Magic Market Index for October 12th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Sep 28th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Sep 21st, 2018
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Stairc »
    Are really counting revolutions and insurrections that came from refusing to pay?


    Nope. We're counting people executed by the government in modern times for tax evasion. Not people that chose on their own to wage rebellion because of (insert reason here). Environmental terrorists that are killed during their own attacks aren't executed for supporting the environment. They're killed in action, or executed in places with the death penalty, because they're trying to murder people.

    If you tell someone to come to work on time, or else they'll be fired... And they retaliate by coming in with a gun and trying to kill you, but security takes them down first... They weren't threatened with *death* for failing to come in late. They were threatened with being fired.

    So yes, I'm looking for a list of the executions the government has carried out as punishment for tax evasion.

    We've been there with typho0nn. He considers be killed for violently resisting punishments as meaning the offence for the original punishment is under threat of death.


    Is that true Typho0nn? In that case, if I choose to violently resist your argument and am killed because of it - you're threatening my disagreement with DEATH?! That makes you sound like quite the big brother police state dictator. Sure you want to stick to that argument?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Are really counting revolutions and insurrections that came from refusing to pay?


    Nope. We're counting people executed by the government in modern times for tax evasion. Not people that chose on their own to wage rebellion because of (insert reason here). Environmental terrorists that are killed during their own attacks aren't executed for supporting the environment. They're killed in action, or executed in places with the death penalty, because they're trying to murder people.

    If you tell someone to come to work on time, or else they'll be fired... And they retaliate by coming in with a gun and trying to kill you, but security takes them down first... They weren't threatened with *death* for failing to come in late. They were threatened with being fired.

    So yes, I'm looking for a list of the executions the government has carried out as punishment for tax evasion.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Yep Typho0n, the Russian government endorsed Trump over Clinton. Remind me when you started trusting governments? Particularly the Russian government.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Property itself is one of the most absurd arguments for an inherent right. In order for property ownership to exist, someone at some point had to say "I'm going to decide what happens here and I'll hurt anyone that says otherwise." Thou shalt honor the sacred tradition of 'dibs'.

    It's hard to get more arbitrary than that. Being kicked out of your home is bad for clear reasons, none of which having to do with a sacred right of dibs being violated.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from Lithl »

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
    Taxation is not a violation of property rights.


    Nobody has agreed to pay tax. If you don't pay it 'they' will come after you. If you don't want to go with them 'they' will assault you and kidnap you. If you try and self defend yourself 'they' will kill you. Tax is theft with the threat of death. It is a direct violation of property rights!!!


    List the number of people that have been executed in America for failing to pay taxes please.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
    Watch this video, it explains how an anarchic society would deal with legal disputes.


    Oh, you're going full on anarchy? Cool, it's easy to prove than Anarchy doesn't work. We know this because anarchy is what we all started with. Humanity didn't evolve with pre-existing governments. The whole world started in perfect anarchy. In the process people chose to do awful things to each other. We already know what anarchy looks like. And you're in a catch-22, because you think government is a bad thing. Clearly nothing in anarchy prevents governments from being created, because the whole world started with anarchy everywhere and now there's governments basically everywhere.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Well, I mean, I question any definition of "personal freedom" that doesn't say that. Any instance of someone acting upon you or telling you what to do is a reduction of freedom. This goes all the way back to Hobbes.


    The problem with it is that it ignores people who don't work for the government telling you what to do. Which is how you get these absurdities of "it's only bad if it's the government doing it".
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    What amuses me most about the "government is the root of corruption that wouldn't be present in private hands" is that it goes like this: "Look at all these greedy officials using their power for personal gain! Let's throw out this voting thing and rely on pure capitalism. Hooray for a system based entirely off of greed!"

    Rich jerks using their money and power to force other people to do what they want is how you get kings in the first place. Wink
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Stairc »
    And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?


    Whoever pays them and try and hire a bigger better armed security firm are the only answers we have managed to get out of MTGTCG nd have been repeated ad infinitum.


    Honestly, that's not a bad plan. How about we gather together and pool our money to pay for a shared private security force for all citizens? But of course, people won't want to pay if they don't have to... So let's agree to impose a mandatory fee on everyone to pay for this security force. That way we can ensure it's the biggest one around, and can't be out-muscled by competing private companies. After all, we're the ones paying them. We can make the decisions about what they do.

