dsayers

Legitimize doesn't mean make legitimate. It means to make the illegitimate seems legitimate. If you understand that it's illegitimate, why co-operate? You would have to define what the problem is. Government is institutionalized immorality that is perceived as righteous.This perceived legitimacy is the problem because it turns people who would fight/ostracize thieves into people who praise/champion taxation. Not playing along solves the problem of perceived legitimacy as much as that decision could in an individual's life. Making your claim false. Also, the fact that immorality remains is precisely how you know that "progress" was not achieved. In fact, regress was achieved as people who know better play along anyways despite their capability of helping others to understand the truth. ...stealing a candy bar. Guess it must be moral then. Or perhaps "immediate bloodshed" is not the measure of morality? Because I'm pretty sure consent is. I do not consent and yet you inflict this on me anyways! I'm not usually one for quotes, but because I'm trying to write a book and have grown weary of making the exact same arguments to the exact same people making the exact same non-arguments, I'm going to bow out of this subject on FDR by sharing a quote that while not a proof, and likely won't appeal to the emotions of those emotionally driven, is still delicious to feast upon all the same: "To pay taxes is not voluntary; but to vote is not compulsory. So you tell me which voluntarily grants legitimacy towards government. Paying taxes when disobedience is met with violence to jail and confine or voting which gives you a sticker for participation? -JLD"

Your analogy is not analogous. Because your behavior is not binding upon others, it's not eligible for moral consideration. It is amoral. So if you happen upon somebody being raped, you can join it, right? Because your action did not take the person from a state of not being raped to being raped. No, this is not the measure of morality. The measure is consent. I do not consent to be ruled by Trump. So everybody that voted (for any candidate) inflicted him upon me by pretending that the entire circus is legitimate. You knew better and you did it anyways to manage your anxieties. And now you justify your actions, providing no arguments, just an explanation as if that is not already understood and/or is the point of contention. Address the point of contention, then we can talk about other things. Otherwise, this just looks like deflection.

Will you at any point address this?

There's no belief here. The State does not exist. What DOES exist is a popular belief that theft is righteous when called taxation, murder is righteous when called war, etc. If you behave in a way that supposes that the State exists, you are legitimizing that belief by definition. This is a case, where is an argument against it? This is like saying that pointing a gun at somebody is not binding upon them, but putting a bullet through them is. While such a claim is technically true, we understand that the first example is a credible threat, and therefore still the initiation of the use of force. You KNOW that POTUS will steal from and threaten people, so asking them to do so is utilizing a credible threat. Immoral. How do you know that RAISING taxes is the measure? Is not taxation of any amount theft? You don't know what a candidate will or will not do, but empirical evidence says that what they claim they will do is no indicator. What you DO know is that taxation WILL continue (to be involuntary). If "eliminate government programs" is your stated goal, then participating in the government program of voting is antithetical. That's basic math. I don't see the point in stating there is a difference in candidates when what matters is the ways in which all rulers are the same. Pretending to know the future. The only future you know for sure in the context of political voting is that whomever gets in WILL steal from and threaten people. Which your vote asks for and condones. Immoral. What about the arguments made even right here that it is neither self, nor defense? Also, I don't think it's sincere to conflate political voting with political action. Political action is undefined, but when I hear the phrase, I imagine things like protesting, petitioning, writing letters, etc. None of which are binding upon others, as political voting is.

Talking about the word belief was only one of the points I made. Another was humans' capacity for error. Did you not address that deliberately?

I'm so used to Neo-ing this shit, I almost forgot to point out that this is an appeal to insecurity. It's also bias confirmation when you consider this post. I don't know the specifics of you running for office and I choose to discuss ideas rather than people and events because the ideas and events fall under the ideas. Also, the context has always been POTUS. Regardless of the context, if it's going to be binding upon people without their consent, it is immoral (the topic). Saying reducing harm is moving the goalposts and/or tautological from self-defense. Enslaving 300 million is not less harm. Saying I could avoid the threat substantiates the threat. No such threat is present when it comes to political voting in the US. Even if everything you said here is true, it would have no bearing on whether or not VOTING is immoral. How many times do you need to see that you cannot deflect? I was raised by the king of deflectors. I've had much practice in seeing through this stuff

An entity that is predicated on people pretending it is real/valid only exists because people "tick A or B" and other things. Also, A and B are credible threats, so "ticking" is making a credible threat against everybody that will be bound by it. That's aggression. How do you know I pay taxes? How do you know I have the option not to? How do you continue to tell yourself that something somebody is forced to do is comparable to something somebody chooses to do? Still no arguments despite refutations offered. Just tripling down on laurel polishing as if that is an argument. I just pointed out how it's neither self nor defense. This is willful ignorance. Also, you cannot fall back to competing harms because part of the proof that it's NOT defense is by looking at competing harms. Enslaving 300 million people vs being stolen from/threatened. By my count, that's disproportionate 300 million to 1. Since you cannot control the damage the system will unleash, turning to it is reckless and aggressive... still.

