Trent, “he simply accepts that B is likely to happen.”
No. He accepts that B is a consequence of A, and it is something he is willing to live with. I am not.
On his side is compulsion, coercion, brutality, and force. Steven Druckenmiller believes in these things, he insists that they are necessary, and he demands that everyone else obey. Those who are commanded to pay taxes must pay them. If the consequence of their unwillingness to cooperate with their own destruction is death, he’s okay with that. I am not.
I am defiance. I am for consent, cooperation, and voluntary behavior. I defy the order to obey. I defy the demand for compulsion. I defy the command economy. I am defiance.
There is no agreement between compulsion and consent. There is no reasonable middle ground. There is no possibility of working together. There is either compulsion, coercion, command, and brutality, or there is consent, cooperation, and choice.
I stand for consent. I stand for free choice. That means, necessarily, essentially, and vitally, that I stand against anyone who prefers compulsion, who excuses compulsion, who demands compulsion.
And if that doesn’t work for you, if that doesn’t build up your party, if that doesn’t seem agreeable, if that hurts your feelings, too bad.
You can cavil, equivocate, and compromise all you want with evil. Compulsion is evil. And it isn’t going to get better by arguing with it.
I disagree. That sort of rhetorical approach is, in my opinion, why we have failed to persuade more people to agree with us if they have considered our viewpoint, or to consider our view point seriously if they come across it at all.
We already have an uphill task in convincing people of the viability of a radically different social arrangement which they have been overwhelmingly taught to reject. Starting out by insulting everyone who does not already fully agree with us and assuming that they are arguing in bad faith is tremendously damaging to our chances of persuasion.
That sort of ideological attack might satisfy some emotional craving for the illusion of power, but it is very counterproductive because it damages our ability to persuade people, which is our only chance.
Too many libertarians engage in this type of tactic – impotently trying to bully their way through arguments – and fail to either force or persuade anyone to change their mind, except to naturally recoil against anything we say, as most anyone would when being verbally assaulted. This, I think, is the number one reason why there are not a lot more libertarians already.
So why do libertarians persist in rhetorical tactics that do damage to our cause? Mostly out of frustration. Since we have no power to make the change we so strongly believe needs to be made in the world, lashing out at whoever will listen – usually, our near-libertarian or our already libertarian near-anarchist allies, or other libertarian anarchists – is the only recourse left.
Giving in to this frustration is the easy way out. It beats having to deal with the arguments other people make seriously. Learning and teaching is difficult. Persuasion is not easy, and it’s frustrating. But it’s the only thing we have; we’ve already rejected force, and even if we were to engage in responsive force, we are outmanned and outgunned. So, persuasion is the only hope we have to make things better.
I feel the same frustration too, and I have given in to it many times. I still do all too often. But I’m trying not to. I hope you will as well.
“The fact is that Steven wants the government to collect taxes with compulsion. Which means, necessarily, he wants men, women, and children to be brutally slaughtered by the government in the work of collecting taxes. Steven lies when he says otherwise. ”
This isnt true. Because he admits that his favored program A will result in B, doesnt mean he WANTS B to happen, he simply accepts that B is likely to happen. Id guess that he would want to avoid B as much as possible.
Here is why Steven Druckenmiller is a worthless bag of sleazy filth.
When I say that enforcing the tax laws by compulsion means that people are going to be killed by tax law enforcers because people HAVE been killed by tax law enforcers, he doesn’t deny it. He then attacks me by equating my willingness to point out this fact with Michael Moore, or George Bush, because he’s done with reasoning, and Steven only has ad hominem comments left.
The fact is that Steven wants the government to collect taxes with compulsion. Which means, necessarily, he wants men, women, and children to be brutally slaughtered by the government in the work of collecting taxes. Steven lies when he says otherwise. He is disingenuous about his desire for liberty. He is not a sincere libertarian, and he is not a man with the kind of courage it took for seven dozen Texans to stand against a warrantless search by dozens of ATF agents. Nor does he admire men and women with that kind of courage.
Steven Druckenmiller is a despicable worm. His own words condemn him as the worst sort of equivocating, compromising, kneeling, kowtowing, bowing, scraping, and ass kissing slime.
Now, there you go, other gentle readers. That’s irony for you. Waterboard him until he admits that waterboarding is torture, and show him how ad hominem is really done.
“Do you have any kind of drive to parse through difficult problems for reasonable solutions…”.
Yes, of course, I am quite interested in difficult and even seemingly intractable problems, as well as using reasoning to find solutions. But, what you mean by reasonable is: why am I not willing to compromise all my freedom, all my principles, in order for you to have the compulsory power of taxation.
And the answer is: because you suck. Because your desire for compulsory taxation is evil. And you’ll never admit it.
except someone would roll up your town and become the de facto government in short order
I disagree.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 17, 2009
I would much rather do without it. It’s just that I don’t really want to have to move thousands of miles to not have such “benefits” – and besides, where would I move to?
So, what if you had to move 100s of miles? That’s federalism. If you had to move 10 miles, that would be my vision of small government. Not having to move at all would be anarchism (except someone would roll up your town and become the de facto government in short order).
