1
-1

[–] Crashmarik [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Oh so you are OK with taxing people to maintain a standing army.

You are also OK with maintaining military discipline in that army.

You are OK with taxes to maintain the border and keeping them in their cages.

You are OK with taxes to maintain a police force that locks people up for violating societal norms

Because that's what we do now. As opposed to your statement

So, is it morally right for me to initiate force against anyone I choose? Can I levy a tax against you? Can I dictate that I don't want you to consume a plant, and if you do, then I can lock you in a cage in my house?

Where you make it pretty damn plain you are morally opposed to all those things.

1
-1

[–] beren 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Again, the argument is:

self ownership property rights non-aggression principle

where does it say "no taxes"? nowhere. where does it say "no government" or even "small government"? nowhere. You can have all those things without violence. Once again, if you want to make the argument that violence is NECESSARY for any of these things, then make that argument.

Nowhere in the philosophy does it say "no police force" or "no national defense", in fact, I've stated a few times that self defense is seen as morally right.

If you ever stop assuming things, stop harping your party line, stop just blindly believing everything on CNN and start using the ~3 lbs of meat between your ears, you might be an interesting person to talk to.

1
-1

[–] Crashmarik [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Now you are arguing with your own prior statements. I didn't make that quote you did. No wonder it's hard for me to get a word in edgewise.

Do yourself a favor and come back when you know what it is you are trying to defend. Here's a hint ask yourself just why that picture obviously bothers you so much.