I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
When you referred to "your government" I thought you were referring to the libertarian government I want, not the current US government. We are not free under the current US government, but of course some aspects of the US government are useful... That is not an endorsement of the government inspite of your "interpretation".



All of which didn't stop you from claiming I support the US government. Don't try to talk with a banana stuffed in your mouth, you won't make much sense.

OK, that was a misunderstanding between us. I thought you were referring to the US government. Or, rather, you misunderstood me by assuming that when I said "your government" that I was referring to some sort of theoretical state.

"Nope"? Does that mean "interchangeability" means one can be replaced by that which is "interchangeable" or does it mean they are in fact incompatable? The confusion was created by your unsupported assertion that 3rd world hell holes are theoretically libertarian followed by the claim 3rd world hell holes are interchangeable with libertarianism only to deny making that equation because "interchangeable" doesn't really mean "interchangeable".

We could spend the rest of our lives on this. Yes- I think the two are interchangeable. That doesn't mean I think the means are identical- just the ends/likely ends. To me, once again, they are interchangeable.

So 3rd world hell holes are not theoretically libertarian in the slightest but they are interchangeable nonetheless?

Once again, to me, yes.

Starvation in 3rd world hell holes is usually caused by warring political factions using food as a weapon - the resulting starvation is man made, not because of libertarianism. Was there starvation in the northern US prior to the Civil War? Instead of just making stuff up, try offering some evidence.

In the case of some mass famines, that's often the case. However in others it certainly wasn't. One such example was the Indian famines of the 1860's-1870's in which the Tory administrations refuse to subsidise state assistance from granary stocks in case it lowered the grain prices. The aftermath of that played a key role in defining Gladstonian liberalism. That's an example of how laissez-faire policies can cause such starvation.

For another good example, there's the Highland clearances. Again, the result of laissez-faire policies. While the number of deaths from starvation wasn't high (certainly not in the league of the Indian famines, or the Irish ones).

For a modern viewpoint- the African famines of the mid-80's. Attention was focussed on war-torn Ethiopia and Sudan, but they weren't the worst-hit by drought. Zimbabwe was hit far harder, but the state granaries were used in governmental measures to ensure the population was fed and there was no famine. Other nations saw starvation without any major conflict- Burkina Faso, for example

The only reason I don't claim the north was libertarian is because there were some restrictions on personal freedom like homosexuality. The north did not have a welfare state and you claim not having a welfare state - the applicable part of libertarianism we are debating - results in a brutish hell hole where people starve. So you need to explain why the largely libertarian north did not have starvation without a welfare state.

I imagine a temperate climate at the times, coupled with an infant mortality rate significantly higher than today alongside a rather lower standard of care for the sick may have helped account for that.

Do you have proof those Victorian governments were laissez faire? The last thing I'd call Britain then or at any other time is laissez faire. That Victorian period got it's name from the queen in charge, and that ain't freedom.

We're down to semantics again. The pre-Gladstonian period is frequently described as laissez-faire due to the lack of state intervention into commerce. Whether that fits your own definition of "laissez-faire" is a moot point.

So throwing around insults in ~half your posts is "going easy" on me? I like the effect too, your shrillness is also a sight to behold for all who believe in "liberal tolerance". Unlike you, I don't devote half (or more) of my responses to insults.

There's a certain irony in being accused of shrillness and insulting behaviour by one accusing me of theft and complicity in genocide, don't you think?

Ah, so you stand behind your mistakes even when they are shown to be mistakes. But while you didn't "retract" your claim, you did acknowledge your claim was wrong.

You're beyond belief, aren't you? We get into this debate because I questioned whether any profoundly disabled people were libertarians. I qualify that to a position (which you aren't challenging) that it's probably just an overwhelming majority of such people (to a significantly higher proportion than of the overwhelming majority of able-bodied people who aren't libertarians) and you think that's some sort of moral victory?

Talk about not seeing the woods for the trees....

So the reason liberals won't put their money where their mouths are is because they are ill-informed, have conflicting agendas, and so on? Did charity fail on 9/11? Oops, you already said charity was a success there.

Disingenuous, again. Do you think 9-11 was a typical example? We can go round this loop for days.

