A rational proof that taxation is theft.

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, lorry said:

See, if consent is required for existence of preferences then that means I can't have preferences until I consent. But that means I can't have a preference for something some end until I've acted to achieve it. But that means I can't have preferences, because I'm not making choices, I'm just doing things and then rationalizing after the fact. So if I consent to consent, if I accept your definition, then the implication is that what I consider the rational capacity to make choices is just post hoc rationalization in a deterministic universe.

It's not about preferences, it's about private property. If my body or something I've made with it can be taken without consent (that is, taken by using threat, force, or fraud), the concept of private property has no meaning. I don't know why you are erecting this construction of preferences based on consent. Is it universally-preferable to steal? If everyone stole all the time the very idea of stealing has no meaning because private property has no meaning. Anyone could take anything they wanted. Therefore it cannot be universally-preferable to steal.

I'm not sure what relevance your further extrapolations have on the matter. I didn't bring up determinism at all.

[shirgall]

49 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

So here is one for you. Is the Vatican or the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy See a thief?

A fraudster who seeks to convince others to give him property based on falsehoods. Not a thief, but certainly not a role model.

[lorry]

Literally the opposite of what I wrote, my dude. Said it, like, 20 times now., in at about 4 difference ways, preference precedes consent. Consent, in the absence of preference, is just noise, it has no information content [5th way].

 

What information does consent communicate?

[M.2]

3 hours ago, shirgall said:

A fraudster who seeks to convince others to give him property based on falsehoods. Not a thief, but certainly not a role model.

I woun't insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know that we don't make claims like that on this forum without some evidence.

You still owe me a few answers to a couple questions I asked earlier.
Is the Duke of Luxembourg a thief? Is so why?
When was the first tax introduced? And why?

[Sir Exotic]

7 hours ago, lorry said:

Involves theft (i.e. alot of people are stolen from!), yes, immoral therein, yes, theft by definition, only in the special case where everyone taxed does not prefer to be taxed, thus, not theft by definition.

So forced sex is not rape, because everyone needs to prefer not to be raped. So if at least one person consents to the forced sex, forced sex ceases to be rape, thus, forced sex is not rape by definition?

 

[shirgall]

8 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I woun't insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know that we don't make claims like that on this forum without some evidence.

You still owe me a few answers to a couple questions I asked earlier.
Is the Duke of Luxembourg a thief? Is so why?
When was the first tax introduced? And why?

I don't owe you anything. I choose to participate of my own free will. Are you trying to force me into your irrelevant side missions? "Another settlement needs our help", indeed.

I have no idea when the first tax was imposed.

The Duke of Luxumbourg takes things without consent.

The Pope pushes religion (Catholicism *and* socialism), on children.

[shirgall]

11 hours ago, lorry said:

What information does consent communicate?

Explicit permission for something to happen to something under your control, freely given.

[M.2]

47 minutes ago, shirgall said:

1. I don't owe you anything. I choose to participate of my own free will. Are you trying to force me into your irrelevant side missions? "Another settlement needs our help", indeed.

2. I have no idea when the first tax was imposed.

3. The Duke of Luxumbourg takes things without consent.

4. The Pope pushes religion (Catholicism *and* socialism), on children.

1. There is something wrong with your coercion meter. Also "you owe me x" in colloquial language is not literal. But still, if you insist, I have addressed all your points so far, and you haven't. So in terms of having an honest debate, you do owe me that.

2. Sounds like an important thing not to know about something you feel (sorry, trigger word) so strongly about. I am here, actually begging to be convinced about this topic, and you can't make a good argument. And you still have 7 billion people left aside from me. Keep up the work and you will be done by judgment day.

3. Do you have an argument to support it, or...?

4. I wish Duke Pesta and Mr.Molyneux would get on with their religion debate and trigger all you atheists away. You are so boring.

[lorry]

7 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

So forced sex is not rape, because everyone needs to prefer not to be raped. So if at least one person consents to the forced sex, forced sex ceases to be rape, thus, forced sex is not rape by definition?

 

Rape is unwanted, not preferred, sex. You can not prefer to be raped because, if you prefer to be raped, you prefer the non preferred, a violation of the law of identity.

Force is force against ones will. If you have sex against your preferences, if the sex is unwanted, unwilled, that is what implies force.

All over this thread the context of force is being dropped, it can't be.

[lorry]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

Explicit permission for something to happen to something under your control, freely given.

 

Nice tautology.

 

The tyrant freely gives explicit permission to rape and murder everyone under his control! Violation of this consent is immoral!

[Sir Exotic]

14 minutes ago, lorry said:

Rape is unwanted, not preferred, sex. You can not prefer to be raped because, if you prefer to be raped, you prefer the non preferred, a violation of the law of identity.

