I think ill manage since its split among 300 million

>he doesn’t know half the working age citizens are net tax drains

are you angry at nature for not providing you endless food?

I am.

Nature should either provide endless food, or legalize euthanasia.

There is endless food here, i could live off the land indefinitely.
For other people that is not a reality and lolbertarians spouting off "You choose to work for the slave owner" is pure bullshit, because work or die is not a choice.
If cambo got his way slavery would be a reality again and he would be one of the slaves, for certain.
Everytime robber barrons and corporations have rivalled a state in power they have taken advantage of the situation, this is not some delusional theory about how things would go, its based on the history of every time this has happened.
Name ONE example of a corporation or individual who could not be reigned in by a state working for good in his community, i can name dozens who took advantage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-filibuster-exxon-mobil/



when and where is the only other option starvation? is that typical of employees?
are you talking about some isolated case in a third world country or a fact of life that people will starve if they dont find some way to acquire food?

Does someone offering a starving person a job actually mean they are somehow stealing from them?
Are you suggesting all actions by someone who requires food are not voluntary, or only when they are choosing where (or if) they want to work?



You dont have to work for someone else.

Part of your productivity is siphoned by government.
Your production is often amplified by an employer arrangement and they are the source of your wages.
You are free to try to find or create an arrangement where your productivity isn't siphoned in your imagination.

Private persons own property and engage in voluntary arrangements = forcing you to participate?



I dont know what your mental defect is, but libertarianism is diametrically opposed to slavery, yet you accuse me of wanting slavery.

Its sad that this has to be said: Employers aren't slave owners.

Wanting smaller government and freedom of association is not akin to wanting corporations to control everyone or wanting slavery or denying people do bad things sometimes or opposing punishing bad actors.
I dont know how many times you have been told this but you fail to adjust your thinking and false statements, instead choosing to repeat completely idiotic claims about what i believe.

You don't have to pay taxes.

Your production is definitely amplified by the actions of a government arrangement as they are the source of the currency you use and trade with, as well as your defense.
You are free to try to find or create an arrangement where your productivity isn't siphoned in your imagination.

A voluntarily established group giving you free admittance and allowing you to leave = forcing you to pay?

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 17 2018 04:32pm

If i don't what will happen?
you have lost this argument 100x over.

#ShePersisted



how does the currency they inflate amplify my production? how does them taking a chunk of my paycheck to be wasted on garbage i don't like amplify my production?

someone forcing me to pay taxes isn't imaginary. failed Marxist dogma equating employment with theft is.



bzz wrong

"All living beings must engage in self-sustaining action in order to survive. All require sufficient food to avoid starvation and sufficient shelter from the harsher aspects of nature to avoid destruction — all must eat, drink, and sleep. This is the "economic servitude" to which Sir Beveridge refers. The freedom that he and other modern liberals crave is freedom from their own bodies, freedom from their nature. The requirements of our digestive system, our heart, brain, and lungs, are the "arbitrary powers" against which we are to be "liberated" — liberated that is, by the coercion of other men who are robbed and enslaved to satisfy the wants imposed by our bodies.

The starving man is indeed in need of food — that is, if he does not ingest sufficient food to sustain his body then fairly soon he will die. This is the nature of his body — no one else imposes this need on him. The starving man is not free from the nature of his own body, nor can he be, even in the welfare state. This is a statement of metaphysics, not political philosophy. But the starving man should be free from coercion by other men. He should be free to obtain food by voluntary trade with others. If he is unable to offer anything of value in trade, then he should be free to rely on voluntary charity. But he should not be allowed to rob or enslave others to satisfy his needs. Nor should others be able to rob and enslave on his behalf. All have the right to be free from aggression."

No libertarians say they are opposed to slavery but a system where your options are work for just enough to survive or starve to death is slavery.
And this is the system you advocate, end of story, its already happened, thats the problem with your cult, its the exact same as communism, great in theory but you do not bother to take human nature into account.
In the end a system where powerful individuals and corporations are in charge rather than an elected body will always fall into despotism.