Libertarianism

[laklak]

It's true that I haven't had a drink in over two weeks. That could be why I can't sleep any more. Wanking rate is down too. It's too cold to expose my chopper.

Whiskey will help both problems. Induces sleep and warms John Thomas when poured on and set alight.

[JimC]

There's more reasons that that. The most obvious one I can think of is that one doesn't have a desire to be a selfish prick.

You only think that because you're a selfish prick who hires government thugs to do your dirty work for you.

Yeah, sure. The Queensland police would bash rEv on principle, after taking just one look at him...

[pErvinalia]

There's more reasons that that. The most obvious one I can think of is that one doesn't have a desire to be a selfish prick.

You only think that because you're a selfish prick who hires government thugs to do your dirty work for you.

Yes, social democrats who have compassion for people less fortunate than them are selfish. Good logic, that.

[Seth]

There's more reasons that that. The most obvious one I can think of is that one doesn't have a desire to be a selfish prick.

You only think that because you're a selfish prick who hires government thugs to do your dirty work for you.

Yes, social democrats who have compassion for people less fortunate than them are selfish. Good logic, that.

You are free to have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself, and you are free to donate everything you own to them and live a life of poverty and service to the poor if you like.

You are not free to force me or anyone else to do so.

It's not "compassion" that motivates "social democrats," it's Marxist envy, jealousy and greed. I see this in your posts when you rant and rave about "income inequality" and "evil corporations" without even a passing thought to how "evil corporations" make life better for everyone, including the poor.

You present the absolutely classic Marxist class-warfare rhetoric that has nothing to do with helping poor people other than yourself. If you believed your shit you wouldn't be sitting around whining on the internet from the safety of your rural enclave, you'd be wearing a hair-shirt and washing the feet of the poor in the slums of Calcutta.

But you aren't, you hypocritical ass.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, I'm a marxist! You've finally unearthed me, Sith! Damn you!

[JimC]

Yes, I'm a marxist! You've finally unearthed me, Sith! Damn you!

Serves you right, Groucho!

[piscator]

There's more reasons that that. The most obvious one I can think of is that one doesn't have a desire to be a selfish prick.

You only think that because you're a selfish prick who hires government thugs to do your dirty work for you.

Yes, social democrats who have compassion for people less fortunate than them are selfish. Good logic, that.

You are free to have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself, and you are free to donate everything you own to them and live a life of poverty and service to the poor if you like.

You are not free to force me or anyone else to do so.

In a Republic, he is in fact free to impose a tax to, say, promote some particular facet of the general welfare.
You are free to pay it and/or benefit from it if you fall under its purview, or gather enough of your peers and change it. Those are your legal options. To say it would be different under Libertarianism means you're talking about something other than a functioning Republic. Hayak was a big Pinochet fan, right?

[Seth]

There's more reasons that that. The most obvious one I can think of is that one doesn't have a desire to be a selfish prick.

You only think that because you're a selfish prick who hires government thugs to do your dirty work for you.

Yes, social democrats who have compassion for people less fortunate than them are selfish. Good logic, that.

You are free to have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself, and you are free to donate everything you own to them and live a life of poverty and service to the poor if you like.

You are not free to force me or anyone else to do so.

In a Republic, he is in fact free to impose a tax to, say, promote some particular facet of the general welfare.
You are free to pay it and/or benefit from it if you fall under its purview, or gather enough of your peers and change it. Those are your legal options. To say it would be different under Libertarianism means you're talking about something other than a functioning Republic. Hayak was a big Pinochet fan, right?

That one person, or society as a whole has the power to compel the payment of taxes does not make such actions either moral or ethical.

[MrJonno]

That one person, or society as a whole has the power to compel the payment of taxes does not make such actions either moral or ethical.

Actually that's the very definition of moral or ethical.

Society and via governments are the sole definition of what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Which of course means right and wrong does change with time but so what. All morality is relative

[pErvinalia]

Exactly.

Queue bollocks about "natural rights" from Seth..

[MrJonno]

Exactly.

Queue bollocks about "natural rights" from Seth..

Seth doesn't believe in natural rights he believes in Seth rights defined by Seth and Seth alone

I can come up with 'natural' rights that are the polar opposite of everything Seth believes in

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

[Seth]

That one person, or society as a whole has the power to compel the payment of taxes does not make such actions either moral or ethical.

Actually that's the very definition of moral or ethical.

Society and via governments are the sole definition of what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Which of course means right and wrong does change with time but so what. All morality is relative

The great philosophers of the world throughout history, of which you are not one, seem to disagree with you.

Using your definition, the Nazi Holocaust was both moral and ethical merely because the majority said it was at the time.

That one fact shows just how stupid your argument is. And it's why I'm not going to bother debating philosophy with an idiot.

[Hermit]

Using your definition, the Nazi Holocaust was both moral and ethical merely because the majority said it was at the time.

The majority, huh? Care to do a bit of fact checking?

[JimC]

That one person, or society as a whole has the power to compel the payment of taxes does not make such actions either moral or ethical.

Actually that's the very definition of moral or ethical.

Society and via governments are the sole definition of what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Which of course means right and wrong does change with time but so what. All morality is relative

That's pushing it, Jonno. It would be a very dangerous position to abrogate all rights and definitions of what is moral to governments; too many of them simply do not act in the true interests of their citizens, being either interested in power themselves, or far too beholden to those with wealth, power and privilege.

However, a democratically elected government certainly has a right to tax its citizens to provide government services. If it goes too far in either direction (under or over taxing), it may suffer an electoral backlash, which keeps some semblance of control by the people. Citizens can argue about how much tax is charged, and what it is spent on, but in the end, some compromise which is at least acceptable to the majority occurs, or the government loses its next election.