Topic: Rumors of Bitcoin's libertarian death have been greatly exaggerated. (Read 4121 times)

I have no affinity (or disaffinity) for Ayn Rand, but I don't see any hypocrisy.  She does not believe her money should be taken from her to fund the social security program.  Yet funds are taken from her.  In her old age, she accepts that money back.  What's wrong with that?  Why shouldn't she accept her stolen money back?

In her ideal world, no money would be taken from her, and she'd take none back.  In the current world, her money was taken from her.  She has every right to take it back.  No hypocrisy.

There is no anarchist/government. You have pinpointed the exact way of things. People with guns and power can do whatever they want against people with less power and guns.

Your neighbor coming to your house with a gun is the same thing as the government coming to your house with a gun. Some people pool their money for protection. But after some time you are no longer paying just for protection, you are also paying for whatever crazy ideas those with power may want. And the more money and power they get, the more insane things they can come up without your permission because there is no competition and no one else to go to for protection.

You totally don't. I'm not angry in the slightest - you wish...lol. I think you're projecting - you're angry that I don't care what the people you work for think. You're upset that the government you worship is being ridiculed and ignored, and the people doing the ignoring are totally getting away with it.


My experience is that the IRS is completely incapable of pursuing 1099 cases. I think you're lying about not being a public sector employee. You run several businesses? Name 'em. If you really do, you should be proud of them.

I think being honest is completely out of your nature, though. I can see your future, and its in my ignore box.

I realize that you are angry in being told what to do by a government.  I totally get that.

However, I think the anarcho-libertarian utopia can never exist.  I would be totally down with a society that doesn't need government, and everyone treats everyone fairly and nobody steals from eachother.  But the moment more than two people have to exist with each other, one will find a way to take something from the other. 

If my neighbor decides he needs my money, he could come to the door with a gun and demand it.   I could go mad max and try to shoot him before he shoots me, but I am glad that I paid a reasonable tribute to my local government so that there exist police that deter this from happening.

I could live in Somalia, and go mad max on the local warlord that shows up with his militia to demand tribute.  There I would have no choice but to capitulate or fight.

I live in the United States, and I pay tribute by mailing a check when filing my taxes.  It may be onerous, but it could be worse.   The rules are decided in a democracy rather than a dictatorship, and I am fine with that.  I realize that you are not OK with it.  We disagree.

But the world that is the ideal anarcho-libertarian utopia does not exist.  I've been to places in the Pacific-Northwest where entire communities live off the grid, but there are people with guns that are in charge, and those who don't follow the rules are made to leave. 


If you are an active tax-resister, then I hope you would be aware that if a client files a 1099 to report what they paid you, that the IRS may come after you.  I once did this, and when it caught up with me several years later, I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle. 

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door, I'd rather work and make money than waging war against the federal government.  I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with being a public sector employee.

It's absolutely a black and white answer. If you think some services can be provided at the barrel of a gun, that counts as a yes.

As for your question, it proves you don't have a private sector job. If you did, you'd understand that private sector workers get paid by contributing to society. People WILLINGLY give me money to build websites for them. I don't have to threaten them to pay for my services, whether needed or not. The fact that people pay me more than I even need for my standard of living, proves that I produce for others more than I consume.

Furthermore, being forced to contribute isn't a contribution at all. It's actual name is "armed robbery".

It's not a black and white answer, IMHO.  In general, no.

Let me ask you this:  Is it okay for a society in which you reside, by barrel of a gun, to have you banished from that society because you refuse to contribute what is considered to be a fair share to the commons needed for that society to exist?

+1

I feel that principle is the same as "it's ok to steal from someone that stole from someone else."   It makes as much sense as selfishness as a moral positive.  If I were to hold a strongly held belief against a certain system, I would not participate in anyway that I was free choose to, as voluntarily participating would be endorsement.  I would not think her a hypocrite if she chose to become homeless and suffered her condition without medical care, because she did not have the funds to sustain herself near the end of her life.   At the very least, she should have lived at the mercy of the charity of any supporters she had.

I personally find hypocrisy to be morally repugnant, but each person is different.

Man, what country do you live in? I didn't read the whole thread, but is this why I see Somalia being mentioned?   

My friend told me:  "Libertarians are just Tea Party-ers who are Athiest".

-B-

You can answer the question, or be ignored - doesn't matter much either way to me:

Do you think it is ok for goods and services to be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Yes, or No.

Uhm, if you should act selfish, It's perfectly rational to get some of what you paid in taxes back later. So I see nothing wrong from Ayn Raind cashing her social security checks.

From my understanding, through reading about the place, I understand Somalia to be:
1) Not to possess a centralized government.  There is an official government that occupies most of the capital, but it currently does not control the country.
2) No taxation that is enforced.
3) No regulations that are enforced.
4) Has no gun ownership restrictions that are enforced.

These qualities appear to be the qualities that an extreme libertarian desires in a theoretical libertarian utopia.  I simply want to know why an extreme libertarian does not consider Somalia to be a utopia.


That's the problem with extreme ideas, is that you do not consider any possibility between authoritarianism and anarchy.  And morality is subjective.  Ayn Rand believed it moral to be selfish, yet died while accepting social security in her final years.

The burden of proof is on you. You used Somalia as an example first, while admitting you never lived there and really don't know the situation. So why are you even bringing it up?

The idea of having a government isn't something that needs examples - its just logic and morality. Its a simple question: Should goods and services be provided at the barrel of a gun? If you think yes, you're an authoritarian and a psychopath. If you say no, you're an anarchist.