This is bullcrap. It's the same as saying Ron Paul shouldn't make earmarks for his county, because he's against them. It's his fucking job to do it.

Likewise it's Rand's job to stay alive as long as possible. She may have been against social security or medical aid, but she still payed her taxes and should still receive the benefits - as should anyone, in spite of whether they think it is right or not.

And I haven't even read any of her books or whatever so I'm not "just a Randian bitching".

@gwiz665 that's the thing though, if you think taxation is theft, doesn't it kinda undercut that if you then say "I demand you give me the services my taxes paid for"?

Someone broke into my car and stole my stereo when I was in college, can I ask him to foot my medical bills now, or is perhaps theft and taxation actually different in some way?

Rand may have said that, but it's really not outright theft. It's redistribution of wealth. You take money from everyone and give it back in alloted sizes.

You are forced to pay them, this lack of choice is what makes people call it theft - "They take my money by force". But we do get something back, such as aid, social security etc. etc.

Ayn Rand may have thought it was theft, but she still payed the piper and since she did, she could not afford to pay for her cancer treatment herself, so the piper gave back as he should. Had she not been coerced to pay the tax, I very much doubt she would have taken money back. Or at least morally, she would certainly not be clear to do so.

An outright thief stealing your car stereo is doing something different than the IRS, because the IRS is legal, this means that taxation essentially is a contract that you are forced into and that they are bound to.

Bleh, this is far more effort than I wanted to put into it. My point is that I don't think it's hypocritical to accept goods from the government even if you are against big government. It's just stupid to not accept the good for your payment.

Selfishness != Virtue

Government health care was in her rational self interest when she was sick. It was not in her self interest when she was well. If selfishness is a virtue, there is no contradiction here. It's not smart, but it is consistent.

Gwiz, I've never seen someone miss the point this much.

Then pray tell, @Ryjkyj, what is the point?

i dont think anyone is arguing that she is not entitled to the help. simply pointing out the hideous hypocrisy in her zealous world view.

she spent her lifetime preaching that societies are not responsible for taking care of their most vulnerable members, and when she too became one of the vulnerable she did not have a change of heart, world view, perspective... she took the money under an assumed name and continued carrying the torch for objectvism and a culture of self-interest. that's cowardice and hypocrisy at its worst.

and her writings have become the anthems for a movement of self interested white people. people who say things like .....
"my grandmother was on food stamps, but she deserved it, there's just too many people getting food stamps who just don't deserve them"
... without even a thought about the implications of that statement.. that there are people who don't deserve to eat. and that someone should decide who they are and systematically weed them out.

what ayn rand was saying is that there are people who don't deserve to live, but that she is not one of them.

fuck any rand.

As long as the system is what it is, then people get the costs and the benefits of the system. Even if they think the cost is thievery and the benefit is immoral. When both the cost and the benefit is eliminated it me (or may not) be a better system and what someone like Rand would have preferred.

It is arguably weaker to pay the cost and refuse the benefit out of some weird sense of pride. She should have taken it under her own name, and loudly exclaimed "I'm taking back what is mine until they no longer take it from me". Accepting it under a different name is underhanded and misleading.

@gwiz665 I think maybe part of your confusion is coming from not having appreciated just how absolute Rand was about this stuff.

Most right-wing people, even libertarian ones, shy away from saying that if the poor can't earn enough to keep from starving, then they should rightfully starve to death, and leave us a better society. Rand didn't.

Rand was against the idea of charity, and in at least one case spoke of how she dreamed of a society that didn't have a word for "give" because the very idea of non-reciprocal exchange is a step towards the tyranny of altruism and collectivism.

At the very least, she should've been offering to close any potential gap between what she'd paid in taxes, and the cost of her treatment.

>> ^NetRunner:

@gwiz665 that's the thing though, if you think taxation is theft, doesn't it kinda undercut that if you then say "I demand you give me the services my taxes paid for"?
Someone broke into my car and stole my stereo when I was in college, can I ask him to foot my medical bills now, or is perhaps theft and taxation actually different in some way?


If you pay for these services, then you have a right to them. Are you implying I should suck it up and not call the fire department if my house catches fire because I think taxation is theft? Even though the money has already been stolen from me to fund that service? Lunacy.

Let me tweak your analogy a bit. Verizon steals $150.00 a month from you and in return offers you cell service. Would the correct option be to buy a plan with AT&T because you oppose Verizon stealing from you?

What did Ayn say about other people accepting welfare/government assistance? Did she make any distinction between who deserved it and who did not?

It's perfectly rational for someone to oppose the existence of a system they benefit from, but I think any hypocrisy would come from their views on the other beneficiaries of such a system.

it's not whether or not she had a right to them. she absolutely did. and railing against the system your whole life and then taking advantage of one of it's arms can be pretty punk rock. but hiding behind a legal firm and an assumed name is not punk rock, it's cowardice. it's not taking what is owed to you, it's cowardice and hypocrisy. spawning movements for self interest and articulating the abandonment of moral ideals like charity and compassion in writing is one thing. then later becoming someone in need of compassion and charity and hiding it, is ted haggard levels of hypocrisy. when you should have at least a mild epiphany and instead only continuing your pathological defense of selfishness. she wasn't a private citizen who's ideological beliefs happened to contradict what she had to do to survive. she was a public figure, the voice of objectivism, a philosophy that will span generations, the author of an ideological movement.

your cell phone analogy is non sequitur.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
@gwiz665 that's the thing though, if you think taxation is theft, doesn't it kinda undercut that if you then say "I demand you give me the services my taxes paid for"?
Someone broke into my car and stole my stereo when I was in college, can I ask him to foot my medical bills now, or is perhaps theft and taxation actually different in some way?