Force is force against ones will. If you have sex against your preferences, if the sex is unwanted, unwilled, that is what implies force.

The context of force is being dropped.

You missed the part of my point where I explained that the consent is after the fact. After the person decides to use or threaten force.

Taxation has the implied force if not obeyed, which fits in the definition of theft (implied force).

I'm getting the idea you're just arguing this point for fun.
Are you saying that taxation is not necessarily theft, because someone might consent to being taxes - after the fact?

[lorry]

14 minutes ago, Jos van Weesel said:

You missed the part of my point where I explained that the consent is after the fact. After the person decides to use or threaten force.

Taxation has the implied force if not obeyed, which fits in the definition of theft (implied force).

 

Because consent is the communication of preference, and a preference can exist before the fact and be communicated after the fact.

Force is force against ones will, ones preferences. So the fact that I consent after the fact doesn't imply it isn't preferable before the fact. And if it is preferable before the fact, how can the force be against ones will, against ones preferences?

[Sir Exotic]

..

[Sir Exotic]

18 minutes ago, Jos van Weesel said:

I'm getting the idea you're just arguing this point for fun.
Are you saying that taxation is not necessarily theft, because someone might consent to being taxes - after the fact?

 

[lorry]

8 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

 

 

I'm trying to say that consent after the fact does not necessarily imply the non existence of a preference before the fact.

 

Like, you can know the answer to a question before you tell me the answer to a question. And, if you don't tell me the answer to a question, it doesn't necessarily imply you don't know the answer.

 

I'm saying they might consent after the fact but prefer it before that fact, and if they prefer it before the fact, there is no force and no immorality.

[Sir Exotic]

33 minutes ago, lorry said:

I'm saying they might consent after the fact but prefer it before that fact, and if they prefer it before the fact, there is no force and no immorality.

Earlier you said:
"Rape is unwanted, not preferred, sex. You can not prefer to be raped because, if you prefer to be raped, you prefer the non preferred, a violation of the law of identity."

By your own accord, and I agree with you, rape is necessarily unwanted because of the implication/use of force, which renders 'voluntary rape' as a contradiction.

Taxation is similar, in that, if one prefers to be taxed, it ceases to be forced and therefore is not taxation.

Let me demonstrate that here:
● Taxation = forced extraction of income/wealth = form of Theft. → If taxation is wanted/voluntary, then it ceases to be taxation and becomes voluntary → (voluntary) fee/donation*.
● (Forced) blowjob = forced sexual act = form of Rape. → If the blowjob is wanted/voluntary, then it ceases to be rape and becomes voluntary → (voluntary) sexual act.

*voluntary donation is a tautology, but I decided to put it like this to avoid confusion, just to emphasize that it is now voluntary.

You agreed that rape cannot be voluntary, because of the force involved. Then taxation, where (the threat of) force is also involved, also cannot be voluntary.

I will say it again:
Taxation is theft by definition because of the (implied) force. If a mugger on the street demands my money or he will harm me, me giving him my money is not consensual.
It can only be consensual if he is not using or threatening with force (besides violent force as in assault, also fraud/coercion). If I then decide to voluntarily give him my money, it is not theft, but a donation.

If that doesn't clear it up, I'm afraid I give up going around in circles.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

I don't owe you anything. I choose to participate of my own free will. Are you trying to force me into your irrelevant side missions? "Another settlement needs our help", indeed.

Sorry to interject, but I had to say this was a clever statement that speaks my mind. I don't think when the first tax came to be (which would be further complicated by how a "tax" could be defined, I mean if tax=theft, then the first tax was when Caine stole Abel's life, or beyond) is in any way relevant to the discussion.

 

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

The Pope pushes religion (Catholicism *and* socialism), on children.

THIS Pope does. Definitely not a proud moment of Roman Catholic history. FYI I am of the opinion that religion should be taught to adults, not children. More precisely the existence or non-existence of God should be a subject for adults who can debate for themselves, while the Christian values can be demonstrated/taught/argued to children without the need of God.

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

The Duke of Luxumbourg takes things without consent.

 

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

MISHI (NOT shirgall): 

3. Do you have an argument to support it, or...?

IF the Grand Duke of Luxembourg arranged a contract with his entire citizenry that stipulated point by point what rights the citizen has, what rents (not taxes because he's supposed to be a landlord) are owed, and what the rents will be going to, and EVERY citizen has agreed to it, THEN it could be easily argued that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a moral non-NAP violating state. However I assume the taxes collected go to whatever the bureaucrats want it to go and the citizenry is in no position individually to arrange for a new contract or re-negotiation, or even a negotiation at all. 

