â„–4000330[Quote]
"Why a global caliphate would be the most catastrophic form of statism ever attempted
The radical Islamist doesn't just want to govern a nation. He wants to govern existence itself: every transaction, every body, every private thought. His ambition isn't political in the ordinary sense. It's metaphysical: he claims jurisdiction over the soul.
His own stated premises make this unavoidable.
The chain begins with the shahada: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His final messenger." Not a private sentiment. A truth claim about the structure of reality. A singular Creator exists, He communicated His will through a specific text delivered to a specific man, and that revelation is final, complete, and binding on all humanity. Every subsequent step rests here.
In mainstream Islamic theology, the Quran is not an inspired human document. It is the eternal, uncreated divine speech. To question it is to question God. To reinterpret it against its plain meaning is to claim superior wisdom to the Creator, which means its commands are not subject to historical revision, by definition.
Sharia, derived from the Quran and authenticated Sunnah, is a legal system covering worship, criminal justice, commerce, family life, inheritance, and the conduct of the state. The classical jurists recognized no secular sphere. The law of God admits no remainder.
If God is the sole sovereign, then law made by human beings (parliaments, constitutions, secular courts) is a usurpation of divine prerogative. The Quran is direct: "those who do not judge by what God has sent down, they are the unbelievers" (5:44). The secular state is not a neutral alternative. It's a rival claimant to an authority that belongs exclusively to God.
The collective obligation follows: extend God's law to the entire earth. Classical doctrine divides the world into dar al-Islam, the abode of submission where sharia rules, and dar al-harb, the abode of war where it doesn't. The Quran commands the faithful to "fight them until there is no fitna and the religion is all for God" (8:39). All four Sunni schools of classical jurisprudence uphold this. The ultimate goal is a global order in which every institution and every conscience is subordinated to divine law.
Nations, to him, are temporary, artificial, illegitimate things. What he actually wants is to govern the conditions under which any nation, any society, any individual is allowed to exist at all: a world with no secular zone, no private conscience immune from regulation, no exit.
The Unanswerable Question
The question theocratic apologists never answer is simple. How do you know?
Not an argument. The theocrat answers with revelation: a text whose authority you're asked to accept on the say of the text itself and of clerics who disagree among themselves on half its injunctions.
This isn't a complaint that revelation fails to show up in a lab. Plenty of real knowledge doesn't. Mathematical truths, logical truths, the basic fact that you are a being who acts toward ends using means you've selected: none of these are read off instruments, and none are less real for it. The complaint is narrower. Revelation, as the radical Islamist deploys it, is built to be unreachable by anyone who didn't already accept it.
Two kinds of claims don't reduce to sense data. One kind hands you the materials and lets you do the work yourself. Examine your own purposive behavior and ask whether you can coherently deny that you act toward chosen ends with chosen means. Nobody needs to take an economist's word for it. You can check it against your own agency right now. Examine the structure of arguing itself and ask whether you can deny your opponent's standing to freely evaluate your claim while still expecting her to evaluate it. The contradiction, if it's there, is something you find by doing the work, not something a credentialed party hands you pre-packaged.
The other kind works by making that checking impossible. The Quran's status as the literal, uncreated speech of God is not a conclusion you reach by reasoning it through. It's a premise you accept on the text's own authority, transmitted through clerics whose interpretive disputes get settled by something other than argument. When two jurists disagree about a verse, reason doesn't arbitrate. Whoever holds more force declares his reading authoritative. The rest comply or are punished. That isn't a minor flaw in implementation. It's the predictable shape of any system whose foundation is, by design, placed beyond independent reconstruction.
â„–4000347[Quote]
A claim earns the name knowledge when any reasoning mind, doing the work itself, can arrive at it or find precisely where it fails. Laurence BonJour spent a career defending exactly this idea against crude empiricism. Genuine a priori insight is real, he argued. You don't need a sense experiment to know some things, but the insight has to survive careful, independent reflection, not merely rest on someone's claim to privileged access. Michael Huemer makes a related point from a different angle: a claim is justified by how it seems to you on careful, undefeated reflection, not by whose authority backs the assertion. Run revelation through either test and it fails for the same reason. Not because it's unobservable, but because examining it is itself treated as the offense.
A legal system built on that foundation cannot resolve its own disputes rationally. When two clerics disagree about what a verse requires, there is no shared procedure that settles the question by argument, only one that settles it by power. Law grounded in an unexaminable foundation is, in practice, law grounded in force. Theology supplies the costume.
