As far as I can tell, I’m not being coy. And I’m not sure what you mean by “word skeptic”, sorry.
answer invites one to ask why the state gets more revenue only when it goes through such trouble to make its subjects think that it doesn’t own all land in its territory.
No, it has nothing to do with the state what so ever. Just how these aesthetical or intersubjective terms can be spoken of on a universal level in jurisprudence without being tied to any specif context.
Otherwise, you’re arguing that robbery victims who complied with their robbers’ demands must have been just fine with those demands.
I am saying that outside of a specific legal case that has the power to arbitrate, robbery no longer becomes a legal term and is than a word of local custom, and is than out of our realm of discussion. What can be stated on this level would only be economic consequences.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “word skeptic”, sorry.
That is a genuinely funny sentence.
William, your response seems to demand that no consideration be made for any sort of morality. I respectfully refuse to abide by that demand.
I wasn’t trying to be funny, genuinely or not.
Can you explain what you mean by “word skeptic”?
Not really. Let me suggest though: assume that what you think the word means is what I think the word means. If you think it is being used differently ask for clarification. Do so perhaps in a way such as this “By power do you mean…”, “By theft do you mean…”, “by property do you mean…”.
You havent watched that video Autolykos. I am disappoint.
The reason is that the slave who doesnt know he is a slave works best. An unproven premise,but i agree with it.
Someone disagreeing with not owning something does not imply that he owns it himself. Ownership is that which has been enforced, not that which is imagined.
The argument over whether state is monopoly of violence given existence of crooks is semantics. It is the same annoying exhaustion tactic you always employ in debate to prove your point. In fact i feel sorry for you, you are so obsessed with your ideology that you are unable to recognise yourself rejecting the premises necessary for debate on the subject that you are trying to talk about.
Why not? Surely you have some idea of what you mean by a word or phrase when you use it, right?
Why should I make that assumption? Why can’t I simply ask what you mean by a given word, instead of trying to guess (perhaps repeatedly) at what you do mean by it?
Why should I make that assumption?
Because that is what conversation is. That is what you are actually doing. If you weren’t there would be no conversation, ever.
Why should I?
Who says that ownership is that which has been enforced? You? Why should/must I agree with you here?
My point was that a state doesn’t have a literal monopoly over violence. So if you don’t mean “monopoly over violence” literally, how do you mean it?
I think semantics is extremely important - it lies at the very heart of every debate and, indeed, every communication. If two or more people don’t agree on what certain words mean, how can they expect to communicate? Or is communication not your real intention here?
I’m not trying to exhaust anyone or anything. Certainly I recognize when I reject premises. Furthermore, I question whether particular premises are “necessary for debate on the subject”, as you assert (but do not prove).
A truism:
Those who said question everything got it all wrong. Take everything at face value unless you are forced to do otherwise, that’s better.
When I ask you what you mean by “power”, “prosecute”, and/or “theft”, I’m assuming that you mean the same things that I mean by them?
When I ask you what you mean by “power”, “prosecute”, and/or “theft”, I’m assuming that you mean the same things that I mean by them?
OK, I’m done. Make a statement, make an assumption. An endless line of questions is worthless. It comes off as nonsensical badgering. Last word is yours.
Surely you understood my point, which is that I’m not always making assumptions. I see no reason to make an assumption - which could well turn out to be wrong - when I can simply ask the other person what they mean if I’m not sure about it.
Contrary to what you may think, my intent has not been to present an endless line of questions. However, I don’t see what’s so wrong with asking questions per se.
I say it’s rather simple to prove. Is taxation voluntary? No. If it is to be resisted, will it not be forced from your hands? Tell me the difference between a masked thief that holds a gun to your head and demands you empty your wallet and a faceless government that imprisons you and still confiscates your money regardless of such valor.
My simple truths regarding taxation:
-
Tax that is not voluntary is theft
-
No tax is voluntary
*_
Because it is an interrogation, not a discussion.
If you’re implying that my questioning is “aggressive”, I fail to see how it is. I also don’t see what’s wrong with seeking further information about another person’s point of view.
Autolykos, I like you but I don’t really enjoy discussing with you. Your contribution has improved in general, but you do lapse into just asking question after question, and no one enjoys responding to that sort of communication for long.
And for people who say they are OK with paying taxes I love Kinsella’s point that “even those who say they don’t mind paying taxes are being robbed because they’ve never been given a choice in the first place and so their ‘consent’ is meaningless considering that they’ve never been in the position of being free to reject government ‘services’ and taxation.”
Autolykos, I like you but I don’t really enjoy discussing with you. Your contribution has improved in general, but you do lapse into just asking question after question, and no one enjoys responding to that sort of communication for long.
It is amazing how one simple non judgmental sentence can put into words all the frustrated self righteous paragraphs I was trying to force. I suppose that is the way the world turns, lol.