/liberty/ - Liberty

>>94234

>how do you respond to someone who asks you to biblically justify your assertion that taxation is theft when the Lord never decreed it as such?

…huh? What a non sequitur of a question, why are you assuming that every possible permutation of expropriation has to be explicitly laid out in the Bible before it becomes "theft?" Do you not consider someone stealing your TV theft because the Bible doesn't say anything about TVs getting stolen? Taxation is theft because it involves someone taking my money, without my consent, under the threat of violence; it's theft for the same reason a mob's protection racket is theft.

>The ancient Israelites, after all, had systems of taxation

Irrelevant. I'm not a Jew, and even if I was the laws of a long-dead Jewish kingdom hardly apply to me.

>How do libertarians justify the clear evils present within the existing capitalist framework that the vast majority of the world lives under today?

You used a very specific example, so I'll just leave you with this lecture explaining the myriad positive benefits of sweatshops in general, and why they're usually the best possible option for workers in third-world countries:

https://invidio.us/watch?v=wTuw8Pyssbg

>but the image I get when I think of “libertarian” is a Republican-voting millennial who is fine with gay marriage and drugs

An unfortunate consequence of the leftist shitbags who run the Libertarian Party being the public face of libertarianism to most normies. You'll find your description fits precious few of any of us here.

> Let’s ignore the whole issue over gay sex being sinful for the moment and stick solely with drugs.

You're going to ignore it, but the answer is actually quite simple so I'll give it anyways: faggotry is subsidized by the state, and in a privatized society there would be no need for a state to ban it, because market and social incentives drive it away all on their own. Nondiscrimination laws force us to employ and serve fags whether we want to or not. Those same nondiscrimination laws means faggot's insurance rates don't skyrocket when their insurance company discovers one of their clients is a disease-ridden bug chaser. Discrimination laws once again allow them to rent and buy even when the community does not welcome them. State propaganda discourages anyone from pressing charges when they diddle kids. They can get their AIDS tested at the fee clinic, and Medicare will pay for their treatment when it comes back positive. Public schools indoctrinate the populace into thinking faggotry is normal and should be accepted. Because the state and its welfare-based civic religion has crowded out the church, the cultural force promoting high-trust communities and a traditionalist, low time-preference lifestyle has had its influence forcibly reduced, whereas in a private society it would be far more prominent. Without all of these state-sponsored pressures, in a free society homos and other hedonists would be pushed to the fringes all on their own.

>But why? How does allowing people to play out their escapist and addictive fantasies enrich society in any way? Is it moral?

The answer here is pretty similar to the fag question; without the state suppressing incentives and market forces the negative pressures on addicts becomes much higher. You want to be a weed-smoking degenerate? Good luck keeping a job, and without a welfare state good luck finding a way to finance your degenerate habit. If you need financial assistance you'd be forced to seek help from your relatives and community (which would likely be your local church), and they won't be inclined to help someone who is an unproductive bottomless pit of money. Pursuing a high-risk lifestyle will make your insurance premiums skyrocket, as you're a bigger liability to the firm. You'll likely be evicted by the landlord or the homeowner's association, as your disruptive habit will make the other resident's lives more inconvenient and tank property values, and nobody wants that. Would there be a small minority that pursues drugs in spite of all these negatives? Of course, but without them burdening the tax system they will harm no one except themselves, and we're lucky they'll drop out of the gene pool with an OD.

>Singapore

You have to be careful not to compare apples and oranges. Singapore has a very free market and its citizens enjoy a very high quality of life, so we can assume that the rate of drug abuse would be very low, death penalty or no death penalty.

>taxation is theft

Anyone saying this unironically is an idiot and should be ignored. The point is that the government should run lean. That means policies shouldn't necessitate excessive oversight, systems should not be overly complex to the point where additional infrastructure is needed, and the burden of costs should not simply be put on the shoulders of the middle and lower classes.

