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

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways)

It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him.

yes those are the sorts of scenarios i was thinking of. So i guess we don't diverge there after all.

Lots of people would compare taxation to stealing the boat to save the drowning person. I.E. we need taxes to steal from a rich person to pay for food for people who are at risk of starving is sort of the same argument.

my argument is that in principal this is correct, it just so happens that these sorts of actions create bad incentives which cause more harm than good to the exact types of people you are trying to help. I like this because it turns a philosophical argument into a scientific one. The question of should we have a government to help the poor is a philosophical question i cant give an objectively valid answer to, fortunately the question of is the government capable of helping the poor can be assessed scientifically.

Much poverty is generated as a direct result of government policies.  Forfeiture of property as a result of unpaid taxes has caused homelessness, and regulations wrt generating wealth (Like growing and selling veggies, or distilling alcohol), also place impediments on the individual's ability to generate wealth.

[myrkul]

The question of should we have a government to help the poor is a philosophical question i cant give an objectively valid answer to, fortunately the question of is the government capable of helping the poor can be assessed scientifically.

As to the philosophy, I believe Penn Jillette says it best:

    It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

    People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

[kokjo]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
[/quote]
[/quote]
but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

[/quote]
but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.
[/quote]

So a guy with a gun telling you to give your stuff to the poor is just as bad as a guy with a gun telling you not to hurt people. Check.

ag·gres·sion 
/əˈgreSHən/
Noun
1. Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
2. The action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war: "the dictator resorted to armed aggression".

[wdmw]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.

You are now arguing that defending myself from your violence is bad.

[myrkul]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.

Again, I'm not forcing you to respect the Non-aggression principle. You don't have to respect it. You just have to not aggress against someone. You're equating a mugging with defense against a mugging. You are saying that the man who pulls a gun in defense is just as bad as the man who pulls a gun in anger.

And that is stupid.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.

Again, I'm not forcing you to respect the Non-aggression principle. You don't have to respect it. You just have to not aggress against someone. You're equating a mugging with defense against a mugging. You are saying that the man who pulls a gun in defense is just as bad as the man who pulls a gun in anger.

And that is stupid.

He can aggress against someone all he likes, and when he gets killed in self-defense, there will be no  penalty on his killer, and some or all of his wealth will go to the poor sap who had to defend himself from the aggressor, up to and including his corpse, which may serve as fertilizer or dog food.

[myrkul]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.

Again, I'm not forcing you to respect the Non-aggression principle. You don't have to respect it. You just have to not aggress against someone. You're equating a mugging with defense against a mugging. You are saying that the man who pulls a gun in defense is just as bad as the man who pulls a gun in anger.

And that is stupid.

He can aggress against someone all he likes, and when he gets killed in self-defense, there will be no  penalty on his killer, and some or all of his wealth will go to the poor sap who had to defend himself from the aggressor, up to and including his corpse, which may serve as fertilizer or dog food.

Good point. I just have one complaint:
I don't know about you, but I don't feed my dog trash.

[kokjo]

pay taxes or be put in jail, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...

they are at least equally bad, and NAP might be worse.

[myrkul]

pay taxes or be put in jail, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...

they are at least equally bad, and NAP might be worse.

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

[Rassah]

It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him.

Lots of people would compare taxation to stealing the boat to save the drowning person. I.E. we need taxes to steal from a rich person to pay for food for people who are at risk of starving is sort of the same argument.

This forgets the rather important difference myrkul stated (bolded). It would be comparative if the government then acknowledged that it wronged those rich people and tried to compensate them, but for the most part the government just blames them for what happened, saying they brought it on themselves for being rich, or they could afford it anyway, so it wasn't wrong.

[kokjo]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

pay taxes or be put in jail, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...

they are at least equally bad, and NAP might be worse.

Not directing ad-hominems at you is becoming difficult.  
What you are saying is that someone who prevents you from unprovoked attasks on others (see definition of aggression above) is just as bad as someone who takes your wealth at gunpont (a form of aggression) to feed the poor.

Screw not using ad-hominems.  You are both an idiot and a troll, and a deranged freak who wants to make unprovoked attacks on others, as demonstrated by your animosity towards NAP.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

I see, if the cops didn't stop you, you would commit violence on your fellow human beings.  Only the state cops can prevent you, and if it ain't state cops, you'll go out and commit unprovoked attacks.  You suck.

[Rassah]

pay taxes or be put in jail, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...

they are at least equally bad, and NAP might be worse.

False comparison. More correct would be

respect government laws against murder, or die, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...

In that case, yes, they would be the same, except that the second doesn't require a government.

i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

Which is all that the NAP says and expects of you. So if you are following it already, why are you so against it?

[myrkul]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

Actually, yes, you did.

pay taxes or be put in jail, not really a choice...
respect the NAP or die, again not really a choice...

they are at least equally bad, and NAP might be worse.

[kokjo]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

I see, if the cops didn't stop you, you would commit violence on your fellow human beings.  Only the state cops can prevent you, and if it ain't state cops, you'll go out and commit unprovoked attacks.  You suck.

i would not. but i would have a choice(FREEDOM!!!).

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

I see, if the cops didn't stop you, you would commit violence on your fellow human beings.  Only the state cops can prevent you, and if it ain't state cops, you'll go out and commit unprovoked attacks.  You suck.

i would not. but i would have a choice(FREEDOM!!!).

I will quote you: " i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence)."

what you said is that if it were not for repercussions, you would commit violent acts.  No that we know why you don't commit violence, it is evident that there is no place for you in any civilized society.

[myrkul]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

I see, if the cops didn't stop you, you would commit violence on your fellow human beings.  Only the state cops can prevent you, and if it ain't state cops, you'll go out and commit unprovoked attacks.  You suck.

i would not. but i would have a choice(FREEDOM!!!).

Really?

i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence

You just said you would, if there were no repercussions.

[kokjo]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.