Steven Druckenmiller
January 17, 2009
For me, at root, people with weaponry will have dominance over those without. The question is how best to restrain the use of that force.
People point to Somalia as a place without government, but what would you call the Islamic Courts Union?
Gangs with guns will always press for dominance, because it is easier to get resources, women and labor when you’re in control.
And right, the entire canon of land property law starts on the premise that the government of the area initially owns the land and sells it/homesteads it/gives it away to others to settle.
I disagree with that premise.
But, if you did, do you feel you should still be entitled to the protection provided by the local and state police and the national armed forces? Yes, I am aware that all of those entities have authority, budgets and capabilities far past what we think they need, but at the same time, you still DO benefit from the existence of those entities.
I don’t consider it a benefit. I would much rather do without it. It’s just that I don’t really want to have to move thousands of miles to not have such “benefits” – and besides, where would I move to?
It’s like if I came to your house, made repairs you did not ask for, damaged your things in the process, did a shoddy job, and then presented you with an outrageously high bill and the promise I would be back for more of the same on a regular basis. Don’t like that? Well, then, move a few thousand miles to a place with a completely alien culture where you do not speak the language, if one even exists!
Steven Druckenmiller
January 17, 2009
Even if you were told to sign an explicit contract with the government, that still wouldn’t satisfy many here, because then that contract would be coming with the implicit threat that you have to leave if you do not sign it.
And right, the entire canon of land property law starts on the premise that the government of the area initially owns the land and sells it/homesteads it/gives it away to others to settle.
But even if I renounced my citizenship…
But, if you did, do you feel you should still be entitled to the protection provided by the local and state police and the national armed forces? Yes, I am aware that all of those entities have authority, budgets and capabilities far past what we think they need, but at the same time, you still DO benefit from the existence of those entities.
This is true of private contract enforcement as well. Allow me a hypothetical: suppose someone borrows money from a bank to buy a house and then defaults on the loan. What happens when the bank wants its money or the property?
At least in that case, I would have actually signed a contract with the bank, rather than being judged as bound by some ambiguous social contract I never agreed to.
Well, that’s not entirely true: I did take the citizenship oath, but I was twelve years old or so at the time; and I have occasionally signed paperwork, such as voter registration cards, that says I’m a US Citizen. I probably should stop doing stuff like that, to be more consistent.
But even if I renounced my citizenship, the regime would not renounce its tax claims against me, so that may be either pointless or besides the point.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 17, 2009
I am both aware of the “men with guns” reductio and the fact that I do not get exclusive say and control over where federal and state tax dollars go. The current situation is not where I, nor most people here, would like it to be.
But at some point, it has to involve the threat of forced confiscation of property and/or imprisonment, or it is ineffective.
This is true of private contract enforcement as well. Allow me a hypothetical: suppose someone borrows money from a bank to buy a house and then defaults on the loan. What happens when the bank wants its money or the property?
Well, granted, most of the time tax law enforcement does not involve slaughtering anyone.
But at some point, it has to involve the threat of forced confiscation of property and/or imprisonment, or it is ineffective.
If the person being demanded taxes of resists, it has to involve up to and including deadly force, or it is ineffective.
If there are women and children “being used as human shields” from the tax enforcer’s view, they might die, as at Waco.
It is also true that the proceeds of the money include slaughtering people, including civilians, and including women and children, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and your friendly hometown drug warzone.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 17, 2009
Enforcing the tax laws means slaughtering women and children.
How does it feel to be the intellectual equivalent of Michael Moore? Do you have any kind of drive to parse through difficult problems for reasonable solutions, or is everything 4th-grade-level platitudes to you?
No, I take that back: you’re the intellectual equivalent to George Bush: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Peter, those who advocate the initiation of force, and demand the compulsory collection of taxes, are in fact evil. That many people are eager to tolerate evil is a commonplace.
If you don’t care for the vigorous fight for liberty, don’t be a part of it.
“A politic minister will study to lull us into
security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity
and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. … When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the
knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude more than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! ” – Sam Adams
The massacre of the Davidians was over some tax papers. Enforcing the tax laws means slaughtering women and children.
If you aren’t comfortable with that fact, change your government.
Andrew Davis comes up with these? A more recent entry announces his resignation. Perhaps soon we’ll get some less tainted polls.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 16, 2009
Mr. Orvetti – unfortunately, there seems to be a very vocal, blisteringly-malicious minority of pure retributivist a priori anarchists here, who think any deviation from the Faith makes one Satan.
Trent Hill
January 16, 2009
Peter,
Try spending time at FEE.org or FFForg. In that way you get the principled Austrian outlook but without the crazy.
Robert Capozzi
January 16, 2009
I voted Maybe. It doesn’t say much about his competence, for he is unlikely to be a tax protestor or even evader.
I would likely vote that he should not be confirmed for his key role in the bailout.
Putting the 2 together says Geithner (sp?) is a weak choice, but then aren’t most of them?
JohnCjacksn
January 16, 2009
The Republicans really have taken over. Has the LP done a daily poll asking if Obama is an illegal immigrant who should be deported yet?
