[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not sure freedom is possible, if you to move away from all people , you would still have to comply with laws of nature[/quote]
Oh well, I would rather be opressed by gravity (literally !) than by the good intentions of my fellow man.
my point was that your so called freedom is as illusive as your so called free market.
Society has rules that govern the behavior of you and me because with out these laws (SOME) would not know how to act with out offending others rights .It is a recipe for the abuse of the weak. I definitely agree some laws over step it’s rights . Nothing is perfect
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my point was that your so called freedom is as illusive as your so called free market.
Society has rules that govern the behavior of you and me because with out these laws (SOME) would not know how to act with out offending others rights .It is a recipe for the abuse of the weak. I definitely agree some laws over step it’s rights . Nothing is perfect
[/quote]
There is nothing elusive about a whip or its absence.
Of course you can broaden your definition of “freedom” until it becomes meaningless, but as long as you define freedom as the absence of men with guns that is absolutely achievable, at least for the most part.
But, if you really think that you are free, why dont they let people like me opt out?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my point was that your so called freedom is as illusive as your so called free market.
Society has rules that govern the behavior of you and me because with out these laws (SOME) would not know how to act with out offending others rights .It is a recipe for the abuse of the weak. I definitely agree some laws over step it’s rights . Nothing is perfect
[/quote]
There is nothing elusive about a whip or its absence.
Of course you can broaden your definition of “freedom” until it becomes meaningless, but as long as you define freedom as the absence of men with guns that is absolutely achievable, at least for the most part.
But, if you really think that you are free, why dont they let people like me opt out?
[/quote]
What is stopping you from opting outt ?
The idea of complete freedom in a social context is false.
In any form of society, be it libertarian or socialist there must be a compromiss beetwen the individual
and the society. Even in a libertarian society there are laws and that means that there are not 100% freedom.
The only idea that promotes 100% freedom is nihilism.
Since we all wants some from of society, we are not discussing freedom vs antifreedom, but degrees of
freedom.
Hope that did cleare something up. Now lets discuss this properly 
[quote]orion wrote:
Nonsense.
You equate the need to be productive in order to survive which you can take up with God, fate or the universe and which you share with every other living thing with men with guns that force you to do their bidding.
[/quote]
I don’t equate them. I simply don’t think either is truly free. What is unreasonable about that?
There is a massive difference in freedom between being forced to work for nothing in the gulags by men with guns, and being forced to pay 20% of your money to the men with guns. Yet you can honestly say that neither is free.
It is the same with lacking the means to be productive and having to starve, versus being forced to pay 20% of your money to men with guns. Neither is free. And frankly I would prefer the latter.
[quote]orion wrote:
I am also pretty tired that people make up the most absurd scenarios to discredit libertarianism while not facing up to the very real problems their little scheme is causing right now.
[/quote]
How are they absurd? They are perfectly plausible. I have met thousands of poor third worlders who would LOVE to come to my country and be my “slave”.
[quote]orion wrote:
So lets see, we have two wars with a few hundred thousand if not millions dead, more people in jail than in any other nation, most for non violent crimes, total surveillance of bank accounts and electronic communication, an executive branch that is more or less above the law and special interest groups that blatantly enrich themselves at the publics expense BUT it is all worth it because libertarianism will result in cannibalism.
[/quote]
Well no. Neither your country or mine has these problems. They are hardly an inevitable part of democracy.
[quote]orion wrote:
So, why did almost none of all these dreaded consequences happen when the US federal government used a whopping total of 2-3% GDP? [/quote]
Just a antother point.
The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.
Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.
Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. [/quote]
Especially considering that land has been taken by force for thousands of years. To say the current owners are legitimate only makes sense within the context of a state.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. [/quote]
Especially considering that land has been taken by force for thousands of years. To say the current owners are legitimate only makes sense within the context of a state.[/quote]
Yep. cant agree more
I would go as far an say that: no property without arms to claim and protect it.
Those arms could be a state or a person, but the state is more effective in claiming and
protecting property.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my point was that your so called freedom is as illusive as your so called free market.