I don't think the "love it or leave it" argument can be called a moral one since there is no place where private property will be totally respected. Sure I could live out in the Gobi Dessert...until some desert animal or bandit comes along and robs my property. I would have to start from scratch in "creating civilization" and God help us when the Chinese government decides it no longer tolerates the micro-state growing in its backyard and starts taxing us. Then it becomes an Amerindian style retreat deeper into the woodlands/arctics/deserts until there is nowhere left to run.

Hiding out in the wilderness is not a viable strategy in the long-run unless the goal is merely temporary freedom. 

The basic argument is something like this: You own a store, I have a gun. I say it'd be an awful shame if something bad happen to it. Pay me 500$ per month and I'll have some of my boys patrol it. Mind they have their own preferences so here's a.... (insert byzantine contract here)... and now here's where you sign your name.

Doesn't that sound like a mafia shakedown? And that's what governments do constantly. They threaten harm, either by their own hand or by others, and offer "protection" for money. If it's theft for the Mafia then why isn't it theft for the State, who is far stronger and is possessed of far more resources?

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Sounds like an important thing not to know about something you feel (sorry, trigger word) so strongly about. I am here, actually begging to be convinced about this topic, and you can't make a good argument. And you still have 7 billion people left aside from me. Keep up the work and you will be done by judgment day.

Well, the plan is to slowly grow an international AnCap community through demonstrating how effectively Peaceful Parenting and NAP following improves the quality of one's own life, and therefore by extension attract others into living it. Demonstrating the effectiveness of living a principled life is generally more productive than arguing for its effectiveness, although the latter may be necessary for a would-be man or woman of principle to procreate, I don't think it's worth arguing outside of personal relations since it is far better to demonstrate why AnCap, NAP, and UPB are great and moral than to spend countless hours arguing for it while the State indoctrinates millions of children. It's a race we can't win through argument alone. We have to demonstrate it and put a spotlight on it and attract the curious. Over time, which may be centuries, this plan may yield fruit enough for a real AnCap to be possible.  

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. I wish Duke Pesta and Mr.Molyneux would get on with their religion debate and trigger all you atheists away. You are so boring.

I am tempted to agree. I don't believe in God, or at least I'm not sure, but I strongly identify with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of morality and principles. I don't need a God to validate my beliefs, but rather reason and evidence. 

That being said it's not like Shirgall's wrong. Most religious families DO indoctrinate their kids rather than make good arguments for religion and wait until they're adults before trying to introduce them to religion. 

While that may not be the worst thing in the world, it can't be called moral to attempt to mold impressionable minds to fit a perceived world view, even if that view is true. Therefore while I am inclined to prefer Christians over atheists, I can't fault the atheist argument that pushing abstractions and threatening Hell for not obeying/believing is immoral because, well, it IS immoral. It is threatening children instead of reasoning with them. 

To be clear, I'm not saying ALL Christian families do it. Just that it's woefully common and worth condemnation.  

[shirgall]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. There is something wrong with your coercion meter. Also "you owe me x" in colloquial language is not literal. But still, if you insist, I have addressed all your points so far, and you haven't. So in terms of having an honest debate, you do owe me that.

2. Sounds like an important thing not to know about something you feel (sorry, trigger word) so strongly about. I am here, actually begging to be convinced about this topic, and you can't make a good argument. And you still have 7 billion people left aside from me. Keep up the work and you will be done by judgment day.

3. Do you have an argument to support it, or...?

4. I wish Duke Pesta and Mr.Molyneux would get on with their religion debate and trigger all you atheists away. You are so boring.

1. You said "owe", not me. As for "honest debate", see #2. Taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

2. It's not important just because you feel it is. We can't even start arguing because we can't even agree on a definition. Common terminology and understanding is necessary before we go anywhere. Taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

3. See #2. Taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

4. "Wishing" things to change sounds a lot like prayer. And it's just as effective, too. Also, taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

PS, 

[shirgall]

4 hours ago, lorry said:

Nice tautology.

Show how it is a tautology. I'm referring to private property, of course, derived from ownership of one's own body and what one produce's with it. Your example required slavery to a tyrant, which is not akin.

[M.2]

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. Sorry to interject, but I had to say this was a clever statement that speaks my mind. I don't think when the first tax came to be (which would be further complicated by how a "tax" could be defined, I mean if tax=theft, then the first tax was when Caine stole Abel's life, or beyond) is in any way relevant to the discussion.

2. THIS Pope does. Definitely not a proud moment of Roman Catholic history. FYI I am of the opinion that religion should be taught to adults, not children. More precisely the existence or non-existence of God should be a subject for adults who can debate for themselves, while the Christian values can be demonstrated/taught/argued to children without the need of God.

