Yes hate the state

Wow Giles, you have an ass backwards idea of private property. Roads were paid for by the public, not the state, which makes them the public's property, not the state's. Being the public's property, they are owned by everyone, or in other words, no one. Which means no one can claim ownership of them to levy any type of rules or regulations on the property.

In fact, as a tax payer, you have more of a right to begin levying arbitrary laws on the property than the state does.

 

The slaves, of course, agreed to abide by the rules of the plantations onto which they were born. Such rules included that their masters could beat, starve, rape, or even kill them without recourse, and that they could never, ever leave. After all, their masters DID own them, even if the ownership was illegitimate.

nibbler491:

Wow Giles, you have an ass backwards idea of private property. Roads were paid for by the public, not the state, which makes them the public's property, not the state's. Being the public's property, they are owned by everyone, or in other words, no one. Which means no one can claim ownership of them to levy any type of rules or regulations on the property.

In fact, as a tax payer, you have more of a right to begin levying arbitrary laws on the property than the state does.

What is this? An attempt to prove how libertarian you are? This is silly.

Public property doesn't exist. The state made the property, not private owners entering into an agreement. Therefore the state has every right to impose the laws it desires on its property. Now, what it doesn't have is the right to tax people to finance roads. But that has nothing to do with this, all that means is that you have a right to compensation, not the right to use their property as you wish.

If you think you have a right to begin levying laws on state owned property then you have the right to do so on any individual who has gained from the state in any way. As I've pointed out, and as my opponents consistantly ignore, that is almost everybody. Essentially this justifies ignoring everybody's property rights since none of them can claim to be exempt from state priveledge and as you seem to love to ignore the concept of proportionality.

 

 

MacFall:

The slaves, of course, agreed to abide by the rules of the plantations onto which they were born. Such rules included that their masters could beat, starve, rape, or even kill them without recourse, and that they could never, ever leave. After all, their masters DID own them, even if the ownership was illegitimate.

I see you're unable to comprehend my argument and as such resort to fallacious analogies. This is somewhat similar to mob mentality, when somebody presents a logical argument that isn't completely in agreement with what the left libertarians believe they'll quickly all join in their chorus of what a statist you are. Very similar to the way true statists behave, and what anarchists tend to berate them for. 

Anyway, I'll proceed to demonstrate why your analogy is fallacious. To begin with, I've stated numerous times that the reason we must accept ownership of roads in this instance is because roads are voluntary. The funding is not, and that's where the issue lies, not the actual ownership of them, by the state. Nobody is forced to use the roads, you can live a life without using the roads. This is not the case with you analogy in which slavery is forced upon a newly born child. Moreover, your analogy involves the use of additional coercion, whereas the situation of the roads doesn't, rather, I've advocated compensation for past aggression as opposed to more coercion against fellow tax payers that would result from ignoring the rules the state lays down for its roads.

JonBostwick:

Because he is not a guest on the road.

Of course he is, he doesn't own the road therefore he is a guest.

JonBostwick:

The state does not operate any property in way approaching how a market owner would operate it. He was given a ticket in order to finance the state. Period.

It's more than likely that private road owners would rely on some form of identification for those that use their roads, perhaps not in the form of licence plate numbers but nobody can be sure of that. And the fact that the fine is used to finance the state doesn't matter, if you break the rules of private corporation and they demand compensation in order to finance them that doesn't make the fine any less legitimate.

Juan:

Boy are you confused.

If that were the case you'd have no problem proving that I'm wrong, in a fair manner that is. As of now, you've not been able to, rather, you've omitted large portions of my posts, erected strawman and resorted you ad homs, such as this one.

The whole post has been libertarians seeing the word state and then throwing logic away. The libertarians (mainly you) in this topic have simply made ad hoc assertions in order to prove that I'm a conservative (or at least, not as much a libertarian as they are) whilst trying to find some justification of their use of the roads. It's all very ridiculous.