Society has rules that govern the behavior of you and me because with out these laws (SOME) would not know how to act with out offending others rights .It is a recipe for the abuse of the weak. I definitely agree some laws over step it’s rights . Nothing is perfect
[/quote]
There is nothing elusive about a whip or its absence.
Of course you can broaden your definition of “freedom” until it becomes meaningless, but as long as you define freedom as the absence of men with guns that is absolutely achievable, at least for the most part.
But, if you really think that you are free, why dont they let people like me opt out?
[/quote]
What is stopping you from opting outt ?[/quote]
The fact that I would be shot, or thrown into a cage and have my property confiscated if I do?
Now of course you can call that freedom, but I dont.
[quote]florelius wrote:
The idea of complete freedom in a social context is false.
In any form of society, be it libertarian or socialist there must be a compromiss beetwen the individual
and the society. Even in a libertarian society there are laws and that means that there are not 100% freedom.
The only idea that promotes 100% freedom is nihilism.
Since we all wants some from of society, we are not discussing freedom vs antifreedom, but degrees of
freedom.
Hope that did cleare something up. Now lets discuss this properly
[/quote]
Even if we agree that government is a necessary evil, there is no point in nor excuse for expanding an evil beyond what is necessary.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Nonsense.
You equate the need to be productive in order to survive which you can take up with God, fate or the universe and which you share with every other living thing with men with guns that force you to do their bidding.
[/quote]
I don’t equate them. I simply don’t think either is truly free. What is unreasonable about that?
There is a massive difference in freedom between being forced to work for nothing in the gulags by men with guns, and being forced to pay 20% of your money to the men with guns. Yet you can honestly say that neither is free.
It is the same with lacking the means to be productive and having to starve, versus being forced to pay 20% of your money to men with guns. Neither is free. And frankly I would prefer the latter.
[quote]orion wrote:
I am also pretty tired that people make up the most absurd scenarios to discredit libertarianism while not facing up to the very real problems their little scheme is causing right now.
[/quote]
How are they absurd? They are perfectly plausible. I have met thousands of poor third worlders who would LOVE to come to my country and be my “slave”.
[quote]orion wrote:
So lets see, we have two wars with a few hundred thousand if not millions dead, more people in jail than in any other nation, most for non violent crimes, total surveillance of bank accounts and electronic communication, an executive branch that is more or less above the law and special interest groups that blatantly enrich themselves at the publics expense BUT it is all worth it because libertarianism will result in cannibalism.
[/quote]
Well no. Neither your country or mine has these problems. They are hardly an inevitable part of democracy.
[quote]orion wrote:
So, why did almost none of all these dreaded consequences happen when the US federal government used a whopping total of 2-3% GDP? [/quote]
[/quote]
-What is unreasonable about that is that you drag all kinds of definitions of freedom into a political discussion when the idea of political freedom is about the absence of force and little else.
-It is absurd because at the height of classic liberalism there were no mass starvations because of the system, school attendance was higher than it is today, crime rates were lower (which is not surprising given the lack of laws regulating behavior to an absurd degree), and the “exploited” workes had a standard of living that was unthinkable for teh generations preceding them.
You pay more than 20%, probably much more.
I am expected to pay more than 2/3 of my income, whether I do is another matter. Thefact that it is not spent on wars but on shitty healthcare and for subsidies for pretty much everything that has a strong enough lobby might be better than killing brown people for no discernible purpose, but it is still more than what was taken by force from slaves and serfs, because without the increases in productivity that those exploiting companies provided you could not have done that without killing them.
Finally, yes, there are lots of people out there who are looking for more benevolent masters and who would even call it freedom that they can spend their pocket money any way they see fit, but that is neither here nor there.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.
The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.
Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.
Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.
[/quote]
Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. [/quote]
Especially considering that land has been taken by force for thousands of years. To say the current owners are legitimate only makes sense within the context of a state.[/quote]
Yep. cant agree more
I would go as far an say that: no property without arms to claim and protect it.
Those arms could be a state or a person, but the state is more effective in claiming and
protecting property.[/quote]
Both wrong and irelevant.
