Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "Caller: The Libertarians Are Crazy!" video.

  1. The caller (and Thom, again) continue to push these logical fallacies. Imagine the caller and Thom are talking about Slavery in the 1700s. Caller: These abo-leesh-onists are crazy. I mean, everything around us is supported by Slavery. Thom: Yes, think about it. We all need clothing and roads put down and we all eat. Together: Yuck Yuck Yuck. And then they go on to ad hominen and strawman their way through another interview.
    2
  2. Yeah, a lot of 3rd world counties speak some African dialect and pray to Gods too. So what? The USA ONLY used income tax as a war tax. And never ongoing. General Income Tax started in the 1940s. Along with a LIE about fearing the USSR and how we were going to be nuked. Now it's all about the ME and Islamophobia. Next it will be YOU. See, that's how it goes. So, I hope you like paying Income Tax, soon you'll be pay a LOT more.
    1
  3. 1. The owner of that pizza shop compares the value of bitcoin to USD in order to make the transaction. Yes, and? The owner of the pizza shop also compares the USD against what he or she can buy with that currency. The MAIN difference being bitcoin's worth is based on it's encrypted algorithm (bust that and it's worthless) & the USD's worth is based on the Federal Government's ability to FORCE Labor Tax out of us, the Tax Cattle it owns, to pay off Treasuries. Which is why people fear the IRS
    1
  4. No, Thom attacks people and his arguments lay on a bed of synthetic logical fallacy. As for the content of Thom's 'arguments', I clearly understand what his arguments are and he continues to use argumentum ad antiquitatem, ad hominen and post hoc ergo propter hoc to misrepresent History with numerous examples of fallacies of anecdotal evidence, massive selective use of evidence and the worse is his false dichotomy democrooks -vs- rethuglican arguments. He's a successful demagogue and that's it
    1
  5. RE: slavery, child labor, pollution, additives, war profiteering, etc. (1) Slavery: a violation of human right, made legal by the State. (2) Child labor: only ended due to productivity gains made by the free market. (3) Additives: Approved by the FDA and legally added to almost every one of our foods. (4) War Profiteering: This is totally the domain of the State. AAMOF the US is only able to run the Wars because of Fiat currency, Bonds and Inflation - all made possible by the Federal Reserve.
    1
  6. "So in your mind it is "ok" to rape and murder children if they're not in a place of business?" I have no idea where that came from. A society based on Law would have Laws to protect children. Anarchism is without Rulers, not without Rules. No one can KNOW what it may look like. Just as Abolitionists couldn't tell a Slave-owner a man running a machine would do the work of 10,000 slaves using GPS satellites It's a moral argument. Either you favor the use of State force against others or don't
    1
  7. 2. "In science a single example counter to a hypothesis (or even theory) invalidates that theory" No... That's NOT how science works at all. Have you never heard of an "outlier"? This depends on the hypothesis. If you say all swans are white and I find a black swan, the hypothesis is ended. Outliers are components of data-sets. This is different. The data set is used to create a statistical likelihood by comparing means between groups. Again, that's different.
    1
  8. I'm not going to entertain completely disingenuous questions like this one: "How many more decades would it have been "ok" for millions of slaves to be tortured and killed?" Here's a FACT: The USA is the ONLY nation to have a War to end Slavery. ALL other nations (England, Brazil, France, etc...) ended Slavery without war. The War costs upwards towards 800,000 lives. Slavery is ONLY possible with the use of the State against the individual - which is right up your ally.
    1
  9. "1. The US was never "libertarian". We had public roads, education, post office, taxes, tarrifs, we invested in the railroads, exploration and expansion of the west, oil, etc." All Libertarian means is small government. It should be noted ALL of the Federal paid for railroads went bankrupt ONLY the privately owned ones turned a profit and were run efficiently. ONLY the privately built ones also hired blacks and Chinese. Think about that a minute. It'll show you another flaw in democracy.
    1
  10. RE: watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw I've seen this documentary, and I think it's pretty good. Again, I have no problem with a government creating a currency, that problem is with so-called "Free Citizen", me, being FORCED to give it value through my current labor (ie: Labor Tax/Income Tax) and my children's future labor (ie: 30 Year Treasury Bonds) and my past labor (ie: Inflation). Allow me to use which ever currency I freely choose - then we're both heading in the same direction :)
    1
  11. Lastly, don't worry. Most Americans can't find Washington on a map let alone have a discussion about the finer points of Ethics or what money is and how it's valued. We will continue to pay higher taxes, the top 0.1% will continue to get wealthier as they use the levers of Government to force income tax (& other taxes) from the working classes, shifting money into their 'banking' institutions directly, via the 401K, or other means Hope you like the NEW Economy - it's here to stay for aLONG time
    1
  12. One more time, the Depression of 1920 started out worse. The difference was the Government did nothing, and so all the bad investment was quickly liquidated and it ended in a couple years. There were multiple New Deals and unemployment returned to double digits after each one of them. As for what economist think or do not think, that's besides the point (appeal to authority). What is real, is what is real regardless of what anyone thinks. You, me, anyone.
    1
  13. Lincoln didn't give two shits about Slavery and stated explicitly he'd maintain the Union with or without Slavery. Many Southern states were going end Slavery - but they didn't want to be part of the Union. Lincoln was willing to kill 600,000 humans to maintain Federal control over the States as a Union. And this was illegal. Secondly, there would NOT be 'slavery going until today'. That's just preposterous. Abolitionism was a change in social consciousness - Slavery would have ended anyway.
    1
  14. "For example: Does the STATE have the ....?" The "State" is a group of humans no different than all other groups of humans with ONE BIG exception: It has the legal right to initiate force against other groups of humans. If you go to a private shopping mall, there you will find private police, if you attempt to murder, poison, rape or commit a violent act - you will be apprehended by private police. Adjudication of ALL international trade is done through legal contract AND private courts.
    1
  15. I see this mess the gov has made of the economy (precipitated by the Federal Reserve) as a systems problem. It is impossible to effectively regulate a our economy. While we have all been brainwashed into believing the problem is the free-market, the truth is the solution is the free-market. AND I mean a real free-market. No Federal Reserve. Sadly, at this point, we'll just have to wait for the full collapse of the economy. You think trust in public institutions is low now, just wait 10 years.
    1
  16. "1.The point is...Nearly all countries with "little government" are 3rd world countries. The fact is you have absolutely ZERO evidence of libertarian ideology actually working" HISTORY: the USA started with a small Libertarian government. Less than 3% GDP until relatively recently. Secondly, your same argument could have been made AGAINST the abolitionist & you'd have 5000 years of Slavery on your side. My argument is (like the abolitionist's) based on reason and morality, not history.
    1
  17. 1. Communism never implied "no personal property" so that's a moot thought experiment. This is stating to sound close to the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy. The USSR, China, NK, Cuba, E. Germany - all of these societies were various forms of Communism. If you want to split hairs and say they were really "Socialists" that's fine, but what are you trying to say by that? That is ONLY they had be "REAL" Communists then society would have been wonderful? We have no evidence this would be the case.
    1
  18. Why don't define what money is and what a currency is and then tell me now the USD and bitcoin differ on a fundamental level. T Yes you may store your wealth in USD or gold, or a house, or bicoins or stocks or even food. Which of these are currencies, which are money, equities, goods or commodities? You'll find bitcoin, like the USD, are a currency. Gold is money. Food is a commodity. Stocks are equity. A house is a consumer good.
    1
  19. Secondly, taxing doesn't make the nation strong, healthy or prosperous! You just pulled that bunk our of your arse. TRADE creates prosperity - your other adjectives are meaningless. America in the mid-1800 was the richest nation on earth WITHOUT INCOME TAX! Forced Taxation (why we had a f*cking Revolutionary War for Christ's sake!) is a drain on society and with regulation reduces the ability to TRADE freely with other people - which is where prosperity (time and liberty) are derived from.