Juan:

Well, using that 'logic' nobody can use any road...despite having paid for them. And you go further in your absurdity : the people who paid for the roads can't use them, but a gang of criminals can act as if they were the owners...

Of course you can use them, but only because the state allows you. Much in the same way as I can use the house of my neighbour, if he allows me. This doesn't change because he has stolen from somebody in order to build a new fireplace. Even if that person is me all that means is that I can demand compensation, I can't claim the entire house to be mine as you have. Your argument ignores proportionality to begin, furthermore the logical conclusion of your argument is that everybody owns the roads entirely, which simply isn't the case, and can't be. Continuing the line of reasoning before this if you admit that I have the right to use the roads as I wish because some of my tax money was used to finance them, you'd have to agree that I can use any state building I like. Meaning, I can blow up any state owned building I like because I've partly (which nobody can prove) funded them. In which case I can use any building that's had any funding from taxes as I please. Which ultimately justifies my destroying the property of most big corporations, following on from that the property of their employees and following on from that anybody that their employees may have employed. In essence your position entails chaos and the negation of private property. How libertarian of you.

Juan:

The state doesn't own a thing. It controls stolen goods at the point of a gun. That's not ownership, that's usurpation.

Of course it does, just, not legitimately. Libertarians tend to view the state in an entirely different light than how they view common criminals, applying different rules to them. Meanwhile, maintaining that the state is no different to common criminals. You're just playing semantic games now, which is indicative of people who are losing arguments. Erecting strawmen and omitting large portions of posts are similar ploys, both of which you've employed in this tirade of yours.

Juan:

Now, the state has NO LEGITIMATE claim upon the roads (or upon anything else for that matter). So, why should/MUST state legislation be obeyed ?

The state funded these roads through stolen money, they still own the roads. All it means is that they must pay compensation, there is nothing analogous to what you suggest in the free market punishment of criminals. You seem to ignore proportionality, claiming that because they have stolen from you, you then have the right to steal whatever from them, that isn't the case. Moreover you position entails that if the state deosn't own the roads then all of the taxpayers who's money has been stolen do, which means that nobody can drive on them since you'd have to get permission from all of the other tax payers who funds went into that road, which you may or may not be.

Juan:

You're defending the 'rights' of a tyrannical government and are trying to pervert the meaning of private property -- you are the true leftist here

No, I'm not. How very telling of the weakness of your argument, continuous strawmen. Not once have I defended perversion of private property, I've defended it, not once have I denied your right to demand compensation (although, it would still be unwise).

Juan:

Also, you're claiming that goods usurped by the state are to be controlled according to mob rule -- or else you must admit that absent unanimous consent, there are no valid rules for this 'collective' property.

I'm defending the view that the government should act like a buisness, an argument I see difficult to deny since the conclusion is that it would have to completely respect property rights and earn money through voluntary exchange. The appliaction of this principle to roads is that it would have to respect the wishes of most of its users in order to please them, much like any other provider of any other good. So unless you're claiming that buisnesses

Juan:

Please don't use fallacious analogies.

It wasn't false, but I'll clarify. If I steal $1000 from you and 99 other people and use it to install fireplaces, air conditioning, walls, floors and ceiling in 10 of my houses. You have no right to walk into my house and claim the right to use my property as you wish. Instead, what you may do is demand compensation for the money I stole from you.

Juan:

Really Giles, you're the only one lying here.

Juan:

I already addressed that. You're just pretending I didn't.

You addressed it and I refuted you. And no, I'm not lying, you just choose anything that goes against your leftist views "conservative dogma" and refuse to answer anything that is inconvenient.

GilesStratton:

If that were the case you'd have no problem proving that I'm wrong, in a fair manner that is.

The bottom line is, you're unable to understand that an usurper has no right to dictate how the goods he controls, thanks to force and fraud, are to be used.

And so you come up with fallacious analogies. Notice that if your whole hypothetical house was built using stolen money then you've no claim upon it -- end of story.

