"It's okay for states to keep borrowing money!"

[Markus FIN]

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible? Well this is how he explained it:

 

1. States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever.

 

2. If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so.

 

3. If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights.

 

I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered:

 

"No. It's because money is only numbers, not property."

 

After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them!

 

Markus FIN

[dsayers]

Why are you friends with somebody that advocates the initiation of the use of force?

[Markus FIN]

Why are you friends with somebody that advocates the initiation of the use of force?

Because I try to get along with anyone, also I find him interesting to debate with. He means good, but I feel like he doesn't respect freedom like I do. That actually became an important notification for me because it allowed me to create my own theory on the subject. Here it is:

 

There are two kinds of people in politics. There are people who want freedom and people who want safety. If you are a socialist, then what you want is to keep everyone safe. You don't care if they aren't free because you think you know what is best for them. However if you are a Liberal or a Libertarian, then what you want is that everyone can be free. So how can you ever turn this kind of person around, as his morals are completely different from yours and he doesn't respect the things we see important?

 

But yeah I hang around with him because he is an okay guy and he occasionally borrows me a bit of money (like 2 Euros for a soda if I don't have any with me) if I am short on it. He does usually take a big interest from it though, which doesn't really fit his "Socialist" ideologies.

[PatrickC]

After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them!

 

Ah, the endless and ongoing problem for the Leftist, they refuse to learn math and believe money really can grow on trees. I feel your pain brother..

 

Word of caution when dealing with Leftists. Never expect a reasoned argument and always be prepared for the inevitable emotional vomit (metaphor) when you confront them with reason. That way you'll be able to walk away knowing it has nothing to do with your ability to present reason, but everything to do with their own refusal to do so.

[Markus FIN]

Ah, the endless and ongoing problem for the Leftist, they refuse to learn math and believe money really can grow on trees. I feel your pain brother..

 

Word of caution when dealing with Leftists. Never expect a reasoned argument and always be prepared for the inevitable emotional vomit (metaphor) when you confront them with reason. That way you'll be able to walk away knowing it has nothing to do with your ability to present reason, but everything to do with their own inability.

LOL Thank you. I was really thinking whether the problem is in me or him, because it felt like he was saying that 2 x 4 is not 8 but 24. I was really annoyed by it and I feel like all the true Leftists are like that. It's because they consider money as just an obstacle between them and their Utopia... Which is like saying: "I want to fill this bottle now, even though we are in the middle of desert without a water supply! The water is not important, the filling of the bottle is!"

[PatrickC]

Oh yes, I meant to say also, welcome to the boards Markus.

[ParaSait]

If money isn't property to him, I'm sure he won't mind that you take his wallet and move the money in it to your own pocket.

[Markus FIN]

Oh yes, I meant to say also, welcome to the boards Markus.

Thank you, it's nice to meet you too!

If money isn't property to him, I'm sure he won't mind that you take his wallet and move the money in it to your own pocket.

"But he is just a regular citizen. It okay to take from people who have more money than they need!"

[dsayers]

If you are a socialist, then what you want is to keep everyone safe.

 

How is denying somebody their self-ownership keeping them safe? Safe from what? Who are we to know what is safe for others? Why could we not make the case to them about what is safe and allow them to make those decisions voluntarily? Or not if they so choose.

 

Here's the problem as I see it and it is twofold. First of all, when you make the case to somebody that taxation is violence, they reject it, and you continue to grace them with the pleasure of your company, you become complicit in their advocacy of violence. Secondly, if you are unwilling to live your values, then people will understand that what you claim are your values with words aren't actually important to you.

[Markus FIN]

How is denying somebody their self-ownership keeping them safe? Safe from what? Who are we to know what is safe for others? Why could we not make the case to them about what is safe and allow them to make those decisions voluntarily? Or not if they so choose.Here's the problem as I see it and it is twofold. First of all, when you make the case to somebody that taxation is violence, they reject it, and you continue to grace them with the pleasure of your company, you become complicit in their advocacy of violence. Secondly, if you are unwilling to live your values, then people will understand that what you claim are your values with words aren't actually important to you.

