The tangent is so extreme, that we’re not even talking about the same thing, and frankly, this is one of those instances where you started off with a BS premise, and have expanded it into something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The below is the relevant part of the argument. I have no interest in your silly and badly formed position on roads.
Bonds are not voluntary funding in the sense that the voluntary decision to invest in criminal enterprise is legitimate. If so, then the voluntary decision for someone to punch you in the face, take your wallet and kill your dog is also legitimate, because they voluntarily made the decision to do those things.
You’ve made a badly circular argument. Until you can justify how theft justifies itself because someone chose to steal, or how transmuting stolen property into another form, insulates it from being used as restitution, then you are just spinning your wheels.
Of course it can’t. The nature of the state is such that it is an agent which extracts tribute by violating the rights of others. It is predicated upon that. It can’t own anything–at least not by right.
Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Really Giles, your defense of statism is revolting, not to mention patently absurd. You just keep on saying that whatever a thief steals is ‘his’ property and must be respected as such. You should work for the police – that’s where you belong.
If you’re so sure that I’m full of “BS” why do you feel the need to post strawmen, I’ve never denied that bonds are not legitimate, so stop the nonsense.
Once again, I’ve never said anything of the sort, it would be a great deal easier for you to refute my argument if you took the time to understand it.
Correct, and yet, it is not impossible, in theory, to imagine a state that somehow (donations for example) owns more than it owes in restitution. Hence, it can own property by right.
Then refute it (you can’t). How easy it must be to label any argument you find not to be convenient a defense of statism.
No, I’m saying a thiefs property is his property. No matter where the money comes from, you’re owed the restitution, his property doesn’t automatically become yours. If you disagree, I hope you never use the roads, otherwise you’re a hypocrite.
Hm, I still don’t have an answer to a variant of this argument. Let me restate the problem.
Suppose a (small) state forms voluntarily. All people bind their properties to the obligation to observe current and future laws. Everybody buying/inheriting some of that land automatically inherits that obligation. Does this mean the land under that state is permanently tainted and bound to those obligations? Sure, if everybody agreed this contract could be broken, but what if some do not agree? Would this mean it’s immoral to break the law?
I’m eager to hear your answers in this specific context.
Of course it does. Actually it doesn’t become mine. It was mine and it still is mine. Your fanatical belief in money laundering is amusing. But get this : If you steal money and use it to buy an object, then your victim can take this object as restitution if he so wishes.
Actually I use the roads because they were paid with my money. I don’t see how that makes me an hypocrite. Looks as if you’re unable to grasp basic logic.
Unless you’ve been taxed in the multiple billions of USD you can’t drive on all the roads, and that’s presuming all your money went to the roads, which it didn’t. So no, you can’t drive on any road you wish.
That is a ridiculous argument. People get gym memberships for a few dollars a month and get to use all of the facilities. They do not actually have to purchase the whole facility to use it. It is the same with roads.
the only thing that would make it wrong for you to use a road, would be if the legitimate roadowner prohibited it. as there is no legitimate road owner to do any prohibiting. its not an issue.
Only that’s not the issue, the issue is restitution. So your analogy fails. A more apt analogy would be if the owner of a gym stole from you, you’d have the right to use any of their facilities: you wouldn’t.
Nobody has ’ explicit permission’ so nobody can use the roads. Stupid reductio-ad-absurdum. Giles, do something useful and learn 1) logic 2) basic political theory, THEN come back. Meanwhile you’ve earned the MTM badge.