Gyroscopic Investing

tech,

Can you give us a better ideas who the parasites are?  Who uses violence to take from you?  Couldn't you say that people on social assistance are, in effect, hiring thugs to come steal from you?

Libertarian666 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: In a society where everyone's expected to survive without a handout, they see more need than ever for their own services, and they're more than willing to provide them, but in such a society, fewer people seem willing to support them so they can do it.

...
If all libertarians stopped making the economic case we would be much better off. Giant social change is never going to happen because we educate people about economics. The population will never understand this stuff....ever. Look on this forum. Lot's of smart guys here don't get it, even after listening to the arguments....for years. It's useless.

Social change happens because the morality changes. If we want the poor to be cared for and the wars to end and the evils of the state we have to make the moral argument. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to use violence to get what you want. The ends don't justify the means. Don't hit your kids and instead teach them to grow up not speaking the language of violence. Hitting and stealing don't solve problems. That's all this welfare/warfare garbage is, hitting and stealing. How can all the hitting and stealing make people's lives better?

It makes people's lives better as long as it's the right people doing the hitting and stealing. You know, the ones with uniforms.

Ohhh yes, the ones with magical powers to know who to hit and steal from to get it just right.

You know every new law is essentially the government admitting they didn't have the stealing and hitting just quite right yet.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: But my point was that a voluntarist society would be richer than this one, and thus its members would be more able to support those who could not support themselves.

The problem is this argument is a big loser. It always has been. People will never understand it or buy it. You've got to make the case that it's morally wrong to hit and steal. You've got to teach it to the kids because the adults don't even realize they're doing it. They refuse to see it because to see it would shatter their belief system. It would teach them they've believed a big lie taught to them by people they've trusted (parents, teachers, clergy, TV, movie stars, everyone).

Kshartle,

You really think the moral case will catch fire?  The "force is bad" argument has been present in political arguments for a long, long time.

Even if you could get people behind the moral argument, the thing is, rarely are you going to have someone to vote for who literally wants to dismantle the very government who he is seeking employment with.  They may talk the part (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, heck even Ron Paul), but in the end they tend to stop short of wanting to fully dismantle the government.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: ...
If all libertarians stopped making the economic case we would be much better off. Giant social change is never going to happen because we educate people about economics. The population will never understand this stuff....ever. Look on this forum. Lot's of smart guys here don't get it, even after listening to the arguments....for years. It's useless.

Social change happens because the morality changes. If we want the poor to be cared for and the wars to end and the evils of the state we have to make the moral argument. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to use violence to get what you want. The ends don't justify the means. Don't hit your kids and instead teach them to grow up not speaking the language of violence. Hitting and stealing don't solve problems. That's all this welfare/warfare garbage is, hitting and stealing. How can all the hitting and stealing make people's lives better?

It makes people's lives better as long as it's the right people doing the hitting and stealing. You know, the ones with uniforms.

Ohhh yes, the ones with magical powers to know who to hit and steal from to get it just right.

You know every new law is essentially the government admitting they didn't have the stealing and hitting just quite right yet.

And every person that resides in the statist debacle that is the modern "city" is them admitting that the stealing and hitting really isn't that bad compared to all the benefits it provides, including preventing the more hurtful stealing and hitting that could occur in pure anarchy.

One could say it's all the non-statist benefits of the urban area they reside in, but then one would think a Galtopia would pop up somewhere, since the government has nothing to do with the productivity and is just a parasite to it.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: But my point was that a voluntarist society would be richer than this one, and thus its members would be more able to support those who could not support themselves.

The problem is this argument is a big loser. It always has been. People will never understand it or buy it. You've got to make the case that it's morally wrong to hit and steal. You've got to teach it to the kids because the adults don't even realize they're doing it. They refuse to see it because to see it would shatter their belief system. It would teach them they've believed a big lie taught to them by people they've trusted (parents, teachers, clergy, TV, movie stars, everyone).

Kshartle,

You really think the moral case will catch fire?  The "force is bad" argument has been present in political arguments for a long, long time.

Even if you could get people behind the moral argument, the thing is, rarely are you going to have someone to vote for who literally wants to dismantle the very government who he is seeking employment with.  They may talk the part (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, heck even Ron Paul), but in the end they tend to stop short of wanting to fully dismantle the government.