Good point, but I try to define people by their means and how they behave. He means well he just doesn't understand my views. I constantly win our debates and we have come to the conclusion that we both want a world were everyone can be happy, he just doesn't see money as it is. In a F.I.A.T. currency what he said might actually be pulled off for a while, but I wouldn't try it. Also it is just strange that so many people are okay with the state, taxation and regulations that they simply won't listen. So I just try to get along and only be true friends with someone who feels the same way as I do. I have 3 close friends who agree with me politically and I come along with them very well. The problem is they don't want to talk about politics as they find it a bit of a boring subject on tbe long run. The thing is that I don't need to agree on everyone with my friends as we can just avoid the subject. They are all decent people so I trust them and continue to be friends with them. The Socialist guy however is a different story. He keeps calling me a Fundamentalist because I tell about the positive effects that the free market has on the society. Everytime I am about to win an argument he just says that I seem like a ridicilous Utopist. Maybe I should reconsider my friendship with him, but I will still chat with him during breaks. Because after all, being with people who disagree with you is a way to keep your edge sharp! :)Markus FIN

[andkon]

I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered:

 

"No. It's because money is only numbers, not property."

 

This is where you take his wallet and run.

[Markus FIN]

This is where you take his wallet and run.

LOL I should do that to teach him a lesson!

[dsayers]

If a surgeon were an inch off the mark and killed you as a result, would his good intentions mean anything? If the guy doesn't know what he's doing and pretends that he does, he is no longer eligible for the unimportant description of well-meaning. Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, but statism isn't a rational conclusion. I'ts only momentum. The moment we make it uncomfortable to maintain such a position, it will vanish almost instantly. In other words, THIS is how we bring about revolution peacefully.

[cobra2411]

"States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever."

No, I guess they don't, but then it would probably be pretty hard for them to borrow more money which could represent a problem given states current spending habits. 

 

"If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so."

The important and necessary jobs will still need to be done and there will be a great demand for those with experience and expertise to fill those jobs. By removing the unnecessary jobs, or those that are wasteful, it would lessen the tax burden of the community. Lower tax burdens on people and business will likely spur the economy on and create a need for more workers. Additionally, many of those unnecessary jobs likely revolve around unnecessary, overly complicated or otherwise outdated regulations. A reduction in unneeded regulation would make it easier for businesses to survive. 

 

"If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights."

The state can not print money, only the feral government can. And... er... Well, we've gone off the rails here. 

 

I was trying to debate those up until he advocated theft by force. If he is a true statist, then you're better off just banging your head against the wall a few times - you'll get the same result. If he's just under their propaganda then you need to ask why it's ok for the government to steal from the people to support wasteful and unneeded regulations. Sure, inflation sounds all neat and good, but it's like watering down drinks at the bar. What would you do if you found the bar you went to watered down it's drinks? Find a new bar probably. What if you tried and the bouncer sat you down and forced you to buy more drinks. Would you argue that it's good that they can stretch out their alcohol to serve as many people as they can? 

[Markus FIN]

If a surgeon were an inch off the mark and killed you as a result, would his good intentions mean anything? If the guy doesn't know what he's doing and pretends that he does, he is no longer eligible for the unimportant description of well-meaning. Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, but statism isn't a rational conclusion. I'ts only momentum. The moment we make it uncomfortable to maintain such a position, it will vanish almost instantly. In other words, THIS is how we bring about revolution peacefully.

I would be mad but his good intentions would still count for me, lying about being a real doctor though would be a different story. If some random person saw me get badly hurt and came to help me and would accidentally hurt me while trying to help, his good intentions would count. My friend is a person who wants everyone to have a good life and be happy but he is just confused on what you can or can't do in your attempts to reach this goal. It's kinda frustrating but he is a good practice when it comes to debating.

 

Markus FIN

[dsayers]

Somebody who says money is only numbers and isn't property cannot improve your debating skills. Debating skills are honed in the presence of resistance, such as by way of rational counterpoint.

 

A person with good intentions stays out of things they do not understand. A reckless (dangerous) one jumps right in and does things like advocate everybody being stolen from. I think you are mistaken both in your assessment of him as well-meaning and the importance you place on well-meaning, which is actually the opposite of responsibility.

[Magenta]

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible?

It's not obvious to me that you would go on to ask that question. There's a lot wrapped up in the statement "states can borrow money as much as they want", the key ingredient being "the initiation of the use of force by the state is moral". In other words, "I'm okay with you being shot for disagreeing with me". Why did you ignore that and instead choose to move the discussion towards how the state behaves with stolen money?

After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this?

If discussion with this fellow makes you unhappy, why do you continue?

