- Joined
- Aug 6, 2019
- Messages
- 19,598
- Reaction score
- 8,619
- Location
- Bridgeport, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You argue that because the water seller did not create the hurricane, they cannot be a coercer. This is a clever but ultimately hollow distinction.
You are correct: the mugger creates a threat, while the water seller finds one. But you are making a profound moral error by assuming that only the creator of a threat can act coercively.
The core of coercion is not the origin of the duress, but the leveraging of that duress to compel an action.
- The mugger leverages a threat he created.
- The predatory seller leverages a threat that nature created.
From the victim's standpoint, the result is identical: they are forced to surrender their property under a threat of grievous harm or death. The choice to hand over your wallet to an armed man is no more "voluntary" than the choice to hand over your life savings to the monopolist who controls the only water that can save your child. A choice is not free when the alternative is misery or suffering.
Your final escalation to comparing my logic to "murderous communist regimes" is a telling sign of a weak argument; when reason fails, resort to slurs.
I'm on the fence with public roads, actually. I think that private (toll) roads are better for roadways within a state, and I think that interstate roads are part of national infrastructure, and therefore the federal government should build, maintain and regulate those.You seemed to be implying that the privilege to drive on public roads was legitimate, so is it or isn't it?
Again, libertarians have different views about public roads, and how they should be funded. You shouldn't use public roads as a metric for libertarian views. (IMO)The government seizing monopoly power and control of roadways seems to be core to a subset of Libertarians who see privatization as the only legitimate way to build roads. I can even imagine a conversation with a Libertarian that would claim that anyone who believes that not a libertarian.
I don't really don't know about these things, I just know that toll roads are always better maintained than public roads, and toll roads always have less traffic. I use toll roads whenever I can.So would you said that the government holds the legitimate power to prevent citizens from driving on roads unless they acquire a license, insurance, inspection and registration? Is there any legitimate reason the government would able to deny a citizen the privilege to drive on public roads?
There is no coercion in this scenario. I already explained that coercion only happens when there is a promise to inflict harm on someone for not doing something or acting a certain way.So, imagine a situation where a person, though no fault of yours, finds themselves in a life threatening situation and you are the only person around to help.
1) Do you have a moral or ethical duty to help them if there is minimal or no risk to your safety?
2) If you demanded exorbitant payment in return for your help, again, let's imagine zero risk of harm to yourself and little if any incontinence or cost, is that coercion?
I have mentioned it numerous times, but here you go:While I think all Libertarian philosophy is morally, ethically and politically deeply flawed, I'm curious, can you point me to the authoritative source of what ideas a True™ Libertarian holds? Apologies in advanced if you've already posted this in the thread.
I do not deny that.Do you deny that there are two recognized schools of thought within libertarianism? The Minarchist and the Anarchist?
No, because both schools of thought accept the core principle that government should never have the power to seize the fruits of our labor without our consent.Are one of those schools of thought not Libertarian?
Yes, it is wrong. Actually, it's absurd.Is my example wrong?
I've explained it the best I can. Hopefully this makes sense:Because it's clearly in conflict with what I quoted as you stated, "that government should not have the power to force (coerce) citizens to do something against their will.".
So would you said that the government holds the legitimate power to prevent citizens from driving on roads unless they acquire a license, insurance, inspection and registration? Is there any legitimate reason the government would able to deny a citizen the privilege to drive on public roads?
this is the biggest canard libertarians parrot. Of course you voluntarily pay taxes. You aren’t forced to live and work in the US. You are free to leave at any time, buy your own private island somewhere and live however you want with zero government. But you CHOOSE to remain in the US, under the protection of the US government, with all the privileges and rights, infrastructure etc, knowing that if you do work, you will have to pay taxes.I pay Income Tax not because I agree to it - I pay because the government promised to hunt me down and punish me if I don't. That is the essence of coercion.
under the protection of the US government,
knowing that if you do work, you will have to pay taxes.
If I had said law enforcement, you’d have a point. Since I didn’t, whoops.The supremes have held repeatedly that cops have no legal obligation to protect you unless you are in custody, so there goes that argument.
Next time respond to what I said, not shit you made up and attributed to me.Next time read the social contract before responding.
It’s not going to be wide spread.Only until crypto use becomes widespread, then good luck collecting income taxes.
