my blood? Is your contribution to the poor, to vote and justify the theft of my property to compensate for your lack of charity?”
People don’t like being called out like that. But it’s true. Obama voters thought they would change the world by voting, not by working, not by donating, not by producing. By the magic of voting, followed by the magic of government control by decree. It’s paper compassion from a blockhead culture.
Do you really think that people would pay taxes if they weren’t in fear of being imprisoned? In any case, do you expect to be able to persuade people to follow your version of natural law?
Like I said before there are true believers who pay taxes because they think it is the right thing to do. Some pay because of the fear of imprisonment but not everyone. Do most people not murder because they fear imprisonment? If you are smart enough you can easily kill and steal without being caught. I wouldn’t kill or steal if the government made it legal. I wouldn’t because it would be wrong and the same thing applies to some people and taxes.
I’m able to persuade people around me pretty easily. I won’t be able to persuade the masses myself unless I have my own show. I’ll be happy just getting to limited government libertarianism. From there we can move on to Anarcho Capitalism.
I think economic collapse will change many minds on the role of government. The collapse of the Soviet Union did bring change to Russia which is an improvement from what it was. China’s realization of the unsustainability of socialist polcies has changed them as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if China moves to the gold standard and surpasses the US.
I don’t know if these terms have been given static labels or not. Has it generally been accepted that a libertarian is for limited government? I would disagree with this, but then what’s an anarchist, but then what’s an agorist. From what I understand about an agorist their method is to practice a competitive society, their key is finding ways to practice it right here, right now. An anarchist seems to be a general concept, but I don’t know if they tend to put free market concepts into practice like an agorist (could be what’s different about the two). A libertarian is a very broad concept and is for freedom and a State inherently opposes freedom. So a libertarian may come to a limited government perspective (John Locke), but a libertarian doesn’t necessary have to be a Locke for a libertarian can currently argue that Locke didn’t go far enough in his position of freedom.
I say this not knowing enough detail, but from what I gather there are no stepping stones along the way. A statist doesn’t become a libertarian and want only limited government, but then in time want rid of limited government so then becomes an “Anarcho Capitalist”. A libertarian can be totally anti-State (no limited government).
I wouldn’t mind hearing what others think about this.
Yes. I don’t know if you were particularly responding to my post or not. I’m thinking a libertarian, anarchist, and agorist are all anti-State. It might be there method that differs, I’m not completely sure.
And if you were not responding to my post in particular, then ignore this.[:)]
“The problem anarchists have with Somalia, as Giles pointed out, is it’s populated by dirty people with dark colored skin whose preferences differ from the preferences of middle class white college students.”
Wtf are you talking about? Anarchists dislike Somalia for racial reasons? Give me a break.