I pay taxes and I recieve the benefit of the tax money paid by others.
You have no choice but to do both of those things. You’re not a member of the ruling elite. You can’t actually tax anyone else, distribute the tax money or directly determine what the state apparatus does. You are not really “ruling” over anyone else by merely existing in a society in which you have no choice but to use certain public (I.E. governmentally controlled) services such as roads if you wish to survive or reasonably function in society.
Really, this is what you believe? Then quit harping on the “welfare” situation already.
When I have the ability to vote myself more money from others, and when others have the ability to do the same to me, it’s safe to say that we live in a system in which everyone has power over everyone else.
I have the ability to vote myself money from others, and others have the ability to vote themselves money from me; it’s safe to say that we both have power over each other.
I have the ability to vote myself money from other individuals, and other individuals have the ability to vote themselves money from me; it’s safe to say that we all have power over each other. That’s what’s so evil about “democracy”.
Why do you think I don’t vote? Aside from the endless practical reasons I’ve given, I refuse to excerise that power as a matter of principle. If I wish to remain consistant, I can’t complain about others voting my money towards themselves while simultaneously trying to vote their money towards myself. That’s self-defeating and hypocritical on a fundamental level.
That’s an epic subject change! I hope you see my point now.
In case you haven’t noticed, this entire thread has gotten way off topic with respect to the OP for the past few pages.
Yeah, every thread seems to melt into the same topic.
[This will probably be a triple-post.]
Whining about topic changing when you are engaging in it yourself is more or less futile & hyprocritical. In other news, I like pizza.
Are these classes fixed? Can I go from being ruled to being the ruler? Does the ruler not serve at the whim of not only the ruled, but the other rulers as well?
I “get” anarchy. What I don’t get is collectivist class conflict. If we truly are billions of independent market actors making billions of individual decisions, then how can there only be 2 classes? Or 5 classes?
I do understand however why Niccolo perpetuates the notion of class warfare. Because he needs someone to point at and say, “bad, bad, BAD!”. The sales tactic of so-called “revolutionaries” is always against something, not for anything.
If agorism/anarchy/libertarianism is rational and sound, it can help sell itself, without the need for an external enemy. Ron Paul turned me on to thinking about this in a serious way, and once I reasoned through the concept of NAP and individual liberty, I saw that it was consistent and coherent. I didn’t have to look for monsters in my closet or under my bed.
Yeah, we’re way off topic. Just understand that I’m not down with the character attacks on Ron Paul or myself for that matter. Criticize my ideas and conclusions, but the Ad Hominem is juvenile, and class warfare is Ad Hominem on steroids.
The problem is that the Civil Rights Act codified into law the fact of peoples sex, race, and whatever else. The law itself groups people by arbitrary definitions, that’s why the law itself is wrong.
The fact that the law violates private property is secondary, because arbitrary laws nearly always violate private property.
I dunno, Brainy, you could vote to not have anyone have anyone else’s money go towards them. Y’know, vote to end the thievery? Of course, this is a republic, rather than a democracy, so you’d need to vote for a person who would reduce such redistribution. Like, oh, say, RON PAUL.
It reduces market efficiency. Women cannot do everything as well as a man can. Minorities do not necessarily have all the skills needed to do a job. The law can have the result of increasing discrimination (harder to fire a minority). It can also result in reverse discrimination. The law is political, not logical.
Another, related injustice is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Private businesses should not be forced to have handicapped parking, ramps or elevators, nor should they be forced to hire such people without taking their limitations into account. That is to say, they should not, if they are truly private. The government/business parnterships known as corporations rather warp the idea of private property and capitalism, so the truth of the matter is more ambiguous. But still, if I’ve a sole proprietorship, I should not only not have to accomodate the handicapped, I should be able to ban them entirely as I wish.
A republic, for all intents and purposes, is a watered down representative democracy with a constitution.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents freedom of association.
It seems you’ve conflated the current state with a “democratic” one. Certainly there are democratic aspects to this state, but it is not democracy in total.
Who or what acts on votes since the deciding factor behind your vote is not yourself (since you’re not carrying out the actions necessary to enforce your vote)?
By the way, voting for a candidate is not voting away money from someone, voting for a Proposition, Bill, or Ammendment that allocates money from individuals towards your own interests IS the way you vote money from others, however those bills only get put to vote if they are approved first, so really you have very little control over voting money from other people. You have as much control over others as the state allots, essentially the state is the deciding factor in control, that is why they are a seperate class.
I’m actually working out a hypothesis to ammend Konkin’s class definitions and I’m going to write it this summer once I read a bit more on ethics and such and have more time to write.
A nice long bump. I didnt want to start a new thead.
Paul has been quoted saying he would have voted for the repeal of the Jim Crow laws. Isn’t that a violation of the 10th just as the rest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was? Sounds hypocritical.