that is statism slavery for you...

She's not that crazy, she just has no common sense and follows that stupid religion of her's like a sheep.

Your property is enforced by gunpoint too. Are you a "coward" for calling the cops to have the government defend your property?

This shit rots your brain, it makes people unbelievably stupid.

It's so abstract it doesn't even care that it's abstract. You could look at a man clapped in irons and still call him free so long as he signed a "voluntary: contract, and you'd see a man with his own home, paid vacation and a good life as being a "slave," no matter how autonomous he really is.

Reality, pay attention to reality. Fuck ideology, it's meaningless.

Do you believe society is ready for absolute freedom?

*sigh*

Another nieve little anarchist child.

I've paid taxes for years, and i've never once had a gun pointed at me in my life.
I've obeyed every law on the books, an no one has ever pointed a gun in my direction

What kind of country are you living in where the tax collectors are armed?
Because it sure as hell isn't this one.
It must be some destitute and impoverished underdeveloped third-world iron-fisted militant martial-law junta.
Or rather if the citizens resist paying their taxes with violence, so that the tax collectors have to respond with deadly force, perhaps you live under a fascist military dictatorial regime.
Either way, you know nothing of America.

Anyone who only follows the law when there's a gun pointed at them really shouldn't be out in the world.
Anyone who disobeys the laws any time that there isn't a gun pointed in their direction is a danger not only to themselves, but to others.

I know if you live out west, in the south, our even the midwest, the politician campaign for elections with firearms with them at their every public appearance; but to the best of my knowledge government officials are not permitted to be armed inside government office buildings.

Your comment is nothing more than Libertarian hyperbole from the likes of Stefan Molyneaux. As do many arguments that can not stand on their own merits, this one relies on emotions rather than reason to sell itself.

Is absolute freedom even possible? If there is no law, then freedom is lost by the weak to the strong (that is why the strong hate government). If there is law, there is by definition not absolute freedom. What we probably need is balance. Just a rhetorical observation.

It is mind boggling... but after so much conditioning, it is easy to see why so many people believe in it doing "good" though...

Thanks for sharing!

We need leaders. The difference between a leader and a ruler is similar to the difference between persuasion and coercion.

Hey, we could modify the jury duty method!

Have you ever heard of FIJA?

http://www.fija.org/

There is no real difference between persuasion and coercion. Coercion is a form of persuasion. We shouldn't be persuading people at all; we should be inspiring them.

People's aspirations are killed by the high demands of a society that wants most people to give up and fail. By offering more opportunities to the working middle class to move into the upper middle and upper classes, you are stimulating economic growth. Once "The American Dream" became an unobtainable nightmare, we the middle class became apathetic and melancholic, despairing over the apparent loss opportunities and jobs.

The recession meant the banks and people up top notice a shortage of profit (mainly due to the outsourcing of labor and customer service jobs; this is because the people who were once spending money on non-essentials were suddenly scrimping and saving), but instead of investing money into rejuvenating the middle class sector by re-locating outsource jobs back to the states, they instead asked congress for money to continue their businesses that essentially robbed taxpayers of that money.

The only way we're going to pull this country out of the toilet bowl it's swirling around in is to bring back the lost jobs, install social programs to keep people healthy and working, and make sure people are taken care of during retirement. That's what other countries have found out, yet why is it that America hasn't seemed to caught on to the idea?

Coercion is the initiation of force or fraud to achieve a goal. Persuasion is purely suggestive.

Persuasion is not suggestive only. I'm actually studying persuasion and argumentation right now, and persuasion is guiding another to the adoption of an idea, attitude, thought, opinion, or action. It does not specify how that means is achieved other than through sub-categorization. This means inception, advertisement, and even coercion can be considered persuasion as long as it is used to influence another in some way.

Coerce also means "to compel to an act or choice"; meaning it is also a form of persuasion.

Well, first off if you're going to talk about relevant economics to our social climate, perhaps we can start by not using books based on Austrian societies, Mike. Next, let's try studying someone a bit more seasoned than Mr. Taylor, who has only written that one textbook.

If you're argument is going to be "pro-capitalist, pro-privilege, anti-tax, and anti-state" drivel I hear from many libertarians, I will tell you to save it right now. Taxation and state programs take care of those who do not have the capital to take care of themselves, and maintain the services and utilities that the upper class would and consistently do refuse to pay for. All I stated was that the return of labor positions to America would strengthen and bolster the economy. I don't need a degree in economics to figure out the equation:

More Jobs for higher pay=More Revenue for workers= More surplus to spend= Increase purchase of Luxury Items and Non-essentials= More economic stimulation.

End Result: Debt decreases, Recession ends.

It's not hard to figure out one of the components is job creation, and the fastest way to create jobs is to move them back from other countries. You and Mr. Taylor are over-complicating the situation.

Pure Keynesian claptrap. When people are forced to do that which they would not otherwise choose to do it is a drain on the economy and not a benefit.

Greater productivity would lead to more jobs for higher pay and more revenue for workers and blah, blah, blah.

When capital is redirected through the violent means of taxation it virtually always results in a reduction in productivity and a negation of all that which you claim to support.