Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => General FSP Discussion => Topic started by: magentarose on September 14, 2008, 02:01:47 pm

Title: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: magentarose on September 14, 2008, 02:01:47 pm
Thanks everyone for being so friendly. I listened to an episode of free talk live and left a message on their message boards. To shorten a long story I basically got beaten up because I think that crack dealers should go to prison. I know that this Free State Project doesn't support any specific political view but if I join something I want to share common views. Would most people in the Free State Project look at me as a bad person for wanting a crack dealer free state?

I am for the legalization of marijuana.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 14, 2008, 02:06:56 pm
Why crack dealers?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: magentarose on September 14, 2008, 02:26:05 pm
Why crack dealers?

I don't know, that's what the discussion turned to. Someone used it as an example.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: freedomroad on September 14, 2008, 02:26:33 pm
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23855.0
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: freedomroad on September 14, 2008, 02:30:25 pm
Why crack dealers?

I don't know, that's what the discussion turned to. Someone used it as an example.

But why do you think crack dealers should go to prison?  Is it because some crack dealers break their crack with dangerous things to spread the crack out and make more money but do not tell their clients that the crack is not as pure as it was before they split it?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 14, 2008, 02:32:21 pm
magentarose, welcome!

First of all, you're a brave woman going on the FTL BBS.  I don't know if anyone can go on there and not get beat up...pretty rough if you don't have thick skin.

Your subject line is about the connection between the FSP and FTL.  FTL is the FSP's biggest recruiter, and both hosts are FSP members.  The FSP also sponsors ads on FTL.  However, the audience that listens to FTL skews anarchistic and a large number of FSP members aren't anarchists.

You'll find all types of people in the project and we disagree on various policies, but all agree to the statement of intent: That the maximum role of government is to protect life, liberty and property, and should not punish people or reward them for activities that harm no one else.  It's not the government's job to take care of people.  It's proper role is to protect them from aggression.

I recommend coming up to visit during the Liberty Forum this March and meeting us.  I think you'll find that we're a nice, varied, intelligent and accepting group of people.  

Do you want more freedom, magentarose?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 14, 2008, 02:36:20 pm
Btw, I just started reading the BBS thread.  Allow me to answer of few of your posts.

I'm a pro-life Christian libertarian.  Yes, we have those in the project  :)

Btw, the laws in New Hampshire regarding guns are WAYYY better than Texas'.  I'm serious.  Texas gun laws don't hold a candle to New Hampshire's gun laws.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: magentarose on September 14, 2008, 03:06:32 pm
Why crack dealers?

I don't know, that's what the discussion turned to. Someone used it as an example.

But why do you think crack dealers should go to prison?  Is it because some crack dealers break their crack with dangerous things to spread the crack out and make more money but do not tell their clients that the crack is not as pure as it was before they split it?

It's not my life's goal to stop crack dealers. It really wasn't anything I thought about before someone used it as an example.

The thing I'm wondering about is how extreme this group is, and even if we aren't all in the same paragraph at least we should be on the same page. I'm just trying to see if this Free State Project is something worth fighting for. It's awesome that the gun laws are more relaxed in NH than in TX. Actually, after I posted that I started thinking about what happened in Waco and realized that TX was a bad example.

I'll start spending more time reading the messages here instead of the FTL forums.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: maxxoccupancy on September 14, 2008, 03:14:18 pm
magentarose, welcome!

First of all, you're a brave woman going on the FTL BBS.  I don't know if anyone can go on there and not get beat up...pretty rough if you don't have thick skin.

Well, I'm a sailor, myself, so those whale raping donkey f*(&ers don't worry me a bit.  There are tons of anarchists and debatatarians on ftl, so it seems ok as a recruiting tool, but not much else.  Despite the actions of the new Dem majority in Conquered, NH is either the freest, or one of the top five freest states in the US, depending on how you measure it.  It's one of the safest, and for a liberty lover, this is perhaps the best place to be.  Other than FSW, I don't think that there's a welcome wagon of any size anywhere in the country.

I'm also a pro-life Christian libertarian, and there are quite a few of us in the Project who are not "100%."  In fact, we're disproportionately represented amongst the doers.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Rebel on September 14, 2008, 03:39:41 pm
More than likely, in a free society (which we seek to create) crack selling would be relegated to your typical drug store. Gangsters couldn't make any money at it and thus crime wouldn't flow from the using or selling of it (unless it was taxed to the point of re-creating the black market). Not to say that some wouldn't try to bake it at home... It just seems to me that crack selling thrives under our current system. However, crack users would probably be ostracized--especially if they're hard-core users. Most drug consumption is manageable for responsible people and those that are irresponsible have the right to self-destruct. And, responsible people tend to know when their habit is spiraling out of control. Bolstering my 2nd pt, Heroin/meth/crack users wouldn't have to steal from people in a free drug market since the cost per high would be next to minimal--unlike today where the prices are like 1700% higher under prohibition.