Humans have the capacity for error. We dream, we can hallucinate, light can be refracted... There are a lot of ways that we can experience something that isn't there. Experience therefore is insufficient for determining what is true. Meanwhile, a rational exploration of the claims made by those trying to prove there is a deity quickly reveals there is no logic, reason, and evidence for it. Either one of these, to answer your question, would mean that no, it is not reasonable to believe in God. The very premise is flawed as belief has no bearing on what is true. It's only useful as a motivator to test the belief to either find it to be true or discard it as false. So anybody that refers to "belief" in perpetuity is engaging in intellectual sloth. Does that make sense?

No, it's projection. If you were to address any dissenting argument, one wouldn't have to remind you of the ways in which your claim is false. Polishing laurels is still not an argument.

I think the last thing I would ever want to do is get the attention of the most powerful psychopath on the planet.

Theft "gives" value to the thief. I've already addressed this. Thank you for letting me know this was never a discussion.

Projection. Deflection. Not an argument.

As if. Been debunked many times. Enslaving 300 million people could not be considered defense of anything, but rather the creation of a much larger debt. It's akin to dropping a bomb on somebody's apartment building for stealing a candy bar. You cannot control the yield. I do not consent! You're still being stolen from. You're still being threatened. You haven't changed anything except to convince that many more people in joining you to legitimize, perpetuate, and inflict this on us all for that much longer.

1. Fiat means backed by nothing, which by definition is valueless. Theft is destruction of individual wealth and therefore, again by definition, is not the preservation of value as was your claim. 2. Strawman or moving the goalposts. You've introduced spending here, when I was responding to your claim of theft. You know taxation is theft, right? 3. I quoted you just fine. When backed into a corner regarding theft, you started talking about spending. It's indicative of a mental block. Meanwhile, you're painting theft as benevolent, preservative... It glorifies and legitimizes the State. Talking about taxation as if it needs to be replaced with a voluntary version shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what taxation is.

The truth wants to be free. We have some of the vilest people in the world being protected by the most powerful system in the world, yet their misdeeds come to light. I'm not sure why you'd ask what a free market solution would look like as we have those now, even in the midst of State-powered protections and censorship. This is how I know "I'm interested" is not the truth.

You mean being asked asked questions and not answering them? I noticed that too. No thank you.

In what way do you imagine that telling somebody they shouldn't be discussing philosophy when they haven't even had the opportunity to react in the way you imagine they might evoking somebody's emotions in a way that will be receptive to what you're saying? "Oh, he's willing to pick on people, so I'm going to listen to what he has to say"? I don't think so. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You keep referencing a problem, but showing no understanding as to how/why it is. I would re-assert my encouragement to pursue self-knowledge. It will help you find the peace to communicate more effectively, as well as the ability to see others, that you might understand how/why they're not listening.

Violence achieves the opposite of its stated goals. Google laissez-faire. Because the former is a specific, unknown case while the latter is a generality.

Glad to see you changed your name back Might I recommend curtailing the editorialization while making arguments? When you say for example "If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say other than you shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy," you're attempting to manage a response that hasn't yet come. This suggests closed-mindedness and projection, if not flat out manipulation. It doesn't enhance any objective claims you make either way and is therefore expletive. I cannot tell what exactly you're trying to accomplish here. It seems unnecessarily specific. For starters, "fair" is a myth, so there's no use in bringing it up. Secondly, since taxation is theft, the only tax rate that is "fair" is 0%. Which makes this look more like making the case for using a condom when engaging in rape. It would be more productive to advocate against rape with that effort. Does that make sense?

Why do you ask? Are you reading anything that's written? Do you think that people WANT to eat toxic stuff? Do you think the market doesn't already research and reveal that which is harmful? Did I not JUST make that very point? Do you think the State is protecting us from such things? Why do you suppose food should have chemicals in it? I think you're taking the piss here. I'd be delighted to learn that I'm wrong.

Ever see somebody swear by organic because Monsanto is poisoning the food (their sentiments)? That's in the presence of the State. Or maybe I don't understand your question.

Are we all to become tailors if we wish to wear anything? It's just another form of division of labor. There are people out there so passionate about such things that they're doing the research. They will establish a brand, same as any other trade, and people will be able to compete and/or decide which sources are reputable. Meanwhile, more things are becoming crowd-funded and de-centralized. I trust in network strength. Meaning that there are more people looking for the truth about topic X then there are people invested in distorting the truth about topic X. Once again, this is just another example of the way the State destroys everything. Without unlimited free money, nobody would be able to "buy science" and make it look like whatever they want is true. This is why it would've been great if people would've been spreading ideas such as not abusing your children, the State is immoral, etc instead of fighting about which tyrant will enslave our children. Most of what we're fed isn't important anyways. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. From this, we can derive that child abuse is deplorable and the State is intolerable. Everything else is preference. Does chemical X kill you or help you? Without companies being able to buy State protection, the market will bear out the truth and that will not be a concern of the future. Today, people cannot even grow their own food without the mafia taking notice because it takes away their ability to steal you and make you too lethargic to fight or rival them.

You are making a statement? There is no way the human will/appetite of 100 people could be satisfied with the labor of a single individual.

*willing (not able). I agree. I think it's laziness and general lack of understanding of economics, both of which come from child abuse. As for the debate about profit as a result of automation, if it was not profitable to automate, the free market would not be engaging in automation as transitioning from manual to automatic comes with enormous overhead.