Practicality
The epistemological rot at the base spreads through the entire structure. Austrian economics identifies three mechanisms by which it does.
The calculation problem. Mises demonstrated in 1920 that rational economic calculation requires market prices, and market prices require private ownership of the means of production. No private property means no genuine exchange. No genuine exchange means no prices. No prices means nobody can know the relative scarcity of resources, the opportunity cost of any given use, or whether a given allocation serves human wants better than the alternatives. The planner is flying blind and doesn't know it.
Sharia amplifies this specific failure. The prohibition on interest (riba) doesn't merely make lending awkward. It destroys the price of time. Interest is how a market communicates the relative value of present versus future goods, signals where capital is needed, and disciplines borrowers who would otherwise consume resources they can't repay. Remove it and capital allocation becomes a guessing game administered by clerics with no stake in the outcome. The Islamic finance workarounds that emerged, murabaha, ijara, and the rest, are an implicit admission that the prohibition doesn't work: they preserve the form of the rule while gutting its substance, and the contractual acrobatics add costs that productive investment then has to absorb.
The knowledge required to run an economy isn't held by anyone in particular. It's scattered across millions of individuals, embedded in local circumstance, often impossible to even put into words. The price system aggregates that knowledge without requiring anyone to consciously possess it. A legal order fixed to a seventh-century text freezes the signals instead of letting them move. The waqf system shows this clearest: property endowed as a waqf was locked in perpetuity, unsellable, unmortgageable, unable to be subdivided or repurposed. What looked like a charitable trust was, in practice, a mechanism to remove assets from the market permanently. Capital that could have been redeployed as circumstances changed sat frozen, administered by religious overseers with no incentive to optimize anything. Europe developed alienable, divisible property titles that could follow opportunity wherever it moved. The waqf went the other direction, and the divergence in outcomes followed accordingly.
â„–4000350[Quote]
Property rights destruction. Rothbard grounded the case for the free market in self-ownership and the homesteading principle: you own what you make, what you mix your labor with, what you acquire through voluntary exchange. Rights aren't grants from a sovereign. They precede the state and constrain it. A theocratic state inverts this entirely. Under sharia, property rights aren't prior to the state; they're conditional on the state's theological approval. The ruler can confiscate on religious grounds. Courts can void contracts that conflict with divine law as interpreted by whoever currently holds power. The waqf arose partly because private owners had no reliable protection against predatory rulers, and locking assets inside religious endowments offered some insulation. That insulation came at the cost of all flexibility. It was a second-best fix to a problem that secure, enforceable private property would have solved directly, without the cost.
â„–4000352[Quote]
A peer-reviewed synthetic control study confirmed what the theory predicts: institutionalizing sharia within a country's legal system produces measurable material costs. Government enforcement of religiously derived social norms constrains individual economic freedom and produces worse outcomes across standard welfare measures. The methodology constructs a statistical counterfactual, comparing sharia-adopting countries to what they'd likely look like otherwise, and they underperform on multiple indicators.
A thousand years ago, the Middle East commanded roughly 9.5 percent of global GDP while Western Europe held under 9 percent. By 1700 the positions had fully reversed: Western Europe at 22 percent, the Middle East at roughly 3 percent. The riba prohibition, waqf rigidity, suppressed contract innovation, the absence of the legal person as a recognized category: none of these are incidental features you could reform while keeping the rest of the system intact. They follow from the logic of divine law applied to commerce. God's commands didn't come with an economic impact assessment.
Time preference. Hoppe's analysis of the state turns on what sets it apart from every other organization: a territorial monopoly on force, funded through taxation rather than voluntary exchange. Because it doesn't earn its revenue, it doesn't internalize the costs of its own behavior. Its time preference runs structurally high. It consumes capital rather than accumulating it, because the benefits of consumption land with current rulers while the costs fall on future subjects who never got a vote. Deficits, currency debasement, infrastructure decay: these follow from the structure, not from any particular ruler's bad luck.
â„–4000353[Quote]
A theocratic state takes the pathology further. An ordinary state faces at least some competitive pressure: citizens can leave, capital can flee. A caliphate claiming universal jurisdiction removes both constraints. No exit. No competing legal order a dissatisfied subject can appeal to. The clerical class, insulated from market discipline and immune to political challenge, faces no feedback loop at all. It can extract indefinitely, because the theological justification for the extraction is built to be unfalsifiable and the exit door is welded shut. High time preference compounds with nothing to correct it. The society doesn't merely stagnate. It eats its own seed corn.
