You are absolutely insuferable.

AlexM stated that the right to secede is fundamental, and that the reason Statist's are thugs is that they won't let people secede and force them to stay put in their system. I responded stating that speaking only for myself I have no problem with him seceding, but that it's not my fault there's no AC Land to go to. Someone else chimed in that they thought he was talking about the right to stay put and not pay taxes, and I pointed out that that doesn't seem to be in line with AC philosophy because he'd essentially be benefiting from everyone elses tax payments. Then you came in and ran with that point which was essentially a tangent, and now you're running even more tangents off that one.

Despite your repeated iterations above that, essentially, the state is bad, it is nevertheless undeniable that state payments fund much of the infrastructure we use everyday and the current system of funding is tax-paying. But we could play semantics with this forever. If as you say noone has claimed that they wish to reap the benefits of government but not pay their taxes, then it is indeed a moot point, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that it was you who drew me in to a defense of that point, overlooking my main point that it is disingenuous to label statists as thugs for subjecting you to the rules of the state as though it is our fault that there's no AC Land where you guys can go and peacefully coalesce.

I still don't see where you're getting this "he'd essentially be benefiting from everyone else's tax payments." There's like 200 questions you're begging.

Let's say I live in Vancouver. I benefit from some of the tax expenditures in Seattle. Should the US send tax bills to Canadians?

Let's say I live in a podunk town and own a restaurant. Some company decides to build a large manufacturing facility next door. I benefit from a big increase in lunchtime sales. Am I free-riding off of the factory?

If the state wants me to pay for using their road, well, that's fine, let them put a toll booth up. I just don't get how you think there will ever be a situation where the state lets people opt out of taxation BUT AT THE SAME TIME leaves everything else it does fixed. Such a situation would collapse nearly overnight. But Toyota would also go out of business quickly if they just left the keys in all the cars on their dealership lots and just let anyone take one on the honor system. All that shows is that would be a broken business model for Toyota, not that it's impossible to actually make money by producing cars.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Slow down and take it one step at a time here.

If there are 200 questions being begged about how someone might secede from but still reside within the United States (or any other state), then I'll leave the answers to those who propose to do it.

I appologise for the run on sentence in my second paragraph, it was sloppy writing and if I wasn't squeezing any post here in between a bunch of other stuff it wouldn't have slipped through. To clarify: we are currently discussing an issue that was tangential to my original point. Two posts up you asked "Has anyone actually said they want to continue to use government services and not pay for them?". I agree that the point is moot if no one is arguing arguing this, but would point out that you drew me into discussion of that position. The reason I first stepped into this thread was not to argue some abstract notion of secesion, but rather to defend statists from the claim that they are by definition thugs.

This is the standard. The status quo is justified because it's the status quo, deviations must be justified, but the status quo itself is unquestionable.

WTF? You make a statement which crucially depends on one particular assumption, and I point out that your assumption is false and you're trying to make a stink about me "drawing you in" to some crazy wild-goose-chase off-topic discussion? You drew yourself into it by making the statement.

Whatever. It's pretty clear that you'd rather tangle around in a discussion of procedural trivia. I see where this is going.

Opinions on Secession:

I personally have no problem with a person or group of people who own their own land wanting to secede from the US, provided two basic guidelines were in place. These would be my guidelines to allow for secession:

• Property in question has enough resources/land to be somewhat self sufficent
• Owner of land willing to allow US to set up some type of toll service to gain access into US territory

Basically, thats my only real criteria.

I do however have a problem with a single family homeowner who is going to "secede" his acre lot and 4br/3b house from the US, refuse to pay taxes, yet pull out onto roads that I fund with my tax dollars every morning to go to work, go to work at a job in US territory, and conduct all types of other business that uses US public services without paying US taxes.

However, if you want to buy a land parcel as few as a few hundred acres, or even as large as 100+ square miles or more, set up a small (or large) community/state/anarchist utopia/private compound to do hookers and blow without fear of retaliation from the US government/whatever else you have in mind with your own stores, roads, mail services, food etc and not pay US taxes or interfere with US interests, while being willing to pay a little when you do need to gain access to US services for services you cannot provide yourselves, I have absolutely no problem with that.

