I'm trying to come up with some simple and clear arguments against the 2 following attacks I always hear when arguing against the state.
#1 - If you don't like it (living in country X), go somewhere else!
#2 - You use the public roads/utilities/schools/whatever so this justifies the government taxing you!
does anyone have a simple and clear rebuttal to these..?
"If I don't like it, I change it. If you don't like that change, leave."
Go f*** yourself.
I've never been hit with that one, but I'd probably respond by clarifying that I in fact love being a member of this society and believe wholeheartedly in American exceptionalism, and so I can't help but be bothered by myriad government interventions that have all but eradicated that idea. I might even take it a step further to point out that if they were to take a few minutes to stop regurgitating mindless cliches and actually look at the facts, they might also realize they don't like it and, rather than leave, they may wish to work toward bettering the situation.
http://conza.tumblr.com/post/5190986300/taxation-is-theft-so-why-blame-the-victim-why
The more tyrannical the government, the less this is an option. Your opponent might say something like, "OK, well, this is America and you're free to leave any time, so what are you still bitching about?" but that's not the point. The point is that "If you don't like it, go somewhere else" can't actually be any kind of guarantee of freedom for the reason given above. If our country really is going to hell in a hand-basket and descending in to tyranny, we won't be able to leave unless we had a crystal ball and could foresee the future. It's a bit overplayed but absolute relevant... just point to the rise of the Nazis. At first, they seemed like a marginal party. When they took over, they really weren't saying anything that controversial at the time and the anti-semitic rhetoric fell on Germans' ears of the day no harder than the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the US regime falls on American ears.
We - and pre-WWII Germans - can hardly be blamed for not owning functional crystal balls!
See this thread.
Clayton -
#1 - If you don't like it (living in country X), go somewhere else! #2 - You use the public roads/utilities/schools/whatever so this justifies the government taxing you!
It's funny that these are the same retorts used by shitty parents to justify arbitrary excesses of power.
Does that argument not implicitly assume that the government is legitimate? Its sort of begs the question, no?
Imagine if you go on vacation and park your car in your drive way, and a group of people make sure that nobody steals the car while you are away. They say that despite you not asking for this 'service' you owe them money for watching the car, or else they will simply take it themselves. Now the car might have or might not have gotten stolen without the watch of the group, but now it will most certainly be stolen if the ransom isn't paid. And of course you don't HAVE to pay. Its your choice. Which do you value more, your car or the ransom amount for the car. No smart gang is going to charge more in ransom than people value the car for, that way then can get paid for car watching in the future.
Just because staying in America is seen as the best of all current possibilities does not mean we have no right to complain or wish that circumstances were better. I would pry the opponent to see if he disagrees with ANY current gov't policy, if not then just go back in time a few years, and then ask why then didn't leave the country then?
If you don't like it (living in country X), go somewhere else!
The funny thing is, this is the same thing libertarians say regarding property. If you don't want to be forced to wear a silly hat in my house, stay out of my house.
For that reason, any sort of quick and snappy rebuttal can be used against propertarians. Ultimately you're going to have to show why your conception of ownership is legitimate while government ownership is not, meaning that you are not ever going to be able to give a clear and concise response without a constant regression to a more fundamental point. Sorry.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
"The funny thing is, this is the same thing libertarians say regarding property. If you don't want to be forced to wear a silly hat in my house, stay out of my house."
The sad thing is that anti-propertarians - along with statists, don't seem to realise that a house exists in objective physical reality, whilst a country does not.
"Ultimately you're going to have to show why your conception of ownership is legitimate while government ownership is not, meaning that you are not ever going to be able to give a clear and concise response without a constant regression to a more fundamental point. Sorry. "
Don't project. Just because you're unable to, doesn't me - he won't be able to.
The concept of self-ownership - pretty easy case to make. Sorry.
First: I guess the Jews could just have moved away from nineteen-thirties Germany, then, if they didn't like the 'policies' there.
Second: Every other country has authoritarian policies because of that exact same argument, so where can I move?
Third: How come the default is that you get to implement authoritarian policies, and if I don't like them I have to leave my home. If you want authoritarian policies, why don't you move to a place where they have those. I hear Haiti has nice weather this time of year.
And fourth: So you're telling me that aggression is justified as long as the victims have the option to escape... So much for the accuracy of the modern use of the term "liberal".
And a further point, even if you do move, the US government will STILL try to collect taxes from you.
The funny thing is, this is the same thing libertarians say regarding property. If you don't want to be forced to wear a silly hat in my house, stay out of my house. For that reason, any sort of quick and snappy rebuttal can be used against propertarians. Ultimately you're going to have to show why your conception of ownership is legitimate while government ownership is not, meaning that you are not ever going to be able to give a clear and concise response without a constant regression to a more fundamental point. Sorry.
Ding ding!
First: I guess the Jews could just have moved away from nineteen-thirties Germany, then, if they didn't like the 'policies' there. Second: Every other country has authoritarian policies because of that exact same argument, so where can I move? Third: How come the default is that you get to implement authoritarian policies, and if I don't like them I have to leave my home. If you want authoritarian policies, why don't you move to a place where they have those. I hear Haiti has nice weather this time of year. And fourth: So you're telling me that aggression is justified as long as the victims have the option to escape... So much for the accuracy of the modern use of the term "liberal".