Now, there is a point to be made that Income Tax is wrong, and was unconstitutional for a reason. There are other ways to get funding for the government, such as tariffs, sales tax, etc. "But this still puts the burden on consumers", you might say. Yes, it does, but it just changes the economics of it a bit. Instead of having a chunk of your paycheck seized, you instead face higher prices. Of course, you may have choices; locally-made goods will be cheaper than foreign-made with tariffs, which is in-turn good for local industry. Sales Tax derives from spending, so it is in the government's interest to build a functional economy where people spend lots of money. It's about incentives and who profits as a byproduct. Right now, corporations get to withhold your money and send it to the government and then they might pay some of it back to you next year.

Keep in mind how much bureucracy is a result of this system: the IRS is a massive organization that costs a lot to run. Instead of being able to, say, focus on business records, customs & imports, etc to detect fraudulent activity, they have to review every single working man in the nation. This is just not feasible, and so they really only look into specific cases or pull some at random to see if there's problems. It's a numbers game, and the goal is to scare people into paying. Plus, the tax code is so insanely complex that nobody really understand it. You need to hire experts just to tell you how to navigate specific sections. And that's fine because it keeps accountants employed, but income tax and the like should be simple enough that people can do it themselves unless they have niche needs. And if you eliminated it entirely for sales tax or tariffs, you'd find that you can make about the same amount of money, have more of your GDP stay within the country, and you could substantially cut the workforce of the IRS so they can focus on corporate and customs fraud cases. More wood behind fewer arrows and it would cost less.

> Justifying evils

Have you considered that phones simply wouldn't exist if there wasn't exploitation? Would you rather live in a world without smartphones but greater ethics, or a world with smartphones but you have to sign a deal with the devil? If you want the former, you are free to join the Amish. Nobody is stopping anybody from not buying a smartphone. I myself have gone nearly a decade without upgrading because there hasn't been a compelling reason to.

> Narcotics Policy

It's not about if it's moral to do drugs; nobody thinks people overdosing or becoming unproductive addicts is good for anybody, let alone for society. But it's recognition of the fact that it's immoral to call them criminals for what they do to their own body. You have a right to make bad decisions. You have a right to make bad choices. You have a right to shoot yourself in the foot (metaphorically and literally), and why should the government (as a representation of society) stop you? We can think you're a total moron, but you can do it.

Why should you tell someone you know better than they what is good for them? I have zero issues with a government setting up needle exchanges, subsidizing rehabilitation programs, and putting out PSAs about the dangers of drug abuse. I have parasites who are so doped out of their mind that they cannot provide for themselves, their families, etc. Who are driven to commit crimes so they don't need to make an honest living. But, doing the drug is not the crime here; the crime is the crime. Their motivation is irrelevant. And if someone were able to sustain their habit without affecting others, then I have no problem with that. If someone were born a millionaire and they choose to lock themselves in dark room and subsist on an IV drip with their preferred substance then that's their choice to make.

It only enriches society in the sense that the individual has the choice to spend their money and free time as they see fit so long as it does not harm anybody else.

Sorry I'm busy atm tbh it was actually a bad time to make the thread I should have done it like 2 weeks later.

>>94243

>Why are you assuming that every possible permutation of expropriation has to be explicitly laid out in the Bible before it becomes "theft?" Do you not consider someone stealing your TV theft because the Bible doesn't say anything about TVs getting stolen?"

The difference between TV and taxes is, as I'm sure you know, but are choosing to be disingenuous anyways, is that taxes had been invented even before the Old Testament had been written. Thus, if it was truly a sin or "theft", God had full opportunity to have classified it as such or told one of his prophets to do so. That is the argument.

>Irrelevant. I'm not a Jew, and even if I was the laws of a long-dead Jewish kingdom hardly apply to me.

It's relevant to my example since I'm Christian asking you to biblically justify your stance of taxation being theft.

>An unfortunate consequence of the leftist shitbags who run the Libertarian Party being the public face of libertarianism to most normies.

