Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Mishi2

Member
  • Content count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Mishi2 last won the day on May 1

Mishi2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 Good

1 Follower

About Mishi2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    History, Philosophy, Languages, Geography, Geopolitics, Religion, Cultures, Psychology, Economics

Recent Profile Visitors

504 profile views
  1. Achieving Anarchy

    Well, technically, mathemathically, theoretically, it can exist. It just has never existed before. All you need, is some very specific and high prerequisites to be fulfilled. What you need is: 1. A very high IQ population 2. A very highly educated populous 3. A highly militarized populous 4. Very favourable geopolitical circumstances 5. A lot of freedom to begin with 6. An absolutist value system based in UPB that everyone adheres to (this is the essence of it, but here is where Mr.Molyneux's math has run into difficulties) Technically, even communism can exist. The question is not whether or not it can, but rather what is moral. And it is definitely true that it would be swell to have an AnCap paradise. Nevertheless, I argue from the Judeo-Christian side, but basically exactly what you say, that due to the fallen nature of man, it cannot exist, and will never exist.
  2. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    I still cannot figure out how your citizenship works in America. But to be fair, most of the americas have a weird relationship between citizens and government; birthright citizenship and all that good stuff. Ok, I have no problem granting you that your taxes in your country are unjust. As I said, I think republics are stupid anyway. Would you be willing to admit that the taxes in Luxembourg are just? That is all I need to disprove the statement that taxation is theft.
  3. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    Quite frankly you need to leave this planet if you want to be free from violence and coercion. History is the sum of those incidences when people wanted to impose their will on other people, be it peacefully or violently. So you define freedom as a state free FROM something rather than free TO something. Correct? I have wasted time measuring that. In fact I posted a poll to ask members how they see things. Here it is: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/50034-which-is-closest-to-ancap-paradise/?tab=comments#comment-454254 Holds us back from what? Why do you want to free the world? How are you doing it exactly? The owner of Luxembourg (used to be much bigger) received his land and title from the Holy Roman Emperor in exchange for his loyalty. If that is not voluntary trade, I don't know what is. I would agree that not all social contracts are voluntary nor just, but I assume you live in the west, where you did sign a contract voluntarily when you received your identity card. Personally, I find democracy and all forms of majority rule completely unjust and stupid, and I think they have zero legitimate authority. But I still did sign a piece of paper. And it is very hard to make the case that I was coerced, since nobody forced me to stay in that country. And I assume nobody forced you either.
  4. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    This is what shirgall said: "The cost of moving is huge and also under duress. And, there's no place to move to where your consent is respected. Thus, you make the best of a bad situation, but that does not mean you consent." Your definition of freedom is very unclear to me and seems quite relativistic. If what you say is so, then you imply that first, nobody is truly free (I agree), and second, that there are degrees of freedom (I also agree). But then can you tell me exactly which country or place in the world allows for most freedom? And if you can, why aren't you there? I have brought up the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg as a case to study. You can look it up a bit further back. If property is never justly acquired, then are we all robbers? If tax is something that was included in the civic contract, then you are ound to pay taxes. I don't see why this is so complicated. You hold citizenship, you abide by the rules, and they have the moral right o force you if you don't. Free will is very important to me, but free will cannot be the ultimate standard. Free will of prior times annuls free will of later times. If you entered a contract of your free will, and then stay in it on your own free will, then you don't get to claim assault when you suddenly change your mind. In Mongolia, people apply for citizenship when they are 16, and everyone has the option not to. You can choose not to pick up your card, but then you have to abide by different rules, or leave the country. I had the means to leave the country (I did), but I still picked up my card because I found that the rules were fair (I may have been