Wrong, because todays land is not in the possession of the people who took it initially but buy people who paid for it with what even Proudhon would call “legitimate property”.
Irrelevant because land is almost irrelevant when it comes to the creation of value today. Over 90% of what people produce today is the result of their brains, hands and risk taking and it is still prohibitively taxed.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Just a antother point.
The right to private property is a idea that man have only had around 8000 years. homo sapiens have existed
for roughly 150 000years. Ergo its not natural, its man made.
Why am I taking this up you may ask, well its only a question about time before
some libertarian is going to draw the “natural right card” and to make a point.
Here is my point: The idea that a state collects taxes is against freedom, but at the
same time the idea that a state protects property is supporting freedom is in lack of a better word dumb. Trough out history from man created the state, its main purpose has been to protect the property of the few and keep the many in place. Its therefor a valid point when someone brings up the case of the false choice between starvation or wage slavery, because the state is whats creates the situation. So if taxes is theft, so is property as Proudhon pointed out.
[/quote]
Yeah, Proudhon is an idiot, and for your claim that private property is man made when even animals have territories and defend it vigorously is something that you better be able to back up.
[/quote]
Being territorial and having a “right” to a particular territory are different things. There is no police force of animals that will work to protect the ‘right’ of a smaller animal when a bigger animal decides to take over its territory.
Also, orion, I like how you and I do the war/abortion thing when it comes to wages/democracy. Liberals cry “War is murder, abortion is acceptable”, while conservatives cry “Abortion is murder, war is acceptable.”
Perhaps both underpaid workers and voters are slaves.
[quote]orion wrote:
Wrong, because todays land is not in the possession of the people who took it initially but buy people who paid for it with what even Proudhon would call “legitimate property”.
[/quote]
And? At what point did it become legitimate? If I take something from you by force but then sell it on…are the new owners legitimate?
I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.
And the property that has been purchased in recent history has been done so in accordance with a states laws. Including the assumption that the government can take it in some cases, and that the government can tax you on it.
[quote]orion wrote:
Irrelevant because land is almost irrelevant when it comes to the creation of value today. Over 90% of what people produce today is the result of their brains, hands and risk taking and it is still prohibitively taxed.
[/quote]
Yes. When it comes to value creation you are correct. However, when it comes to cost it is another story.
I pay as much in rental payments as I do in income taxes. Land is one of the biggest expenses to the common man. And I don’t live in a very fancy location, nor do I have a very fancy house.
If housing was free, or heavily subsidized…I would have an extra 30% after tax income to spend. That is HUGE. If I didn’t have to worry about paying rent I would be starting my own business.
I would support a system with very cheap housing that had no other welfare at all, and little to no taxes. A flat 5% Sales tax would be the max required.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.[/quote]
Property becomes legitimate once society recognizes it as so, and is willing to enforce your claim of ownership. You’ve been told this before. There is no objective legitimacy in property or ownership.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.[/quote]
Property becomes legitimate once society recognizes it as so, and is willing to enforce your claim of ownership. You’ve been told this before. There is no objective legitimacy in property or ownership.[/quote]
Agreed. But then it is only as legitimate as any other functions the society recognizes as legitimate.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.[/quote]
Property becomes legitimate once society recognizes it as so, and is willing to enforce your claim of ownership. You’ve been told this before. There is no objective legitimacy in property or ownership.[/quote]
So once society recognizes a concept , it becomes legitimate ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
I honestly am not sure when property becomes legitimate. I know that the land my family owns was once taken by force ~120-160 years ago (by different people). It sure feels like ours, but I’m not sure that makes it ours.[/quote]
Property becomes legitimate once society recognizes it as so, and is willing to enforce your claim of ownership. You’ve been told this before. There is no objective legitimacy in property or ownership.[/quote]
So once society recognizes a concept , it becomes legitimate ?[/quote]
It depends what you’re talking about. If said concept was previously considered illegitimate by the society at large, then yes I suppose so.
What I’m talking about is the reality of property as a social institution, and not some mythical “natural right”. Property exists because it is beneficial for society, and society enforces those property arrangements.