    1
  20. Let's have a thought experiment. Suppose 5 people live on an island, 4 men and a woman. They vote to if rape will be legal. 4 vote yes, 1 votes no. Rape becomes legal. THIS IS DEMOCRACY You can say 'For the good of the Nation' or 'To be part of society' and you are wrong. Rape is immoral. Why? Because it's involves the initiation of force. Agreed? Good, then you also agree Slavery and Income Tax are immoral as well. For the SAME reasons.
    1
  21. Like I said, when it comes to this point in history, the only solution is for us to part ways. You continue to vote for more Federal Government, higher taxes and more regulation. I will continue to vote for succession for the States. That way we're both happy. You can go live in a Nanny State and I can live in one that values personal Liberty. This is a perfectly peaceful solution. Until then, I watch as your beloved government sells you and your children out to the top 1%.
    1
  22. RE: Money Here's something you may find of interest. The Fed is churning out 80 BILLION per month (and has for years) to keep the rich - rich. The Wars are estimated to cost $5 TRILLION dollars. DO you know how much the Federal Government takes in through income tax every year? A measly $2.1 billion. Yes, that's it. The Fed Reserve spends more in an afternoon propping up mega-banks that are owned by the top 1%. Think about that - 30% of your entire year's wealth is spent in a nano-second.
    1
  23. One last question: Will you peacefully support the succession of States from the Union? Suppose 20-30 of the States would like to vote on LEAVING the Union. Will you support this? Because, I'm afraid to say, it's not going to be me that's going to go live on an island. I was born in the USA. I have as much a claim as any to my land. If I, and millions like me, use the vote to leave the Union, and do so peacefully, you should respect that. Do you respect the vote? The Law? Property?
    1
  24. 2. The sentence "we've had international trade before nation states" makes no sense. In science a single example counter to a hypothesis (or even theory) invalidates that theory. You seem dead set to believe we MUST have a State (the use of Force) or we couldn't have trade and prosperity. I disagree and presented you with an example to illustrate my disagreement. You may THINK we need a State, but, we don't. International trade is conducted using reputation and buying insurance.
    1
  25. (3) The example of the "Mall Police" is an example of how private voluntary organization of humans can successfully implement security - and do on a daily bases. In a society as I envision many of the laws the leads to Police actions (namely Drug Laws) wouldn't exist.
    1
  26. "... then you lose perspective on reality." I haven't lost my perspective on reality. If one of us here has lost their perspective, it's more than likely the one who just so happens to fit their personal ideals with their social norms. Hence your love affair with The Republic. You've been poured into a societal bowl and much like water have taken a shape that fits it exactly. But, there's LOTS of different societal norms and will be more to come. Don't be so confident yours is anything special
    1
  27. 2. It's funny & ironic for you to use your current social contract for your definition of a "contract". :-) I'm simply saying "Social Contract" is meaningless phraseology, 500 hundred years you'd have used the phrase "Glory of God" in the exact same place with pretty much the exact same meaning. I didn't sign a social contract (it doesn't exist) and yet, of the two of us, I'm the one who is arguing for a society based on Ethics. This is something you may want to ponder the real irony of :)
    1
  28. RE: 2. "Communism" never existed. You're regurgitating left over propaganda/brainwashing from decades of the Cold War. If you're going to split hairs then the Free-Market never existed either. NOTE: If you don't accept Communist Russia/USSR, Germany, North Korea, Cuba or China as having been Communist - then you'd have to redefine these "Socialist" nations, thus "Socialism" failed. Not to mention Communism outright failed to develop as a socially acceptable alternative.
    1
  29. The logic in my argument is quite simple: It's immoral to initiate force against another human. I fail to see what's so hard for you to understand. It's immoral when it's Slavery. It's immoral when it's rape. It's immoral when it's Income Tax. 1) A King's or Pope's decree doesn't change immoral actions into moral ones. 2) Voting on immoral actions do not change them into moral ones. Saying "The Glory of God" of "Social Good" does nothing to change this fact. It's really THAT simple.
    1
  30. A non-sequitor in the literary sense - I agree. Thom is making yet another appeal to History Fallacy which he continues to do over and over and over again. Not only that, he titled his post as an ad hominen. Classic Thom demagoguery. He also likes to appeal to National identity as if this somehow makes his argument any less of a fallacy. Don't blame me if I get tired of taking his tripe seriously.
    1
  31. 2. That was a WAR Tax and this is what ALL income taxes were. Most of the War debt was defaulted on and the income tax was ended - just as had ALWAYS been the case. 3. Civilizations did not exist before trade. Civilization has a specific meaning and refers to Cities and is derived from City-State. 4. See: Stamp Act 1765 which was a DIRECT TAX imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America.
    1
  32. 1. The same argument could be posed to an Abolitionist 200 years ago. As a matter of fact, looking at the metrics in 1750 George, one would conclude Slavery, a 7000 year old institution - to be a 'necessary' part of the 'social order' AKA: society. The ONLY argument, would have been from morality.
    1
  33. 2....gold, silver, stocks, etc. Investing is different than a "tool for exchange" Yes, I agree, those are not 'money' or even currency (well, gold actually is real money) . However, they share a common characteristic with money that being value. So, my point was we don't NEED a Central Bank to create Units of value for us. We do it now. Right now, as we type back and forth, the Fed is selling your future labor to the Chinese. You WILL be put in a real cage if you don't pay them back. Nice huh?
    1
  34. RE: Income Tax You are correct in the amount. Do you agree it is incumbent on each generation to pay as they go? What we are witnessing is the end of a ponzi scheme. I'd suggest this is the inevitable outcome of democracy. Democracy is a thinly veiled form of Communism. Listen to the "Social Good" messages from our political "Servants" as they auction off the labour of the next generation to the highest bidder to promise "Free" stuff (your example SSI) to the masses to get elected. USSA
    1
  35. 1. Yes, I used MY Cherry Picking of the Depression of 1920 to show an example of what Thom is doing with his Cherry Picking History looking around for examples that would support his thesis. Which is why the use of History as a Logical Argument is Fallacious. It's not that he is right, and I am wrong. Or I am right and he is wrong. Or we are both wrong. It's that no one CAN know. I hope this is becoming clearer.
    1
  36. OH, and a logical fallacy, appealing to history, remains a logical fallacy. Secondly, the Scientific methodology is not applicable to macroeconomics nor true social systems such as we live in. Thirdly, Public systems have repeated failed, it's why the Russians, Chinese (and now even Cuba's) are returning to free-market capitalism. East Germans became Capitalists, not the other way around. Try and remember that as our highly regulated Fascist un-free market economy goes into the toilet.
    1
  37. RE: Celts Having a complex system of governance isn't the same as having a centralized government. The Irish meet the definition of anarchy more so than anything. They had a king, but this king had no power over them and was more akin to the Emperor of Japan - just for show. More like a religious icon. I listened to an interview from a Professor from Ireland who gives an economics lecture on this topic. He stated they would best be defined as anarchistic w/ strong private property rights.
    1
  38. Bitcoin may or may not be used by 'criminals'. No one CAN know as that's the nature of the currency. Regardless, it proves ME correct, not you. I don't use or want to use drugs, but I have no moral right to tell YOU what you can or can not do with your body. Making drugs illegal has turned free citizens INTO criminals. That's insane. Now we have people in jail for using marijuana and other's LEGALLY selling it. THAT is the State - it's utterly backwards bullshit designed to harm and destroy
    1
  39. RE: Effective government Sounds like an oxymoron. The fact is government institutions are not any different from private institutions. They're groups of humans - both of them alike. There's ONLY ONE delineating feature that distinguishes the two apart. Public Institutions/groups of humans have the legal right to initiate force against private citizens. And that's exactly what it does day in and day out. Communist, Socialist, Republic, Capitalist, etc... they all share this defining feature.
    1
  40. I also think the military should be brought home, the wars ended and all bases closed, I'd like to see the Federal Reserve Bank of New York be closed and sold off, I want to end the 1940s war-time Income Tax, I think people should be able to do any and every drug they can think up, I'm VERY anti-spanking, yelling or any form of abuse including religion to be inflicted upon children, I'm pro-succession (beginning monetarily). Tell me, which color do I belong to? Red or Blue?