If you pay for these services, then you have a right to them. Are you implying I should suck it up and not call the fire department if my house catches fire because I think taxation is theft? Even though the money has already been stolen from me to fund that service? Lunacy.
Let me tweak your analogy a bit. Verizon steals $150.00 a month from you and in return offers you cell service. Would the correct option be to buy a plan with AT&T because you oppose Verizon stealing from you?

further more, i think this post is less about a post-humus kick in the pants for ayn rand and more a message for the disciples of objectivism.... nothing is absolute, absolutely. we all need a little help sometimes, even ayn rand.

having said that, i would not at all be surprised to find out that emma goldmann spent a portion of her time on the planet directly supporting capitalism and oppression. she's still a bad ass lady.

So the point is NOT that Ayn Rand rejected social safety nets and in her dying years she used the services she paid for. The point is that she lied about it and tried to cover it up? Fair enough. I don't know enough about her later years to speak one way or another about that.

meh, close.. but you're missing the symbolism. >> ^blankfist:

So the point is NOT that Ayn Rand rejected social safety nets and in her dying years she used the services she paid for. The point is that she lied about it and tried to cover it up? Fair enough. I don't know enough about her later years to speak one way or another about that.

It's a parable. Ayn Rand rails against altruism and community her entire life. When faced with terminal illness beyond the ability of her own individuality to remedy, the community comes to her aid, without fanfare or prejudice. Altruism and collectivism saved her life. This would make a great Dr. Seuss book.

>> ^blankfist:

If you pay for these services, then you have a right to them. Are you implying I should suck it up and not call the fire department if my house catches fire because I think taxation is theft? Even though the money has already been stolen from me to fund that service? Lunacy.

Again, the problem here is that it undercuts the whole idea that it's theft. The guy who stole my car stereo actually stole from me. He took something that was mine, and never compensated me for it.

If there was actually a sign in front of the parking lot that said "We will take the car stereo out of cars parked here, but in return we'll pay your medical bills", and I parked there anyway, are they really stealing from me?

If I accuse him of stealing from me for years, and then when I get sick I come to him and say "hey, you agreed to pay my medical bills in return for that stereo I paid you", doesn't it mean I was wrong to call him a thief in the first place?

My answer to you is that if being forced to buy Verizon cell service for $150 is a condition of renting an apartment, working a job, or living in a particular country, and you don't want to enter into the agreement, don't rent the apartment, accept the job, or stay in the country. That's your right.

To insist that you have the right to rent the apartment, accept the job, or live in the country, and not live up to the rest of the obligations that go with the offer...well, some might call that stealing.

@NetRunner. So essentially, if I take issue with any part of our current system of government, I've got to either put up with it or move out of the country? I'm gonna start calling this 'like it or leave it' nationalism bullshit the NetRunner fallacy.

She hid her hypocrisy with an assumed name. I feel thats the truly disingenuous part about it... that she recognized her hypocrisy but wasn't willing to confront it.

... then again she was fighting lung cancer at the time, so hard to blame her.

How are taxes theft any more than rent for a place one chooses to live?

You don't have to like taxes, but that doesn't make it stealing.
>> ^blankfist:

...because I think taxation is theft

>> ^Psychologic:

How are taxes theft any more than rent for a place one chooses to live?
You don't have to like taxes, but that doesn't make it stealing.
>> ^blankfist:
...because I think taxation is theft


1. Renting an apartment is a voluntary act. Sure, we all "need" a home, but the act of renting is voluntary, because just as we all "need" to eat, the act of purchasing food at a restaurant or grocery store is a voluntary interaction.

2. You're not forced to rent an apartment at the barrel of a gun. But you are forced to pay taxes under threat of violence.

3. There's also millions and millions of homes or apartments to buy or rent at competitive prices. And the prices are negotiable and varied. Taxes on the other hand are forced upon you, and you cannot "negotiate" with the taxman.

4. Moving to a different neighborhood and moving out of the country I was born in are NOT comparable in ANY analogy. That's an absurd notion.

[edit] Also not saying you were making that comparison. I want to be preemptive.

^blankfist:
1. Renting an apartment is a voluntary act.

So is choosing a country of residence.

2. You're not forced to rent an apartment at the barrel of a gun.

You're not forced to live in the US at the barrel of a gun.

3. There's also millions and millions of homes or apartments to buy or rent at competitive prices. And the prices are negotiable and varied.

There are plenty of countries to choose from. Multiple have no taxes (or government for that matter).

4. Moving to a different neighborhood and moving out of the country I was born in are NOT comparable in ANY analogy. That's an absurd notion.

Lots of people have no problem moving to another country regardless of where they were born. Changing citizenship requires more paperwork and more moving expense, but you are certainly free to do so. No one is pointing a gun at you saying you have to stay (though a landlord might end up pointing a gun at you if you refuse to pay).

If I don't like my rent, I move. If I don't like my taxes, I move. How is that absurd? I know there are taxes in the country I choose to reside within... that is not theft.

@Psychologic, it's absurd because it's not a good comparison. If rent is too expensive, it requires a move to a new building. The person who owns the building doesn't lay some dominion over my person. If taxes are too expensive, it requires a change of citizenship. The people collecting taxes claim to have dominion over my person.

If you can't see why comparing those two is absurd, I simply don't know what we can accomplish.

I voluntarily signed a lease so that contract and the rules in which I chose to be bound is voluntary. I didn't sign a "social contract" so that contract is compulsory. We don't choose where we're born. We all have a mother country. You act as if it's as easy to change citizenship as it is to switch apartments. There's more to switching citizenship than just the cost of the move.

Furthermore what gives a group of people the right to lay dominion on another person without his or her consent regardless of geographical location? How is being born naturally bind any person to the arbitrary dictates of other people? This is the inherent problem I have with statism. I understand that we live in a world where government is common. We used to live in a world where slavery was common. To me it's about evolving to a voluntary society - a free society - where the need for government may be a thing of the past. Who knows? I'm sure the idea of a free society in the time of monarchs appeared utopian and farfetched.

