Search the Community

Hey all! So I've been having discussions about issues such as government and taxation. I often hear a claim that governments cannot steal and taxation is not a theft. However, when I apply the exactly same reasoning to a different scenario, for example a person or a different organisation doing exactly the same as the government (enforcing taxation through the initiation of use of force) suddenly the reasoning reverses and such a thing becomes theft in the eyes of the person I am debating. I attempt to reason through rules of non contradiction (something cannot be and not be at the same time) but I usually get the following responses: "government is different" - Therefore theft only applies to individuals or private organisations. "the extraction of money is voluntary" - You don't have to work if you don't want to. You actually want the government to spend the money on roads, education etc. "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" - (This is the case in the UK where you don't do your own taxes but rather the employer pays them from your salary before you get a chance to sniff them). So if you don't get the money in the first place it isn't theft. "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" - Therefore taxation is morally good and not theft, whereas extraction of property without consent by something or someone else than a government is theft. Is there a way of combating such claims or have I entered a realm of sophistry from which there is no return? What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction?

Hello, We often hear Stefan comparing examples to other examples in order to clarify and spot contradictions. For example: If somebody said "Government is moral" Stefan would probably reply similarly to this - "So if I come to you and take your money at gunpoint, that is not moral. This is exactly what governments do, therefore we cannot call governments moral if we have already established that they steal, which we know is immoral" Then the contradiction becomes clear since we all know that this is precisely what governments do. My question is, does this art of spotting and pointing out contradictions with the use of metaphors and different examples have a name? Is it Aristotle's First Principles? Sorry for a silly question but I wish to learn more about this art of....brilliancy.

Hey everyone, I have read Stefan's book against the God's on three different occassions. I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be valid: Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow. I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional. If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know. I have attached it in the file: Omnipotent vs. Omniscience Rebutal.pdf

Some of you are probably familiar with this article, it's an objectivist perspective on why anarchism is wrong and can't work: http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.htmlDoes anyone know if Stefan has made a rebuttal to this? I wish anarcho-capitalism to be possible, and these are the best arguments I've heard against it, so it would be cool if Stefan (or some of you guys) could rebutt these arguments.