If this were a just and sane world, we'd be naming (voluntarily-funded) roads, parks, libraries, and schools after men of peace and principle like Mr. Spooner, instead of the state-legitimized and popularly-aggrandized bullies to whose memory most of these institutions are dedicated.
Just once I'd like to tool down a Spooner Expressway, or Mencken Avenue.
I agree with my personal experience with the system of Ecnomics where one is expendable. I find that people lose their jobs for little to nothing. Its the same with government who offers nothing in return accept theft.
b.i) Given that violence would break out without order, and that order cannot be established without a consensual government collecting taxes, I fail to see the problem here.
b.ii) Sure, and they are half right to do so.
b.iii) To save an old lady from a highwayman would also be to initiate the use of force. What is your point?
b.iv) Tax collectors are called tax collectors because they collect taxes. The money you pay will be spent on things that you can use too.
bi) i am objecting to compulsory taxation, not to the consensual funding of a police force and national defence by people with a rational desire for security and liberty.
ii) altruism is evil
iii) to save a person from a highwayman involves the response to the highwayman`s initiation of force. he initiated it, a policeman has the right to end it.
iv) there is no space to demonstrate how wrong you are on this here. Your comment indicates that you don`t understand what money is.
1. Even if most people consent, what about those who don't? Does that not run the risk of becoming a tyranny of the majority.
2. Only to Milton Friedman.
3. Right, you get my point. In the absence of order, people will use force to create order. To prevent others from using force, there must be an established force. A government formed by consensus is more representative than a dictatorship born of chaos.
4. There is plenty of space, since you can use as many comments as you need.
@dannidandannikins It further occurs to me that the basic appeal of Friedmanite theology (I consider it a theology of sorts since people follow it dogmatically) is that it relies upon contrarian assertions. Flying in the face of conventional wisdom, saying that greed is a virtue, for instance, makes a splash but does not necessarily make a point. There is a reason that greed was considered evil in the past, it was not just a default inheritance from the natural inclination of the West.
I don`t know why you are refering to `friedmanite theology` with regard to me. I like Friedman but I think he has Serious flaws. Friedman never said greed was a virtue - he said that it was a part of the human condition and something that had to be accounted for in economic theory. You are right that there is a reason that greed has always been considered evil. The reason is the opposite of what you assume.
We can come back to Friedman later. On the topic of greed, the reason that I get worked up over that is because I have studied a lot of philosophy. The word greed itself designates the excess of a desire for gain, not the desire itself. I find that solutions to a problem reflect one's understanding of the problem. Friedman seems to have wanted to allow for greed by hoping that people who indulged would fail due to their greed, while Plato's solution was to keep the greedy away from power.
I'd like to refer you to the video 'Freedom and Selfishness' on my channel. Selfishness is the promotion of one's happiness, not the seizing of other people's values. To be happy one requires three fundamental values: Reason, Purpose and Self Esteem. Reason is the tool of knowledge. Purpose is the choice of one's happiness to which that tool must be directed and Self Esteem is the knowledge that you are capable of using reason and worthy of happiness.
I'll be out of the loop for a couple of days, but I'll go ahead and favorite that video for later and get back to you when I've viewed it. I'm also beginning to wonder at what genre Spooner falls under, so I'm going to try to look that up to see if that helps elucidate the issue any.
Spooner was a harsh critique of The Constitution or the idea of a social contract in general. Read "No Treason." Clearly he not would vote for the "way of the founding fathers." Spooner was way more intelligent than any Minarchist. A Minarchist is an Anarchist with stockholms syndrome. So my advice is DON'T VOTE.
He was correct though as nobody could ever produce evidence of this supposed "social contract",thats because it's takes a healthy "State" education to believe that.
"They are not for any taxation or government control of well...anything"
Okay, then explain how they are supposed to destroy capitalism if no coercion is allowed? It's impossible. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron. How else can you plan the economy?
It's funny that Communist believe the government is the ultimate robber as well, and believe in the abolition of the state, and it's just the differences in reasons for this and what should replace it that separates Libertarianism and Communism.
You've vastly over simplified it to make a baseless point. Communists are fine with taxation until the rise of the "New Socialist Man" comes about, wherein taxation will no longer be necessary. Libertarian anarchism doesn't require man's personality to change at all and considers taxation invalid at all times.
>>>You've vastly over simplified it to make a baseless point. Communists are fine with taxation until the rise of the "New Socialist Man" comes about, wherein taxation will no longer be necessary.