wrong). By picking up my card, I subscribed to compulsory military service (exceptions allowed), and to be taxed if I start working there. I didn't feel any particular duress, even though I knew they can punish me. Do I think the laws of the country suck and should be reformed? Yes, of course. But I don't get to claim I didn't consent. My scenario is very close to real life. As always, Switzerland has a very low chance of getting overrun in a war, yet they have enough nuclear bunkers to house 120% of their citizenry. Which means they can accept refugees. The Swiss govenment built those bunkers, and the swiss govenment owns them, therefore, the swiss govenment gets to decide who gets in. Since there would clearly be more applicants than they can house, they will take the most productive individuals, and the ones who promise to work their souls out for the Swiss people. I think this is common sense.
  5. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    You are right. I have no solution, because I am having a very difficult time understanding your problem. Mainly, the statement "taxation is theft". We have been talking about consent a bunch, and I have yet to see a convincing argument, we have addressed whether or not a monarch is a morally justified taxer (one argument we did not finish), and we have been talking about alternatives, which for some reason everybody denies exist. I actually am pretty sure socialists understand consent. They just don't care about it. They are lost in their ideal paradise, just as many anarchists are. Ok. Last one: If there is a nuclear war outside, and the only bunker on the planet belongs to the government of Switzerland, are they morally justified to ask you to work on demand and without freedom just like a slave, if they were to accept you? Suppose you accept the conditions, under obvious duress. Did you or did you not consent?
  6. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    You really think the police go hunting for you in the Gobi Desert? Mongolia is the most sparsely populated country on the planet. Trust me. Nobody gives a damn. "Every option sucked" is a very vague assessment. I am not sure what your assets are either, so I guess I can't help you. Yet I try... There are unclaimed territories in Antarctica, if you like the cold. There is an unclaimed territory between Serbia and Croatia, but I don't suppose you would be willing to potentially pick a fight with two balkan nations. There is also a piece of land between Egypt and Sudan. Australia has a history of recognising micronations, where you could found your own country. ...But I am sure you mean to say these places "suck", and that you prefer comfort over freedom. I get it, but please don't claim there aren't unclaimed or tax-free territories on the planet.
  7. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    No, I am genuinely taken aback by the thought that one would willingly expose their wife and children to theft while there is an option not to. Under the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, millions of people moved to places where the enforcers could not reach, just to escape the tax they imposed on christians, which some inhabitants found to be robbery. That is either to the Habsburg Empire or to the mountans. To me it sounds like you care more about fixing a broken system than you do about your family. You have the choice to give your children a place where they could grow up and work without being stolen from, yet you deny them that just as you have been denied. There are still such places in the world where government does not reach, yet you have made a statement to the contrary. When I tried to correct you, you completely disregarded it, and called my assessment shallow. Which by the way not an argument.
  8. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    So getting born is basically human trafficking since nobody asked me if I wanted to be in this world in the first place. And now I could just killed myself and go back to whatever else there is, but doing that may be more painful that being alive. So I might just remain here. Right? About "no place"... Come on. Do you want me to buy you a one-way ticket to the Gobi desert? Literally nobody cares whether or not you live or die there. You can dig for gold or even uranium if you wish, since the govenment doesn't have the means to monitor you anyway. I personally know people who live that lifestyle, and yes, that is why I love Mongolia... freedom. The fact that no libertarian or anarchist cares to research where freedom actually is, tells me how much you actually care. I am not either of those, but I have written multiple threads researching where the smallest government is, including countries that most people here don't even know exist. You are all just playing your mental hobbies as far as I know. (I am only a 20 year old with an attitude, so please read my words as of such)
  9. How to prove God does not exist.

