How do you justify a small political elite using force against people that mind their own business?

How do you justify a small political elite using force against people that mind their own business?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour
stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You cant government is always illegitimate and it literally means mind control. From the Latin guvernare "to control" and the Latin mens meaning "mind"

Let's make Sup Forums libertarian again like it used to be.

Ja 't spijt me maar dat gaat niet werken

>t. ex-libertariër

I'm asking you how you justify coercion by the state.

Is that really a change? Sup Forums full-throatedly supports don 'drain the swamp (into the white house)' Trump. Libertarians essentially believe all liberty is for sale and now they've sold anything resembling a legitimate democracy for keks. Cognitive dissonance be damned.

Ayn Rand is shit tier political philosophy.

Are you saying Sup Forums is a libertarian board right now? Sup Forums is leaning more towards fascism than libertarianism right now. About Trump, when you have to pick between Clinton and Trump, a liberty minded individual will pick Trump, as bad as he may be. The alternative is a war with Russia, and I would rather have mean tweets than a war with Russia.

Can you give me an argument?

By looking at the goal and results. Moral conclusions regarding coercion are useless, you have to look at the context.

Using coercion to steal money in order to feed immigrants ruining a nation or to feed other moochers is wrong, but to do the same in order to maintain armed forces which protect (and only protect) that same nation is not wrong

I have a degree in philosophy, I think I'm educated enough in the field to maintain a legitimate opinion that is widely held in my field. Philosophy, especially concerning politics, should be deceptive as opposed to prescriptive. Therefore political philosophers who I hold in high regard range from Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Rousseau, and Locke, probably in that order.

Hilldawg v Trump is a losing bet either way. I just like to adhere to some semblance of truth.

Descriptive as opposed to prescriptive

>I have a degree
>Majors in philosophy
Don't call yourself educated.

>Don't believe experts.
Have fun with your ignorance

Have fun having paid for a literal piece of paper.

No worries mate I have a good job as a private, great girlfriend, and take care of mine and my own to the best of my abilities. If you want to get into an in depth philosophical conversation, I'm game, but I charge $20 an hour. That's an express rate just for you user.

Private teacher

Cool story bro.

>Moral conclusions regarding coercion are useless, you have to look at the context.
You can't just throw morality out of the window whenever it suits you. For a civilized society you need moral values, and when the state initiates the use of force, you're no longer in a moral civilized society. Being threatened with the death for not paying the state money which they can spend however they like is not civilized, it's barbaric.

>Using coercion to steal money in order to feed immigrants ruining a nation or to feed other moochers is wrong
Right. It is wrong because force is being used against people who didn't do anything wrong.

>but to do the same in order to maintain armed forces which protect (and only protect) that same nation is not wrong
Why would this not be wrong? The same logic applies here, force is being used against people who didn't do anything wrong. I know where you're going with this, you think that eventually everyone will be better off if we just submit to the government because with armed forces everyone will be safe and secure (which is debatable, because you can still be a strong libertarian and be in favor of defensive forces. It's called minarchism. It's always amusing when talking about libertarianism, people like you always treat libertarianism as if it's anarcho-capitalism. But even if we were discussing anarcho-capitalism, people should have the choice to pay for defensive armed forces, or fend for themselves. Why do you think your idea is so good that it has to be mandatory?
I fully respect your decision to pay for defensive armed forces, and you can go ahead and pay for that, I don't mind. Do you give me the same respect for not paying for my defensive forces?

Thanks user. You're support means everything to me. How was your holiday?

>I have a degree in philosophy, I think I'm educated enough in the field to maintain a legitimate opinion that is widely held in my field.
Let me just skip over your appeal to authority fallacy.

>Philosophy, especially concerning politics, should be deceptive as opposed to prescriptive. Therefore political philosophers who I hold in high regard range from Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Rousseau, and Locke, probably in that order.
I asked you for an argument for why Ayn Rand is ''shit tier'', I didn't ask you for alternative philosophers.

Sorry that I studied a subject that you're asking about. I thought you would have gotten the point that I was making passively, that being that Any Rand purports to reinvent the political wheel because she finds dealing with politics that encompasses an entire economy and society inconvenient.

>Sorry that I studied a subject that you're asking about.
I wasn't bashing you for studying philosophy, but when you start your post off saying you have a degree in philosophy therefore your opinion has to be legitimate, is a fallacy called appeal to authority. Your argument doesn't become any more legitimate because you studied philosophy. Give me an argument and I will respond to that, there's no reason to get personal things like your education involved in this.

>Any Rand purports to reinvent the political wheel because she finds dealing with politics that encompasses an entire economy and society inconvenient.
Well, in a way she has reinvented the political wheel. The thing is that for thousands of years that political wheel has been square, and she invented a round political wheel. For thousands of years slavery, coercing and war has been a part of politics. Just because this is the way it has been for thousands of years doesn't mean it's morally just. Ayn Rand is more about moral values and ethics than what we have traditionally done, to call it ''inconvenient'' is putting it mildly.

You were asking a question concerning my field, I revealed my bona fides so to show that I put some serious time into developing my thoughts on this subject.