[Markus FIN]

It's not obvious to me that you would go on to ask that question. There's a lot wrapped up in the statement "states can borrow money as much as they want", the key ingredient being "the initiation of the use of force by the state is moral". In other words, "I'm okay with you being shot for disagreeing with me". Why did you ignore that and instead choose to move the discussion towards how the state behaves with stolen money?If discussion with this fellow makes you unhappy, why do you continue?

He is the only guy I know who likes to discuss about politics. I guess you guys might be right, but I just like debating even though he disagrees with me. To say that I shouldn't be friends with him because he thinks that state using force on individuals is completely moral is a bit strange... It's because around 95% of the people I have ever met are totally cool with it. The only way to get along with them is to accept their views. I know it is immoral, but that's why I debate with them. I hope that one day I can make somebody understand... :)Markus FIN

Somebody who says money is only numbers and isn't property cannot improve your debating skills. Debating skills are honed in the presence of resistance, such as by way of rational counterpoint.A person with good intentions stays out of things they do not understand. A reckless (dangerous) one jumps right in and does things like advocate everybody being stolen from. I think you are mistaken both in your assessment of him as well-meaning and the importance you place on well-meaning, which is actually the opposite of responsibility.

Okay I think I get it. It is just so HARD to find anyone who is NOT okay with the state using force, because everyone considers it completely moral... Even my parents agree to some exctent, even though they are both highly Liberal (both economic and social). So cutting off relationships with people who are okay with the state would mean ending ALL my relationships... And no matter how much I believe in the freedom if individuals that is a price I WILL NOT PAY!Markus FIN

[dsayers]

Thank you for making my point about momentum. Instead of making it uncomfortable for them to support violence, you're allowing them to make it uncomfortable for you to not support violence.

[Markus FIN]

Thank you for making my point about momentum. Instead of making it uncomfortable for them to support violence, you're allowing them to make it uncomfortable for you to not support violence.

But if 95% of the people are okay with Statism then wherever I go I will always feel uncomfterable talking about this. The more I talk with people who don't agree the easier it becomes for me to state my views. My aim is to be completely comfterable while talking to a person who disagrees with me. If you want to effect the opinions of other people, wouldn't only talking with people who agree with you be a bad idea? :/PS: Sorry for losing my temper in the earlier comment. It seemed like what you were saying was that everyone around me is evil... :(Markus FIN

[dsayers]

If you want to effect the opinions of other people, wouldn't only talking with people who agree with you be a bad idea? :/

 

If you haven't already, I recommend checking out Stef's series entitled The Bomb in the Brain. If you want to change what people think, it helps to know WHY they think what they do. Also, you said opinions of other people while discussing a matter of fact. No, I do not think spending extra time on people that do not accept their own capacity for error, do not accept reality, and do support violence as a solution is beneficial. Not to them and certainly not to you.

 

Sorry for losing my temper in the earlier comment. It seemed like what you were saying was that everyone around me is evil...

 

I didn't detect any loss of temper and wouldn't be effected if you had. How do you know that everyone around you is not evil?

[Magenta]

But if 95% of the people are okay with Statism then wherever I go I will always feel uncomfterable talking about this.

If 1 in 20 people you meet do not want you shot for disagreeing with them, then why would you continue to spend your time debating with them about whether you should be shot? Why not spend your time meeting new people and by the time you get to the 20th person, you'll have a nonviolent friend.

 

And if you just want to hang out with someone without supporting their values, then why bring up values in the first place? Nothing wrong with hanging out to hang out. But if you say to someone, "these are my values and I care deeply about them" and they reject your values but you continue to associate with them, then you clearly don't care about your values.

 

You can either not talk about your values or you can talk about your values and live them. You can't do both - talk about your values and not live them - that's hypocritical and it is damaging to people who actually hold values.

 

My aim is to be completely comfterable while talking to a person who disagrees with me.

You're not talking with people who disagree with you. The conversation started with a disagreement, but after explaining the truth to them (that supporting the state is to support you being shot), if they continue to support the state after being shown what it is, then they are attacking you. If this upsets you, GOOD! You're supposed to be upset when people attack you, that's your body's way of getting you out of a situation of attack.

 

If your aim to suppress that feeling, then I am worried for you. Your emotions are healthy, anger is healthy. Anger is your fuel to escape dangerous situations. Why would you want to suppress that? Why would you want to stay in a dangerous situation? You can probably guess where this goes next ... who benefits from your desire to stay in a dangerous situation? This rule that if people reject you, that you are the intolerant one for leaving. Who benefits from this rule? You or other people? Other people. So this doesn't seem like a rule that's good to follow, this seems like a rule that others imposed on you for their gain. Who in your life imposed this rule on you? Can we start with your parents? 

