> It was a straightforward attempt at a simple existence proof - you had said "things which meet these criteria are extortion", I provided something that met those criteria that was not extortion.

I pointed out that taxation meets the criteria for extortion: you're giving up your property under threat of violence. It's clearly a match.

You asked if me demanding my laptop back would constitute extortion, which we both know it doesn't. There are two reasons why not: 1) the laptop is my property (regardless of "how"), 2) there is no threat. This is why my original reaction was: "Oh come on".

But now you're saying the laptop was an example of something that meets the criteria of extortion without being extortion.. and that's just not true.

>>> I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do

>> Well that sure is fucked up.

> Wow, that is some powerful REASON right there.

What you said is comparable to me declaring that I'll just shoot you in the kneecaps and take your money if I ever come across you, just because I want the money, so fuck you and fuck your well-being.

So that's perfectly alright if it results in a "good outcome", as defined by.. who? Me? -Obviously, you don't have a say because you're the one being robbed to achieve whatever good outcome I might have set my sights on.

Do you see why I talked about the end not justifying the means? Your way of thinking is like Stalin's or Mao's. They had lots of good outcomes in mind when slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people. In other words, your way of thinking is, in fact, fucked up.

Don't talk about good or better "outcomes", that's a misguided, mass-coercion-rationalizing attitude. You don't know "the correct outcome" for a society - there is no such thing, and above all, you can't arrange for it to happen through coercion.

What people could do, is follow the golden rule - do unto others as you'd have done to yourself. That way we'd actually reach the best possible "outcome" for everyone, which is something you'll understand if you accept Austrian economics.

.. speaking of which:

> I reject Austrian school economics because they reject empiricism

Oh this again. Boo-hoo, it's not a "real science". Well so fucking what? Does people's behaviour work like mathematics, or.. is it perhaps, unpredictable?

Austrian economics is based on observations on how people actually behave, in reality. Since economies consist of millions of people making exchanges, that's the best possible basis for a school of economic thought. It doesn't take much to understand this once you stop insisting on clinging on to your preconceived notions of what economics should be like.

> collectively demanding that the rights of everyone be respected is how we keep government in check

Really now? How's that working out so far? Does it work in the burgeoning police state of the US? What about North-Korea? Did it work in Mao's China?

Please wake up. There is no way to keep a government in check - it wields absolute power over a geographical area, until the masses stop believing that someone else has the right to rule them, that is.

> But we collectively decide what those rights must be, and should pick them so as to most prevent excess consolidation of power (in government or elsewhere) where that power might be used to inappropriately (... which is pretty much anywhere)

No, the only version of the idea of rights that works and is tenable, is one that is based on sound reasoning. If 100 people "collectively decide" that you don't have the right to own a spleen, I'm sure you'd agree that's not a particularly good way of defining rights. Sure, a spleen is an extreme example, but it could be anything really. Any collective decision where you're harmed without you harming anyone is obviously wrong. Taxation is not a collective decision, especially when neither of us was ever asked, nor were our parents. In fact, ordinary people have never been asked if they'd like to be extorted. That's kind of like, not how extortion works, after all.

> I have to laugh a bit here at how stereotypical the above reads of fundamentalist whack-job or conspiracy nut.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yuC... .. it's just that it's "the official conspiracy theory". That's exactly what governments would have us believe. Does it sound believable?

> You can also choose to leave the country, if another country will give you citizenship, give up your US citizenship, and pay taxes to the other country - slaves cannot choose their master

Being able to switch from Prison A to Prison B doesn't mean you're free though. Again, the most productive slave is one that thinks he's free, and that's why we're not outright slaves. Here's more on that: http://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/the_handbook_of_...

> Making individuals responsible for enforcing their own property rights against one another leads to violence between individuals (and, ultimately, gangs).

Government doesn't change that you know. If someone decides to rob you, a police officer won't materialize between you and him to prevent it. If someone wants to hurt you, he'll evaluate the risks vs the "reward", and make a decision based on that. Luckily, the vast majority of people won't hurt you with or without a government.

> You don't see Jim Beam doing drive-bys of Seagrams distributors - but you did during prohibition.

Prohibition is something the government did. You're just helping my case by bringing it up.

> Any technology can be misused, and government is no different.

So now government is a "technology", as if it's something we, the people, "use" to our benefit? :P Nice going there.

> A pile of disasters, from which we've learned some (though, I agree, not enough), by no means demonstrates impossibility of avoiding them

Well, now you're saying we need "better government", but that's like asking for "better enslavement". Once again, governments are. not. responsible. to. anyone. for. their. actions. Please let that sink in. Do you get that because there is no higher power than government, there is nothing to keep them in check? Do you get that because of that, there's nothing governments can't do to us individuals?

It takes a massive uprising to topple a government, and then it's always just replaced with another. Oh, and along the way, lots of innocent people are beaten, tased, killed, and tortured by the government, just like in the Ukraine or Venezuela these days. Wake up? The solution to a group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone is not to replace it with another. The only solution is for the masses to stop believing that they need to have a group of sociopaths rule over them. That belief is the belief in political authority.