It's interesting to note that in response to the elitist, authoritarian communist ideology in which she suffered under, Ayn Rand proceded to create her own elitist, authoritarian capitalist ideology, much like the abused child that grows up to be an abusive parent. Maybe instead of focusing on economics, she should have focused on elitism and authoritarianism.

^blankfist:
it's absurd because it's not a good comparison. [...] You act as if it's as easy to change citizenship as it is to switch apartments. There's more to switching citizenship than just the cost of the move.

So changing countries is inconvenient... it's still your choice. If you choose a different country knowing they have taxes then that isn't theft either. You know there are taxes here yet you agree to stay... so do I. You can opt out of them if you want, but that option doesn't include staying here for free.

I have no problem with you wanting a better society with no taxation or government or whatever, I'm just saying that you are misapplying the term "theft".

So blankie, a hypothetical.

In an alternate volunteerist universe, you own a farm in Nebraska. Because of some nearby drilling for natural gas, your well water becomes completely contaminated and unusable. You raise your concerns with the owner of the drilling company, P. Toone Bickins, but he tells you 'tough, I'm drilling on my own land and minding my own business'.

Upon going to town you discover that P. Toone Bickins has also bought up the water supply for a 200 mile radius and all of the land surrounding the town, including all of the roads. The voluntary fee for water is $4.39 a gallon. The voluntary toll for the roads is $40 for residents, $300 for non-residents. All competing water suppliers stop servicing the town because the tolls are too expensive. P. Toone tells you that if you are unhappy, that he will generously buy your property from you at half the price you paid for it.

Some of your neighbors have sold their farms to Bickins. Some are staying put and talking about armed rebellion, but there are concerns about Bickins' large, highly trained, highly armed security squad. You contact your local minarchist magistrate, Pon Raul, to see if any legal action can be taken, but he lectures you for an hour about the evils of regulation, and how wrong it would be to coerce P. Toone Bickins into doing something he against his will.

You need water for your family, crops and farm animals, but with these new expenses, you are not sure you will have enough income to pay the bills.

What do you do?

I've seen the same situation many times. The KKK member who has a handicapped child. The TeaBagger farmer who just lost his house in a flood. The hard working construction worker who hurts his back. The corporate exec who's child's brain tumor isn't covered by the insurance plan. The parent whose child joins the military and gets killed or injured (eg. Pat Tillman, Casey Sheehan). Sadly the human animal just doesn't get it until it happens to themselves.

It's like this little girl. When we see a video of her we all smile and think how cute she is, but do you know how many kids just like her have been killed in Iraq in the last 20 years. THOUSANDS! An for the most part no one gives a shit. Cause it didn't effect them and they can't empathize. Makes me pissed and sad.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So blankie, a hypothetical.
In an alternate volunteerist universe, you own a farm in Nebraska. Because of some nearby drilling for natural gas, your well water becomes completely contaminated and unusable. You raise your concerns with the owner of the drilling company, P. Toone Bickins, but he tells you 'tough, I'm drilling on my own land and minding my own business'.
Upon going to town you discover that P. Toone Bickins has also bought up the water supply for a 200 mile radius and all of the land surrounding the town, including all of the roads. The voluntary fee for water is $4.39 a gallon. The voluntary toll for the roads is $40 for residents, $300 for non-residents. All competing water suppliers stop servicing the town because the tolls are too expensive. P. Toone tells you that if you are unhappy, that he will generously buy your property from you at half the price you paid for it.
Some of your neighbors have sold their farms to Bickins. Some are staying put and talking about armed rebellion, but there are concerns about Bickins' large, highly trained, highly armed security squad. You contact your local minarchist magistrate, Pon Raul, to see if any legal action can be taken, but he lectures you for an hour about the evils of regulation, and how wrong it would be to coerce P. Toone Bickins into doing something he against his will.
You need water for your family, crops and farm animals, but with these new expenses, you are not sure you will have enough income to pay the bills.
What do you do?


That scenario is needlessly specific and extreme. Every argument a statist makes against a voluntary society seems to be some extreme work of fiction involving a rogue and crazy Bill Gates doing terrible things to a defenseless group of people.

The answer to your question, I don't know what I'd do. Who could plan for that? You want a system that guarantees something that's unlikely, and that's looking at it the wrong way. There's also no known protections against an alien invasion.

Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

I'd hardly call an armed society a power vacuum. That aside, the current statist regime has done nothing to the quell corporate hegemony increases in the past 100 years. Government is complicit in the growth of corporations, so why try to give it more legitimacy and power? That I cannot understand about your position.

>> ^blankfist:

@Psychologic, it's absurd because it's not a good comparison. If rent is too expensive, it requires a move to a new building. The person who owns the building doesn't lay some dominion over my person. If taxes are too expensive, it requires a change of citizenship. The people collecting taxes claim to have dominion over my person.

Depending on your peculiar definition for "dominion over my person", they certainly do. They're allowed to enforce quiet times, and restrict visitation, and general comings and goings (look at college dorms for an example).

Also, there was a time when the building owners laid total dominion over the person of their renters. The polite term was indentured servitude. Indentured servants were people who sold themselves into slavery by signing an agreement.

When we went and did that massive act of government theft known colloquially as "freeing the slaves", we made those sorts of arrangements illegal, even when voluntary. Without a state, such things would return again.
>> ^blankfist:

I voluntarily signed a lease so that contract and the rules in which I chose to be bound is voluntary. I didn't sign a "social contract" so that contract is compulsory. We don't choose where we're born. We all have a mother country.

Suppose some lady is renting a room from mintbbb and I, and she gives birth to a child while staying with us. We had an agreement with the lady about the rules of the house, and how we settle the bill when it comes to food and other living expenses. Do I need the kid's consent before I can enforce the same rules on the kid? Do I need the kid's consent before I ask him to contribute something to the operation of the house, even if he's 18?