As long as you support the compulsory collection of taxes, I don’t believe your denials.
Andy
January 15, 2009
Well, considering that I don’t believe in paying taxes, I would have to vote no, especially since I wouldn’t want to set a president that would make it harder for anti-tax libertarians and anyone else who doesn’t believe in or pay a tax a particular tax from holding an office in government.
I do find this guy not paying a tax to be hypocritical though, since he is obviously favored by an administration that supports big government and high taxes.
If I thought he’d make the same kinds of “mistakes” in favor of all of the individuals paying taxes, I’d support his confirmation.
It’s not that I especially like this Obama appointee, nor would I be likely to like any potential replacement Obama appointee. It’s just that I don’t dislike him because he fudged on his taxes. If anything, that would be a point in his favor – but it does not, by itself, say much about how the rest of us would be treated.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
oops, that should read:
I hereby deny that I have now, nor have I ever, nor would I, cheer on the raid at Waco.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
I, Steven Druckenmiller, do hereby deny:
1. That I want to see anyone raped, killed or tortured.
2. That I have not now, nor have I ever, nor would I, cheer on the raid in Waco.
His defenders say he should be confirmed because it was “just a mistake that he later corrected.”
The guy can’t even reliably calculate his own taxes correctly — so Obama wants to but him in ultimate charge of both the collection and the disbursement of taxes from/to 300-odd million people.
If I thought he’d make the same kinds of “mistakes” in favor of all of the individuals paying taxes, I’d support his confirmation.
That’s probably not quite how it will work out, though. I rather suspect that his “mistakes” will continue to be of the variety which … inadvertently, of course, wink, nudge — benefit him or his employer.
When you say that you would not coerce me into military service, I simply don’t believe you. I think you are an authoritarian. I think you liked the idea, for example, of the Davidian Barbecue near Waco in 1993. I think you would have been cheering if you were old enough at the time to understand it. I think you like the idea of every government agent enforcing at the point of a gun every conceivable law. I think you like to see dead bodies, broken and mutilated bodies, and people in prison.
I’ve not seen you make any sort of compelling appeal to the contrary.
What are these feeble social signals? You think that because someone dares to live in the same country with you they have agreed to be governed just as you think they ought to be governed. They can protest, they can vote against those in power, they can refuse to vote, and you’ll always say that the government is legitimate.
And I say the reason for that is your craven and despicable desire to see people hurt. As many and as often as possible. That’s why you support all these wars. You like civilians being massacred and you like the idea of soldiers raping women in other countries. You’ve never written a single word against these ideas.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
your love of authority and your craving to see more of your neighbors beaten, raped, and killed by police.
JimDavidson? G.E.? Is that you?
Regardless, I see you are not serious about this continued conversation. I can only presume that you resorted to these ridiculous and invented “positions” I supposedly hold in the same way a cornered animal lashes out.
Who said anything about impunity? Only people in government behave badly and expect to get away with it. Actions have consequences. Seeing you try to put on the cloak of adult maturity at this stage is very funny.
I deride your opinion of what most people think a phrase means. You don’t know most people. You have made no effort to meet very many people. You have no idea what most people think. You cannot offer compelling evidence that most people read dictionaries or are especially equipped to form a useful opinion of what “above the law” means.
What I am saying is that I am better than any law to which I have consented, and necessarily better to any law which is imposed without my consent. That is what I mean by being above the law. And it is all that I mean. Your attempts to twist the meaning around so you can claw out my eyes are not especially amusing.
I’m not obligated to set a threshold at which the law becomes legitimate. Those who enforce the law don’t care. They’ll break in doors and kill anyone who gets in their way, whether or not the law is legitimate, whether or not a law has ever been broken. And you know it.
And, of course, you like it that way. You like the mangled bodies of your countrymen to be mangled, because it satisfies your authoritarian spirit.
You have failed to object to my frequent statements about your love of authority and your craving to see more of your neighbors beaten, raped, and killed by police.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
you force me to be represented
I do? How?
you demand that I pay taxes whether or not I owe them
I do? How?
you would coerce me into service in the military
No, I would not.
I don’t agree with the concept of implied consent.
So, do you expressly consent to be billed for the food you order in a restaurant? Because I do not. Do you think you should just be able to give all of the accepted social signals and nonverbal signs for consent and then claim, ex post, that you never expressly consented and therefore your consent is not valid?
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
Everyone is above the law in that case, because they have the freedom to withhold their consent.
Being an adult brings with it the recognizance that you cannot withhold your consent with impunity.
Basically, what you have said here is “Even if I consent to the law, I am above the law because I can withhold my consent”, It is true that you are “above the law” because of your nature, but you are equivocating on what “above the law” means. To most people, being above the law means “breaking the law”, and if you have consented to be ruled by the law, then there are consequences for breach, just like in contractual obligations.
Regardless, you have still failed to set a threshold at which the law becomes legitimate.
Representatives do not in fact have a contract with their constituents to do what they agreed in their campaigns. Indeed, all case precedent on this matter shows that representatives have no binding obligation to do anything they said they would do. There is not very much case precedent because the courts don’t allow anyone to have “standing” to object to things done by representative legislatures.