You are totally entitled to your opinions. Perhaps I agree with some, disagree with others.

I disagree with reinventing the political wheel because I don't find it at all an expedient manner of applying policy. I would rather examine what works economically, socially, politically and apply those principles in a more or less egalitarian manner. Liberty, freedom, and economic mobility are all inextricably linked to prosperity. You can't purge society of the lowest strata for the sake of the ultra rich and honestly say you've done a good job for everyone. If you bring the disparity to some sort of parity, I would agree that you have found an ethical, moral solution to the problems plaguing the polis.

>Being threatened with the death for not paying the state money which they can spend however they like is not civilized, it's barbaric.
>which they can spend however they like
That's the whole point: if the state is not accountable, it becomes immoral. When money is spent in a way in which without it, the framework for freedom to exist in (e.g. a foreign invasion or a large water flood) would cease to exist, it becomes moral to force people to participate because otherwise the coercion would be inverted: people who would refuse to pay would free-load upon those who would pay, forcing them to pay more in a case where the absence of the measure in question would be objectively unfavourable

>"but to do the same in order to maintain armed forces which protect (and only protect) that same nation is not wrong"
>Why would this not be wrong?
Because the measure which has to be paid is objectively right. I concede, of course, that these kinds of measures are rare and very vulnerable to subjectivity (and thus have to be closely monitored by the citizens who hold the state accountable). Long story short: not the deed makes the moral, but the moral makes the moral. Shooting someone is not right or wrong, because there isn't a question of morals in this piece of information. Shooting someone who threatens you is right, shooting someone because you just don't like him is wrong.

Ideally though, taxation would be unnecessary as the rare objective cases are so self-evident that they could easily be paid through voluntary donations with social pressure making sure everybody does his part.

Morality doesn't exist. The strongest in society should rule over the weakest, to ensure the weak's survival and the overall protection of our race and nation.

>The strongest in society should rule over the weakest, to ensure the weak's survival and the overall protection of our race and nation.

This is a moral statement.

>Morality doesn't exist.

You contradict yourself.

Try again.

>You were asking a question concerning my field
Wrong. I simply asked you for an argument for why you called Ayn Rand ''shit tier''. I'm not interested in your personal life yet you felt the need to bring it up, in an attempt to manipulate me.

>You are totally entitled to your opinions. Perhaps I agree with some, disagree with others.
Glad to hear that, can I also act upon my own opinions? Like not paying taxmoney for things I never asked for? You can pay for whatever you want aswell.

>Liberty, freedom, and economic mobility are all inextricably linked to prosperity.
Great, so if you know that these things are linked to prosperity, why do you think there is no need to reinventing the political wheel? Do you think the society that we live in right now is free?

>because otherwise the coercion would be inverted: people who would refuse to pay would free-load upon those who would pay
Can you give me an example?

>Shooting someone who threatens you is right, shooting someone because you just don't like him is wrong.
But the difference is that shooting someone who threatens you is self defence. The government forcing you to pay up for whatever they need money for isn't self defence at all, it's plain theft.

Philosophy is the highest job-placement non-stem degree, 'kid', for what its worth.
Yeah, its arts. Ill give you that.

On the other hand, its the only degree that I want that I don't have yet. Thinking about thinking isn't wrong. Theism and athiesm, memes that are fucking stupid to discuss, are matters of philosophy, and if you have no idea how to deconstruct an idea, you have no business putting forward your own as if they were useful, right?

>Can you give me an example?
A lower lying area has to be shielded from floods, building a dyke costs €X and Y people live in the area. The cost per person C=X/Y, but when Z people don't pay, this cost rises to C=X/(Y-Z). X/(Y-Z)>X/Y for Z>0. Same goes for national defense, border security and, well, not much else actually. Only projects which objectively prevent a catastrophic event in which, like I said, the framework for freedom would suffer, can justify coercion.

>The government forcing you to pay up for whatever they need money for isn't self defence at all, it's plain theft.
Unless it is self-defence against a catastrophic event. When a third party, be it a foreign state or a force of nature threatens a group of people, not participating in defending against that party becomes equal to participating in the alternative. The only way in which it would not be immoral to participate is when said person would leave the situation in which he would benefit from the common project, e.g. move to another location when there's a flood threat and not return without payment.

>A lower lying area has to be shielded from floods, building a dyke costs €X and Y people live in the area. The cost per person C=X/Y, but when Z people don't pay, this cost rises to C=X/(Y-Z). X/(Y-Z)>X/Y for Z>0.

So you would force Z to pay up so that Y doesn't flood? If Y wants to build dykes against flooding, they should pay for that themselves. Z has nothing to do with them, they are completely out of the equasion. Ofcourse it would be easier for Y to make Z pay for it, but that's not morally just. When a poor person robs you of your money, is it morally just because he needs the money more than you? No, ofcourse not, it's theft.

>Unless it is self-defence against a catastrophic event.
If you're someone living safely away from that catastrophic event and you have nothing to do with it, it isn't self defence to pay for other people.