If he doesn't like the rules & obligations that go with living in my house, is it fair for me to tell him he's free to live elsewhere then?

Am I obligated to let him stay, do whatever he pleases, and not contribute, simply because he never "signed" anything?
>> ^blankfist:
There's more to switching citizenship than just the cost of the move.
Right, but why is that? Have you actually looked at the process that an immigrant has to go through to become a US citizen? Have you actually heard the oath they have to swear, to be permitted to be a citizen?

What legal status do you think non-citizens should have within US borders? Immunity from prosecution for all crimes? No obligation to pay taxes?

@NetRunner, I'm at home sick and feeling like mud, so I'll make this quick and painless. In terms of dominion, you say apartments can lay "dominion" by enforcing quiet hours, restricted visitation, etc. Again, through a voluntary contract. You're missing the point it seems.

In regards to renting a home to a lady who haves a kid, you asked if you'd need to sign a contract with the kid. No. It's a well-known fact among us humans that we procreate, so unless there was a "No Children" clause, it's expected like breathing oxygen and taking a shit. She's the guardian of that child, her name is on the lease, she's responsible.

In regards to the immigrants being immune from crimes, that's absurd. Also, I'm confused by what you're asking. Are you saying in a voluntary society? Or in the current US? It's starting to sound like you're thinking voluntaryism is a world without rules. Not true. Rules are very important, we just wish people would institute them among themselves as opposed to some monolithic political body.

An anarchy is a power vacuum by definition. That 'armed society' stuff is fantasy from people who've seen 'Red Dawn' a few too many times. Unless Michael Bay is writing the script, an anarchist with a shotgun would stand no chance against a gang or private mercinary squad.

The state currently prevents corporations from murdering you and stealing your shit. The state gives you legal recourse if corporations cause harm. The state allows you the power to change the government. You seem to take all this for granted, like it's some kind of natural order, rather than the result of thousands of years of progress.

The human race started in anarchy, and it was ugly and violent. Over the course of history we've slowly moved forward, to the point where some take it for granted. I'm not interested in reverting the human race back to primate status.

>> ^blankfist:

I'd hardly call an armed society a power vacuum. That aside, the current statist regime has done nothing to the quell corporate hegemony increases in the past 100 years. Government is complicit in the growth of corporations, so why try to give it more legitimacy and power? That I cannot understand about your position.

@blankfist, since you're sick, I'll try to make my point directly. My overall argument is that you're already living in a "voluntaryist" society, and just don't like the implications of the contract you've agreed to. What I'm saying here isn't how I see the world, but how I think you should be looking at the world based on your own principles. I am, indirectly, trying to show you that your own principles bear reexamining, or at least the conclusions you're currently drawing from them.

Now, back to making my argument:

You don't need to sign things to give consent. In your last comment you agreed that there can even be unwritten implications inherent in all agreements that must be considered binding (i.e. that a rental agreement with the mother would naturally allow her permission to add a child). Now the only missing piece is that I think there's an open question about the kid's options are if the mother dies or merely decides to move out, and the kid wants to stay in my house. For the sake of argument, let's say he's an adult when this happens.

I say that since it's still my house, the son is still obligated to follow the house rules, and obligated to contribute the way his mom was. I decide that since he was born here, it's only fair that I consider him a signatory to the agreement mom signed, and entitled to the full range of rights and duties contained therein. If he decides he can't abide by that agreement, then he should know he can't live in the house anymore, since he only gets the right to live there via that agreement.

More broadly speaking though, if I allow guests into my home, they implicitly agree to abide by my rules in the house. If they don't want to follow those rules, I'm within my rights to ask them to leave. If they don't, I'm within my rights to use force to remove them.

This is entirely the situation with the US (or any other nation, for that matter). The government of the country holds allodial title to the land within its borders. What citizens buy when they buy title to land is fee simple -- it's ours, but not in the sense that it becomes sovereign territory exempt from all US law.

In other words, I think if you want to be assiduous about property rights being the sole determinant of authority, you are essentially making the argument that the government has a legitimate authority to levy taxes and enforce laws. Taxation isn't theft, refusal to pay taxes is theft. Violence against police who enforce laws you disagree with isn't self-defense, it's a breach of contract, and willful destruction of property (namely the bodies of the cops you injure).

Again, this is not how I see the world. I reject the notion that property imbues its owner with absolute authority, and I reject the notion that all contracts are inviolate.

But @NetRunner, you're comparing a two person agreement ( +1 for the baby) to an entire nation of people.

>> ^blankfist:
That scenario is needlessly specific and extreme. Every argument a statist makes against a voluntary society seems to be some extreme work of fiction involving a rogue and crazy Bill Gates doing terrible things to a defenseless group of people.
The answer to your question, I don't know what I'd do. Who could plan for that? You want a system that guarantees something that's unlikely, and that's looking at it the wrong way. There's also no known protections against an alien invasion.


How about this. I'm pretty sure my neighbor stole my bong. He denies it and refuses to let anyone on his property to check. How do I, as a reformed former-statist, rectify the situation without violating the rights of my neighbor?

That was such a great bong too. I've been hauling away some friends' old tires and trash for a small fee so I had a little extra money to spend. I don't have a place to store that stuff, but it's fairly easy to burn it on the far corner of my property. Sure the fumes are toxic, but that only affects the people downwind of me. Some of those people have complained, but do they really have any other options that don't involve shooting me?


These are, of course, not about the specific situations. People are often assholes that care more about what benefits them than what affects others, and I doubt removing government will change that. These kinds of situations come up fairly often, so how does your ideal citizen and/or government (or lack thereof) handle situations similar to these?

Note: I'm not trying to disprove your stance, I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

>> ^blankfist:

But @NetRunner, you're comparing a two person agreement ( +1 for the baby) to an entire nation of people.


