crazymilk

carlip I find that argument interesting could you expand on it a bit more? (thanks for the rest of you guys you have been helpful aswell:))

Hi, i'm new here, name is kobi:) I'd like to have your response and possibly help on what is the best way to counter that evil and obnoxious argument, that the state has given rise to you, you should respect and conform to it's rules, and it's comparison to what would happen in a voluntary community with it's own set of rules. you probably all know that line of argumenation: "Oh, but in a voluntary community, you are gonna have kids, why are they bound to the contracts of the community itself?" therefore welfare state. When you try to say that the state is not a specific owner of a private area like it should be, they claim it is because it is just like a big community commonly owned by "the citizens". obviously, "if you dont like the current situation, you are free to leave or change the rules of the current system". When you try to differenciate between private ownership to the collective theft of the state, they discard homesteading or any of these methods of knowing what belongs to whom and just say this sort of tautological thing which is "you only have property cause the state and citizens of it acknowledge it" It is all a part of this "canceling the individual" sort of thing, like obama's "you didn't build that" and what stef talked about in the "Trial and death of socrates". I am just appalled and stunned as to the fact people are practically using the same "echo" (as stef called it) over and over again, but I yet found a good way to rebuttle it. If you can give me tips or reading material specifically for this matter I would be forever grateful (essays, books, articles, anything). Thanks in advance, kobi