Sorry but this isn't convincing. Calling the libertarian party full of leftists is like communists saying the USSR was not a society built on marxist principles or that everyone post-Stalin was a right wing revisionist. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people worldwide who identify as libertarians, ancaps, classical liberals, etc. are in favor of gay marriage and drug legalization. Your special snowflake board on a forum frequented by white supremacists is a drop in the bucket.

>You have to be careful not to compare apples and oranges. Singapore has a very free market and its citizens enjoy a very high quality of life, so we can assume that the rate of drug abuse would be very low, death penalty or no death penalty.

I'm pretty sure countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. score high on those economic freedom scales that you guys love so much and they have significantly more trouble dealing with drugs. To suggest that state action or lack thereof does nothing to affect drug use and that it all depends on how "free" your economy is thus fallacious.

>Without the state suppressing incentives and market forces the negative pressures on addicts/homosexuals becomes much higher.

I have to admit I didn't think of it in such a cynical way before. However, the majority of the propaganda is not coming from the state. It is coming from the private sector. You see banks waving LGBT flags. You see TV shows promoting hedonism. These are not state-sponsored initiatives for these sorts of things happen even under Republican governments and legislatures. But more to the point is that your solution does not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. Someone suffering from an inherited disease like sickle-cell has their premiums raised by the insurance companies just the same as someone who has lots of random sex with strangers. Freedom to dissociate without any restrictions means that there's going to be racial discrimination along with every other type of discrimination.

>Watch this 46 minute video on why sweatshops are good

Ummmm so what was stopping you from summing it up in your own words? Without even watching the video I know it's probably going to say something like "sweatshops may suck but it's still the best option for the worker when compared to subsistence farming :DDDD" in which case my retort would be: "Life for them could still be improved". I don't have the time to sit through a 40 minute video I'm trying to reply as fast as I can already.

>>94247

>the burden of costs should not simply be put on the shoulders of the middle and lower classes

You say this and then you advocate for only sales taxes and tariffs…which disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes? What?

>Have you considered that phones simply wouldn't exist if there wasn't exploitation?

I reject the false choice that you offer. If we can produce cars, clothes, homes, etc. without BTFO of labour, environmental, and ethical standards as we have in the past why would it suddenly be impossible to now? There was a time when everything wasn't made in China.

>But it's recognition of the fact that it's immoral to call them criminals for what they do to their own body.

I'm not advocating for the killing of addicts (that would be useless), although I would be in favor of forced mandatory rehab for those people. I'm advocating killing off the dealers and generating a climate of fear so intense that barely anyone dares to smuggle drugs around anymore like in Singapore.

>>94260

>Thus, if it was truly a sin or "theft", God had full opportunity to have classified it as such or told one of his prophets to do so. That is the argument.

The same basic logic still applies. Does the Bible say, "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I are all theft and you shouldn't do them," or does it say "theft is wrong?" The fact that taxation isn't explicitly called theft is irrelevant, because nowhere in the Bible is there a T-chart that explicitly says that this action and that are theft, but these actions are not.

>It's relevant to my example since I'm Christian asking you to biblically justify your stance of taxation being theft.

The Bible says "thou shalt not steal." Taxation is the involuntary plundering of wealth under threat of violence, which falls under most definitions of "theft." If you consider a mob's protection racket "theft" you should consider the income tax "theft."

>Sorry but this isn't convincing. Calling the libertarian party full of leftists…

Gary Johnson was the LP's nominee for President. It is safe to say that Gary Johnson is representative of the LP. While running for President, Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld have said…

>he is okay with "commonsense" gun control

>"hard" drugs should still be criminalized

>Eminent Domain is okay

>calling people "illegal immigrants" is racist

>interventionist foreign wars are okay if they're "humanitarian"

>he would like to appropriate more funds to subsidize green energy

>he would like to appropriate more funds to subsidize NASA

>he would like to implement a carbon tax

>Jewish bakers should be forced to bake Nazi wedding cakes

>he supports a universal basic income

>Gary Johnson agrees with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time

