Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Regulations?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:42:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should the Government regulate anything?

Why not?

Why so?

I think that many people can argue each side with facts to back their arguments, so show me the facts.

Liberals want more regulation
Conservatives want less regulation

Convince me either way.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:52:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 10:42:43 PM, comoncents wrote:

Liberals want more regulation
Conservatives want less regulation

You Americans and your parties sure, F up the meanings of words.

I would assume liberals, those who peruse social freedoms, would be more inclined to follow less government intervention as a whole.

However, the terms your politicians use to describe there stances, both social and fiscal, are merely meaningless words to gets votes and positive affiliation. EG. What is Ron Paul or Rush Limbaugh?

It might just be worse than england's current political titles.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Zets, I think it's more like this:

liberals= more economic regulation, less social regulation
conservatives= less economic regulation, more social regulation.

I fit in the more economic regulation, more social regulation category so I'm neither liberal nor conservative.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:02:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 10:55:08 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Zets, I think it's more like this:

liberals= more economic regulation, less social regulation
conservatives= less economic regulation, more social regulation.

I fit in the more economic regulation, more social regulation category so I'm neither liberal nor conservative.

They mean nothing! :P

Actions not titles. The definitions are okay but vague, from the above, it's sounds like Democrat(Lib) vs Republican(Con)
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:04:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:02:42 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/21/2010 10:55:08 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Zets, I think it's more like this:

liberals= more economic regulation, less social regulation
conservatives= less economic regulation, more social regulation.

I fit in the more economic regulation, more social regulation category so I'm neither liberal nor conservative.

They mean nothing! :P

Actions not titles. The definitions are okay but vague, from the above, it's sounds like Democrat(Lib) vs Republican(Con)

Both parties (At least, the politicians in the parties) want more intervention in our personal lives and more intervention in the economy. They just want slightly different forms of intervention for each. (For example, gun control vs. banning gay marriage)
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:08:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 10:42:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
Should the Government regulate anything?

Why not?

Why so?




I think that many people can argue each side with facts to back their arguments, so show me the facts.


Convince me either way.

Oh My God! Answer the question!
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:10:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:04:50 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:02:42 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/21/2010 10:55:08 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Zets, I think it's more like this:

liberals= more economic regulation, less social regulation
conservatives= less economic regulation, more social regulation.

I fit in the more economic regulation, more social regulation category so I'm neither liberal nor conservative.

They mean nothing! :P

Actions not titles. The definitions are okay but vague, from the above, it's sounds like Democrat(Lib) vs Republican(Con)

Both parties (At least, the politicians in the parties) want more intervention in our personal lives and more intervention in the economy. They just want slightly different forms of intervention for each. (For example, gun control vs. banning gay marriage)

Yeah, I know lines blur. What I meant was that the general assumption or traditional stance was best, though vaguely, described above.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:10:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As for the original topic:
What justification is there for regulation in the first place? Why should the state intervene in voluntary interactions between consenting adults? What justification do you have demanding I follow some bureaucrat's arbitrary rule? What gives the government the right to arrest me if I dare to disobey one of their demands, and, if I refuse to be kidnapped, shoot and kill me?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:11:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
for demanding*
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:15:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:08:24 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 10:42:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
Should the Government regulate anything?
Yes.
Why not?

cus' otherwise it's not a real goverment because it doesn't govern.
Why so?




I think that many people can argue each side with facts to back their arguments, so show me the facts.


Convince me either way.


Oh My God! Answer the question!

inb4 - libertarians, with minimalist government control and 'rational self interest'.

There are more important maxims above personal freedom. Eg general happiness.(even if it's against your personal interests)

----
Offline, getting ready 4 church!!
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maxims of a good goverment.

General happiness <-> Utilitarianism backed by Altruism.
Humanist Moral Law
Freedom (That does impose the above)
Civil Rights

In that order. Why? Ask history and look at modern goverment. Subjective as hell but it works.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:21:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:19:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Maxims of a good goverment.

General happiness <-> Utilitarianism backed by Altruism.
Humanist Moral Law
Freedom (That does impose the above)
Civil Rights

In that order. Why? Ask history and look at modern goverment. Subjective as hell but it works.

Setting aside the problem of how to measure "general happiness," what makes you think that regulation even increases general happiness?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:19:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Maxims of a good goverment.

General happiness <-> Utilitarianism backed by Altruism.

How do you get "general happiness" by codifying a morality which explicitly cripples individual happiness?

Humanist Moral Law

A superfluous term.

Freedom (That does impose the above)

The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

Civil Rights

Like what?

In that order. Why? Ask history and look at modern goverment. Subjective as hell but it works.

So you're appealing, simultaneously, to tradition and common practice? That's a helluva logically fallacious twofer.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:33:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:21:00 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:19:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Maxims of a good goverment.

General happiness <-> Utilitarianism backed by Altruism.
Humanist Moral Law
Freedom (That does impose the above)
Civil Rights

In that order. Why? Ask history and look at modern goverment. Subjective as hell but it works.

Setting aside the problem of how to measure "general happiness," what makes you think that regulation even increases general happiness?

General happiness is quite obvious to judge in today's world. Basic's are welfare, social programs and the people's state concepts. Keynesian economics with heavy tax, modern Swede, 1960s Japanese, 1980s German and macroeconomic post war models. (Dare I say Reaganism? ...)

