Just alienated my first friend. Don't know how to feel.

[richtrix]

I've really ... really been struggling with all of this new data from Steph. I once was the model of political activism. I was one of 3... yea 3... out of a total of 76 delegates to the RNC from my state who voted for Ron Paul on the convention floor and I campaigned and worked for the man tirelessly in 2008 and 2012. I have really taken ownership of the politics as a feather in my cap and part of who I was and a driving force toward change. I'm 31 years old. Baby boy on the way.

In just about 9 hours my county's precinct mass meetings commence for the GOP. Due to my position in the movement and the great people I have more or less led in it I am going to support them and assist how I can. I have a scheme to use the party and some of its resources to help build our community. It is my little excuse for staying involved. The guilt I have due to my newly found lackluster feelings toward political action (only strengthened by my experience at the RNC) is intense. I feel I am letting my comrads down. They look up to me so and I have in many ways disappeared. My county is Cobb county in Georgia. Millions of people. The largest Republican county in the NATION, WORLD, UNIVERSE etc. I coordinated our actions in this key area. We really have built a great community of people here so my great challenge is migrating it out of party politics into...?? Hense the frustration and uncertainty.

So someone who is a Ron Paul buddy of mine facebooked me saying he was thinking of coming in the morning. A really nice, young guy. Musician like me, a lot in common. He said he was redicent about coming because he had become "more liberal." I told him to explain. He said:

"I am pro choice

I do NOT believe global warming is a lie from the liberal media

and I don't think that me not being allowed to legally own jericho missiles is an infringement on my liberty"

Nothing too bad there I thought. I started to challenge him a little on the Global Warming thing. Asking him to qualify if he meant "Man made" or just "warming" or what. We talked about that for a while and way led on to way and eventual we started talking about education and he said "I don't think leaving that up to the free market is something a society that cares about its weakest members would do" so I did the 51% Gambit "But this is a democracy... it would seem then since that is the policy that at least 51% think that we should support it right?" Which he agreed with. We then talked mechanics for a while and about the 19th century and no publc schools etc. Then we started really getting into the meat. I asked:

"We can argue effectiveness all night long but here's the rub man. I've
told you that I support your right to fund these systems correct?"

He relpied: "Yes, but do you support a child's right to an education?"

WARNING WARNING... [+o(]

We talked about rights for a moment and and it lead to this statement by my 'friend'

"I'm not making it personal; I just have no way of reconciling my worldview with yours at a VERY basic level.

Which [is to] say that NO, initiation of force is not ALWAYS morally wrong"

Of course then it came to this the All In Molyneau Gambit. My question:

"I believe that not only is the current education system immoral... it
has caused irreparable damage to this society. I do not want to support
it. Do you support my right to not support it and not pay the taxes??"

Answer: "No, of course not"

Molyneau All In Gambit Endgame:

"So you want men with guns [to] come take me away because I want no part in a system which I believe to be immoral?

That's pretty personal man."

Response

"If you're saying
this as a thought experiment or a way of proving a point, then I get
it. But if you're ACTUALLY taking it personally that I think you as a
human being have a responsibility to act in cooperation with your fellow
man on a few basic things to help society not be a giant clusterfuck,
then I'm not sure I even know what to say in response to that

I had no intention of making you angry at all

I like you Rich"

My response:

"I am not angry at all. Just sad that someone wants me dragged out of my home in the middle of the night when I've harmed nobody

especially someone who likes me.

I would never wish that on you"

Him: "Point taken Rich. Good grief. I'm gonna take this as a big hint that I'll be sleeping in tomorrow [instead of going to the mass precinct meetings]."

Me: "LOL.. now perhaps you see why I would like to join you in that affair [sleeping in].

The whole system is founded on this premise. The parties. The legal system. Education. It is all violence."

Him: "If that's how you're choosing to interpret the world you live in, then I can't help you. Goodnight"

I especially like the "i can't help you" line.

I wrote a closing statement but this is already long enough. You get the idea. Feeling kind of weird over here. We may not speak again. Probably not. Can't say I wasn't warned. Comments, advice and critisms most welcomed.

EDIT: this came in from him later:

"I'm not defriending you, man. It's just difficult to have a political
discussion with you if you're going to get this persecution complex when
I suggest that paying taxes to make life better for everyone isn't
always evil.