I don't think, for one moment, that most Libertarians think that charity would allow a decent standard of living for their nation's disadvantaged. I think they just consider it not to be their problem, but I'm not them/

Astute readers will have noticed you not only contradicted yourself by acknowledging charity was a success for 9/11, they'll notice you didn't answer my question.

Astute reader will also have noticed that I said that 9-11 wasn't a typical example. It takes a horribly flawed piece of syllogistic reasoning to suggest that as 9-11 charities worked, every charity works.

Certainly as a means of replacing a welfare state, I say charity won't work.

As opposed to all the fraud in the government's welfare system? That's quite a double standard there, Laz. That's right, the best system for charity is the most direct, the worst is the most indirect and most bureaucratic - i.e., government.

The fact that governmental methods are flawed, just as charities are, doesn't mean we should ditch either. I'm perfectly happy to keep both. We'd still have the welfare state, after all.

But the stealing was legal and you called it plunder.

Yup. At the time it was legal. Now the laws passed mean that the good involved are plunder. That's how it works.

But you also claim stealing isn't stealing if it's legal. So the continues...

That's right. How exactly does one dance from an immobile position?

I won't refrain from insulting people who insult me first, but I'm not insulting you Laz, by your own standard wrt the Nazis, it is possible for stealing to be legal and still call it stealing as you've just shown.

If a thief steals, they are by definition a thief. That isn't an insult, it's just a fact. My goal is to get people to think about what they're doing by putting their actions into simple terms, not to insult people. Jesus was not insulting the adulteress when he told her to sin no more.

Balls. If my government ever passes retrospectively-acting legislation

Then the Nazis didn't steal either, but you say they did steal.

Yes, the opinions of the victims of theft dont count, just the opinions of the thieves.

People collecting state allowances they are legally entitled to are not thieves. They remain in that non-thief state until the laws change. That's how it works.

Being homeless doesn't count as a hardship? I'll have to remember that one. I was homeless and I got out of that hardship by getting a job and working. You apparently would get out of that hardship by demanding politicians hand you other people's money. Which is harder, working your way out of the hardship or sticking your hand out and whining like a baby?

Actually, I got out of that hardship by getting a job too. Now my taxes provide a similar safety net to others. I hardly consider that to be whining like a baby.

But you are using them to "justify" a massive welfare state. If they were really your concern, you'd focus on their needs and not on your own. And why would they be begging in the streets? Even with your beloved welfare state we see many private organisations serving the needs of people and we'd see many more if people weren't led into the "I pay taxes for that" mentality. Does the fact many people are literally taxed into poverty enter into the equation?

How is providing them with state support not focussing on their needs?

Again, I don't believe charity could adequately support people on a nationwide level as a pragmatic measure. Do you genuinely believe that, or just not care either way?

Going to provide examples of people being taxed into poverty? If you say "Willie Nelson" I'm going to laugh my arse off.

My God Laz, didn't you know the reason for those 3rd world hell holes in Africa is because most African countries were (or still are) run by brutal thugs who use "aid" to get rich and kill people? Somalia and Liberia were perhaps the worst examples, but you get the picture.

Indeed I do, but I fail to see that stopping state-funded overseas development aid is a sensible response to misuse of funds. I once ate an apple that had a maggot in it, but I'm not calling for orchards to be banned.

You didn't commit the crimes, you merely helped fund the criminals and forced others to help fund them thru taxes.

Am I the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Who am I forcing? I support it, but if you think I enforce it I'll have to gently correct you.Yes- undoubtedly some of my money got into the wrong hands. Undoubtedly a lot got into good hands too. I'm a pragmatist, and that'll do for me.

I realise that if I go outside I may be struck by lightning, but I'm still going out.

Is there a worse place?

Genocide with an Acid Jazz backing track?

I was never the one to get mad and take my ball home in the middle of a game. But I'm not surprised to see you confuse a desire to not help others steal with a desire to not share your own property. But in your world, maybe stealing is a euphemism for sharing. And if you want to insult my parents, do it to my face so I can share my knuckles with your teeth.

Aw, you poor brave soldier.