You're missing the point. Liberals think people are entitled to universal rights no matter what territory they inhabit. It's libertarians who think that you're only entitled to rights on your own property. Liberals don't want authoritarian policies, they want human rights to take precedent over property rights. If a poor man has a heart attack in a liberal society, the hospital saves his life. In a "libertarian" society, the man dies. Which society is more authoritarian from this man's perspective?
Liberals think people are entitled to universal rights no matter what territory they inhabit.
First of all, you're not a liberal. Only in America does "liberal" mean "democratic socialist". In the rest of the world "liberal" means what "libertarian" means in America. Liberalism is the philosophy of liberty - that each person should have the freedom to do as they see fit so long as they do not harm anyone else along the way. Yes, that includes the freedom to be a filthy rich mean old miser.
It's libertarians who think that you're only entitled to rights on your own property.
Not true at all, human rights must necessarily extend into the realm of unowned goods, else there is no impartial foundation from which to start. If we begin in the Garden of Eden, there are two possibilities. Either we assign special rights to some individuals and deprivilege other individuals, or we say that all persons have equal rights to whatever resources are available. If all people have the same rights to whatever resources are available, however, it does not follow that conflict-free sharing is possible. It may be the case that one strong man could murder all the rest and have the whole Garden to himself. Hence, any set of rules regarding how resources are to be shared must take into account the ever-present problem of conflict. Socialism/communism simply wave a magic wand and wish away the whole problem through a variety of fallacies. Only liberal philosophy gives something remotely resembling a sensible answer to the problem of how to choose rules which prevent and resolve conflicts in an ethically universalizable manner (without partiality).
Liberals don't want authoritarian policies, they want human rights to take precedent over property rights.
The set of all human rights is a subset of the set of property rights. That is, property rights are precisely those rules which people adopt to avoid and resolve conflicts (property disputes) which is a negative way to say those rules which preserve human rights.
It seems you're missing the point... Libertarians consider 'human rights' to be property rights, derived from self-ownership. There is no 'human right' that entitles a man to health care, if no one in the world wanted to voluntarily save the dieing man, the government would have to infringe on the rights of others by stealing from them in order to pay for his healthcare.
When it is admitted that the government (which in reality is just a group of individuals no more special than any of us) has the right to steal property from the wealthy to give to the poor in order to help them, there is no stopping point at just healthcare, why not give them free education? free capital? free food? free clothes? free homes? it goes on and on.
The best way to help the poor is to respect the property rights of all individuals, if you disagree with this claim.. you should read more Mises/Rothbard ^_^
I'm aware of the difference. I've seen a lot of people on this site refer to themselves as libertarians, so I figured we were going with American terms. I don't consider myself a liberal in either sense.
Not true at all, human rights must necessarily extend into the realm of unowned goods, else there is no impartial foundation from which to start.
But don't liberals believe that unowned goods become your property once you do something with them? Does a liberal have a right to use a good that remains an unowned good after he uses it?
Right. Liberals conceive of property rights coming first and then human rights naturally following. Social democrats think of human rights as coming first and then property rights following. The post I was responding to didn't address this difference, but instead assumed that social democrats also conceived of property rights as primary (as I interpreted it). I thought it was important to point out that difference.
"Love it or leave it." - Will you pay for the travel expenses? If not, I'll continue to complain that you're wrong, so how about YOU leave.
"If you don't like it then get out." - How about you remove thyself from the area of which this conversation is taking place if it causes such distress upon you.
(In response to a bumper sticker I saw) "If you don't stand behind our troops then stand infront of them." - I believe those sorts of sexual acts are not allowed in our military.
Generally you come across the "love it or leave it" statements from flag waving 'Murricans. Just start citing the constitution against their position and they'll end up contradicting themselves, and probably will rethink their views if they don't leave in a fit of rage, which happens. Chances are, you'll know more about the constitution and founding fathers than they do (hopefully).
Yet, today, I saw a bumper sticker today that said "America, love it or give it back!" and I think it had a picture of a Native American with a rifle, I'm not exactly sure.
haha I'm not American but I'm sure I know way more about the American constitution and it's founding fathers than most Americans.. In Australia we have a constitution too, but it is even more irrelevant than the USA's..
"If you don't like it, leave"
This implies that I do not own my property, or that my property (including myself) belong to society so long as I choose to live in a particular region.
"use of roads, etc implies taxation justifiable"
Yikes, this is quite an idiotic position to take. As I am sure, many of us here all agree that taxation is theft of private property, but what has that to do with me hoping to get back some of my thieved property. If a thieve kicks me out of my home, that is theft. If he is a "nice" thief and he says to me "I'll be nice and let you sleep here 2 nights out of the week", does that still justify his thieving of my property?
daveyc86: #1 - If you don't like it (living in country X), go somewhere else!
Americans are sensitive to taking a position that makes them look racist, which is why I like to respond with, "Would you tell Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King that if they don't like America they should leave? Instead of that, how about if you change?"