    1
  41. RE: 1. The Celts were nowhere near "anarchistic" and had far more governing structures than Native Americans. "Governing structures" exist in an anarchic society, the point is their use is voluntary. That's the difference. People agree to use so and so as an arbitrator prior to a trade. No agreement equals no trade. Again, I'm sure that if we were to go into this in detail I'm sure we agree in everything except terminology. It seems top me you have a bias against voluntarism.
    1
  42. "Wow... That statement in of itself is *completely* irrational and a fallacy in of itself." State the category and specific synthetic fallacy. I didn't say History doesn't provide valuable insights. I said basing an argument on History is fallacious. Do you understand logic? Yes, you got to love that K-12 Government Schooling, creating one great cog at a time. I suggest you do a little reading into what logical arguments are and then come back and apologize.
    1
  43. 2. Is true. International commercial law is largely based on NATIONS (trade agreements, UN, WTO, etc.) Businesses thrive on stability/certainty provided by governments. I disagree that the stabilities is provided by governments - we've had international trade before nation states. People trade based on reputation. Suppose you're new, you may offer a cheap price just to get trade agreements and over time as you build your reputation you may increase your price because you're known to be good.
    1
  44. "You're like a teenager bitching about the house provided for you." Let's replace a word to make it more apt to what is REALLY happening: "You're like a SLAVE bitching about the house provided for you." Is ANY of this getting through? You do know that the top 0.1% made over 100% of the gains in GDP in 2009, 2010, 2011 and probably 2012? You do know Obama is a hack for the people who bought him the POTUS? As was Bush Jr. And Clinton before? Etc... Look up the numbers, YOU are cleaned-out.
    1
  45. I'm just going to repeat this: If anyone here is advocating Slavery it is YOU. You are in favor of the State using violence against the Citizen because YOU have been brainwashed to believe the very society you were raised in, is the best possible society to live in. Imagine if you were a Muslim arguing for a Caliphate. Do you THINK maybe that might have something to do with how he/she were raised? You think it's a coincidence you happen to argue for the social system you were taught was ideal?
    1
  46. h.t.t.p.://academic.csuohio.edu/clevelandhistory/Issue3/articles/ljonespage4content.htm
    1
  47. RE: 1. What civilization was created without governance? Your claim isn't based in reality. *facepalm* Come on, we had this discussion twice already: A) Google: "1,000 years of Irish Anarchy" and see how Ireland was prosperous WITHOUT a central government and did so for a millennium. B) Your argument is tantamount to: "What civilization was created without Slavery? Your claim isn't based in reality". This was, quite literally, THE argument for Slavery 200 years ago.
    1
  48. "2. Money represents power and life in this society. " Why does the USD currency have value? Because, people are FORCED at the point of a gun to use it. Unlike gold and silver (which were used voluntarily), the US dollar MUST BE USED to pay income tax. This is why we have an income tax. The fact is we could print the same amount of USD - only do so debt free. But we don't. Now you know why. Currency is NOT important Labor IS important. Forcing you to pay a labor tax takes away your power.
    1
  49. It should be noted the largest third world countries, the USSR and China, had MASSIVELY sized governments. Tell me, why is it these Social Paradises were dismal failures? When Rome was run under a Dictator, Caesar Augustus, it was the most prosperous time in Rome's history - WHY? England ruled the world under a Queen. Why? Japan's "Golden Age" came and went under the Tokugawa Shogunate - Why?
    1
  50. 3. My point is that your taxes saves lives.(disaster relief, social welfare, fire fighters, etc.) My point is it does so by using force and intimidation and the same lives could (and were) saved by other private social means (health insurance, work insurance, home owners insurance, charity, etc....). Removing the role of private organization means those services can not be valued and in the long run will destroy the very society they appear to be helping.
    1
  51. RE: Maybe you're confused as to what Anarchy actually is. It's lack of rulers - Kings, Queens, Popes, POTUS's, etc... not lack of society. When you live in society - you live by the Laws of that society regardless of what form it comes in. Anarchy is just the same in that regards. Lastly, that historical evidence suggests Ireland was anarchical AND extremely prosperous. It didn't have a central government and people volenteered to live by the laws OR they could leave and go live else where.
    1
  52. This isn't about some little child throwing a tanty. I've lived in five different countries and have multiple citizenships. When you say "Just leave", I know how truly (nearly impossible) that is to do. I will live where it suites me to live. This is about two types of people finding out its no longer possible to remain in a Union. In cases like this a peaceful amicable separation is the best option. If such a time should come, will you support peaceful State succession?
    1
  53. 1. If bitcoin was a competing currency you wouldn't compare it to USD before selling or buying anything. I'm not sure how that fact is escaping you... People who buy and sell things in bitcoin don't necessarily compare it to the USD. They see an item, it may cost 1/2 a bitcoin, they think, OK I'll buy it. They go into their bitcoin account and make the transfer. Done. There's no need to compare it to the USD.... OR, any other fiat currency for that matter.
    1
  54. 4. Stop believing BS propaganda. One of us is believing propaganda, and it's not me. I've simply applied Kantian Ethics and Universalized the principle that the Initiation of Force is Universal. You don't get to use force against people just because they had the misfortune of being born with a Citizen Label identical to yours. Imagine if children where born and randomly stamped with a Citizenship and then shipped off there. That would seem odd wouldn't it? Yet, here we are.
    1
  55. I'm not making an argument about 1920 vs 1929 vs 2008. I'm saying THOM is making an argument where he Cherry Picks History. I only use 1920 as an example of how Thom ignores history that disagrees with his thesis in favor of selecting history that he THINKS agrees with his thesis. We can't know if it does because History can't be re-done, which is why it's a fallacy to suggest because something happened one time in history it therefor.... insert conclusion.
    1
  56. I'm not asking you if you think it's realistic. I'm asking if you would support the peaceful succession of States from the Union? It's a straightforward question. As for being 'realistic', one of the world's foremost leading Professors of Epidemiologists wrote a peace for New Scientist (I think it was around last July). He gave succession an 80% probability of occurring by 2030. He's not a crack, he just studies populations and applied his math models to the USA. Let's hope he's right.
    1
  57. 1. We should have a central bank. Just not a "private" one (like the Fed) who works primarily in the interests of international bankers. As well as a currency (& economy) not based on debt. Why would you want a Central Bank when we have a Treasury? What's the main difference between a Bank and the Treasury in your mind?
    1
  58. RE: Native Americans I wouldn't lump "Native American" all into one pot. Many certainly did have land ownership and would kill defending it from other tribes. That said, most Native American people weren't civilized, which is to say they didn't live in Cities. Those that did faced the same problems we face - often resorting to slavery and war. Imagine being the 9th wife of a Tribal Chief not able to bare a child - life was probably pretty tough.
    1
  59. 1. "Why does the USD currency have value?" The USD has value based on the strength and credit of the US government. Then why does it lose value every year?
    1
  60. RE: Depression of 1920 If you want to know why the Depression of 1920 started out worse than the Great Depression here's a Professor or History giving a lecture. watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Secondly, I am not saying the two are the same. I'm saying we can't go back into history and re-do it (run an experiment) and find out. Where is your "false equivalency" when Thom compares the Great Depression to the so-called "Great Recession"? Then all I hear from you is silence on the matter. Why is that?
    1
  61. You keep useing the word tax as if all taxes are identical. Income tax is not the same as fuel tax. One you are FORCED to pay the other you VOLUNTEER to pay. Income tax, taxes the seller. Fuel tax, taxes the buyer. Basically, you only think income tax is just because you were taught that as a child. I imagine you never really challenge much about how you were raised - you'd probably never had the personality to be a revolutionary or even an abolitionist More a shill for the statuesque.
    1
  62. 3. You're delusional if you think hunger & homelessness didn't exist before the Fed. I didn't say there wasn't. Imagine if we were arguing over having an Aristocracy and a King and you took the side of Freedom, Liberty and Democracy and my response to you was: You're delusional if you think hunger & homelessness didn't exist before the King. Do you understand what you're arguing for and what I'm arguing for and why I keep telling you the use of force is immoral?