You think you can call me a thief and get off scot-free? Nope. Until the government passes retrospective legislation making the claiming of welfare benefits theft, it is not theft. Until that incredibly-unlikely moment arrives, the only place I am a thief is in your opinions. That's all. So divert your path away from the moral high ground. You don't call me a thief and expect anyone other than the deranged to take it seriously.

If you hold an opinion to be fact, then I claim equal factual basis for anything I choose to level at you. You hear a thief? I hear a spoiled brat going "MINE! NO! DON'T WANNA! CAN'T MAKE ME!!! NOT FAIR!". Infantile self-centred selfishness.

Now let's both reap what we sow and see who's happiest.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Incidentally I wasn't insulting your parents. Believe me- as parent myself, I have nothing but sympathy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Fine, I won't bother. But now that the offer is there - and it is, by the way, serious - you can't accuse me of being a heartless bastard anymore.

Yes I can. You think you can buy me? Give yourself some sort of moral "Get out of jail free card"? Nope

Or, you could say that I am selfish, in that I am only giving money to prove a point - that is, giving for my own self interest. If this is true, then, acting in our own self interest - acting selfishly - can often times result in a benefit to others.

I think you're a very confused boy, troubled by the callous inflexibility of your own logic and seeking to soothe your soul. You're faced with someone you have met, and got on quite well with, whom you are now forced to call a thief.

**** your charity. I'm just working my way.

MENS REA: The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).

So, actually, there IS mens rea, as your state of mind indicates that you support the act, and, by voting, in a way commit the act, of depriving me of my money against my will.

Nope. Sorry. You're wrong, and if you want to take on an LL.B be prepared for a rocky ride.

If you don't think you're wrong, feel free to dig out the statute in question.

Under English common law it fails the mens rea test as there's no dishonesty. Sorry. You lose. Thanks for playing

This is silly, as Berzerker has already pointed out to you. The Nazis stole, even if there was no "statute" against their theft.

No they didn't. Yes they did. The two statements are both true in this case.

What we object to is taking our money without our consent. You're saying you don't object to this?

You may object until blue in the face, but it's still not theft. I personally don't object to taxation.

Oh, I see, it's OK for the government to do it, as long as it's legal. But you've already admitted that what the Nazis did was theft.

At the time they did it, it wasn't. Then, due to retrospective legislation, failure to hand over such items became a crime.

It wasn't a crime. Then it became a crime.

So maybe it's not theft, as long as it is going to "help" people. Is that how you're choosing to define "theft"?

No. I'm still defining theft according to it's statutory and common law definitions. "Helping" is irrelevant in this context. And taxation still isn't theft.

[David Floyd]

Yes I can. You think you can buy me? Give yourself some sort of moral "Get out of jail free card"? Nope

I'm not trying to buy anyone. I'm making the point that if I'm willing to voluntarily help people, I'm either not selfish, OR, being selfish is not necessarily a bad thing. That's not an unreasonable position, is it?

I think you're a very confused boy, troubled by the callous inflexibility of your own logic and seeking to soothe your soul. You're faced with someone you have met, and got on quite well with, whom you are now forced to call a thief.

**** your charity. I'm just working my way.

You can take it personally if you like - I don't take anything here personally. In any case, the intent is not to insult you, and you'll recall that I've stated that utilizing services you've already paid for is not theft.

However, if you insist on supporting the existence of measures that forcibly strip me of my money, then I'm not sure what else to call it.

Under English common law it fails the mens rea test as there's no dishonesty.

The dishonesty is that you are saying that forcibly taking my money is not theft if the government says it is OK, unless the government happens to be run by the Nazis.

Now, I realize that I'm going into silly semantic arguments, but you're the one who started it with that "mens rea" nonsense. I'm talking about moral crimes, not legal statutes. If I was going to be swayed by how the government defines crime, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

No they didn't. Yes they did. The two statements are both true in this case.

Oh, I see, so the Nazis weren't in the wrong until someone came along after the fact and told them they were. So really, you're just saying that the Nazis were only wrong in the eyes of others - not objectively wrong - and that as long as no one could do anything about it, their actions were just fine.

You may object until blue in the face, but it's still not theft. I personally don't object to taxation.

What if your money was being spent, for example, entirely to fund a massive military buildup, to start a new war in Europe? Would you object then? I don't see how you could, because after all, it ceases to be your money the second the government takes it, right? Who are you to object to what the government does with its own money?