Anthony de Jasay described the state, any state, as a discriminating monopolist of force, one that survives by extending just enough benefit to just enough of the ruled to keep the rest from coordinating against it. A caliphate removes even that soft constraint, because there's no rival jurisdiction left to defect to and no credible threat of exit to discipline the ruler's appetite. It's the discriminating monopolist with every external check removed at once.
In 2003 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as enshrined in the Convention. That's not a cultural judgment. It's a structural one. Systems whose ultimate legal authority sits outside the reach of rational examination cannot produce the reliable, accountable order any functioning society needs. A closed loop can't be corrected from outside, by definition.
Muslim-majority states' sharia reservations account for roughly 40 percent of all reservations entered against international human rights treaties, concentrated most heavily on CEDAW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
From Nigeria to Aceh, even early supporters of introducing sharia became disillusioned over time. What emerged, by their own account, wasn't proper sharia but political sharia: politicians borrowing religious authority while failing to deliver on economic or social improvement. That failure isn't a story about bad implementation. A system built on an unexaminable premise has no mechanism to correct itself. It produces, instead of divine justice, a permanently entrenched clerical-political class accountable to no one.
What Self-Ownership Actually Requires
This argument is about Islamism as a political program: the project of imposing sharia as state law globally. It isn't about Islam as a personal faith or about Muslims as individuals. The distinction matters. Most Muslims don't hold the maximalist positions outlined here, and plenty of Muslim scholars and reformers have spent careers contesting precisely these interpretations from inside the tradition. The target is a specific political ideology, not a civilization or a people.
The same critique applies wherever faith wears a crown. Christian theocracy, Jewish religious nationalism, Hindutva statism: any system grounding coercive political authority in revelation faces the identical structural problem, the same unexaminable foundation, the same closed loop. The focus on Islamism here reflects its contemporary reach. No other theocratic movement today still produces functioning regimes willing to kill for the right to define reality.
Hoppe's argumentation ethics cuts deeper than the economics. Anyone who argues, who claims a proposition is true and ought to be accepted, already presupposes that he owns himself. He has to: he's using his own body to speak, independently, and he's presupposing his listener owns hers too, since otherwise she couldn't freely weigh the argument and accept or reject it. Arguing against self-ownership is a performative contradiction. You have to use the very thing you're denying in order to deny it.
Argumentation is, in this sense, an implicit concession to the non-aggression principle. You cannot argue for aggression without already presupposing the norms that aggression violates. Notice what kind of claim this is, the same kind as the action axiom: not handed down by an authority, but something you're invited to check by examining the structure of your own argument, right now, as you read this.
â„–4000354[Quote]
The radical Islamist who debates you has already lost before he opens his mouth. He's using reason's own tools, treating you as an independent mind capable of weighing propositions and arriving at your own verdict, while the regime he's defending systematically denies that same capacity through compulsory veiling, compulsory prayer, compulsory everything. He doesn't see the contradiction, because it's built into the structure of the act itself rather than into anything he's consciously chosen. You cannot argue for theocracy without borrowing, for the length of the argument, the epistemology of freedom.
The self-ownership problem runs deeper than politics. The ordinary state says: obey the law. The theocratic state says: obey God, as interpreted by us. One is a protection racket. The other is a protection racket with cosmic pretensions attached. The first can at least be contested on practical grounds, since its claims are about consequences anyone can check. The second forecloses argument at the root, because its authority derives not from consent or demonstrated necessity but from the will of an absent deity, transmitted through interpreters whose claim to speak for that will is unfalsifiable by design. It doesn't merely take your property. It says your body was never yours to begin with: that it belongs to God, and that His representatives on earth exercise His property rights on His behalf.
Deny self-ownership and you deny the precondition for any ethics at all. If you don't own yourself, you can't own anything else. If you can't own anything else, you can't contract, trade, or plan a life of your own. The priest-lord and the feudal baron wear different clothes. The relationship underneath is identical: one class rules, another obeys, and the obedience gets extracted by force and then dressed up as something owed.
The theocrat's logic is internally consistent given his premises. The premises are false, and the system built on them is a documented catastrophe: for property, for law, for the basic human capacity to live free of surveillance by people who claim to speak for the infinite.
The honest answer to "how do you know?" is a chain of reasoning that anyone, doing the work themselves, can follow to the end and check. Everything else is force, dressed up in a robe so it doesn't have to answer the question.