    Why did you choose to make this your very first post? Is it something important to you, or to your milieu? Just curious where you are coming from so that we can understand your language better. As you say, much of this topic is rooted in language and culture.
  10. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    1. I agree it is not moral. But with the fallen nature of humanity, it is what is. And I don't see it going differently anytime soon. Human nature simply doesn't allow for it. 2. I was never talking about existing or not existing. In the case of a country, a renegotiation is absolutely the case. You have to prove that the new human is yours, or was born in a specific location at a specific time in order to expand the contract. Sometimes, only only person's signature is enough, like that of the head of a family (I have seen such lease contracts). Which of course makes him liable. Actually I don't think we disagree on this fundamentally, but for some reason you insist on it. 3. Age of consent is beyond my expertise. But it is very hard to make the case that you do not consent to living in America, since you can very well afford to move out anytime you please. Its not like you are in North Korea or Cuba. 4. Ok, getting back to my favourite example: Is the tax that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, being a private land owner and a government, "impose" on his citizens theft or not?
  11. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    1. There is always a force that is necessary for the assertion of ownership. It can either be the force of 2000 nuclear warheads in the case of Tsar Putin, or the military might of Switzerland in the case of the Prince of Liechtenstein, or a shotgun and a sidearm in the case of the average american citizen. It is the first rule of geopolitics that if you can't defend your land, you don't deserve it. But of course this is not too philosophical. I hope I am not strawmanning, but to me it sounds like you claim that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is a delusional megalomaniac asshole for having received a spit of land from the Emperor 800 years ago. Luxembourg hardly even has a platoon, much less an army by the way. 2. If in the contract, you only allowed for 2 people to reside (most contracts tend to specify the number of people allowed), then having 3 entails either a renegotiation or termination. Where am I wrong? 3. Consent can be given by the guardian, and it is indeed given. But I don't see how this is relevant. Riddle me this though: How exactly the land that you are standing on your land for sure? I am pretty sure some time ago it was fought over and killed over. So the one who won it was definitely not a rightful owner. And then who becomes the rightful owner along the line?
  12. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    I carried over our conversation from the other thread, because I thought it fit here more appropriately. You went on to talk about rebublic, which was not what I was making an argument for. I would actually agree with you that in a republic, democracy, rule of the people country, that taxation is indeed theft, because your land is supposedly yours, and you have every right to be there, and you are supposedly a free citizen. But in the case of a monarchy, your land is not yours, and therefore you must abide by the owner's rules, and pay taxes for using his land. Is this common sense or not? If one of your tenanants gives birth to a child in your apartmennt, the baby only gets to stay if you allow it. And if you give permission, the baby also has to follow your rules.
  13. Hi, neeeel ! I don't know how it works where you live, but there are places where you are pretty much allowed to hit a tenant if they don't abide by the contract. My family had bad tenants in a bunch of countries, and we had to use physical force to remove them. The situation with a monarch and his serfs is exactly the same. If they don't like your rules, they should get off the land, but if they stay, they will be torured. Common sense I would think. You always believe in something whether you like it or not. That was the entire point of the episode. "God is dead... so we need to become gods ourselves"- Nietzsche. The second half of that instruction is obviously not happening. Which is why God must not be killed just yet. I understand you are a pilot, right? From which I conclude you have a very high IQ. It might be easy for you to live without believing in anything, but most of the world is unlike you. I already responded to the "professional christians" thing. Have you checked out Jordan Peterson's work? He makes excellent arguments saying what you want is infeasible. We are not creatures of reason only. If we were, we would not exist. "War is the continuation of dimplomacy."- Some greek dude There definitely was implied contract. As long as you stay on someone's land, you have to follow his rules. If the land changes hands, then you must follow the new rules. If you don't like it, try to negotiate, or get off. Otherwise you will get tortured. FEUDALISM MODAFUKA! Hi, shirgall ! Is there no implied contract there if you reside on someone's private land? In a conventional monarchy, the land belongs to the monarch. Current exmples would be the British Crown territiories, Luxembourg, Spain, Norway, Thailand, Brunei, Saudi Arabia... And counterexamples being Japan, Belgium, Andorra...
  14. Because that was not what the episode was about. The episode was specifically about the human condition without christianity. There are plenty of other episodes listing the faults of christianity. If you had leased a room to 10 people under the conditions that they must bow when they enter their room, and one of them does not do so, do you have the right to treat that person as someone who broke a contract? If suddenly all dogs were forbidden to be owned in a society, then it is a worthy endavour to measure whether or not the dog-owning society was better than the non-dog-owning society, don't you think? I don't know what you reaplied to, as I said nothing of the sort, but ok.
  15. What I learned from my parents is that there is a time to demonstrate your virtue, and there is a time not to. This may sound kinda pragmatistic, but hear me out... Whenever I had some sort of severe injury or some other urgent problem, like a broken bone for instance my parents would naturally bribe the doctor who could help, because that sped up the process. Other times, when we were under no serious pressure, they would stick to their principles. According to their value system, being honourable was much lower than the health of their children. So your friend should probably ask himself what the prices are for standing by his principles, and if he is willing to bear the costs of getting a dent in his honour. This is for him to judge only, as it his his value system.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.