>When a third party, be it a foreign state or a force of nature threatens a group of people, not participating in defending against that party becomes equal to participating in the alternative.
Wrong, it simply means you choose neither side, you're completely out of it. If you're not paying for defensive forces and a foreign nation invades your property then that's your own fault. And people should have that choice to take the risk, maybe they would rather defend themselves instead of the government defending them. What do you have to say over what other people are doing with their lives if they're not bothering anyone with it?

Yes because adolf hitler more than anyone ensured the weaks survival, good thinking there britcuck

>So you would force Z to pay up so that Y doesn't flood?
Z is a part of Y, I was pretty clear about that

>If you're someone living safely away from that catastrophic event and you have nothing to do with it, it isn't self defence to pay for other people.
See previous answer

>Wrong, it simply means you choose neither side, you're completely out of it.
See previous answer

Come on, you can do better than this

>when the most important holiday of capitalism comes on

>Z is a part of Y, I was pretty clear about that
No, you actually didn't mention that. So when you say Y is flooding you mean the entire Netherlands is flooding for example? Even though only about half of the Netherlands is below sea level. People in Limburg shouldn't be forced to pay for dykes built in Zeeland and Holland, because the people in Limburg don't get any value out of what they had to pay for.

That would be called globalist corporate suppression. Coordinated by the scenario editors in Homeland Security, CSIS and by others -- blacklisting, no-touch electronic torture, smearing.

There is no justification, and here we are. Revelation.

Read the thread. I said that in situations where people would freeload on other people's payments, coercion is justified.

As to answer your current question: Limburg isn't a part of Holland, so no.

Ideally of course, cultural ties and economic profits would cause a voluntary reaction of helping Holland pay for the dykes, as Limburg is partly financially dependent on Holland

>Read the thread. I said that in situations where people would freeload on other people's payments, coercion is justified
That's not the same as Z being a part of Y. You never said that. So how are people in Limburg freeloading on people in Holland and Zeeland paying for their own dykes? They don't get any benefit out of this.

>As to answer your current question: Limburg isn't a part of Holland, so no.
Exactly, so Z isn't a part of Y.

>Ideally of course, cultural ties and economic profits would cause a voluntary reaction of helping Holland pay for the dykes
Yes ofcourse, I'm not saying Holland and Zeeland should just drown, if people in Limburg WANT to help support them and pay for the dykes, they always have that option. But you should also have the option to not support them. You shouldn't get in legal trouble for that. As long as it is voluntary, paying for a collective good is fine ofcourse, I do support that.

>That's not the same as Z being a part of Y.
How else would they be able to freeload?

>So how are people in Limburg freeloading on people in Holland and Zeeland paying for their own dykes?
They're not

>Exactly, so Z isn't a part of Y.
Not in this case, no.

Please stop this lazy reasoning. What I said is not hard to comprehend

Because minding your own business in someone else's house is called squattering.

The house in this analogy is the government, the rooms are the infrastructure and the roof is the social order. You're enjoying said luxuries, and thus must obey the house rules.

>How else would they be able to freeload?
>They're not
Exactly, Limburg is not able to freeload on Zeeland and Holland paying for their own dykes, so stop saying that people who don't pay for the dykes are freeloading off people who do pay for the dykes.

>Because minding your own business in someone else's house is called squattering
But the house doesn't belong to the government. In our current system force is used by the government to take control over the house. That's the whole point we're arguing about here.

>But the house doesn't belong to the government. In our current system force is used by the government to take control over the house.
The government represents the collective will of the people and they among other households have come into the agreement that the house is in fact theirs.

You are free to disagree with everyone else and deny reality, but the rules won't change because you don't like them.

Also,
>the rooms are the infrastructure and the roof is the social order. You're enjoying said luxuries, and thus must obey the house rules.
Ah, right. When you forcefully stuff someones mouth with a hamburger and he happens to like hamburgers, he has to pay up.
When you rape someone and she happens to like sex, it's all fine ofcourse. Better yet, she has to obey your rules. Flawless logic.

You never got the choice. You are being forcefed that hamburger you never asked for and then you pay up like a good guy saying ''well I do like hamburgers so here ya go!''. Sure, if you actually want to pay for those luxuries, go ahead. I respect your wish to pay for your luxuries. Do you also respect my choice to say no to these luxuries and not pay for them?

>but you're using those luxuries! why don't you stop using them you hypocrite?!
Because I'm forced to pay for them right now anyway. Why would I not use something that I'm already forced to pay for?

Het moet verschrikkelijk zijn om met autisme in dergelijke mate te leren leven.

>The government represents the collective will of the people
If the people are morally just and collectively have this thing they want, like infrastructure, why would they need a small political elite that uses coercion? Why can't the people take care of those things themselves?

>You are free to disagree with everyone else and deny reality, but the rules won't change because you don't like them.
Good, I disagree. If I'm free to disagree, may I also act upon that disagreement? If I can't act upon it I am apparently not free to disagree, because I have to do what the government tells me to do anyway.