The radical Islamist who dreams of a global caliphate is not a visionary. He's a man who surrendered his own mind and now insists everyone else surrender theirs too. A world built on that premise wouldn't just be poor and unfree, though it would certainly be both. Questioning the order would be a capital offense. Doubt criminalized. The individual abolished as a thinking being. Liberty and reason aren't Western inventions being imposed on everyone else. They're human necessities, because humans think, and any system that demands they stop, whether it cites Marx or Muhammad to justify the demand, is an enemy of human life.
â„–4000369[Quote]
>>4000330Geez that guy sounds like a total faggot
â„–4000412[Quote]
thoughts on Georgism?
â„–4000414[Quote]
I wish he added a bibliography on the larty for this stats he pulls n such, but otherwise a quite decently formatted essay imo.
It actually lays out his argument quite effectively, you can easily see each premise and watch as he builds them up- and it makes sense.
It demonstratively shows problems within the islamic sharia, pretty fascinating. I give congrats to libertybro
â„–4000490[Quote]
>>4000417>see lolbert>you ask him about taxes>he says he hates themshocking.
georgism is fundamentally flaws, and sir George was an idiot.
Georgism says that taxes on human effort and production (like income, sales and other such taxes) are economically harmful and therefore "bad" so they shouldn't be used. he then replies to this with one of a similarly destructive tax system called land value tax (LTV)
The tax fundamentally has the same type of economically harmful effects on society that more direct theft would do.
It is still taxing the underlying parts necissary to production.
Capital
Enterprise
Land
Labour
When you increase the cost of owning land, you also increase the costs of the businesses that are on that land- leading to a higher operating cost, meaning that said business will have less money to perform business with- such as hiring labour, buying new tech will be unable to reduce prices if said cost is too high. this would lead to consequences on the economy, and if instituted on a similar scale as income tax- it will produce the same effect of increasing costs, increasing prices and making thinks harder to produce, start a business and start production- leading to possible scarcity.
â„–4000557[Quote]
>>4000323 (OP)Someone should send the whole text to Warrior Z, this would make him leak.
Although I have to say OP, either the author is not a good writer or you did not provide enough context, since some passages barely make any sense where he was going. Like he argues the whole first chunk about something completely unrelated to the second half of the second chunk.
Also, I can point out some logical flaws if you want.
â„–4000567[Quote]
>>4000490I think you fundamentally do not understand the principle of taxation. Let me ask you this, why do we tax people?
â„–4000577[Quote]
>>4000557>logical flawsplease do so. the main problem I see with is whether this religiously protected land was then main or only way of owning land- then it would mean large scale under-development, as he said, but that claim could still be disputed- and would harm his argument significantly.
â„–4000586[Quote]
>>4000577No, I mean in the way he argues about knowledge itself. It is his fundament for the whole lilbert argument, but it has some hefty contradictions.
â„–4000589[Quote]
>>4000567"why"?
Because an organisation spanning the length of a nation wants things, and it doesn't want to produce those things, thus takes them with or without consent.
It is theft by definition, there is no reason to discus the "why" as if "why" someone stole from the store or "why" someone pulls out a nine and starts blasting.
â„–4000594[Quote]
>>4000586then get typing boi
â„–4000596[Quote]
>>4000588You will get much more by reading actual lilbert books.
â„–4000598[Quote]
did
not
read
â„–4000601[Quote]
>>4000594It will take a little bit longer, I have already 500+ words, lets instead argue about taxation, but not for long since I will go to sleep.
â„–4000604[Quote]
>>4000592Thank you for making that clear
>>4000596I don't like reading books because I can't call the author a nigger whenever I disagree with them
â„–4000613[Quote]
>>4000601if you have 500 words, why wouldn't you paste them here or finish what you are doing? It seems more valuable, to me, to see whatever your thinking in respect to op's text
â„–4000626[Quote]
>>4000589This is the problem with you lilberts, when I say why? I do not mean your hallucination even if it would be true, but the argument of the government. Let me rephrase, what is the a priori justification for taxation?
If you say robbery, then you would be wrong, because otherwise no one would pay taxes.
Regarding your robbery analogy on the why question:
I can also ask why someone robbed a store, it is called a motive and very important for police investigation actually. So your analogy does not really work on this.
