One only has to look at Konklin's notion of intellectual property to see the complete impracticality of the idea.
So you see VS. It won't work because.....humans.
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Drlee wrote:Agorism is the very antithesis of practical government
Drlee wrote: Its basis flies in the face of observed human behavior for millennia.
Drlee wrote:One only has to look at Konklin's notion of intellectual property to see the complete impracticality of the idea.
Drlee wrote:So you see VS. It won't work because.....humans.
B0ycey wrote:. If you stand by your assertion that a Libertarian Party can get elected,
B0ycey wrote: And deficit spending is not absolute requirement FYI. Germany can balance the books.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I never said this either.
I don't think they can get elected, but whether they can or cannot get elected is entirely irrelevant to my objection to a Libertarian party.
B0ycey wrote:Your clock is out of date.
B0ycey wrote:I only addressed why you would think a Libertarian Party is an oxymoron, when it isn't.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Primarily so that they could take votes away from the two main parties.
Pants-of-dog wrote:There would also be a significant increase in world peace if the US adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would like it if the US had a viable Libertarian party.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It doesn't negate the point. Germany is still running debt.
I didn't see any critique of my point on this whatsoever.
My strongest point in my post on this, was #2. That representative government is itself a contradiction of Libertarianism's cardinal doctrine (the NAP).
You never discussed this at all, and that point demonstrates without a doubt that a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron.
B0ycey wrote:As Liberal Party can exist with its values, it cannot be a contradiction and as such never an oxymoron.
B0ycey wrote:I didn't critique your post VS because most of your points are accurate. In fact, I would love to copy and paste them to make an entirely new thread on why a political party essentially operates the same way as their opposition when elected into office because they need to win votes to keep power.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This whole debate seems to be about the definition of libertarianism; i.e. the role of the state.
Pants-of-dog wrote:What you see as an oxymoron seems to be merely a pragmatic concession to reality.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is simply untrue, if your core value is that its immoral to violate the NAP, and if being a part of the state REQUIRES you to implicitly support such, then that means that the idea of the party is oxymoronic, as its predicated on an inherent contradiction.
Let me sum this up for you; barring 100% voluntary consent to do so; all taxation as it currently stands is a violation of libertarian values; thus, a libertarian party running on anything other than requiring 100% voluntary assent for every single tax, or banning such altogether, is violating its own principle of the NAP. PERIOD.
You couldn't get a better example of an oxymoron, even from a textbook.
B0ycey wrote:OK, so why is paying taxes aggressive?
Pants-of-dog wrote: If libertarianism was so good for business, whu does business not support it?
Pants-of-dog wrote:This thread seems to be about libertarians working within the current liberal system.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Speculative musings about libertarian purists does not seem to be relevant.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I did address this under point #2 in my post on this, but I will answer your question briefly anyway;
Because its not voluntary; if I refuse to pay taxes they will make me by force (violating the NAP).
Libertarianism's core doctrine of the NAP implies that all exchanges/agreements be made voluntarily.
B0ycey wrote:By being part of the social contract means you give consent for the state to tax you.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:For instance, the federal government taxes me at gunpoint, if I don't pay taxes they will make me do so under threat of force. This is a violation of the NAP and therefore invalid. Now, you might object that I can vote and am therefore complicit in this thievery via representation; however, I never agreed to this arrangement, nor did my father, nor did his father's father. We are born under this obligation and must abide by it against our will or consent. Indeed, if it were truly voluntary and consistent with the NAP, then we could surrender our privilege to vote in exchange for no longer having to pay taxes; however, we all know what would happen then now don't we? Everyone would surrender their voting privileges in order to be tax free and the government would entirely collapse.
B0ycey wrote: If you don't agree to this, your alternative option is to become an outlaw
B0ycey wrote:a Libertarian Party has a obligation to tax you and as such is not an oxymoron.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This was ALSO ADDRESSED under point #2 of my original post where I specifically answer that objection.
Namely, I never consented to this arrangement or social contract; nor would giving up my voting privileges allow me to no longer pay taxes anyway; hence I am being forced to an obligation that I did not voluntarily assent to.
Here was my argument from my original post (that you claimed to have read):
B0ycey wrote:Hence by being part of the social contract you by default give consent to be taxed.
B0ycey wrote:Again a Liberal Party could promote state aid and not violate the NAP under your argument to give the idle a free pass without any aggression being needed.
B0ycey wrote:You could become just like Anarchist23 and become a drain on society.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That's absurd. I never agreed to this contract, so its not really a contract at all.
This isn't true either; because they only get these funds through taxation; which are theft.
No, I instead become self-sufficient and avoid government inasmuch as its possible for me to do so without jeopardizing my family by exposing them to direct harm at the hands of an angry state.
Read the link on Agorism to get an idea what this entails.
Fascism is right-wing nationalism. All the peopl[…]
You cannot "choke" the trachea, but a n[…]
Limiting people's freedom of speech by shutting do[…]
Oh God I'm getting so hot thinking about all of th[…]