Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: May a Libertarian Accept Money From the State?
« Last post by Bill on August 27, 2015, 12:16:21 am »
Great points, CM. We need to examine the converse, is it possible in a state-saturated society not to take money that has been stolen from someone else at the point of a gun?

I would suggest it is impossible and then the finer point would be is there a difference between surrendering 50-70% of your business income to the local-fed continuum of theft in your B&M entrepreneurial activity and actually working for the gov directly? Both entities work for the government; the first by reluctantly giving the highwayman his protection money and the second by working for the highwayman directly. The latter still surrenders more than half their state derived income in taxes back to the beast (what a country!!).

There was a special airfare leaving the states this morning for Ireland where the fare was $1 and the taxes and fees were $368. You can't make this shit up.

There's no easy answer...
General Discussion / Re: May a Libertarian Accept Money From the State?
« Last post by Cumberland minuteman on August 26, 2015, 09:44:44 pm »
Well being a citizen of the US many years after the Nazi Regime, if I merely took the Jeep or the Rifle, then yes I would be the aggressor. Pretty simple, the money wasn't taken from me nor anyone that I voluntarily have a security pact with. And the Jeep nor the rifle can hurt me of their own accord. Those two items by themselves are inert and can do me no harm. It is the person driving the Jeep or shooting the rifle that aggresses upon me and therefore my beef would be with the Nazi ONCE they initiated aggression upon myself or those in which I have a voluntary security arrangement.

One must compare apples to apples and not oranges to Volkswagens.

Again the reclamation of the Jeep or rifle is done ex-post facto, devoid of the knowledge of where the property came from in order to manufacture or purchase. Social benefits require a PRESENT or FUTURE theft from a very real very identifiable victim. In other words, if the Jeep is stamped "property of the Fatherland", and we understand that govt has nothing that isnt stolen, and you were a German citizen, whom had their property stolen by the Nazi regime, then they could make the argument that they are merely reclaiming what was already taken from them. This is NOT the case with govt "benefits" as a present and future theft of property from someone else has to occur in order to provide you with your "benefits". Fairly major difference there.

So to make it simple, I steal $10K from you and buy a Jeep, you take the Jeep back into your holdings (arguably moral) versus you have armed goons go steal $10K from your neighbor to buy you a Jeep (clearly immoral).

To "see both sides" is just an attempt to justify what one knows is immoral versus what one knows is moral.

This is an excellent topic/exercise to work on application of the NAP. Failure to always, consistently and honestly apply the NAP is what separates pot smoking paleo-conservatives from philosophical libertarians.
If its not complicated then answer this:

Is it ok to take a Jeep from a Nazi? Or a rifle?
Its theft of govt property, which was obtained on their part by taxation. Is the liberator of jeep/rifle really the aggressor?
General Discussion / Re: May a Libertarian Accept Money From the State?
« Last post by Cumberland minuteman on August 26, 2015, 07:45:17 am »
I don't think it is really that complicated, nor do I find merit in both arguments, especially of the aggressors arguments.

Abortion is only tricky as to decide the starting premise of personhood for a fetus. Is a fetus a person or a parasite? If it is a parasite, then abortion is the mother protecting her own habitus. Being a human Fetus has distinct humanoid DNA, then calling a fetus a parasite is the same as calling an infant a parasite. It is clear that abortion initiates violence upon an innocent human being and violates the NAP. Sure abortion may be convenient, even life changing, but it is still initiated aggression upon innocents, and morally indefensible.

Immigration doesn't even rate the same category. The immigration argument is always centered around using violence to protect the pre-established plunder system of its indigenous populations.

General Discussion / Re: Churches & the US flag
« Last post by Livelyhood@Stake on August 26, 2015, 07:34:09 am »
Cumberland Minute Man, I completely agree with you about the flags, you couldn't have worded it any better. One thing I would like to add is that whenever I see a USSA flag flying high in the breeze all I can think about is the hundreds of years at war with other countries "protecting our freedom" that in all reality we weren't event suppose to be there. Like for a recent example Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know I will get a lot of heat and kick-back about this particular topic, but we were in Iraq originally to help them (hence the part Iraqi Freedom), but once we realized that they had a weak government and all kinds of goods that would enhance our economy it soon became "Operation In-prison Iraqi Freedom". Once we had replace there government head with one of our one the USSA troops had full permission to go anywhere. We destroyed Iraq's economy by destroying there poppy plantations and crops with fire. Then our troops went house to house searching for "Al-Queda terrorists" that most of the time weren't even there it was just a show of force. It is just sickening to think about everything that has been done over the years for "freedom".

I also agree with CMM about the whole religious thing. I guess it was a way for me to show that I was a Christian, and I wanted everyone to know it and how strong my opinion is.
"they make you complicate in their theft schemes. For the property they took from you, immediately went to someone else, thus in order for you to "get yours", further theft and aggression has to be committed against others without their consent."

I've long said that. It makes some peoples heads spin.

This is a very complicated subject and I've come to the conclusion, its much like abortion, immigration, and voting in abolitionist circles. There are merits to both sides of the arguments.
General Discussion / Re: May a Libertarian Accept Money From the State?
« Last post by Cumberland minuteman on August 26, 2015, 12:53:04 am »
My 2 cents:

ALL govt "benefits" derive from the property of other people that was stolen from them under the threat or actual application of violence. Therefore any "benefit" comes as the result of prior initiation of aggression of another. You cannot achieve moral ends with immoral means.

Now, one can argue that, X amount of money was stolen from me and now I want all or a percentage of that back in "benefits". Here is where they get you. they make you complicate in their theft schemes. For the property they took from you, immediately went to someone else, thus in order for you to "get yours", further theft and aggression has to be committed against others without their consent. The very same act that you initially and rightfully objected to while it was being perpetuated on yourself, you are now advocating being perpetuated on others, or at least trying to justify.

