Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am
The "mob rule" thing you are against has actually led to a reduction in taxation in many societies, such as the DPRK where taxation has been abolished and Allende's Chile where it was reduced.
Taxation has been abolished in DPRK, but there is no way you can legitimately claim the citizens there are free. Mob rule works sometimes, but many other times it leads to things like legalized slavery and state sponsored "work camps".
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am
I never said Hillary should have been elected. In fact I said the opposite. If the USA was a true democracy, Bernie would be President because Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic nomination against him and he should have won it and then when he had the Democratic nomination he would beat Trump and win.
I liked Bernie, and would have voted for him over the Donald, but I still don't think he is a "good" candidate, and I like even less what he represents overall. (I like the "idea" of it, but it's not realistic and it won't work.) He was just the (IMO) most polished turd among the group.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am
Taxation is theft, because the individuals being taxed do not consent. To force someone to do something they do not consent to is immoral. The major corporations and billionaires who take advantage of this system only exist because they play the game that keeps the elites in power, and tricks the layman into believing that its the other side that is causing all of their woes.
"Well, you do consent to it. You can leave your country where the taxation rates are high at any time." is what I could say to that.
That argument I just put forward is shit? Of course it is!
But so is the idea that workers can "consent" to being exploited under capitalists who own the means of production, as if they have a choice between remaining in their work where they are being exploited, working somewhere else where they will be exploited, or starving and dying on the streets!
I actually agree with you that capitalism as it stands in America is deeply flawed, but I counter that it allows the largest companies to continually take advantage of their workers because of the "socialist" safety nets in place. Wal-mart wouldn't be able to pay their workers shit pay if they (the workers) weren't eligible for food-stamps and public assistance. And on top of paying their workers shit, they get a tax break for employing anyone who is on government assistance. Please read the last sentence again. THEY GET A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO PAY PEOPLE LESS THAT IT TAKES TO LIVE ON. So is Wal-mart the bad guy (yes), or are the socialized policies of the government the bad guy? (also yes.)
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am
Also, I reject the idea that it is always immoral to force someone to do something that they don't consent to. For instance, is it immoral to force rapists, murderers and paedophiles to go to prison if they don't want to?
This is actually quite simple. Libertarians often refer to the NAP. (Non-Aggression Principle) You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it does not violate your fellow human's (or their properties) rights.
Once you violate the NAP (IOW, you harm someone or their property), you are subject to punishment, up-to death. If you murder someone, it is perfectly acceptable for their family to murder you. If you steal someones car, they can shoot you, or if they are feeling generous, imprison you and take your possessions equal to the value of what you have stolen.
It is moral to kill a murderer, because they were the first person to choose to harm another. In the words of a rap-artist from the 90's, "don't start no shit, there won't be no shit."