>but the rules won't change because you don't like them.
So now you're basically just saying: ''Your opinion does not matter to me, we are going to forcefully do what we want anyway and you are forced to be part of it.''
Do you see how this is immoral?

>When you forcefully stuff someones mouth with a hamburger and he happens to like hamburgers, he has to pay up.
>When you rape someone and she happens to like sex, it's all fine ofcourse.
Those are false analogies. You CHOOSE to stay.

>You never got the choice.
Yes you did, and you chose to stay.

>Because I'm forced to pay for them right now anyway. Why would I not use something that I'm already forced to pay for?
>I reluctantly agree to play along
O-kay.

This is an empty post. This man has failed to present even a single argument in his post. This man chose to use a personal attack instead of logic and reasoning in an attempt to win a debate.

Sorry, but personal attacks do not convince me and I will stick with my point. You have lost the debate.

>why would they need a small political elite that uses coercion? Why can't the people take care of those things themselves?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour

> If I'm free to disagree, may I also act upon that disagreement?
Sure you can, and you can suffer the consequences too.

>If I can't act upon it I am apparently not free to disagree, because I have to do what the government tells me to do anyway.
It's more of a carrot and a stick kind of deal. See above.

>Those are false analogies. You CHOOSE to stay.
>Yes you did, and you chose to stay.
No I didn't. We were born into this world, at birth there wasn't a contract we could sign. If you're talking about emigrating to another country, Where can I go?

By dancing!... No, really how about orginal libertarianism? stop that ayn crap and try real Anarchism.

>Play stupid all thread long, making only strawman arguments and purposeful misinterpretations of arguments and examples
>Other person loses interest in debate
>"Haha I won"

I did actually make an argument, as I provided a reason for your inability to debate properly. Re-read the thread, ponder your mistakes and come back when you have found them.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour
Great, you and your friends can do this. I choose to not be a part of this. Oh wait, we're being forced to. Bye bye moral values right? Your idea is so good it has to be mandatory and people will eventually have to die if they do not follow your idea apparently.

>Sure you can, and you can suffer the consequences too.
Are you threatening me for not doing what you want me to do?
I have a question, is a civilized society even something you're after or are you not even trying to hide that you favor tyranny and dictatorship?

>No I didn't. We were born into this world, at birth there wasn't a contract we could sign.
You started using the amenities of the house literally before you were even born, so it's only fair you obey the rules until you are capable of emigrating to another country.

You can go anywhere, there are plenty of deserted places in the middle of the ocean that are unclaimed. Or you could just go to a really shitty house where nobody gives a fuck, like some remote island off the coast of Thailand.

>yfw your genetics lab accidentally combined the harem project with the anti-air defense project
>yfw the neighboring McDonalds decide to build warplanes powered by child-slaves with the help of Chad Enterprises
>yfw your harem annihilates the invading warplanes by spraying milk from their heaving breasts because they defy the NAP
>yfw your new dairy business drives McDonald's out of business

...

>I choose to not be a part of this. Oh wait, we're being forced to.
Great, the door is right there, nobody is keeping you here.

>Your idea is so good it has to be mandatory and people will eventually have to die if they do not follow your idea apparently.
Staying in the house and not agreeing to the rules is not a great idea.

>Are you threatening me for not doing what you want me to do?
No, I'm simply stating that this house has rules. Again, the squatter analogy is rather apt. The will of the people guides the house rules, and if you don't like them, get out.

>is a civilized society even something you're after or are you not even trying to hide that you favor tyranny and dictatorship?
>if I can't do whatever I want it's tyranny
lol wat. will of the people != dictatorship

Honestly you sound like an autist throwing a tantrum over not being allowed to take a dump in the middle of the living room.

>Play stupid all thread long, making only strawman arguments and purposeful misinterpretations of arguments and examples
What do you base this on? Cite me.

>Other person loses interest in debate
If you really lost interest in the debate you would've been out of here already. But you didn't leave, you chose to reply with an empty post with no content, calling me autistic for rebutting your argument. Using personal attacks does not convince anyone in a mature debate, therefore you lost the debate.

>"Haha I won"
You losing is not the same as me winning, there are more people in this thread you know.

>I did actually make an argument,
Calling someone autistic is not an argument.

>as I provided a reason for your inability to debate properly.
You did not provide reason (yet). Hopefully you will cite me where I was wrong so we can discuss that. Calling someone autistic is not ''reason''.

>Re-read the thread, ponder your mistakes and come back when you have found them.
Cite me where you think I made a mistake and we will discuss it.

>Cite me
I repeatedly stated that people may only be coerced into paying when the alternative would be freeloading and you only kept insisting that I said that they also may be coerced when that isn't the case

>Me: "If Z is a part of Y, Z may be coerced"
>You: "But what if Z is not a part of Y?"
>You: "But what if Z is not a part of Y?"
>You: "But what if Z is not a part of Y?"
>You: "But what if Z is not a part of Y?"
>You: "But what if Z is not a part of Y?"

So, once again:

>IF Z is a part of Y, Z may be coerced
>IF Z is NOT a part of Y, Z may NOT be coerced

It does not get any simpler than that.