I don’t agree with the concept of implied consent. The very essence of commercial law is the nature of consent. For consent to be valid, it must be given knowingly, willingly, and competently. To validate the fact of consent, there should also be an exchange of value.
Your statement “Just because a narrow minority voted for the winner does not make said winner illegitimate” also works my way “Just because a narrow minority voted for the winner does not make said winner legitimate.” Indeed, I don’t think a narrow minority represents majority consent for anything. You obviously don’t care about people who are not qualified to vote, who don’t register to vote, who are registered but don’t choose to vote, and who voted for the guy who didn’t win. But, you are a notorious authoritarian, and you don’t mind who gets hurt as long as someone gets elected, by whatever crooked means.
I don’t agree to play the game. But, again, you force me to be represented, you demand that I pay taxes whether or not I owe them, you would coerce me into service in the military, all in the name of the authority to which you pay obeisance.
You assert that those who failed to show up were given an opportunity, but this is simply false. As above, many people are not qualified to vote, and if they do show up, if they do vote, are guilty of a felony. So, you are full of nonsense. You don’t want to worry about the people who are so sick of you and your system that they won’t participate. “You got no fear of the underdog. That’s why you will not survive.”
My point, which I’ll now reiterate in other words because you seem to fail to get it, is that everyone is above the law.
All are above the law. Two cases here. Case one, the law has consent. Everyone is above the law in that case, because they have the freedom to withhold their consent. If consent was obtained – by whatever standard you choose – then the law is just.
The existence of consent establishes that everyone is above those laws where consent has been obtained. Why? Because the nature of consent sets those who consent above what they consent to.
The other case is that consent is not obtained, again, by any standard. Where consent is absent, there is not a just law. And, again, everyone is above such a law.
Your idea that I have to be responsive to you is simple minded idiocy. I don’t consent to respond to you as you prefer. I respond just as I please.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
P.A. – That’s not really responsive. I am aware that the consent of the governed comes from multiple sources; I was just citing the one from whom most people get the concept.
Your point was the laws are not legitimate laws because they lack consent. You seem to be positing that there IS a certain threshold at which the laws would be legitimate…but then you undo that by seeming to state that representatives are not contracted with their constituencies.
many who are registered to vote never bother to vote, and of those who vote only a narrow majority typically voted for the winning candidate certainly limits what constitutes consent of the governed to a minority.
Alternatively, you can imply consent on two bases: 1. Just because a narrow minority voted for the winner does not make said winner illegitimate. If nothing else, societies would be extremely unstable if failure to garner a certain percentage of the vote meant that the current holder of the position was illegitimate. IOW, you don’t get to pick up your ball and go home once you’ve agreed to play the game.
2. You can also imply consent in that those who fail to show up were given the opportunity to express their objections and could not be bothered.
Thomas Jefferson is not the only person who ever wrote about consent of the governed. Thomas Paine was at some pains to write extensively on this topic.
The concept of legitimate government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed is not only among the significant language of the Declaration of Independence, but also forms the basis of the central error of classical liberalism. The classical liberals advanced the hypothesis that governments were established with the consent of the governed for the purpose of protecting rights, such as life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness.
The evidence is overwhelming that governments are rarely formed with anything more than the pretense of consent. Even where consent is overwhelming, it is not necessarily ongoing. The fact that many people are not qualified to vote for various reasons made up by those in power, many who are qualified don’t ever register, and many who are registered to vote never bother to vote, and of those who vote only a narrow majority typically voted for the winning candidate certainly limits what constitutes consent of the governed to a minority. The complete absence of any form of contract establishes that representatives have no obligation to act as agents for those they pretend to represent.
There is also overwhelming evidence that governments, once established by whatever means, fail to protect rights. Indeed, freedom becomes increasingly narrow and circumscribed the longer a government is in power. It was this tendency to accumulate power and narrow the range of freedoms that inspired Jefferson to express enthusiasm for the possibility of revolutions against the established order every generation or so.
In fact, the trend line of slave rebellions and race riots and other forms of civil unrest shows a peak every 45 years or so.
Exactly Steven, though I disagree with you on lots of other stuff.
I will be making my cabinet choices for the potential Catholic Trotskyist government soon. You will all be shocked about many of my choices, especially my treasury secretary.
Here’s a hint: He’s another person who used Catholicism in a way recently in the last election that made a lot of people think he was mentally ill.
Steven Druckenmiller
January 15, 2009
Since you’re citing Thomas Jefferson, perhaps you can expound a little bit on what “consent of the governed” means? I bet he didn’t mean “100%”.
The laws are stupid and outrageous. No one should be subject to the laws. Indeed, since just laws arise from the consent of the governed, then everyone is above the laws.
And, of course, laws which do not arise from the consent of the governed are neither just nor truly laws.
I wouldn’t praise him for not paying his taxes, his situation suggests only that he feels the elite should not be subject to the laws. He shows no sympathy for the burdens that current and future taxes create for us regular folks.
Trent, “he simply accepts that B is likely to happen.”
No. He accepts that B is a consequence of A, and it is something he is willing to live with. I am not.
