A friend of mine shared this post on Facebook. I think it checks all of the boxes.
Posted Aug 14, 2018, 1:14 PM UTC
10371
"Go live on your own in the tundra" sounds a lot like "go to Gulag"
56
>Go try to live in the Alaskan wilderness
> government finds you and arrests you for poaching, logging without a permit and living on federal land.
37
leaves country
US wants you to pay taxes even though you're not fucking living in the goddamn country
attempt to renounce citizenship
US wants you to pay renouncing citizenship tax
shoots self in head
11
Government arrests you for committing suicide
10
Destruction of government property is a serious crime!
5
[ ] Zero-sum thinking
[ ] Equating mercantilism to capitalism
✅ Social contract
[ ] Wage slavery
[ ] Natural monopolies
[ ] Evil corporations
[ ] A yuman right!
✅ DAE LOLBERTARIAN???
✅ The Greater Good^TM
[ ] I used to be a libertarian
[ ] Anyone who disagrees is a shill
[ ] Ban things I don’t like
[ ] If you don’t like it, just leave
✅ But who will build the roads?
✅ Libertarians hate poor people
[ ] Regulations make the market freer
[ ] The State knows more than you
[ ] Capitalism/Property can’t exist without the State
[ ] The State owns all property
✅ Truth derives from popularity
[ ] No True Scotsman
✅ I don’t understand consent
55
Motion to add "Profit is evil" or "Outlaw profit" to the list.
22
Motion to add “wE LiVe iN a SoCiEtY” as well
8
Yes. That's a good one. These people sound like they are in a cult.
1
I believe that last sentence also warrants a check in the "if you don't like it, just leave" box.
9
The only way they can conceive of for people to get the things they want is to make other people pay for them.
They're that far gone.
35
Ah, yes, the three pillars of society: The VA, socialized medicare, and PBS.
35
I fuck with sesame Street but the free market took care of that one. it was operating at a loss for years (before it went private)
3
The VA doesn't benefit fucking anybody.
23
What are you talking about? Bernie was able to buy his 3rd vacation home with the money he earned managing the VA.
17
Yeah of all the people I know who have access to it none of them actually like dealing with it at all.
10
Nearly all of my coworkers are Retired/MedSep'd dudes. The VA doesn't benefit any of them. At all.
21
I will not be using the VA for my shoulder injury. I'd rather go to a back-alley abortion clinic.
6
It's time to end for-profit healthcare
This is how you end healthcare.
Edit: Bonus points for We'Re tRyInG tO hAvE a SoCiEty HeRe!!!
18
"It's time to end for-profit automaking. Why? Because transportation is a basic yooman right, you fascist."
4
Its time to end for-profit food distribution! Food is a basic human right!
1
Sesame Street is on HBO now lol
16
It’s wild to me that people can say “we should force other people to pay for what we want” because they can’t be bothered to pay for it unless the state forces them too.
Also, their society is built on violence towards their fellow human beings. Don’t like paying for something? We will send men with guns to take it from you, because we care about you.
11
More accurately: we care about these other people so much and you so little, we are willing to steal from you and cast you out to the tundra. This coming from the person attempting to take some kind of compassionate moral high ground.
9
They don’t care about anything but money.
3
Nature is predicated on violence. We are living in a physical universe. The act of turning a tree into a house is a fundamentally violent act which prioritizes your interest in the house, over the tree's interest in living, and other being's interest in the oxygen the tree produces or any other way another entity might be benefitting from or make use of the tree.
The NAP is fundamentally incoherent and incompatible with physical existence in the universe.
Every act is violent— and violence is neither good nor bad, it just is.
Humans come together and decide which violent acts are good, and which violent acts are bad, and then we build organizations to enforce those decisions.
If you don't like the society we've built, you can accept it unhappily, you can endeavor to change it lawfully, you can endeavor to change it unlawfully and likely end up in prison or die, or you can leave.
But we can say we disagree with you, ignore you, shut you up legally, etc...
-2
Oh hey rapist, did you have to make a new account?
1
Like 5 years ago. Now it’s more device/browser based.
1
Ahhh multiple accounts. All good, it’s just been awhile since I’ve seen you around this sub
1
How do you enjoy your religion of statism? That is a warped, religious view you just spouted.
1
We live in a society
9
Bottom text.
4
Boomers rise up
1
*Zoomers
1
ah yes, the George Costanza argument
1
PBS could literally fucking shut down tomorrow and somebody would buy the rights to sesame street and continue making the show.
Don't believe me? Look at all the sesame street related merch that's been pouring off the shelves for the past 20 years. Did tickle-me-elmo need any government funding to make?
5
The little hamster wheel in their brains that powers their self-righteousness will not stop spinning long enough for them to hear our side of the story....everything he mentions is valuable, and worth paying for. But historically, with very few exceptions, government is the worst optimizer of money, projects, priorities and human dignity.
4
Im genuinely curious what everybody's view on government is here. When people say "tax is theft" I agree, but on the other hand, tax is a necessity to have a government, which is a necessary evil. It's best to have as small as government as possible without having the country collapse, but how does that government get funding?
3
Consumption tax OR flat rate tariffs, like the United States Federal government used to be funded.
3
Friendly inquiry here, why is a sales tax better than an income tax?
3
I'm not him, I'm the guy asking why taxes aren't necessary. But I think income tax is so heavily opposed is because the government knows exactly how much you make and demands that you pay 40% of it. Where a sales tax isn't as an invasion of privacy because anybody can know how much gas or a candy bar costs. I don't really know though.
