[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

residence in a country is not consent. I did not choose to reside in this country. That argument is flawed as frankly, just like the bullied playground child, there isn't a good escape. Have you looked at the cost of emigrating? I actually have and it is astronomical. It also is not easy.

Somehow, I doubt there is much enforcement of immigration laws in a country that is anarcho-capitalist. I can't imagine there is much enforcement of immigration statutes in Somalia. Hey, could be wrong, though.

Yes, you're trading one bully for another, but that's because we live in reality and not in LibertarianLand where things happen exactly the way we want them all the time. The libertarian dreamland is just that; a fantasy that doesnt exist anywhere. Meanwhile, you're benefiting from all the things gov't does provide (justice system that largely functions, regulatory statutes that mean the jar of baby food has food in it and not, say, shards of glass, public utilities, etc) and complaining about the cost of it all, then complaining when it doesn't go exactly your way. There's a name for this. It's called "adolescence."

The founders didn't "move" (well, actually, they did) because they were denied consent outright; no representation in Parliament, no representation in local assemblies. We have organs capable of giving adaquete (sp) consent on behalf of the governed. They didn't. Meanwhile, you continue to give consent by seeking the protection of the law when threatened, and utilizing public goods. If you really want to live off the grid, go to Mogadishu.

Originally Posted by redbaron

Like when we had crazy growth in the private sector after Clinton slashed the capital gains rate?

Except that it was fake; it was all built on paper and credit. It wasn't "growth" in the way that Friedman or Keynes used it. The growth that started in the '90s was nonexistent. The recession is a correction; it's where we should've been all along.

Frankly I think it's laughable to say how the government does a better job taking care of people than private charity, when you look at dollars actually spent on helping people versus collected by various agencies. Abysmal would be a great descriptor.

The historical evidence prior to the creation of the welfare state both in the UK and the US suggests overwhelmingly otherwise. Unless, of course, almshouses and debtors prisons are something other than "abysmal."

Given that the controls are so lax, and the system so abused, it's simply pathetic. Here you get a debit card for food stamps and they won't even bat an eye if you "lose" it once a month (aka sell it on craigslist so you can have cash for booze/smokes/pot).

And that can't happen on private charity because....?

But you know, there's nothing like creating class envy to demonize people who work hard and make too much money.

Ironic, then, that most of your post is creating reverse class envy to demonize people who don't work and don't make much money. I guess it's like when Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck talk about "media elites."

Right, because that $15k being squandered on bureaucratic red tape is a far more efficient grower of the economy than putting it into the economy directly. Whether the 15k gets invested back into the business, or gets spent on a pleasure item like a boat (clearly no jobs are necessary to produce boats now), there is a positive gain on the economy.

Right, because that $15k isn't spent on a bureaucrat's salary that goes to, say, pay for groceries or gas or rent or buy a car or pay a tuition or anything like that. Why is it that conservatives seem to think gov't workers work for free and their money is somehow different or not accepted by other businesses that require that money?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

If the government is taking money from you (through taxes) and is then using it to pay for social programs that others (excluding you) benefit from (such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc...) then they are redistributing your wealth to others.

Since when are you not benefiting from food stamps, medicaid, SSI, etc?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Since when are you not benefiting from food stamps, medicaid, SSI, etc?

Well...I wasn't referring to me...since I do receive minimal food stamps and my children do receive medicaid.

However...there was a time when those programs were absolutely useless to me. I did not qualify for them (due to my supposedly high income...which was around $28,000 a year before taxes at the time). Fortunately for me and my family...I lost my job and we were able to get them. Of course...now that I have a job ($24,000 a year before taxes) my benefits have gotten axed again because I (once again) make too much money.


And for the record...I despise receiving the stuff. It's a form of slavery. You become dependent upon it and when you honestly try to better your situation...they snatch it away from you when you arguably need it the most.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Somehow, I doubt there is much enforcement of immigration laws in a country that is anarcho-capitalist. I can't imagine there is much enforcement of immigration statutes in Somalia. Hey, could be wrong, though.

In other words, lets instead of moving to a place with more reasonable laws or make a positive change in our country, lets suggest they live in a regime that failed and where there is corrupt law that is not enforced because of warlords.

Isaac, I have seen the light...


...Grow up. Yes, I am telling you your argument here is immature and childish. A warzone is not the opposite of the chaotic, corrupt police state we live in. Both are chaotic and corrupt.

Yes, you're trading one bully for another, but that's because we live in reality and not in LibertarianLand where things happen exactly the way we want them all the time. The libertarian dreamland is just that; a fantasy that doesnt exist anywhere.

I know you are mocking this, but I actually want to live in a free country. (Which America is a mockery of at best.)

Meanwhile, you're benefiting from all the things gov't does provide (justice system that largely functions, regulatory statutes that mean the jar of baby food has food in it and not, say, shards of glass, public utilities, etc) and complaining about the cost of it all, then complaining when it doesn't go exactly your way. There's a name for this. It's called "adolescence."

Actually, I am complaining about unnecessary wars, asinine policies that keep our food source unhealthy and governmental oversite of everything, such as the bush era wiretap on the web. I complain about the death of freedom.

People mock what they have no argument against. My problemm Isaac that I have outlined is that we try to redistribute wealth through programs which are corrupt, farm subsidies to corn and soy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These I believe betray a bloated government that is a parasite.

BTW, food safety laws from the fed do nothing to protect me. My issues are the rubber glove transfer which burns me so frequently that I now grow a lot of my food or purchase it directly from those who grew it.

The founders didn't "move" (well, actually, they did) because they were denied consent outright; no representation in Parliament, no representation in local assemblies.

They killed people and overthrew the less corrupt government. And we have less representation now than they did. Career politicians and a two party system make sure of that. Aside from the fact that both political parties represent a political agenda only tied with the most gossamer threads to the people they claim to represent...

We have organs capable of giving adaquete (sp) consent on behalf of the governed. They didn't.

I disagree entirely. We do not have consent on behalf of the governed. Perhaps what you deem adequate, I view as near totalitarian, because it is.

Meanwhile, you continue to give consent by seeking the protection of the law when threatened, and utilizing public goods. If you really want to live off the grid, go to Mogadishu.

I utilize city utilities and I know how to set up a lifestyle off grid. Eventually I would like to just for my own benefit. You claim I seek protection of the law. Hate to break it to you, but were it not there, I'd be just as fine as I am now. Maybe better. I have called the police several times but out of fear of what the law would do to me if I defended myself. Thus, not as a service, but as a matter of how you have to function in a police state.

[meatfinger]

I also don't think the argument of implied consent is that old.

You're welcome to think that it's not as old as Socrates, but you're wrong. Read Plato's Socratic dialogues, Crito in particular. The idea is pretty clearly present, and we're talking 300s BC.

I don't have time to respond to the rest, but understand that I don't entirely disagree with you on most of those things. I was partly playing devil's advocate. I do, however, think it's an exaggeration and an oversimplification to label all taxation as theft. But again, I have some more important matters (like a new baby) to attend to presently.