In addition, I'm a Catholic libertarian (figure that one out ;D)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 14, 2008, 03:43:45 pm
Also, neighborhood covenants could be used to keep buying, selling, & advertising of unsavory goods & services of all kinds out of areas where people don't want to be exposed to that kind of thing. No doubt this kind of voluntary (yet government-enforced, at least in the short term) solution would emerge in the absence of a blanket criminal penalty.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 14, 2008, 03:46:07 pm
Thanks everyone for being so friendly. I listened to an episode of free talk live and left a message on their message boards. To shorten a long story I basically got beaten up because I think that crack dealers should go to prison. I know that this Free State Project doesn't support any specific political view but if I join something I want to share common views. Would most people in the Free State Project look at me as a bad person for wanting a crack dealer free state?

I am for the legalization of marijuana.
That would most likely make you a constitutionalist, not a bad thing.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 14, 2008, 03:48:36 pm
Why crack dealers?

I don't know, that's what the discussion turned to. Someone used it as an example.

I see. I thought it was just a statement about your "hot button" issue.

Looks like a number of them over at FTL were quite rude. Unless you've genocidally slaughtered some Jews and Russians today, let me extend some apologies. But don't think too much of it. For many, lashing out in anger is much easier than educating.

Just for fun, let me be the eternal devil's advocate: suppose, as you'd prefer, the Federal government allowed decrim of other drugs on a state-by-state basis if the majority of the state wants to. If a state decriminalizes drugs, you can use them. If not, you go to prison for, let's say, 3 years.

Suppose State A and State B each have 100 people in them and the majority makes the rules. In State A, only 50 people want to criminalize drugs. But in State B, 51 people want to criminalize drugs. So, if you use drugs in State A, you're fine. If you use drugs in State B, you go to prison for 3 years.

Now, I don't think it's much debated that, generally, a person should not lock up any other person if she is not harming anyone. And that two people, working together, should not lock up another person. Or that three people should not lock someone up. And so on. Most people recognize this as undesirable, aggressive, and quite unneighborly. And even when we get to 50 people deciding that a person should be locked up, we still say that's not a good thing to do.

But, upon reaching that 51st person, this group of people should, morally, be able to imprison someone against her will? None of the people have the right to do it individually. But if the conspiracy becomes large enough, that means it should be acceptable?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 14, 2008, 04:08:49 pm
Not quite fair B.D.
We're voluntarist. So while we believe that victimless crimes should not (heck could not) exist, others positions exists.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 14, 2008, 04:26:00 pm
It's awesome that the gun laws are more relaxed in NH than in TX. Actually, after I posted that I started thinking about what happened in Waco and realized that TX was a bad example.


Well, Waco was a result of the Federal government.  There's not much the state can do in that situation, be it in TX or NH.  Texas just has a lot more restrictions on where you can carry, what you have to do to get a license to carry, and it also doesn't allow open carry.

What the FSP was originally aiming for was a 1/2 to 2/3 reduction in state government, if that gives you an idea of how "extreme" the group as a whole is.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 14, 2008, 05:07:39 pm
Not quite fair B.D.
We're voluntarist. So while we believe that victimless crimes should not (heck could not) exist, others positions exists.


Quite fair! I asked a simple question. Maybe then I will understand what she's saying and why she believes what she does ;)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Dreepa on September 14, 2008, 05:15:43 pm


In addition, I'm a Catholic libertarian (figure that one out ;D)

actually wasn't there a fairly large Catholic Libertarian movement.. the name is escaping me what they called it and the few 'leaders' of it.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 14, 2008, 05:32:22 pm
Lew Rockwell is Catholic
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: magentarose on September 14, 2008, 05:42:55 pm


Well, Waco was a result of the Federal government.  There's not much the state can do in that situation, be it in TX or NH. 
true


What the FSP was originally aiming for was a 1/2 to 2/3 reduction in state government, if that gives you an idea of how "extreme" the group as a whole is.

Thank you that totally answers my question and that is a goal I can completely stand behind and work towards.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Ren on September 14, 2008, 06:01:24 pm
 
Just for fun, let me be the eternal devil's advocate: suppose, as you'd prefer, the Federal government allowed decrim of other drugs on a state-by-state basis if the majority of the state wants to. If a state decriminalizes drugs, you can use them. If not, you go to prison for, let's say, 3 years.

Suppose State A and State B each have 100 people in them and the majority makes the rules. In State A, only 50 people want to criminalize drugs. But in State B, 51 people want to criminalize drugs. So, if you use drugs in State A, you're fine. If you use drugs in State B, you go to prison for 3 years. 

I am really enjoying learning about this group.  It's definitely got me thinking.  Now, on what you said in the quote.  One thing Im concerned about is that if some states legalize all drug use and some don't, won't be be asking for trouble for the states that do.  By this I mean, won't it bring in more and more drug addicts that can get their drugs easily and cause problems for the cities?  Meaning more homeless, needy people. I can see your point of decriminalizing drugs, that it will remove the criminal element., but what about the druggies themselves.  Most aren't the most redeeming citizens.  Most are users.  Using there so called friends and the system (welfare).  I know from what I am saying, as most of my son's friends went down the tubes when they got involved in drugs.  You basically would be bringing this element into your cities.  Also, drug dealers could easily buy the drug in the free states and then sell them in the non free states.  That would be a big problem for the non drug free states.  The only solution I can think of for these problems would be to make it a fed. issue and decriminalize every state - not going to happen.  BTW, I am mainly speaking of hard drugs, not marij.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 14, 2008, 06:07:09 pm
Thank you that totally answers my question and that is a goal I can completely stand behind and work towards.