    1
  63. You may want to take a good look at the number of women raped in the USA. Or the numbers of children hit/spanked, raped, yelled at, shoveled into public schools to be processes like cogs. Did you know in wonderful Socialist Australia day "care"/Supervision Facilities take babies into LONG-TERM care from 6 weeks! That's 13 h/day 5 days/wk. Do you know how many Children are prescribed powerful anti-psychotic medication?! If you think the "State" gives a damn about Children, you're sadly mistaken.
    1
  64. RE: The point is "changing the money" doesn't solve anything. Nor you or I can know that. AND get this, if we use the free market - we'll find out. See how simple this is? No guns needed. We just float some currencies and see if people want to freely use them to conduct trade. If they do, then I'm correct. If they don't, then you are. Problem solved. Perhaps someone would, in such an environment, come up with something totally brand new. We CAN ONLY KNOW if we give the free market a chance.
    1
  65. Social contracts are the basis for any society which all civilizations are based on You offer nothing by calling society itself "immoral I never volunteered to sign a "social contract". This is just some meaningless phrase like saying we must fight for the "Glory of God" or "Big Brother Loves You". It's very essence is meaningless - there is no 'social contract' - it doesn't exist Would you tell a Saudi woman forced to wear a veil she must do so or die or go to jail for the "Social Contract"?!
    1
  66. RE: Again, your beliefs are based on a fantasy... Yes technically white males (non-catholic, Irish, or Italian) coming from wealthy families had more "freedom", THAT'S IT. No, that's not true. Compare Black Americans' freedom in 1910 to 1810 I guarantee you will find they were much freer. Not only wealthy whites had "freedom", so did so-called poor whites. And yes, even the Catholics poor white Italians.
    1
  67. Google: 1,000 years of Irish Anarchy Ireland was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice… There was no trace of State-administered justice.
    1
  68. It's not irrational NOT to want to be stolen from. It's not irrational to want to be free FROM people who seem to want to help me by helping themselves to my labor. You want to know when you are listening to something irrational? When they appeal to emotion. Like: For the Glory of God, The Good of Society, For the Nation, For the Commons, etc..... Now, think back to your own arguments. All I want now is an opportunity to live WITHOUT your help. Care to let me live my life my way?
    1
  69. 'religious crusade'? Why should I tolerate Slavery? Many Master Slave owners had their reasons for why Slaves were Slaves and they were Masters. Many Slaves agreed with them - which is why they tended to be 'taught' how to behave from childhood and were restricted from learning concepts such as Natural Rights and Individual Liberty. Saying it's 'for the Social Good *insert National identity*' is just some crap lowbrow excuse. Using force against and innocent person is immoral. Period.
    1
  70. "I can't speed down the highway? Force." If it's your highway, then you can. If it's not yours, then (like any other guess on someone else's property) you'll have to abide by the rules of the people who own that property. See how simple that was? "I can't shit on a side walk? Force." Again, if you own it, go on ahead and shit away.
    1
  71. I have a question: Do you think it's better to let the free market self-regulate where property rights, law, ingehnuity, competition in quality, insurance are used VOLENTARILLY to ensure products are delivered to the market OR would you prefer a State regulated market where testing, licencing, certification, government agents and the State use of FORCE attempts to do the same Look at the $300 supercomputer in your pocket That's the free market Look at Public Housing That's the regulated market
    1
  72. Let me clarify, I'm not making any comparisons: I'm simply pointing out that Thom COULD have pointed to the The Depression of 1920 (which was a Depression not a recession and started out much WORSE than the so-called Great Depression). I'm not actually making the comparison myself. I'm using this as an illustration of Thom's use of Cherry Picking history. Whis is true - he is/does. Then you agree with my statement that Thom is making the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy with regards to WWII?
    1
  73. 4. Define "free"... Are you free to murder & rape?... You are not free to violate another person's private property (beginning w/ their body). Initiation of force against another person is a violation of their Natural Rights. You don't get to draw a line around them, tell them they are Citizen X of country Y, take a vote and proceed to violate their property rights (rape, murder, burn down their house, wreck their property) Otherwise, Ethically, you're free to live your life as you see fit to.
    1
  74. Tax or Income Taxes? Because the USA was a strong wealthy nation with a vibrant commons BEFORE we had the common Income Tax (which came into it's modern form following WWII). So, which taxes are you talking about. I have no problem with a fuel tax as you are free to buy or not buy. I have no problem with tolls. I have no problem with paying.
    1
  75. 1. it's simple. bitcoin has no value outside of a government currency. No different than stocks or a poker game. This is incorrect. You can use bitcoin to directly buy items - for example, a pizza. So, how that you understand that bitcoin actually can be used to directly act as currency, acts as a store of value and can be used in exchange - we can agree it IS a currency, possibly even money.
    1
  76. 1. What a coin is made from has little to do with it's value. If you think gold is more important to you than fiat money then just buy gold OK, we both agree 'value' is a precept. But 'just buy gold' isn't really the point. Why are gold coins valued? Why are USD valued? Where does the value originate? I can tell you where part of it comes from for USD and Treasure Bonds: Income Tax (which is why we have a Tax on Labor). Unlike gold, the value of USD, requires the use of Force - this is immoral
    1
  77. 2. Progressives have talked about ending the drug war for decades Bill Clinton was the first POTUS "Progressive" and he couldn't de-regulate Wall Street quick enough. If ever there were a POTUS that sold out the middle class it was Clinton. Progressives love the War on Drugs. I mean, what would a Progressive do without the poverty stricken? Hell, the poor make up 40% of their voting base. They NEED the voting poor and the more poor there are- the better it is for "Progressives" to get reelected
    1
  78. The value of bitcoin is based on perceived value, no different than any other security (stocks, commodities, derivatives, etc.). Yes, get this EVERYTHING has a value based on "perception". Just where do you think "value" lives? In a tree somewhere? Value is a subjective notion. The USD has 'value' because investors (China) know that if push comes to shove, the US Gov will put it's own Citizens in prison to force them to re-pay loans with a labour tax that props it up. That's a perceived value.
    1
  79. "4. There are millions of tons of edible food thrown away to rot in landfills enought to feed several counties. ... We've poisoned ourselves with BPA, mercury, lead, hormones. Cancer and autism on the rise. Global warming causing catostrophoc irreversable hanges to the entire planet." Yes!?!?! ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING UNDER GOVERNMENT. Not under a free-market as I am describing but under YOUR society. I thought you liked Big Gov? You should LOVE waste then. Because that's what Gov produces.
    1
  80. Heres some FACTS: the TOP 1% were bailed out, the TBTF banks are even bigger, and richest 1% made all the gains in GDP in 2009, 2010, 2011 and I'm sure 2012 when the data comes in. YOU may want to bail out the rich. I do NOT want to. I will happily take my chances watching these corrupt institutions fail. Sadly I'm stuck with people like you who are so easily swayed by hacks like Thom. I'd rather succession and dissolution of the Union. Let me ask: Will you support Americans in that freedom?
    1
  81. 3. Right.. You get fooled by nonsense about "freedom" and throw out all logical sense. That's how people become tools. We killed a million Iraqis under the guise of "freedom". Look at the last 100 years. Look at the utter destruction the various Republics have caused. Added all up, 500 million or more humans killed by various States of one kind or another. This is a simple fact of history. Speaking of which, expect another very large War soon. It's the only way to justify the needed inflation.
    1
  82. RE: The IRS takes in 2.4 trillion in taxes I didn't say it didn't. I said the the US government will collect approximately $2.0 Billion this year in Personal Income (as well as Payroll taxes). Which is next to nothing - so why collect it? Why not allow us to pay ZERO personal income tax? I mean, given it's nearly NOTHING compared to the budget. Hell, the Fed (partly owned by that family you mentioned) generated more debt in a few hours.
    1
  83. Let's makes this clear, the USA is not a free-market Libertarian State. It started out that way, it's not that way now. We are a Fascist State based on Crony Capitalism. So, I'm glad you love our Socialist Fascist USSA - that's great for you. Again, the only option, for peaceful productive people, is to move far away from violent people like you. Socialists are capable of all manner of violence and evil under their banner of Nationalism and jingoistic slogans like "The Common Good".
