Money is not even real. We are talking about taxing a fiction that only exists because society says it is a thing. And like so many of the fictions our species has created, it now controls us.
I find the libertarian view to be self-servingly detached from reality.
"And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way." - Matthew 22:20-22
"To walk in money through the night crowd, protected by money, lulled by money, dulled by money, the crowd itself a money, the breath money, no least single object anywhere that is not money, money, money everywhere and still not enough, and then no money or a little money or less money or more money, but money, always money, and if you have money or you don't have money it is the money that counts and money makes money, but what makes money make money?" - Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn.
"Property is theft, property is liberty, property is impossible." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
I've never met a libertarian who made any sense. Nothing rational or logical pervades their thoughts.
Is my labor my property? Is my body my property? Who has the right to expropriate the results to my favor that is important to me? Who has the right to dictate what I consensually and peacefully do with my body? Economic freedom is merely consensual action.
WTF? You cannot debunk an axiom of Logic! That's pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Propositional Statements are axiomatic and not subject to opinion FFS! Language operates upon immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic. Whether you understand it or not. These axioms are not subject to opinion, your knowledge of them is not requisite of their function in Language. They're axiomatic!
The only thing you have "debunked" is your own knowledge/understanding of the 'Axiomatic nature' of Language and the Propositional/Predicate Logic upon which it operates. For fuck sake - it is how 'reading' operates!
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
It seems like this is an argument against property as a concept.
“You own nothing but what you can physically defend”. Well, ok. But if I’ve got to go a physically defend my shit all day I won’t be able to get anything done. I’ve got to trust that people won’t try to steal my shit all the time, and I can’t rely on brute enforcement of the guy with the strongest club. It’s better to have a cultural norm of “property” that people respect and doesn’t have to constantly be tested by physical contest.
We all understand that the mob demanding “protection money” is theft even if they really do protect you from rival mobs demanding more.
Money is not even real. We are talking about taxing a fiction that only exists because society says it is a thing. And like so many of the fictions our species has created, it now controls us.
I find the libertarian view to be self-servingly detached from reality.
"And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way." - Matthew 22:20-22
"To walk in money through the night crowd, protected by money, lulled by money, dulled by money, the crowd itself a money, the breath money, no least single object anywhere that is not money, money, money everywhere and still not enough, and then no money or a little money or less money or more money, but money, always money, and if you have money or you don't have money it is the money that counts and money makes money, but what makes money make money?" - Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn.
"Property is theft, property is liberty, property is impossible." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
I've never met a libertarian who made any sense. Nothing rational or logical pervades their thoughts.
You make a radical assertion about private property and then waltz on by like it’s no big deal.
Sounds like some retarded Communist bullshit.
Is my labor my property? Is my body my property? Who has the right to expropriate the results to my favor that is important to me? Who has the right to dictate what I consensually and peacefully do with my body? Economic freedom is merely consensual action.
WTF? You cannot debunk an axiom of Logic! That's pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Propositional Statements are axiomatic and not subject to opinion FFS! Language operates upon immutable axioms of Propositional/Predicate Logic. Whether you understand it or not. These axioms are not subject to opinion, your knowledge of them is not requisite of their function in Language. They're axiomatic!
The only thing you have "debunked" is your own knowledge/understanding of the 'Axiomatic nature' of Language and the Propositional/Predicate Logic upon which it operates. For fuck sake - it is how 'reading' operates!
James Madison on property, 1792:
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
It seems like this is an argument against property as a concept.
“You own nothing but what you can physically defend”. Well, ok. But if I’ve got to go a physically defend my shit all day I won’t be able to get anything done. I’ve got to trust that people won’t try to steal my shit all the time, and I can’t rely on brute enforcement of the guy with the strongest club. It’s better to have a cultural norm of “property” that people respect and doesn’t have to constantly be tested by physical contest.
We all understand that the mob demanding “protection money” is theft even if they really do protect you from rival mobs demanding more.