Great!

If you can agree to the statement of intent (http://www.freestateproject.org/soi) with a clear conscience, please sign up! (http://www.freestateproject.org/user/register?type=Participant&tabs=hidden)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 14, 2008, 07:25:35 pm
 
Just for fun, let me be the eternal devil's advocate: suppose, as you'd prefer, the Federal government allowed decrim of other drugs on a state-by-state basis if the majority of the state wants to. If a state decriminalizes drugs, you can use them. If not, you go to prison for, let's say, 3 years.

Suppose State A and State B each have 100 people in them and the majority makes the rules. In State A, only 50 people want to criminalize drugs. But in State B, 51 people want to criminalize drugs. So, if you use drugs in State A, you're fine. If you use drugs in State B, you go to prison for 3 years. 

I am really enjoying learning about this group.  It's definitely got me thinking.  Now, on what you said in the quote.  One thing Im concerned about is that if some states legalize all drug use and some don't, won't be be asking for trouble for the states that do.  By this I mean, won't it bring in more and more drug addicts that can get their drugs easily and cause problems for the cities?  Meaning more homeless, needy people. I can see your point of decriminalizing drugs, that it will remove the criminal element., but what about the druggies themselves.  Most aren't the most redeeming citizens.  Most are users.  Using there so called friends and the system (welfare).  I know from what I am saying, as most of my son's friends went down the tubes when they got involved in drugs.  You basically would be bringing this element into your cities.  Also, drug dealers could easily buy the drug in the free states and then sell them in the non free states.  That would be a big problem for the non drug free states.  The only solution I can think of for these problems would be to make it a fed. issue and decriminalize every state - not going to happen.  BTW, I am mainly speaking of hard drugs, not marij.

Sjhipple just linked to the FSP Statement of Intent. If you enjoy what you've learned about FSP, maybe you'd like to sign up? ;D

With drug addicts being "not the most redeeming" citizens, I've found in reality, you wouldn't be able to spot most drug addicts out of a line-up. Sure, there are people that really fall off the deep-end or others that revel in drug culture (particularly cannibis, E). But most addicts, you'd never know--or even suspect it. They keep it to themselves--often because the activity is illegal. And whether that kind of secretive behavior is bad, you can be the judge.

Yes, it would be a problem for the drug-ban states because their criminal laws explicitly do make it a problem. If the issue is the "druggies", putting them in prison for 3 years solves nothing (big expense; underlying "problem" unaddressed). Drug addiction is not synonymous with homelessness--though it's certainly known to occur. If the element that's being brought into cities is "people being free to choose what they ingest", I certainly support that. If we want to look at aggregate data, check out the Netherlands' statistics on problem drug use. Not saying a welfare program should support it, but their liberal mindset and focus on treating the individual, would, imho, be a step forward. I would certainly donate money to support that.

As far as the traffic of drugs, that's another tangle of issues. Congress can constitutionally regulate those substances in interstate commerce. Exactly what it says it's doing now. Not very well of course ;)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2008, 10:56:17 am
I haven't seen any crack dealers in NH ... but then, I wouldn't know one when I saw one. :)
No crack sold on the streets in my neighborhood. ;D
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2008, 10:57:26 am
Thanks everyone for being so friendly.
Who's being friendly? We can beat them up.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2008, 10:58:20 am
I'm a pro-life Christian libertarian.  Yes, we have those in the project  :)
ditto
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2008, 11:09:50 am
The thing I'm wondering about is how extreme this group is, and even if we aren't all in the same paragraph at least we should be on the same page.

I'll start spending more time reading the messages here instead of the FTL forums.
Some of us in the FSP are very extreme.
Being here will teach you more about the FSP ... the FTLive boards don't even represent FTL.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Rebel on September 15, 2008, 01:10:25 pm
Lew Rockwell is Catholic
which is why I'm proud to be one 8)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: lloydbob1 on September 15, 2008, 07:21:09 pm
I haven't seen any crack dealers in NH ... but then, I wouldn't know one when I saw one. :)
No crack sold on the streets in my neighborhood. ;D

Pssst!
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: FTL_Ian on September 16, 2008, 09:56:33 pm
Magenta,

Welcome to the forum.  Thanks for supporting marijuana users being left alone.

Now, here are some questions:

Should MDMA (ecstasy) users and dealers be put in jail?

What if I don't want to pay for keeping the crack dealers in jail and stop paying property taxes in protest - what should happen to me?  Should I also go to jail?  What if I refuse to go?  Will you support the police killing or hurting me?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: freedomroad on September 16, 2008, 10:22:03 pm
What if I don't want to pay for keeping the crack dealers in jail and stop paying property taxes in protest - what should happen to me?  Should I also go to jail?  What if I refuse to go?  Will you support the police killing or hurting me?

Personal property tax is the most fair (still not fair) form of personal tax.  If you want really low property taxes you should vote with you feet and move out of Keene :)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 17, 2008, 06:51:06 am
Lew Rockwell is Catholic
which is why I'm proud to be one 8)
And why I'm ashamed.

What if I don't want to pay for keeping the crack dealers in jail and stop paying property taxes in protest - what should happen to me?  Should I also go to jail?  What if I refuse to go?  Will you support the police killing or hurting me?