No the violence will not stop by people voting. And convincing adults is not possible either on anylarge scale. When you point out how someone supports violence and theft you're hitting a nail on the head....and driving it deeper into the wood.

It starts by getting people to recognize that children are humans. Helpless humans stuck in an involuntary relationship. They should not be hit or abused. As generation after generation is raised nonviolently we'll have a lot fewer people running around trying to solve everything with violence. When these young adults encounter the hammer fist of the state they will see it for what it is.

It will go away with a whimper I think, certainly not with voting.

moda0306 wrote: And every person that resides in the statist debacle that is the modern "city" is them admitting that the stealing and hitting really isn't that bad compared to all the benefits it provides, including preventing the more hurtful stealing and hitting that could occur in pure anarchy.

No it is not man.

Not even close.

You are born into it. This is like saying every person born in Saudia Arabia is admitting that they prefer Islam. That is what they are born and raised in. How many of them even question it?

How many Americans even know where their money comes from? 1%? How many think their taxes are someone taking what's theirs? They just accept it like they accept gravity.

I agree with moda that the moral argument won't work to convince people either. It's also old and well-used and hasn't worked yet.

The bad news is that we're just not libertarian enough of a society yet. The good news is that we're becoming more so all the time. What we can do to make it more of a reality is live the way we'd like to see things: voluntarily. Use the government as little as possible, take as few things from it as you can, and try to minimize its impact in your life. Deal with people on the basis of respect, mutuality, and contractualism (is that a word? well I like it!). Start a business. Meet customer needs. Create things that delight people.

Pointedstick wrote: I agree with moda that the moral argument won't work to convince people either. It's also old and well-used and hasn't worked yet.

The bad news is that we're just not libertarian enough of a society yet. The good news is that we're becoming more so all the time. What we can do to make it more of a reality is live the way we'd like to see things: voluntarily. Use the government as little as possible, take as few things from it as you can, and try to minimize its impact in your life. Deal with people on the basis of respect, mutuality, and contractualism (is that a word? well I like it!). Start a business. Meet customer needs. Create things that delight people.

Yes be a good example. I'm not a crusader, but I get into conversation with friends and family about the morality of hitting and how precious the kids are. It's very interesting when you hear people talk about their childhood and see the damage inflicted on them buy an abusive parent. I try to only keep people in the circle who are good to their kids, although I don't usually run in the poorer circles due to my situation.

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Are the mentally ill parasites? What about elderly people who have little savings? Those who are poor because they have few skills or just aren't that smart? The hungry children of the aforementioned people? These are the kinds of things that Idealists wonder about. In a society where everyone's expected to survive without a handout, they see more need than ever for their own services, and they're more than willing to provide them, but in such a society, fewer people seem willing to support them so they can do it.

When I refer to parasites, I mean people who use violence to take value from others. I guess I should say "criminals" instead.

I have nothing against voluntary assistance to those in need through no fault of their own, and in fact I provide that myself when appropriate.

But my point was that a voluntarist society would be richer than this one, and thus its members would be more able to support those who could not support themselves.

I don't think a voluntarist society was in the premise of PS's original post.  Besides, we are multiple (if not infinite) generations from a voluntarist society.

In any case, nothing is stopping from people from providing support for such things now.  And yet they don't.  And I don't ever expect them to.

Two weekends ago, I sat with my wife and her family in a hospice facility while people you would call parasites (i.e. because they were paid for by Medicare) cared for her dying grandfather, whom you would call a parasite because Medicare was paying for this.  My wheelchair-bound sister-in-law, whom you would also see as a parasite because the group home she lives in is paid for by Medicaid, was there too.  I am grateful for the services they provide, because I would not be able to pay for this myself, nor would my wife's family.

So if you've got a solution that is not a bunch of happy talk, or some kind of theoretical argument, I'm all ears.

He said people who use violence to steal from others. Sheesh what a bunch of childish character assasination. 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are wasting your time talking with adults about the immorality of government programs. Everybody has a government program they like or someone close to them on government assistance or in someway benefit from the theft. You aren't going to ever get people like this to even admit that theft or violence is immoral.

TennPa, since Tech and I don't support the welfare state emotionaly (because it impoverishes people and ruins lives) do you think we shoudl be able to withdraw our funding from it? If we do stop paying taxes what do you think should happen to us? What do you think should happen to people who evade taxes?