On his side is compulsion, coercion, brutality, and force. Steven Druckenmiller believes in these things, he insists that they are necessary, and he demands that everyone else obey. Those who are commanded to pay taxes must pay them. If the consequence of their unwillingness to cooperate with their own destruction is death, he’s okay with that. I am not.
I am defiance. I am for consent, cooperation, and voluntary behavior. I defy the order to obey. I defy the demand for compulsion. I defy the command economy. I am defiance.
There is no agreement between compulsion and consent. There is no reasonable middle ground. There is no possibility of working together. There is either compulsion, coercion, command, and brutality, or there is consent, cooperation, and choice.
I stand for consent. I stand for free choice. That means, necessarily, essentially, and vitally, that I stand against anyone who prefers compulsion, who excuses compulsion, who demands compulsion.
And if that doesn’t work for you, if that doesn’t build up your party, if that doesn’t seem agreeable, if that hurts your feelings, too bad.
You can cavil, equivocate, and compromise all you want with evil. Compulsion is evil. And it isn’t going to get better by arguing with it.
Prospective,
I disagree. That sort of rhetorical approach is, in my opinion, why we have failed to persuade more people to agree with us if they have considered our viewpoint, or to consider our view point seriously if they come across it at all.
We already have an uphill task in convincing people of the viability of a radically different social arrangement which they have been overwhelmingly taught to reject. Starting out by insulting everyone who does not already fully agree with us and assuming that they are arguing in bad faith is tremendously damaging to our chances of persuasion.
That sort of ideological attack might satisfy some emotional craving for the illusion of power, but it is very counterproductive because it damages our ability to persuade people, which is our only chance.
Too many libertarians engage in this type of tactic – impotently trying to bully their way through arguments – and fail to either force or persuade anyone to change their mind, except to naturally recoil against anything we say, as most anyone would when being verbally assaulted. This, I think, is the number one reason why there are not a lot more libertarians already.
So why do libertarians persist in rhetorical tactics that do damage to our cause? Mostly out of frustration. Since we have no power to make the change we so strongly believe needs to be made in the world, lashing out at whoever will listen – usually, our near-libertarian or our already libertarian near-anarchist allies, or other libertarian anarchists – is the only recourse left.
Giving in to this frustration is the easy way out. It beats having to deal with the arguments other people make seriously. Learning and teaching is difficult. Persuasion is not easy, and it’s frustrating. But it’s the only thing we have; we’ve already rejected force, and even if we were to engage in responsive force, we are outmanned and outgunned. So, persuasion is the only hope we have to make things better.
I feel the same frustration too, and I have given in to it many times. I still do all too often. But I’m trying not to. I hope you will as well.
“The fact is that Steven wants the government to collect taxes with compulsion. Which means, necessarily, he wants men, women, and children to be brutally slaughtered by the government in the work of collecting taxes. Steven lies when he says otherwise. ”
This isnt true. Because he admits that his favored program A will result in B, doesnt mean he WANTS B to happen, he simply accepts that B is likely to happen. Id guess that he would want to avoid B as much as possible.
Here is why Steven Druckenmiller is a worthless bag of sleazy filth.
When I say that enforcing the tax laws by compulsion means that people are going to be killed by tax law enforcers because people HAVE been killed by tax law enforcers, he doesn’t deny it. He then attacks me by equating my willingness to point out this fact with Michael Moore, or George Bush, because he’s done with reasoning, and Steven only has ad hominem comments left.
The fact is that Steven wants the government to collect taxes with compulsion. Which means, necessarily, he wants men, women, and children to be brutally slaughtered by the government in the work of collecting taxes. Steven lies when he says otherwise. He is disingenuous about his desire for liberty. He is not a sincere libertarian, and he is not a man with the kind of courage it took for seven dozen Texans to stand against a warrantless search by dozens of ATF agents. Nor does he admire men and women with that kind of courage.
Steven Druckenmiller is a despicable worm. His own words condemn him as the worst sort of equivocating, compromising, kneeling, kowtowing, bowing, scraping, and ass kissing slime.
Now, there you go, other gentle readers. That’s irony for you. Waterboard him until he admits that waterboarding is torture, and show him how ad hominem is really done.
“Do you have any kind of drive to parse through difficult problems for reasonable solutions…”.
Yes, of course, I am quite interested in difficult and even seemingly intractable problems, as well as using reasoning to find solutions. But, what you mean by reasonable is: why am I not willing to compromise all my freedom, all my principles, in order for you to have the compulsory power of taxation.
And the answer is: because you suck. Because your desire for compulsory taxation is evil. And you’ll never admit it.
except someone would roll up your town and become the de facto government in short order
I disagree.
I would much rather do without it. It’s just that I don’t really want to have to move thousands of miles to not have such “benefits” – and besides, where would I move to?
So, what if you had to move 100s of miles? That’s federalism. If you had to move 10 miles, that would be my vision of small government. Not having to move at all would be anarchism (except someone would roll up your town and become the de facto government in short order).
For me, at root, people with weaponry will have dominance over those without. The question is how best to restrain the use of that force.
People point to Somalia as a place without government, but what would you call the Islamic Courts Union?