In any case, you still haven't given me an adequate response as to why it is theft for me to come to your house with a gun and steal your money, but it wasn't theft for the Nazis to come to *random person's* house and steal their money.

Oh, that's right, what the Nazis did was legal.

Seriously, if you have to take the position that what the Nazis did was OK, don't you think you need to revise the way you define theft?

At the time they did it, it wasn't. Then, due to retrospective legislation, failure to hand over such items became a crime.

It wasn't a crime. Then it became a crime.

So, basically, now you are in favor of ex post facto laws. So let's say that posting on Apolyton becomes a crime tomorrow. You, being a good, law-abiding citizen, decide to never post on Apolyton again.

But wait! The ex post facto police track you down and arrest you for doing something before it was illegal. Not only that, but your act of posting on the Internet - when it was perfectly legal - was wrong!

Again, that's silly.

No. I'm still defining theft according to it's statutory and common law definitions.

That's fine, but that puts you in the indefensible position of saying that what the Nazis did was OK, with your only way out of that minefield being to support ex post facto laws and punishments.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world WITHOUT Nazis and ex post facto laws, and I rather think we should define our moral terms in such a way that we aren't required to support either one.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Hallelujah. We've just made a breakthrough.

Floyd- I have never, and will never, say what the Nazis did was "OK". Never in a million years.

Go back over this thread and you'll notice that at no point did I say that.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There you have it. It's the separation of law and morality. The two do not always coincide.

Now you may think that the fact that I once claimed unemployment benefit makes me evil, or misguided, or naive, or bellicose, or jocular- and that's your opinion. But it still isn't theft.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let me tell you a family story. It's about my grandmother.

Among the state benefits she claimed in her lifetime were family allowance, her state pension and various assistances while my grandfather was off killing Germans. She never had any problem with this.

However anyone offering her charity would have had to leave her house at a sprint. A direct meteorite strike couldn't have driven her to accept charity. It's a working class pride thing that I wouldn't expect a Libertarian to understand. You need a common British Granny to get it.

[Caligastia]

Interesting.

[Berzerker]

Laz -

We could spend the rest of our lives on this. Yes- I think the two are interchangeable. That doesn't mean I think the means are identical- just the ends/likely ends. To me, once again, they are interchangeable.

I never said you thought they were identical, just similar enough to be "interchangeable". Claiming 3rd world hell holes are theoretically libertarian (your words) ignores that 3rd world hell holes are anything but libertarian, theoretically or not.

In the case of some mass famines, that's often the case. However in others it certainly wasn't. One such example was the Indian famines of the 1860's-1870's in which the Tory administrations refuse to subsidise state assistance from granary stocks in case it lowered the grain prices. The aftermath of that played a key role in defining Gladstonian liberalism. That's an example of how laissez-faire policies can cause such starvation.

C'mon Laz, India was under the control of the Brits, and the Brits didn't own the land, they occupied India. The Brits imposed itself on Ireland too and the result was the potato famine of the 1840's, that too was a man made starvation. You keep trying to equate (interchangeable?) autocratic systems with libertarian systems to blame libertarianism for mass starvations and that just won't cut it.

For another good example, there's the Highland clearances. Again, the result of laissez-faire policies. While the number of deaths from starvation wasn't high (certainly not in the league of the Indian famines, or the Irish ones).

Explain. I've never heard of the Highland clearances.

For a modern viewpoint- the African famines of the mid-80's. Attention was focussed on war-torn Ethiopia and Sudan, but they weren't the worst-hit by drought. Zimbabwe was hit far harder, but the state granaries were used in governmental measures to ensure the population was fed and there was no famine. Other nations saw starvation without any major conflict- Burkina Faso, for example

So the Sudan and Ethiopia were libertarian countries?

I imagine a temperate climate at the times, coupled with an infant mortality rate significantly higher than today alongside a rather lower standard of care for the sick may have helped account for that.

Laz, what are you talking about? You've just mentioned mass starvations in other parts of the world so what was so different about the north? Nearly the entire world had lower standards of care and higher infant mortality rates than now, so why didn't the north see mass starvations like other places? Because property was private and the economic system was virtually libertarian whereas the places that did see mass starvations were not libertarian in any sense of the word.