You're grateful for the services they provide? Yeah no kidding. Do you think they're "providing" them for free? Let's be honest. You're grateful someone took money from someone else, kept some of it and gave it to someone else to "provide" services. At least be honest about what you're talking about, if you're going to be "all ears".

And don't insinuate someone else is a heartless jerk because they point out the theft or don't celebrate it's non-virtue.

TennPaGa wrote: So if you've got a solution that is not a bunch of happy talk, or some kind of theoretical argument, I'm all ears.

Solution to what?

Kshartle wrote: He said people who use violence to steal from others. Sheesh what a bunch of childish character assasination. Grow up.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are wasting your time talking with adults about the immorality of government programs. Everybody has a government program they like or someone close to them on government assistance or in someway benefit from the theft. You aren't going to ever get people like this to even admit that theft or violence is immoral.

TennPa, since Tech and I don't support the welfare state emotionaly (because it impoverishes people and ruins lives) do you think we shoudl be able to withdraw our funding from it? If we do stop paying taxes what do you think should happen to us? What do you think should happen to people who evade taxes?

You're grateful for the services they provide? Yeah no kidding. Do you think they're "providing" them for free? Let's be honest. You're grateful someone took money from someone else, kept some of it and gave it to someone else to "provide" services. At least be honest about what you're talking about, if you're going to be "all ears".

And don't insinuate someone else is a heartless jerk because they point out the theft or don't celebrate it's non-virtue.

If you believe it's a waste of time, why do it? Are you sure your belief in the pointlessness of trying to convince adults of your positions isn't just because you're really, really bad at it?

I highly recommend How To Win Friends and Influence People

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: He said people who use violence to steal from others. Sheesh what a bunch of childish character assasination. Grow up.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are wasting your time talking with adults about the immorality of government programs. Everybody has a government program they like or someone close to them on government assistance or in someway benefit from the theft. You aren't going to ever get people like this to even admit that theft or violence is immoral.

TennPa, since Tech and I don't support the welfare state emotionaly (because it impoverishes people and ruins lives) do you think we shoudl be able to withdraw our funding from it? If we do stop paying taxes what do you think should happen to us? What do you think should happen to people who evade taxes?

You're grateful for the services they provide? Yeah no kidding. Do you think they're "providing" them for free? Let's be honest. You're grateful someone took money from someone else, kept some of it and gave it to someone else to "provide" services. At least be honest about what you're talking about, if you're going to be "all ears".

And don't insinuate someone else is a heartless jerk because they point out the theft or don't celebrate it's non-virtue.

If you believe it's pointless, why do it? Are you sure your belief in the pointlessness of trying to convince adults of your positions isn't just because you're really, really bad at it?

I highly recommend How To Win Friends and Influence People

Is there a chapter that says character assasinate people or try to poison the well by insuating they look at elderly and disabled people as "parasites"?

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: He said people who use violence to steal from others. Sheesh what a bunch of childish character assasination. Grow up.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are wasting your time talking with adults about the immorality of government programs. Everybody has a government program they like or someone close to them on government assistance or in someway benefit from the theft. You aren't going to ever get people like this to even admit that theft or violence is immoral.

TennPa, since Tech and I don't support the welfare state emotionaly (because it impoverishes people and ruins lives) do you think we shoudl be able to withdraw our funding from it? If we do stop paying taxes what do you think should happen to us? What do you think should happen to people who evade taxes?

You're grateful for the services they provide? Yeah no kidding. Do you think they're "providing" them for free? Let's be honest. You're grateful someone took money from someone else, kept some of it and gave it to someone else to "provide" services. At least be honest about what you're talking about, if you're going to be "all ears".

And don't insinuate someone else is a heartless jerk because they point out the theft or don't celebrate it's non-virtue.

If you believe it's a waste of time, why do it? Are you sure your belief in the pointlessness of trying to convince adults of your positions isn't just because you're really, really bad at it?

I highly recommend How To Win Friends and Influence People

I'm not sure if that's the reason. It's possible that I'm the worst ever when it comes to pointing out that robbing people and attacking them is immoral. It's difficult to have patience with people who think there's virtue in stealing and hitting. I think they probably have to actually care about the concept of morality and try to seek it out on their own. Talking to adults about it puts you in a position of challenging their belief system that's been handed down from all the sources they've trusted so far in life.

Have you succeeded in getting someone to turn against violence (government) as a solution for problems?

Kshartle wrote: Is there a chapter that says character assasinate people or try to poison the well by insuating they look at elderly and disabled people as "parasites"?

When provoked, the inexperienced general reacts with rage and immediately counterattacks, falling for the trap and dooming himself and his men. The wise general sees the mistakes his opponent has made with his clumsy attack and ruthlessly exploits them to his advantage and ultimately prevails.

Come to think of it, maybe Sun Tzu's The Art of War would be more appropriate.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Is there a chapter that says character assasinate people or try to poison the well by insuating they look at elderly and disabled people as "parasites"?

When provoked, the inexperienced general reacts with rage and immediately counterattacks, falling for the trap and dooming himself and his men. The wise general sees the mistakes his opponent has made with his clumsy attack and ruthlessly exploits them to his advantage and ultimately prevails.

Come to think of it, maybe Sun Tzu's The Art of War would be more appropriate.

Thanks for the recomendation. The truth should be the victor in a discussion though, that way it's a win-win for the participants. It shouldn't be a battle where someone ruthlessly exploits mistakes to boost their internet ego. 

Kshartle wrote: The truth should be the victor in a discussion though, that way it's a win-win for the participants.

It's not that the truth isn't important. But when you're trying to convince someone of something, it's one of the least important things. How you come off is orders of magnitude more important. This is what I'm talking about. Feeling right, like you've got the truth, is emotionally satisfying, but it's also easy. Keeping your composure, avoiding coming off like a jerk, that's hard. But it's how you ultimately convince people.

You could have parried TennPaGa's provocation by keeping your cool, expressing compassion for the people he described (who certainly deserve it), and then offering an idea for how they could be cared for more compassionately by a church, charity, etc. Super duper bonus points if you can mention that you actually donate to this organization, thereby putting your money where your mouth is by showing that you're doing your part to make compassionate and ample private charity a reality.

By doing all this, you'd be extending a metaphorical olive branch to TennPaGa by demonstrating that you're capable of understanding the world as he sees it and you even have the same concerns and are actually doing something about it. This kind of rapport is crucial to convincing people. Without it, it doesn't matter how right you may be. You'll be ignored or shunned instead.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: The truth should be the victor in a discussion though, that way it's a win-win for the participants.

It's not that the truth isn't important. But when you're trying to convince someone of something, it's one of the least important things. How you come off is orders of magnitude more important. This is what I'm talking about. Feeling right, like you've got the truth, is emotionally satisfying, but it's also easy. Keeping your composure, avoiding coming off like a jerk, that's hard. But it's how you ultimately convince people.

You could have parried TennPaGa's provocation by keeping your cool, expressing compassion for the people he described (who certainly deserve it), and then offering an idea for how they could be cared for more compassionately by a church, charity, etc. Super duper bonus points if you can mention that you actually donate to this organization, thereby putting your money where your mouth is by showing that you're doing your part to make compassionate and ample private charity a reality.

By doing all this, you'd be extending a metaphorical olive branch to TennPaGa by demonstrating that you're capable of understanding the world as he sees it and you even have the same concerns and are actually doing something about it. This kind of rapport is crucial to convincing people. Without it, it doesn't matter how right you may be. You'll be ignored or shunned instead.

These are very good points. I lose patience when I see people try to justify their support of immoral activity by trying to imply that it's other people who are immoral or lack compassion. It completely disgusts me and I feel compelled to point it out. It's rampant in our society and it's this mindset that empowers all of the sociopaths who love to use that support to go about their business of killing, enslaving, living lavishly etc.

After reading it my concern was not to convince but more so to expose the tactic which I consider very underhanded.

You are 100% correct though in what you said above at least as far as my understanding goes. I am happy saying so and appreciate the help. Thank you.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: The truth should be the victor in a discussion though, that way it's a win-win for the participants.

offering an idea for how they could be cared for more compassionately by a church, charity, etc. Super duper bonus points if you can mention that you actually donate to this organization, thereby putting your money where your mouth is by showing that you're doing your part to make compassionate and ample private charity a reality.

