You think it's okay to hurt people and take their stuff.

That is a stupid, and dangerous, notion to support.

You don't see the problem, even after having it explained to you multiple times by various people.

You're not indoctrinated, at all!

Qoute of the year?

You are still an idiot.

No, you.

so, I miss anything?

You forgot to tell him that you didn't really mean Government in the way that regular people use the word. Why don't you define what you are actually meaning when you use the word government in lib land?

Taxation isn't theft

Regardless of how often you keep asserting this, you're wrong.

Taxation IS theft.

Would you like for me to start referring to it as extortion, instead?

Or, how about an "institution built around theft"?

Yes it is.

I assume the people reading my posts have reading comprehension skills.

It's obvious who I make exceptions for.

Government protects rights. It can't do that when it violates those same rights in the process.

Humored, kerowo?

No, I mean when you have a "government" funded by the 18.75 they are going to get from a $1 lottery what are you paying for with that 18.75?

Alright, there's no way your avoidance isn't 100% deliberate. I'm not discussing levels of competition with you, I'm discussing how YOU CANNOT FUND A GOVERNMENT ON A $1 LOTTERY. Period. Full stop.

This LOLttery is so beyond the realm of possibility that it's literally laughable. Like people will laugh at you when you tell them this. But who am I telling? I'm sure this is why you have resigned to spitting this drivel here, ITF, where the sounds of our laughter is a safe distance from you.

The lottery thing honestly makes me wonder if Proph is just someone's gimmick.

Tax is theft is weak....

Morally weak. It is supported by indictment and accusation using appeals to self doubt (indoctrination) and persecution ( your stealing!) Uses weak moral arguments where it fails intellectually. It relies on sophistic assertions concerning material possession rather than an appeal to a variety of equal principles.

Intellectually weak. As an axiom it is a patent language equivalence and logical fallacy. It cannot be simulated with depth. It reveals a circular pattern.

Emotionally weak. creates an adversary dilemma, a trust dilemma and a happiness dilemma.

Socially weak. It creates an us versus them dilemma. The purposes of social organizations is devolved from common mutual principles into sophistic assertions concerning material possession. Humanity is de-humanized with blanket accusations of morally incorrect behavior.

Thank you alex and pvn for challenging my assertions. Peace to all, even proph.

Proph,

By your logic, is incarceration equivalent to kidnapping/false imprisonment?

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, so now what I need is for you to fill in the blanks. Any set of rules that leads to the conclusion that taxes=theft must also lead to the conclusion that rent=theft, right? So how did you get to that? A link to your buddy's previous post will be fine.

While you're at it, why do you consider rent and mini-storage fees to be obviously different (in the context of this discussion)?

Will poor people be better off when would-be landlords, who are not permitted to rent their property, decide to build boat slips for rich people instead of apartments?

LOL thinking Landlords will rent to poors in libertarian land.

Why wouldn't they? Bill gates wants to rent all the cheap housing units but can't today because the mean ol' gubbmit won't let him?

Got a link?

LOL no.

Sure, a set of rules like {"things that Libertarian-types call 'rent'" != 'theft'; "things that Libertarian-types call 'taxes'" == 'theft'} are not going to come up with 'taxes' == 'rent'.

What I'm saying is given for any and every reasonable f(X), where 'f' is a function that evaluates 'theft'... that f('taxes') == f('rent').

They must necessarily always evaluate to the same exact thingee... because they are just simply different names for the same exact thingee.

Uh, that's exactly what I said you were saying. Now just show your work.

Uhh... did you miss the thread title: Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!. This is a point&laugh thread, not a "show your work" thread.

As always... why so personal? Several other Politards have made the same exact point, including the REAL trolly (like about 10x times) and Huehuecoyotl. How come you don't want them to "show your work" as well ??

Anyways... sure. I can stay within your three admitted three sentence attention span too. But... you're going to have to meet me, like at least 1/10th of 1% of the way. After I spew my three sentences... you are going to need to make some sort of coherent, relevant and direct response.

I didn't ask earlier because I probably didn't read it, especially if it's buried in any interaction with proph. I'm browsing on my phone so I can't search. If you could just help me find the good stuff? What's incoherent about that?