Are forced taxes theft.

Ahh. So the truth comes out for our noble libertarian who claims to be against aggression and use of force.

In truth he's fine with use of force as long as it is the private lord using force against the serfs. He just doesn't want a government of the people to have that power.

 

Putting aside what you think the Constitution means, who in your view should have the power to interpret the Constitution?

 

That's your rule. Who made you ruler and tyrant?

 

So if he has authority to interpret the law to mean he can rape your wife and shoot you, then it's perfectly legal for him to do so.

Great system you have in mind.

 

In his view, the private lord of the domain owns the streets.

Instead of the government you can vote out collecting taxes, the private lord who you cannot levies whatever tax he wants.

And despite Longshot nobly pretending to be against "aggression," he has no problem with the private lord using force to enforce his rules in his domain.

 

Wrong yet again. I never claimed to be a pacifist. I said that I oppose the initiation of aggression against the person or property of one's fellow man. It is perfectly legitimate to respond to the initiation of aggression with force.

 

You say I'm ruler. I didn't not.

 

The tenant who lives in the private lords unit but cannot pay after the private lord doubles his rent has initiated no aggression.

And yet you fully support the private lord using aggression and force against the person and property against his fellow man.

How admirable of you.

You're not against aggression or force against your fellow man. You are all for the private lord doing. You just don't want a government of the people to have the power to limit the power of the private lord.

You're not a libertarian. You're a feudalist.

 

Then you have no power or authority to proclaim the rules.

 

I look forward to you producing the quote in which I refer to lords and serfs.

 

Of course I don't. Never said I did.

 

Is having to pay your landlord theft?

 

I didn't quote you as saying that. But you need look no further than post #1104.

 

If the tentant doesn't pay rent and the landlord evicts him and takes his stuff to pay overdue rent, is that using force?

That is the issue.

 

My bad. We were discussing who has authority to interpret laws, and I your quote was included in my post by accident.

 

He is trespassing. Trespass is a violation of property. Trespass is an initiation of aggression.

No I don't support any lords.

You're right. I'm not. I never said I was against all force. I'm against the INITIATION of force against someone's person or property.

Wrong again. I'm against anyone, including a 'private lord' (whatever that is) from violating the person or property of his fellow man. And if he does violate the person or property of his fellow man he may be stopped from doing so by force, if necessary.

<yawn>

 

It may be a violation of property. But it is not an aggression or use of force.

Your positions say otherwise. Describing the private owners as "lords" in your fantasy world is a hell of a lot more accurate than your constant and inaccurate reference to taxes as "stealing".

Unless its INITIATION of force by the private lord to enforce the rules of his realm, of course. They your all for it.

Sorry, you can't change what you've already stated on the record, even if the ugly truth doesn't comport to your fantasy vision.

 

If someone tries to rape my daughter and she kills him in self-defense is that using force? Of course. And it' perfectly justified because he INITIATED it.

Please take your straw man with you.

 

If someone initiates a violation of person or property force may be used to stop that violation.

Your contention that I oppose all use of force is a strawman. That's not my position. I am opposed to the violation of person and property and have repeatedly said that force is acceptable to stop such violations.

You can refer to people however you like. So lords is your word, not mine. Good to make that clear.

Using force to stop someone from violating person or property is perfectly legitimate.

<yawn>

 

LOL, you're actually accusing *me* of using a strawman right after you started babbling about rape in response to a post that was about a landlord and tenant and said *nothing* about rape?

 

The principle is the same. If someone violates person or property then it is legitimate to use force to stop them from doing so. That is the ONLY legitimate reason to use force.

 

Says the tuff man who won't say how he gets to work without public streets, sidewalks, etc. What are you afraid of?

 

Perhaps he works on his own property. In which case, he should be required to pay for something he hasn't asked for and doesn't use, right?

 

A teacher, in public school? You live off of others taxes?

 

I am not assuming anything. We lived it once upon a time.
And it didn't work out to well, when those who could afford fire protection got it, while the neighbor next door did not. Society said it is better for all to have fire protection. Police protection. Etc.