Just pay for the fuck ups of the officers who force you to pay their salary.
It's extortion all the way down.
So Minneapolis taxpayers forced to pay $27 million in settlement for the actions of officers they are also forced to pay for. The same officers who will enforce this theft.
I'm not trying to misrepresent your argument, I'm trying to understand it.
certain combinations of various general kinds and groups of people which for instance contains large parts of groupings that are organized, coordinated, etc. and also deeply, fundamentally genuinely evil and destructive.
Sure, and government gives them a means to multiply their evil and destructive nature far more than they would in the absence of such an institution that is perceived as legitimate in their aggression.
Why are Japan and South Korea so successful in multiple regards? Why is Sub-Saharan Africa so completely broken and like a hellhole, including before Europeans ever got near it? Are there fundamental, critical differences between different groups? That quotation is a complete non-starter!
And this is where you fail to understand my position. Even if government led to what you view as success, I still find it to be fundamentally immoral. To the extent that I point out the failures of governance or the potential benefits of getting rid of it; it is to get people to consider that getting rid of government might not be the end of the world and could very well lead to better results.
But the idea of success and better results is subjective and an individual determination, not something that can be an objective truth. Japan could be criticized as being incredibly degenerate on morale/sexual grounds and to some that would outweigh their success in other areas. I don't say this to say that Japan is awful, only to highlight that the determination of whether a country is successful or unsuccessful is always a subjective view of individuals.
I am sincere in my beliefs, in short they are:
- The use of aggression against peaceful people is fundamentally immoral
- Government necessarily uses aggression against peaceful people
- As a result, government is fundamentally immoral and detestable
- The practical effects of government are often abhorrent and undesirable to many people
- Free markets tend to lead to better outcomes than government control (but I recognize this is subjective)
- As a result of all of the above, I favor the total abolition of government, but I would also encourage/accept any reduction in its scope
I don't get that impression.
Kamala believes Tara Reade
https://money.yahoo.com/sen-kamala-harris-says-believe-181901449.html
In this thread Government forces the citizens to pay for both the police officers who arrested Floyd and his family for the results of that arrest.
Have an upvote for a cogent and respectful argument here.
It seems to me that your point of view boils down to the idea that the constitutional structure of government was not the problem but that the people elected to it over the years were.
If there is any justification for government at all it is because there exists malicious or incompetent people in society that the peaceful should be protected from. But government also unfortunately provides a platform for those same elements to greatly extend their power and influence over the peaceful members of society.
Or as Bastiat puts it:
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?
Rothbard makes a lot of utilitarian arguments in an attempt to convince people that the elimination of government would not be catastrophic, but fundamentally his argument (and my own view) boils down to a moral argument that consent and non-aggression are paramount to morality and that government in all its forms fails on this moral ground.
That said I don't think Rothbard formulated the best argument from this moral perspective. The real value in Rothbard is his analysis of the history of government intervention IMO.
The best formulation of this moral argument I have seen is the book "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer
Unfortunately this book is not available freely, but a good overview can be found in this interview:
"For A New Liberty"
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto
Page 381-382 in the PDF version:
https://cdn.mises.org/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf
You can make barrels now:
The bill doesn't have dates, it just says once enacted.
The feds aren't stupid enough (yet) to go door to door collecting "semi-automatic assault weapons" they are just going to make them illegal in the future as a means of reducing resistance and so they can technically say "we aren't coming for your guns"
Just like the Hughes amendment (but worse), this law will make it difficult or impossible for future generations to effectively arm themselves against the power of the State.
I read the bill, they are using a similar trick to the Hughes amendment here in that they will not technically be confiscating any "semi-automatic assault weapons" that you currently own, they will just be effectively making it illegal to transfer them to anyone they do not approve of.
They are disarming future generations, just as we have already been disarmed by those who came before.
It is an unconscionable act and should be opposed at every level.
The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.
― Murray N. Rothbard
To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless.
― Lysander Spooner
States everywhere are highly intent on outlawing or at least controlling even the mere possession of arms by private citizens—and most states have indeed succeeded in this task—as an armed man is clearly more of a threat to any aggressor than an unarmed man. It bears much less risk for the state to keep things peaceful while its own aggression continues, if rifles with which the taxman could be shot are out of the reach of everyone except the taxman himself!
— Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Leftists are the biggest beneficiaries of Republicans’ commitment to “save the republic”
― Eric July
Nations are comprised of individuals and cannot acquire any rights those individuals do not already have.
Those who are governed do not consent, if they truly consented it would not be government.
We did not institute anything, people 200+ years ago instituted a government and even then the whole of those governed did not consent to this imposition and certainly do not now.
What authority can the dead rightfully claim over the living?
How do you have any right to govern the behavior of other people other than to prevent them from infringing upon your own rights?
Voting does not make the illegitimate legitimate. It didn't make slavery moral, it didn't make Hitler's aggression just and it doesn't make taxation acceptable.
I didn't downvote you, sorry the others did.
Not that I know of:
Doesn't exactly work the way things are going either is it?
The world will never be perfect, we can only strive to make it better and one of the best ways to make the world better is to respect each others consent.
The reason government employees are so disproportionately vile is that state authority attracts low-status, low-quality people who are now in the position to demand the respect and deference that they would never be able to earn otherwise.
― Michael Malice
Nobody has voting rights. Rights are those human actions that do not impose upon others. Rights cannot be granted, only infringed.
Believing it just to interfere with others due to the will of some majority is the root of the problem.
My rights are not subject to a vote, and neither are yours.
If one understands that Socialism is not a “share the wealth” program but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super rich men promoting Socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately Socialism, is not a movement of the down-trodden masses but of the economic elite.
― Gary Allen
Men too., an armed society is a polite society and all that.