Property tax is the most fair (still not fair) form of taxes.  If you want really low property taxes you should vote with you feet and move out of Keene :)
Property taxes being used to support federal prison?
Wonder if he can file to be a 501C(3)?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: magentarose on September 17, 2008, 02:00:58 pm
Magenta,

Welcome to the forum.  Thanks for supporting marijuana users being left alone.

Now, here are some questions:

Should MDMA (ecstasy) users and dealers be put in jail?

What if I don't want to pay for keeping the crack dealers in jail and stop paying property taxes in protest - what should happen to me?  Should I also go to jail?  What if I refuse to go?  Will you support the police killing or hurting me?

Thanks for the welcome. I really don't know too much about MDMA, but I believe that the legality of drugs should be on a state by state basis and not federally.

There are more productive ways of protest than not paying taxes. You would go to prison whether I agreed with it or not. There is a preacher that I'm very fond of that is in prison right now because he didn't pay his taxes. His name is Dr. Hovind and his website is drdino.com and he didn't believe in paying taxes. I'm terribly upset that he's in prison even though I don't agree with a some of what he says (though his science is right on the mark), and I most likely would be upset if you put yourself in that same situation.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 17, 2008, 02:12:39 pm
(though his science is right on the mark)

"Ken Hovind" and "science" really don't belong in the same sentence ;)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 17, 2008, 02:32:45 pm
upset enough to not fund or support the government?

I love that guy.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: lastlady on September 17, 2008, 02:51:54 pm
I think the only people who should be imprisoned are those who have murdered, raped,  or committed any kind of an assault on another human being.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Ferg on September 17, 2008, 04:50:51 pm
Whether or not one agrees with Hovind's view on history, we must agree that he was staunchly motivated to be a moral person, and he did not intend to harm anyone. He simply believed that the income tax is immoral, and he had no desire to give his labor to an evil federal government.

His experience woke me up somewhat because I have watched many of his lectures and debates, and I could hardly believe that a man of his nature would be humiliated in the manner that he was and continues to be. The individuals that possess power are not afraid to kill people and ruin the lives of others in order to preserve their authority.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 18, 2008, 10:40:36 am
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Rebel on September 18, 2008, 12:29:31 pm
Lew Rockwell is Catholic
which is why I'm proud to be one 8)
And why I'm ashamed.


Ashamed of me being a proud Catholic, you being Catholic, Lew being Catholic or all of the above?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Ferg on September 18, 2008, 04:06:29 pm
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”



I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Caesar's.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 18, 2008, 04:40:47 pm
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Ceasar's.

The fundamental problem--and I wish tax protestors would wake up and smell the coffee--is that the U.S. income tax is both constitutional and legal.
Whether it's right that the income tax is constitutional or legal is a totally different question. On that, I think most of us are in agreement.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 18, 2008, 04:45:41 pm
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Ceasar's.

The fundamental problem--and I wish tax protestors would wake up and smell the coffee--is that the U.S. income tax is both constitutional and legal.
Whether it's right that the income tax is constitutional or legal is a totally different question. On that, I think most of us are in agreement.

Yeah, they're arguing about the wrong question.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: lastlady on September 18, 2008, 05:50:00 pm
Really? Well if you can show the law and prove that you will get a lot of money. Contact We The people Foundation and just show them the law and bingo you've earned a quick 100 Grand!

 
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Ceasar's.

The fundamental problem--and I wish tax protestors would wake up and smell the coffee--is that the U.S. income tax is both constitutional and legal.
Whether it's right that the income tax is constitutional or legal is a totally different question. On that, I think most of us are in agreement.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 18, 2008, 06:15:23 pm
Really? Well if you can show the law and prove that you will get a lot of money. Contact We The people Foundation and just show them the law and bingo you've earned a quick 100 Grand!

 
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Ceasar's.

The fundamental problem--and I wish tax protestors would wake up and smell the coffee--is that the U.S. income tax is both constitutional and legal.
Whether it's right that the income tax is constitutional or legal is a totally different question. On that, I think most of us are in agreement.

I doubt they'd pay me $100K for telling them to look at section one of the Internal Revenue Code.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Michael J Shaffer on September 18, 2008, 06:44:27 pm
Magentarose....

  Just wanted to say Hi and comment on the treatment you got on the other board. I'm a Free Stater from Georgia with plans to move to NH by the end of the year (Maybe sooner!). Anyway, discussion is a great way to polish ones ideas on morality, justice, and personal integrity. The "Free State of Mind" requires some rethinking on a lot of issues. After all, most all of us are products of our upbringing, the public school system, and our personal life experiences. I have found that some ideas expressed here take a little time to "wrap your head around", and many here are very good at helping a person sort out the conflicting ideas everybody has in this adventure of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." But, in expressing your current points of view, no one should be subjected to name calling (Scum, Nazi,) as was done to you. To me someone who resorts to that behavior lacks a strong, debatable  understanding of what he believes. Thank you for posting and I look forward to more!
 
Welcome,

       Michael
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 18, 2008, 06:51:54 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely sure I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.   

MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Keyser Soce on September 18, 2008, 07:02:15 pm
Really? Well if you can show the law and prove that you will get a lot of money. Contact We The people Foundation and just show them the law and bingo you've earned a quick 100 Grand!

 
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Ceasar's.

The fundamental problem--and I wish tax protestors would wake up and smell the coffee--is that the U.S. income tax is both constitutional and legal.
Whether it's right that the income tax is constitutional or legal is a totally different question. On that, I think most of us are in agreement.

I doubt they'd pay me $100K for telling them to look at section one of the Internal Revenue Code.

BD and Seth, would you say that you know more about the tax code than a forensic accountant and former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent (Joe Bannister), a CPA and 7 year IRS agent (Sherry Jackson) and a 10 year IRS agent (John Turner) who all disagree with your position?

They and others have collectively written volumes to support their positions. Have you bothered to read these or do you just assume that these credentialed and well read folks gave up lucrative careers to face possible imprisonment because oops.... they overlooked that section of code you could easily point to.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, AND LIABILITY
 

The Code sections that the IRS cites as their authority to tax virtually everyone's income (Sections 1, 6001, 6011, and 6012) do not say that everyone is liable for the income tax - only that one must file a return IF one is liable.


For Americans, including the self-employed, the only tax form authorized under the sections referred to above is Form 2555, titled "Foreign Earned Income," not Form 1040, as Americans have been led to believe.
 

The only Code sections that establish liability for the income tax or the withholding of it refer to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and their withholding agents, who are required to file a 1040 return (26 USC sections 7701, 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461).


Wages of most citizens have never been intended by law to be subject to the income tax. Earlier editions of the Code made it much clearer that wages and salaries were not gross income. Successive editions of the Code, while saying the application of the law has not changed, have been gradually and cleverly modified by the legislative attorneys who codify the law, e.g., by reorganizing sections so that their numbers change, then deleting footnotes and references to make it difficult to trace the law back to corresponding sections in earlier versions.


Code section 6020(b), that the IRS invokes when it assesses income tax on individuals who have not filed a Form 1040, does not authorize them to assess income tax on individuals.


Wages of most Americans are not, by law, subject to the income tax. Although wages are income, they do not meet the formal legal definition for inclusion as "Gross Income" from which the tax is calculated.


Delegation Orders from the IRS Commissioner to IRS employees, which  authorize them to prepare and sign tax returns for persons who are required to file, but did not, do not include Forms 1040 or 2555 on the list of authorized returns.

 
The Internal Revenue Manual says that IRS criminal investigators are authorized to enforce criminal statutes applicable to taxes for U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements.  There is no mention of citizens living and earning their money in the U.S.  Why not?


`     The Manual says the Criminal Investigation Division is under the direction of the international branch of the IRS, headed by the Assistant Commissioner International.  Again, there is no discernible authority to investigate Americans who live and earn their money in the 50 states.  Again, why not?

 

       The regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not the Internal Revenue Service.


IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil enforcement under Subtitle E (pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes), not under Subtitle A (income taxes).  No one can show anywhere in the Code, nor has it ever been published in the Federal Register, where revenue officers are authorized to investigate alleged income tax liabilities of citizens who live and earn money within the 50 states.  Why not? Letters sent by revenue officers concerning 1040 returns are without authority of the law.


There is no law that Americans must have a social security number.  An employer who is participating in the social security program is required to give a W-4 to each worker, but is not required to get it back, and the worker is not required to fill it out and give it back, unless the worker wants to participate in social security.  Absent a W-4, an employer is not authorized by law to take money out of a worker's pay for employment taxes.

 
According to Sections 1.1441-5 of the Code of Federal Regulations and IRS instructions (Publication #515), if a worker submits, in duplicate, a statement of U.S. citizenship (a simple letter will do) the employer/withholding agent is relieved of duty to withhold taxes from money paid to that worker.  The withholding agent, no matter where located, then is to send one copy of the statement to the IRS Philadelphia Service Center (not to their own regional center); Philadelphia is the International Service Center, and withholding only applies to aliens or foreign income.

 
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Ferg on September 18, 2008, 07:34:04 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.
Agreed. The view expressed was saddening and cold to say the least.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Roycerson on September 18, 2008, 07:35:22 pm
Thanks everyone for being so friendly. I listened to an episode of free talk live and left a message on their message boards. To shorten a long story I basically got beaten up because I think that crack dealers should go to prison. I know that this Free State Project doesn't support any specific political view but if I join something I want to share common views. Would most people in the Free State Project look at me as a bad person for wanting a crack dealer free state?

I am for the legalization of marijuana.
That would most likely make you a constitutionalist, not a bad thing.


No it wouldn't.  There's nothing in the constitution about federal control of possession or sale of chemicals.


Magentarose:

"protection of life, liberty and property"  

If regulating crack is protection of life then so is regulating twinkies.  How far do you want to go with that?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Jitgos on September 18, 2008, 08:08:52 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely sure I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.   

MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.

I understand what you're saying, but it's no reason to disassociate in my opinion. Mark was there to debate a more reasonable approach. He's "the show" too. Debate about fringe ideas is a huge, interesting part of the show. I consider myself a voluntaryist, but this issue is one of a couple lingering sticking points I have. They've talked about this more in depth before. Is neglect murder? The parent has not initiated force on the child. Just left the child alone. If the debate ended there it would sound really cruel and crazy.