That doesn't mean I want to have you locked away in a
prison, and if that's the scenario you're going to resort to, then
you'll have to forgive me for bowing out of the conversation because
you've (i think somewhat purposefully) left me with nothing really to
say. If you want to have a discussion about how to fix how screwed up
the world is and make things better for everyone, I'm totally down for
that. But if you want to resort to using ridiculous hypothetical
situations just to win an argument, I have no interest in wasting time
with that. That's not helping anything get better."

Feeling really warm and fuzzy now.

 

[Rick Horton]

Wow man, that's really juicy material. [:O] I haven't tried that gambit, yet. I don't think I'd put it the way you did, either. I mulled the possibilities of that kind of conversation in my head and came to the same possible awkward conclusion, so I don't go there. It always seems like if I say something like that, it will just come off to them that I'm just too lazy to pay taxes and I'm excusing my laziness with some bullshit blue collar malarky. 

     Usually I try the you against me approach more direct, and leave the cops out. First I get the person to say that the government isn't evil, and that the government is WE the people. Then I try to steer them into proclaiming that the government is a reflection of him. THEN I say, " If you are the government, and the police force represents you, why don't you just come to me if you have a problem with me not paying a tax? Why not? Are you scared to? Would it feel wrong? If you want my money why don't you, yourself come over and try and take it? When you want your grass mowed why don't you come over here and demand I mow it?  When you want your kid to go to college why don't you come over and tell me I have to pony up some cash for you or you'll beat me up and put me in a cage? 

    The answers always lead to aggression because they mostly don't accept responsibility for forcing the government to force people, and then the government forcing them, etc... on and on the cycle goes round if you're on that ride.

[TheRobin]

Sorry to hear how it went.But this is really fucked up insidious manipulative bullshit that guy was using (plus then blaming you for being the "irrational" one on top of it all)...Where would you want to go from here in regards to that person?

[Nathan P]

Dude, I'm right there with you. I've had this talk 100 times. People always use that excuse your 'friend' did and brush it off as being completely ridiculous, hypothetical, implausible, and therefor it's not valid or worth talking about. I just walk away. I've done this in the middle of a crowded restaurant out to dinner. I always turn around while I'm leaving and say "stay far, far away from me please". They just sit there stunned. I know several of them have commented that I'm simply being a pussy, or being an extremist. I just respond explaining that next time I want something from them, or don't like something they do in their personal life, I'm going to hire some a gang to come take it, or force them to do it and see how they feel about it then. Again, some people completely miss these things.

This isn't a game. I don't know why people keep acting like it is. This is my life, my security, my comfort. They are actively pursuing taking that away, and if they can't see it, won't notice it when I try and try to point it out, I just can't help them and I certainly don't want to be around them. I don't need more "friends" who stab me in the back. All I can do is get stronger, smarter, more prepared, and whatever else they are lacking.

*sigh*

[richtrix]

Dunno, I've have a crazy couple of days. The aforementioned
mass precinct meeting were Saturday and I had to rise early for those. They
went spectacularly though. Our County has 15 State house of Representative
districts and eat one has a chairperson in the party. The district chairs are a
big part of the county executive committee. We took over 7 of the 15 district
chair slots. It was pretty nuts. In the middle of all that I got a text from my
7 months pregnant wife that she is on the way to the hospital because she
thought her water broke. I hurried over to meet her and indeed it had. It is
just a small tear in the amniotic sack though and the little guy is doing fine
but they had to juice her with all kinds of antibiotics and whatnot due to the
protective bag having a hole. She will be in the hospital until the baby comes
(not due until April 25^th). Pretty crazy. So to answer your question,
I’ll probably respond today and maybe lighten up a little on the guy. See if I’ve
provoked any thought at all or if he just thinks I’m an ass.