You could make argument that most of the people remained apathetic or even actively participated through the act of voting and thus deserve what they get. This line points out one's own moral cowardice in tolerating our system and ignores the injustice done to those who don't "vote".

Dig this a little deeper.

I can very easily argue that the State has aggressed and continues to aggress upon all of us. The State itself is the initiator of aggression and thus any means of defense, such as bankrupting it with its own system, and thus bankrupting the State would be a reasonable response to the State and not a violation of the NAP. However, this line of thought still ignores those innocents that do not willingly participate in the scheme of theft and graft. This brings up the notion of the moral correctness of "collateral damage". The very euphemism collateral damage is used to try and legitimize a clear violation of the NAP.

Tactically, starving the State is probably the most effective tactic. (Honestly, no one can bankrupt the State faster than the State itself).

Pragmatically, what I or any score of us can do towards bankrupting the machine by ourselves is akin to pissing in the ocean hoping to raise the tide.

Moralistically, my compass tells me to evade and not to become complicit by actively participating. It's the only conclusion I can come to if I apply the NAP consistently.
General Discussion / Re: Churches & the US flag
« Last post by Cumberland minuteman on August 26, 2015, 12:18:40 am »
Two things:

First, flags are silly, and this comes from one who used to and still does collect flags. I buy a flag from every country I have visited and hang them in my garage, along with historic flags associated with "American" history.

It is how riled people get about a literal piece of dyed cloth, that makes them so disagreeable to me. People feel inclined or justified to kill other human beings that they have never met based upon the colored design imprinted (or sewn) onto a piece of textile cloth. I find this offensive and dangerous. Sure some flags may portray ideals that you may also identify with and you may even feel the need to openly advertise your association with that ideal (i.e. Gadsden Flag). Most wouldn't openly fly the Nazi Swastika, because of the negative association with that flag based upon the actions of the regime that flew it.

I used to fly the Cumberland Minutemen Flag, because it displayed more of an ideal (Don't F with me or we are going to blows) I felt in need of advertising at the time. I agree that others may find that same symbol as equally offensive and dangerous, but they usually be the same persons getting the warning of the flag itself. Pragmatically that just puts you squarely on the radar which only has negative side effects if you are worried about future aggressions. This is how I view the Black Flag.

When one flies the US Flag, I wonder what it is that they are attempting to self identify with? That is why I usually hoist the "Betsy Ross" Flag on the 4th of July, if I ever fly anything resembling the Stars and Stripes. I philosophically support the ideals and for the most part the actions of those who created and flew that symbol. I cannot, however, say the same for the colors that adorn our tax houses. But then again, I doubt that 85% of those who fly flags put that much mental effort into the action. "Muricka, Love her or leave her", is the cognitive depth of most I reckon. It is worth of note, I think, to mention that I fly the Betty Ross Flag upside down in my garage. It gets the most inquiry of all my flags.

Most (not all) flags are but symbols of a State, and I think the idea of The State is a silly man made notion about something that doesn't really exist. I think its silly to construct or willing submit to a system beholden to rule over me, whether that be organized religion of Deitys or the religion of the State matters not, both are equally silly. I no longer can envision flying the "mark" of my ruler. No longer will I place the mark of my master on the bumper of my car or my Yeti. Imagine for one moment that you are a slave in Georgia in 1850. Would you voluntarily fly the "brand" of your master over your shack? The same brand that has been laid into your back. Would you adorn your other worldly possessions with his brand? Would you sing songs in his honor before you played your games? "God bless Massa Jones' home sweet home"

The Nazi's were masters at using symbolism to rile the masses, and they understood the effectiveness of glorification of the State and the danger of combining the 2 with large numbers of people. I watch films from the Nazi era, the Fascist Italian era, the Red menace in places like the USSR and China, and I can't help but see the blatant use of symbolism to control others. The blatant indoctrination and propagandizing. It's so obvious. Once I applied that same "outside looking in" application to what goes on here in the States, I easily dropped the nonsensical ideal that the same wasn't also occurring to us. So why voluntarily play their game and use their methods of controlling you, on yourself and others? I don't see the State as my friend nor my servant, but my master or at least one claiming to be so. Beyond camouflage, flying the flag of a State is completely nonsensical to a free man

Second and unrelated to flags, but towards the previous developing Christianity vs Atheism argument, is how the "how we got here" is such a hinge-pin in the debate.

All major religions throughout time have attempted to give man answer to three main questions; How did I/we get here? (Creation story) Why am I here? (My conduct and actions in the mortal coil) And Where am I going? (Man's fear of his own mortality).

So how did we get here? A God? A watchmaker creating watchmaker ( a watchmaker creator creator?) A radical expansion and contraction in the vastness of space? I don't know. But more importantly; Who gives a shit? What difference does it make on anything that happens today or tomorrow? Even if one aspires to believe in creation or evolution meanings nothing at the end of the day, because either way, you are just guessing as both are non-provable. Seems like a waste of time arguing what neither side can prove, let alone be a hinge pin part of the argument. Arguing either point, to me, seems to fit the definition of mental masterbation.
General Discussion / Re: Hopeful
« Last post by jamie on August 25, 2015, 02:33:08 pm »
A Nuts/McCubbins ticket is mighty attractive but I think I'll stick with Vermin Supreme.  Just can't beat that free pony.
General Discussion / Re: Churches & the US flag
« Last post by Chris on August 25, 2015, 08:57:25 am »
The boy's got some fire in his belly!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10