When you say silly and stupid things like this, you understand why nobody takes libertarians seriously.Crypto doesn't just disrupt finance - it undermines the entire coercive funding model of the state.
Buddy, get over yourself. I absolutely understand the distinction you are drawing. This isn't some grand clever idea that takes a genius like yourself to understand. I get it. I just think your distinction doesn't matter.Because you cannot make the distinction between Direct Taxes, and INdirect Taxes.
Direct Taxes are taken by force (coercion). Indirect taxes can be avoided.
Your amusement is based on ignorance.
Let's say a pretty young girl (but legal) is driving though a seldom used county road in the dead of winter and he car breaks down, and worse, her cell phone is dead. After shivering for hours fearful that she'll freeze to death before anyone comes by, she sees lights in the rear view mirror! She's saved! She jumps out in front of the car waving her hands wildly, screaming HELP ME!, PLEASE HELP ME! A man in a nice car rolls down the window and is instantly aware of her desperation. Seeing his opportunity, he tells her he'll give her a ride for $500. She tells him she only has a few dollars, but promises to get the money if he'll just take her to safety. The man, realizing her situation and finding her attractive, tells her he doesn't trust she'll pay him, but in lieu of money, he'll accept a depraved sexual favor as payment.Coercion involves a deliberate threat. You can’t be guilty of coercion just for merely existing during a crisis. There’s a big difference between taking advantage of a situation and creating one through force and violence, but you can't seem to make the distinction.
Maybe in a post-apocalyptic society. Not in a civilized one.Leveraging scarcity isn’t coercion, it's how markets allocate goods.
Tell me how the example I gave above isn't using scarcity (2 people 1 car) and circumstances to coerce that young woman into performing a revolting sexual act that she does not want to do, and when faced with the choice breaks down crying, begging him to help her without the favor. And for the sake if my example, let's say she's happily married, and is a person of devout faith who would see such an act in any other circumstance, as an unforgivable trespass on her faith and god. But let's say out of desperation she does it, but later, when her husband learns what she did, he leaves her and shortly after she kills herself. You'd almost certainly say that everything that happened, everything was her fault and he did nothing wrong.If you really believe that using scarcity to influence decisions is coercion
Wrong. All coercion, direct or indirect happens where there is a power imbalance between 2 or more parties. The woman I just described needed shelter, and the man leveraged the power imbalance to get something from her that she'd NEVER give otherwise.then every economic transaction under scarcity becomes coercive
The man threating not to give her a ride unless she capitulates to his sexual demands is threating her, maybe not by his hand, but he's threatening to let her suffer or die.Again, a person who says “give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you” is threatening harm
Not a fan of Communism, but it's still a huge improvment over the post-apocalyptic nightmare your promoting.No, because that’s exactly how murderous communist regimes justified their policies.
What if there are no bullets in his gun?A robber who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands that you hand over your money uses coercion - he will harm you if you don't comply.
I never said that "I voluntarily pay taxes". You made up that stupid straw-man.this is the biggest canard libertarians parrot. Of course you voluntarily pay taxes.
Correct. But if anyone needs to leave, it's you.You aren’t forced to live and work in the US. You are free to leave at any time,
Another stupid Straw man argument.buy your own private island somewhere and live however you want with zero government.
You should go live in some socialist shit-hole country. Then you would quickly understand why the Founding Fathers wanted limited government, and liberty and freedom for the American people.But you CHOOSE to remain in the US, under the protection of the US government, with all the privileges and rights, infrastructure etc, knowing that if you do work, you will have to pay taxes.
What a remakably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it.Buddy, get over yourself. I absolutely understand the distinction you are drawing. This isn't some grand clever idea that takes a genius like yourself to understand. I get it. I just think your distinction doesn't matter.
Of course it can. You can buy used goods, where the sales tax has already been paid. OR you can buy direct from the distributor, such as at the Farmer's Market. There are no sales taxes at the Farmer's Market - - it's cash and carry.Can a sales tax truly be avoided?
Dumb ass?? Really??? Oh, the irony of that!What, just never buy anything? Is that the grand moral distinction? This dumb ass technicality?