So what? Are you telling me the rules about property and agreements change when there's lots of property and lots of people bound to the agreement?

Yes, @NetRunner, I'm saying there's a difference between imposing a contract on an entire group of people versus someone voluntarily signing a lease to live in an apartment.

@Psychologic, good example. I think the way the current civil case courts handle it are very effective. I'm not opposed to that personally. Let's change bong to XBox. If your neighbor stole your XBox the police couldn't search his home without a warrant, and I doubt they'd seek one. And if they did I doubt the judge would order one. But the whole idea of the courts is that it remains arbitrary, so that's a good system.

In a voluntary society all services are privatized, so courts are most likely replaced with DROs. Specifically look at "Enforceability of verdicts". It basically says that if your neighbor refuses to go to court, he'd be unable to use their services in the future. And who knows what other kinds of incentives people would invent.

Also, the responsibility of protecting property becomes that of the owner. I have bars on some of my windows. When I leave the house, I leave the lights on. I sometimes leave a radio on. Still, if you and your neighbors wanted added protection on your property, you could organize and create your own security, or you could hire a service to do that. Police are also privatized in a voluntary society. Your neighbor would then be putting a lot at risk to steal that bong. Was that a decent answer? I have a head cold so I'm not sure if what I'm writing is cogent or drivel.

>> ^blankfist:

Yes, @NetRunner, I'm saying there's a difference between imposing a contract on an entire group of people versus someone voluntarily signing a lease to live in an apartment.

One step forward, two steps back. If I have a guest in my house, am I within my rights to tell them they must obey my rules within the house or leave, even if they don't sign a lease?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Yes, @NetRunner, I'm saying there's a difference between imposing a contract on an entire group of people versus someone voluntarily signing a lease to live in an apartment.
One step forward, two steps back. If I have a guest in my house, am I within my rights to tell them they must obey my rules within the house or leave, even if they don't sign a lease?


Yes. If you own your property, then you set the rules. But you're trying to conflate property ownership on a small, individual-by-individual level (like leasing an apartment) with property ownership of a political body. That's what I'm trying to tell you is different.

A person is not a political body and vice versa. When the state sues someone it's really all of the people suing that person is it? It's fictitious on its face. So if you, NetRunner, the man, the person, the human being, asked someone in your house to leave, then you can do that without them signing a lease. But you cannot tell them to leave the next house over. And neither should a political body you think represents you.

Here, you've all asked me a number of questions, let me ask all of you one. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?

@blankfist maybe it's just a spot of illness, but you're writing drivel.

You seem to be saying that entities can't own property. In reality, entities own lots of property. In fact, I'd go so far as to say virtually all the property of any significant (over $1 billion) value is owned by a corporation or government.

That's not a commentary on whether I think that's the way things should be, merely an assessment of how things actually are.

But let's sidestep this issue by rewinding the clock a bit. Say we were subjects of the British monarchy in the 1700's, and the allodial title to the land we lived and worked on belonged to King George.

Does he really have a stronger claim to the power to levy taxes and enforce laws than our more diluted system of government, simply because all the property belongs to a single person?

Let me stop you right there. I knew if I said something about individuals owning property and a political body owning a property, you'd miss the obvious point and think groups of individuals (or cooperative) means the exact same thing as a political body. It does not, and you know this.

You're trying to conflate the US government as some group of individuals voluntarily entered into an agreement with each other. Ridiculous. It's a political body that exercises dominion over my life, my labor and my property without my consent. It's intellectually lazy to draw parallels between being born in an apartment and being born in a country of origin. The government doesn't lease me an apartment. The government didn't lease my mother an apartment. The like it or leave it attitude is borderline psychopathic when compared this way.

Now, answer my question. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?

>> ^blankfist:

Let me stop you right there. I knew if I said something about individuals owning property and a political body owning a property, you'd miss the obvious point and think groups of individuals (or cooperative) means the exact same thing as a political body. It does not, and you know this.

I haven't the faintest clue what point you're trying to make here.

My point is that whatever kind of entity the government is, be it a single person, a group of people operating within a framework laid down by a constitution, a giant brain-shaped computer, a collective of sentient insects, or a box of Christmas ornaments, the government holds the ultimate property rights to the land within its territory.

If you want to contest that, contest that.

You seem to think that if you invent a whole different nomenclature for government asserting its property rights, it somehow excuses you from having to take on my basic argument, which is really pretty simple: government owns the land, and property owners get to exercise the kinds of powers government exercises.

In case you're curious, this is part of the reason why I don't believe that property rights should command that kind of power.

>> ^blankfist:

Here, you've all asked me a number of questions, let me ask all of you one. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?


That's far too broad of a question for me to give a single answer. The best I can do from that wording is to say "depends on the situation and context". Have any specific examples?

[Genuine reply]

The state has the right to collect taxes, but I agree with you that tax evasion should not be punishable by death or physical violence. I don't think you have anything to worry about, because any politician who suggested the death penalty for tax evasion would probably be recalled immediately. >> ^blankfist:

Here, you've all asked me a number of questions, let me ask all of you one. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?

[Sarcastic reply]

Yes, I think our government's non-violent, non-lethal approach to tax evasion is wimpy. Death penalty to all tax evaders!>> ^blankfist:

Here, you've all asked me a number of questions, let me ask all of you one. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

[Genuine reply]
The state has the right to collect taxes, but I agree with you that tax evasion should not be punishable by death or physical violence. I don't think you have anything to worry about, because any politician who suggested the death penalty for tax evasion would probably be recalled immediately. >> ^blankfist:
Here, you've all asked me a number of questions, let me ask all of you one. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?



So, is that a no? Or a yes?

Goods and services offered under threat of violence or death. That would mean roads, schools, police, fire, military, continued wars in the middle east, the drug war, corporate subsidies, eminent domain, keeping gays from marrying, etc. You must fund these or else men with guns will show up at your home, they will kidnap you and throw you to a cage. And during this "tax extraction" process they may very well shoot you.

