Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Entryists are a thing, and the sooner people understand that and therefore the very VERY real need for stringent gatekeeping, the better. Ambiguity helps nobody but those that wish to abuse said ambiguity. So why let them?
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means. And I don't believe in mentalities like "for the greater good", "the lesser evil" or "the ends justify the means".
But hey, a 2% income tax solely applied to land owners was enough to go to war over. I guess we really should maintain the status quo, right?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
Correct. This is a major problem.
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
OK, but what is your proposal? Argue that there should be no taxation because <insert abstract principle> and that there should be Somalia-like anarchy? You think that is a winner?
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation
Yes.
or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
OK, but what is your proposal?
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
Somalia-like anarchy
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
You think that is a winner?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Entryists are a thing, and the sooner people understand that and therefore the very VERY real need for stringent gatekeeping, the better. Ambiguity helps nobody but those that wish to abuse said ambiguity. So why let them?
And the solution is no taxation?
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means. And I don't believe in mentalities like "for the greater good", "the lesser evil" or "the ends justify the means".
But hey, a 2% income tax solely applied to land owners was enough to go to war over. I guess we really should maintain the status quo, right?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
Correct. This is a major problem.
OK, but what is your proposal? Argue that there should be no taxation because <insert abstract principle> and that there should be Somalia-like anarchy? You think that is a winner?
Yes.
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.