ThomasTheIdealist

And Obama isn't governed. What's your point? The only premise I'm asserting is your ability to leave the nation. And that's simply a fact you deny merely because leaving the nation is difficult. As if difficulty or mortal risk implies inability.

I won't deny this could often be true, regardless of how vague I consider "the initiation of force" to be. However, I would say most land is owned by people whose property claim should be respected (i.e. they have not properly homesteaded it, or don't continue to homestead it). If someone throws a fence around 100 square acres, I consider their property claim to be aggressive. They're threatening people who use it without doing what I think they should to be just owners. I say this not to imply that I'm the sole individual who knows the proper definition and requirements for property, but rather that I am one of many individuals who have varying different positions on aggression and property that conflict with the sentiment that property owners today are non-aggressive. It becomes even worse then you talk about land in countries with more history of violent conquest like Europe. The bulk of land owners hardly got there by peaceful means. Good point. This is probably where the discussion should've gone from the beginning. While there are varying levels of wealth individual purchasing control, corporations purchasing oligopoly power, and governors gaining control of states (like a stand-in landlord, to be consistent with the comparison), I can agree that there's nothing really comparable to an individual to acquire land for themselves. The ability to acquire/homestead land for yourself would indeed make the situation much more voluntary than taxation. But the more barriers preventing people from doing this, the less voluntary it becomes. This is why I mention libertarian's failure to address the Lockean Proviso in their policies. It's clear to me that there needs to be an adjustment of accepted property norms/laws in order to make property more libertarian. Just like we would define the requirements for homesteading (the amount/type of labor required to call land yours), I see a need to require a continuous reaffirming of that ownership. The indefinite absentee ownership model makes sure the Lockean Proviso is not met, and it makes sure that there isn't readily available land for people, thereby unnecessarily compelling them to rent from people amassing capital. Keep in mind I don't really speak about voluntary/coercion in black/white terms. I consider everything to be varying levels of voluntary (or varying levels of involuntary if you see the cup as half empty). You're listing ways to manipulate and change the way you pay rents. There are likewise many ways to make life changes to change how your taxes are paid. Just like living with a roommate to halve your rent, you can work half as much as before and let your roommate pick up the other half. Then you've halved your income tax. And on the extreme scale of things, you can manipulate the political system to gain favor, either by becoming a politician or a corporate head. This is clearly not simple/easy, but my argument was never that avoiding taxes is as easy as avoid rents.

I would have. Are you implying that if a choice results in prison time that it's not a choice? You just took the discussion back a few steps, back to the "coercion makes choice illusory". I understand that difference, but how does that change whether something is voluntary or not? Why is it not considered involuntary when people make decisions while limited by natural forces? I agree, that's my point. The choice between one landlord and another is not voluntary. If possible, people should be able to choose not to rent (as assured by Lockean Proviso). Is that not the most voluntary of situations? Nope, it still has the same involuntary elements. You have the option to leave the nation and not patronize the state too, it's merely a bit more difficult to do than go across the street to McDonalds. There are more food options, but you still have to purchase food somewhere. Trying to obtain ownership of land, and the time to make your own, is comparable to leaving the nation. But as I asked before, and you neglected to answer (as with most of the questions): if there were simply more nations with more fluid borders, would taxation become voluntary? Because if not, you certainly cannot point to the various options in the market and pretend your choice is therefore voluntary.

The discussed devolved into terminology because my arguments weren't being addressed due to definition disagreements. It was said that choice is illusory in the face of this "reduction of options by initiating force," and I was wondering why the choice wasn't illusory in the face of options reduction from natural causes. My original argument is that you do have a choice, just limited to varying degrees. So to say you don't have the choice to not pay taxes isn't accurate.

Only persons can coerce you of their own volition, sure. But why does coercion make your choice illusory in the first place? Is it not merely because of the reducing of your options? And can't that reduction be done by non-persons?

Sounds like you're referring to a specific form of coercion, like a mortal threat (as opposed to "make me a sandwich or I won't have sex with you!" which is still a threat). If someone says "don't eat that fish or I'll kill you", then I'm being coerced but I usually don't like eating fish anyways and there are tons of options still. Of course, if he says "eat the fish or I'll kill you" then I agree my options don't get much more limited than that. However, if you're renting, you're under the threat of "pay your landlord or go to jail" just as much as you're under the threat of "pay your tax collector or go to jail". As I said a couple times already, the only difference I'm seeing is that there are more competing landlords than competing nations. So while you have more options in rents and employment, it's not voluntary for most people by any means. Landlordism is very much a microcosm of statism.

Why? Your options in life are limited all the time, sometimes much more than other times. Why is coercion the breaking point that makes the choice illusory? Is the fact that my biology limits my option to drink bleach for breakfast mean my choice for breakfast is illusory? If that biological threat doesn't invalidate my choice, why then does a human threat?

Gender roles have been socially enforced by everyone. The only reason people call it a "patriarchy" is because they consider the position of men historically to be favorable and therefore assume that it was the men manipulating things. However, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of men that wanted to be stay-at-home-dads, and definitely plenty who didn't want to fight in wars. There were many that wanted to be effeminate, be emotionally expressive, and so forth... but it was socially unacceptable. So they had to "man up" and do what ever man was expected to do for society and their families. This hardly seems like control, they're in the same boat as women with merely different expected gender roles. I admit that gender roles shouldn't be so restrictive, but it's hardly the fault of any specific sex.

And Locke also said that property claims should only be respected "where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others" which is something capitalist libertarians routinely ignore in favor of indefinite absentee ownership. Here's some problems with libertarian property foundations as discussed by David Friedman. What constitutes "use"? Do I own all land I tread on? Do I own everything I enclose in a fence? How long do I own something I make use of? Indefinitely? What's the scope of my ownership? Do I own the orchard because I trimmed a tree. These and more are all question people debate, on which they usually disagree. Therefore people have differing definition of just property claims and therefore have different definitions of aggression. The NAP doesn't resolve any of this, and I think that's the author's point. Marxists don't say "gee, we need to aggress again the capital owners to steal their stuff!" That's only relative to your definitions of property/aggression. They rather say something like "gee, we should defend ourselves from the aggressive capitalist system and reclaim the product our labor has homesteaded." Here's an elaboration on how the right-libertarian's definition of "aggression" isn't persuasive to their opposition: http://individualistwill.com/everything-is-aggression/

How do you define choice? It's clearly not how the rest of the world does. Choice n. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. And that's without even getting into the shaky definition of coercion.

No, it's not consensual, but it's something they choose under duress, yes. And I agree. But that statement is only relevant if you mean to imply that making a decision IS action, even if that decision is to not act. And that contradicts your earlier statement. So if I put a gun to your head and say "your money or your life" you don't have a choice to make? Of course you do. Human slaves had the choice to end their slavery, but their options were limited. Ending their slavery often costed their lives, but that's still a choice is it not? Not all choices are voluntary (most aren't). What is a choice to you if not these things? What's vague about it? I'll expound.

I never said inaction is action. Are YOU saying that inaction is not a choice? I fail to see how action could be considered a choice if inaction isn't. Mind you this is independent from the idea that the choice is voluntary, most choices aren't. Then you're not even reading what I'm saying. You likely have your fingers lodged in your ears too, pathetic. If you're going to bother replying to me, at least read first. Tell me where I said citizenship is voluntary. Here's what I said: "Your decision to stay and be subject to taxes is almost as voluntary as a tenant or “wage slave” deciding to stay at their job" This is to say that both aren't voluntary (and nearly equally so), though like I said, citizenship is less voluntary than being a tenant or wage laborer. Of course I have a criteria. Though notice how you don't even ask what it is and imply that I'm just repeating things. It's almost like you prefer to hold to your dogma than be faced with opposing perspective, which is why I initially compared this capitalist fetishism to religious folk. Something (e.g. rent and taxation) is categorically involuntary when it systematically limits your available options, compelling you to make a decision you wouldn't make in the absence of these external influences. I'm curious why you think rent isn't applicable here, or perhaps you use some other definition of "voluntary"?

I didn't choose to be born into my rental property and HOA. My parents did that (just like your ancestors "voluntarily" immigrated here. When I grew up I decided to move out. You have decided to stay (in the country), right? How in the world is that my theory? I'm saying that both landlordism and statism is aggression. Neither your rents nor your citizenship are voluntary. If anything, your scenario is more relevant to your own position: that it's somehow voluntary for a vagrant to be compelled to live on other people's land, working for others using rented tools belonging to others. Because somehow it's libertarian for people to amass capital over generations so they can exploit those born without and lend things to them for exorbitant amounts of labor.

Nice work. And nice Death Note reference. The topic aside, on a general note, I enjoy how videos such as yours provide visual stimulus. For me it actually helps keep my attention as opposed to just audio or a video of Larken Rose speaking lol, and it doesn't distract from the video's message. I find that my mind wanders without the additional stimulus of some kind, then I often stop mid-way to do something else.

Just the same as how people become/remain citizens "voluntarily", that was my point... besides the fact that there are more competing landlords and employers than competing nations, what's the significant difference? And taxation is aggression (though not theft), I'm not trying to conceal that. You don't know what it means yet you're sure you didn't say it? You said the state doesn't own the land. Meaning that you don't believe they own something of which they've made a property claim they have successfully defended. This is likely because you have some mystical criteria for what true property is, though I'm not sure. Of course not. If neither her nor any social body or legal organization aren't capable/willing to defend it, she has no property right. Whether it's her vagina or something else. Or... the fact that you can distinguish the two means you find one form of slavery acceptable. Even if Marxists were to agree that wage slavery is preferable to chattel slavery, it doesn't mean that they recognize any sort of self-ownership. I have no idea how you make the leap to this "objective" conclusion. It's almost like you don't understand that people disagree with the foundations of your arguments. Something isn't "stolen" if it's written in the enforced law that it's a justified property claim. It would be considered stolen only if you could convince everyone else and have your claim enforced/protected. Property ownership is a claim, something you're asserting. If you fail to assert it by being overpowered, then in what way are you an owner?

And the support for capitalism assumes legitimacy of the capital owners and the consent of the wage laborers. While this is perhaps more voluntary than the citizen/government relationship, it's still not very voluntary. This seems like natural rights mysticism to me. How can you say someone doesn't own something when they successfully defend their property right? And likewise in what way does someone own something which they fail to defend? Asserting that human slaves owned themselves did nothing to the fact that they were de facto property of other humans, it required defensive action to acquire their self-ownership. About as much as citizenship is chosen in advance. Your decision to stay and be subject to taxes is almost as voluntary as a tenant or “wage slave” deciding to stay at their job despite poor working conditions (or whatever they may dislike about that job). Certainly leaving a nation is harder than leaving a job, and there are many more competing employers than competing nations. But would this imply that if there were simply more nations with more fluid borders that taxation would become voluntary? No, just a bit more voluntary than it currently is. Libertarians and anarchists used to be against rents. See: Benjamin Tucker's Four Monopolies as well as all other early libertarians influenced by Proudhon and the likes. Only in recent decades have libertarians come to fetishize capitalism, likely due to American indoctrination, same reason people are so religious and patriotic.

Is there a point to this observation? I prefer people don't respond if they have nothing more than "Okay" or "Good for you". It's pointless spam. You're right, what I said is misleading. Regardless, the point still stand that plenty of stupid rich people multiply their wealth. So it's not likely that this fact alone overwhelms the likelihood of his stupidity as evidenced by his formal political positions/statements.

It's preferable that you don't respond when you have nothing to say.

No, I'm content with what I have. Not sure why I would involve myself with the fortunes of others unless I myself wanted a fortune. I'm an individualist anarchist, I don't support wealth accumulation and capitalism (absentee property ownership), I consider it anti-liberty and undesirable. And I certainly don't support big-state endorsers like Trump.

You're assuming that I want to multiply my wealth and that I started with enough that the multiplying would make me very wealthy. Neither are true.

If you consider "higher than average" to be a high IQ, then yeah Trump has a high IQ. Not the standard I would use. The fact that he could've made more in index funds wasn't mentioned to claim he was stupid for not doing it, but to claim that it's relatively simple to multiply wealth without intellect and therefore is weak in proving high IQ. Multiplying his wealth may hint toward intelligence, but in the face of his constant completely ignorant and stupid things he regularly says/claims, I don't know how you can honestly pretend his wealth increase counter-balances that.

If you really stretch the term "self-made billionaire" to an absurd level, then I can only think of Trump. He would've been wealthier if he invested his money in index funds and sat on his ass, so his wealth is not a useful measure of intellect though it does strongly support the idea that he's more intelligent than the average person (for what that's worth). He's definitely no less intelligent than most politicians, he just isn't discreet about his ignorance like they are.

You have a hilarious interpretation of what is "creepy". I've seen nothing to demonstrate that Donald Trump is an individual with a high IQ. It's not an insult and certainly isn't blind to reality. And Steven Crowder is internet cancer, his humor and attempts at political insight make me ill. That being said, I never thought I'd see Piers Morgan say something reasonable.

Whenever a woman enter's a man's house, she accepts all possible outcomes. If he wants to have sex, and she doesn't, she has already agreed to this possible outcome and is bound to have sex with him. The man is responsible for the outcome of his sperm, whether that be conception or otherwise. However, the man ceases to be responsible from further choices made exclusively by the woman. At best, you can say the man agreed to assume the risk of conception, but never the risk of birth. If the woman decides to have an abortion, it would make sense to compel the man to assist in paying for it. Likewise it would make sense perhaps to compel him to assist in any care needed while carrying the fetus. However, he never once makes the decision to have a child, the mother does, so he can not be compelled to pay for the child. What you're saying would only make sense if abortion didn't exist and there was no was to "undo" conception. Then birth would indeed be a biological inevitably for which the man was jointly responsible. But that's not the case.

So, the problem with individual liberty is that it subjects everyone else to low IQ individuals and criminals, therefore we should restrict the liberty of people? Why don't you support statism completely if you believe this? Or do you somehow think that only the freedom of immigration subjects people to negative influences?