We're down to semantics again. The pre-Gladstonian period is frequently described as laissez-faire due to the lack of state intervention into commerce. Whether that fits your own definition of "laissez-faire" is a moot point.

Laz, the state was constantly intervening in the economy. It was an aristocratic system where peasants were kept down and the system had more in common with a feudal state than laissez-faire.

There's a certain irony in being accused of shrillness and insulting behaviour by one accusing me of theft and complicity in genocide, don't you think?

You advocate "legalised" stealing while acknowledging that stealing is still stealing even if it is "legal", ala the Nazis (and I'd add legalised slavery). You just make an exception for the stealing you advocate. And the fact remains that taxes flowing into Africa and other places has been used by dictators to slaughter millions. These are facts, not insults. When you refer to the plundering by the Nazis, do you mean it as an insult or just a statement of fact?

You're beyond belief, aren't you? We get into this debate because I questioned whether any profoundly disabled people were libertarians. I qualify that to a position (which you aren't challenging) that it's probably just an overwhelming majority of such people (to a significantly higher proportion than of the overwhelming majority of able-bodied people who aren't libertarians) and you think that's some sort of moral victory?

You haven't proven anything you've claimed about the disabled not being libertarian and when I challenge and/or refute your assertions all I get are insults and sarcasm. If there is a moral victory in this, you gave it to me by default.

Disingenuous, again. Do you think 9-11 was a typical example? We can go round this loop for days.

I'm being dis-ingenuous because 9/11 wasn't typical? You said charity fails and 9/11 refutes your claim, so then you change your assertion and insult me instead of admitting your mistake.

I don't think, for one moment, that most Libertarians think that charity would allow a decent standard of living for their nation's disadvantaged. I think they just consider it not to be their problem, but I'm not them

Woe horsey, you've gone from the profoundly disabled who lack support to the nation's dis-advantaged. Your welfare state has created even more dis-advantaged people by producing higher out-of-wedlock births and generational poverty. So don't extoll the virtues of your welfare state when the results are at best mixed. I said charity would suffice to support the profoundly disabled, not the "dis-advantaged".

Astute reader will also have noticed that I said that 9-11 wasn't a typical example.

And they will see I never said it was typical, but they will see your assertion that charity fails has been refuted.

It takes a horribly flawed piece of syllogistic reasoning to suggest that as 9-11 charities worked, every charity works.

No Laz, it is horribly flawed to argue charity fails and then dismiss examples of charity succeeding as if they don't refute your initial assertion. There are plenty of examples of charity succeeding but I needed only 1 to refute your claim.

Certainly as a means of replacing a welfare state, I say charity won't work.

That's right, charity won't replace the 100's of billions wasted creating dependency on government and irresponsible behavior. That's kind of the point... The welfare system has had disastrous effects, look at how many households are headed by single mothers on welfare and compare that to pre-welfare state numbers. Marvin Olasky wrote a book on this issue, "The Tragedy of Compassion".

The fact that governmental methods are flawed, just as charities are, doesn't mean we should ditch either. I'm perfectly happy to keep both. We'd still have the welfare state, after all.

But when a flaw appears in a government program, the consequences are much more far reaching. That's the virtue of direct charity and decentralised power. Common sense dictates that charity at the city/town level will be more effective than a national welfare state.

That's right. How exactly does one dance from an immobile position?

Your position is "immobile"? You've argued that stealing isn't stealing when it's legal, but then argued legalised stealing is stealing when I asked if you support paying back the victims of Nazi theft. Would you also argue slavery isn't stealing when it's legal? "Man theft" is how Frederick Douglass described it... Would you argue Saddam never murdered any Iraqis because that was "legal" but if a future Iraqi government passes a law calling it murder, then you'll agree he did murder people? Oh, some of the development aid went to him too...

Balls. If my government ever passes retrospectively-acting legislation

?

People collecting state allowances they are legally entitled to are not thieves. They remain in that non-thief state until the laws change. That's how it works.