Well ok.....this is what I used to think but as time goes on I don't think this will work in a significant way. There's no way to end the welfare statist mentality with reason. It has to be an appeal to morality. When people are convinced they are getting something for free they aren't going to give that up for a logical argument about the benefits of giving up those violence goodies. I suppose it's possible but it's about 1% what you do and 99% the other party actually considering the reality of what they support.

Convincing the slave owner everyone will be better off economically if he just releases his slaves is pretty much impossible. Pointing out the immorality of owning a human and beating them is hard enough.

I'm sure a softer approach can better facillitate that. Have you ever convinced someone of giving up on statist beliefs?

You're welcome! I'm happy that all made sense.

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: The truth should be the victor in a discussion though, that way it's a win-win for the participants.

offering an idea for how they could be cared for more compassionately by a church, charity, etc. Super duper bonus points if you can mention that you actually donate to this organization, thereby putting your money where your mouth is by showing that you're doing your part to make compassionate and ample private charity a reality.

Well ok.....this is what I used to think but as time goes on I don't think this will work in a significant way.

It doesn't matter. By offering such an idea--even if you know it will be rejected--you're letting the other person know that you have the same concerns as they do which makes them more likely to listen to what you have to say in the future. You wouldn't be making this point because you believe it would be effective in changing someone's belief but rather because doing so is helping to build a foundation you can stand on when you're ready to actually do some convincing. Jumping straight to the logical, factual, or even moral convincing techniques is like trying to put the roof on a house before the foundation trench has been dug.

Kshartle wrote: I'm sure a softer approach can better facillitate that. Have you ever convinced someone of giving up on statist beliefs?

Yes. My wife, most notably, but a few of my friends and co-workers too. Having a positive personal relationship to start with is the only way it can possibly work, and it takes a long, long time. I always withdraw when I sense that my partner is closing up and never press the issue too highly. Living my own ideals, not being pushy, and avoiding making other people feel bad are some of the biggest arrows in my quiver.

Pointedstick wrote: You're welcome! I'm happy that all made sense.

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: offering an idea for how they could be cared for more compassionately by a church, charity, etc. Super duper bonus points if you can mention that you actually donate to this organization, thereby putting your money where your mouth is by showing that you're doing your part to make compassionate and ample private charity a reality.

Well ok.....this is what I used to think but as time goes on I don't think this will work in a significant way.

It doesn't matter. By offering such an idea--even if you know it will be rejected--you're letting the other person know that you have the same concerns as they do which makes them more likely to listen to what you have to say in the future. You wouldn't be making this point because you believe it would be effective in changing someone's belief but rather because doing so is helping to build a foundation you can stand on when you're ready to actually do some convincing. Jumping straight to the logical, factual, or even moral convincing techniques is like trying to put the roof on a house before the foundation trench has been dug.

Kshartle wrote: I'm sure a softer approach can better facillitate that. Have you ever convinced someone of giving up on statist beliefs?

Yes. My wife, most notably, but a few of my friends and co-workers too. Having a positive personal relationship to start with is the only way it can possibly work, and it takes a long, long time. I always withdraw when I sense that my partner is closing up and never press the issue too highly. Living my own ideals, not being pushy, and avoiding making other people feel bad are some of the biggest arrows in my quiver.

I agree with all of this.

Kshartle,

The problem with starting with morality and building logic from it is that morality is inherantly difficult to prove.

You can say everything starts with self-ownership, but that's a moral statement. How can you prove that self-ownership is a fundamental moral truth, as well as the fact that it spreads to things we touch/change.

This isn't present in nature.  Yes, every animal seems to think it owns itself, but then often they try to take ownership of another animal that probably feels the same way.

And if we have self-ownership, do animals have it?

Maybe I think it's immoral to modify land in such a way that significantly upsets its natural ecology. When I argue with someone about that, I don't assume it as a universal, irrefutable, fundamental truth. I may have some loose reasons that I think it's wrong, but likely necessary in a modern economy.

If you can prove, logically, and morally, that we own ourselves, and, more importantly, the things we touch, claim, and modify around us, then I'd like to hear it.

Until then though, you might understand that to many of us, force is necessary. Our job is to choose the form of it and use it to some public advantage, not try to rid ourselves of it.


