Chaoticoli

THanks :)I wouldn't claim that they are rational, though. They have yet to make for anarchy being mob rule. They just keep posting historical articles and then saying condescending things like "Should I assume you know middle school-level history facts" ? Just a bunch of douches, honestly. Pretty happy I withdrew from posting again.

I'm doing this because I want to feel like people aren't insane. I want some verification that I am not crazy because I am the one calling the other 99.999% crazy lol. I also want to have people to talk to through Facebook about politics because I use it often and sometimes don't have people to "have my back" in posts. I was posting on that thread for a couple days and it just became a waste of time. They are convinced that anarchy = mob rule. I got tired of their bad comparisons and stopped commenting back. They had such a mentality of agreeing with each other rather than finding truth. After every post, each comment of theirs was liked by everyone who agreed with the original poster (about 5 or 6 people). It felt like a ganging up-on mentality instead of a mentality driven to arrive at truth.

The most recent response from a Statist: "In the context of financial of social parameters. Being an anarchist is a lifestyle choice that has zero space for governmental bodies (no government is not a political opinion, just as being an atheist is not a religious preference), and is designed around the concept that either "I make all of my own decisions, everyone else be damned", or being governed by a complex set of ethical concepts that cannot be enforced by any person or organization that claims higher authority.[/font] .[1][3][1]{comment505287479536134_4660381}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]Either way, if you're stating that my opinion is inferior you're not a social anarchist, and if you're an individual anarchist you would still just have to accept the fact that I don't have to care about your opinion. Anarchy is loaded with thousands of logical fallacies, predominately paradoxes." Made me want to vomit.

I am not trying to drag FDR people away from this site and into Facebook, but SO MUCH of my discussions happen with people of opposing views and I agree with most of you guys on most issues already. I would really appreciate any assistance one could provide though. I really want to be the best arguer and most logical person I can possibly be. If I don't follow up with my potential, I will not attain as much truth as I could, which is strongly antipodal to the goals of my superego :3

Do any of you guys use Facebook? I am still working on my arguing abilities since I've become an anarchist about three or four months ago and they still need some sharpening. I am on Facebook often with a lot of Minarchists and other statists of the like who I have a hard time arguing sometimes and I was wondering if anyone in the FDR community would like to friend me on Facebook and possibly gimme some pointers and/or comment back on some of the discussions I have with Statists. Any who, if so, please comment! https://www.facebook.com/chaoticoli is my Facebook.

What is the least erroneous way of defining the NAP?

http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle Was anyone else disgusted with this?

The problem with that argument is that we have no way to know how a business owner would structure his pricing in the absence of sales tax. The likelihood is that due to competition, the prices of goods would not go up and thus, profits would not go up. Ulitmately, the compulsory nature of the tax is all one needs to demonstrate in order to prove it is not voluntary. I disagree. There is another side to the equation. Although it's a very small amount, when there are taxes on goods, it will inevitably reduce demand for that product. In Michigan, there is a $.06/$1 sales tax. So, that means that every customer must pay $.06/$1 more than they would have given there was no tax. This amount is not very significant, but it does add up. Any profits a business does not make because of government (regardless of how small the profits or government is) is still wrong. Government should not be able to take any money from you because you are not consenting of the government, regardless of the fallacious social contract.

I argued that the person owning the business has to charge sales tax. Since this tax exists, it decreases their profits. This decreasing of profits due to taxation is effectively stealing.

I just wish there was a more comforting solution :/. Thanks for the feedback, though.

What do you say to someone who insistently claims that it's voluntary because you don't have to buy goods? It seems like way too long of a discussion that may not be worth it at all. It seems like I'd have to get down to the social contract and have to debate anarchy for the ideas to stick in.

Does Stefan have any videos explicitly arguing against the legitimacy of the sales tax without resorting to anarchistic arguments (i.e. government shouldn't exist, so sales tax shouldn't exist.)?

First, I feel like a definition of UP is necessary. He claims that I must prove that a child having Leukemia is not universally preferable. It's very common-sensical in my head, but more logically, I am not really able to come to any conclusions. His view is that there is no such thing as "universally preferable" anywhere. I know Stefan uses says that UPB is "necessary". I partly understood this implication, but I don't entirely understand it. Perhaps someone could make this connection more apparent to me? I think that Leukemia in a 10 year old child is not universally preferable simply because Leukemia obviously kills. Under his line of reasoning, it seems that I could kill someone and claim that "there was no evidence that the universe needed him" and I would be scotch-free. I just feel lost on this topic. It's one of those humps I've never gotten over in discussions.

I would like some advice on how I should reply. As of this moment, I am not exactly sure of what the true definition of UPB is. If anyone can give me a nice definition i'd appreciate it. The guy later replies : "1) You have yet to show how a child having leukemia isn't universally preferable[/font] .[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27450302}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]]2) UPB seems to me to be a lot like presuppositionalism. And I hate presuppositionalism. .[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27450302}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]]So you may continue on with your little talking points and standard statements, .[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27450302}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]but until I see LEGITIMATE reasons as to why UPB must exist in all times and in all places for all people, I won't be satisfied with any other point you make. " I have an idea of how to respond, but not sure about which direction to take this in.

.[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27446743}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]]"I'm simply saying that maybe there isn't a universal preference. What is telling you that it's wrong for a child to have leukemia? I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not making a single claim on moral authority here. I have neith.[1][2][1]{comment10151990797800715_27446743}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]er the time not the energy to waste on such matters as an ethics system, I'm more than content in doing what I feel to be right at the time, simply because that's all I've really got. It isn't much, but it's all I can say that doesn't wholly fall apart. I've wasted too much time on morality. So the point lies on you to inform me as to why the universe would prefer that this child were leukemia free." I think he misunderstood what UPB really means, but would anyone like to write a rebuttal to this statement?