/liberty/ - Liberty

>>70918

What is liberty and what is freedom?

>>70921

Self-determination

>>70923

So you can't force others to be free?

>>70924

Nope. People can only be free if they freely choose to be free. I merely wish to prevent people from taking away the freedom of others.

>>70925

What if they freely choose to be under the tyranny of a slave master?

>>70926

No one should be allowed to take away the freedom of others

>>70927

If you do not allow people to voluntarily give away their freedom, then you have to force people to be free, which you denied earlier, which also means that they are not truly free. You can not own something, unless you can also give it away.

>>70928

I do not want to force people to be free, since I cannot. As I said earlier, they literally ``are not free`` unless they choose to be free. I oppose slavery, whether it was self-determined or not, for it has no possibility of freedom afterwards.

And what is this central government to do? It will be distant beyond the hills and incapable of harnessing local knowledge. It will bloat out with people who aren't worth the trouble of firing - even brutal totalitarian states fall prey to that. What function makes this structure worth tolerating?

>>70930

In my ideal pipe-dream of a state, it would be sort of be structured similarly to the Vatican, where members of the government are chosen by higher-ups rather than by democracy. Every member of the government would have to study political philosophy, sociology and economics. There should be some form of direct democracy at local levels, so as to retain regional autonomy. A complaint system and constitution would also be implemented to ensure the government protects freedom as much as possible.

>>70933

Oh, and most importantly, unlike a corporation or a fully democratic government, this state would overall fuck off and barely appear in my life.

>>70926

You cannot guarantee your future will. Therefore, you cannot sell it, as it doesn't currently exist.

What if the central government is the one disrupting liberty? Like it always does.

>>70936

I agree that our current states, rather than protecting our freedom, trample on our freedom. This is inherent in the way that it is structured.

>>70937

It would be set pretty much the way the Vatican is, which has guaranteed actually competent theologians being priests and bishops, etc, unlike in the clusterfuck that is all of the Protestant churches.

Yes, it will produce people with different views. No government should be ideologically homogeneous. However, each of the members will actually be competent in these fields unlike our current senators.

I agree with your criticism of democracy completely, which is why I only want democracy to exist at a regional level with limited powers. There are some issues particular to local areas which cannot be solved by a central government. Issues which could lead to serious harm to others if decided on incorrectly would not be democratically decided.

A constitution doesn't do shit if it's a weak constitution. The USSR, for example, had an extremely weak constitution which did not properly lay out the duties and the limits of the government, leading to the disaster we all know and love. America, on the other hand, has actually generally followed its (flawed) constitution. All three branches have only been able to use the power which was granted to them in the constitution. The biggest problem with the US's constitution is that it relies too heavily on democracy and has many loopholes which have not been closed.

>>70961

So are people free to opted out of this government? Is the only job of this government to secure the rights of the people and their freedoms? Or are they in charge economic policies, schooling, or any other services?

>>70962

People are free to opt out of the government as long as they do not take away the freedom of any of its citizens or harm government infrastructure, etc. The primary function of this government would be to secure the freedom of the people, but it would provide services like healthcare and education.

>>70963

>People are free to opt out of the government as long as they do not take away the freedom of any of its citizens or harm government infrastructure, etc.

Ooh that is scary. So certain businesses are forced to stay if the "higher ups" declare them to be essential? Also what if a company owns something thats a complementary good to someones freedom. Like for example if someone owned a park they allowed the public to use. However due to some reason ( like lack of profit) the owner decides to shutdown the park and sell the land to somebody else for something different. Since the park was part of the public's freedom of movement in a certain area, would that constitute as "taking away the freedoms and any of its citizens"? Another scenario would be if a popular industry was making a lot of profit and being taxed. If that industry is the biggest form of revenue for the government, and it would like to move over seas. Would that be considered harm to governmental infrastructure?

>The primary function of this government would be to secure the freedom of the people, but it would provide services like healthcare and education.

>healthcare and education.

Oh god.

So are people forced to pay for these services if they themselves don't use them? If not, then that service wouldn't last long in the market if provided by government. If so, then it's theft (unless voluntarily) and really inefficient.

Additionally, if the only thing the government did was protect the rights of and freedom of the people, then its not really government no more. It would be just a big security firm. Due to the fact that there's no sense of "governing", it would only be protection.

>>70967

A company's property is company property. They are not taking away freedom from the citizens by abstaining from receiving government protection of their own freedom. What I mean is that people from outside the state who murder citizens, or enslave citizens, rape citizens, etc, will be punished. As long as they don't legitimately do not take away freedom from the citizens it does not matter whether or not they live outside the government.

As for why taxes are not theft: https://youtu.be/ti3rjogF_VU?t=5m12s

It should also be noted that it is entirely voluntary anyways, since one can opt out of government protection and services.

The idea of protecting freedom implies what Robespierre called "the despotism of freedom against tyranny."

>>70972

> What I mean is that people from outside the state who murder citizens, or enslave citizens, rape citizens, etc, will be punished.

violent crime pretty much, alright.

>As for why taxes are not theft

This is probably one of the decent rebuttals to such a claim that I heard, but its still flawed. For one Government is not society, and two, to be payed money is a sign of payment to society. In order to get something from somebody you're going to have to give something in return. Which means you've payed an amount back to society with your labor. Also, you don't owe money to someone that gave you a service at no charge. It might be the right thing to do but they're not entitled to it. You can't really steal something that's free. Lastly, If someone is providing a service then they have already be payed (or agreed to be), if not, then they're doing it for free. Moreover, the result of ones services do not equate to the price of that service. Like if I'm a fireman, and save a little boys life, and he soon in the future turns to be a millionaire. Am I owned more money from that person because I played significant role in his life?

It should also be noted that it is entirely voluntary anyways, since the government will physically seize you and put you in a small box for attempting to opt out.

>>70979

You can easily cut it off without all this. It's not just taxation that is extortion. The "services" are compulsory monopolies that can not be refused. The mafia does the same with protection racket, but it usually doesn't force your children to go to its indoctrination camps (for which you pay for, unless you're within the 0.0001%s of the population with no income) nearly every day for 12 or so years. Nor do they constantly rewrite laws, or bar you from doing business under their imposed licenses and regulations.

We've done plenty of asking for many years now and nobody has given any new reasoning to the same old. That time is over. The only path left is straight upwards past the chains of the State. No State, no god, not even your family can make you free. Liberty is something each has to gain for themselves, alone. Nobody else can give it to you. Either keep climbing or get out of the way.

>>70979

Taxes are collected by the government, but they don't just go to the government, they go to programs which allow society to persist. Besides, in this hypothetical state we're discussing, aren't taxes pretty much the same thing as rent? You get to use services provided by the state, but you have to pay rent for it. If you don't like that, you don't have to pay taxes and you won't get the benefits from being part of the state.

>>70980

>>70981

These are both true with our current state. But in this state I've proposed, you are not subjected to the state against your will.

>>70983

So this government is just another service provider. Alright, although I can't really see this lastly long in a free market place where better services might come in but ok. Although I wouldn't really call it government.

>>70984

Sure, you can call it that I guess. I'd rather not play definition games.

btw OP (and anyone else interested) I think there is a minarchy board, or a monarchy board where a good half of them are minarchist

lets test these

>>>/minarchy/

>>>/monarchy/

>>70991

The /minarchy/ link doesn't work. Definitely not interested in monarchy tho

>>70979

You forgot to mention that some government services are forced upon you and you can either use them, or risk going to jail when using alternatives.

>>70995

In our current state that's true. In this state I have been describing, you can leave

>>70929

Then you must solve the earlier contradiction you have made.