    1
  84. "There is a reason why most religions and spiritual followings devalue the idea of materialism, money changers, etc. Because it distorts your idea of moraility." Money is just a tool. Once we have competition in the money it's utilitarian nature will become evident. There is nothing moral or immoral about money.
    1
  85. 2. I was born in the USA, I don't 'need' to be the one going anywhere. But, since we're on the topic, I have permanent residency in multiple countries. Unlike most Americans, I am able to legally leave the USA and live in other places on Earth. Japan has LESS regulations, in many instances Scandinavian counties have LESS regulations. Singapore and Hong Kong are more business friendly. Australia ranks higher than the USA in terms of accessing certain markets.
    1
  86. You can think whatever you like. I specifically listed the exact logical fallacies Thom is making, and continues to make. Thom refers to Libertarians as crazy instead of debating a particular argument. Thom cherry picks history and bases his argument on correlation. When Thom refers to WWII - this IS cherry picking. Had he chosen The Depression of 1920-21 the data is the exact opposite. The EXACT OPPOSITE. No Government involvement, a deeper shorter lived Depression over in a 18 months.
    1
  87. "2. Government action emancipated the slaves. The "libertarian" attitude was to leave them as property." Are you SERIOUS
    1
  88. 2. Then you must now agree with my statement earlier... That money is not "a tool". We've allowed it to control and corrupt nearly every aspect of society and turned it into a means of control and accumulating power. I do agree with you that money is corrupting nearly every aspect of society. Both rich and poor alike. But, it is still a tool used to facilitate trade and when sound, functions perfectly well. The root of the problem is the Federal Reserve system of Banking.
    1
  89. There are no "competing currencies" that's a lie. You'll have to explain what you mean by this statement. Would you say there's also no competing moneys either? Either way, at the end of the day, you're obviously in favor of using force against other innocent humans and I'm not. I do find it interesting you favor taxing the worker of their labor. Pretty sad, but, you do have the numbers on your side- at least for now. Let's see how well they hold up as the reality of the economy sets in.
    1
  90. RE: It's time we lose these silly "ideologies" and rely on science & technology to solve problems instead of arguing over "beliefs" How about this? We use the Science of Morality (aka: Ethics)? I do agree Technology CAN be helpful, but it can also be harmful. We NEED a moral foundation (non-aggression axiom) to ensure we're not acting on our subjective beliefs or cultural indoctrination but on solid Ethics. Surely you agree with me on this???
    1
  91. RE #1: Any society that has EVER existed is based on the idea "social contract" or the trade offs that individuals make for other benefits and protections. This is why your logic is completely without merit. Define what you mean by "Social Contract". How is this different from saying "The Glory of God" or "The Good of Islam" or "For Uncle Sam". It's your logic that is faulty. You've been infected with Jingoism and, like most, believe it without question.
    1
  92. 3. Name one civilization in history of mankind that was created without some form of taxation or "commons". Again, you keep going back to this argument: Name one great civilization that didn't practice Slavery. Anyway, Ireland was Anarchic for over 1000 years and people lived perfectly fine through voluntarism (and yes they had Law). Google '1000-years-of-irish-anarchy'
    1
  93. RE: 2. If you believe that silly "kidney" logic, then you must also believe "slavery" was a consequence of capitalism. The 'kidney' logic was a thought experiment. I don't see how it violated the logic of communism (aka: no private property rights). Yes, I agree, Slavery in the USA was institutionalized and capitalistic for sure.
    1
  94. Agriculture was required for Civilization but i is not the same being a Civilization - which requires a division of PRODUCTIVE labor and trade between PRODUCERS. Capital must be acquired BEFORE is the means to pay for an unproductive division - Government. Maybe you should look up what it means to be Civil or Civilized. Have a little farm is not a Civilization.
    1
  95. "People such as as yourself who blindly glorify the past with some dumb idea of "utopia" conveniently forget.." Stawman much? You can't attack my argument so you attack me now? Nice one. I'm personally Anarchist. And, like KANT I view with as the preferable (not Utopian) society to live in. However, I understand that this isn't going to happen for MANY decades. ALSO the ONLY solutions I advocate are 1) PEACEFUL succession 2) Parenting with Love & Logic in a mix homeschool w/ public sport/arts
    1
  96. I'm not a gun owner, I don't care about guns I'm not talking about utopia This is a question of ethics: Do people have the right to be free FROM people like YOU who think it's perfectly fine and dandy to use STATE FORCE against them (for the 'Common Good' and the 'Social Contract'....... of course). This question has been raised since Hamilton crossed paths with Jefferson. Thank the Gods Hamilton was born in the West Indies or he may have been a POTUS *shudders* Luckily we got Jefferson instead
    1
  97. oolong2, Stop and think about O-blah-blah. Did you know the top 1% of Americans just had the MOST PROFITABLE quarter (2013) ever - in the history of the USA. Meanwhile we're being decimated. The OWN our politicians. Rats like Bush Jr and Obama are bought and sold as easily as pets at a pet shop. Did you know Tony Blair works for JP Morgan? The ONLY chance we have is to reclaim our currency and the best way to do that is at the level of the community.
    1
  98. "I can't pour toxins into the river? Force." As soon as your toxins poison someone else's private property (land or body) then you've damaged their private property and restitution will have to be made. This isn't all that hard of a concept to grasp. "I can't have sex in front of kids at a school playground? Force." I'm going to assume you don't own the school, so no, you don't have the right to go onto other's property and act as you wish. There are "rules" just not "rulers" (note the 'r').
    1
  99. I'm not saying anything about an ideal State, I'm simply asking you if you would support States peacefully succeeding from the Union? The USA has only been around for a couple hundred years, like ALL Empires - we too will economically collapse and history suggests the States will break away. RE: Blue -vs- Red I'm strong atheist, personally pro-life, socially pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-legalizing guns, pro small government (none even better) and a doctor - Which color am I?
    1
  100. One last question, since we're never going to agree that Thom's a hack. If any democratic government can create as much money as is needed, to pay for all the public services (roads, hospitals, schools) at the same velocity and quantity as it currently does (so that no more or less money enters the economy) .... ONLY do so with ZERO interest, debt free, and without selling Treasury Bonds; Why don't we as a Nation do that instead of going deeply into debt?
    1
  101. RE: Sorry, "ethics" isn't letting your countrymen die because of a silly ideology I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Our "countrymen" are dying over a silly ideology - "The Federal Government". American men and woman die or are horribly wounded defending "The State" each and every day. As a matter of fact, the Pentagon recently announced that, as for now, the War(s) will continue with no end - Indefinitely. From, The Guardian: "Washington Gets Explicit: Its “War on Terror” is Permanent"
    1
  102. (1) Abolitionism started in Europe, specifically England, and there was trade pressure on ALL States to abolish Slavery - including those in the American south. Abolitionists existed in the entirety of the USA. (2) Brazil is evidence that Slavery can be ended without war. They ended it by no enforcing the returning of runaway Slaves BY THE STATE. See, you NEED a State to make Slavery profitable. If not they walk away and an owner is too poor to continue to hire thugs to bring them back.
    1
  103. You're postulating that competition leads to aggression. I don't think it does. I think it brings about prosperity and with prosperity empathy and kindness. As for liars and cheaters, again, that's why we have law. Monopolies only exist because of government. Everything from forced licencing (MD's, Lawyers, Vets, etc...) to Tariffs (five families control cane sugar in the USA) to Patents and Copyright Everything you' worry a Free market will bring - is already here, prospering under the State
    1
  104. RE: 1. It is a voluntary country. You can leave or participate in politics. You are not free to leave. You may visit another tax-farm, for a limited time, if you have the proper papers. If you are lucky, you MAY be legally allowed to live as tax-cattle on another farm - after paying numerous fees to do so. Or NOT. You may be forcefully returned to the USA tax farm where you will pay like the good little tax cattle you are. FACT: In many commonwealths, you are NOT free not to participate.