I think this could be middle ground we could all agree on. Opinions?

Agreed!

I'm ok with this.

The real question is, how quickly do your rules change when a whole bunch of useful Americans decide to opt out?

FWIW, I do think that this is an extremely fascinating way to begin a discussion with statists, especially IRL, about the merits of AC. I just ask them why I cant just leave, and I tell them that I'm more than willing to pay whatever tolls they have in mind. It shatters pre-conceived notions and prejudices and leads to some honest and interesting conversations.

Do canadians have to pay an entrance fee?

DblBarrelJ: "I do however have a problem with a single family homeowner who is going to "secede" his acre lot and 4br/3b house from the US, refuse to pay taxes, yet pull out onto roads that I fund with my tax dollars every morning to go to work, go to work at a job in US territory, and conduct all types of other business that uses US public services without paying US taxes."

I don't think the average person described above uses much U.S. services at all: most roads are locally or state maintained (paid for by gas taxes, property taxes, and state income taxes). The average person benefits from the following federal services: military protection against foreign invasion, mail delivery (which is paid for by itemized postage charges not taxes), and interstate highways--and I think that's about it.

This seems to contradict itself slightly - why wouldn't you be in favor of allowing a single-family home to separate so long as they pay a toll every time they leave their driveway? It's not clear to me why one area with a toll is okay and the other is not.

Well, if you're talking about a person that basically "lives" in the US with all of their transactions, employment, etc, an entrance fee is totally understandable.

Canadians may not pay to get into the country, but they will be paying for all services that they use until they leave. (And that money WAS in the Canadian system, so it's very +EV for us to take it)

Sorry to answer for J here, but I'd say it's because that single-family home is unsustainable. IE, they have no ability to provide services for themselves, and thus must use the services already in place.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here J.

So what? It's a defining attribute of advanced economies. People specialize, and therefore become more productive.

Are proponents of this plan really saying they'd like to cripple the more productive people's ability to trade? AND, they want to impose this crippling roadblock upon other people in their society? Are they going to impose this same set of rules upon non-self-sufficient people from, say, canada, or is this just targeted discrimination against people seen as ungrateful turncoats? I'm really just wondering here.

If someone wants to set conditions for his own trade, of course, I am not going to object. But to say that your neighbor should be weighed down with the same set of restrictions you think are great is still objectionable.

Originally Posted by bkholdem
FWIW PVN was one of the 2 posters who convinced me, thorugh the reading of his posts, to become AC. I was pursuaded by his logical analogies (sure they are dramatic and somewhat unusual, for me that only serves to make his point more clearly) that he is known for in his posts.

I was DRAWN TO AC because of PVN's posts. I was NOT AC when I showed up here. Although I considered myself to be a libertarian, I was a poker player who ignored politics and the news for the previous 15 years. I never even heard of AC before coming to the politics forum at 2+2.

Kurto writes :
I'd have to wonder if he was a different person back then. I've seen his personality drive several people away. I actually stuck to a number of threads with him longer then I thought my patience merited.

I also think a lot of his arguments ignore so much of reality. I've wondered if he is like dbbarrel has suggested about many of the ACists... a college student enamored by exciting ideas that ignore the practicalities of reality.

bkholdem replies: Consider this an open invitation to any and all to engage PVN in debate here over the merit of his ideas. If I have been misguided and PVN's ideas are somehow bad or illogical please take the opportunity to demonstrate this by engaging him here.

Feel free to point out the reality that he ignores, await his reply, and then respond in turn to point out the flaws as you see them. If he is wrong, all of what he has asserted is here in print in this forum for any and all to challenge and invalidate through the use of logic. All are free to take him on and chew him up and spit him out.... if they are able.

I happen to think he is very smart and can also tell that he is skilled in the use of logic to make his points clear.

It is upsetting to have your beliefs called into question. I suppose that it is even more upsetting when someone does it in a non-gentle way. I think these 2 components may be why some people find PVN to be annoying.

