Terry, It doesn't show taxes are needed, but Pauls rabid defense of his view shows that some people have a strong belief that the are a legitamte means to an end. There are alternate methods aswell, but even they require some degree of force, if looked upon in an objective manner.
Paul has put out a point of view on how those who oppose such a tax are taking the stance of agression, and his point of view should be considered and not dismissed. And that point of view, that his point of view should be considered, is my point of view. --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So government is a good idea and funding it is a good. Tell me why > does that show taxes are needed, if enough people think it is a good > idea they can put their money where their mouth is. Don't give me > that prisoner dilemia theory either it does not apply here, if > enough people think government is a good idea then there is enough > honest people to fund it. If you don't have enough honest people to > fund the government then hell you don't have enough honest people to > run the government anyway and your society is freaking doomed anyway. > Damn I wish normally smart people like you and Paul would stop > trying to feed people this worthless baloney, the baloney that keeps > the political ruling class in power. For God sakes wake up.--- In > [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > I wasn't trying to trap you with a word game, infact it looked to > me > > like you were playing word games to dodge the question when you > > implied that I said you support the initiation of force. > > > > In limiting the use of force to the defense of ones self, or the > > defense of one who you are acting as a legitimate agent there of > for > > there defense, and defending those limited uses of force, you > > support limited use of force. > > > > When I said you did this, I never said it was a bad thing Paul, but > > I saw you dodging just that, and asked you to come clean on it, not > > intending to imply that it itself is dirty, only the failure to > > state it clearly was dirty. > > > > The problem, not with you Paul, a different problem, is that it > > becomes very tricky in some cases to pinpoint what is the > initiation > > of force, and what is the defense of ones self, especialy as a > > conflict continues. Resolutions for such conflicts, wether they be > > social, political or economical, differ greatly among people, and > > even among those of similar idealogical standpoints. > > > > When one group attempts to exert control, and place its view alone > > as the only acceptable view of, for example, the Libertarian Party, > > similar to your boat convention event, one does a diservice to the > > greatest amount of liberty for all. > > > > In the past I have argued against anarchaic tendencies of some > > libertarians, and I have done at times what seems to me to be to > > many here some great sin and combined libertarian philosophical > > theory with political theory with the desire to make positive steps > > in the direction of liberty, as I am opposed to standing in one > > place waiting untill the day when one great giant leap might be > > possible, as it is likley that it will never be possible, and even > > if it were, the landing from a giant leap can break alot of bones > > among other things. > > > > I agree with you on something Paul, and always have beleived this, > I > > don't know if you have always beleived this, but the goverment does > > have legitimate functions, in wich it serves to protect its > > citizens. Corruption, fraud and missuse of the goverment are the > > issues that need to be attacked. Not goverment itself, and by > > removing all forms of funding for goverment to serve in its > > legitimate roll, is an attack on goverment, not the ills of it, and > > does not serve to promote the most liberty for all, and it does not > > go to support the most liberty for the most people. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > Since you seem to be a fan of word games, I'll go along. > > > > > > You said that I proved that I'm not in favor of initiating force > > but > > > not of using "limited force". Ok, that's fine with me. > > Libertarians > > > are in favor of using force (including deadly force) against > those > > who > > > use force against us. > > > > > > You have said that there are degrees of libertarianism, and I have > > > said there are not. Those who support the INITIATION of force > are > > not > > > libertarians in any sense of the word Those who do not support > the > > > initiation of force other than in defense from actual attacks ARE > > > libertarians. > > > > > > There is no middleground. This has always been my position. I've > > > never said anything about those who support "limited force" not > > being > > > libertarians. There are no partial-libertarians, neo- > libertarians, > > > liberal-libertarians, conservative-libertarians, etc. There are > > > libertarians and everyone else. If you support the INITIATION of > > > force other than in your own defense, in the defense of another > > > INDIVIDUAL when they've asked you to be an agent for their > > defense, or > > > the defense of an attack on YOUR OWN country you are not a > > libertarian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not frustrated with you Paul, I am frustrated was > > frustrated > > > > with Terry at times though. > > > > > > > > I think your biggest error has been failing to notice that I > > have > > > > never tried to say you are wrong Paul, and I have never > provided > > an > > > > alternative to your point of view. You have failed to press me > > for > > > > my point of view, but rather you assumed my point of view and > > began > > > > to make claims about the incorrectness of my point of view, of > > wich > > > > I never had in the disscusion. > > > > > > > > My point of view, incase you missed it, has been, through the > > > > entirity of this thread, that individuals may have differing > > points > > > > of view, and that view on one topic may differ from the > > Libertarian > > > > norm, but that does not mean that this person is wrong, it does > > not > > > > mean that this person is "attempting to undermine the > > philosophical > > > > triumph of Libertarianism" and it does not mean that they are > > not > > > > Libertarian. > > > > > > > > My claim that you support limited use of force is not inacurate > > > > Paul, and you did not defend yourself from that claim to show > it > > was > > > > false. You defended yorself against 'initiation of force' but I > > > > never claimed at any point that you support the initation of > > force > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > > Limited use, and inition there of are two different things. > > > > > > > > My real point here has to go back to an argument before when > you > > > > Paul said that there can not be a limited-Libertarian, or a > > > > conservative-Libertarian or a liberal-Libertarian. > > > > > > > > The point is conected to this discussion becasue you hold a > > point of > > > > view (wich I am not denouncing, and never have) that is not in > > > > keeping with the consensus of libertarian thought, a deviation > > from > > > > others. If you opinion that there can not be such deviations > > were > > > > true, you would either be decalring yourself a non libertarian, > > or > > > > denouncing most others as such. (don't forget I am not doing > > either > > > > right now so don't get stuck on a tangent again). > > > > > > > > There are many visions, many belifs, on what the best path to a > > > > society of greater liberty are, and they all deserve to be > > listend > > > > to seriously, and not discredited with out reflection upon > there > > > > merit. (and again I am not acussing you of anything here, so > > DONT > > > > GET ON A TANGENT PAUL) > > > > > > > > If you read anything at all I have said when I do give my > > opinions, > > > > I am far from an anarchist Paul. > > > > > > > > So, if ever I was frustrated, know that it was not at you Paul, > > but > > > > at Terry's periodical posts regaurding the agression against > the > > > > philosophical triumph of libtertarianism. > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