Economic regulation increases general happiness if you keep it at a certain level (depends on state). Look up 20th Century 1st world economic history.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:40:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:19:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Maxims of a good goverment.

General happiness <-> Utilitarianism backed by Altruism.

How do you get "general happiness" by codifying a morality which explicitly cripples individual happiness?
I don't see a free market in a utilitarianism state.
Humanist Moral Law

A superfluous term.
Don't murder, fraud, steal. Do unto others and you wish yourself. A moral law.
Freedom (That does impose the above)

The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.
It's a primary component of a just society but not the primary component of a just society. I'm imposing a moral duty unto the citizenry for care of the sovereign state as a whole, don't like then you can geeeed out.
Civil Rights

Like what?
Gee boss, I dunno.
In that order. Why? Ask history and look at modern goverment. Subjective as hell but it works.

So you're appealing, simultaneously, to tradition and common practice? That's a helluva logically fallacious twofer.
I know but this is fiscal politics.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:42:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

You mistake a common government to all governments. Cody wants a government that protects the free rights.

Cody, how does one fund the Objectivist government?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:43:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?

User fees I assume.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:44:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:43:05 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?

User fees I assume.

Mandatory user fees? If so, then it's taxation. If they're voluntary, then it what sense is this institution a 'government' rather than a private defense organization?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:46:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:44:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:43:05 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?

User fees I assume.

Mandatory user fees? If so, then it's taxation. If they're voluntary, then it what sense is this institution a 'government' rather than a private defense organization?

Do you suggest anarchy then? You do see the fallacy in this right?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:47:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:40:22 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:19:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Maxims of a good goverment.

General happiness <-> Utilitarianism backed by Altruism.

How do you get "general happiness" by codifying a morality which explicitly cripples individual happiness?
I don't see a free market in a utilitarianism state.

Exactly. Utilitarianism destroys individual happiness.

Humanist Moral Law

A superfluous term.
Don't murder, fraud, steal. Do unto others and you wish yourself. A moral law.

First of all, morality isn't a "law". "Moral law" is intrinsically self-contradicting.

Second of all, "Humanisy Morality" implies that said ethical code is to a human's benefit. Altruism is precisely the opposite.

Freedom (That does impose the above)

The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

It's a primary component of a just society but not the primary component of a just society.

Okay.

I'm imposing a moral duty unto the citizenry for care of the sovereign state as a whole, don't like then you can geeeed out.

Firstly, you're a tyrant.

Secondly, "moral duty" is a contradiction.

Thirdly, morality isn't subjective. You don't just get to change the sort of values necessary for man's survival by dictating legal obligations.

Fourthly, you're the one that needs to leave. You have no right to make me a slave of the state, and there's no way you can justly expect me to uproot my entire life because you want to play around with government.

Fifthly, nothing "as a whole" has rights. Collectives don't have life, volition, or rights.

Civil Rights

Like what?
Gee boss, I dunno.

Perhaps that's because your society probably advocates things like the "right to serve the glorious State".

In that order. Why? Ask history and look at modern goverment. Subjective as hell but it works.

So you're appealing, simultaneously, to tradition and common practice? That's a helluva logically fallacious twofer.
I know but this is fiscal politics.

So, what you're saying is, "fiscal politics" is based on two interconnected logical fallacies? Who would have thought?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:47:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:46:54 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:44:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:43:05 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?

User fees I assume.

Mandatory user fees? If so, then it's taxation. If they're voluntary, then it what sense is this institution a 'government' rather than a private defense organization?

Do you suggest anarchy then? You do see the fallacy in this right?

Yes, obviously, I do. And no, I'm afraid I don't see the "fallacy" in suggesting anarchy.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:48:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:44:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Mandatory user fees? If so, then it's taxation. If they're voluntary, then it what sense is this institution a 'government' rather than a private defense organization?

I'm not an Objectivist, I was just anticipating Cody's answer. He can answer this.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:49:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:44:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:43:05 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?

User fees I assume.

Mandatory user fees? If so, then it's taxation. If they're voluntary, then it what sense is this institution a 'government' rather than a private defense organization?

1. There's no competition for what the government does.

2. Governments have jurisdiction. Private contractors don't.

3. It's probably difficult for you to accept that government doesn't necessarily have to be an intrinsically coercive institution.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:51:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:42:49 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

You mistake a common government to all governments. Cody wants a government that protects the free rights.

There's no special subdivision of rights called "free rights".

Cody, how does one fund the Objectivist government?

Voluntarily.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 11:51:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 11:47:58 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:46:54 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:44:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:43:05 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:41:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:40:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:38:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 11:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The government's only purpose is to protect rights. Political freedom is a primary component of a just society.

The government's job is to protect rights? Don't you see the contradiction in this statement? The government, by its very nature, violates individual rights by stealing from its citizens at gunpoint (among other things).

I'm an Objectivist. I don't believe in taxation. Don't you dare compare me to those sorts of people.

Sorry. But, then, how does the government get its revenue?

User fees I assume.

Mandatory user fees? If so, then it's taxation. If they're voluntary, then it what sense is this institution a 'government' rather than a private defense organization?

Do you suggest anarchy then? You do see the fallacy in this right?

Yes, obviously, I do. And no, I'm afraid I don't see the "fallacy" in suggesting anarchy.

You need an authority figure(government) to control a market, anarchy has negative connotation because you can't control anarchy.

How do you control the dogs if you have no leach?
'sup DDO -- july 2013