    1
  105. 1) Thom's Cherry Picked WWII and New Deal (1 and 2 - not that either worked) are false equivalencies. MY example was MEANT to show you that anyone can do this. Go ahead and prove a method to 'prove', using the Scientific Method that the Thom's use of Historical example is not a false equivalence. The burden of proof lays with YOU. Not me - YOU. You're the one making the claim that the past is equivalence. I'll agree, one of us/you is a religious fruit cake - I'll wait your methodology. 2)
    1
  106. 1. Regardless, all products & services were priced/traded in USD not "converted to ounces of gold" At that time gold and silver WAS the US dollar. You've never heard of a Silver Dollar?! The USD was a Bank Note. You could take it to the Treasury and get your silver and gold. Now its a Federal Reserve Note. You can take it to the Bank and get .... well, more fiat currency ( they'll break your $100 into 20s). All you're owed today is more fiat paper. Must be nice - if you're the Federal Reserve.
    1
  107. Pointing out a logical fallacy doesn't not require any additional evidence. It's quite simple, Thom is committing (and continues to commit) these synthetic logical fallacies. He continues to cherry pick past historical data that supports his arguments. Take his spiel on Alexander Hamilton. Thom boasts how wonderful Hamilton was - yet ignores the 4 hour speech Hamilton gave that received ZERO enforcement from the other founders. NONE. ZIP. Hamilton wanted POTUS and Senators to be FOR LIFE.
    1
  108. Thom referred to Rand Paul as a right-wing Libertarian nut. That's attacking the person. RE: argumentum ad antiquitatem, yes you are correct in your example. I was incorrect in using WWII as an example of this type of fallacy, which is as listed post hoc ergo propter hoc. Thom's argumentum ad antiquitatem is the belief government spending can fix the economy, with WWII (but many others) being Cherry Picked to support his claim while ignoring examples such as the Depression of 1920 which do not.
    1
  109. You may think it is a farce - but bitcoin already proves you are wrong. Secondly, if people wanted 'safe' currencies then the LAST currency they'd want their money in is a State fiat one - as all fiat currencies are designed to lose about 3-5% value per year. If you are correct then everyone would put their money into gold and silver, and they don't. Also, people store their wealth in Stocks, so, again, you're wrong. Lastly, what matters is people are FREE to make the choice for themselves.
    1
  110. RE: The problem is that *you* don't understand what you're arguing for or what arguing against because you've bought into an ideological fantasy that isn't based in reality or science. My argument is we should not have a Central Bank - which at one time we didn't. I make a second argument that taxing labor is immoral. Well, it IS immoral. Why should anyone be forced to PAY the State for the privilege to work??? And to put a person in a cage if they refuse to be coerced!? That's sociopathic.
    1
  111. I didn't really want to know how you 'felt'. What I was asking, which I'll ask now, is: Do you accept that Citizens living in a State have the LEGAL civil right to succeed from the Union? It's a question of morality. So? Yes or No? The same question was posed to Englishmen living in the 13 colonies 200+ years ago. They were told NO and they went to war. We aren't going to have to have war, but, we are going to have to have succession. One way or another this is going to have to happen.
    1
  112. Thom titles his posts AND Thom also referrs to Libertarians crazy.That's IS an ad hominen which IS logical fallacy #1. Thom's argumentum ad antiquitatem (fallacy #2) is an appeal to how Thom miss-interprets history - specifically following WWII. According to Thom's logic, War is GOOD for the economy because he, has it in his head, that debt spending on WWII ended the Great Depression! Which leads us to his third fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. Keep Thom in mind when we have another War.
    1
  113. 2. Yes I'd say there are no competing currencies. There is a value of currencies based on the relative or perceived economic strength of the countries which back those currencies. Nice use of the word "strength" which is really a perceived ability to FORCE labor payments out of their so-called "free" Citizens at the point of the gun and life in a cage. Nice. Having the ability to store your money in various currencies - that choice IS a competition. You chose which you want to use.
    1
  114. I'm wondering, where do you think our Civil Rights come from? God? The US Constitution? The People? The Vote? Where? Imagine five men and a woman on an island taking a vote on whether rape will be legal (for the Social Good of course). The vote comes in at 5 yes, 1 no. Rape is now legal. Does this then make rape moral? Is morality dependent on the majority agreement at that time and that place? You talk about Slavery - you ARE a Slave. We are Tax Cattle. You think you're free? Think again
    1
  115. Thom's ENTIRE argument appeals to History. THAT is the fallacy. I fail to see why you are having such a difficult time with that simple concept? Thom titles his Post as an ad hominen. How much MORE specific do you need me to be. His Title is ad hominen. As for Hamilton, I'm simply pointing to the FACT that he also wanted the POTUS and Senators to be for life. I didn't say anything other than I personally think Hamilton was a douche for goading Washington into murdering Americans over unfair tax
    1
  116. As for bitcoin going up or down in value, again, this proves me correct - not you. Me. It demonstrates that competing currencies can be used and their value determined WITHOUT the State or ANY central authority. Bitcoin shows we do NOT NEED a central bank and we do NOT NEED a State to value currency. This is the REAL reason why the our beloved civil "servants" want to regulate bitcoin. Just as they control gold, sliver and fiat currency. ALL to keep us penned in on their tax farm as chattel.
    1
  117. Lastly, you have not answered my question. I don't mind if YOU want to live in a State. I don't care if you want to live under a Monarchy, Dictatorship, Democracy, whatever. It's not really my concern what you do so long as it doesn't violate me and my rights to live among people who think as I do. Do you agree that free people of any State have the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic? Isn't THAT exactly what the colonists did as they succeeded from English control?
    1
  118. RE: yet forced labor for money just to survive is "ok". What do you mean by 'forced labor just to survive"? It is true everyone has to work or pay from capital savings or borrow. Of course - everyone has to do something. No one gets to kick-back and have everything handed to them for doing and contributing nothing. The main problem here is 'rent seeking' - where some people do nothing and use the State to force others to work on their behalf. I don't think we disagree on this.
    1
  119. 2. ONCE AGAIN your morality all comes down to money... Sadly you're so conditioned that you don't even realize you're doing it. The ethical argument is thus: "It is immoral to initiate forced against an innocent person". Do you agree with this statement? I'm simply applying it to a Tax on Labor vis-a-vie Income Tax. However, the "War on Drugs" also falls under it's umbrella. So does preventing a person from offering voluntary services to another person. It's much much more than 'money'.
    1
  120. RE: 2. What does living in a city have to do with being "civilized"? That's the classic definition of civilization. Also, I did NOT say that woman were more equal - often just to opposite, with civilization often comes patriarchy (ex: Roma, Egypt, China) versus matriarchy of ancient England and Japan. I also said most Native Americans did not live in cities AND that when they did do so - they faced similar problems often resorting to similar solutions. Humans are humans after all.
    1
  121. RE: Again, your beliefs are based on a fantasy... You seem to have the horse before the cart. Take child labour laws. These were the result OF the free market. If you compared 1250 with 1850, for most poor people - life was the same. If children didn't work, they didn't eat and died. From 1850-1910 the free market produces so much excess it was finally able for children not to have to work to eat. ONLY THEN, did the Laws on child labour occur, before then it would have been impossible.
    1
  122. I'm not making an "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy. I'm not saying it's possible to logically conclude what might happen historically. It's actually IMPOSSIBLE for me to know Slavery would have ended organically, OR for you to know Slavery would be here with us in the 21st century. I presented Brazil as evidence that Slavery CAN end without a War. As a matter of fact, the USA was the only nation to go to War. And that's because the war wasn't about ending Slavery, but ending State's rights.
    1
  123. I may have mentioned this earlier, but in light of O-blah-blah's massive intrusion into our civil liberties I thought I'd mention it again. Regardless of what we think, say or want. One thing I am sure of: We're going to get a whole hell of a lot more Government. And a LOT more debt as we sell off what's left of the young to pay for the babyboomers retirement and medical treatment. That much is going to happen. I'm hoping then it breaks - the USA I mean. I'll happily move to a free State.