â„–4000645[Quote]
>>4000613Because it is not finished an I am tired. To be honest I have read enough pseudo intellectual bullshit to see one if I read it, OP consciously writes in a convoluted way and I rather have a clean argument ready by tomorrow, than something half baked. Please respect this.
If you want I will make my own thread if this slides.
â„–4000651[Quote]
>>4000645See I am already making big ESL mistakes.
â„–4000652[Quote]
i would honestly rather live under an inbred mudslime soyciety and i ever would a lolbert one, at least the mudslime soyciety would function somewhat
â„–4000663[Quote]
>>4000626I am saying it is irrelevant to ask why when the problem of the thing is the thing itself.
When you see some african rape and murder another african in the congo, you wouldn't be asking "why?!" you'd be starting by thinking "this is wrong and illegal"
You don't ask "why" an insane person in an asylum shits and pisses on the walls, unless you are trying to reform said person.
The same is with the organisation called the state. You dont ask "why" they take peoples money, regardless if they want to or not- with no opt-out, and with no contractual obligations in place or literally anything to say said money is theirs.
â„–4000664[Quote]
>>4000652A big problem with lilbert societies is it does not account for actual psychopaths, which do not care for the NAP. But when I point it out they say:
>Well everyphono will keep them in checkThis is the same argument ANCOMs use to say that their based communist communes would work.
â„–4000672[Quote]
>>4000664psychopaths do not care for any law, and they exist in this world right now and are dealt with accordingly. does the wizard of the state magically smite insane murders or rapists or does it act within the laws of reality to perform some kind of pseudo justice?
â„–4000674[Quote]
>>4000663Actual retarded thought process, you ask the "why?" so you can start with prevention, why is the nigger raping the other nigger? Because niggers are violent, so we get rid of them to avoid any problems, the why helps you reach a permanent solution, only focusing on the present punishment is pure nigger behaviour.
â„–4000675[Quote]
>>4000663You lilberts should really learn how to actually use analogies, no offense, but these are just tailored for your case. If I kill a pedophile who raped my child and someone sees it it is very important to ask "why".
â„–4000683[Quote]
Why do people not care that they're getting "robbed" by the state? The retarded lolbert cannot respond,and as such is fundamentally disconnected from the greater society - his ideology with no support, think pragmatically you stupid nigger.
â„–4000690[Quote]
>>4000675what is a cup, what is a bowl? When a wrong is committed it is wrong, that's the thing I am saying with these analogies. "why" is a wrong attitude to have when identifying wrongs.
â„–4000691[Quote]
>>4000663retarded cappiecuck jewcorp slave types wordswordswords in an attempt to appear intelligent: the thread
â„–4000699[Quote]
>>4000689they want to larp being edgy altrighters but refuse to hold any actual alt right beliefs because that would be heckin mean to the poor immigrant who will work for half the wage a white worker would (It's based and freemarketpilled)
â„–4000716[Quote]
>>4000675Also, I want to see your 500 (presumably 700 by the end of it) word counter essay, this is both in my interest and op's to see it.
â„–4000733[Quote]
All will be Buck broken by Monarchist BVLLS
â„–4000739[Quote]
libertards are the best argument against libertarianism GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG the smug redditor wordswordswords ideology
â„–4000742[Quote]
>>4000732ancaps better than leftoids
â„–4000744[Quote]
>>4000330KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, AND KEEP RAGING ON ME!!! YOU LOSE ALL DEBATES! KEEP CRYING ON MY SHOULDER SONS! ISLAM WON, REPLY IF YOU AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP GETTING MAD AT THE TRVTHNVKES AND KEEP CRYING ON MY SHOULDER, I FEEL YOUR PAIN AND FRUSTRATION!
