Elections Gary Johnson at 12% (3% away from debates), potential game changer

[Greoric]

Threat of force, which is essentially the same. And so does everyone.

The primary reason that nobody has ever come along and killed me and taken my house is that, if they did, they would subsequently be shot or captured and placed in a cage by government employees, who only do that job because they are paid with tax money that you claim is immoral rape.

So you don't make a distinction between an aggressive and defensive threat of force?

 

[sickc0d3r]

And the minority's consent?

Is given by implication of consenting to, and participating in, the system. Now if you want to make an argument that no implicit consent exists for a morally defective act by government, such as droning innocent children and spying on citizens, nor for any violation of one's own rights, regardless of majority, I might agree to an extent.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Taking by force and keeping by force aren't viewed the same morally. If something is unclaimed and you claim it there is no force. If you've claimed it and someone wants to take it then which use of force is usually considered morally superior?

So you don't make a distinction between an aggressive and defensive threat of force?

You're drifting off into irrelevant tangents.
I could change my example so that the person taking my property doesn't use force. "While I'm at work one day, somebody breaks a window, changes the locks, disconnects the garage door and boards up all the other first floor windows." Or that they don't even kick me out. They just keep coming in to use my stuff or put a tent up in my yard and sleeping there while parking in my driveway.

The discussion was about MyOwnSummer12 claiming taxation immoral and non-consensual, but property rights not.

The bottom line on that is:

Taxation was instituted by a government body that we all have a vote in. Non-compliance with tax laws is treated with government force.

Property rights were instituted by a government body that we all have a vote in. Non-compliance with property rights laws is treated with government force.

There's absolutely no difference in the 'legitimacy' of the two types of laws.
The only difference is the poster is happy with one and not the other, so he's making a silly, inconsistent argument against one of them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Taking by force and keeping by force aren't viewed the same morally. If something is unclaimed and you claim it there is no force. If you've claimed it and someone wants to take it then which use of force is usually considered morally superior?

Property is initially taken by force and then kept by initiating force against people who want to use the property.

The "non-aggression principle" either prohibits property rights or has an exception so large that it can fit anything (namely: "force is defined as 'defensive' if it is used to defend one's preferred system of entitlement or to punish transgressors of that system"). Regardless of what one thinks of the ridiculous views of right-wing "libertarians" (a funny name for a hardcore authoritarian ideology), this non-aggression principle should be regarded as a simple thinking error.

 

[sickc0d3r]

The discussion was about MyOwnSummer12 claiming taxation immoral and non-consensual, but property rights not.

The bottom line on that is:

Taxation was instituted by a government body that we all have a vote in. Non-compliance with tax laws is treated with government force.

Property rights were instituted by a government body that we all have a vote in. Non-compliance with property rights laws is treated with government force.

There's absolutely no difference in the 'legitimacy' of the two types of laws.
The only difference is the poster is happy with one and not the other, so he's making a silly, inconsistent argument against one of them.

If anyone doubts the truth of this, Locke's got your back:

for it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to
enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property;
and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws
of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government,
to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject. By the same
act therefore, whereby any one unites his person, which was before free, to
any common-wealth, by the same he unites his possessions, which were before
free, to it also; and they become, both of them, person and possession,
subject to the government and dominion of that common-wealth, as long as it
hath a being.
Whoever therefore, from thenceforth, by inheritance,
purchase, permission, or otherways, enjoys any part of the land, so annexed
to, and under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the
condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the
common-wealth, under whose jurisdiction it is, as far forth as any subject
of it.

 

[TeTe]

Democrats worst nightmare.

If Johnson got in the debates id bet on a Trump Presidency.

It'll be the complete opposite. He'll steal more votes from Trump than Clinton.

 

[TeTe]

I don't think he's reasonable on anything, and I don't see where he has an appealing message. Their motto should be "upward redistribution without the racism." No one is buying. It's like alcohol-free beer.

What you aren't a pothead that wants weed legalized Jack?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What you aren't a pothead that wants weed legalized Jack?

I'm a liberal, so yeah, weed legalization is cool. Can we do it without taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids, though?

 

[Greoric]

Property is initially taken by force and then kept by initiating force against people who want to use the property.

The "non-aggression principle" either prohibits property rights or has an exception so large that it can fit anything (namely: "force is defined as 'defensive' if it is used to defend one's preferred system of entitlement or to punish transgressors of that system"). Regardless of what one thinks of the ridiculous views of right-wing "libertarians" (a funny name for a hardcore authoritarian ideology), this non-aggression principle should be regarded as a simple thinking error.

We've already gone over this so this all just babble from you.

If all property is the result of an aggressive claim by force who would have more legitimate claim to it besides the first person to acquire it by voluntarily means?

 

[Jack V Savage]

We've already gone over this so this all just babble from you.

If all property is the result of an aggressive claim by force who would have more legitimate claim to it besides the first person to acquire it by voluntarily means?

