Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

I'm currently at the end of your book #PracticalAnarchy, and unless you say something stupid in summary, I've found it to be very well thought through and a joy to read. 5 D.R.O's out of 5.

Thank you very much, I am very proud of that book

It would be easier to engage people if you didn’t make disingenuous arguments like this one throughout the discussion. Nobody wants to listen to your propaganda. Talk to people in a way they’re comfortable with. Legalize weed, not taxation is kidnap and torture and armed robbery.

Progress requires discussion about uncomfortable subjects.

An excellent example of disengenity, by the way. Taxation is usually simple theft, although it can be kidnapping, torture, and armed robbery.

Right, that's the type of thing you guys say if people engage you. And people don't want to hear that because you sound batshit crazy and intelligent people avoid those that sound batshit crazy. What you mean, I know, is that you don't support taxation. Which is fine. Say that...

Taxation is literally theft by definition. Is it a necessary evil? Perhaps. That's the argument to be had. But You CANNOT argue that taxation ISN'T literal theft. A group of people are taking resources from you at the threat of punishment. What does that sound like?

This is why people avoid the discussion. Because they don't care to engage in a ridiculous argument over your definition of a word, which differs from the definition in the dictionary. The dictionary defines theft as being illegal. Taxation is not illegal.

So legality trumps morality? Interesting but also INCREDIBLY dangerous argument. Please elaborate? Do those in power decide right and wrong? Do they not? Why?

"I don't agree with taxation, I don't agree with government at all really besides perhaps basic functions like the military. Free markets can do everything and do it better. etc etc" What's wrong with just saying that? The propaganda makes you look crazy. And scares people away.

“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”-Jefferson #thomasjefferson #stefanmolyneux

Are you saying there should only be private property and no public rights of way (roads, footpaths, bridal ways, byways in the U.K.)?

Can you point me to the region in the book that deals with the question of what would happen if I, as a major land owner, decided to remove all public rights of way from my land?

It's your land. No "public" has a right to access it, unless you let it.

That is a major, major stumbling block I feel. We’d be swapping being at the mercy of government on one hand, to being at the mercy of powerful individuals on the other. We have more freedom [of movement] under the present arrangement.

But what is freedom of movement, if you're shackled to the state. The corporate "powerful" individuals have to sell you a product to gain their power. The government just takes it.

Compared to being trapped inside my house as the local landowner refuses to allow people to use his or her road at the bottom of my drive? That’s not a great set of choices but in this instance the least worst would be to be shackled to the state.