No one is perfect and this is a politics forum, it is not a feel good chat over tea and crumpets forum. It's not like PVN makes and effort to be rude or insulting to people. I think that if the people who find him to be annoying took a few classes in semantics and logic they would view his style of communicating here differently. I can understand that if a person does not have a fundamental understanding of logic (not meaning being an adult and being not insane, meaning having an understanding of actual college level material of logic like that which is taught in the philosophy dept at universities) would get upset when he replies to their posts.

We all have faults and shortcomings. This is part of being human. I think some people use 'pvn is callous' as an excuse to use to avoid examining their belief systems when PVN makes the use of somewhat unusual analogies to point out flaws in their thinking/reasoning.

I like PVN and have learned a lot from him. I'm glad he is here and love reading his posts. Like I said, if I have somehow been misguided by reading his posts please engage him and demonstrate where he is wrong and show me how he is wrong.

The late great Karl Hess would have had some harsh words for that douchebag.

I think your admiration is skewing your perception of his traits.

You want to assert that people are turned off by him because he challenges their views.

I've already mention other ACers... (for instance; Dvaut, Alawpoker) who can communicate the same ideas without the attitude. So if others can challenge our ideas without driving us away then your left with the likelihood that the problem is with him.

And many people have taken PVN to task for his ideas... from Phil to Copernicus; all who I think smartly challenge his rhetoric. And one can simply go to wikipedia or search "criticisms of anarcho capitalism" to find endless philosophical writings that find the theory problematic.

And I think its pretty rude of you to assume people who don't appreciate him as you do need to take logic or semantics courses. I think Phil, for instance, is very logical and articulate. (and I don't agree with a lot of his ideas)

Anyhow... this is really being a tangent because this thread isn't really about him. I'm glad he's had a positive influence on you. I just think you're appreciation for him is leading you to unfairly insult others who don't revere him as you do.

At any rate, debating about PVN is even less interesting then debating with PVN. So to each his own.

(Did I miss something? He is very articulate and a good poster, but I'm pretty sure he isn't an anarchist...)

Typo, imo. No one could mistake DVaut1 for anything but a dirty statist.

It really exposes how little people understand about AC. Its like in that thread where we were arguing about 90% taxation and some guy was like "you ACists are getting pwned". These kinds of comments should really make those that make them question their understanding and at least be honest with themselves that they need to do some more reading. Not that they shouldnt criticize, but that there is a good chance that they might be wrong about some things.

actually... I meant Vhawk

There is a saying that I learned from a philosophy professor some 20 year ago, it is this:

Every time you point a finger at someone else there are 3 pointing back at you.

This idea is also communicated in Cherie Carter-Scott's 10 rules of being human:

7. Other people are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself.

http://www.bluinc.com/free/human10.htm

Additionally, I believe that you are mischaracterizing what I communicated about an understanding of logic and semantics. My recollection is that I said something like "I think people would view PVN's communication style differently if they took logic and semantics courses." Of course this is not any type of absolute claim. And I believe that I also made reference to PVN's posting style as 'callous' or something like that.

It is not necessary to pass judgement on someone's style of communication in order to understand or adsorb what they are trying to communicate. In fact I would go so far as to say that any time that you (or I) gets angry as a result of having a discussion with another person, that the 'problem' lies with you (or me) and not the other way around. We are all responsible for our own emotional reactions. Others are not responsible for making us 'feel' a certain way. The choice is ours. If it is not this way then we are giving power to another person over our emotions. 'They' get to determine how we feel, not us. The extent to which I give power to another individual over my emotions is but my own personal weakness.

To? Huh? My county wants to secede both from its state and from the U.S. Do you let us?

What are you talking about with fairy tale lands? I'm talking about secession. Do you know what secession means?

All of this is irrelevant. You choose to support or oppose us taking part of that land and making it our own.

1. I wasn't actually suggesting personal secession but the secession of a community, as in a county leaving the U.S. and forming its own countrym which would have its own infrastructure that has nothing to do with you or this "everyone else" you say is paying for things.

2. I would have no problem with being charged fees specifically for the things I was using, so what you're saying is pretty much irrelevant even under the other scenario.

Hmm... random lying insult for no reason. Standard Copernicus.

Yes, it won't take him long at all to figure out what to do with you.