The whole post has been libertarians seeing the word state and then throwing logic away.

Your whole 'argument' is based on misusing the word "property" and pretending that thieves own what they steal. Also, you demand that a criminal organization be treated as if it was legitimate, which is hardly logical. You throw logic away.

Of course you can use them[roads], but only because the state allows you. Much in the same way as I can use the house of my neighbour, if he allows me.

You just keep on asserting that the state owns things and keep on using irrelevant analogies.

furthermore the logical conclusion of your argument is that everybody owns the roads entirely,

I didn't say "entirely" so please don't put words in my mouth. The fact is road ownership is a mess, but at least it's definitely true that the state DOESN'T own the roads.

Libertarians tend to view the state in an entirely different light than how they view common criminals, applying different rules to them. Meanwhile, maintaining that the state is no different to common criminals.

Huh ? The state is just common criminals. That's why their 'rules' are not to be followed. Where's the inconsistency in my position ? The state does the same things common criminals do, but unlike them the state claims that its motivation is the "common good" so in a way the state is worse than common criminals -- but that's not the point here.

The state funded these roads through stolen money, they still own the roads.

See ? You fail at basic reasoning. That should read "The state funded these roads through stolen money, so they DON'T own the roads" -- that's what any libertarian would infer, except you.

All it means is that they must pay compensation, there is nothing analogous to what you suggest in the free market punishment of criminals.

This has nothing to do with punishment. They must pay compensation or else relinquish control of what they stole. So part of this compensation is to drop the ridiculous notion that they, the usurpers, can set rules for the roads.

You seem to ignore proportionality, claiming that because they have stolen from you, you then have the right to steal whatever from them,

So, not following the orders of a gang of thieves and murderers means "stealing from them" ? How exactly ? Do you realize that the state will ultimately kill people who refuse to pay tickets ? And you talk about proportionality ? Is that a bad joke or what ?

Moreover you position entails that if the state deosn't own the roads then all of the taxpayers who's money has been stolen do, which means that nobody can drive on them since you'd have to get permission from all of the other tax payers who funds went into that road, which you may or may not be.

I don't see why roads can't just be used as...roads. You own a share of the road system which means you can use the road system. It's easy. Of course the state wants to use the roads as a political tool and so do conservatives. That's why you're so eager to pretend that the state can dictate how roads are to be used.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

Also, you're claiming that goods usurped by the state are to be controlled according to mob rule -- or else you must admit that absent unanimous consent, there are no valid rules for this 'collective' property.

I'm defending the view that the government should act like a buisness, an argument I see difficult to deny since the conclusion is that it would have to completely respect property rights and earn money through voluntary exchange.

You mean issuing tickets like it does and ultimately killing people who refuse to pay them ?

Erecting strawmen and omitting large portions of posts are similar ploys, both of which you've employed in this tirade of yours.

I've not misrepresented your position. Shall I quote your whole posts when replying ? Surely you see that makes no sense ? I've not omitted anything. I've constantly addressed your lack of understanding of basic principles.

I just reply to the parts I think are especially wrong. That doesn't mean I overlook your other fallacies. I just don't bother refuting them too.

Juan:

The bottom line is, you're unable to understand that an usurper has no right to dictate how the goods he controls, thanks to force and fraud, are to be used.

Of course he does, you have no right to the usurper's possession, rather, you have a right to demand compensation. This is elementary.

Juan:

And so you come up with fallacious analogies. Notice that if your whole hypothetical house was built using stolen money then you've no claim upon it -- end of story.

See above.

In any case, this isn't the case with the state. There are those who gladly pay taxes and only wish they could pay more, and there are those who finance the state voluntarily through other means - government bonds.

Juan:

Your whole 'argument' is based on misusing the word "property" and pretending that thieves own what they steal. Also, you demand that a criminal organization be treated as if it was legitimate, which is hardly logical. You throw logic away.