The thieves are the politicians and their supporters. The people you mention are only receiving stolen property except when they are merely getting back what they paid in. Now, laws don't become law in a vacuum, the change in laws to pay back the people ripped off by the Nazis were a result of the recognition that the Nazis stole from their victims. People didn't call for a change in the law based on the "logic" that what the Nazis did was legal and therefore was not stealing, it was based on the reality that it didn't matter if the plundering by the Nazis was legal, it was still theft.

Actually, I got out of that hardship by getting a job too. Now my taxes provide a similar safety net to others. I hardly consider that to be whining like a baby.

Umm, Laz, if you got out of that hardship by getting a job and working, what is similar about your effort and the safety net you advocate? Nada! So, which is harder? Working your way out of a hardship or sticking your hand out and whining?

How is providing them with state support not focussing on their needs?

Because your goal is not supporting them, your goal is a massive welfare state. So why not focus our attention on couch potatos who kick back watching Oprah getting drunk or high on other people's labor? Sound vaguely like a form of slavery?

Again, I don't believe charity could adequately support people on a nationwide level as a pragmatic measure. Do you genuinely believe that, or just not care either way?

That's the problem, you don't just want to support those who can't support themselves, you want to support (with other people's money) those who won't support themselves as long as you are there to hand them money to sit on their behinds.

Going to provide examples of people being taxed into poverty? If you say "Willie Nelson" I'm going to laugh my arse off.

Sure, many poor people including blacks were literally taxed out of their homes in the Carolinas and the east coast by property taxes. So laugh at them, arse.

Indeed I do, but I fail to see that stopping state-funded overseas development aid is a sensible response to misuse of funds.

Oh, so now you acknowledge complicity in the slaughter?

I once ate an apple that had a maggot in it, but I'm not calling for orchards to be banned.

But you're intent on the maggot remaining in power with subsidies. Thats what that "aid" to Africa does, it keeps the thugs in power because when they get our taxes they buy weapons and soldiers to stay in power.

Am I the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Who am I forcing? I support it, but if you think I enforce it I'll have to gently correct you.Yes- undoubtedly some of my money got into the wrong hands. Undoubtedly a lot got into good hands too. I'm a pragmatist, and that'll do for me.

You support the policies, that makes you responsible for the consequences. That's like arguing subsidies to Hitler were just fine because he made the trains run on time - that's pragmatism too.

I realise that if I go outside I may be struck by lightning, but I'm still going out.

Fine, use your own money, don't push others out in the storm.

Aw, you poor brave soldier.

Aw, you poor coward.

You think you can call me a thief and get off scot-free?

You think you can call us "selfish" and get off scot-free?

Until the government passes retrospective legislation making the claiming of welfare benefits theft, it is not theft.

The US Constitution dis-allows retroactive legislation. This notion that the Nazis didn't steal until a law was passed recognising the theft is illogical.

Until that incredibly-unlikely moment arrives, the only place I am a thief is in your opinions. That's all. So divert your path away from the moral high ground. You don't call me a thief and expect anyone other than the deranged to take it seriously.

Chances are the people who agree with you support legalised theft too, so asking Paul if it was wrong for him to help take Peter' money is hardly an unbiased search for truth.

If you hold an opinion to be fact, then I claim equal factual basis for anything I choose to level at you. You hear a thief? I hear a spoiled brat going "MINE! NO! DON'T WANNA! CAN'T MAKE ME!!! NOT FAIR!". Infantile self-centred selfishness.

You're still getting it wrong, I oppose your ideology because I won't help you steal from others. Is that selfishness? I don't mind much paying taxes to help people as long as the taxes aren't extreme and the policy isn't self-defeating. What I do mind is helping others steal and calling the victims "selfish".

Now let's both reap what we sow and see who's happiest.

Buying "happiness" with other people's money is rather "selfish", don't you think?

Incidentally I wasn't insulting your parents. Believe me- as parent myself, I have nothing but sympathy.

So lamenting that my parents did a bad job teaching me to share wasn't an insult? Don't try to weasel out of it. Btw, your insult, like so many of your arguments, was illogical. A desire to avoid stealing from others does not equate to a desire to not share. But according to your "logic", if we don't steal we are selfish.

[Berzerker]

However, if you insist on supporting the existence of measures that forcibly strip me of my money, then I'm not sure what else to call it.