Let me walk you through your incessant example:
>May Limburg be coerced into paying for Holland's dykes?
>Is Limburg a part of Holland?
>It is not, so the answer is ''No''

We don't owe the world anything just for being born, just for being alive. Simply being alive you should be allowed to live in the country you were born in, without obeying the rules that a political elite forces upon you. Saying ''why don't you just live somewhere in the ocean'' is not an argument.

>Great, the door is right there, nobody is keeping you here.
The door meaning leaving the country? Because ''the house'' does not belong to the government. Everyone in the government has their own literal house and that's it. The government as a group uses force to take whatever land they want. It appears that you do agree with this. Do you think it's fair for the government to take any land they want by force?

>Staying in the house and not agreeing to the rules is not a great idea.
Not relevant because already rebutted.

>No, I'm simply stating that this house has rules. Again, the squatter analogy is rather apt. The will of the people guides the house rules, and if you don't like them, get out.
Not relevant because already rebutted.

>lol wat. will of the people != dictatorship
The will of the people meaning the majority right? 50% plus 1 person means the will of the people. Nevermind about the other half of the country, let's just force them into submission. So it's not about the will of the people, it's about the will of half the people. And if the people really wanted to make things happen like infrastructure, they could do it without a government.

>Honestly you sound like an autist throwing a tantrum over not being allowed to take a dump in the middle of the living room.
Empty personal attack.

You didn't cite my ''strawman arguments and purposeful misinterpretations of arguments and examples'', you simply summarized your previous posts. I specifically asked you to cite my mistakes and you couldn't do it, you just linked me to three of my old posts.

And regarding you repeating your point all over again, I understand you and you actually agree with me. Limburg may not be coerced to pay for dykes. If Zeeland and Holland wants dykes, they should pay for it themselves. What I thought (and already asked you but you didn't answer) was that you mean the Netherlands as a whole with Y. But apparently you didn't, or this is an easy way out of a debate for you.

>Simply being alive you should be allowed to live in the country you were born in, without obeying the rules that a political elite forces upon you
>I should be free to do what I want because I didn't get to choose to be born
You don't get to rape and pillage without consequences either. Your claim for that right has no basis in reality.

>Saying ''why don't you just live somewhere in the ocean'' is not an argument.
Why? You wanted a living space where nobody tells you what to do. Surprise surprise, it's in the middle of nowhere, because PEOPLE HAVE RULES.

>Not relevant because already rebutted.
Not really, you're just repeating about imaginary human rights over and over.

>Nevermind about the other half of the country, let's just force them into submission. So it's not about the will of the people, it's about the will of half the people. And if the people really wanted to make things happen like infrastructure, they could do it without a government.
You can't make major changes with just half the people, and I love it how you presume the worst case scenario is every case scenario. Yes, not all will agree on details, but they agree on most things.

>And if the people really wanted to make things happen like infrastructure, they could do it without a government.
Again, division of labor. It makes things easier. It seems you're painfully uninformed how civilizations emerge and take form, and why the whole hunter-gatherer shtick didn't pan out as well as agriculture-based society.

>Empty personal attack.
No, it's an analogy to what you're saying. You say
>dismantle the all societies from the entire world because i don't want to pay taxes
that is simply childish and stupid.

>>I should be free to do what I want because I didn't get to choose to be born
I never said this, this is a very weak strawman attempt. What I would say though is that people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't initiate force against others. How do I initiate force just by being alive and not paying for whatever you want to build? Who is the victim here? You can't demand other people to pay for what you want.

>You don't get to rape and pillage without consequences either. Your claim for that right has no basis in reality.
Already explained. This is against the non aggression principle therefore it is against the law. Nobody ever said that in a libertarian world everyone can do whatever they want, period. That would be libertinism you're confused which. Which ironically comes closer to the statist society which you prefer because both don't have any moral boundaries apparently.

>Why?
Because people shouldn't have to move out of their country just for being born and minding their own business.

>Not really, you're just repeating about imaginary human rights over and over.
No, this is about moral values.

>You can't make major changes with just half the people, and I love it how you presume the worst case scenario is every case scenario. Yes, not all will agree on details, but they agree on most things.
What about being fair to 100% of the population instead of 50%? Everyone can live their lives however they like, as long as they don't initiate force against everyone. That is the only rule.

>Again, division of labor.
What if someone doesn't want to pay for it nor leech off it?

>No, it's an analogy
Calling someone autistic is not an analogy, try being more respectful.

> What I would say though is that people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't initiate force against others.
That makes no sense. You passively benefit from the system, you're leeching off. Your personal made up right should have primacy over the good of the people? How about no.

> How do I initiate force just by being alive and not paying for whatever you want to build?
See above. You use the roads, you get emergency services, whatever business or activity you engage in is only possible of the infrastructure. Just because social order is not a physical object doesn't mean it's not very real and artificially enforced.

>Who is the victim here? You can't demand other people to pay for what you want.
We the people have decided everyone participates. You can leave, you never addressed why leaving is not an option. Plenty of unclaimed land exists.