No I don't, I say that you have the permission to demand compensation, nothing else. Perhaps there's some misunderstanding in regards to the word legitimate. However, you have the right to demand compensation and not to use their property as you wish. As I pointed out you ignore proportionality and as I pointed out, by your logic a citizen of another state has no right to drive on the roads, since them didn't "pay" for them. Funny, I thought you disagreed with Hoppe?

Juan:

You just keep on asserting that the state owns things and keep on using irrelevant analogies.

Prove that it'sa false analogy then, rather than merely asserting it. Ignoring the argument as to whether or not the analogy holds if the state doesn't own anything, I'll point out that it is irrelevant, because the state does own things since there are clearly those who favour the state and advocate its inteference.

Juan:

I didn't say "entirely" so please don't put words in my mouth. The fact is road ownership is a mess, but at least it's definitely true that the state DOESN'T own the roads.

Then how can you claim the right to drive on these roads? I apologise if I have put words in your mouth.

Juan:

Huh ? The state is just common criminals. That's why their 'rules' are not to be followed. Where's the inconsistency in my position ? The state does the same things common criminals do, but unlike them the state claims that its motivation is the "common good" so in a way the state is worse than common criminals -- but that's not the point here.

Yes and yet, you'd admit you have no right to break into a criminals house because he stole your watch, same thing applies here.

Juan:

See ? You fail at basic reasoning. That should read "The state funded these roads through stolen money, so they DON'T own the roads" -- that's what any libertarian would infer, except you.

Argument to authority. Only the authority here is the majority, funny, I thought you didn't like democracy and mob rule.

Juan:

They must pay compensation or else relinquish control of what they stole. So part of this compensation is to drop the ridiculous notion that they, the usurpers, can set rules for the roads

So, essentially, what you're claiming here is that the state needs to drop the rules government the use of the roads but not control over the roads themselves. Once again, your leftist colours are showing.

Other than that I'd agree with you, the state should relinquish control of the roads entirely in order to pay compensation to those they've stolen from, it doesn't follow from here that until they do that you have the right ignore the rules of their roads. Once again, it is analogoues to the treatment of a criminal in the free market. He has stolen and even if he has stolen from you, amongst others, that does not mean you can use his property as wish until he compensates you.

Juan:

So, not following the orders of a gang of thieves and murderers means "stealing from them" ? How exactly ? Do you realize that the state will ultimately kill people who refuse to pay tickets ? And you talk about proportionality ? Is that a bad joke or what ?

So the state murders people? What a profound insight you gave to somebody who views the state as illegitimate. How very enlightening. Not that your point matters, the state murders, that doesn't give you the right to steal from it.

Juan:

I don't see why roads can't just be used as...roads. You own a share of the road system which means you can use the road system. It's easy. Of course the state wants to use the roads as a political tool and so do conservatives. That's why you're so eager to pretend that the state can dictate how roads are to be used.

Conservative libertarians wish to see the roads use as a political tool? Wonderful, because of my cultural preferences I am now a statist. You're getting more and more absurd in order to save a fallacious argument.

A shareholder in a corporation has no right to use any of its capital. The only difference is that the state is a corporation, so to speak, that you are forced to become a shareholder of. And that's exactly where the problem lies, no where else. Is "I don't see why roads can't just be used as... roads" really the best argument you can come up with? Furthermore there's no way you can prove that you using the roads won't infringe upon the wishes of another "owner", say an avid environmentalist.

Juan:

You mean issuing tickets like it does and ultimately killing people who refuse to pay them ?

This is just a blatant strawman. I've said specifically that the state should behave like a free market entity, how does it follow that I advocate further coercion. Although yes, the state should have the right to demand compensation from those that have infringed upon its rights. Murdering them? No, but that's another issue.

Juan:

] I've not misrepresented your position. Shall I quote your whole posts when replying ? Surely you see that makes no sense ? I've not omitted anything. I've constantly addressed your lack of understanding of basic principles.

