What's wrong with "coercion" as defined by Libertarians?

I think we're wandering somewhat far afield of the topic. Any one of the last five posts would make a good thread in its own right IMO, but lets stick to what we're ostensibly discussing.

Anyhow...libertarians are just another example of extremism, and this shows up in their statements. I'd be more on their side if they could just learn to relax a little.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I think its on topic. The topic is the "coercion of taxes" and I mentioned what would happen without it.

Well have they considered the coercion of businesses? Bet you they forget they do that too.

Who watches the watchmen?

The problem I have with coercion to get state taxes is the stuff it's applied to, how it hurts economies, how it's not applied fairly, and where the funds go to. It just me that until recently, I had to pay a "Candy Tax" to buy an energy bar, but Snickers bars were left at their usual price.

Would you kindly click my dragons?

@Tuefel: businesses do get shafted, that I will not dispute.

@Suzy: States gotta make their money somehow. That said, your story is a good example of wrong-headed execution.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

1. A man tells you to give him your money so it can be given to supporters, and if you don't, you'll be kidnapped (killed if you attempt to resist). He's a member of the 40 cakes gang.
2. A man tells you to give him your money so it can be given to supporters, and if you don't, you'll be kidnapped (killed if you attempt to resist). He's an IRS agent.

It's not a hard argument to understand.

If you can't justify stealing the money for government project x, don't do government project x.

3.A man tells you to give him your money so it can be given to supporters, and if you don't, you'll be kidnapped (killed if you attempt to resist). He's Robin Hood. Good or evil? (This is an honest question—I'm formulating a theory on the disconnect.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Funny you bring up Robin Hood. He didn't "steal from the rich", he returned to citizens what was immorally taxed from them!

How about this one:

What, if anything, would you consider an adequate justification?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Actually, what he did was rebel against his dutiful king, and support the war-mongering ne'er do well who spent vast sums and countless lives of his own country to no good result, just simple conflict, without even much glory.

Terrible hero really.

edited 28th May '11 9:26:03 PM by blueharp

"dutiful king"

Ha ha, oxymoron!

edited 28th May '11 9:26:50 PM by deuxhero

No, it isn't.

But there are numerous, contradictory versions of the Robin Hood legend, so this is pointless.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Somebody had to stay home and try to keep the fires burning.

You may be right!

edited 28th May '11 9:29:43 PM by blueharp

QFT. Robin Hood gets co-opted by whoever needs to stick it to the man. I keep waiting for the Tea Partiers to bring him up.

Leave R.H. out of this.

edited 28th May '11 9:30:41 PM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

"dutiful king" being an oxymoron is based in off-topic subjects.

And yes, fine, Robin Hood is so Depending on the Writer he doesn't matter

Well drunk Not just businesses being coerced but the more powerful and unscrupulous ones doing coercion to both private citizens and other other businesses. You know like how most major businesses in the U.S. seem to behave these days.

Who watches the watchmen?

What? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Please reword it.

deux: which post? Mine or drunks?

Who watches the watchmen?

Let's approach it this way, then: Deuxhero, do you consider yourself a believer in deontological ethics? Conversely, do you reject consequentialism?

edited 28th May '11 9:40:46 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

@Tuefel Hunden IV

Wait, you were replying to "Drunk (Scriblerian)". That makes more sense.

@feotakahari

The possessor of a hereditary title being "dutiful" is an oxymoron because of the nature of hereditary titles.

edited 28th May '11 9:44:06 PM by deuxhero

Yeah I was replying to drunks earlier post which was in turn a reply to one of mine.

Who watches the watchmen?

If say... Microsoft came to my house and tried to mug me, the people behind the act would be arrested. Government won't.

Government has a monopoly on force.

Actually, you would be mistaken. Not only do you have a right to resist government*

, you aren't getting mugged, but instead, you are facing the consequences of your decisions, including the basic one, of staying under the jurisdiction of the government, but also the more nebulous ones that result from the choices you, and your fellow citizens, make, regarding the government and its actions. This includes taxes to pay for services. You have the right to protest that you aren't getting well served, but claiming you are being mugged? Doesn't work. Muggers don't give you a vote, or a way to redress your grievances.

You may not like the results of those choices, but your personal satisfaction was never guaranteed.

edited 28th May '11 9:52:28 PM by blueharp

^^ And the people who do the arresting is the government.

The reality of it all is that unless you live in the middle of nowhere and have no contact with other people, somebody somewhere is gonna try to force you to do stuff. Would you rather that somebody be an organization that you have some (if rather minimal) say in and provides protection and services for you or some random dudes with whom you have no influence and doesn't do anything for you?

edited 28th May '11 9:54:58 PM by nightwyrm_zero

I get the feeling that me and maybe Tuefel are the only ones actually trying to understand Deuxhero's thought processes, and everyone else is trying to score points off him. Of course, he seems to be trying to score points off us, regardless of whether this makes us more or less likely to decide that he's right, so it balances out.

My guess is that Deuxhero considers taking things from other people to be "wrong because it's wrong," one of many immutable and unchangeable moral laws, and that he dislikes any argument related to the concept of "the greater good." It's a bit like having a sense of honor.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful