RE: Above the law? Does the law even apply? What's the evidence?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Above the law? Does the law even apply? What's the evidence?

in anarchy •  8 years ago 

When you say "society", which individuals are you specifically referring to?

The systems in place that provide you with goods free to use. These systems are (in America) democratically decided, so the specific individuals include everyone who has the right to vote.

What evidence do you have that I owe these individuals money?

You don't owe them money. You owe them your entire life. Without their help, you'd be dead in your first month of existence, and every day after that till you could care for yourself. Thankfully, society has decided you can pay this debt using only a small percentage of the income you gain. Although it would be foolish of society to do otherwise.

Do you have proof of services rendered that weren't paid for?

They were payed for. By the taxpayers that were paying while you were growing up. Now they have passed the torch onto you and it's your duty to work so that the next generation can get the same benefits, or more, than you did.

How does being raised by my parents (who paid for my upbringing) mean I owe money to third parties?

You parents consented to this by raising you in society, and not, in a boat in the middle of nowhere.

How is it possible to be born into debt given that debts can only be incurred through consensual contract?

Because it's necessary. If the debts aren't payed (by passing on these services to the next generation), humanity ceases to exist. Once upon a time, in hunter gatherer societies, this debt was merely payed by raising your own children. But that society is unsustainable, if we reverted to that model the carrying capacity of the earth would decrease and the billions of people in cities would starve.

It's a moral obligation. Repay society, because if we don't people will die. Sure maybe you can avoid it and everything seems fine. But that's the tragedy of the commons. If everyone did, things would fall apart.

Why would I have to sail off into the ocean in order to not submit to theft?

Every piece of land is already claimed. What gives you the right to take or use land that someone else owned before you were born?

Are you saying that it wouldn't matter which goods or services I provide to enrich the lives of others; that it's not a contribution unless I also submit to the theft of taxation?

As long as you live in a sovereign nation, you are bound by an implicit debt. Land within a sovereign nation is owned twice - once by the nation, and once by the individual. The nation grants free usage of that land so long as it's laws are adhered to. That includes taxation. Leave a sovereign nation, the laws no longer apply.

Look, you benefit from society, whether you wish to admit it or not. This society is held in place, in part, by taxation. You can't have your cake (society), and eat it too (not pay taxes).

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Nothing but argumentum ad baculum, reification fallacies, false equivocation, false dichotomies, appeals to authority and factual errors. How is all land claimed given that the vast majority of it is untouched and unhomesteaded? What evidence is there of this alleged "debt"? How was it incurred? You're saying I OWE MY WHOLE LIFE to people? Wow so I'm owned? Which specific individuals own me? Your position is that submitting to slavery is a moral obligation? Your position is that providing goods and services which enrich the lives of others isn't a societal contribution but that submission to plunder is?

What evidence do you have of these claims? Again, how is any of your conjecture evidence that the constitution applies to me? You're providing nothing but non-sequiturs and additional claims that you can't prove. It's pretty clear to me that you have no evidence of your claims and are moving goalposts as fast as possible to deflect attention from this fact.

His argument is shit. It's essentially, "you consented because you are still alive" and "I'm attributing this fact to the abstract concept of "society", therefore you owe society (me) money"

He would not consent to "society" if only those who consented were forced to pay for it.

"Your subjugation to society is merely to pay off this debt. It's provided you free of charge, 18 years of care and development. "

How can if be 'free of charge' AND result in a debt?

At best, that's crap logic.

"Some people are born to mothers that leave them out on the street corners to die. Those people owe nothing. It seems you wish you were one of those people. I do too."

So your claim now is that the constitution applies to everyone except orphans? Seems kind of hypocritical and intellectually dishonest given that you've yet to demonstrate how being raised by parents creates an obligation on a child to pay "their lives" to nameless, faceless third parties. What evidence is there that the constitution applies to people raised by their parents but not orphans? Oh yeah, there is none. It's all argumentum ad baculum.

"Bow down before Zod! In return, he will allow you to live!"

Loved your response! You just ATE HIS LUNCH...

Simple question: What's your evidence that the constitution applies to me? How does what I think or where I live have any bearing on whether or not you can prove your claims?

Some people are born to mothers that leave them out on the street corners to die. Those people owe nothing. It seems you wish you were one of those people. I do too.

"How is all land claimed given that the vast majority of it is untouched and unhomesteaded?"

Feel free to go to some of that unclaimed land and claim it. It will last until someone stronger comes along and takes it from you. That is the only true natural law: Survival of the fittest. Government provides a means to protect the weaker members of society from stronger ones. You claim there's "no evidence" of the services you received... well, that's because it's hard to provide evidence of something that didn't happen. For instance, Canada and Mexico didn't send a battalion of soldiers to your town, rape and pillage it, then levy a heavy tax on the rest of you. That didn't happen because the US Army protects our borders. (I'm assuming you live in the US, obviously.)

There's no real "evidence" that this protection worked, sure. That gives you a nice loophole to keep screaming "no one has provided evidence!" But that's an utterly ridiculous attitude. You can look at history and see what happens to regions with a weak military. They get conquered.

Now you get to cry argumentum ad baculum. Because, of course, we you can't craft a reasoned reply to a realistic point you can always fall back on screaming logical fallacy!

"Feel free to go to some of that unclaimed land and claim it. " Argumentum ad baculum isn't an argument. I already have a place to live that I pay for and am responsible for. Why would I need to go somewhere else in order for you to provide evidence that the constitution applies to me?

This is one of the most nonsensical pro-slavery non-arguments I have ever come across. Congratulations.

Didn't realize I was speaking with a proponent of slavery. It's not a debate if your whole position is an implicit death threat

You are confusing "government", a bunch of thugs who claim a monopoly on violence over a given territory, with "society". Government is not a positive force who provides services people want or need, including protection, or infrastructure. There are many people and companies providing such services in free market already. A monopoly on initiation of violence is not a necessary condition for neither roads, nor security (police/military), nor conflict resolution.

Most developed and safe and secure countries are not the ones with biggest governments (compared to GDP of whole nation) but the biggest free markets. Free markets create innovation, technology, products and services people want and need by using the limited resources most effectively. Government is not a productive force for the benefit of society. At all.

My question to you is: If you had a choice between being born in either South or North Korea, would you like to be born in North or South Korea? And why?