3. IF the Grand Duke of Luxembourg arranged a contract with his entire citizenry that stipulated point by point what rights the citizen has, what rents (not taxes because he's supposed to be a landlord) are owed, and what the rents will be going to, and EVERY citizen has agreed to it, THEN it could be easily argued that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a moral non-NAP violating state. However I assume the taxes collected go to whatever the bureaucrats want it to go and the citizenry is in no position individually to arrange for a new contract or re-negotiation, or even a negotiation at all. 

I don't think the "love it or leave it" argument can be called a moral one since there is no place where private property will be totally respected. Sure I could live out in the Gobi Dessert...until some desert animal or bandit comes along and robs my property. I would have to start from scratch in "creating civilization" and God help us when the Chinese government decides it no longer tolerates the micro-state growing in its backyard and starts taxing us. Then it becomes an Amerindian style retreat deeper into the woodlands/arctics/deserts until there is nowhere left to run.

Hiding out in the wilderness is not a viable strategy in the long-run unless the goal is merely temporary freedom. 

The basic argument is something like this: You own a store, I have a gun. I say it'd be an awful shame if something bad happen to it. Pay me 500$ per month and I'll have some of my boys patrol it. Mind they have their own preferences so here's a.... (insert byzantine contract here)... and now here's where you sign your name.

Doesn't that sound like a mafia shakedown? And that's what governments do constantly. They threaten harm, either by their own hand or by others, and offer "protection" for money. If it's theft for the Mafia then why isn't it theft for the State, who is far stronger and is possessed of far more resources?

4. Well, the plan is to slowly grow an international AnCap community through demonstrating how effectively Peaceful Parenting and NAP following improves the quality of one's own life, and therefore by extension attract others into living it. Demonstrating the effectiveness of living a principled life is generally more productive than arguing for its effectiveness, although the latter may be necessary for a would-be man or woman of principle to procreate, I don't think it's worth arguing outside of personal relations since it is far better to demonstrate why AnCap, NAP, and UPB are great and moral than to spend countless hours arguing for it while the State indoctrinates millions of children. It's a race we can't win through argument alone. We have to demonstrate it and put a spotlight on it and attract the curious. Over time, which may be centuries, this plan may yield fruit enough for a real AnCap to be possible.  

5. I am tempted to agree. I don't believe in God, or at least I'm not sure, but I strongly identify with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of morality and principles. I don't need a God to validate my beliefs, but rather reason and evidence. 

That being said it's not like Shirgall's wrong. Most religious families DO indoctrinate their kids rather than make good arguments for religion and wait until they're adults before trying to introduce them to religion. 

While that may not be the worst thing in the world, it can't be called moral to attempt to mold impressionable minds to fit a perceived world view, even if that view is true. Therefore while I am inclined to prefer Christians over atheists, I can't fault the atheist argument that pushing abstractions and threatening Hell for not obeying/believing is immoral because, well, it IS immoral. It is threatening children instead of reasoning with them. 

To be clear, I'm not saying ALL Christian families do it. Just that it's woefully common and worth condemnation.  

1. It is relevant because I think it is important for definig tax. 
For example, if I say "Democracy is stupid and should be considered bullying", then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how the first democracy came to be and why exactly it did in order to advance the discussion.

2. I'm sorry, man. I need solid evidence from you too in order to discuss the Pope. 
I think it is unreasonable, or even evil to ask parents not to teach to their children what they believe to be correct. But I am open to changing my mind on this one.

3. There is a contract, and it's called the common law, or the constitution. Renegotiation happens during elections, and opting out is even easier; all you have to do is leave.

There is actually a civilised state that respects private property, and of which taxes are unenforced: the Holy See. You don't hear the Libertarians mention that too often though.

Your argument is based on the premise that the store that you own is built on your land exclusively. That may be the case in the USA, but most places on the planet, land ownership is restricted to the government. The government leases you the land to do with it what you will, and then charges you in return.

4. I don't disagree with anything on this point, but I have to say that there is still a lot to polish on your (all Anarchists) argument. The case for AnCap is still very weak, and Mr.Molyneux admits this in his book, because it has never existed yet. My issue is that you keep talking about theory and ideas, whereas there is a ton of material out there in the world, wherein countries have come close to AnCap. And all of you seem to be unwilling to discuss them.

5. "Indictrinated" is an extremely overused and vague term. 

Also. If you think it is easy to "indoctrinate" a child into faith, dude, no. It is frickin hard, because a child is born to question things. And the questioning only increases as they get older. Unless of course the parents turn them over to the state where the nature of skepticism is literally beaten out of them. There is absolutely no person on this planet who has been coerced or  into being christian by their parents and then stayed christian, because the respect for free will is the fundamental thesis of christianity. It is impossible to indoctrinate someone into Christianity. Because if it involves force or lies, that is not christianity.