[VforVoluntary49]

I have been there countless times as well, the conversations and the common fall-back emotional arguments people give. I've tried to work on it and see different ways that work, but one thing I definitely try to be aware of is if the person is at least walking towards the right road, or is completely lost (Stef's argument that we are performing triage and must determine whether the people in our lives are able to be "saved" or not, or if all our efforts and arguments and pleas will simply fall on deaf ears). If the person seems just too far gone, perhaps it is worth it to do the all-in-gambit discussion right then and there, to save time and pain-if they recoil or don't understand and label you ridiculous, idealist, insane yada-yada, then you know where the relationship stands and can move on from there. But I do think that if someone is at least in the right ball-park (open to rational discussion, not overly emotional, maybe a libertarian or minarchist who just isn't quite there), then I think that a slower, series of small discussions can help break down those barriers. If someone is close I'd rather work hard and try to get them to see the gun in the room as soon as possible, but I will take my time if the alternative is to have them recoil from our perspective if I come at it too strongly and they are unable to understand immediately. I guess it's my personal struggle in these discussions between prudence and bluntness-gradualism v practicality. 

[richtrix]

For those interested here is my final reply... I haven't heard back:

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. It’s been an eventful weekend. In the middle of the PMM (which went VERY well, we picked up 7 of the 15 district chairmen slots) I got a text from my 7 months pregnant wife saying she was going to the hospital because she thought her water might have broken. Turns out she did rupture the amniotic sack but it was a very small one. Things are going fine BUT she has been hospitalized until she has the child which hopefully will be in 2 months or so. This is due to the risk of infection with the sack ruptured which means she has to be monitored closely and at the slightest sign of infection they will induce her. I have, so far, not been able to think of any other scenario where you’d ever tell someone “I sure hope you are in the hospital for months”. The longer she is there and pregnant the better our little guy will fare. So now back to the matter at hand. Of course I intentionally led the argument there and yes it is a morality trap. I respect your position that paying for education for betterment of society in a good thing and thus I respect your decision to give your money in the form of taxes for that end. So then what if I believe that the same system is, as I stated, immoral and counterproductive to society and let’s say that I have alternate plans for my kids which cost money. So why don’t I have a ‘right’ to not pay into that system? Why must I pay into that system and the other system simultaneously? If, as you argue, people should do it to assist the downtrodden I’ll argue that property taxes are not tolerated by most people in order to educate the children of others. MOST people are fine with paying into it in order to send THEIR OWN children to school for very little cost. I only pay about $700 a year in property taxes. If I have 3 kids, let’s say, that is only $233 per kid per year. WOW… what a deal!!! That great deal exists because there are a lot people without kids in the system that pay those taxes. Most of those people have had or will have kids in the system at point and I’d be willing to bet that well over 51% of the people in a community are in that category. So the question is. Is it moral for 51% of people to demand money from the 49%? If not 51% then what is the proper percentage to make it legal to rob your neighbor? Let me set up a hypothetical situation for you. Hopefully you won’t find it ridiculous (btw is whether or not my neighbor should be allowed to own or purchase a nuke not ridiculously hypothetical/extreme?).  Say that I send my only child into the Cobb County public education system and say that I find that some abuse occurs to my child while there. Say it is at the hand of a staff member. After investigations etc. let’s say that that staff member only got a slap on the wrist and transferred to another school (possible in our judicial system) and my child is made out to be a liar and problem. Naturally I’ll trust my child and I’ll pull him out of this environment. So here I am now. Having to pay for expensive private schooling or cut down on my hours at work so I can home educate my child with my wife’s help. That $700 is not only necessary for our well being it is an outrage that we’re paying into this system with has done these terrible things. So we stop paying the taxes. We write a letter to the DA and state attorney general and tell them why we are not etc. etc. What will happen? Well in probably about a year after a bout of hate mail the sheriff will arrive and he and his deputies will place all of our belongings in the front yard, a locksmith will change the locks and the windows will be boarded up until the new owner of our property, who purchases our bond in back taxes on the courthouse steps, will take possession of the property. This is all regardless of whether our mortgage is current or the property is owned outright. It happens every day. In fact I met a man it happened to last month. I went to his house, which was really a glorified shack. This guy was poor and given the place to stay by the owner who had inherited the property and not been aware or neglected to pay the taxes) So a property management company came out with the sheriff and dumped all this man’s worldly possessions (not much I’ll add) in the yard and boarded the place up without notice of any kind to the occupant. He