The fact is this happens occasionally right now, today, in the current system we live in. What if I want to have a child and home birth without ever informing the government and then let the child die. This could be happening now and no one would know. So the free market would not promote or really allow this to happen any more than it does today. In fact, I would argue it would likely happen far less because similar to Marks idea people could legally sell their kid. I can see some people still having an abortion because they don't want to carry to birth, but once the baby has already been born it would take a total nutcase to let the child die when they could easily sell the child. Of course, anyone who would ever let a child die is a nutcase anyway.

It comes down to remembering freedom is not going to be a utopia, but simply a far better society than we have today.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: mudshark on September 18, 2008, 08:26:00 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.

As much as I wasn't looking to be negative here, particularly on my first post, that's pretty harsh.
perhaps you should listen to that again because that is not what was being conveyed in that argument. point being that, when all the red herrings are taken out of the equation, regardless of what science or anyone else's religion has to say about it, the decision is that of the person who's own body is sustaining and/or hosting that being, and their own personal beliefs or non-beliefs. and no, I'm not an atheist. I just refuse to participate in the collectivist two-minutes hate as a means of behavioral modification. as an additional point, Mark was the one who initiated the flea/tic scenario, of which Ian later corrected him on as not being a legitimate comparison because they weren't human. freedom ultimately requires an open mind, just as your own freedom of association allows you the liberty to place judgment on those that don't fit into your own personal belief system, it doesn't give anyone the right to force their beliefs on another.

Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 18, 2008, 08:45:16 pm
Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)

Good to have ya  ;D

I won't disassociate with the show, but I also don't want people to assume that those types of views represent free staters in general.  I know I know...get my own show.

Freedom requires responsibility.  The idea that a parent can morally just drop their toddler off on the side of a road is not a philosophy I want attributed to me.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 18, 2008, 09:37:54 pm
BD and Seth, would you say that you know more about the tax code than a forensic accountant and former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent (Joe Bannister), a CPA and 7 year IRS agent (Sherry Jackson) and a 10 year IRS agent (John Turner) who all disagree with your position?

They and others have collectively written volumes to support their positions. Have you bothered to read these or do you just assume that these credentialed and well read folks gave up lucrative careers to face possible imprisonment because oops.... they overlooked that section of code you could easily point to.

I can't speak for Seth.

But compared to three IRS agents and a CPA or two, I would be fairly confident saying that. In my own experience, I'd estimate about 85% (or 90... or more) of IRS agents have no idea what the Code says. I've found a lot of them don't even read it when an issue comes up with regard to a specific code section.

The Code sections that the IRS cites as their authority to tax virtually everyone's income (Sections 1, 6001, 6011, and 6012) do not say that everyone is liable for the income tax - only that one must file a return IF one is liable.

See Section 6151.

The only Code sections that establish liability for the income tax or the withholding of it refer to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and their withholding agents, who are required to file a 1040 return (26 USC sections 7701, 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461).

See Section 6151.

Wages of most citizens have never been intended by law to be subject to the income tax. Earlier editions of the Code made it much clearer that wages and salaries were not gross income. Successive editions of the Code, while saying the application of the law has not changed, have been gradually and cleverly modified by the legislative attorneys who codify the law, e.g., by reorganizing sections so that their numbers change, then deleting footnotes and references to make it difficult to trace the law back to corresponding sections in earlier versions.

Yes, Congress intended to steal your money. They knew what they were doing. And they enjoy spending it too.

Code section 6020(b), that the IRS invokes when it assesses income tax on individuals who have not filed a Form 1040, does not authorize them to assess income tax on individuals.

Right. 6020(b) says that if you don't file you return, the Secretary will file your return for you. Now that your return is filed, your tax is due.

Wages of most Americans are not, by law, subject to the income tax. Although wages are income, they do not meet the formal legal definition for inclusion as "Gross Income" from which the tax is calculated.

Section 61 of the Code defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source" derived. Wages are income. Hence, it's includable in your gross income.

The Internal Revenue Manual says that IRS criminal investigators are authorized to enforce criminal statutes applicable to taxes for U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements.  There is no mention of citizens living and earning their money in the U.S.  Why not?

Because it's fairly obvious that the IRS can legally enforce U.S. laws against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil?

The Manual says the Criminal Investigation Division is under the direction of the international branch of the IRS, headed by the Assistant Commissioner International.  Again, there is no discernible authority to investigate Americans who live and earn their money in the 50 states.  Again, why not?

I am not aware of that statement in the Manual. Please direct me to that passage. Are you sure the section you're taking it from doesn't relate only to international investigations?

The regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not the Internal Revenue Service.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The IRS regs are in 26 CFR (and they're still there). The BATF regs are in 27 CFR. Maybe someone made an unfortunate typo.

There is a section in 26 CFR that refers to 27 CFR. From time to time, the IRS and BATF try to seize the same property. The mention of BATF in 26 CFR addresses that issue.

IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil enforcement under Subtitle E (pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes), not under Subtitle A (income taxes).  No one can show anywhere in the Code, nor has it ever been published in the Federal Register, where revenue officers are authorized to investigate alleged income tax liabilities of citizens who live and earn money within the 50 states.  Why not? Letters sent by revenue officers concerning 1040 returns are without authority of the law.