That's not actually true. They are not for any taxation or government control of well...anything. Least of all anything sowed from Capitalism, something Communist believe in, just not int he way the "liberals" use it.
maybe you should stop putting words into our mouths and do some reading on the protection of business by state. Or are you one of these fools who thinks the state is not the PROP for corporate ills, but the savior against it?
I am really tired of the vulgar anti-libertariansim
You've fallen for the propaganda that the purpose of government regulation is always to protect the public. In fact I would say most of the time it is just collusion between government and business, with lots of money and favours being handed out behind the scenes. If your missing too many of the pieces of true economics and true political science it is all too easy to fall into these traps. But your a communist so your lack of understanding is much more profound than usual.
Few founders were knighted by the king, some owned slaves ( who do you think built the White House? ) most all were members of secret societies, ie masons. It's the system that keeps U enslaved. Why vote? U think a libertarian can't be corrupted in this system? The system was devised for a few men to rule the many, We didn't win our independence, ole King George wouldnt allow his serfs to run off and b free? Nah. Free ppl work harder, generate +revenue, We R debt slaves thru our labor 4 Queen.
Bravo
themagus187 5 months ago
Two people here works for the Government
capojitsu 7 months ago
Uhmm... I don't know anything about Spooner or his philosophy. But... this guy is awesome!!!
ThundermanSze 8 months ago
THIS MAN IS AN EPIC MACHINE.
TardsOfParadise 9 months ago
If this were a just and sane world, we'd be naming (voluntarily-funded) roads, parks, libraries, and schools after men of peace and principle like Mr. Spooner, instead of the state-legitimized and popularly-aggrandized bullies to whose memory most of these institutions are dedicated.
Just once I'd like to tool down a Spooner Expressway, or Mencken Avenue.
RationalDischarge 1 year ago
best. quote. ever.
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
Spooner got bully when he tried to compete with the postal stamps .
dan020350 2 years ago
I agree with my personal experience with the system of Ecnomics where one is expendable. I find that people lose their jobs for little to nothing. Its the same with government who offers nothing in return accept theft.
TauBroadside 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is interesting polemic, but it contains little substance.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
@Thucydides2004
a) what substance is there to your comment?
b) it does have substantial substance:
i) he has pointed out that a system of compulsory taxation relies at bottom on the threat of force
ii) he demonstrates that the gov't 'justifies' this use of force on altruist grounds
iii) he demonstrates that to initiate the use of force is the practice of highwaymen
iv) he demonstrates the moral contrast between the honesty of a highwayman and the dishonesty of a tax collector.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
b.i) Given that violence would break out without order, and that order cannot be established without a consensual government collecting taxes, I fail to see the problem here.
b.ii) Sure, and they are half right to do so.
b.iii) To save an old lady from a highwayman would also be to initiate the use of force. What is your point?
b.iv) Tax collectors are called tax collectors because they collect taxes. The money you pay will be spent on things that you can use too.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
@Thucydides2004
bi) i am objecting to compulsory taxation, not to the consensual funding of a police force and national defence by people with a rational desire for security and liberty.
ii) altruism is evil
iii) to save a person from a highwayman involves the response to the highwayman`s initiation of force. he initiated it, a policeman has the right to end it.
iv) there is no space to demonstrate how wrong you are on this here. Your comment indicates that you don`t understand what money is.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
b.
1. Even if most people consent, what about those who don't? Does that not run the risk of becoming a tyranny of the majority.
2. Only to Milton Friedman.
3. Right, you get my point. In the absence of order, people will use force to create order. To prevent others from using force, there must be an established force. A government formed by consensus is more representative than a dictatorship born of chaos.
4. There is plenty of space, since you can use as many comments as you need.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
@dannidandannikins It further occurs to me that the basic appeal of Friedmanite theology (I consider it a theology of sorts since people follow it dogmatically) is that it relies upon contrarian assertions. Flying in the face of conventional wisdom, saying that greed is a virtue, for instance, makes a splash but does not necessarily make a point. There is a reason that greed was considered evil in the past, it was not just a default inheritance from the natural inclination of the West.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
I don`t know why you are refering to `friedmanite theology` with regard to me. I like Friedman but I think he has Serious flaws. Friedman never said greed was a virtue - he said that it was a part of the human condition and something that had to be accounted for in economic theory. You are right that there is a reason that greed has always been considered evil. The reason is the opposite of what you assume.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
We can come back to Friedman later. On the topic of greed, the reason that I get worked up over that is because I have studied a lot of philosophy. The word greed itself designates the excess of a desire for gain, not the desire itself. I find that solutions to a problem reflect one's understanding of the problem. Friedman seems to have wanted to allow for greed by hoping that people who indulged would fail due to their greed, while Plato's solution was to keep the greedy away from power.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
Just thinking aloud on that last post. Those are two most disparate solutions for a common problem that I can think of.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
I'd like to refer you to the video 'Freedom and Selfishness' on my channel. Selfishness is the promotion of one's happiness, not the seizing of other people's values. To be happy one requires three fundamental values: Reason, Purpose and Self Esteem. Reason is the tool of knowledge. Purpose is the choice of one's happiness to which that tool must be directed and Self Esteem is the knowledge that you are capable of using reason and worthy of happiness.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
I'll be out of the loop for a couple of days, but I'll go ahead and favorite that video for later and get back to you when I've viewed it. I'm also beginning to wonder at what genre Spooner falls under, so I'm going to try to look that up to see if that helps elucidate the issue any.