came by my house and took me over there trying to sell me some of his items to give him some cash to get back on his feet. I looked around seeing everything this 50+ year old man had to his name and it was all just junk. He wanted $30 for this whole lot of lumber he’d salvaged. I had no use for it and it was mostly just scrap. I told him I didn’t want any of it but I truly appreciated his situation and the fact that he was only interested in a value for value transaction. He was saddened when I told him I wasn’t interested in buying but I gave him $40 anyway. When I did so he looked so confused that one would have thought that nobody had ever done a kind thing for this man in his entire life. You cannot characterize this as anything but violence. One could say “well that was dumb Rich, why’d you sacrifice a $60,000 house for $2000 in back taxes” and person would be correct. That would be dumb. Also though, saying “I think Stalin is idiot” too loudly in 1937 USSR would probably have been dumb too.  You said that “… if you're going to get this persecution complex when I suggest that paying taxes to make life better for everyone isn't always evil.” Paying taxes is not evil just as saying “Stalin in an idiot” is not evil. Theft is evil, murder is evil.  When someone gets mugged you never hear people say “oh God, shame on you… why did you give him your money?” When you say that being forced to pay taxes “makes life better for everyone” I’d say that is categorically untrue. It makes life better for some and worse for other. For example, I use next to no government services. I drive on roads (paid for when I purchase gasoline) and that’s about it in my day to day life. I don’t have any kids and when mine arrives, hopefully safely, I certainly will not subject him to public education. Thus, taxes are just a drain on my livelihood for the most part. Compare that to the life of a person who works for the government who make, on average, twice as much as I do with a defined benefit retirement plan and 3 weeks a year paid vacation all for perhaps auditing for the IRS or issuing driver’s licenses or any number of bureaucratic positions which deliver no value to society. Maybe that’s not a good example though since almost 100% of gov’t proceeds from income taxes go to paying the interest on the national debt (with current interest rates less than 1%). I am probably just paying interest on the debt used to pay for the salary of an EPA employee in 1992. She’s now retired in St. Petersburg FL and takes a few cruises every year with her kids and grandkids and probably donated a shit load of money to Mitt Romney to add insult to injury. You are probably aware that nationwide the housing markets are still hurting and collapsing in value. This is true with the exception of pockets here and there. The largest exception is one place in particular where there is actually a BOOM in real estate values. Washington DC. Housing prices are up 1/3 in DC since 2008. The place where are all the stolen money collects (either through taxation or inflation). The argument you are making is not unfamiliar to me. Basically, that it is ok to steal from people if it is for a good cause. When that belief is put into practice you’d be surprised just how many good causes can be imagined into existence. There is a great pamphlet written by Frederick Bastiat in 1850 that basically deals with this issue and others quite fairly. It’s very short and could be read in a matter of an hour or so if you want a good challenge to this ideology. It is called “The Law”. This ideology you are espousing is called “collectivism” and you can basically break it down into this statement made famous by Mr. Spock “The good of the many outweigh the good of the few” or “The greater good of the greater number”. This philosophy has been ruinous in the societies which it was wholly adopted and will prove/is proving so in ours. For once the 51% can legally plunder the 49% the majority will begin to devour an ever shrinking pie until, as it is today, the 99% consuming the 1% (and I’m not talking about the 1% that made all of their money off of gov’t contracts etc.). Our republic was installed to protect the individual from the whims of the mob. Every protection is there to insure that the individual is protected. It is the difference between a lynch mob, where there is only 1 dissenting vote (they guy at the end of the rope), and the sheriff riding in and saying “STOP this man has a right to a trial.” Of course our republic has all but failed now and mob rule is basically upon us. The Constitution was designed to protect the minority, not abuse it. So why is it that behind all of these noble causes must there must always be a gun? Granted, at first it might not look like a gun. It might look like mean letters in the mail, then summons to court, then seizure of all your assets in bank account and cutting off all banking transactions, then… guns and all those precursors are backed by guns. There is in fact not even a law requiring one to pay the income tax. It does not exist. It is just straight up violence. To say otherwise is to truly be in denial. That is why I made that argument and that is why you felt trapped. Not because it was absurd but because you were trapped between the truth of the situation and denial of its existence. The truth is that theft is evil, taxation is theft by the state enforced by the state’s legal monopoly on the use of violence. In the alleged words of Washington “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.”  Please do check out “The Law” by Bastiat.

[For FDR readers: I know that Bastiat is objectionable as he still supports "The Law" but for a leftist it is a decent stairstep I think.]

 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

Sent you an email. I live in Cherokee County. Can't be more than 30 minutes from you. Maybe we can meet up in person sometime.