>recessions are caused by consumer overspending

>supports "equal pay for equal work" laws

You don't need to be all that educated on what libertarianism is to realize that none of the above has anything to do with libertarianism. Gary Johnson and the rest of the LP are not libertarians, they are confused moderates who really like weed. The Mises Institute doesn't like them, the Cato Institute doesn't like them, Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society doesn't like them, no libertarian of any note likes them. Murray Rothbard's literary works do not agree with them. Ludwig von Mises' works do not agree with them. It's far from a drop in the bucket.

>The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people worldwide who identify as libertarians, ancaps, classical liberals, etc. are in favor of gay marriage and drug legalization.

You got three things wrong. First, even the normie, low-information "libertarians" you identify in yoru post are not in favor of gay marriage, they are against the state forbidding gay marriage. The difference is subtle in wording but vast in practice; the former implies that priests must be forced by the law to marry gays, the latter implies that gays are free to try and get married, if they can find someone willing to do the service, without getting arrested. It does not mean priests are required to oblige this idea. Second, even the socially conservative libertarians that you'll find here are in favor of legalizing drugs. But there's a world of difference between legalizing something and endorsing it. Third, truth isn't determined by democracy; it doesn't matter what the majority of people who slap the libertarian label onto themselves declare. There are positions that are libertarian and there are positions that are not, where these fall is determined by examining the core tenets of libertarianism and deciding whether a given policy agrees with those tenets.

>To suggest that state action or lack thereof does nothing to affect drug use and that it all depends on how "free" your economy is thus fallacious.

I didn't say it had no effect, just that you were comparing apples and oranges. And while the scandinavian countries you mention are economically free in most senses, they are not economically free in the two sectors which I named when discussing drugs–healthcare and the welfare state.

>>94234

>biblical justification

https://www.kongregate.com/games/SugarFreeGames/caravaneer-2

>>94272

Notice how they all mash Legal Immigration with illegal aliens as equal. Stop calling illegals """immigrants""" as if to legitimize them. The political landscape is this dumb.

Independent right has the best overall answer.

I am honestly impressed.

>>94385

>God instructs against taxation, most clearly income tax, in every instruction against theft and affirmation of property rights

Except he doesn't. Even if you pull out all sorts of articles and contortions to help you reinterpret Jesus' words to the Pharisees regarding paying Roman taxes to be "ambiguous", there are still bible verses scattered throughout affirming that taxation is not viewed as theft. In fact, the Lord even outright commands a flat income tax in the Bible at one point.

[Exodus 30:11-14]: The Lord also spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. 13 This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, half a shekel as a contribution to the Lord. 14 Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the Lord.

[Luke 3:12-13] also illustrates Jesus's attitude towards the collection of taxes. (12 And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” )

If tax is theft, which, you have to remember, is not just a "bad thing" in the secular sense, but also holds a religious meaning as well for it is a sin, he would have commanded them to give up their profession, just like Jesus commanded the prostitute who was about to be stoned to "go and sin no more".

Not to mention that in Ancient Israel there was tithes, which were basically a taxes-in-kind, commanded by God in order to sustain the poor as well as the Levi priest caste and for celebration.

>>94384

I'm not baiting tho

>>94328

>READ KIERKEGAARD

tbh I have little interest in him mainly because the last person who I knew read Kierkegaard turned into a transexual fascist so he must have really fucked with that guy's brain

>>94272

>muh immigration

I literally don't care. In fact I'm in favor of kicking all non-Christian and heathen scum out of the country but acknowledge that political realities have all but made such a goal impossible.

Will reply to confederate flag poster later although the bit about taxes should be somewhat relevant to his post as well.

>>94401

>Find me the threat of force attached to OT Israelite taxes

Sure. [Malachi 3:6-11]:

6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.

“But you ask, ‘How are we to return?’

8 “Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty.