Do you agree with this? Do you think this is an acceptable and moral way to offer services and goods?

Yes to tax collection. No to violence. Yes to fines and jail time. No to torture and death.

@blankfist if you're waiting for me to answer your question before replying, here's my reply:

All goods and services are already being supplied under the the threat of violence or death, thanks to this concept of property.

If I need food to live, and I can't just take food from the local grocery. First, I have to pay off the person who's preventing me from taking it with his threats of violence or death.

I don't see why I should treat an extortionist wearing a grocery store uniform with any less contempt than an extortionist wearing a blue uniform with a badge on it.

I might come to accept these everyday implicit threats of violence, and invent justifications and euphemisms for these things to help me get through the day, but it's best to not lose sight of what's really going on when you go shopping.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Yes to tax collection. No to violence. Yes to fines and jail time. No to torture and death.


Yes to cognitive dissonance. No to reconciling jail and violence.

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist if you're waiting for me to answer your question before replying, here's my reply:
All goods and services are already being supplied under the the threat of violence or death, thanks to this concept of property.
If I need food to live, and I can't just take food from the local grocery. First, I have to pay off the person who's preventing me from taking it with his threats of violence or death.
I don't see why I should treat an extortionist wearing a grocery store uniform with any less contempt than an extortionist wearing a blue uniform with a badge on it.
I might come to accept these everyday implicit threats of violence, and invent justifications and euphemisms for these things to help me get through the day, but it's best to not lose sight of what's really going on when you go shopping.


Or you could grow and hunt your own food if purchasing it from a grocery store was too much of a bother. Then again, you'll probably need permits to use part of "your" land as a garden, and you'll need a license to hunt or fish.

You seem to be implying the people who've spent their time and effort (labor) to create that food somehow owe you that food because you're hungry. Is the charitable soup kitchen down the street not good enough for you?

A brief analysis of anarcho capitalist rhetoric:

Anarcho Capitalists oppose both democracy and taxes, which is a tough position to take, because democracy has vast, widespread support, and because taxes, though unpopular, are an accepted and commonplace part of modern civilization. In order for the anarcho capitalist to proceed, he needs to reframe the debate with emotional and fear inducing terminology. 'Democracy' is transformed into the scary sounding 'statism'. 'Taxation' is transformed into the scary sounding 'coercion under the threat of violence'. No one wants to argue in favor of violence, which forces smart sifters like psychologic to say things like "That's far too broad of a question for me to give a single answer." In my opinion, I'd score that response as 1 point to blankfist, just like I give myself 1 point every time an ancapper can't answer one of my questions. It really isn't that broad of a question, it's just framed in a way that is purposely designed to fuck you up.

Now let's break down the 'coercion under threat of violence' a bit more. You will not be shot for tax evasion. You might get fined, or in extreme circumstances jailtime, but you will not be shot. Not even Al Capone was shot for tax evasion. There is no threat of violence until you initiate it, by, say, pointing a gun at a police officer. Anarcho capitalists would sound pretty silly if they said 'We are coerced into not pointing guns at police officers under threat of violence' directly, but in essence, this is exactly what they are saying.

You've replaced death with jail. Kudos for the softening of your hyperbole. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Yes to tax collection. No to violence. Yes to fines and jail time. No to torture and death.

Yes to cognitive dissonance. No to reconciling jail and violence.

"(Ayn) Rand’s receipt of welfare benefits in no way diminishes her status as a champion of individual liberty. I quote from an interview with Rand for a 1966 issue of The Objectivist newsletter:

It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

Yes, Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits, and that’s okay.
by Bevan Sabo


MEANWHILE.......

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist

Blankie's upset because his idol was actually a giant liar.

The situation is simple. Rand railed against SS and other social safety-nets her entire life, but secretly used them herself. That's called hypocrisy. Couldn't be a finer example of it.

She knew she was lying. Just the same way that L Ron Hubbard didn't actually believe any of the crap he wrote. He was just banking on the millions of retards to buy his bullshit.

btw Blankie. Nice way to try to side-track the discussion. But Ayn Rand was a fucking hypocrite, the end.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You've replaced death with jail. Kudos for the softening of your hyperbole. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Yes to tax collection. No to violence. Yes to fines and jail time. No to torture and death.

Yes to cognitive dissonance. No to reconciling jail and violence.



You seem to think having a cop take you to jail means you won't be murdered in the process? My lying eyes: http://videosift.com/search?q=police+kill

>> ^volumptuous:

btw Blankie. Nice way to try to side-track the discussion. But Ayn Rand was a fucking hypocrite, the end.


Good conversation.

>> ^blankfist:

Or you could grow and hunt your own food if purchasing it from a grocery store was too much of a bother. Then again, you'll probably need permits to use part of "your" land as a garden, and you'll need a license to hunt or fish.

Actually, first I need land to hunt and farm on. But it's all "owned." So first, I need to accede to the demands of the landlord. That means I need to pay them license fees/rent/tribute, etc. or otherwise appeal to their capricious generosity. I can't skip that step because of the implied threats of violence surrounding the claims of "ownership".

>> ^blankfist:
You seem to be implying the people who've spent their time and effort (labor) to create that food somehow owe you that food because you're hungry.

Not really, I'm just pointing out that there's more food than I could ever possibly need in a grocery store, but thanks to threats of violence I can't just go in and eat what I need and move on, even if I'm starving.

Maybe you think said threats of violence are justified, but it doesn't change the fact that you're condoning the violence implicit in the very concept of talking about "offering goods and services".
>> ^blankfist:
Is the charitable soup kitchen down the street not good enough for you?


Let me turn that one back on you, are the tax-free, regulation-free areas of Somalia and Afghanistan not good enough for you? Is it just too inconvenient?