    1
  124. 1. There's the problem right there. History cannot be used to make a rational argument. I'll give you an example. 1700s Slave owner: We've always had Slavery, me pappy, me pappy's pappy going all the way back to me pappy's pappy's great-grand-pappy who was a Roman Slave trader in the year 54BCE. 2. You seeing a problem is the issue. It's an ad hominen fallacy. 3. No, I'm making clear that Thom bases his 'arguments' on fallacious reasoning and specifying those fallacies as they arose.
    1
  125. The USA was Libertarian during 17th century. Also, I didn't say 'Better Off' I stated "Libertarian". It was Is the number '1' just a philosophical concept? How about the color blue? Is that just a philosophical concept? What do you even mean 'philosophical concept? Natural rights are Universal, inherent and, unless you're a Solipsist, more than subjective. I find it disingenuous you argue for human rights in one sentence and then call Natural rights 'just a philosophical concept' in the next.
    1
  126. 3. Unlike you I'm aware of the problems of both government and markets. I don't have blind faith in one side. Slavery, poverty, the "profit motive" is even the driving force behind many of our wars yet you blind yourself to that fact. I'm not blind to these facts, the Non Aggressive Axiom was developed in response to exactly these sorts of issues. Together with private property rights, Law and 'sound' money society can deal with these issues productively. Unlike now, where we just kill or cage.
    1
  127. I'd also like to note we have three POTUS who have ILLEGALLY used marijuana and cocaine. Why aren't they in jail?! Yet other so-called "Free" citizens are in jail for doing the exact same thing. This is exactly what you'd expect from an immoral enterprise like the State. Not to mention the illegal Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Malta, Syria (it was recently discovered the so-called "Freedom-Fighters" we're supporting used Saran gas!) State = E.V.I.L. Thomas Jefferson said this day would come
    1
  128. 1. The practice of fractional lending or inflation. Doesn't somehow invalidate the idea that our money's value is based on the strength and credit of the US government. If by 'strength' you mean coerce the repayments out of Citizens who had NO VOTE on the 30 year Bonds sold on their labor before they were born - and by coerce I mean to the point of tossing these poor "Free Citizen" into a cage at the point of a gun. Then yes, I agree. That's the whole POINT of income tax.
    1
  129. RE #1: Any society that has EVER existed is based on the idea "social contract" or the trade offs that individuals make for other benefits and protections. Civilization is based on FREE interactions with one another. This IS Society. As soon as you feel the need to point a gun in someone's face and tell them "Do it or else", we're no longer talking about "Society" - but a return to the Jungle. With that gun in your hand, I think you say "Social Contract" to ease your guilty conscious.
    1
  130. 1. You're the one who set up the staw man to knock over, not me. And I quote: "How many more decades would it have been "ok" for millions of slaves to be tortured and killed?" No one said Slavery is 'OK'. You have NO evidence Slavery wouldn't have ended in the exactly same time frame WITHOUT killing 6-800,000 humans to end it. You can't, no one CAN know. What we don know is ALL other nations ended Slavery without War at about the same time. The USA would have done the same.
    1
  131. Re: Do you ever vacuum a floor with particles you did not personally leave? OK, and did you point a gun in the face of your flatmate and force them to "share" their food with you? Well? No. It's too bad you couldn't recognize your VOLUNTARY relationship you had in a share house could also work in the wider "community" you claim to care about (and probably do). BUT, when it comes to your neighbors you resort to the gun/force and lie to yourself thinking a "vote" made this immoral action moral.
    1
  132. RE: The myth of the 'free market'. What is a 'free market' to you? A free market exchange has occurred when voluntary exchanges take place between private citizens. The more of these that are allowed to occur, the more prosperous society becomes. We had a much freer market 100 years ago. Now, you can't even take a shit on your own toilet. I once read an article by a lawyer who stated that, on average, everyone one of us violates three federal laws one a given day. Welcome to the USSA
    1
  133. RE: You use "force" carelessly. Is it "force" to keep people from driving drunk? It IS force to keep people from driving drunk - on their own property. If they drive drunk on someone else's property then that's against the Law. Roads, in a free-market, would be owned (probably by a company with the citizens as share holders). Thus, driving drunk on the roads is violating someone's property. Force used here is in self-defense (drunk drivers are dangerous but also violating the Law).
    1
  134. We do not live in a "voluntary" country, go ahead and refuse to pay your income tax and you WILL be put in a cage. It's that simple. THAT SIMPLE. Really, that simple. Google: Irwin Allan Schiff Read his books. Look into how the courts treated him. It's appalling. A 90 year old "FREE" Citizen/Felon is living in a cage as a tax protest for YOU! Put there by our "Voluntary" Government. You think you're "FREE"? You think you live in a voluntary society? What a joke. Bonded Tax-Cattle
    1
  135. RE: private institutions are only accountable to profit This sentence isn't true and isn't very informative. Private institutions can be non-profit (many are). Private institutions must obey the Law. Unlike public institutions private can't counterfeit money (inflation), sell 30 year Bonds on your children's future (Slavery) nor can they FORCE you into a cage for not using their currency. As a matter of fact, private institutions are so weak they depend on YOUR patronage to remain in existance
    1
  136. 2. Contracts are meaningless without government or force of law. This is not true. There's no World Government and yet plenty of people conduct trade via contract agreements. See, most people WANT repeat business and they want a good reputation. They will agree (via contract) to arbitration that can NOT be enforced - and still LIVE UP TO THE arbitration just to keep their good name as an honest broker. We most certainly can (and do) use contracts based on voluntarism to agreed arbitration.
    1
  137. Thomas Jefferson once quipped if he could have added just one amendment to the US Constitution it would be to bar the federal government from taking on debt. Think about this: Government maintains a legal monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographical area. It controls our money/labor. It regulated our interactions with one another. It even tells us who we can marry and what we can do with our own bodies. WHY would anything think such an entity is anything other than evil?
    1
  138. RE: No the difference is that democratic institutions are accountable to people & private institutions are only accountable to profit regardless of how it is gained (slavery, child labor, pollution, ... Again, you have it exactly backwards. Private institutions must follow the Law and it is illegal for them to initiate force (ex: Slavery). Public institutions (democratic or otherwise) can LEGALLY violate civil rights which is why it was the STATE that made Slavery legal to begin with.
    1
  139. "2. Government action emancipated the slaves. The "libertarian" attitude was to leave them as property." Talk about strawman. Again you have it BACKWARDS. The Libertarian political view begins with YOUR BODY as the foundation of property. You OWN your body. Which is why Libertarians think drugs should be legal. The Federal Gov thinks it OWNS your body - which is why Gov had Slavery, bans drugs and thinks it owns YOUR BODY'S LABOR - which is why it has INCOME TAX (a tax on your body's labor!)
    1
  140. I didn't say Laws did not imply force. What I said was that you have the civil right, to voluntarily agree to a contract. You certainly don't think it's moral for you to be FORCED to adhere to a contract you did no sign on to do you? To repay someone else's loans? Does that sound fair? YOU go to jail for THEIR loan?!? And yet there you are, "Citizen X" being forced to repay loans your parents made with interest - whether you want to or not. AND you'll be put in a cage if you refuse to pay!
    1
  141. RE: 1. Sorry, most Celts were not nobleman... You had *nothing* outside the authority of a tuath. You have far more individualistic "freedom" & social mobility between "states" today. Ancient Ireland is an example of anarchism in practice AND it was the epicenter of European culture before being invaded and culturally decimated by the English Statists. I'd also suggest the same may have happened to anarchistic Native Americans - though we'll never know for sure.
    1
  142. I agree is does depend on which 'type' of taxes. A tax added to gasoline is fair because you don't own the gasoline, you chose to purchase it (presumably to use in your car on a road) and that gas tax help pay to maintain said road. Tolls are an alternative. A tax on YOUR labor (something you DO OWN) is akin to asking the blueberry farmer to pay a tax when he sells his blueberries. That is immoral. Which is why the State needs blue-armed thugs to threaten you to enforce it.
    1
  143. Do you have faith in your public institutions? Didn't you hear O-blah-blah's speech? Between the false dichotomies and straw men has appealed to Nation and God and asked you to trust you "Leaders in Washington" (errr... 'Servants' I mean). Do you?
