Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do either of these ideologies arouse so much discomfort as to be put to the test at all times?

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic idea behind ACism and to a lesser extent libertarianism is that taxation is theft and that theft is immoral. Most people like to believe that what they're doing is "good." In fact, that's the whole idea behind many people's support of stuff like universal health care and the like is that it's a "good" thing. Obviously when people point out that they're using "evil" methods to accomplish their "good" thing, they're going to be more than a little aggitated. People don't like to be shown the negative consequences of their behavior and most people have convinced themselves that taxation isn't even theft at all, despite the fact that it very obviously is, so when it's pointed out to them it makes them very, VERY uncomfortable to have reality poking into their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is the sort of thing that makes people dislike you folks. You act as if nobody had ever noticed that there is taxation, until ACists finally pointed it out.

The fact that you don't seem to understand is that most people are perfectly fine paying and levying taxes, so it's not really horrific or "evil" or whatever else you'd like to claim it is.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
the form of government established through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

The Declaration of Independence didn't establish any government.

[ QUOTE ]
ignored by the federal government only to the extent that the sovereign power in this county, i.e. the People, permit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protecting us from the excesses of the people was part of the design, and it has failed. Regardless, the sovereignty of the individual is no longer protected, and that was the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Had a system of "anarcho-capitalist" plutocracy been put in place instead, we might as well have never fought the Revolutionary War.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would establishing AC retractively make a war that's already happened not happen? Also, what we have is plutocracy and AC isn't! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you don't seem to understand is that most people are perfectly fine paying and levying taxes, so it's not really horrific or "evil" or whatever else you'd like to claim it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're missing the point entirely. I know perfectly well that most (at least many anyway) people are fine with it. It's not them that are being tyrannized. A person is entirely capable of being fine with being taxed while still opposing the taxation of those who are unwilling. Hell, I wouldn't mind being taxed if the government were within its Constitutional bounds, and I don't really care much about local taxes, but I would STILL oppose taxation for the evil that it is because there are others, who make up a minority, who are still being oppressed. That's what it's all about. Maybe it's more accurate to say that ACism is about being against the tyranny of the majority than against taxation... Being "fine with paying taxes" doesn't give you the right to tax those who aren't! Opposition to taxation isn't about wanting or not wanting to pay taxes, it's about resisting tyranny.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the form of government established through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

The Declaration of Independence didn't establish any government.

[/ QUOTE ]

It did better. It established the power that established the government.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ignored by the federal government only to the extent that the sovereign power in this county, i.e. the People, permit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protecting us from the excesses of the people was part of the design, and it has failed. Regardless, the sovereignty of the individual is no longer protected, and that was the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has underperformed somewhat because those it was intended to protect have themselves failed to assert their lawful power in preference to amusements and so forth. Fortunately, the original legal framework has not yet been "anarchized" but remains in place and ready to be employed as intended.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had a system of "anarcho-capitalist" plutocracy been put in place instead, we might as well have never fought the Revolutionary War.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would establishing AC retractively make a war that's already happened not happen? Also, what we have is plutocracy and AC isn't! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what we have now is a struggle between a would-be plutocracy and the de jure sovereign power of the People. Your system of "anarcho-capitalism" would turn over the keys to the kingdom without a fight.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
No, what we have now is a struggle between a would-be plutocracy and the de jure sovereign power of the People. Your system of "anarcho-capitalism" would turn over the keys to the kingdom without a fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it would yank the keys away entirely. The power of corporations today is due entirely to their symbiotic relationship with the government.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it true that there are consistently threads regarding aspects of AC or libertarianism? Why do either of these ideologies arouse so much discomfort as to be put to the test at all times?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because they are very naive, appealing to the uneducated and very dangerous.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome? Why do these ideologies arouse so much discomfort?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not comfortable with them because I prefer briefs over boxer shorts.

Mickey Brausch

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome? Why do these ideologies arouse so much discomfort?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not comfortable with them because I prefer briefs over boxer shorts.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are right, I forgot about that! All the more reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PS I prefer boxers and have for many decades although in my youth I did like briefs.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Why is it true that there are consistently threads regarding aspects of AC or libertarianism? Why do either of these ideologies arouse so much discomfort as to be put to the test at all times?


[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part people aren't logically consistent, which is understandable due to our long history of evolution as animals tied by social and emotional bonds compared to a shorter history of having the ability to articulate logical thought. Emotional and social attachments begin so much younger than rational, logical thought and this tends to make people think that what they feel is true and then turn to logical thought to find justifications for why its true. This pattern naturally leads to a lot of inconsistencies from a logical standpoint, while the primary mover toward ACism on this board (lets call him B Dog, no thats to obvious, Boro D) demands logical consistency from himself and those who challenge his positions. Long story short he ends up attacking the root of their beliefs which are emotional and not based on logic. For example if you start with the idea that capitalism is based upon the exploitation of the worker then you can (from that point) logically show how capitalism is negative for the worker, however it is this underlying assumption that (a good) AC/libertarian poster attacks. Having the basis of your argument attacked can feel very personal and insulting, even more so when you can't properly articulate a defense since the "truth" of that position is rooted in an emotional attachment which is far harder to express than A therefore B therefore C, and likewise harder to demonstrate as well.

[UATrewqaz]

Because they are too idealistic and flat out wouldn't work.

And by work I mean "result in a government/society that most people thought was really good"