23 minutes ago, shirgall said:

1. You said "owe", not me. As for "honest debate", see #2. Taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

2. It's not important just because you feel it is. We can't even start arguing because we can't even agree on a definition. Common terminology and understanding is necessary before we go anywhere. Taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

3. See #2. Taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

4. "Wishing" things to change sounds a lot like prayer. And it's just as effective, too. Also, taking someone's property without their consent is theft.

1. I challenged your premise that there is no consent.

2. It is relevant because I think it is important for definig tax. 
For example, if I say "Democracy is stupid and should be considered bullying", then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how the first democracy came to be and why exactly it did in order to advance the discussion.

3. You remind me an awful lot of the leftists who keep on repeating their dogma, hoping it will work as they do.

4. Hang on. Let me rephrase.
Dear Lord, Jesus Christ, please bring it to the attention of Mr.Molyneux that some of us are dying to see that debate between him and Duke Pesta. And also please bring down your balls of fire on the heathens who refuse bring proper arguments to the forums. But in the end O Lord, it is not my will, but yours that be done. Amen

My homie Jesus will whoop your arse. Just watch

[Gavitor]

19 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Is the Vatican or the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy See a thief?

Yes.

24 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

My homie Jesus will whoop your arse. Just watch

I believe you...

[S1988]

36 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There is absolutely no person on this planet who has been coerced or  into being christian by their parents and then stayed christian, because the respect for free will is the fundamental thesis of christianity. It is impossible to indoctrinate someone into Christianity. Because if it involves force or lies, that is not christianity.

You haven't heard of my two older siblings then. They were raised Christian as kids and still are today. (Then, again, they're practically her brainwashed henchmen who don't question anything she does, which is why they're her favorites.) I come from a fundamentalist Christian background, and I started to question it in my teens. I became atheist when I was a senior in high school, but my mother didn't take too kindly to it and tried to force me to believe for a few years until she backed off a bit. (I guess she was tired of me resisting and gave up.)

[Siegfried von Walheim]

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. It is relevant because I think it is important for definig tax. 
For example, if I say "Democracy is stupid and should be considered bullying", then it is perfectly reasonable to ask how the first democracy came to be and why exactly it did in order to advance the discussion.

I think what is best is to simply offer a definition of tax and work with it. If that definition is unsatisfactory, then argue for a change of it. I will define tax as "money or property collected through force by a group" relative to rent which is voluntarily paid without the threat of force. 

EDIT: I apologize if some of my sentences are short, abrasive, or skewed: I got royally screwed and lost a half-hour's worth of words when my computer bugged out on me. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I'm sorry, man. I need solid evidence from you too in order to discuss the Pope. 

Got it. Not really important to the argument.

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I think it is unreasonable, or even evil to ask parents not to teach to their children what they believe to be correct. But I am open to changing my mind on this one.

I said (or think I said) indoctrinate, which implies forcefully making someone believe something rather than make rational arguments or proofs for something. Therefore it is moral to teach fire is dangerous by explaining it and perhaps burning some paper with it rather than hitting my child until he "agrees" with me. That's the difference between arguing/proving versus indoctrinating.

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

3. There is a contract, and it's called the common law, or the constitution. Renegotiation happens during elections, and opting out is even easier; all you have to do is leave.

Love it or leave it, I can't say that's moral since it violates the rights of the individual owner. Also democracy is a sham and highly rigged, therefore there isn't much of a recourse for those who disagree with the State. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There is actually a civilised state that respects private property, and of which taxes are unenforced: the Holy See. You don't hear the Libertarians mention that too often though.

If that's true I want to see if they have room for a house. I assume it'll be insanely expensive but if they got the room and I manage to work my way up to the money, I'm buying it.

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Your argument is based on the premise that the store that you own is built on your land exclusively. That may be the case in the USA, but most places on the planet, land ownership is restricted to the government. The government leases you the land to do with it what you will, and then charges you in return.

If it can be said to be moral for a sole group or person to own all the land in a country, and it can be said to be moral for that group or person to impose conditions for that land, then I think I have to agree with you. I'm not sure since I know there's a slippery slope I'm risking if I say "it is immoral for someone or a group to have a monopoly of a lot of land". Perhaps someone wiser than me can argue this point further since my mind is blanking, largely from frustration as I got unlucky with the internet.

A feudal system in which force is decentralized is easier to argue for the morality of if it is NAP compliant as technically the Counts are more Landlord than Government as a government, I will define, is a centralization of force over a geographical area and uses force to maintain its ownership/supremacy.

My point earlier was how it is important to be clear with definitions. I think most of us Rightists define the government as a "monopoly or supremacy of force with which it reigns over an area of people and land". 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. I don't disagree with anything on this point, but I have to say that there is still a lot to polish on your (all Anarchists) argument. The case for AnCap is still very weak, and Mr.Molyneux admits this in his book, because it has never existed yet. My issue is that you keep talking about theory and ideas, whereas there is a ton of material out there in the world, wherein countries have come close to AnCap. And all of you seem to be unwilling to discuss them.