Perhaps you could quote and refute (or perhaps not) the part where I traced your logic to its conclusions: the negation of all property rights due to historical connection with the state.

The intellectual dishonesty, how typical of a leftist.

I wish i could excise the concept of legitimacy from the libertarian ideology.  it is a word with no clear referrent in real life.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

The bottom line is, you're unable to understand that an usurper has no right to dictate how the goods he controls, thanks to force and fraud, are to be used.

Of course he does, you have no right to the usurper's possession, rather, you have a right to demand compensation. This is elementary.

Too bad you are wrong. I indeed have a right to the usurper's possessions because I still OWN what they stole from me. I can demand RESTITUTION, not compensation. And I can get the things back myself if it is practical to do so.

Again, what you steal is NOT yours. You can't claim any right upon it. This is elementary.

There are those who gladly pay taxes and only wish they could pay more, and there are those who finance the state voluntarily through other means - government bonds.

And a vast majority pay under threat of violence. And wars are financed using those bonds. Maybe wars are OK ? But that's not the point anyway. The thing is :

a) the state is acting as if it was the legitimate owner of the whole when in reality it is not.

b) even if some taxpayers are happy with the way the roads are run by the state that doesn't mean that these taxpayers can impose the rules they like upon other taxpayers.

...you'd admit you have no right to break into a criminals house because he stole your watch, same thing applies here.

If you steal $100 from me and I then break your window, which let's suppose, costs $100, then although technically I committed a new crime, you've no recourse against me, except demanding $100 from me...which you already have. That takes care of your irrelevant analogy.

However, the state has absolutely no claim upon citizens. I can use the roads because I own a share in them and my ONLY obligation to STATIST TAXPAYERS is to not aggress against them. That doesn't mean I have any obligation to follow their stupid tyrannical orders with respect to road usage or the usage of other 'common' property.

As a 'foreigner' one could use the roads if one payed a toll, or some indirect tax or was 'invited' by some taxpayer, etc. Those are rather irrelevant details anyway.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

See ? You fail at basic reasoning. That should read "The state funded these roads through stolen money, so they DON'T own the roads" -- that's what any libertarian would infer, except you.

Argument to authority. Only the authority here is the majority, funny, I thought you didn't like democracy and mob rule.

Not really. I think that what defines libertarianism is support for 'legitimate' property, to use your flawed terminology. If on the other hand a majority of self described libertarians were to support your views, then I would gladly stop considering myself a libertarian. The fact remains, your claim "The state funded these roads through stolen money, they still own the roads" is false despite what the majority says.

So, essentially, what you're claiming here is that the state needs to drop the rules government the use of the roads but not control over the roads themselves. Once again, your leftist colours are showing.

False. In practice they CAN'T possibly pay compensation, because, you see, they don't have enough money. So they need to give up control, rules, cops, everything. I wonder how wanting the state to be liquidated makes me a leftist...

Other than that I'd agree with you, the state should relinquish control of the roads entirely in order to pay compensation to those they've stolen from, it doesn't follow from here that until they do that you have the right ignore the rules of their roads.

Please stop getting things backwards. The state has no right to enforce anything. There's no contract between the state and its subjects. Individuals are sovereign -- governments are not.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

You mean issuing tickets like it does and ultimately killing people who refuse to pay them ?

This is just a blatant strawman. I've said specifically that the state should behave like a free market entity, how does it follow that I advocate further coercion.

Shawn complained about getting a ticket and you basically answered that he has to play by the state's rules. I think you're well aware that state rules are : pay or die.

Indeed, you just keep on repeating that the state has the 'right' to enforce its tyrannical nonsense. And you know that the enforcing is doing by, well, force. Lethal force if need be.

Now you claim that the state should be run as a business, which is absurd because as you know full well the nature of the state is opposed to the nature of (free market / voluntary) businesses. Why not make a silk purse from a sow's ear too ?

Perhaps you could quote and refute (or perhaps not) the part where I traced your logic to its conclusions: the negation of all property rights due to historical connection with the state.