Gangs with guns will always press for dominance, because it is easier to get resources, women and labor when you’re in control.
And right, the entire canon of land property law starts on the premise that the government of the area initially owns the land and sells it/homesteads it/gives it away to others to settle.
I disagree with that premise.
But, if you did, do you feel you should still be entitled to the protection provided by the local and state police and the national armed forces? Yes, I am aware that all of those entities have authority, budgets and capabilities far past what we think they need, but at the same time, you still DO benefit from the existence of those entities.
I don’t consider it a benefit. I would much rather do without it. It’s just that I don’t really want to have to move thousands of miles to not have such “benefits” – and besides, where would I move to?
It’s like if I came to your house, made repairs you did not ask for, damaged your things in the process, did a shoddy job, and then presented you with an outrageously high bill and the promise I would be back for more of the same on a regular basis. Don’t like that? Well, then, move a few thousand miles to a place with a completely alien culture where you do not speak the language, if one even exists!
Even if you were told to sign an explicit contract with the government, that still wouldn’t satisfy many here, because then that contract would be coming with the implicit threat that you have to leave if you do not sign it.
And right, the entire canon of land property law starts on the premise that the government of the area initially owns the land and sells it/homesteads it/gives it away to others to settle.
But even if I renounced my citizenship…
But, if you did, do you feel you should still be entitled to the protection provided by the local and state police and the national armed forces? Yes, I am aware that all of those entities have authority, budgets and capabilities far past what we think they need, but at the same time, you still DO benefit from the existence of those entities.
This is true of private contract enforcement as well. Allow me a hypothetical: suppose someone borrows money from a bank to buy a house and then defaults on the loan. What happens when the bank wants its money or the property?
At least in that case, I would have actually signed a contract with the bank, rather than being judged as bound by some ambiguous social contract I never agreed to.
Well, that’s not entirely true: I did take the citizenship oath, but I was twelve years old or so at the time; and I have occasionally signed paperwork, such as voter registration cards, that says I’m a US Citizen. I probably should stop doing stuff like that, to be more consistent.
But even if I renounced my citizenship, the regime would not renounce its tax claims against me, so that may be either pointless or besides the point.
I am both aware of the “men with guns” reductio and the fact that I do not get exclusive say and control over where federal and state tax dollars go. The current situation is not where I, nor most people here, would like it to be.
But at some point, it has to involve the threat of forced confiscation of property and/or imprisonment, or it is ineffective.
This is true of private contract enforcement as well. Allow me a hypothetical: suppose someone borrows money from a bank to buy a house and then defaults on the loan. What happens when the bank wants its money or the property?
Well, granted, most of the time tax law enforcement does not involve slaughtering anyone.
But at some point, it has to involve the threat of forced confiscation of property and/or imprisonment, or it is ineffective.
If the person being demanded taxes of resists, it has to involve up to and including deadly force, or it is ineffective.
If there are women and children “being used as human shields” from the tax enforcer’s view, they might die, as at Waco.
It is also true that the proceeds of the money include slaughtering people, including civilians, and including women and children, in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and your friendly hometown drug warzone.
Enforcing the tax laws means slaughtering women and children.
How does it feel to be the intellectual equivalent of Michael Moore? Do you have any kind of drive to parse through difficult problems for reasonable solutions, or is everything 4th-grade-level platitudes to you?
No, I take that back: you’re the intellectual equivalent to George Bush: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Peter, those who advocate the initiation of force, and demand the compulsory collection of taxes, are in fact evil. That many people are eager to tolerate evil is a commonplace.
If you don’t care for the vigorous fight for liberty, don’t be a part of it.
“A politic minister will study to lull us into
security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity
and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. … When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the
knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude more than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! ” – Sam Adams
The massacre of the Davidians was over some tax papers. Enforcing the tax laws means slaughtering women and children.
If you aren’t comfortable with that fact, change your government.
Andrew Davis comes up with these? A more recent entry announces his resignation. Perhaps soon we’ll get some less tainted polls.
Mr. Orvetti – unfortunately, there seems to be a very vocal, blisteringly-malicious minority of pure retributivist a priori anarchists here, who think any deviation from the Faith makes one Satan.
Peter,
Try spending time at FEE.org or FFForg. In that way you get the principled Austrian outlook but without the crazy.
I voted Maybe. It doesn’t say much about his competence, for he is unlikely to be a tax protestor or even evader.
I would likely vote that he should not be confirmed for his key role in the bailout.
Putting the 2 together says Geithner (sp?) is a weak choice, but then aren’t most of them?
The Republicans really have taken over. Has the LP done a daily poll asking if Obama is an illegal immigrant who should be deported yet?
As long as you support the compulsory collection of taxes, I don’t believe your denials.
Well, considering that I don’t believe in paying taxes, I would have to vote no, especially since I wouldn’t want to set a president that would make it harder for anti-tax libertarians and anyone else who doesn’t believe in or pay a tax a particular tax from holding an office in government.
I do find this guy not paying a tax to be hypocritical though, since he is obviously favored by an administration that supports big government and high taxes.
