Monday, August 08, 2011

Libertarianism and Violence?

"Love it or leave it" is the cry of the genocide enabler. This is the point I made that caused someone tell me to "piss off", because he had just tossed that "pearl" at me.

I was commenting on a blog entry that was trying to confuse the issue of violence and aggression and insult libertarians by association with that confusion. People don't understand what they don't want to understand.

I pointed out that I don't mind paying for what I use, I just don't want to pay for "services" I don't want (and I don't want anyone else to unwillingly pay for anything on my behalf, either). A government monopoly is wrong. (Unless he deletes my earlier comments, you can read the exchange up to the point where he flaked).

Anyway, the blogger said "You don't want to pay for US government services? Leave the US." I pointed out that this was the mantra of the genocide enabler (he deleted that comment), and told him I wasn't obligated to leave all I had worked for, or my friends and family, by walking away and handing everything over to the bad guys.

So, he wrote this: "Ok, Kent, piss off. Allowing you to air your quirky views here is one thing, but when you start throwing around insane insults implying that anyone who thinks taxes are legitimate is into genocide, you are done."

It isn't me who is "insane", Gene. After all, you can justify anything, not just counterfeit "laws" and "taxation", by saying "if you don't like it, leave". If you don't like the fact that the local government is killing your friends and family "get out!". Don't defend yourself from the bad guys; don't point out that what they are doing is wrong. Just leave. Just leave so that they can continue doing evil. What kind of "philosophy" is that?

People who delete comments show their fear. They show their weakness and their understanding of the weakness of their argument. I have never deleted one comment that wasn't obvious spam, other than a few comments made by a rather tweaked individual who insisted that his comments be deleted.

The truth hurts, Gene. Suck it up.



  1. My experiences are that the ones who scream the "if you don't like it, leave" are 90% of the time are a "conservative".

    Would they also be saying "if you don't like it, leave" if Christianity was outlawed? All guns were outlawed? Whites were put in the same slave status as blacks used to be?

    My guess they wouldn't be screaming the love it or leave it. It's always when it's for something they want. Which recently means they want everyone to be forcibly stolen to pay for home security ("strong borders"), the government to stop people from entering into contacts ("traditional marriage"), and other such things.

    Funny how people become completely different when you switch from something they are against to something they hold dear.

  2. I also wonder if all those things happened, if they also would be saying to "work within the system" to get the "law" changed and that those who decide to break the laws (hide whites so that the govenment can't return them to the "owners") are wrong to do so.

  3. I have run into some liberals who make the same demand, but not as many. In their case it is usually any resistance to their latest increase in socialism that they are defending by saying "if you don't like it, leave". They usually point to their socialistic "progress" as inevitable. (And, yeah, I know "conservatives" are just as socialistic as "liberals".)

    And, Good question. I have to wonder about that, too. Would they all just happily leave if, as I saw on David Codrea's blog today, the "progressives" just passed the necessary "laws" and then rounded up the "Tea Baggers" and put them into "re-education camps" to school them on "green living"? Would they simply say "Oh, well. It is legal. We'd better just go along with it." If so, they are worthless cowards without a spine or a single principle.

  4. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." An American motto if you ask me. When you don't agree with something, you are suppose to question it. This isn't the movie "1984", be a skeptic and question not just the big things but the little things too.

  5. Left-wing types in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor tell me to get the fuck out of town quite regularly when I object to their anti-liberty machinations. I wouldn't dump that canard on conservatives only.

  6. I've found plenty of "if you don't like it then you can leave" types on the Progressive side when I discuss the flaws of wealth redistribution. They phrase it differently, by saying if I want to opt out of taxes then I can move to another country.

  7. I suggest to those wanting to violently confiscate firearms that they might try reason - Convince the armed person that it isn't necessary to be armed. They decline.

    I suggest to those wanting to redistribute wealth that they form a community of the like-minded and redistribute until all is well. They decline.

    I ask if they will allow me to opt-out of taxes and the services these taxes help pay for. They decline.

  8. Tim, I've never suggested the first, but the other two I have. On several occasions. They always decline for me, too. Sometimes with extreme anger and hatred for me even suggesting such a thing.

    It's like those who say "taxes need to be raised". I say, "Go ahead and donate more to the government, then. What's stopping you? Why do you need a 'law' in order to send more money?" But it isn't that "taxes" are too low for them, is it? Nope. "Taxes" are too low for "The Other Guy".

  9. Kent,
    Gene's head is exploding back at "Crash Landing". It is sad to see how he responds to counter arguments and counter examples. If you want to see a train wreck, peek back over there...

    He's arguing for 'the collective good' and the necessity to kill any who would disagree. No room for individuals in his prison planet!

  10. Did I start that?

    I may sneak a peek to see it. I'll have to be strong to resist the urge to try to comment, since I'm probably still banned anyway.

  11. I submitted a new comment over there. We'll see if he approves it. In case he doesn't, here is what I submitted:

    Gene says "No one is killed for "disagreeing" with the current level of taxation in the US."

    Are you sure about that, Gene? Because, admit it or not, the penalty is ALWAYS death

    The founders of America were "only human", and they were flawed. They were often wrong. They believed slavery was OK, after all. They were wrong about The State and "taxation" (which is just another form of slavery), too. Whether a thing is "American" or "unAmerican" has no bearing on whether it is correct. And I've never seen a State that didn't believe it had the authority to "tax". This is just more evidence against The State; not evidence that "taxation" is OK.

    Just because the vast majority of people share an opinion, such as that a State has any rights, including a right to "tax", is not evidence that they are right. Most people also believe in the supernatural.

    Even if 7 billion people were of one opinion, they have no authority and no right to violate the rights of one person who disagreed. Rights are not additive. Two people do not have "more rights" than one. And neither do one billion people. No "law" which violates a basic human right can be a legitimate law (what is often called a "natural law"). And keeping your own property, when you don't wish to hand it over to someone else, is a basic human right. Regardless of what a "law" may order you to do.