"Legal"? And if the state doesn't like you because you aren't helping Laz steal, i.e., you're just too "selfish", and decides to murder you, well, that ain't really murder because it was "legal" too.

Laz -

There you have it. It's the separation of law and morality. The two do not always coincide.

But the law cannot turn morality on it's head. The law cannot turn what is immoral into that which is moral and the law cannot turn what is moral into that which is immoral. Stealing doesn't become moral just because it's legal and not stealing isn't immoral just because the law says stealing is moral. Think about it, Laz, inspite of your attempt to divert the discussion into one of "selfishness" for opposing the massive "re-distribution" of wealth, what you are really accusing people of being "selfish" for is not helping you steal. If the government recruited you to go off to a foreign land and slaughter the innocent, would you be "selfish" for refusing?

[David Floyd]

Floyd- I have never, and will never, say what the Nazis did was "OK". Never in a million years.

Go back over this thread and you'll notice that at no point did I say that.

There you have it. It's the separation of law and morality. The two do not always coincide.

OK. You admit that what the Nazis did was legal, however, you also think it was immoral. Therefore, you believe that a law can be immoral. For example, a law that allows "Aryan supermen" to rob and kill Jews would be immoral - in fact, you might even call those acts theft and murder. Sure, the law allows those acts, BUT the acts still fulfill the spirit of the meaning of the words "theft" and "murder".

So, we can both agree that you think immoral laws can exist. Further, it seems reasonable that laws allowing one to take the property of another against that person's will fits in with the spirit of the definition of theft, at the very least.

I would argue, then, that the Nazis passing a law saying that Jews forfeit their property is no different, fundamentally, then a law saying that I have to forfeit my property. Remember, we aren't talking about the motivations for the law, or the use the government is getting out of the property, just the law itself. Fundamentally, those two laws are the same.

In that sense, then, the income tax is immoral, just as laws restricting Jewish property rights in Nazi Germany were immoral.

No, I'm not saying that the Holocaust and income tax are the same thing - only that a)there are fundamental similarities, and b)the fundamental ideas of government and society that allow the income tax are the same as those that allowed Nazism.

Now you may think that the fact that I once claimed unemployment benefit makes me evil, or misguided, or naive, or bellicose, or jocular- and that's your opinion.

I never claimed that claiming "unemployment benefits" makes you evil, and I never claimed that was stealing. The existence of the program is stealing - that is, the government is stealing from you.

The reason I would hesitate to claim my money back, in that fashion, is the tendency of many people - at least in the US - who are on welfare to be lazy bums who don't try to better themselves.

However anyone offering her charity would have had to leave her house at a sprint. A direct meteorite strike couldn't have driven her to accept charity. It's a working class pride thing that I wouldn't expect a Libertarian to understand. You need a common British Granny to get it.

Do you at least acknowledge there is no fundamental difference?

[Berzerker]

Laz -

However anyone offering her charity would have had to leave her house at a sprint. A direct meteorite strike couldn't have driven her to accept charity. It's a working class pride thing that I wouldn't expect a Libertarian to understand.

Once again your insults have no attachment to reality, I was a working class American when I was homeless...and I refused government handouts. You keep throwing around these insults about others and wonder why we take offense at your BS? Yeah, look at all those millionaire/billionaire libertarians.

[Berzerker]

Hey Laz, didn't you say you would have ended up in jail or a grave during the 90's if the welfare state didn't exist? Why? You said you got a job and worked your way out of your hardship, so what's up with that?

[Caligastia]

You should post your blog post on libertarians here Laz...or have they worn you down to a nub?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Nope. I predict boredom will win, because everyone here is equally intransigent and nobody's opinions have shifted.

Anyone who thought I was a thief at the outset still thinks that way, and the same is true about me thinking libertarianism is basically sociopathy. It's highly unlikely either side has won any new recruits because these cut'n'paste marathons are horribly dull to anyone other than complete obsessives.

That and the fact that the definition of "thief" held by my opponents here appears to cover a huge swathe of 1st world humanity. Including every member of my family for the last 3 generations. It's hard to win anyone over when you're slinging about accusations like that.

The blog stays where it is. Anyone who's interested knows where it is.