The first part doesn't make sense. Secondly, "no one can show"? Read 6020(b).

There is no law that Americans must have a social security number.  An employer who is participating in the social security program is required to give a W-4 to each worker, but is not required to get it back, and the worker is not required to fill it out and give it back, unless the worker wants to participate in social security.  Absent a W-4, an employer is not authorized by law to take money out of a worker's pay for employment taxes.

See Section 3402.

---
I can go on and on. And if that's necessary, a new thread should really be started.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Jitgos on September 18, 2008, 09:43:54 pm
Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)

Good to have ya  ;D

I won't disassociate with the show, but I also don't want people to assume that those types of views represent free staters in general.  I know I know...get my own show.

Freedom requires responsibility.  The idea that a parent can morally just drop their toddler off on the side of a road is not a philosophy I want attributed to me.

First of all, get your own show! :)

Voluntaryism is not a complete philosophy of morals. Many many things are or at least are considered immoral that would be completely permissible in a pure voluntaryist society. It's the voluntaryist position that it shouldn't be punishable by law because of the principle and/or from a utilitarian point of view because of the unintended consequences. People who were known to have done this could possibly be punished far more in a voluntaryist society than the one we live in now due to ostracism. Unless the person wants to make his own food, create his own electricity, and find his own clean water he better not commit an act that is seen in the community as completely immoral. Today, if caught, the person would be sent to prison where he would get bathing, food, the latest hollywood movies, a bed at night, and then released to be free once again.

Okay I think between my two posts I've given the best argument I can think of... like I said this is a bit of a sticking point for me too.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: mudshark on September 18, 2008, 09:45:34 pm
Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)

Good to have ya  ;D

Thanks
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 18, 2008, 09:57:07 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely sure I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.   

MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.

I actually agree with Ian on that point. Science really has nothing to say on the matter. It's a matter of values. If it's how one feels about the thought of a baby dying, I hope one would feel similar about killing other mammals who experience pain the same way we do. If one doesn't cringe at the same thought of a cow being turned into delicious steak, I smell hypocrisy.

It's really not fair attribute the traits of "selfishness" and "immaturity" to him. Selfishness, what's wrong with that? Human beings are selfish creatures--who happen to be very generous from time-to-time. To some extent or another, we're all here because we implicitly understand the selfless individual is a frequently abused ideal. So far as immature, doesn't follow either. I think it takes a lot of reflection to get to that point. I commend him for speaking his mind.

And--regardless of his opinion--doesn't mean everyone is going to start killing babies left and right...
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Keyser Soce on September 18, 2008, 09:59:12 pm

---
I can go on and on. And if that's necessary, a new thread should really be started.

I could also and you're right, that would be another thread. I have no intention of starting such a thread because there's not enough benefit to me to justify taking the time. It was only my intention to not let the blanket statements go uncontested for the benefit of others who may be interested.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on September 18, 2008, 11:11:10 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.

As much as I wasn't looking to be negative here, particularly on my first post, that's pretty harsh.
perhaps you should listen to that again because that is not what was being conveyed in that argument. point being that, when all the red herrings are taken out of the equation, regardless of what science or anyone else's religion has to say about it, the decision is that of the person who's own body is sustaining and/or hosting that being, and their own personal beliefs or non-beliefs.

This.

And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on September 18, 2008, 11:19:34 pm
Voluntaryism is not a complete philosophy of morals. Many many things are or at least are considered immoral that would be completely permissible in a pure voluntaryist society.

It's the voluntaryist position that it shouldn't be punishable by law because of the principle and/or from a utilitarian point of view because of the unintended consequences. People who were known to have done this could possibly be punished far more in a voluntaryist society than the one we live in now due to ostracism. Unless the person wants to make his own food, create his own electricity, and find his own clean water he better not commit an act that is seen in the community as completely immoral. Today, if caught, the person would be sent to prison where he would get bathing, food, the latest hollywood movies, a bed at night, and then released to be free once again.

I consider the Non-Aggression Principle—the basis of voluntaryism—to be a complete philosophy of morality.  At least, to me, the idea of morality means those things that a person can actually be forced to do or not do, and the NAP is clear that the only time force may be used is in response to aggression (unsolicited force). Any other uses of force are thus unsolicited and therefore by definition aggression, and thereby immoral.

If you want to use the word immoral to describe other things—things that you merely disagree with, to which you’d respond with ostracism—be my guest, but I think it’s sloppy semantics.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: sj on September 18, 2008, 11:20:17 pm
After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.

As much as I wasn't looking to be negative here, particularly on my first post, that's pretty harsh.
perhaps you should listen to that again because that is not what was being conveyed in that argument. point being that, when all the red herrings are taken out of the equation, regardless of what science or anyone else's religion has to say about it, the decision is that of the person who's own body is sustaining and/or hosting that being, and their own personal beliefs or non-beliefs.

This.

And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

My comment wasn't about abortion (though I'm against that too).  It was about infanticide, which is what Ian was talking about.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 19, 2008, 04:21:37 am
The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus.
It looks like your absolute rights might be in conflict ... maybe they are not so absolute.

