Of course it's far easier to dismiss me as "needing therapy" than it is to bring any facts or consistent logic to the table. Without providing some kind of basis and reasoning for your remark, it carries little meaning. Besides, regardless of any need for therapy I might have, that wouldn't change the factual accuracy of what I have stated, which, if erroneous in some way, then it should be able to be pointed out using facts and reasoning. I won't hold my breath though waiting for any to be forthcoming.
What do you think makes quality of life good in America? Why do you think America is a powerhouse? TAX, with no tax money, the us would have no money for defense, citizen programs, etc. Your argument literally makes no sense? Do you prefer anarchy? If you do, please read up on history.
The assumption that without taxation there would "be no money" for defense, citizen programs, etc. is patently false. This is stating that people will never spend their own money in to their own benefit. It's the cowardice of thinking that only a "big daddy" (government) can provide the things we need in society. It's a child's view that, present in any adult, marks the cowardice to accept personal responsibility to provide for life's needs without using VIOLENCE, which is how tax is collected.
History makes the carnage of the state all too clear, and destroys the fairy tale that government can or will somehow protect people rather than predate upon them.
"Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukranians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a 'Great Leap Forward' that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." - Robert Higgs
"If you endorse a system of violence and coercion that threatens me with force on a daily basis, and I advocate for the abolition of that system, this is not just some difference of opinion where we can simply agree to disagree. You are actively participating in conspiracy to commit theft, assault, kidnapping and murder. There is no other context in which anybody would find this an acceptable pattern of behavior, the fact that billions of people across the globe allow you to be a willing participant in violent crime doesn't mean that you are entitled to the opinion that violent crime is a good thing, you have no right to be that wrong." - Chris Cantwell
"You're comparing punching someone (violating their person and thus their property), with typing words on a forum, which does them no harm. I'm not cool with people punching me, so I wouldn't do that. I am cool with people telling me what they truly think and believe, so I will do that. Make sense?
I'm not forcing anything on anybody, so I fail to see that you have made any valid point. Maybe think it through a little better?"
Maybe it is you who needs to think it through a little better. I'm talking about the depth of applying your principle. I didn't ask if you like to be punched, I said that even if you did, you still wouldn't have the right to punch others. The implication being: you can't coclude your rights from what you like. If someone hopes to get killed, it doesn't mean they have a right to kill others. If it's ok to call people imbeciles whenever you believe they are wrong, is not up to if you like them calling you imbecile when they believe you are wrong. Your personal whims don't get to decide what's right and wrong.
And your talk about violating person and property (who said these must be protected?) already shows that there is something more important for you that must be respected regardless what the golden rule says. The golden rule needs to be applied on the level of principles, otherwise it may get self-centered, solipsistic and arrogant.
... "And your talk about violating person and property (who said these must be protected?)"
This statement seems suspect to me.
@Microraver which statement? There's no statement in your quotation.
>>>"The implication being: you can't coclude your rights from what you like. If someone hopes to get killed, it doesn't mean they have a right to kill others. "
It's not just about what I like, as I already specified, it's about what causes harm. I agree it's about principles, not my whim, and more specifically ,the "Non Aggression Principle". Me speaking my mind on this forum causes no such harm or violation of the NAP such as punching someone or killing someone (as long as I don't make physical threats), so you're using those as comparative examples with the absurd hypothesis that I might justify such aggression because I may like to have something violent done to me, is invalid.
Me calling out what I perceive to be stupidity does not violate moral principles, nor is being called out on any stupidity I happen to spout something I would resent, but something I would appreciate if it is genuine and sincere.
The golden rule isn't a statement that it's OK to do to others anything one would personally be fine with being done to oneself, but operates on the valid assumption that NO ONE wishes to be violated in their person or property. This is a perfectly logical and valid assumption in that it is impossible to wish something be done to oneself against one's own will, and that it is universally undesirable to have one's property or person violated or harmed by another person... as such, the golden rule is generally a very reliable guide to right and wrong behavior and acting in alignment with moral principles, but in no way grants one license to violate others' person or property.
In the rare exception where someone does wish harm to himself, this is not a justification for him to cause such harm to others, but is an indication of severe mental illness such as schizophrenia.
The point is that I am not causing any harm to others by expressing my genuine thoughts and feelings, as long as I do not threaten or violate anyone else's person or property.
You called me a dolt and a coward, therefore causing me irreparable damage.