What do you mean? I think the early Roman Republic, early Roman Empire, early America, etc. are great examples of almost-ancaps worth arguing as demonstrations that the less government and taxation there is, the better. Therefore no government and no taxation is theoretically the best. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

5. "Indictrinated" is an extremely overused and vague term. 

Let's define it as forcing someone to believe something or pretend to believe something. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Also. If you think it is easy to "indoctrinate" a child into faith, dude, no. It is frickin hard, because a child is born to question things. And the questioning only increases as they get older. Unless of course the parents turn them over to the state where the nature of skepticism is literally beaten out of them. There is absolutely no person on this planet who has been coerced or  into being christian by their parents and then stayed christian, because the respect for free will is the fundamental thesis of christianity. It is impossible to indoctrinate someone into Christianity. Because if it involves force or lies, that is not christianity.

I agree with you completely. I just mean there are fake Christians that do this and they're worth condemning. Also since children are too young to really argue for themselves, I think they should wait until they're around 16-18 before being introduced to more abstract concepts like God. I think children should be raised with values through demonstration and reasoning. I think taking a child to Church and claiming God is real without proof is bad for a child since it contradicts the Christian values of skepticism and free will, as I am essentially overpowering intellectually my hypothetical child rather then letting them make their own decisions as adults and arming them to make those decisions well as children.

If that makes sense. I am not at my best, so I might be confusing with my words. 

52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Hang on. Let me rephrase.
Dear Lord, Jesus Christ, please bring it to the attention of Mr.Molyneux that some of us are dying to see that debate between him and Duke Pesta. And also please bring down your balls of fire on the heathens who refuse bring proper arguments to the forums. But in the end O Lord, it is not my will, but yours that be done. Amen

My homie Jesus will whoop your arse. Just watch

Lol keep it clean man. 

Lol but still. I think this is a very important debate and one I've been paying attention to for weeks now. I'm curious how you two can argue it, and how I can argue it based on what I know, so let's not get too dirty...

[shirgall]

I was born an atheist like everyone else, and stayed that way. Saved me a lot of grief.

What is the age of consent for life-changing events like sex and marriage? Why is the age of consent for religion lower?

[lorry]

4 hours ago, shirgall said:

Show how it is a tautology. I'm referring to private property, of course, derived from ownership of one's own body and what one produce's with it. Your example required slavery to a tyrant, which is not akin.

 

Defining something with its synonym is a tautology.

 

Your concept of consent has no basis in reality because it has no reference to man's volitional will. You have made it purposeful action without purpose, choosing without choice.  Welcome to determinism.

[Gavitor]

2 minutes ago, lorry said:

 

Defining something with its synonym is a tautology.

 

Your concept of consent has no basis in reality because it has no reference to man's volitional will. You have made it purposeful action without purpose, choosing without choice.  Welcome to determinism.

Stop being obtuse. If I give consent you wouldn't need to threaten me to get what you want.

[lorry]

7 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said:

Earlier you said:
"Rape is unwanted, not preferred, sex. You can not prefer to be raped because, if you prefer to be raped, you prefer the non preferred, a violation of the law of identity."

By your own accord, and I agree with you, rape is necessarily unwanted because of the implication/use of force, which renders 'voluntary rape' as a contradiction.

Taxation is similar, in that, if one prefers to be taxed, it ceases to be forced and therefore is not taxation.

Let me demonstrate that here:
● Taxation = forced extraction of income/wealth = form of Theft. → If taxation is wanted/voluntary, then it ceases to be taxation and becomes voluntary → (voluntary) fee/donation*.
● (Forced) blowjob = forced sexual act = form of Rape. → If the blowjob is wanted/voluntary, then it ceases to be rape and becomes voluntary → (voluntary) sexual act.

*voluntary donation is a tautology, but I decided to put it like this to avoid confusion, just to emphasize that it is now voluntary.

You agreed that rape cannot be voluntary, because of the force involved. Then taxation, where (the threat of) force is also involved, also cannot be voluntary.

I will say it again:
Taxation is theft by definition because of the (implied) force. If a mugger on the street demands my money or he will harm me, me giving him my money is not consensual.
It can only be consensual if he is not using or threatening with force (besides violent force as in assault, also fraud/coercion). If I then decide to voluntarily give him my money, it is not theft, but a donation.

If that doesn't clear it up, I'm afraid I give up going around in circles.

 

No, my dude. This might help.

 

Force is a means to an end, but means are valued for the ends they bring, so the ends determine the value of the means.

Force isn't bad, force to bring about a bad end is bad.

Force isn't good, force to bring about a good end is good.

So you can't say "X is force, therefore it is bad" you have to show that "the end achieved by X is bad therefore X is bad".

 

Also, you've dropped the second part of taxation, the provision of some benefit, can't do that either.

[lorry]

37 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

Stop being obtuse. If I give consent you wouldn't need to threaten me to get what you want. consent

 

Wants don't exist, consent is the irreducible primary of human action, pay attention please.

 

[M.2]

4 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Yes.

So how exactly so?

4 hours ago, S1988 said:

You haven't heard of my two older siblings then. They were raised Christian as kids and still are today. (Then, again, they're practically her brainwashed henchmen who don't question anything she does, which is why they're her favorites.) I come from a fundamentalist Christian background, and I started to question it in my teens. I became atheist when I was a senior in high school, but my mother didn't take too kindly to it and tried to force me to believe for a few years until she backed off a bit. (I guess she was tired of me resisting and gave up.)

Ah, fundamentalist protestants... Giving Christ a bad name since 1517. Sorry about your mother. I have been abused by Protestants as well.

To my record, I should have said Catholic instead of Christian. Protestants are such a mess, nobody can keep track what they believe.

2 hours ago, shirgall said:

I was born an atheist like everyone else, and stayed that way. Saved me a lot of grief.

What is the age of consent for life-changing events like sex and marriage? Why is the age of consent for religion lower?

Good for you. I grew up in a majority atheist society. You should try it sometime. Tons to pick from: Sweden, China, North Korea, France, Japan, Chechia (its actually a pretty nice place).

If you want to get technical, protestants baptise very late in life, mostly at 18. Catholics do confirmation sometime in the teen years, but it is really dependent on the individual and the province they are from.
But again, I don't think it is reasonable to prohibit or discourage parents from teaching their children what they believe to be right. It would be cruel of the parent not to do what they believe to be for the benefit of the child. If you want to change what they children learn, convince the parents to do think otherwise. You might want to go about it like the Jesuits convinced Latin America: with love, kindness, and the Spanish Armada. Coz you know, your methods I have seen are of questionable efficacy.

[Tyler H]

33 minutes ago, lorry said:

Also, you've dropped the second part of taxation, the provision of some benefit, can't do that either

Anyone “benefitting” from taxation is not actually being taxed. If I steal $100 from Ted and give you $50 (in fiat or services), then “tax” you $5, I have really just given you $45. You’ve paid nothing. I’ve just created the illusion that you have by giving to you more than I ultimately intend. So anyone who “prefers” to be taxed is either so propagandized they don’t realize they are being fleeced to sustain a massive, parasitical bureaucracy, or they aren’t actually “paying” any taxes. Someone else is “paying” their taxes for them through the force of state. 

Irrespective, it doesn’t matter because the threat of force is behind the entire system which makes it theft.

[lorry]

15 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Anyone “benefitting” from taxation is not actually being taxed. If I steal $100 from Ted and give you $50 (in fiat or services), then “tax” you $5, I have really just given you $45. You’ve paid nothing. I’ve just created the illusion that you have by giving to you more than I ultimately intend. So anyone who “prefers” to be taxed is either so propagandized they don’t realize they are being fleeced to sustain a massive, parasitical bureaucracy, or they aren’t actually “paying” any taxes. Someone else is “paying” their taxes for them through the force of state. 

Irrespective, it doesn’t matter because the threat of force is behind the entire system which makes it theft.

 

I totally agree, provided that value, and thus benefit, is objective. Or, if you prefer, you can say that if you reject the subjective theory of value.

 

[shirgall]

16 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If you want to get technical, protestants baptise very late in life, mostly at 18. Catholics do confirmation sometime in the teen years, but it is really dependent on the individual and the province they are from.
But again, I don't think it is reasonable to prohibit or discourage parents from teaching their children what they believe to be right. It would be cruel of the parent not to do what they believe to be for the benefit of the child. If you want to change what they children learn, convince the parents to do think otherwise. You might want to go about it like the Jesuits convinced Latin America: with love, kindness, and the Spanish Armada. Coz you know, your methods I have seen are of questionable efficacy.

Do you consider baptism and confirmation to be the starting point of religious indoctrination?

[shirgall]

17 hours ago, lorry said:

Defining something with its synonym is a tautology.

Your concept of consent has no basis in reality because it has no reference to man's volitional will. You have made it purposeful action without purpose, choosing without choice.  Welcome to determinism.

When did I say any of this?

[shirgall]

16 hours ago, lorry said:

Wants don't exist, consent is the irreducible primary of human action, pay attention please.

Since a considerable amount of effort is expended on "informed consent" in medical practices and "explicit continuous consent" in campus rape cases, it's clear that consent *can* be analyzed and is therefore not irreducible. The fact that I insist that consent must be freely given and is not equivalent to a lack of resistance under duress indicates that consent is be analyzed.