What "if"? There's no other way to acquire property except by an aggressive claim of force. And the community as a whole has the more legitimate claim to it. But we (eventually--after a really long time) figured out that the best way to encourage growth is to create a system with property rights and with associated obligations to the community. The NAP either undermines that system or has nothing to say about it, depending on how you read it.

 

[ineverpost]

You guys cannot really believe that he would be allowed in even if he gets 15% right? First off, the debate rules are the result of two party collusion with the media. You have to get 15% from X number of polls. They can easily just DQ certain polls based on made up provisions, influence the polls so he can't get 15% (like omit his name, ect), or just flat out change the rules to say you need 16% or some BS.

Even if they really screw him over, does he have a billion dollars to take them court for a ten year legal battle? Those with money make the rules. Your best option is to join em and change things from the inside.

 

[Greoric]

You're drifting off into irrelevant tangents.
I could change my example so that the person taking my property doesn't use force. "While I'm at work one day, somebody breaks a window, changes the locks, disconnects the garage door and boards up all the other first floor windows." Or that they don't even kick me out. They just keep coming in to use my stuff or put a tent up in my yard and sleeping there while parking in my driveway.

The discussion was about MyOwnSummer12 claiming taxation immoral and non-consensual, but property rights not.

The bottom line on that is:

Taxation was instituted by a government body that we all have a vote in. Non-compliance with tax laws is treated with government force.

Property rights were instituted by a government body that we all have a vote in. Non-compliance with property rights laws is treated with government force.

There's absolutely no difference in the 'legitimacy' of the two types of laws.
The only difference is the poster is happy with one and not the other, so he's making a silly, inconsistent argument against one of them.

Who's talking about irrelevant tangents? You're one bringing up odd stories about a transient walking through you house and using your stuff.

I'm just helping you out with a distinction you overlooked.

But yes, taxation is instituted by government. How is it different than theft? Because a majority votes?

Also it's nonsense that government defines property rights. Do you have to have government agents around you ubiquitously to keep from stealing? I think you mean they just have a monopoly over its enforcement. That's true, but why would that have to be necessary?

 

[Greoric]

What "if"? There's no other way to acquire property except by an aggressive claim of force. And the community as a whole has the more legitimate claim to it. But we (eventually--after a really long time) figured out that the best way to encourage growth is to create a system with property rights and with associated obligations to the community. The NAP either undermines that system or has nothing to say about it, depending on how you read it.

So you stole your car from the dealership? You stole all your children's food you give to them? You stole phone or PC you're typing this on?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you stole your car from the dealership? You stole all your children's food you give to them? You stole phone or PC you're typing this on?

Huh? Who is talking about stealing?

A rejection of all aggressive force precludes property rights, but an acceptance of aggressive force in order to defend property rights also leads to an acceptance of taxes.

Your argument breaks down to, "I think it's good to initiate force to defend my concept of distributive justice, but not yours," which is a statement that everyone would agree with but that tells us nothing about what to do.

But yes, taxation is instituted by government. How is it different than theft? Because a majority votes?

Property is also instituted by gov't. How is it different from theft? There is an answer, but you don't know it, apparently.

 

[Greoric]

Huh? Who is talking about stealing?

A rejection of all aggressive force precludes property rights, but an acceptance of aggressive force in order to defend property rights also leads to an acceptance of taxes.

Your argument breaks down to, "I think it's good to initiate force to defend my concept of distributive justice, but not yours," which is a statement that everyone would agree with but that tells us nothing about what to do.

I realize words have no meaning to you. Individual liberty is slavery. Hillary is honest. Up is down. Everyone on here gets your shtick.

Let's try and stay focused though. How did you get your PC that you're using right now? How did you get your car? Your house? Did you use aggressive action to acquire all of these things?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

property is taking by force? always, word?

so homesteads, or virtually the entire settlement of Oklahoma didn't ever happen?

the more you know

 

[Jack V Savage]

I realize words have no meaning to you. Individual liberty is slavery. Hillary is honest. Up is down. Everyone on here gets your shtick.

Yeah, yeah. You're not capable of learning because you react emotionally and personally to any point that you don't understand.

Let's try and stay focused here. How did you get your PC that you're using right now? How did you get your car? Your house? Did you use aggressive action to acquire all of these things?

So if you read my other posts and made more of an effort to understand (do you have any friends who are of above-average intelligence? Maybe show them), you'd see that this has already been addressed.

 

[Videer]

With newly surface footage of Jill Stein in Moscow it makes 3 out of 4 candidates compromised by uncle Vova. Johnson remains our only hope.

 

[Greoric]

Yeah, yeah. You're not capable of learning because you react emotionally and personally to any point that you don't understand.

So if you read my other posts and made more of an effort to understand (do you have any friends who are of above-average intelligence? Maybe show them), you'd see that this has already been addressed.

Ah so you won't answer the question. Got it. You may excuse yourself from the conversation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ah so you won't answer the question. Got it. You may excuse yourself from the conversation.

I did answer the question. You respond as you always do--with childish name-calling and other evasions. Good luck with that.