Just so I’m clear, is this an implicit moderator warning? It doesn’t seem to directly address anything in my last post.
Let’s try this one from the top:
You seem to be saying here that theft is necessarily whatever those with “power” (presumably meaning “the ability to wield coercion”) say it is. However, I fail to see how this must be the case or that everyone must agree with it. I, for one, certainly don’t.
This entire issue is semantic in nature. Whether “taxation” equals “theft” depends on the definitions being used for those words. And there are no “correct” definitions - here or anywhere else.
This has nothing to do with my being a moderator. It is one intelligent person trying to explain a situation to another intelligent person.
I’d like to chat with you more, but it terrifies me to be honest, because we’re going to get into the cycle of you asking me to explain myself, while you are not posting or clarifying YOUR position. Maybe YOU should be making your position explicit, and then seeing if others agree with your statements. I think that would be a lot more engaging.
Terrifiying? Why does being asked to explain yourself terrify you? Why does his positions on things affect whether or not you’re comfortable answering his questions? This is all totally foreign to me, I’m afraid.
Did I stutter?
Because it is a continuous barrage. I am not the only person here who recognizes this style and finds it uncomfortable.
It doesn’t. Re-read what I wrote.
Well sure, you have 157 posts. I assume you read more than post. I also assume you haven’t faced a barrage of questions from anyone here yet.
It’s the Jan Helfeld syndrome.
I’m not trying to attack Autolykos personally, it is just a trend more than I have noticed about questioning, and it isn’t conducive to discussion. This is a discussion forum, not a hearing or an inquisition. Sure we can ask clarifying questions, but no one is required to answer them because that places an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the person asking.
Libertarians should recognize this. We reach understanding and resolve conflict by working together, not with one party dictating to the other.
I didn’t expect this to blow up so big, but everyone wants to be a 3rd party instigator, so I’m done. I’ve made my point. Auto and I agree on almost everything that matters, and I respect his character and intellect. It’s just his discussion style that is trying sometimes.
Taxation is closer to extortion than theft. A state is essentially an aggrandized medieval highway robber, which offered “protection” to travellers/residents for a fee. It really was protection, though only against all other robbers than them and there was no alternative option to the offer other than the manner in which you would part with the fee.
Simplification does not change the facts. It changes the presentation of the facts. Oversimplification changes the facts.
Why be rude? I’m sure I wasn’t rude to you. I don’t believe I deserve the attitude.
And I likewise don’t understand why THEY find it uncomfortable. This isn’t the only community in which I’ve noticed this sort of reaction… I ask because I don’t understand it. If you don’t want me to understand it, that’s fine. You’re certainly not required to help me understand it. Just don’t be surprised when I ask again.
If it doesn’t, why bring it up? If his positions have no bearing on your comfort level regarding questions, I don’t understand why you mentioned them. I’m sure you understand that things which are presented in very close proximity are generally understood to be somehow related. You can’t get much closer together than in the same paragraph. Forgive me for misunderstanding.
Surely you don’t think that Mises is my first forum. Not only have I many thousands of posts on other similar discussion forums, but I have known Autolykos, personally, for many years. I may not have faced the “barrage” of questions from him or anyone else here on LvMI, but I’ve faced those sorts of questions from him elsewhere more times than you care to hear about, I’m sure. And he has faced the very same questioning from me. I don’t understand why it’s “uncomfortable” for some, if not most folks.
I can’t imagine why you would consider me a third party instigator… All I want is to understand. Again, if you don’t want me to understand, that’s certainly your prerogative… but it doesn’t make sense that you would want to participate in a “discussion” forum, and then get angry or short when people try to discuss things (like this) with you. This isn’t a defense of Autolykos. If his behavior is socially unacceptable, I’m quite willing to accept that. I am simply looking for an explanation as to why, which I don’t believe has been adequately provided yet.
I am not responsible for whether or not you understand. Do you understand that?
Re-read what I wrote. I have explained exactly why I felt it was important for him to create a discussion and not an interrogation. It’s all there.
Then do it. Understand. Poster, heal thyself!
This is a BS copout. You are responsible for understanding, not me. I could post 100,000 words, and you could still not understand. I could lose my business, my family could abandon me and I could starve to death, typing here until you claim an understanding. Your inability to understand is not my issue. IT IS YOURS.