2
Not all of us believe that government is necessary. Much in the way that the free market provides superior goods and services in other things, it could potentially provide arbitration, security, and defense services in a more efficient manner and more cost effectively than our current governments provide their court system, police, and the military.
1
It seems that you're describing anarcocapitalism. Who controls businesses that dominate the market?
1
Investors, consumers, and business owners, the same way they do now. If you're referring to monopolies dominating the market, it's very unlikely that a company could maintain the perfect level of efficiency required to maintain its position as a monopoly without a government to prop them up and kill competition.
2
So since my city will arrest me for being homeless, my rent is theft and the time I sell to my employer is stolen, right? I didn't consent to that arrangement any more than I consent to paying taxes. If taxes are theft, how is capitalism not theft?
1
Sounds like we agree the state is the problem
1
Keep in mind without the state private property becomes untenable. Private cops have never worked without a state to call for backup, so get used to only owning what you literally own, what you possess. Also, when you simply weaken the state and leave the power they wielded up for grabs, the results tend to make you wish the state was still running it. Look at any public transit/health/housing project that was privatized for evidence. There's a reason Amazon loves the USPS and the US spends the most on healthcare for the worst results. Or war, mercenaries have all the best atrocities. The power of the state must be carefully democratized, not simply sold to the highest bidder. That isn't to say the state is good, just that it's favorite clients are worse.
Anarchism/classical libertarianism makes way more sense than modern "libertarianism", because it has a functional critique of power instead of a poorly thought out demand for a power vacuum. Read a summary of Conquest of Bread to learn an awful lot about the history of state and aristocratic power, or Ecology of Freedom for a more modern intro that also places priority on the biosphere. They're both pretty readable, even though they're centuries and decades old respectively, but even just their summaries can be very educational for someone smart enough to hate the government, but not skeptical enough to doubt the government when it says communism is a devil virus from satan. Learn a little, I promise we're not as idealistic, stupid or hateful as you've been lead to believe.
1
Property is still possible without a state, but certain types of property would be harder to defend if the cost of their defense couldn't be externalized on others. Examples: IP, large "unused" landholdings, ability to pollute without consequence...
1
All of those things need involuntary, monopolistic policing to work. Even with police, piracy is easy af and the general public is finding the concept of IP more and more laughable every year. Plus China is having a pretty successful pilot study in ditching it alltogether, you can thank a disregard for IP every time you buy cheap electronics.
Real estate is, again, impossible without a state or your own fieflike warlord state. There is just no way to make private policing profitable without state backup. We don't live in metal gear verse, there's a reason there's never been an army with no national affiliation/backing.
And pollution requires SWAT teams to defend, like did you forget what happened at standing rock?
Capitalism requires the state, every economist who doesn't totally reject the scientific method (See: austrian school) agrees on this. And until it's disproven in practice, I'll happily accept Adam Smith's centuries-old proofs on the matter. If ancaps actually had philosophical ground to stand on, they'd address those proofs, but there's a reason they'll pretend said texts don't exist or just downvote, reee and move on when they're brought up.
1
Why the tundra?
1
That's what you get for not being in the "society".
3
Because that's what scares 'em.
2
You mean ex friend
0
Nah. It's possible to be friendly with someone and not agree politically.
2
How is it not theft? I don't understand why the Left needs to deny facts. Just accept it.
I respect people a whole lot more when they actually are consistent and admit that it's theft. Usually they'll say it's necessary, but at least they're honest.
They're not honest though, theft is wrong ya?
Yeah not completely honest, but sycophants gonna sycophant
People who think theft is necessary deserve 0 respect
I agree. When the topic of taxation and theft is brought up, a discussion can then ensure about specific instances when theft can be justified. But denial that taxation is inherently theft just means their head is too far in the sand to even engage in such a discussion.
If you look at it from the point of view that the state owns the land it all makes a lot more sense.
But i don't think there are any deeper principles at work then it is how it is and that's why it is ok.
It’s not theft because the government legalized it ^/s
But the Social Facade! Who will keep it up? How will the useles masses virtue-signal to their intellectual overlords and peers? You want them to leave their Social Reality?! Monstrous!!
It's not theft because you've consented to a division of your productive output by being inside the US and engaging economically with other actors.
The US, as sovereign, owns everything inside it— your version of ownership of anything is to have a limited title with certain conditions attached, such as it can be taxed (reappropriated after due process). You may want allodial title (where you own something entirely) but the US does not allow it except, essentially, for Indian reservations.
Theft requires you to legitimately own something, and you own nothing entirely— except maybe your body, and for you to be deprived of that owned object without your consent / through force.
Neither of these occur inside the US with the tax process.
Claiming taxes are theft makes you an idiot who doesn't understand how our system is structured.
You can say taxes are bad, or too high, or that you don't want to pay them, but claiming they're theft is simply logically incoherent.
I did not consent to that. And if I did, they wouldn’t have to put a gun to my head to take it.
There is no way to be in the US without consenting if you’re over 18.
If you give us your consent, and then renege on the deal later, of course we’re going to put a gun to your head to get what’s rightfully ours. Nothing wrong with that.
Remember all your rights in the US come from Your consent. You agree to be taxed in exchange for benefits. But if you really don’t consent then you’re violating our sovereignty and our military should eliminate you as a foreign attacker.
Consent is not possible if one party is under diress. That is contract law 101.