The implication here is that Israel is actively being punished with famine and pestilence because the Israelites have gotten greedy and have only been paying a reduced portion of their required tithes and offerings (or even just failing to pay completely).

>Would you consider it a tax that I’m under a biblical mandate to give offerings at my local church?

Offerings to the church are voluntary (although it arguably shouldn’t be, but that's another debate). The Israelite system of tithing was not voluntary and had direct consequences for non-payment, as the example verse I posted above shows. There was also “secular”/non-divine coercion present in Ancient Israel’s system. For example, in

[1 Kings 4:27-28]:

27 The district governors, each in his month, supplied provisions for King Solomon and all who came to the king’s table. They saw to it that nothing was lacking. 28 They also brought to the proper place their quotas of barley and straw for the chariot horses and the other horses.

it is revealed that Solomon presides over a system where his state, through his appointed district governors, requisitions “quotas of barley and straw”, which is basically another tax-in-kind, for his military needs.

>>94399

>It's surprisingly easy, actually. A large chunk of illegals get arrested by the police for other crimes, so you don't even need to go out hunting for them. Just get ICE to stop practicing catch and release, shore up border security so they can't come back, and get the IRS and SSA to start cracking down on forged SSNs. Before too long you've taken care of most of the problem.

<muh illegals

You misunderstand. I don’t really care so much about Mexican immigration, for Mexico arguably has more Christians per capita than Amerikkka (Wikipedia says ~93% identify as Christian to Amerikkka’s ~75%). I care about all non-Christian immigration. What’s the point of having only white immigrants from Europe if they’re all muslims or atheists or pagans. My dream is to deport literally everyone who is not registered to a church or who does not attend church and/or just restrict voting rights to those who are Christian. The scale of opposition to such a process would undoubtedly be insurmountable given how liberalism has dominated every country’s political process. All the Rethuglicans do is harp on about illegals while still allowing any person of non-Christian faith to come in legally because “muh first amendment”, “muh founders”, “muh constitution” “muh free market needs skilled immigrants for economic growth” etc. Fuck all that. I want a Christian state. Faith comes first, I don’t care about race or how much the GDP will rise if we take in 10 billion more heathens.

Will reply to confederate flag poster’s longer post later; I'm still working on it.

>>94429

>I think we're using terms differently, I mean by "threat of force" that the state would ultimately kill a man for not paying his taxes like contemporary governments

Err, I don’t think contemporary governments kill a man for not paying taxes unless it’s some war-torn hellhole where the state has essentially devolved into multiple local actors and factions vying for power. The worst that modern states do is throw you in jail for tax evasion.

But even by your stringent standard, I’m not sure how you could argue that the famine and pestilence to destroy Israel’s crops that the Lord carries out as punishment does not, in fact, constitute “ultimately kill[ing] a man for not paying his taxes”. It may be a slower and more painful death than simply getting shot in the head, but it’s still death.

>Could it not be analogous to slavery or polygamy in the OT? Major figures practice them, and it's even expected to happen, but all broadly orthodox Christian denominations have come to teach against them. Is it conceivable that taxation also fits this description?

I was expecting this point to come up sooner or later. The thing is, polygamy was already essentially a no-go from Jesus’s ministry onwards. Slavery is a better point, but my objections to comparing it to taxation are twofold. Firstly, you’d be hard pressed to find orthodox Christian denominations today teaching against taxation, and after thousands of years of church history one would expect that the issue would have come up already like how the issue of slavery bubbled up and was debated extensively by the church over many years. Even my pastor, (who I suspect leans right-wing) hates his taxes with a passion, and has complained about it to our congregation before, but still acknowledges that we are required to pay, and he does not rail against taxation as a system in his sermons. Secondly, there are hints throughout the Bible that slavery is not ideal.

For instance,

[Colossians 4:1]: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing you too have a Maker in heaven”.