>What about being fair to 100% of the population instead of 50%?
People want different things, compromises must be made.
>Everyone can live their lives however they like, as long as they don't initiate force against everyone. That is the only rule.
So basically you're bitching because this completely unsustainable utopia doesn't exist anywhere on Earth? Again, passive benefit is still a concrete benefit. You still can leave.

Government property, government business. All the land you're on is owned by it.

The initiation of force is unjustifiable. Government's only role should be the protection of individual rights, and this role should ultimately be funded through voluntary means.

This is where objectivists differ from ancaps/libertarians. Objectivists explicitly state that there should be a particular role of government in a particular moral context, and derive that moral context from the observable traits of humanity and a human's particular method of pursuing life. Ancaps, by contrast, deny that any moral or epistemic philosophic derivation is necessary for government, and treat the NAP like a free-floating abstraction.

This lack of grounding in reality is why you tend to see libertarians argue for retarded things like totally open borders, multiculturalism, and subjectivism.

Objectivists, by contrast, oppose all of these things. Peikoff and Brook denounce Europe's immigration policy and properly identify the "refugee" crisis as an invasion of Jihadists. Rand denounced desegregation in US public schools, predicting greater racial tensions and lowered educational standards as the result. Rand denounced Israel as a fascist state (but still superior to barbaric Middle Eastern theocracies), denounced Jewish tribalism, and opposed the U.S. entering WW2 until it was attacked.

Objectivism embraces "free markets," and embraces protecting nations against invaders that would undermine the society. It tends to get a really unfair shake on Sup Forums for obvious reasons, but it's worth looking into if you want some chilling and upsetting redpilling on everything that has been happening in the West for the past 100 years.

If nothing else, read this. Rand described perfectly what public schools have done to Westerners, and demonstrated how deliberate it was. It's like Yuri Bezmenov on steroids.
stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf

>You passively benefit from the system, you're leeching off.
Yes, let's stop that, shall we? People will have to stop using government services if they don't pay for them. But what do you know, people are forced to pay for them, so they're using them.

>See above.
See above.

>We the people have decided everyone participates.
I haven't.

>You can leave, you never addressed why leaving is not an option. Plenty of unclaimed land exists.
We don't have to leave. Why can't we choose to not pay for government services nor use them, yet still live in our homecountry? Oh right, because you're using force to get what you want.

>People want different things, compromises must be made.
Yes, great point. People want different things. You might want A, and I want B. There is no compromise that needs to be made, You can do A and I can do B. I don't need to do A because you want me to do A. You don't need to do B because I want you to do B. Sounds like a fair deal, doesn't it?

>So basically you're bitching because this completely unsustainable utopia doesn't exist anywhere on Earth?
>bitching
Not bitching.

>completely unsustainable utopia
Explain to me why it would be unsustainable.

>doesn't exist anywhere on Earth?
So one of the criteria for discussing political ideas is that it has to exist somewhere on earth? That's ridiculous, that would mean that in the beginning of civilization you couldn't even bring political ideas up because there were no politics yet anywhere on earth.

>passive benefit is still a concrete benefit.
We never chose for that benefit. You're stuffing a hamburger into my mouth and then demand me to pay for it, it doesn't work that way.

>You still can leave.
We already went over this a couple of times, repeating yourself is not going to make you correct.

National defence requires sacrifice. Freedom isn't free.

dumb randposter

Don't pay for government and you don't get the privilege to pretend land is your property.

Because pretend is all a libertarian can ever do. Ownership rights are fiction, they are a privilege granted by community ... take part in the community, or the community takes "your" shit.

>People will have to stop using government services if they don't pay for them
Whatever you do, even if it's nothing, benefits from the infrastructure. Supplies are cheap and readily accessible, clientele with resources to barter for whatever service you provide, social order so that your property won't be pillaged or mortared, clean air and drinking water, EVERYTHING relies on the infrastructure.

It would be impossible to opt out of all that, and so is opting out of paying for it.

>I haven't.
Tough shit, that's how democracy works.

>We don't have to leave.
>[citation needed]
This is a right you've made up out of thin air. It doesn't exist.


>Why can't we choose to not pay for government services nor use them, yet still live in our homecountry?
> You might want A, and I want B. There is no compromise that needs to be made, You can do A and I can do B.
See top of this reply. What you want is impossible.


cont'd

I would never dream of stopping you from paying for national defence. You can go and send all of your money to the military and you're free to enjoy all of the security you paid for.

I choose not to pay for nation defence, nor will I ever expect national defence to stand up for me. I will protect my own property against foreign invaders, and if I fail at defending my property against foreign invaders, so be it. That's the risk of not buying national defence.

So I give you all the respect to buy defence from armed forces. Will you give me the same respect to not buy armed force defence?

>Freedom isn't free.
This is an oxymoron in the context you're using. You're saying you can only be free if you pay up your taxes (giving up your freedom because you don't have a choice). Who else demands people to pay them in exchange for security? Oh right, the mafia.

First things first. Change the narrative, then change the culture.