I think that you're making a voluntary choice. You believe the benefits of living in California and paying taxes is a better deal than living in Somalia without them, so you keep accepting the offer of Californian residency, with all its benefits and obligations.

You wish the lunch was free, or at least that the meal was less expensive because you don't think they should offer discounts to seniors, but that's not really a question of morality; it's a question of preference.

>> ^NetRunner:


Actually, first I need land to hunt and farm on. But it's all "owned." So first, I need to accede to the demands of the landlord. That means I need to pay them license fees/rent/tribute, etc. or otherwise appeal to their capricious generosity. I can't skip that step because of the implied threats of violence surrounding the claims of "ownership".


All land is owned but people buy land all the time. There's not some evil Bill Gates sitting on the land, laughing maniacally because he won't sell any of it. If you want to "rent" the land, then it's in the interest of the landlord to offer that land at a competitive price. Again, it's not a crazy Bill Gates charging a poor family a zillion dollars just because he can.

>> ^NetRunner:


Not really, I'm just pointing out that there's more food than I could ever possibly need in a grocery store, but thanks to threats of violence I can't just go in and eat what I need and move on, even if I'm starving.
Maybe you think said threats of violence are justified, but it doesn't change the fact that you're condoning the violence implicit in the very concept of talking about "offering goods and services".


What threats of violence? You mean if you "steal" the food from the grocer who in turn had to pay the shippers and the farmers? If you create a victim out of the grocer and steal his property, then of course he'd have the right to protect it. It seems like you're grasping at straws trying to paint self-defense and defense of property (that which is purchased by the profit of your own labor) as the same violence used by the state. It is not.

The state, in your scenario, is more like the person who claims he's in need of the food and must take his fair share from the grocer. This is in fact stealing. What's the difference? And this is the important part, so feel free to grab your pad and pen: One is offensive violence, and one is defensive violence. There's a big difference between a woman being attacked and using pepper spray versus, say, a group of white Mississippi cops spraying a bunch of "negro" protestors during a 1960s civil rights march.

>> ^NetRunner:


Let me turn that one back on you, are the tax-free, regulation-free areas of Somalia and Afghanistan not good enough for you? Is it just too inconvenient?
I think that you're making a voluntary choice. You believe the benefits of living in California and paying taxes is a better deal than living in Somalia without them, so you keep accepting the offer of Californian residency, with all its benefits and obligations.
You wish the lunch was free, or at least that the meal was less expensive because you don't think they should offer discounts to seniors, but that's not really a question of morality; it's a question of preference.


I don't think California is a "better deal". You're way off base. It's not a better deal. It's my fucking home. The US is my home. I was born here, I have as much right to live here as you do, and just because you want some political body to march into my house and steal my money doesn't mean I must "like it or leave it".

To me this really shows the paper thin faults in the statist argument. To you, you see no difference between moving out of an apartment and moving out of a country of origin. I'm in absolute awe.

Do you believe services and goods should be offered under the threat of violence or death? So far the statist answer to this has been as follows:

NetRunner: "Actually, first, let's talk about grocery stores."
DFT: "Yes to taxes. No to death."
Volumpy: "You're just trying to sidetrack the conversation."

Talk about dodging a goddamn question.

>> ^blankfist:

All land is owned but people buy land all the time. There's not some evil Bill Gates sitting on the land, laughing maniacally because he won't sell any of it. If you want to "rent" the land, then it's in the interest of the landlord to offer that land at a competitive price. Again, it's not a crazy Bill Gates charging a poor family a zillion dollars just because he can.

I think you're missing my point. My point is why should I give a shit what Bill Gates thinks? Why does he get to threaten me with violence unless I give him something, just so I can create my own food to sustain myself?

Because he or some government drew a line in the sand, put a gun in my face, and told me I can't?

>> ^blankfist:
What threats of violence? You mean if you "steal" the food from the grocer who in turn had to pay the shippers and the farmers?

Why did the grocer "have to" pay the shippers and farmers? Threats of violence if he didn't?

>> ^blankfist:
If you create a victim out of the grocer and steal his property, then of course he'd have the right to protect it. It seems like you're grasping at straws trying to paint self-defense and defense of property (that which is purchased by the profit of your own labor) as the same violence used by the state. It is not.

Like I said, you might think the violent threats are justified. That doesn't change that you're talking about threatening violence against someone whose only crime is violating the edict of some authority who said "don't eat this food, or I'll inflict violence on you".

All you're doing is saying you side with the violent authoritarian, because you think his authority is legitimate.

>> ^blankfist:
The state, in your scenario, is more like the person who claims he's in need of the food and must take his fair share from the grocer. This is in fact stealing. What's the difference?

Absolutely backwards. The grocer is the one who's saying he must take his "fair share" from the hungry man. If he doesn't get it, he'll use violence. That certainly deters our starving poor from trying to take food from grocery stores without paying the grocer's ransom.

I don't see the difference between what the state does and that, honestly.

>> ^blankfist:
And this is the important part, so feel free to grab your pad and pen: One is offensive violence, and one is defensive violence. There's a big difference between a woman being attacked and using pepper spray versus, say, a group of white Mississippi cops spraying a bunch of "negro" protestors during a 1960s civil rights march.

But those are examples of person-on-person violence. The hungry man who eats the grocer's food isn't being violent at all, yet he will have violence inflicted on him for defying the wishes of the grocer.

Not unlike the poor non-violent resident of California who will have electrodes strapped to his nuts for failing to pay his taxes.

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think California is a "better deal". You're way off base. It's not a better deal. It's my fucking home. The US is my home.

Okay, but it's also not a prison. If you wanted to leave, you could. Staying is a choice, and one you make absent any coercion.

The US is also not your property. The allodial title is held by the US government. Buying real estate in California does not grant you a tract of sovereign territory. You are still obligated to follow the laws of California, and the US, including the ones regarding taxes.