    1
  144. You know what the sad thing is? At the end of the day, I really don't care what you OR Thom want to do. I simply don't want to be involved in it. But, sadly, because I'm stuck in this idiotic Union of States I have to suffer both of your immorality. People like you and Thom will be the destruction of this Union. Because people like me, will rather prefer independence than suffer living with you. This is a story as old as humanity.
    1
  145. You have the horse before the cart. EVERYTHING used to private THEN became Public - which is a failure we're trying to undo Public Housing? Housing WAS always private. THEN it was taken from the private/community and made a 'Public" service and *gasp* public houses are shit-hole drug dens Public Schooling? Education WAS always private and Americans had one of the world's highest literacy rate. THEN we followed the Prussian Public model and literacy for some demographics is LOWER than in 1910!
    1
  146. RE: 2. Correct, a "free market" has never existed. It is a myth. ALL countries are mixes of socialization and privatization and markets have always been regulated (for a reason). The USA had free markets. Not all aspects of the economy were regulated. As a matter of fact, most weren't regulated. This isn't to say their was no Law. A "Free-Market" isn't a "Free-For-All". Fraud was Illegal. Theft was Illegal. Etc... Compare with today where EVERY single market is hightly regulated & controlled.
    1
  147. So, one more time, Thom is making the following logical fallacies when referring to WWII. Argumentum ad antiquitatem: Government spending helped then, it will help now Fallacy of incomplete evidence: Cherry picking WWII and not pacifistic Japan circa 1970s or NO Government intervention of The Depression of 1920 Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Since the depression ended following WWII, then WWII must have be the cause of ending the Depression Ad hominem - 'Crazy' Libertarian ideas regarding WWII
    1
  148. 2. It's clear now that your ideology comes from emotion instead of reason. (300BC) Epicurus "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." (1689) John Locke: "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." In Ethics, it's called the Non-Aggression Principal, and it's a "sound" argument/logic. You're arguing from Emotion when you argue for the use of force.
    1
  149. If you had a leg to stand on, you'd specify a logical fallacy in my argument. Here you go: Thom's post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is presented here: Since the Great Depression ended following WWII, then War Spending must be the cause of having ended the 'Great' Depression. You like to repeat, ad nauseam, that a "logical fallacy" is not simply something you disagree with - yet this is what YOU are doing. So, take your own advice, point to a logical inconsistency or concede the argument.
    1
  150. RE: It seems that you are just using the word "Anarchy" to project some kind of utopian ideal. I'm sorry if my argument has come across like this. I don't believe in Utopian society. Do believe (and history shows) that the close we structure society on the non-aggression axiom the fairer and more prosperous society becomes. Examples include abolition of Slavery to equal rights of minorities and women. The more free people are (free-market) the better their lives become.
    1
  151. Lincoln to Greeley (1862) "If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Honest Abe indeed.
    1
  152. 1. I agree the government is not a single entity. When I said it was evil, it was said in the sense of saying "Slavery" as in institution is evil. A more accurate description would have been to say any Government has the legal obligation to initiate force against the people living in a geographical location and this is immoral. This, Government is inherently immoral.
    1
  153. You seem to be confusing a Strawman argument with appealing to the person (in this case Hamilton). If anyone is making a Strawman's Argument it's Thom as he Cherry-Picks history for events that reinforce his POV and then uses these instances as a means of refuting whomever he "debates". Thom's so-called debates are usually him turning the other guys mic off and than having a rant while tossing out-of-context historical references while ranting incoherently. Classic Demagoguery.
    1
  154. I'm not 'supporting a concentration of wealth'. I specifically stated "Currency Competition" and that ANYONE should have the legal means to offer a currency to the market and then leave it up to individuals to use it or not use it. By allowing people to make their own currencies - no one can 'Concentrate Wealth' in a way that is unwanted by society because in an instant, people can dump that currency ending any concentration. Thus, the only issue is to define what private property is and is not
    1
  155. In the end, the question is quite simple: What type of society do you want to live in? One based on Force - Statism? Or, One based on Voluntarism - Anarchy? If you want force, that's fine FOR YOU. Allow other's to create a society based on the rule of law, private property, sound money, free-markets and voluntarism. It's really that easy. And, it IS going to happen, I imagine 500 years from now, the USA will be the last chapter on Statism in the History books. A long dead Empire like the rest.
    1
  156. I work with a few Gov employees who spend $250K+ per YR on travel alone. They do one big f*cking paperwork-circle-jerk. You are being taken to the cleaners and only too happy to help. This is why the only solution is some States will have to peacefully succeed from the Union. I really don't see any other other option. We need to split up, then let your side tax & regulate itself to death> Then we slowly buy your land off your Fed Gov as it sells you off in Bonds to us (& the Chinese).
    1
  157. RE: Try asking a woman, a black person, or Asian about "freedom" in the market 100 years ago. Any objective Black would agree the market was freer 150yrs ago compared with 250yrs. From the end of the Civil War until 1910 was the most prosperous period in US (and World) history, we had no central bank and the Fed Gov was less than 3% GDP. Blacks went from a literacy rate of less than 20% to greater than 85%; HIGHER than many present black communities graduating from public school in 2013!
    1
  158. 3. Take a good long look around - I hope you like what you see, because you're going to get more of it. It's not people like me who are in charge. My political philosophy, anarchocapitalism, isn't even a blip on the radar. Hell, even Libertarians only make up 1-3% of the voting public. No, it's actually people like Thom, and probably you, that are in charge. We added 80,000+ new regulations to the Federal Statue this year alone. I know I wouldn't bother starting a business in the USA.
    1
  159. RE:A safe, productive, healthy civilization is not "free" nor created by magic. Nor by government. RE: Native Americans Cities Re-read my post, I said MOST Native Americans did not live in cities (ie: where not civilized). And, that is historically true. Being a Matriarch isn't the same as building a permanent city. Cahokia is the main example I know of a city in N. America. Central and S. American Cities had similar problems to all cities. RE: Fed is a symptom. It's part of the disease.
    1
  160. RE: 3. Why is it surprising to you that politicians are OWNED by money when we've made money the most powerful & important thing in our society? What I'm really surprised at is how you (seemingly) don't to want to do radically deal with it?! Why elect another political demagogue (ex: O-blah-blah)? Money only exists in our minds - and if it is corrupt; what does this say about us? I suggest anarchy (via a libertarian-ish transition) and private community based money as a possible solution.
    1
  161. RE: Why do you think innovation doesn't magically come from third world countries with small governments? You mean like electricity, TV, radio, automobile .... back when the government was 3% GDP versus the 40% it is now? Or do you mean all the innovation that came out of "Communist" China, North Korea, Russia, Bulgaria.... Lastly, innovation comes from the PRIVATE sector. Even (sadly) in War. Why is, do you think, the US military hires so many private mercenaries?
    1
  162. 2. By "Hack" I mean: He certainly has a point of view which he doesn't deny, and is one of the many in the media that cherry picks historical contexts to add the illusion of reason to the discussion. 3. Well, we found more common ground :) Yes, the current debt-based monetary system is sickening. I read just yesterday a new Law proposed that children under the age of 6 should receive no benefits until aged 70. Reminded me a bit of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" - only we decided: 'Yum'.
    1
  163. "I have to pay taxes to support the infrastructure and services we all benefit from? Force." Only when you use those services and infrastructure. Think about it like this. Imagine you are poor and can't afford a car. YET, you are forced to pay income tax to support the 'FREE' roads everyone else is driving on! Where's your "FREE" bus trip?!? You use it, you pay for your use. This is only fair. Everything IS paid for one way or anther and that's only fair.
    1
  164. The analogy is apt. Thom is appealing to History (historical fallacy). IF people thought like Thom in the 1700s (and many would have) then no one would have challenged Slavery because the roads, clothing, food, was all provided through Slavery. If Thom wants to make an argument, then he's going to have to make it by NOT appealing to what is here and now and actually try and make. I don't think he can, so he demagogues instead.
    1