Your post is so dumb - based on false premises, and a profound ignorance of how a prosperous economy actually works.Is a capital gains tax avoidable, that's a tax on income. But I suppose you can just not buy stocks. How about an estate tax? Well, I suppose technically death is not avoidable, but you can choose to not leave your children a single penny and give it all to charity, so they pay no estate tax and therefore the estate tax is avoidable. A tax on tipped income, there's a conundrum. You can technically avoid taxes on tips by being a shitty waiter and not getting any tips...
You said it’s coercion. I refuted that.I never said that "I voluntarily pay taxes". You made up that stupid straw-man.
Why?Correct. But if anyone needs to leave, it's you.
You don’t seem to know what this word means.Another stupid Straw man argument.
Why?You should go live in some socialist shit-hole country.
They didn’t want limited government. Many wanted a much stronger federal government. And most of them didn’t believe in liberty or freedom for everyone. Just white men.Then you would quickly understand why the Founding Fathers wanted limited government, and liberty and freedom for the American people.
Because it points out the hilarious detachment from reality of libertarianism?Your post is complete nonsense.
Your vast wealth of ignorance is truly remarkable.You said it’s coercion. I refuted that.
Why?
You don’t seem to know what this word means.
Why?
They didn’t want limited government. Many wanted a much stronger federal government. And most of them didn’t believe in liberty or freedom for everyone. Just white men.
Because it points out the hilarious detachment from reality of libertarianism?
I’m sorry that you don’t like having the hilarious stupidity of libertarianism pointed out.Your vast wealth of ignorance is truly remarkable.
"I think your distinction doesn't matter" isn't an argument, it's a statement.What a remakably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it.
Maybe your state exempts those sales from sales tax. Did...did you think that was some universal characteristic of sales tax? Like it's impossible to write a sales tax law that applies to a Farmer's Market? After all, if this is your basis for an immutable moral position then surely it must be universal in your mind.Of course it can. You can buy used goods, where the sales tax has already been paid. OR you can buy direct from the distributor, such as at the Farmer's Market. There are no sales taxes at the Farmer's Market - - it's cash and carry.
You're the one who decided that "avoidable" was the key characteristic, but you yourself have given examples indicating that these taxes are "avoidable" only in an extremely technical sense. And you're mad that I'm trying to find other technicalities?Dumb ass?? Really??? Oh, the irony of that!
Your post is so dumb - based on false premises, and a profound ignorance of how a prosperous economy actually works.
Let's say a pretty young girl (but legal) is driving though a seldom used county road in the dead of winter and he car breaks down, and worse, her cell phone is dead. After shivering for hours fearful that she'll freeze to death before anyone comes by, she sees lights in the rear view mirror! She's saved! She jumps out in front of the car waving her hands wildly, screaming HELP ME!, PLEASE HELP ME! A man in a nice car rolls down the window and is instantly aware of her desperation. Seeing his opportunity, he tells her he'll give her a ride for $500. She tells him she only has a few dollars, but promises to get the money if he'll just take her to safety. The man, realizing her situation and finding her attractive, tells her he doesn't trust she'll pay him, but in lieu of money, he'll accept a depraved sexual favor as payment.
Now, as long as he gives her the choice, to take the favor he's asked or risk freezing to death, you cannot say there is anything inconsistent with your beliefs, in fact, I've personally heard Libertarians, and others on the right, proclaim the virtue of this situation and similar situations. She had no money, but she could sell herself to save herself from harm. He's not obligated to act, to help her. No one can force him, so her dropping to her knees is feature of the kind of Libertarian philosophy you promote. You would point out that her experience is entirely of her making and that she should treat it as a learning experience. "Next time she'll make sure and tell people where she's going and be sure to charge her cell phone!".
But you can't say he did anything morally wrong , at least consistent with your own beliefs. I think it's evil.
You are, of course, correct in the general principle that not everything immoral should be illegal. That is a foundational concept of a free and tolerant society. We don’t want the state legislating against being a jerk, being uncharitable, or holding odious opinions.Wrong.
Umm even those guys were stripping away things from the poor to the point they lived in absolute destitution.LOL. Oh, ok, who knew.
The difference between monopolies in the 1870's and today, is the many of the people of that time still had a sense of civic duty, even the wealthiest men, that or the best way to display their vanity was to build schools and libraries and name them after themselves.