If you don't like the rules and obligations that come with living in the US, you don't have to live in the US, just like if you don't like your local grocer's rule of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" you can shop somewhere else.

In both cases, you can complain all you like, and try to persuade the property owners to change things to be more to your liking. But according to your own views on property, there is no issue of "rights" that would compel either property owner to accede to your desires.

However, if you just take what you think you're entitled to over the objections of the property owner, then you're committing the same crime you accused my hungry man of: stealing.

@NetRunner, I guess you and I will always have to agree to disagree. There's no reaching a common ground.

If someone uses their time and energy to grow food, then someone swoops in and takes that food, to me the person who takes it but didn't grow it is stealing it. To you, the man who grew it is stealing it. You're reasoning is beyond comprehension on this one, I'm afraid.

@blankfist so I answered your question...at length.

Do you understand my original point about government power deriving from ownership yet?

That concept should make complete sense to you, since I'm not asking you to look at the world differently.

@NetRunner. Do I understand government power deriving from ownership? Absolutely. They own the people's labor, their property, their lives. They own everything. If they want something, they wave the banner of "common good" and take it. No, I get that point in a very profound way.

But that's not what you're saying at all.

@blankfist it's not what I'm saying, it's what libertarians say.

Land owners don't even need to bother to wave a banner of "common good" if they want to charge a bazillion dollars for the privilege of living on their land, or enforce arbitrary restrictions on behavior while on their property, so long as they permit people to leave if they don't want to pay or play by the rules.

According to you guys, that's what liberty is; total authority over property, and the ability to set any conditions on your consent for others to do anything with said property.

Well, government is a giant land owner. Are you going to deprive it of its liberty? Its property? By what right?

Every time we call an anarcho-capitalist a libertarian, we defile the concept of liberty by suggesting that not only are anarcho-capitalists proprietors of liberty, but the sole proprietors of liberty. Capitalism and markets have nothing to do with liberty. It's great that anarcho-capitalists support social liberty, but until they also support economic liberty, we should call them what they are, anarcho-capitalists.

I've been told ^that^ comment makes no sense. Let me try again.

By calling himself a libertarian or liberty activist, blankfist creates an irrational mental environment of infallibility. He doesn't see his ideology as subjective reasoning, but rather the embodiment of liberty itself. Argue with blankfist, and in his mind you are arguing with liberty.

It doesn't matter that his subjective concept of liberty is geared towards a very small amount of wealthy business owners at the expense of the working class. It doesn't matter that when put into practice, his ideology produces results that are violent, oppresive and corrupt. Like the Christian soldier who fights as an agent of God, blankfist is a free market soldier that fights as an agent of a higher power called liberty. Right and wrong no longer mean anything when you are fighting for the divine.

With this mindset, Milton Friedman's 'shock therapy' in Chile that replaced a socialist democracy with a capitalist dictatorship and left tens of thousands dead becomes an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice to the gods of liberty. Whenever a newly deregulated market spawns oppression and theft, (S&L's,Enron,Mortgage Fraud) there are always plenty of scapegoats to pawn responsibility off onto, because the true God of market liberty self-regulates. With this mindset, there is no need for introspection, because liberty is perfect. Liberty is Love. Remember Ron Paul's Love-olution billboards? You aren't voting for a man, you are voting for the physical embodiment of love! How could anyone be anti-love?

Same goes for 'objectivism', especially when the concept is tied to 'individualism'. Individuals are incapable of objectivity. Ayn Rand titling her movement 'objectivism' is evidence that she is in no way objective. A 'collective' of people, with different life experiences and areas of expertise would ironically be more much more objective than an 'Objectivist' individual. It's like rain on your wedding day, or titling your subjective ideology 'objectivism'. Sorry Alanis, that lyric doesn't rhyme and is going to need some work.

I believe we reinforce this divinity complex when we use words such as libertarian or objectivist. We should either call them what they are, anarcho-capitalists, or develop our own divine self-definition.

Truthitarianism? Correctist? IMASMARTYURADUMY.com?

@dystopianfuturetoday, I vote we call it "propertarianism" from here on out.

Last!

@kronosposeidon oh yeah! Only because @blankfist decided to flake out and stop responding.

Incidentally, @dystopianfuturetoday, I ran across a post today from Brad DeLong about this whole Ayn Rand accepting help from Medicare business that I find, well, perfect: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/deriving-their-just-powers-from-the-consent-of-the-governed.html

^Your puppet is back to entertain you! Pull my strings and make me dance! Ask me questions and I'll have to answer!

Ayn Rand paid for medicare so she used it. I pay for the cops and courts, so guess where I go for conflict resolution? You guessed it, the cops and courts. It's a flimsy argument.

Last!

@blankfist I'm not sure why you're sticking up for Ayn Rand. I suspect it's because Ron Paul uses this same reasoning all the time.

Simplified Brad DeLong:

If your argument is that the government has the legitimate power to set its rules, but the rules it has set are less than optimal, you're not being hypocritical in following the suboptimal rules that are in place.

However, if your argument is that some higher moral absolute applies, and should be considered the guiding principles of all human behavior, regardless of whether your government's laws are congruent or not, then it stands to reason that you yourself will at least adhere to those principles, even when it wouldn't be in your own self-interest.

For example, if you think collecting taxes is actually a crime that is comparable to rape, then you shouldn't be collecting more money in Medicare payments than you paid into the system. To do so means you're requiring the government to rape people for your own personal gain. Collecting those benefits means that every penny of surplus you get leads to someone, somewhere, sometime being violently forced to pay that much more in taxes.

This also applies to getting earmarks for your district. To spend is to tax (so sayeth Milton Friedman), so if you bring home pork for your district, you're forcing other people somewhere to pay higher taxes to pay for your pork.

@NetRunner, to you winning a political debate is more important than honesty.

@blankfist wow, no real response, huh?

What on earth makes you think I've ever been dishonest, even once?