An interrogation is not a discussion. You and I are having a discussion right now, an argument. You’re sharing your opinion, and I am sharing mine. There may be some incidental definition to add clarity, but the substance of the discussion is the SHARING of perspectives.
You’re making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. No one is saying it is socially unacceptable. Two of us have expressed a preference against it. We’ve tried to do it in a respectful way. There is no need for you to add what you are adding EXCEPT to create more drama on a matter that should have been over 5 or 6 posts ago.
If you want an explanation, figure out how to get one. Hint, telling me my posts are inadequate won’t work. I don’t care if you think my posts are adequate or not, I don’t make them to gain your approval.
Thank you for this. This is all I was working for. You working together with me to help reach understanding…
As for the rest of your reply, I’m going to quote you…
And I hope you won’t mind my saying…
I’m not trying to attack LS personally. I just notice this trend about being condescending and hostile to people who reply to him. It isn’t really conducive to discussion. This is a discussion forum, not a forum for people to ridicule and mock people curious about Mises and what this community stands for. Sure, we can have a bit of witty back-and-forth, but no one should be subjected to abuse.
Libertarians should recognize this. We reach understanding and resolve conflict by working together, not ridiculing and demeaning others.
I didn’t expect for this to blow up so big, but it has for whatever reason, so I’m done. I’ve made my point. LS and I agree on almost everything that counts (we do, yo, I mean that sincerely), and I respect his character and intellect. It’s just his discussion style that is trying sometimes.
I can’t be responsible for your feelings. Knowing this, I don’t even try. Your feelings will be hurt when you feel they are hurt regardless of what I do. I am definitely going to act to discourage people who try to place an obligation on me.
I will also not apologize for discriminating against inferior posts. It’s only rational that I provide negative feedback on posts which I feel don’t meet my standard. Those who make inferior posts and do not like my feedback will stop replying to me, creating less inferior posts for me to reply to, and they can be productive posting their muck for someone who enjoys it. Call it the division of discussion.
If you don’t like my style, don’t engage me. I am not a servant to an endless stream of questions, or satisfying the understanding of people who do not read carefully or take time to introspect. I am also not a commons of this community.
I’m sorry that you’re looking for someone to cater emotionally to you. I can’t fulfill that. I cannot be what you want me to be. I am focused on being who I want to be, and that doesn’t include achieving your approval. Popularity is the furthest thing from my mind.
Lmao, are you aware of what kind of forum you are posting?
Theft/robbery etc is alteration of ESTABLISHED property rights. Like when a crook graps your wallet, that is unexpected and a previously unestablished property right. Taxation on the other hand is something you know will happen. It is firmly established, dictated specifically by legislation, has little uncertainty involved with it. Because of that, it is in fact the person NOT paying his taxes that is engaging in fraud/theft etc. The problem libertarians have with this is that they try to fit real life events to their idealistic system of property. The fact of the matter is, this is all a fantasy. In reality, property rights differ from that fantasy, and in reality, infringement of property rights(including theft robbery etc) is that action which violates property rights that are established, not those which libertarians imagine to be or would like to be.
Established by whom? The State?
Your idea that the school bully comes to have rights on his victims lunch money and that his taxation is not theft since it is long established and a matter of routine baffle and amuse me.
Perhaps if I came around to beat you with a stick every day, if only I really commit and establish precedent, well then everything would be tickety-boo, amiright?
I realised today that I don’t use enough italics…
and that italics should always be written in italics.
The state can legalize murder but i can tell you that it will still be murder. Just the same the state can legalize theft and write in to law jurisdiction over your property. But it will still be theft. Theft existed way before the government started writing laws. In the UK taxes get taken out of your salary before you even receive it. It is not possible to classify that as anything other than theft.
NirgrahamUK and Jack Roberts have shown the problem with your arguments which you’ve based on the State’s own “establishment.” The State can in effect decree anything to be anything, but that does not make it so.
There is no state, and there is no legitimacy to the concept. It is a mass delusion.
The notion that the state has some legitimacy to tax based on some established precedent is like saying that every leprechuan has established that there should be a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow.
I realize most people believe the state exists, and many within that group still believe it is legitimate, but as LeMaster and others have said, believing something doesn’t make it so.
tickety-boo?