If I thought he’d make the same kinds of “mistakes” in favor of all of the individuals paying taxes, I’d support his confirmation.
It’s not that I especially like this Obama appointee, nor would I be likely to like any potential replacement Obama appointee. It’s just that I don’t dislike him because he fudged on his taxes. If anything, that would be a point in his favor – but it does not, by itself, say much about how the rest of us would be treated.
oops, that should read:
I hereby deny that I have now, nor have I ever, nor would I, cheer on the raid at Waco.
I, Steven Druckenmiller, do hereby deny:
1. That I want to see anyone raped, killed or tortured.
2. That I have not now, nor have I ever, nor would I, cheer on the raid in Waco.
Good enough? Now, go away, little one.
His defenders say he should be confirmed because it was “just a mistake that he later corrected.”
The guy can’t even reliably calculate his own taxes correctly — so Obama wants to but him in ultimate charge of both the collection and the disbursement of taxes from/to 300-odd million people.
If I thought he’d make the same kinds of “mistakes” in favor of all of the individuals paying taxes, I’d support his confirmation.
That’s probably not quite how it will work out, though. I rather suspect that his “mistakes” will continue to be of the variety which … inadvertently, of course, wink, nudge — benefit him or his employer.
I suppose you think your comments at 20 are some sort of denial. If so, they aren’t in any way convincing.
When you say that you would not coerce me into military service, I simply don’t believe you. I think you are an authoritarian. I think you liked the idea, for example, of the Davidian Barbecue near Waco in 1993. I think you would have been cheering if you were old enough at the time to understand it. I think you like the idea of every government agent enforcing at the point of a gun every conceivable law. I think you like to see dead bodies, broken and mutilated bodies, and people in prison.
I’ve not seen you make any sort of compelling appeal to the contrary.
What are these feeble social signals? You think that because someone dares to live in the same country with you they have agreed to be governed just as you think they ought to be governed. They can protest, they can vote against those in power, they can refuse to vote, and you’ll always say that the government is legitimate.
And I say the reason for that is your craven and despicable desire to see people hurt. As many and as often as possible. That’s why you support all these wars. You like civilians being massacred and you like the idea of soldiers raping women in other countries. You’ve never written a single word against these ideas.
your love of authority and your craving to see more of your neighbors beaten, raped, and killed by police.
JimDavidson? G.E.? Is that you?
Regardless, I see you are not serious about this continued conversation. I can only presume that you resorted to these ridiculous and invented “positions” I supposedly hold in the same way a cornered animal lashes out.
Who said anything about impunity? Only people in government behave badly and expect to get away with it. Actions have consequences. Seeing you try to put on the cloak of adult maturity at this stage is very funny.
I deride your opinion of what most people think a phrase means. You don’t know most people. You have made no effort to meet very many people. You have no idea what most people think. You cannot offer compelling evidence that most people read dictionaries or are especially equipped to form a useful opinion of what “above the law” means.
What I am saying is that I am better than any law to which I have consented, and necessarily better to any law which is imposed without my consent. That is what I mean by being above the law. And it is all that I mean. Your attempts to twist the meaning around so you can claw out my eyes are not especially amusing.
I’m not obligated to set a threshold at which the law becomes legitimate. Those who enforce the law don’t care. They’ll break in doors and kill anyone who gets in their way, whether or not the law is legitimate, whether or not a law has ever been broken. And you know it.
And, of course, you like it that way. You like the mangled bodies of your countrymen to be mangled, because it satisfies your authoritarian spirit.
You have failed to object to my frequent statements about your love of authority and your craving to see more of your neighbors beaten, raped, and killed by police.
you force me to be represented
I do? How?
you demand that I pay taxes whether or not I owe them
I do? How?
you would coerce me into service in the military
No, I would not.
I don’t agree with the concept of implied consent.
So, do you expressly consent to be billed for the food you order in a restaurant? Because I do not. Do you think you should just be able to give all of the accepted social signals and nonverbal signs for consent and then claim, ex post, that you never expressly consented and therefore your consent is not valid?
Everyone is above the law in that case, because they have the freedom to withhold their consent.
Being an adult brings with it the recognizance that you cannot withhold your consent with impunity.
Basically, what you have said here is “Even if I consent to the law, I am above the law because I can withhold my consent”, It is true that you are “above the law” because of your nature, but you are equivocating on what “above the law” means. To most people, being above the law means “breaking the law”, and if you have consented to be ruled by the law, then there are consequences for breach, just like in contractual obligations.
Regardless, you have still failed to set a threshold at which the law becomes legitimate.
Representatives do not in fact have a contract with their constituents to do what they agreed in their campaigns. Indeed, all case precedent on this matter shows that representatives have no binding obligation to do anything they said they would do. There is not very much case precedent because the courts don’t allow anyone to have “standing” to object to things done by representative legislatures.
I don’t agree with the concept of implied consent. The very essence of commercial law is the nature of consent. For consent to be valid, it must be given knowingly, willingly, and competently. To validate the fact of consent, there should also be an exchange of value.
