This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[kokjo]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I don't see how you're making that connection.

have you ever heard of compromises? or that happyness is not a binary thing?

you claim that there would be a 50% population would be 0% happy and the other 50% would be 100% happy.
would a 75% 80%-happy, and 25% 50%-happy population, be good enough for you?

Compromises must always be made. I don't think i would be happy in a libertarian society, it would be way too chaotic.

[1714856676]

1714856676

[1714856676]

1714856676

[1714856676]

1714856676

[myrkul]

I don't think i would be happy in a libertarian society, it would be way too chaotic.

I love how you completely invalidate your entire post with that last sentence.

[kokjo]

I don't think i would be happy in a libertarian society, it would be way too chaotic.

I love how you completely invalidate your entire post with that last sentence.

im only saying that his logic also applies to a libertarian society, and it is therefor not acceptable.

sure i could live in it, but i would not be like this:

[Mike Christ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I don't see how you're making that connection.

have you ever heard of compromises? or that happyness is not a binary thing?

you claim that there would be a 50% population would be 0% happy and the other 50% would be 100% happy.
would a 75% 80%-happy, and 25% 50%-happy population, be good enough for you?

Compromises must always be made. I don't think i would be happy in a libertarian society, it would be way too chaotic.

If 80% of the population did not agree with their president/king, would they step down?  No.  Would 20% of the population be happy?  Sure.  The point is, if you didn't force everyone to act exactly the same way through meaningless laws, you wouldn't have to make sacrifices.  You could live on your own terms (which, by the way, are going to be 90% similar to your neighbor's terms, just cuz you're both human beings with the same exact needs and very similar wants.)  For example: gay marriage is an issue because of the state.  It's not an issue with gays.  If only gays participate in gay marriage, why does Joe Blow from Wisconsin get a say in whether or not two gays in Texas can get hitched?  That's your state at work, pal.  That's your majority-happy, minority-unhappy attitude.

It would be exactly the same as it is now, except without all the overhead and "security" the government provides.  You didn't come to this website because the government instructed you to, did you?  Must've been a personal choice, right?  What chaos!  What madness!  Oh god, how could we manage?!  No, really, it's all going to be okay.  You know what would happen if there was no law against killing?  A lot less people would die.  Why?  Because there would be no state to wage war.

[kokjo]

should we allow murder?

[myrkul]

should we allow murder?

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

[Mike Christ]

should we allow murder?

If I said yes or no, do you think it would impact a murderer?  And if murder was allowed, would you murder people?  I don't think these are concepts we have to lay out on day one.  Since nobody wants to murder anyone with law, I don't think anyone wants to murder without law.  It's a matter of empathy; I'm not going to murder you because I don't want your family to murder me.  I think we can both agree to that, as neither of us want to be murdered.

But all that aside, it wouldn't technically be murder if it was legal.    That's a concept that only coincides with government.

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

I envy your short, concise answers

[kokjo]

should we allow murder?

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

no i would not. BUT if i said i could not agree with his no murders principle, i would have less happiness.

im fairly certain no sane person would allow murder, but a hypothetical person could be pro-murder, and we could there for not make the general rule "no murders" without stepping on someones toes.

[Mike Christ]

There will always be the sociopath, and the psychopath.  We can't assume all human beings are born with perfectly healthy minds.  With that said, since most of us agree that murder is a no-no, the guy who doesn't agree can be handled however the majority decides.  The problem is handing this ability to decide to a central point.  A president/king might say, "Killing is wrong.  It is illegal," but then he'll turn around and say, "We need to fight these guys for their land/weapons/food/oil," and suddenly, killing is no longer illegal under certain circumstances.  You've given up your freedom to make this distinction.  Now, free will does not exist in full within you, but your free will is being manipulated by someone else.  That's what bugs me.

[myrkul]

should we allow murder?

Well, that depends. Would you like to be murdered?

no i would not. BUT if i said i could not agree with his no murders principle, i would have less happiness.

im fairly certain no sane person would allow murder, but a hypothetical person could be pro-murder, and we could there for not make the general rule "no murders" without stepping on someones toes.

But by that same token, that person could not object if someone were to kill him.

So he is hoist upon his own petard.

Rights are reciprocal agreements. You cannot expect to get that which you do not give.

[kokjo]

Rights are reciprocal agreements. You cannot expect to get that which you do not give.

i just did.

in anycase then, consider taxes then. I want all people to pay taxes, and i will pay too, and we(the people) will decide what to do with the pile of money.

[Mike Christ]

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

[kokjo]

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

[Mike Christ]

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will.  You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax.  You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads.  Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

[myrkul]

Rights are reciprocal agreements. You cannot expect to get that which you do not give.

i just did.

in anycase then, consider taxes then. I want all people to pay taxes, and i will pay too, and we(the people) will decide what to do with the pile of money.

Actually, you will select someone to decide what to do with the pile of money. If he decides something that you disagree with, you'll have to wait until the next election to select someone else. You could have decided what to do with that money, but you gave up that ability when you gave it to the government.

What's worse, the more people who are doing the selection of who decides, the less your opinion matters to whether or not the right guy gets picked, no matter how much money you have contributed.

In a Libertarian society, you could select, directly, which programs you wished to fund. No middle-men, no democratic process in which your voice may (almost certainly) be completely ignored. Just you, and the people you choose to support. Doesn't that sound better?

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

Do you like having roads?

[kokjo]

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will.  You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax.  You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads.  Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

[kokjo]

it would be much better, if we all just decided to make roads, and then force people to pay.

[myrkul]

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will.  You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax.  You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads.  Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

So, what you're saying is, you'll only contribute to society if forced to, and only if others are forced to as well?

What a good little socialist.

[Mike Christ]

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

And what will you do when I refuse to pay your toll?  Kick my ass?  Ha ha ha!

[kokjo]

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

Infrastructure. Who will pay for the roads?

You will.  You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax.  You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads.  Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.

So, what you're saying is, you'll only contribute to society if forced to, and only if others are forced to as well?

What a good little socialist.

im saying shit could get ugly, if stuff does not gets handled from a "central"-point.

its essentially game theory, there are no simple solutions.