The difference between Classical Liberals and Libertarians.

[scineram]

@liberty student

Do you support monopoly government, yes or no?

Do you support the use of coercion, yes or no?

Did you read Kinsella’s article (that you claim is "irrelevant)?

If yes, where was he wrong? If no, why are you here again?

As Kinsella makes up definitions on the fly that suit him of course he is right by definition.

Callahan explains.

[liberty_student]

@scineram

As Kinsella makes up definitions on the fly that suit him of course he is right by definition.

That wasn’t the debate. Poptech dismissed a LvMI article because it is not suitable for definition when compared to a dictionary. It is entirely a childish argument, and a red herring.

I’m ok with someone disagreeing with Kinsella’s article (even a weak critique as Callahan offered) but Poptech isn’t willing to do that. In fact, I suspect he has not even read the article as he has dodged answering that question numerous times already.

Poptech doesn’t want to discuss ideas (neither does Callahan), and that is why we’re on the 2nd or 3rd page of this semantic BS. Because if we have to discuss the ideas of libertarianism, it’s pretty apparent what a libertarian is, and is not, will have to be laid bare.

So instead, keep up the red herrings…

[Democracy_for_Breakf]

@Juan

Nope. I’m completely right.

You are a pro-war jingoistic amerikan who believe that a bunch of murderers and thieves - known as the amerikan government - has the ‘right’ to tax their fellows humans and has the ‘right’ to murder people if the people refuse to pay. And that is justified in the name of the ‘constitution’ or the ‘american nation’ or some similar trash. You are a nationalist - a blind supporter of the nation state - deal with it.

/facepalm

[Juan]

As Kinsella makes up definitions on the fly that suit him of course he is right by definition.

Lie.

Kinsella is not making any definition up. He’s relying on the common sense ‘definition’ of voluntary and he’s relying on the concept of voluntary interactions. People subjected to a ‘minimal’ state DON’T pay taxes VOLUNTARILY. Fact.

As to Callahan’s ‘explanation’ it’s hard to make head or tail of it, which is no surprise since so called ‘minimal’ government is an absurd notion.

“they[statists] are claiming it is necessary for social order, and that eliminating it, while not impossible, would be disastrous.”

DISASTROUS, you hear me ? The bogeyman.

[Juan]

@Democracy for Breakfast

/facepalm

Let me guess. You are another ‘libertarian’ who support the nation state ?

[Democracy_for_Breakf]

@Juan

Not at all. You either support the amerikan nation state, its unlawful monopoly, and taxation…or you are a libertarian.

Don’t define his philosophies for him.

[Juan]

Actually this is pretty amusing :

@Kinsella

“Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression.”

@Callahan

So that handles (b), does it? Of course, someone who believes the state is legitimate doesn’t believe taxation to be aggression.

Naturally, if you get to define the terms the way you want, you can win any argument, but really it’s an empty victory just to define your way to the win.

I imagine that irony is dead as far as Callahan is concerned, since it is HIM the one who is redefining terms like a good old legal positivist, and pretending that taxation is not really theft since the state gets to dictate what is and what is not property, and what is and what is not ‘aggression’.

[Juan]

Don’t define his philosophies for him.

Do you think you’ve half an argument ? Or you are just going to make ‘suggestions’ as to what I can or can’t do ?