Your statement “Just because a narrow minority voted for the winner does not make said winner illegitimate” also works my way “Just because a narrow minority voted for the winner does not make said winner legitimate.” Indeed, I don’t think a narrow minority represents majority consent for anything. You obviously don’t care about people who are not qualified to vote, who don’t register to vote, who are registered but don’t choose to vote, and who voted for the guy who didn’t win. But, you are a notorious authoritarian, and you don’t mind who gets hurt as long as someone gets elected, by whatever crooked means.
I don’t agree to play the game. But, again, you force me to be represented, you demand that I pay taxes whether or not I owe them, you would coerce me into service in the military, all in the name of the authority to which you pay obeisance.
You assert that those who failed to show up were given an opportunity, but this is simply false. As above, many people are not qualified to vote, and if they do show up, if they do vote, are guilty of a felony. So, you are full of nonsense. You don’t want to worry about the people who are so sick of you and your system that they won’t participate. “You got no fear of the underdog. That’s why you will not survive.”
My point, which I’ll now reiterate in other words because you seem to fail to get it, is that everyone is above the law.
All are above the law. Two cases here. Case one, the law has consent. Everyone is above the law in that case, because they have the freedom to withhold their consent. If consent was obtained – by whatever standard you choose – then the law is just.
The existence of consent establishes that everyone is above those laws where consent has been obtained. Why? Because the nature of consent sets those who consent above what they consent to.
The other case is that consent is not obtained, again, by any standard. Where consent is absent, there is not a just law. And, again, everyone is above such a law.
Your idea that I have to be responsive to you is simple minded idiocy. I don’t consent to respond to you as you prefer. I respond just as I please.
P.A. – That’s not really responsive. I am aware that the consent of the governed comes from multiple sources; I was just citing the one from whom most people get the concept.
Your point was the laws are not legitimate laws because they lack consent. You seem to be positing that there IS a certain threshold at which the laws would be legitimate…but then you undo that by seeming to state that representatives are not contracted with their constituencies.
many who are registered to vote never bother to vote, and of those who vote only a narrow majority typically voted for the winning candidate certainly limits what constitutes consent of the governed to a minority.
Alternatively, you can imply consent on two bases: 1. Just because a narrow minority voted for the winner does not make said winner illegitimate. If nothing else, societies would be extremely unstable if failure to garner a certain percentage of the vote meant that the current holder of the position was illegitimate. IOW, you don’t get to pick up your ball and go home once you’ve agreed to play the game.
2. You can also imply consent in that those who fail to show up were given the opportunity to express their objections and could not be bothered.
Thomas Jefferson is not the only person who ever wrote about consent of the governed. Thomas Paine was at some pains to write extensively on this topic.
The concept of legitimate government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed is not only among the significant language of the Declaration of Independence, but also forms the basis of the central error of classical liberalism. The classical liberals advanced the hypothesis that governments were established with the consent of the governed for the purpose of protecting rights, such as life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness.
The evidence is overwhelming that governments are rarely formed with anything more than the pretense of consent. Even where consent is overwhelming, it is not necessarily ongoing. The fact that many people are not qualified to vote for various reasons made up by those in power, many who are qualified don’t ever register, and many who are registered to vote never bother to vote, and of those who vote only a narrow majority typically voted for the winning candidate certainly limits what constitutes consent of the governed to a minority. The complete absence of any form of contract establishes that representatives have no obligation to act as agents for those they pretend to represent.
There is also overwhelming evidence that governments, once established by whatever means, fail to protect rights. Indeed, freedom becomes increasingly narrow and circumscribed the longer a government is in power. It was this tendency to accumulate power and narrow the range of freedoms that inspired Jefferson to express enthusiasm for the possibility of revolutions against the established order every generation or so.
In fact, the trend line of slave rebellions and race riots and other forms of civil unrest shows a peak every 45 years or so.
Exactly Steven, though I disagree with you on lots of other stuff.
I will be making my cabinet choices for the potential Catholic Trotskyist government soon. You will all be shocked about many of my choices, especially my treasury secretary.
Here’s a hint: He’s another person who used Catholicism in a way recently in the last election that made a lot of people think he was mentally ill.
Since you’re citing Thomas Jefferson, perhaps you can expound a little bit on what “consent of the governed” means? I bet he didn’t mean “100%”.
The laws are stupid and outrageous. No one should be subject to the laws. Indeed, since just laws arise from the consent of the governed, then everyone is above the laws.
And, of course, laws which do not arise from the consent of the governed are neither just nor truly laws.
Who comes up with these polls, by the way?
Andrew Davis, as far as I know.
I wouldn’t praise him for not paying his taxes, his situation suggests only that he feels the elite should not be subject to the laws. He shows no sympathy for the burdens that current and future taxes create for us regular folks.
Who comes up with these polls, by the way?
A reason to confirm him is because he is cavalier about the laws he wants to help enforce on the public?
I voted “No”. There are many reasons to not confirm him, this is a reason TO confirm him.
+1
Rocky took the words right out of my mouth!
Hell, he should be given a medal for not paying his taxes. There are probably a hundred other reasons to deny him confirmation.
Current results:
Yes
64% (16 votes)
Maybe
8% (2 votes)
No
28% (7 votes)
Total votes: 25