Quote
Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.
people will still hurt each other with new technology

maybe babies have the absolute right to be born on time in the most natural healthy way. ;)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 19, 2008, 06:17:11 am
And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

I've never met a right that's absolute. Why again, does the baby have a right to life?  I don't know how you'd non-consensually "extract" something from any person without pissing them off.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: margomaps on September 19, 2008, 07:13:27 am
Why again, does the baby have a right to life?

Do you have a right to life?
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on September 19, 2008, 07:28:19 am
And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

I've never met a right that's absolute. Why again, does the baby have a right to life?  I don't know how you'd non-consensually "extract" something from any person without pissing them off.

A volitional being has an absolute right to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership is whence both the right to life, and the right to modify one’s own body, comes. If you don’t believe that an unborn baby is a volitional being (until it’s born or somesuch), then I suppose we can argue about whether or not it has a right to life.

I’m not sure what you meant with the second sentence.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on September 19, 2008, 07:32:45 am
The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus.
It looks like your absolute rights might be in conflict ... maybe they are not so absolute.

And thus arises the dilemma. Protect the child’s rights and you enslave the woman. Protect the woman’s rights and you kill the child.

Quote
Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.
people will still hurt each other with new technology

maybe babies have the absolute right to be born on time in the most natural healthy way. ;)

Sure—now show me how that can be done, with a woman who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term, without using force upon her. :)
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 19, 2008, 07:36:08 am
hey .... you are the one assigning absolute rights ... I was the one making fun of them.

Wouldn't your position rather be:
that you shouldn't kill a baby and you shouldn't force a woman to do stuff.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on September 19, 2008, 07:49:03 am
Wouldn't your position rather be:
that you shouldn't kill a baby and you shouldn't force a woman to do stuff.

Sure.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: Jitgos on September 19, 2008, 09:34:09 am
Voluntaryism is not a complete philosophy of morals. Many many things are or at least are considered immoral that would be completely permissible in a pure voluntaryist society.

It's the voluntaryist position that it shouldn't be punishable by law because of the principle and/or from a utilitarian point of view because of the unintended consequences. People who were known to have done this could possibly be punished far more in a voluntaryist society than the one we live in now due to ostracism. Unless the person wants to make his own food, create his own electricity, and find his own clean water he better not commit an act that is seen in the community as completely immoral. Today, if caught, the person would be sent to prison where he would get bathing, food, the latest hollywood movies, a bed at night, and then released to be free once again.

I consider the Non-Aggression Principle—the basis of voluntaryism—to be a complete philosophy of morality.  At least, to me, the idea of morality means those things that a person can actually be forced to do or not do, and the NAP is clear that the only time force may be used is in response to aggression (unsolicited force). Any other uses of force are thus unsolicited and therefore by definition aggression, and thereby immoral.

If you want to use the word immoral to describe other things—things that you merely disagree with, to which you’d respond with ostracism—be my guest, but I think it’s sloppy semantics.

Yeah, it is all semantics I guess, but I don't think I was being too sloppy. It was Rothbard (if I remember correctly) that said it wasn't a complete moral philosophy.

1st definition from dictionary.com - moral; of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

It gets complicated on what language to use. The first part of the definition sounds a lot like NAP, but the second part refers to what people consider right or wrong. So what's that even mean? I think leaving your baby in the woods to die is wrong, but it doesn't violate NAP necessarily. So is using immoral the correct term or not? Who knows.

My main point was only to argue in favor of Ian's "radical" view and defend NAP.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: rossby on September 19, 2008, 10:13:46 am
Why again, does the baby have a right to life?

Do you have a right to life?

Depends what you mean. The right to be in a state of life? Surely not. Nor would the physical laws of the universe care if I said I did. I do have a right that others not harm me without justification. And that encompasses taking my life.

I've never met a right that's absolute. Why again, does the baby have a right to life?  I don't know how you'd non-consensually "extract" something from any person without pissing them off.

A volitional being has an absolute right to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership is whence both the right to life, and the right to modify one’s own body, comes. If you don’t believe that an unborn baby is a volitional being (until it’s born or somesuch), then I suppose we can argue about whether or not it has a right to life.

I’m not sure what you meant with the second sentence.

The second sentence was essentially what you covered. We could certainly argue about an unborn baby being a volitional being. As much as we can argue when a newborn baby is a volitional being. So far as we can tell, a baby has no concept of self or the power to decide much of anything. Even a volitional being does not have an absolute right to self-ownership. Relative to the actor's actions, the right may fall apart. As I've said before, I do not accept the all-encompassing right of "self-ownership", as that phrase is commonly and carelessly tossed about.
Title: Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on September 19, 2008, 06:57:55 pm
I think leaving your baby in the woods to die is wrong, but it doesn't violate NAP necessarily.

I would consider this a violation of the NAP if the baby was under the care of the person who left it there. There’s an implicit contract between a voluntary caregiver (e.g., parent) and a helpless child, thus, abandonment is a contract violation: a violation of the NAP. However, a disinterested third party coming across an abandoned child, and leaving it abandoned, whereupon it dies, hasn’t violated the NAP, because he wasn’t responsible for the baby to begin with.

But, this debate’s been had elsewhere on this forum, the only difference being it was about leaving a baby to drown, so I don’t want to repeat everything that was said there, here.