Today, men like Musk are unlawfully striping funding away from the world poorest, including 10's of thousands of children and doing it with no shame and a total sense of glee.
Now even if you think that children dying in a far off land isn't your problem and you think that the government's money could better be spent elsewhere, I'd hope that you'd have the decency not to pull the rug out from under those people and then take joy in it. If that's not pure evil, nothing is.
Now find me a modern monopoly that you think benefits the public.
Again, demonstrably false for healthcare.
There's no disputing that Europe, So. Korea and Japan have better public transport
And as far as education, the only place the US competes on this list is some colleges.
We may soon as corporations work to consolidate control of the food supply. Fortunately, competition and a very large country to grow things in makes it a little harder to dominate.
Though, as an example of what I say, we've recently learned that the nation's largest egg producer is earning record profits 3 times higher than recent years, why? Because of the perception of shortages allowed the industry to gouge people. Turns out that Bird Flu cost the industry about 4% of it's flock. At every turn we learn about greedy capitalists gouging people for higher and higher profits. Libertarian utopia would be a nightmare.
Respectfully, asking this question demonstrates your lack of understanding of the complexities of global trade and/ or politics for both China and the US.My understanding is it did have positive results. Why did Biden keep most the tariffs in place from then?
They are generally a good thing. Depends on the target.Respectfully, asking this question demonstrates your lack of understanding of the complexities of global trade and/ or politics for both China and the US.
1) Targeted Tariffs are not always a bad thing.
You are rationalizing.2) Given the unsubstantiated claims that Biden and/ or his family were accepting millions of dollars or who knows what or why from China, it's not surprising that the Biden administration didn't want to appear soft on China.
I am fine with this trade war with China. the net results can only be in out favor since the trade imbalance is so large.3) Tariffs are very easy to implement, but much harder to exit. Why? Because the target of your tariff often retaliates with tariffs of their own, which China did immediately. If China sees a benefit after the tariffs are in place, they may not be willing to drop their tariffs on the US even if the Biden administration decided to drop the tariffs Trump implemented. Given all the harm that was being done to farmers as the Chinese tariffed soy (as an example), which in turn created an ideal situation for Brazil, a nation that China would enjoy pulling into it's sphere of influence. So the cost of the tariff, from China's point-of-view may have been a cost they we're willing to bear as it likely gave China the opportunity to strengthen ties with Brazil and reduce its need on US supplied soy.
President Clinton should have never gave them that power.4) Internal politics within China may have refused to remove tariffs to create the perception that they are in control and just because the US has decided to remove tariffs (given the damage to US farmers), China likely wanted to make the next policy maker think more before applying tariffs again. Though, we know how that worked out.
I think the president has gone about this the wrong way, but we have needed to place high tariffs on targeted items for a very long time. We should have never allowed this to happen in the first place.This is why trade wars at this scale are not fought at the scale Trump has decided to fight them.
I don't think things will be worse. I think it will be a bumpier ride than it could have been.Despite Trump's declaration of "deals", I'll say right here, at best they've negotiated a handful of "deals" on products that cannot be made in the US and in turn have lead to concessions by the US. In other long run, this period will be deemed a failure, not because Trump is 100% wrong (because he's right on a few limited points), but his tactics will end up making things much worse for the US and it's place in the world.
1) Private industry already leads globally. Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, NVIDIA, Google, Amazon - these companies did not wait around for the idiot government.
Show us your work.Tesla would have literally bankrupted without govt help.
Idealogues of any sort lead us down the wrong path, and unless libertarianism is tempered by reason, empathy, and the desire for the greater good, it is just another masturbatory exercise.
I'm stating a reality of politics.You are rationalizing.
What do you think about the economics of Missus, Hayek, and Rothbard and others who supported the Austrian School of Economics?I am fine with this trade war with China. the net results can only be in out favor since the trade imbalance is so large.
Trump gave China that power.President Clinton should have never gave them that power.
I think the president has gone about this the wrong way, but we have needed to place high tariffs on targeted items for a very long time. We should have never allowed this to happen in the first place.
Add this to my list of posts to revisit.I don't think things will be worse. I think it will be a bumpier ride than it could have been.
Show us your work.
Is Tesla going bankrupt supposed to be a bad thing?Tesla would have literally bankrupted without govt help.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?