Thucydides2004 2 years ago
Spooner Rocks!!
roverthedog01 2 years ago 2
Spooner was a harsh critique of The Constitution or the idea of a social contract in general. Read "No Treason." Clearly he not would vote for the "way of the founding fathers." Spooner was way more intelligent than any Minarchist. A Minarchist is an Anarchist with stockholms syndrome. So my advice is DON'T VOTE.
Gettinghitonattheban 2 years ago 6
@Gettinghitonattheban
He was correct though as nobody could ever produce evidence of this supposed "social contract",thats because it's takes a healthy "State" education to believe that.
But they could always beat that idea into you.
THAWK3 1 year ago
Lysander Spooner is an American hero!
CauseAndEffectPost 3 years ago 2
Lysander should be on a stamp! :)
brianpadraic 3 years ago 2
"They are not for any taxation or government control of well...anything"
Okay, then explain how they are supposed to destroy capitalism if no coercion is allowed? It's impossible. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron. How else can you plan the economy?
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
It's funny that Communist believe the government is the ultimate robber as well, and believe in the abolition of the state, and it's just the differences in reasons for this and what should replace it that separates Libertarianism and Communism.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
You've vastly over simplified it to make a baseless point. Communists are fine with taxation until the rise of the "New Socialist Man" comes about, wherein taxation will no longer be necessary. Libertarian anarchism doesn't require man's personality to change at all and considers taxation invalid at all times.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago 6
>>>You've vastly over simplified it to make a baseless point. Communists are fine with taxation until the rise of the "New Socialist Man" comes about, wherein taxation will no longer be necessary.
That's not actually true. They are not for any taxation or government control of well...anything. Least of all anything sowed from Capitalism, something Communist believe in, just not int he way the "liberals" use it.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
>>>Libertarian anarchism doesn't require man's personality to change at all and considers taxation invalid at all times.
Libertarian anarchism is just Communism but instead of workers, giant corporations run society.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
maybe you should stop putting words into our mouths and do some reading on the protection of business by state. Or are you one of these fools who thinks the state is not the PROP for corporate ills, but the savior against it?
I am really tired of the vulgar anti-libertariansim
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 6
You've fallen for the propaganda that the purpose of government regulation is always to protect the public. In fact I would say most of the time it is just collusion between government and business, with lots of money and favours being handed out behind the scenes. If your missing too many of the pieces of true economics and true political science it is all too easy to fall into these traps. But your a communist so your lack of understanding is much more profound than usual.
jackson32 3 years ago 2
Libertarianism is the way of the founding fathers. Vote Pro Liberty, Vote Libertarian... awesome video.
girlyoudontknow2 3 years ago
Few founders were knighted by the king, some owned slaves ( who do you think built the White House? ) most all were members of secret societies, ie masons. It's the system that keeps U enslaved. Why vote? U think a libertarian can't be corrupted in this system? The system was devised for a few men to rule the many, We didn't win our independence, ole King George wouldnt allow his serfs to run off and b free? Nah. Free ppl work harder, generate +revenue, We R debt slaves thru our labor 4 Queen.
ang9967 3 years ago
yes.
good solid libertarianism.
fckuvrymch 3 years ago 2
I, love, this, quote!... BYAAAAAAAAW!
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Spooner and Bastiat owned the 19th Century, and it's amazing how relevant most of their writings remain to this day.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago 4
Amen.
You'd have to have really bad luck to get robbed as often and as much as you get taxed.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
That would be epic bad luck
AzraelsJudgement 3 years ago
there is a difference?
dnHooligan 3 years ago
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
-WP
Captain, US Army
wkbdtrav 3 years ago
Beautiful :')
Kyberspawn 3 years ago 3
Institutionalized/monopolized crime.
brainpolice2 3 years ago