Socratic method for figuring out the logical fallacies of government.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

[1714184506]

1714184506

[1714184506]

1714184506

[1714184506]

1714184506

[1714184506]

1714184506

[FirstAscent]

Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.

The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.

What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.

He's free to defect.

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

[NghtRppr]

Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

taxation
Noun: A compulsory contribution to state revenue.

robbery
Noun: A compulsory contribution to a robber's revenue.

[Hawker]

So you object to taxes to pay for roads.  That's fine.  Its very good to be clear what kind of society you want.

[memvola]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

I don't think they are logical fallacies.

Deontological ethics works for the State, you just need to have more complex imperatives. They would sound comical in such a debate, and it's better to evade questions than to sound comical. As you see from people's comments, "bad tie" guy turned out to be the one who looks comical and it's enough for the masses.

[GideonGono]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

Its cruel how misinformed some people are.  If consent is asked for, its not tax.  Check the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

[GideonGono]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

Its cruel how misinformed some people are.  If consent is asked for, its not tax.  Check the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

So therefore tax is another name for robbery then.

Suppose some foreign power were ton invade and conquer whatever country you are in and involutarily confiscate part of your earnings. Would that be "tax" or robbery?

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

What a fruitcake.  Seriously, he regards ALL taxation as robbery.

Taxation is not theft for you because you consent. It is for me because I do not consent.

Its cruel how misinformed some people are.  If consent is asked for, its not tax.  Check the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

So therefore tax is another name for robbery then.

Suppose some foreign power were ton invade and conquer whatever country you are in and involutarily confiscate part of your earnings. Would that be "tax" or robbery?

If they are the government and acting within the, its tax.  Robbery is when someone illegally takes your stuff.

[FirstAscent]

Actually, the government does not take stuff from people involuntarily. At least as far as I can tell - there probably are a few very small situations when it does.

The government only takes money from individuals who voluntarily enter into an agreement to pay the tax. Examples:

- You only pay income tax when you have voluntarily decided that you want income above a certain threshold. I will admit that social security is an example of one of those things that you must pay regardless of how much you earn, but interestingly enough, it will actually pay you more than you pay in, if you don't voluntarily decide to earn more than a certain amount.

- Sales tax: if you voluntarily choose to consume excessively and have voluntarily chosen to live in state which charges sales tax, then you have voluntarily agreed to pay the sales tax. There are states which charge no sales tax.

- Property tax: you have voluntarily agreed to this by deciding to enter into an agreement where you purchase property. You can rent.

- Gasoline tax: if you're buying gas, then you're almost certainly driving a car, and that absolutely means you're using roads. Ride a bicycle or take a bus, and not only do you get free use of the roads, but you don't have to pay taxes to do so. Furthermore, no government has ever attempted to levy a sales tax on someone who chooses to buy a secondhand bike.

- Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

[Anonymous]

Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.

The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.

What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.

He's free to defect.

Your argument falls apart when you state that there is a difference between an individual making a decision and a collective making one, for a collective cannot make a decision. A collective is not an organism nor a single mind; it can only consist of the decisions of individuals. Only an individual can feel and desire hence a 100% unilateral decision cannot be made voluntarily, unless the whims of one genuinely become whims of all. To suggest this as being the case would in fact be the advocation of slavery.

[Anonymous]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all of your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom. You merely have the illusion of choice from a poor selection of purportedly sovereign nations. If you try to start one that meets your desires, you will only be conquered by the oligopoly.  

If we want choice in our government or the lack-of-therof, we have to destroy the rigid cartel of central banks and any monopolies on protection which includes nuclear-and-arms treaties and coercive monetary systems.

[Hawker]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom.

So you believe that freedom is impossible unless you are totally isolated?  That seems a little extreme.

[Anonymous]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom.

So you believe that freedom is impossible unless you are totally isolated?  That seems a little extreme.

Government =/= Trade/Order/Civilization

See my edits in the post above for more detail.

However, true self-ownership cannot be achieved today without isolation. Indeed that is true.

[Hawker]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

[FredericBastiat]

Are we going to play a numbers game again? As if more people do it, the better it becomes.

Let's see here.

Individual theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a single individual. This is extra legal theft.

Gang theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a group of individuals. This is also extra legal theft.

State theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a bloc of voters supported by a legislative body and executive enforcement. This is not extra legal theft, as it is sanctioned by a majority or by the ruling class.

What's the distinction? Not much, except the numbers and some words on a piece of parchement that indicates your intentions.

I guess next time I want to steal from somebody all I have to do is write my "manifesto of plunder" on a piece of paper, serve it to my victim and I'm good to go. Yeahhh... that ought to make it so much better. Of course, it would probably sound that much more convincing if I have my neighbors to back me up, a few guns, and the title of politician.

[Anonymous]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

Central banks are not institutions of the people and free trade. They enslave nations and people with massive debts of tyrannical backing. They are only supported by the military forces of the strongest nations. Their money is forced upon the people because no other value will be accepted as tax. Again, they are not free institutions.

Nuclear weapons are merely protection against force. Allow any entity to possess them and only peace can be encouraged. The alternative is only mutually-assured destruction; suicide. Unremorsefully I see nukes as a great innovation of peace that has only been abused by the states and put in the hands of a select few. The remainders are only left with the choice to submit or perish.

People as a whole do not form governments. A group of people form a monopoly on force to meet their desires and force them upon whoever remains. However, that's another discussion for another thread. Maybe not.

[Hawker]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

Central banks are not institutions of the people and free trade. They enslave nations and people with massive debts of tyrannical backing. They are only supported by the military forces of the strongest nations. Their money is forced upon the people because no other value will be accepted as tax. Again, they are not free institutions.

Nuclear weapons are merely protection against force. Allow any entity to possess them and only peace can be encouraged. The alternative is only mutually-assured destruction; suicide. Unremorsefully I see nukes as a great innovation of peace that has only been abused by the states and put in the hands of a select few. The remainders are only left with the choice to submit or perish.

People as a whole do not form governments. A group of people form a monopoly on force to meet their desires and force them upon whoever remains. However, that's another discussion for another thread. Maybe not.

I'll skip your idea that suicide bombers should be allowed access to nukes.  You haven't thought it through.

People as a whole DO form governments.  There has never been a tribe without a chief.  Its in our nature and you'd have to use force to stop it.  You may disagree with the particular government you live under but you have to accept that wherever you go, there will be a government of some kind. 

[FirstAscent]

Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.

The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.

What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.

He's free to defect.

Your argument falls apart when you state that there is a difference between an individual making a decision and a collective making one, for a collective cannot make a decision. A collective is not an organism nor a single mind; it can only consist of the decisions of individuals. Only an individual can feel and desire hence a 100% unilateral decision cannot be made voluntarily, unless the whims of one genuinely become whims of all. To suggest this as being the case would in fact be the advocation of slavery.

Then your demands on what entails freedom and liberty dictate that you must not interact with any other human beings. A street intersection where two people meets requires one to yield or wait. A transaction inevitably requires concessions to be made on the price by one party or another. You can argue that you decided to yield, or decided to lower the price you would ordinarily would accept for a service, but you must admit, you probably didn't want to.

Everybody can't have their way, all the time. Consider the private courts that bitcoin2cash is so fond of. When one party sues another, clearly that is coercion. Bottom line: coercion manifests itself everywhere in various shapes and forms, when you have more than one individual.