If there are irreducible primaries, they might be "existence exists", "consciousness exists", and that things are themselves. Free will and consent derive from these axioms, they are not equivalent to them.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think what is best is to simply offer a definition of tax and work with it. If that definition is unsatisfactory, then argue for a change of it. I will define tax as "money or property collected through force by a group" relative to rent which is voluntarily paid without the threat of force. 

Well, we tried that, and that is what we are arguing over. The problem with shirgall's definition is that it already presumes that tax is deducted by immoral force. 

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I said (or think I said) indoctrinate, which implies forcefully making someone believe something rather than make rational arguments or proofs for something. Therefore it is moral to teach fire is dangerous by explaining it and perhaps burning some paper with it rather than hitting my child until he "agrees" with me. That's the difference between arguing/proving versus indoctrinating.

You include force in your definition. How eactly is the current pope forcing someone to believe something? Saying he is lying is one thing, but that claim is rather different.

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Love it or leave it, I can't say that's moral since it violates the rights of the individual owner. Also democracy is a sham and highly rigged, therefore there isn't much of a recourse for those who disagree with the State. 

I think as long as you have the permission to opt out of the game, you are in the game by choice. Because quite frankly, I think claiming such a level of victimhood in America is a slap in the face to everyone in North Korea, Cuba, China, and else.

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

If that's true I want to see if they have room for a house. I assume it'll be insanely expensive but if they got the room and I manage to work my way up to the money, I'm buying it.

There are only 2 ways to become official resident of the Vatican. Become a member of the Conclave, or become a Swiss Guard. However, that is mainly in theory, as there are many others who have permission to live there. But still, you have to be very useful to the Vatican.

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

If it can be said to be moral for a sole group or person to own all the land in a country, and it can be said to be moral for that group or person to impose conditions for that land, then I think I have to agree with you. I'm not sure since I know there's a slippery slope I'm risking if I say "it is immoral for someone or a group to have a monopoly of a lot of land". Perhaps someone wiser than me can argue this point further since my mind is blanking, largely from frustration as I got unlucky with the internet.

A feudal system in which force is decentralized is easier to argue for the morality of if it is NAP compliant as technically the Counts are more Landlord than Government as a government, I will define, is a centralization of force over a geographical area and uses force to maintain its ownership/supremacy.

Why is it so hard to think of the Monarch as a landlord? He inherited it after all, and before him, his ancestors either fought for it, or earned it. 

In medieval monarchies, force was always decentralised. After all, the lords were the soldiers to the monarch. It was not rare that a king had smaller armies than some of his lords.

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

My point earlier was how it is important to be clear with definitions. I think most of us Rightists define the government as a "monopoly or supremacy of force with which it reigns over an area of people and land". 

I don't think they are wrong. The question is whether or not their ownership is legitimate. A debate over legitimacy is certainly a debate I wish to have. 

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

What do you mean? I think the early Roman Republic, early Roman Empire, early America, etc. are great examples of almost-ancaps worth arguing as demonstrations that the less government and taxation there is, the better. Therefore no government and no taxation is theoretically the best. 

Hey, not my words. I think it is somehwere in the middle of Everyday Anarchy. But I agree with you. Those places are very good arguments for AnCap, and its a shame few Anarchists use them.

On ‎2017‎. ‎09‎. ‎27‎. at 11:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Let's define it as forcing someone to believe something or pretend to believe something. 

I agree with you completely. I just mean there are fake Christians that do this and they're worth condemning. Also since children are too young to really argue for themselves, I think they should wait until they're around 16-18 before being introduced to more abstract concepts like God. I think children should be raised with values through demonstration and reasoning. I think taking a child to Church and claiming God is real without proof is bad for a child since it contradicts the Christian values of skepticism and free will, as I am essentially overpowering intellectually my hypothetical child rather then letting them make their own decisions as adults and arming them to make those decisions well as children.

If that makes sense. I am not at my best, so I might be confusing with my words. 

The reason why catholic universities often descend into liberalism is their extreme open-mindedness and tolerance. Catholics are too good at tolerating other opinions, and I think that is going to be the death of us. The ones who I have been intellectually and physically bullied by in my life are protestants, buddhists, muslims and atheists. If there is indoctrination going on, it is not in the Church.

Seriously, just try mentioning to an atheist parent that there is historical evidence behind the immaculate conception. Since presumption of your intellectual life is immediately discarded, they will instantly move on to ridicule you.

 

 

6 hours ago, shirgall said:

Do you consider baptism and confirmation to be the starting point of religious indoctrination?

If you are serious about this, I recommend we open a new thread, because it is a very important debate, but also off-topic here.