Ron Paul could have won this election.....

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

So, we have now established that rights, including property rights, are a pragmatic means to an end - on which I definitely agree with property rights.

Excellent.

We can now drop the absolutism.

Laihendi

You can "kind of" have property rights, and I'd say that the "kind of" having property rights made a p. substantial contribution to the development of the western world over the course of the past few centuries.

I think the prospects of my property being protected are far better under a system similar to the status quo than a Laihendi-style system, and that's p. important to me.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

So, we have now established that rights, including property rights, are a pragmatic means to an end - on which I definitely agree with property rights.

Excellent.

We can now drop the absolutism.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

So, we have now established that rights, including property rights, are a pragmatic means to an end - on which I definitely agree with property rights.

Excellent.

We can now drop the absolutism.

coolbeans90

You can "kind of" have property rights, and I'd say that the "kind of" having property rights made a p. substantial contribution to the development of the western world over the course of the past few centuries.

Well apparently you're totally fine with leaving those whose property is stolen without any recourse whatsoever. How do you respect the property rights of those who choose not to pay taxes when you exclude them from the court system? Trust in the goodwill of your constituents NOT to take a bunch of things from people who basically can't do anything about it? How do you enforce contracts between taxpayers and non taxpayers? If you allow non-taxpayers rights in your court system, what incentive is there for them to pay the taxes? Everyone is going to opt out and reap the benefits anyway.Abbeten

Your argument is incoherent and contradictory. Why are you complaining about the government not enforcing contracts for non-taxpayers, and then complaining about lack of incentives for paying taxes if it does do what you were complaining about it not doing?

How does one acquire property? -Sun_Tzu-

You engage in trade with the owner, or if it's unclaimed then you take it.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Well apparently you're totally fine with leaving those whose property is stolen without any recourse whatsoever. How do you respect the property rights of those who choose not to pay taxes when you exclude them from the court system? Trust in the goodwill of your constituents NOT to take a bunch of things from people who basically can't do anything about it? How do you enforce contracts between taxpayers and non taxpayers? If you allow non-taxpayers rights in your court system, what incentive is there for them to pay the taxes? Everyone is going to opt out and reap the benefits anyway.Laihendi

Your argument is incoherent and contradictory. Why are you complaining about the government not enforcing contracts for non-taxpayers, and then complaining about lack of incentives for paying taxes if it does do what you were complaining about it not doing?

It's OK. He's found a better gig.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Well apparently you're totally fine with leaving those whose property is stolen without any recourse whatsoever. How do you respect the property rights of those who choose not to pay taxes when you exclude them from the court system? Trust in the goodwill of your constituents NOT to take a bunch of things from people who basically can't do anything about it? How do you enforce contracts between taxpayers and non taxpayers? If you allow non-taxpayers rights in your court system, what incentive is there for them to pay the taxes? Everyone is going to opt out and reap the benefits anyway.Abbeten

Your argument is incoherent and contradictory. Why are you complaining about the government not enforcing contracts for non-taxpayers, and then complaining about lack of incentives for paying taxes if it does do what you were complaining about it not doing?

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Well apparently you're totally fine with leaving those whose property is stolen without any recourse whatsoever. How do you respect the property rights of those who choose not to pay taxes when you exclude them from the court system? Trust in the goodwill of your constituents NOT to take a bunch of things from people who basically can't do anything about it? How do you enforce contracts between taxpayers and non taxpayers? If you allow non-taxpayers rights in your court system, what incentive is there for them to pay the taxes? Everyone is going to opt out and reap the benefits anyway.Laihendi

Your argument is incoherent and contradictory. Why are you complaining about the government not enforcing contracts for non-taxpayers, and then complaining about lack of incentives for paying taxes if it does do what you were complaining about it not doing?

How does one acquire property? -Sun_Tzu-

You engage in trade with the owner, or if it's unclaimed then you take it.

Or I go plan C.. I kill you for your land..

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Again, you are making it clear that you don't understand my positions at all. I am not fine with theft, but an enforced system of laws (government) is necessary for the property rights of one person to be respected by others. Government requires funding to operate, and it should be under no obligation to serve people who deliberately choose not to be a part of it (by not paying taxes).

Your argument is incoherent and contradictory. Why are you complaining about the government not enforcing contracts for non-taxpayers, and then complaining about lack of incentives for paying taxes if it does do what you were complaining about it not doing?

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] I have no idea how my argument is incoherent or contradictory. I'm just noting with some amusement how perfectly fine you seem to be with everyone ignoring the property rights of those who choose not to pay taxes, and with 'persuading' everyone to pay the taxes with the implicit threat of their property rights being ignored. Abbeten

Please explain to me the practical effects of having the government provide everything for everyone regardless of whether they're actually paying taxes. And please explain how this voluntary system that I am proposing is any worse than the mandatory taxation system that currently exists. You seem to think that denying benefits to willful non-taxpayers is an unacceptable coercive threat, but you don't acknowledge that with the current taxation system the government will imprison anyone who doesn't pay taxes.

Leaving someone alone is not the same as actively harming someone. Leaving willful non-taxpayers to protect themselves with their own resources is not the same as imprisoning them for not providing money to "protect" them. The latter is a threat, and the former is not.

He's too radical for the Republicans and too subtle for the democrats.