Expecting people to go directly from government dependence to full independence will never work.

it never went away. libertarians need a palatable candidate though.

>Explain to me why it would be unsustainable.
Any form of enforced social order is valuable. People in the system become a resource and an inherent part of the deal. You pretend this is not the case, and that it's your right to enjoy said value without contributing.

The only way for the system to work is that you're alone.

>So one of the criteria for discussing political ideas is that it has to exist somewhere on earth?
The fact it doesn't exist in a world of 7 billion people is a strong indicator someone has tried it and it didn't work out.

>We never chose for that benefit.
Completely irrelevant. You ARE benefiting from it. The hamburger analogy is stupid because there is no way for us NOT to give everyone hamburgers. And if someone doesn't pay, they're freeloading.


Basically your argument reduces to unwarranted claims to rights that do not exist.

Actually when I built my own house or paid someone else to build a house for me, that is my property now. Nobody else has rights over that house, because I put effort or value into it.

When the government claims empty land, what gives them the right to exactly? Could it be moral values or armed forces threatening you with the death if you don't do what the government says? So let's not pretend like the government earned the land fair and square, they used force to get what they want and now you're pretending like they have a right to it and people get the privilege to live on their land. It's not their land to begin with, THAT is the pretending part you're talking about. THAT is the fiction here.

>take part in the community, or the community takes "your" shit.
I want you to read this again, and then think about what you just said. How does this sound fair at all?
>join me or i will steal your stuff

...

I too was impressed. If intentional OP, 10/10.

Or in other words, might makes right. Liberals can talk the talk, but they can rarely walk the walk.

It doesn't matter if you have the so called moral or intellectual high ground when a group of people are willing to use violence to get what they want.

This is why the left will blue pilled until they are prepared to adopt armed insurrection and terrorism again like they used to.

>Supplies are cheap and readily accessible, clientele with resources to barter for whatever service you provide
I never signed up for this. Also, This is completely unrelated to the government, the free market can do this too.

>social order so that your property won't be pillaged or mortared
Never signed up for this. What if I think I can defend my own property? What if I WANT to be pillaged and mortared? You don't get a say over this.

>clean air and drinking water
Never signed up for this. Maybe I can get my own clean air and drinking water without the help of the government. What are filters?

>EVERYTHING relies on the infrastructure.
Only if you chose to pay for it.

>Tough shit, that's how democracy works.
Democracy is a failed idea. Democracy doesn't just make everything right. When two guys walk down the street and they pass another guy, according to you the two guys could democratically decide that the other guy should be killed. Tough luck right? That's how democracy works. We're not discussion how our broken system operates right now, we're discussion better alternatives here and what would be fair to everyone, not just what the majority wants.

>This is a right you've made up out of thin air. It doesn't exist.
You failed to respond to my argument here.

>See top of this reply. What you want is impossible.
already refuted.

>might makes right
>those who believe this lost the war
Irony. Don't be a hypocrite. We own you now.

>I never signed up for this, and because I was born here I have a birth right to stay here and therefore benefit the system without contributing
That's not an argument.

>Maybe I can get my own clean air and drinking water without the help of the government. What are filters?
You can't filter out everything.

>When two guys walk down the street and they pass another guy, according to you the two guys could democratically decide that the other guy should be killed.
This is a completely imaginary scenario.

>we're discussion better alternatives here and what would be fair to everyone, not just what the majority wants.
I already explained, this is not how any of this works. You can't please everyone.

>You failed to respond to my argument here.
It's not an argument. You're making up rights that do not exist.

Might does make right though. Just like it's the victors who write history. Which is why the (((Americans))) could say whatever the hell they wanted about the Nazi's after the war and pin any kind of horror on them.

th-that is one of the most terrifying essays I have ever read

The hat fits her really well.

>Any form of enforced social order is valuable. People in the system become a resource and an inherent part of the deal. You pretend this is not the case, and that it's your right to enjoy said value without contributing.
Can people at least choose to partake in this deal? Can people choose to pay and use the services provided or are people forced to pay for them even when they wouldn't want to use the services anyway? Why do you think it is fair that a middle aged man is forced to pay the state money so that the state can give this money to refugees and education? What if that man doesn't want to pay for these things? Do you see how that is not fair and how the government has actually stolen money from that man to do what they want to do?

>The fact it doesn't exist in a world of 7 billion people is a strong indicator someone has tried it and it didn't work out.
Who has tried it?

>Completely irrelevant. You ARE benefiting from it. The hamburger analogy is stupid because there is no way for us NOT to give everyone hamburgers. And if someone doesn't pay, they're freeloading.
People are benefiting from it because they have to pay anyway, yes. But when you would give people the option to pay for government provided services you would see alot less people pay and use government provided services. You can't deny this point. And how is there no way for the government to not give everyone hamburgers? Stop sending troops to the middle east maybe? Stop taking in refugees? Stop the welfare state? Stop common core education? Stop government provided health care? The things you like to talk about like the environment are just a tiny fraction of all the bullshit the government wastes our money on. And even those things are debatable.