 

It is just so HARD to find anyone who is NOT okay with the state using force, because everyone considers it completely moral... Even my parents agree to some exctent, even though they are both highly Liberal (both economic and social). So cutting off relationships with people who are okay with the state would mean ending ALL my relationships

You said yourself that 1 in 20 people are okay with not shooting you. How do you expect to find them if you spend all of your time with people who support shooting you? I'm not saying that people who hold values cannot hold relationships. I'm saying that either you don't bring up values, or you bring up values and live them. The fact that you keep bringing up values makes me think that you really want to live them but you need help. I want to help.

 

The way you phrase things is telling. Saying that people who attack you are merely "disagreeing" with you, that when people reject you, it is you who would be "cutting off the relationships". Again, people are rejecting you and yet you feel that you are the one rejecting. These people have already rejected you, to leave would be to acknowledge that truth; it wouldn't be rejecting them. Who has shaped your thinking this way? Can we start with your parents? Can we talk about times that you were rejected as a child, but told that you should still love your parents?

[Markus FIN]

If you haven't already, I recommend checking out Stef's series entitled The Bomb in the Brain. If you want to change what people think, it helps to know WHY they think what they do. Also, you said opinions of other people while discussing a matter of fact. No, I do not think spending extra time on people that do not accept their own capacity for error, do not accept reality, and do support violence as a solution is beneficial. Not to them and certainly not to you.I didn't detect any loss of temper and wouldn't be effected if you had. How do you know that everyone around you is not evil?

I hope they are not. My parents are the people who taught me the morality that allows me to understand at least somewhat how the world should work, so without them I might just be another Socialist moron... Could I ever blame them for being BAD because of this?Markus FIN

If 1 in 20 people you meet do not want you shot for disagreeing with them, then why would you continue to spend your time debating with them about whether you should be shot? Why not spend your time meeting new people and by the time you get to the 20th person, you'll have a nonviolent friend.And if you just want to hang out with someone without supporting their values, then why bring up values in the first place? Nothing wrong with hanging out to hang out. But if you say to someone, "these are my values and I care deeply about them" and they reject your values but you continue to associate with them, then you clearly don't care about your values.You can either not talk about your values or you can talk about your values and live them. You can't do both - talk about your values and not live them - that's hypocritical and it is damaging to people who actually hold values.You're not talking with people who disagree with you. The conversation started with a disagreement, but after explaining the truth to them (that supporting the state is to support you being shot), if they continue to support the state after being shown what it is, then they are attacking you. If this upsets you, GOOD! You're supposed to be upset when people attack you, that's your body's way of getting you out of a situation of attack.If your aim to suppress that feeling, then I am worried for you. Your emotions are healthy, anger is healthy. Anger is your fuel to escape dangerous situations. Why would you want to suppress that? Why would you want to stay in a dangerous situation? You can probably guess where this goes next ... who benefits from your desire to stay in a dangerous situation? This rule that if people reject you, that you are the intolerant one for leaving. Who benefits from this rule? You or other people? Other people. So this doesn't seem like a rule that's good to follow, this seems like a rule that others imposed on you for their gain. Who in your life imposed this rule on you? Can we start with your parents? You said yourself that 1 in 20 people are okay with not shooting you. How do you expect to find them if you spend all of your time with people who support shooting you? I'm not saying that people who hold values cannot hold relationships. I'm saying that either you don't bring up values, or you bring up values and live them. The fact that you keep bringing up values makes me think that you really want to live them but you need help. I want to help.The way you phrase things is telling. Saying that people who attack you are merely "disagreeing" with you, that when people reject you, it is you who would be "cutting off the relationships". Again, people are rejecting you and yet you feel that you are the one rejecting. These people have already rejected you, to leave would be to acknowledge that truth; it wouldn't be rejecting them. Who has shaped your thinking this way? Can we start with your parents? Can we talk about times that you were rejected as a child, but told that you should still love your parents?

I have had a great childhood but sometimes something I have said has been rejected, but they still made clear they love me even if they disagree with my political views. :')PS: Thank you for caring about me, it is a bit of a rare treat nowadays in the world. :)Markus FIN

[ancapzeebo]

Statists gonna state. Socialists gonna steal.  Anarchists gonna facepalm.