Quote:
Originally Posted by MurderbyNumbers234
I've addressed all of your issues. You just aren't reading them. Here it goes again: I never ignore incentives, they are the keystone of of why libertarian philosophy is so economically effective, but they should never be imposed.
By saying the above, clearly you are not doing what you're claiming to be doing. Either that, or you're not understanding it. At least as far as the economically effective statement goes. If you, as you state below, want to live in a "free" ****hole as opposed to a functioning society (that's a bit of hyperbole, but not much), then you're free to. Just don't call it economically effective.
Quote:
The libertarian doesn't "want" the argument/incentives/whatever the hell you are talking about to go in any direction AT ALL. Whatever is provided through free participation will be provided. Allocation of goods must be voluntary... whatever results from voluntarism is the ethically correct, and whatever results from violation of non-aggression is ethically incorrect. I don't know how I could possibly be more clear.
The nearly meaningless argument that tax deductions are (lol?) a significant causal factor for charitable contribution is a joke. Everyone in this thread knows charity is tax deductible. There is some incentivizing effect, but it is not what drives the system of charitable contribution in the slightest, so there is no need to mention it prophylactically.
LOL. Now at least you're calling it an incentive, but you ignore it (no need to mention it). But above, you said you didn't ignore incentives. That's exactly what I was talking about. There's a question of which effect would be larger. I'd probably guess the positive effects would outweigh the negative effects, and so charitable contributions would be higher.
But just ignoring the negative effects is just LOL, especially when you're trying to put forth economic arguments.
Quote:
Charitable contribution would undoubtedly be much much higher if forced positive right taxes were eliminated, (domestic tax revenue is in the trillions, this is absolutely not made up) The argument that eliminating taxes almost entirely would vastly increase charitable contribution is pretty airtight.
If you assert so. But realize, you're just asserting that it would, that it's "airtight", and so on. I'd agree that charitable contributions would increase in all likelihood, but your analysis is not much more than "it must, because I want it to"
Quote:
But please realize...All of this is aside the point. If the system is unethical, (threatening people into paying for positive rights is unethical, for the reasons i've laid out ad nauseum) it doesn't matter how things you consider essential are provided, the unethical system must be removed. It doesn't matter how pyramids get built after slavery. Slavery has to go before the discussion can even begin.
LOL. Slavery. They're making fun of someone else making that argument in the bad posters thread.
Quote:
I'd advise you to look to what was likely an abusive up-bringing to address any other problems you might have with the philosophy of nonviolence.
WTF is this ****?
Quote:
Our conversation isn't one based on informational exchange, no point in continuing it.
Yes, you are ignoring many things, rather asserting things.