    Spot any holes in this MTGTCG?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Stairc »
    Okay. And so let's assume anarchy, no government, no police, no judges and no laws. Naturally we still have criminals attacking people and stealing from people. I assume you don't like that, because you seem very opposed to theft. What's your plan for protecting our personal freedoms?

    Private security apparently, given previous posts


    And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Okay. And so let's assume anarchy, no government, no police, no judges and no laws. Naturally we still have criminals attacking people and stealing from people. I assume you don't like that, because you seem very opposed to theft. What's your plan for protecting our personal freedoms?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Here is my argument: taxation is theft(no government isn't somekind of contractual entity because in order for a contract to be legitimate, all people involved in the contract must agree to the terms of the contract and I haven't agreed to any such contract, such a contract hasn't even been proposed to me. Also just move somewhere else isnt a valid argument, if I told you that I would stop stealing from you if you moved away, that wouldn't justify me continuing to steal from you if you didnt move away).


    Okay. So you want to abolish all taxes and government-funded services?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Why are you posting links en masse into a debate thread without even using them to support an argument? Make an argument. No one's going to watch and respond to every claim made in multiple videos.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Stairc »
    Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. If I was, it would invalidate my entire argument.
    You kind of were, though. You were saying that taxation wasn't a reduction in personal freedom.


    No I wasn't. And I've clarified this numerous times in my last two posts. It seems unproductive to continue this discussion, since I'm not interested in continually re-explaining what I said. If I haven't made it clear by now, I doubt I will.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Stairc »
    In short, it ignores the consequence of those taxes.
    It ought to. Because taxes do not necessarily have those consequences. The elements in the scenario are separable. It is very, very easy for a state to tax its citizens and then not provide the government services which would justify the tax. If you have a moral valence for "taxes + government services" but not a moral valence for "taxes" per se, your analysis is superficial and cannot address the separated scenario.


    This is ignoring my argument entirely. My entire argument is policy-based, because I believe that looking just at the costs incurred as misleading when discussing libertarianism (more on this later). My argument is that it's very possible to create a policy which imposes a tax in order to create services which increase the total opportunities available for the pursuit of happiness (compared to what would be available without that policy). Ignoring the service side of the equation is talking past me. It's the same as demanding a health-based valence for "cutting" instead of a valence for an entire medical procedure, and using that to claim that "cutting is always unhealthy, but it can lead to other benefits that don't involve health". If you want to say "taxes always limit freedom on their own, but the revenue can be spent on services which result in net increase in personal freedom" I'm with you.

    Otherwise we can just end the discussion there, because there's nothing more to talk about.

    Exactly. Generally we don't think cutting people is a good idea. If somebody proposes cutting people, they need to justify it. We don't undergo surgery lightly, and when we do undergo it we expect results.


    Glad you agree. Cutting someone is not healthy, but there are many surgical procedures that result in a net increase in health. Likewise, there are many public policies which can impose taxes to then result in a net increase in personal freedom. If you agree with this, we're straight.

    Quote from Stairc »
    It's misleading to say that taxes are a reduction in personal freedom without looking at what opportunities the tax expenditures protect or create.
    No, it's misleading to say that the health benefits of surgery mean the surgeon isn't cutting you.


    Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. If I was, it would invalidate my entire argument.


    Quote from Stairc »
    Things look different if we define personal freedom closer to a core dictionary definition; the power to act, speak and think as one wants.
    I want to act by spending this money I have. Taxing the money removes that power from me. This isn't a definitional disagreement; any sensible definition of personal freedom is going to find taxation per se as a reduction in it. The problem, again, is that you're conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation.


    No, I'm not conflating taxation with the consequences of taxation. I just find it utterly meaningless to separate them in this context. Libertarianism is all about maximizing personal freedom (broadly speaking). Therefore, many libertarians (it's a diverse ideology) oppose taxes because they view a world without taxes as a world with more personal freedom. This is akin, as I have mentioned, to a group all about maximizing health being against surgery because they think any form of cutting someone is bad for their health.

    The point I raise is that it's easy to propose circumstances in which a world with certain taxes in order to pay for certain services offers its citizens more personal freedom than the same world in which those taxes were not present, resulting in the loss of the services they funded. These two outcomes are what I'm comparing. Similar to a world where no one is ever allowed to cut anyone under any circumstance is going to be less healthy than a world where doctors are allowed to perform certain surgical procedures.

    This is why saying taxes are always a reduction in personal freedom is misleading. It's not incorrect when viewed in a vacuum, but you don't have to be incorrect to be misleading. At least, statements like that have misled many libertarians I've engaged with.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.