Yes, another non-sequitur. A person who worked all his life for the state owns nothing. All he has is stolen goods. Furthermore, if he is, say, a cop, he'd have to work 1000 years at a honest job to make enough money to pay restitution to all his victims.

On the other hand a person who worked all his life in a lightly regulated industry is a 'legitimate owner' of almost all his stuff. Why would you lump these different people together, except as a means to misrepresent my position ?

GilesStratton:

JonBostwick:

Because he is not a guest on the road.

Of course he is, he doesn't own the road therefore he is a guest.

A customer is not the same thing as a guest.

But he is not a customer either, he is a (unwilling) financier.

 

GilesStratton:

It's more than likely that private road owners would rely on some form of identification for those that use their roads, perhaps not in the form of licence plate numbers but nobody can be sure of that. And the fact that the fine is used to finance the state doesn't matter, if you break the rules of private corporation and they demand compensation in order to finance them that doesn't make the fine any less legitimate.

Ha!

And this private corporation is going to put you in a cage for nonpayment? You are so far off base.

 

GilesStratton:

If I were to ask you to wear a silly hat whenever you went inside my house, I wouldn't consider that a reason to hate me. Anyway, I fail to see how their regulations in this regard were unreasonable.

Well, If I was required to enter your house everyday in order to sustain a basic standard of living (such as I would for a road) and you used force to make me pay you every-time I forgot the hat or simply didn't feel like wearing it. I'm pretty sure I'd hate you. But If I had the choice, I simply wouldn't go to your house, I'd go to your neighbor whom doesn't force me to wear a silly hat.

 

JonBostwick:

But he is not a customer either, he is a (unwilling) financier.

Correct, and the unwilling part is where the problem lies. Not the rules that one must comply with to use the road.

JonBostwick:

And this private corporation is going to put you in a cage for nonpayment?

Strawman.

Juan:

Too bad you are wrong. I indeed have a right to the usurper's possessions because I still OWN what they stole from me. I can demand RESTITUTION, not compensation. And I can get the things back myself if it is practical to do so.

Yes you can demand and use force to take the money back from the government if it is necessary, I wouldn't advise it. Not that it matters, the point is that there are those who have voluntarily paid for the roads, as such the state does own them. It is merely obliged to compensate you (with additional money for damages etc.), this doesn't mean that you own the roads built by the state (albeit with stolen funds).

You own the money they stole from you, it doesn't follow to say that you own the roads built by the state.

Juan:

Again, what you steal is NOT yours. You can't claim any right upon it. This is elementary.

You're quite correct, and yet, the state didn't steal the roads from you did it? No, it stole the money, therefore what do you have a right to? The money it stole from you and nothing else.

Juan:

And a vast majority pay under threat of violence. And wars are financed using those bonds. Maybe wars are OK ?

Yes, you're quite correct it was. And yet, this is nothing new to a libertarian. As for wars, no they're not ok, they include addition coercion, rules on the roads does not. Unless of course you point out that the state must steal in order to force compliance with its rules, but this is no different from how a free market entity will behave.

Juan:

a) the state is acting as if it was the legitimate owner of the whole when in reality it is not.

Once again we're getting caught up in semantics. I'd agree with you that the state ,through financing the road by taxation, does not own the roads legitimately. However, it would be able to say that it owns the roads if it could pay restitution, which is what it should do. Not let you drive however you wish to on its roads.

Juan:

b) even if some taxpayers are happy with the way the roads are run by the state that doesn't mean that these taxpayers can impose the rules they like upon other taxpayers.

No in a way any different to how a majority of consumers can "force" their likes upon the others, in regards to a constitution, no. However, the state, in acting like a buisness should seek to please the majority of its customers, which in this clear would mean rules such as the one Shawn broke.

Juan:

If you steal $100 from me and I then break your window, which let's suppose, costs $100, then although technically I committed a new crime, you've no recourse against me, except demanding $100 from me...which you already have. That takes care of your irrelevant analogy.