>Basically your argument reduces to unwarranted claims to rights that do not exist.
So you're saying you do not have a right to self-ownership? Alright then, I'll claim you then. I own you now, you're my slave.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Ayn Rand)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>Might does make right though. Just like it's the victors who write history. Which is why the (((Americans))) could say whatever the hell they wanted about the Nazi's after the war and pin any kind of horror on them.

We didn't though.

The soviets are the ones who found all the 'death camps'. For some reason the germans put all of their work camps and internment camps in the west, where the americans / brits liberated them, and all of their death camps in the east for the soviets to find. Nothing suspicious about that at all, plus as a bonus it gave the soviets the moral authority to occupy eastern germany & the eastern bloc after the war to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

We need more pics of her in this thread. She's so weird looking.

>against people that mind their own business?
Here is the problem, them minding their business means they are free to do regressive things destroying themselves and community.

Ay OP, until people stop disregarding Ayn Rand because she's for edgy teenagers, which is not an argument, you could read her books and be convinced because the other side of the debate is like HIllary Clintons campaign, it's like the smug reporters who tell people it's not going to happen. Until then there will be no legendary Atlantis for them, which is their own loss.

Now, we got Trump in office, which means that even in a two party state we are working towards a free market. We will not trade with communists, such as those people in Latin America who will nationalize your business every couple of generations. We are going to implement protectionist policies to support the US industries which were so destroyed by leftist intervention this past half century.

>Here is the problem, them minding their business means they are free to do regressive things destroying themselves and community.

Read an economics book, you know nothing about it but you sure can write one ambivalent sentence about the economy at least, though it was ambivalent and sounds like something you would hear in an Ayn Rand book that justifies government intervention. "For the good of society..." whatever the hell that is supposed to mean because full on communist societies are the worst societies.

The only part of this post with a non-nonsensical query or statement is this
>And how is there no way for the government to not give everyone hamburgers?
Because everything hinges on the hamburgers (clean air, water, peace, infrastructure, etc). You can't live off the grid because the people are included in the grid. The people wouldn't be there without the hamburgers, and therefore you interacting with the people is a direct result of the hamburgers, therefore making them part of the hamburgers, and making you a beneficiary of the hamburgers.

>and because I was born here I have a birth right to stay here and therefore benefit the system without contributing
Never said this. I would never dare to leech of your little system if you gave me the choice to not pay for it. But since you're not willing to give me a choice I will have to continue paying for it under force and I will continue benefiting from it, naturally.

>You can't filter out everything.
Then neither can the government. And even if they had some sort of magical device that nobody else could produce, what if I would be okay with only half filtered water and air of my own? Hell what if I'm okay with dirty water and air? If that's my choice I don't see why I couldn't do that. Are you so concerned about my health that you would kill me if I didn't do what you said to be healthy?

>This is a completely imaginary scenario.
That's called an analogy, jesus christ you're so low on energy.

>I already explained, this is not how any of this works. You can't please everyone.
Actually you can please everyone who is morally just and wouldn't use force against others. In my alternative, anyone can do anything they want or don't do what they don't want, as long as they don't initiate force against others. Who is the victim here? Who doesn't get what they want? Rapists? Murderers? Dictators?

>It's not an argument. You're making up rights that do not exist.
Again, are you denying your right to self-ownership? Then be my slave right now. I own you now. I will gladly claim you if you don't even claim yourself.

>has degree in philosophy
>begins with ad hominem fallacy
>asked for an actual argument
>follows with appeal to authority fallacy

tfw modern philosophy is literally sophism.

The only part of this post with a non-nonsensical query or statement is this
>The

See? I can do this too. Now, do you want to respond to my arguments which are still open as seen here or do you concede?

>I would never dare to leech of your little system if you gave me the choice to not pay for it.
Literally everything regarding your activities and existence hinges on the system, people included. You could not exist without benefiting from it, therefore paying is mandatory. I've said this like 5 times now, how fucking dense are you?

You know what? I'm done.

If adults have the right to seek to better themselves, they must also be allowed to destroy themselves, as there is no universal recipe for self improvement. What would bring improvement to one man would destroy another, and vice versa.

And as far as community goes, if a single person minding his own business who ends up harming no one but himself is a danger to the community, then your community is weak and poorly constructed, if one deviant can destabilize it.

A strong community is one where if a person makes bad decisions, they alone suffer the consequences of them, and their suffering serves as a lesson in morality to anyone who is watching on exactly what not to do.

The problem with our society is not that too many druggies and degenerates are dying in the streets, but that not near enough of them are.

This. I have witnessed arguments on Rand online since the beginning and the only critiques of her that are nondismissive and informed on her actual philosophy are the ones which write myself.

Otherside is literally so ignorent that I have to argue with myself to stay sharp. It's like being a conservative at university all over again.

>Literally everything regarding your activities and existence hinges on the system, people included.
There you go again with the circular argument. I went over this so many times now and you keep repeating yourself. How come people could still exist way before there was a government? You just said everything regarding our activities and EXISTENCE hinges on the system. You're contradicting human history now.