What is justice? What is fairness? (Other translations swap out fairness for “equal”). Undoubtedly, viewed from our modern lens, true justice entails a release of the slave from his exploitative relationship. But diving deeper from that reading, there’s also the question of how likely it is that a master can actually treat a slave justly and fairly/equally, if the text is not to be read as a stealth endorsement of freedom. Does the master have the willpower to never overwork the slave? Will he never be tempted to raise his voice in anger at the slave? Hit the slave? Even rape the slave? Provide the slave with less than sustenance-level food? The relationship is extraordinarily prone to corruption and abuse since one person holds all the power. I would argue that it’s actually impossible for abuse to never happen in such a relationship, and thus this “test” of masters giving slaves “just and fair” treatment will always be met with failure on the part of the masters…which again obligates them to free their slaves.

And then there’s that very curious story in Jeremiah that has always stuck with me.

[Jeremiah 34:13-20]. Edit: I can't quote the verse since the body is too long.

So, what has happened here is that the Israelites had actually ended up not following through on their obligation to release their Jewish slaves at the end of every six years, and slavery had become heavily entrenched in their society. What does God do? He demands that they automatically release all Jewish slaves without any preconditions…and the Israelites do for a time…but then when they think God isn’t looking, they shove all their former slaves back into slavery. And the divine punishment that follows as a result is absolutely devastating.

If slavery, at its absolute best, was only supposed to be at most a temporary measure for the Jewish people, as they were a chosen people who were themselves rescued from slavery, then, logically, as Christians – the new Elect, what theological justification is left for the more permanent kind of slavery practiced by other societies?

Sure, slaves are told to serve their masters in the NT. But, again, the master in the relationship is under a set of obligations that are arguably impossible to fulfill.

Anyways, the pivotal point: The Bible does seem to call the institution of slavery into question on at least one major occasion. On the other hand, it really doesn’t for taxation.

>>94435

>I don’t know why you brought priests into the equation when marriage has become a secular affair with tax benefits that the government oversees.

Well, I would have thought it was a given that you knew that the "libertarian response" would also call for removing government influence from marriage and turn it into a private religious affair once again.

>I disagree with the assertion that the U.S. government is full of leftists

You can disagree if you want, but simple statistics and surveys prove otherwise. Congress and the White House change hands from time to time, but the employees of federal bureaucracies are overwhelmingly leftist.

>There are no “spread gay propaganda” clauses attached to government subsidies.

You are aware that deals can be made under the table, right? If nothing else, aren't you just a little bit curious why all of these big companies started shilling for gays at the same time?

>Quick question: given what we witness today with insurance companies rejoicing at Trump trying to deregulate their obligation to cover those with pre-existing conditions

You realize Obamacare isn't the first, second, or even the third major increase in healthcare regulations, right? Between subsidy of hospitals, mandatory licensure, and a whole host of other restrictions, it's largely been state regulation driving the cost of healthcare upwards:

https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

>Because it's immoral to deny service on the basis of race?

But the Bible doesn't say anything about Jim Crow laws :^).

>What moral justification can you give?

The same moral justification I can give for a restaurant enforcing a dress code in its patrons–it's his store, his property. He can do whatever he wants with it so long as he's not aggressing against anyone.

>No one was using this rhetoric when the Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan was not nearly as successful as neoliberal shills make it out to be. If you look at per capita economic recovery in Europe, the countries who saw the greatest amount of success were the ones who received the smallest amount of aid.

https://mises.org/wire/marshall-plan-isnt-success-story-you-think-it

>Now you’re saying we can’t do the same in Africa

We have done the same thing in Africa. Africa has received the equivalent of 5 Marshall Plans in aid and hasn't developed shit. The only exceptions to this are countries like Botswana, which adopted a heavily liberalized, laissez-faire economy, and as a result has achieved a relatively high quality of life.

> getting them industrialized to boost the economies of those countries

Again, Botswana managed to industrialize just fine, and it did this largely through rejection of welfare and Marxian economics in favor of an unregulated economy.