First, practical considerations would make this difficult, since the state, as a monopolist has no relevant price for its roads.

Secondly, no this doesn't refute the analogy since what you're saying is that in this case the state would have the right to charge the OP for damages that have resulted from him breaking their rules. In which case we're in agreement, since he should still be driving by their rules and if he didn't that would be a new violation of property rights. I've never said that the state has the right to take any more of his property, rather, that he should agree with their rules. Since, not doing so would be a new violation of rights (albeit one already paid for).

Juan:

However, the state has absolutely no claim upon citizens. I can use the roads because I own a share in them and my ONLY obligation to STATIST TAXPAYERS is to not aggress against them.

And this would be aggressing against their rights. Since they may not wish you to use a road. Moreover, it's impossible for you to prove your right to drive on any road. In which case nobody can use any road. This is what your position leads to.

Juan:

As a 'foreigner' one could use the roads if one payed a toll, or some indirect tax or was 'invited' by some taxpayer, etc. Those are rather irrelevant details anyway

Hoppe says something not dissimilar. You simply hold double standards in this case.

Juan:

Not really. I think that what defines libertarianism is support for 'legitimate' property, to use your flawed terminology. If on the other hand a majority of self described libertarians were to support your views, then I would gladly stop considering myself a libertarian. The fact remains, your claim "The state funded these roads through stolen money, they still own the roads" is false despite what the majority says.

I do support legitimate property, you just dislike the consequences.

Juan:

False. In practice they CAN'T possibly pay compensation, because, you see, they don't have enough money. So they need to give up control, rules, cops, everything. I wonder how wanting the state to be liquidated makes me a leftist...

Yes, you're correct, in practise the state can't possibly pay compensation. That doesn't change the fact that you have the right to demand it. All you've proven is that the state makes some situations difficult in practise, congratulations, you've stated what everybody already knew. Your argument misses the point, you say that the state should give up control of the road, I'd agree, and this would more than likely happen. This doesn't mean that you don't have an obligation to follow the state's rules regarding use of the roads whilst their control of the roads exists. What makes you a leftist is that it is the rules that annoy you as opposed to anything else.

Juan:

Please stop getting things backwards. The state has no right to enforce anything. There's no contract between the state and its subjects. Individuals are sovereign -- governments are not

Please stop implying that I've said that there is any contract between states and their subjects. I haven't stated anything of the sort. The state has the right to enforce rules over it's property, this also means respecting the property rights of others. Which the state by it's nature can't do. In practise this means that the state would have to relinquish control over its roads and buildings in order to pay compensation, nothing else.

Juan:

Indeed, you just keep on repeating that the state has the 'right' to enforce its tyrannical nonsense. And you know that the enforcing is doing by, well, force. Lethal force if need be

Which is more than likely how a free market entity would function. You steal from me, I contact my PDA, they attempt to take control of your assets and if you resist they can use force against you. I advocate that in this regard the state should act in such a manner.

Juan:

Now you claim that the state should be run as a business, which is absurd because as you know full well the nature of the state is opposed to the nature of (free market / voluntary) businesses. Why not make a silk purse from a sow's ear too ?

Yes the nature of the state does dictate that in some sense opposed to the nature of the free market. That doesn't mean I can claim that the state should act like a free market entity as much as possible, since that ultimately means it would cease to be a state. I don't see what the issue you have with this is.

Juan:

Yes, another non-sequitur. A person who worked all his life for the state owns nothing. All he has is stolen goods. Furthermore, if he is, say, a cop, he'd have to work 1000 years at a honest job to make enough money to pay restitution to all his victims.

On the other hand a person who worked all his life in a lightly regulated industry is a 'legitimate owner' of almost all his stuff. Why would you lump these different people together, except as a means to misrepresent my position ?