It reminds me of conversations I have with my clients about risk and insurance... Financial risk exists on your balance sheet before you ever contemplate buying insurance. The premium we pay merely chops that risk up into manageable bites. The insurance isn't a "necessary evil," the risk is.  The insurance is a very effective tool at transferring it for a more digestible price.  The more we see insurance as "evil" rather than "a tool to deal with a necessary evil," the more we'll mis/under-insure ourselves in various ways.  Government is just a tool to harness and organize force in ways that hopefully (and as doodle has shown, actually) will keep us focusing less on killing each other for stuff and more on creating wealth.

Force exists, and it can be no other way, not because some are violent and we're "not libertarian enough," but instead it's because we occupy the same rock and have to share stuff in ways we're bound to disagree with each other on, mostly out of greed and convenience, just like any other animal claiming territory  (or challenging that claim).  Libertarians are probably more rational than most, but a boat full of them would still run into the same problem if they crash-landed on a desert island with hardly enough natural resources to survive.

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

The problem with starting with morality and building logic from it is that morality is inherantly difficult to prove.

You can say everything starts with self-ownership, but that's a moral statement. How can you prove that self-ownership is a fundamental moral truth, as well as the fact that it spreads to things we touch/change.

This isn't present in nature.  Yes, every animal seems to think it owns itself, but then often they try to take ownership of another animal that probably feels the same way.

And if we have self-ownership, do animals have it?

So what does it mean to have ownership? We control our bodies right? We control our actions and are responsible for our actions right?

Can you argue that you don't control or own your actions? What are you doing when you make the statement "I don't control myself and I'm not responsible for my actions"? Aren't you exercising control of your mouth and tounge and everything else when you make the statement? If you made that statement, would it make sense for me to turn to PS and challenge him on it, or you? If 1 minute later you deny ever having said it, isn't it obvious you're wrong? Are you not responsible for your argument as the effect of your action which you control, just as you're responsible for the death of someone you murder or if you steal from someone or you go to work for a wage? Don't you own the effect of what you do and no one else is responsible for it?

Who else has physical control of you or is responsible for what you do?

Animals are a separate issue. I am certain they do not have self-ownership but maybe we can leave them aside while we deal with humans.

Self-ownership is just the surface of morality but I'm certain that it really does exist, it's not just opinion. It is man made, that doesn't matter, and it is a concept of sorts, but mathmatics and language are also and they exist. They aren't just opinions.

Take a stab at the questions please. I've got a horrifically busy day but I'll try to check in.

moda0306 wrote: tech,

Can you give us a better ideas who the parasites are?  Who uses violence to take from you?  Couldn't you say that people on social assistance are, in effect, hiring thugs to come steal from you?

The government is the one stealing from me. The parasites are those who live off my (and other producers') production against our (the producers') will.

Hope that helps.

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: tech,

Can you give us a better ideas who the parasites are?  Who uses violence to take from you?  Couldn't you say that people on social assistance are, in effect, hiring thugs to come steal from you?

The government is the one stealing from me. The parasites are those who live off my (and other producers') production against our (the producers') will.

Hope that helps.

The problem is that it's basically impossibly to avoid being a "parasite" in our modern society by that definition. I'm a producer, but I also drive on roads funded by taxes on me and other producers, none of which we explicitly consented to. Am I a parasite when it comes to the roads? It's basically impossible to avoid benefiting in some manner from tax-funded goods or services  today, so I don't think that definition is very helpful.

Simonjester wrote: not every tax on producers is inherently parasitic some (small) amount is symbiotic and does not kill the host. the parasites are the ones that not only take more than they produce (if they produce at all), they hurt the producers ability and will to produce

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: tech,

Can you give us a better ideas who the parasites are?  Who uses violence to take from you?  Couldn't you say that people on social assistance are, in effect, hiring thugs to come steal from you?

The government is the one stealing from me. The parasites are those who live off my (and other producers') production against our (the producers') will.

Hope that helps.

So tech, based on these definitions it's sounding like you're referring to people who are disabled or impoverished that get government aid as "parasites."  Didn't you try to refute that earlier?

Why do you focus so much on production?  We no longer have a draft, but we're the business owners who supported Vietnam "parasites?"  Are business owners who use LLC's to shield themselves from their bad destructive decisions "parasites?" 

Any tax I pay inhibits my ability to use it elsewhere, whether it's to produce something, or live life as I choose.  Why should "production" get more consideration?  Should an infringement on my freedom be judged against how many widgets I would have made, or the fact that force is wrong, no matter what I would have done with my spare time/money?