>so there is obviously a lot of elasticity for wages to be adjusted upwards

The slow rise in American wages can be attributed to worker elasticity in the States being artificially low thanks to state regulations–for instance, because healthcare is provided by employers, changing employers means you temporarily lose healthcare coverage in the interim, and you run the risk of your new job having a worse plan. This discourages employees from seeking more competitive jobs and increases the bargaining power of employers.

>And I’m not sure what planet you’re living on when you try to imply that addicts will follow job market incentives rationally like normal people.

It doesn't matter what their mindset is. If they don't follow the job market, the job market follows them. It doesn't matter if they're "insane" or not, if they don't have money, they can't eat and they can't get high.

>Someone has to step in.

Rehab centers and the like already exist. Private courts and/or insurance firms could compulse addicts to seek help for their addiction in order to continue receiving their services. Plenty of people can "step in" without the state.

>>94456

>I fail to see why a religious response grounded in the Bible does not qualify as a “reasoned, argumentative response”.

Because it's an appeal to authority and not an argument. You're just pointing to some passage, calling it a day, and turning off your brain.

>I could say that libertarians use “taxation is theft” as a very flimsy rhetorical shield to justify their refusal to pay for any common good that benefits the community.

That equivalency is false, for a number of reasons. First is the simple fact that conservatives, and other advocates of lower taxes, consistently donate to charity far more often and in greater amounts than their leftist counterparts, so any claim that conservatives don't care about "the community" have no basis in reality. Second, to paraphrase Bastiat, being against the state doing something is not at all the same as being against that thing. If these "common goods" were really beneficial to the community, individuals in the community would be willing to pay for them.

>I mean we can quibble for forever over definitions of theft but at the end of the day there’s one section for Tax and another for Theft in the dictionary

Funny you should say that. By doing so I notice you've sidestepped my challenge and failed to contradict my definition. I suspect you do this because you can't contradict it.

>Even Adam Smith

Adam Smith also supported public schools, never understood comparative advantage, and used the Labor Theory of Value. He was just an economist, not some messiah, and I'm under no obligation to blindly follow a policy because he liked it. Maybe that kind of language appeals to you, but I really don't care for appeals to authority.

>despite being a Protestant

Suddenly it all makes sense.

>led me to believe that he is not a genuine Christian

"Gays and atheists go to heaven LMAO" didn't tip you off?

>Anyways, “European” is not a race. You can associate Christianity generally with Western civilization

Culture and civilization are downstream of culture. You can't associate Christianity with Western culture and simultaneously not associate it with Western peoples.

>the Germanic people did not come to believe in Christianity until the medieval period. Are they now supposed to be deemed as racially inferior since they accepted it later?

Well, the philosophical contributions of the Germs to scholasticism, stoicism, and natural law theory are comparatively minor, so if pressed one could make that argument. I don't care to make that argument however, as I was making a generalist claim about Europe, not the specific ethnicities within.

>I think if you reason with yourself, you’ll find that racial politics is anathema to the message of Christianity.

The story of Noah's sons does just a bit to contradict this. Shouldn't be surprised that it's a protestant trying to say Christianity is universalist, though. Why bother following the word of God when you can reject his secular authority, and reinterpret his word to mean whatever it was you were doing anyways?

>Err, I don’t think contemporary governments kill a man for not paying taxes

WACO and Bundy ranch say "hi."

>and after thousands of years of church history one would expect that the issue would have come up already like how the issue of slavery bubbled up and was debated extensively by the church over many years.

So what, moral questions have an expiration date? Because no one questioned taxes a thousand years ago we're not allowed to question them now?

>>94450

>The Bible instructs against this in the 10 commandments: Thou shalt not steal

This. You're doing the same dance around the truth that most statists do; if they face the idea that "taking property without consent is theft" head-on, there's no refutation to it. So you need to do mental gymnastics to weave around this simple truth.

>rational and reasoned debate that you liberals are so famous for

>you liberals