Because there is nobody in the world for whom everything they own is the result of state priveledge, as such any distinction between this individual and one who works in a "lightly" regulated industry is arbitrary. So now you're making arbitrary disctinctions to support and ad hoc argument, how weak.

 

GilesStratton:

Not that it matters, the point is that there are those who have voluntarily paid for the roads, as such the state does own them.

And there are those who have NOT paid voluntary so the state does NOT own the whole road system and that's all the problem. So, you are just wasting time misrepresenting the situation. What's the point ?

Also, notice your sleight of hand : if some people paid voluntary for the roads you use that as evidence for your position. You also know that there are (a lot of) people who didn't pay voluntary but you brush that aside because you conflate usurpation with 'ownership' and claim that the state owns the roads anyway, despite NOT owning the money used to pay for them.

You own the money they stole from you, it doesn't follow to say that you own the roads built by the state.

Legalistic sophism. Are you a lawyer ?

You're quite correct, and yet, the state didn't steal the roads from you did it? No, it stole the money, therefore what do you have a right to? The money it stole from you and nothing else.

I suppose next time a firm goes broke they can claim something like : True, we owe you money but we don't have any. Yes, we have assets, but those are ours. If we had your money we'd gladly give it back, but we've spent it. The assets ? Sorry, we own those...

As for wars, no they're not ok, they include addition coercion, rules on the roads does not. Unless of course you point out that the state must steal in order to force compliance with its rules,

Wrong again. You seem to believe that ownership of a piece of land gives the owner absolute 'authority' over people who happen to be in the place. Rubbish. People have inalienable individual rights. In this case Shawn committed no crime. How does the state deals with this non-crime ? Fining him and using force to collect which is indeed robbery. The notion that this new robbery is justified because Shawn was using the road is nonsense. I'll add it's morally disgusting nonsense.

However, it[the state] would be able to say that it owns the roads if it could pay restitution,

But it can't pay so it is not able.

which is what it should do. Not let you drive however you wish to on its roads.

Sorry, that's your unfounded claim. The state is a gang of thieves. It has not legal recourse. The legitimate owners (taxpayers) can use the roads however they please as long as they don't aggress against other legitimate owners. That's libertarianism. Or maybe it's XYZism but whatever the name it's the only morally justifiable position.

However, the state, in acting like a buisness should seek to please the majority of its customers, which in this clear would mean rules such as the one Shawn broke.

Shawn committed no crime -- try to understand that. You've spent thousands of words apologizing for a gang of criminals attacking innocent people. It is sick. And you do it in the name of private property. It's doubleplusgood sick.

You said

Please stop implying that I've said that there is any contract between states and their subjects. I haven't stated anything of the sort.

but previously in this thread you said

Upon entering their road you agree to follow their rules. If you don't agree with the rules, don't drive on the road.

So, you indeed claimed that there's a contract between subjects and government at least wrt roads. And then all you did is come up with fallacies to 'prove' that criminals can enforce tyrannical dictates ('rules') upon taxpayers who use roads they paid for (and also homesteaded).

I do support legitimate property, you just dislike the consequences.

All you did here is support illegitimate property and even more illegitimate actions. Face it, you are on the side of cops harassing innocent people.

I don't think I'll further reply to your posts in this thread -- you shouldn't take that as meaning that your statist fallacies can't be refuted, though.

GilesStratton:

JonBostwick:

And this private corporation is going to put you in a cage for nonpayment?

Strawman.

Pointing out the fallacy of your analogy is a strawman? I suggest you do some research on the term.

JonBostwick:

 

Pointing out the fallacy of your analogy is a strawman? I suggest you do some research on the term.

No, actually, the part where you misrepresented my position was the strawman.

You consider being asked a straight forward question misrepresentation?

Care to answer the question? Would a private business invade your home and steal your person in order to enforce its fine?

JonBostwick:

You consider being asked a straight forward question misrepresentation?

Care to answer the question? Would a private business invade your home and steal your person in order to enforce its fine?

Invade your home? If it comes to that, yes.