All glory to Allah
I AM BATMAN, I AM THE PUNISHER, I AM KRATOS, I AM SPAWN, I AM WARRIOR-Z
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
ISLAM WON! AND INSHALLAH VICTORY TO THE DEEN AND THE UMMAH WILL ARRIVE, AND WE WILL NOT STOP AT IT! DIE IN YOUR LEAKAGE, CLITTYCEL! WE STAND BY ALLAH FOREVER, WE STAND BY THE PROPHET PBUH'S TEACHING FOREVER! ISLAM VVON, GET OVER IT! FOR THE ZIOSISSIES ON HERE SPREADING THEIR MOSSAD PROPAGANDA ON THE SOYSPHERE TO BUY OVER CHUDS; IT WON'T BE LONG UNTIL THEY REALISE YOU ARE BABY PENIS SUCKING, TERROR FUNDING, PEDOPHILIC UNTERMENSCH THAT WILL BE SENT TO THE FIERY DEPTHS OF AL-NAAR IF YOU DO NOT REPENT, INSHALLAH. BE QUIET KAFIR. YOU SOUND LIKE A SEETHING KAFIR. SAGE. SHAHADA IN THE THREAD. ISLAM VVON. I PRAY! I GIVE MONEY TO THE POOR! TAKBEER; ALLAHU AKBAR! ONCE SOOT BUYS BACK THE SHARTY HE WILL MAKE /ISLAM/ AND BTFO ALL THE ZIOSISSIES THINKING THEY CAN SPREAD THEIR PROPAGANDA ON THE SHARTY! AND FOR ALL THE TROONANTSISSIES THAT WILL SCREAM AND LEAK; ISLAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION WITH A POPULATION OF 2 BILLION CONSISTING OF ALL RACES, YOUR IDEOLOGY IS DEAD AND ISLAM IS FOREVER! If someone is paying you for this, they are really wasting their money. Because you write like a shill who is just rapidly and neurotically trying to crank out your mentally stunted hate-thoughts without even using English correctly. Like a smiling tweaker just geeking out on the keyboard.
KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, AND KEEP RAGING ON ME!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU LOSE ALL DEBATES!!!!!!!!!!!! ISLAM WON, REPLY IF YOU AGREE!
â„–4000747[Quote]
>>4000690The cup and bowl analogy undermines your whole argument. These are examples of fuzzy, convention-dependent categories, people very much disagree over these things. So if morality works like that, the analogy supports continentalism, not-objective, self-evident moral facts.
Also your "there is no why" move is also selectively applied. Lilbert philosophy depends on controversial claims: why is aggression wrong, why does mixing labor with land create ownership, why is taxation theft? Those are arguments, not self-evident perceptions.
â„–4000752[Quote]
>>4000716Again as I have said, I will not post some half baked cakes.
â„–4000754[Quote]
>>4000732I already Identified why, btw.
>>4000589It is because le goobment wants resources it doesn't have and doesn't own, so it engages in contradictory actions (stealing) to get said resources.
And I have said the reason I have to say that asking why is irrelevant; when the fact is identified.
â„–4000755[Quote]
>>4000747I misswrote continentalism should be conventionalism.
â„–4000756[Quote]
>>4000689How can you not like the based ancap vaporwave fumos?
â„–4000759[Quote]
>>4000754And I already explained why you're a retarded nigger here
>>4000674 â„–4000763[Quote]
>>4000747when I say x is y, and I apply that to moral and legal judgement- that is not subjectivism, it is literally about identifying the facts of reality. That is for the world, for reality and objective.
â„–4000782[Quote]
>>4000763for the purpose of elaborating, I am deliberately trying to say that the identification of a crime, a wrong or a bad does not mean a "why" must be there. We dont need to know why someone did something necessarily, as you are assuming- "it was a good cause" therefore the crime is not a crime? what kind of view of reality is that? a isnt a and is infact c and b at the same time?
â„–4000794[Quote]
>>4000757I didn't reas any of this thread idk what it's about lol
â„–4000806[Quote]
>>4000782>Good job for killing that pedophile! We will reward you by locking you up for the rest of your life??? Murder is not an absolute evil that needs to always be punished, in fact, it's quite the natural thing.
â„–4000808[Quote]
>>4000806killing is not murder
â„–4000820[Quote]
>>4000808Oh sure, let's talk semantics, I MURDER a pedophile, is that wrong?
â„–4000825[Quote]
>>4000763>>4000782I can literally turn this whole thing around lilbert.
Because I can also ask you "why is taxation theft"?
You owe an a priori justification for why taxation counts as theft, the same way "this is theft" requires showing the property claim it violates is valid. Asserting "it id just objectively wrong no why needed" doesn't get you there, because unlike a cup or a bowl "taxation is theft" is a contested inference built on a chain of claims that all need arguments. You cannot skip that chain by calling the conclusion selfevident. Restating your certainty is not a justification btw.
â„–4000834[Quote]
>>4000825Please Rolf, this guy clearly doesn't go above one standard deviation.
â„–4000869[Quote]
>>4000825I don't owe an "a priori" anything, what I'd need to show you is a valid induction of what theft is, what is taxation and why it is wrong- but that isn't anything really related to what we are truly talking about. The argument you are trying to give is that if an action is taken, there must always be a why and in any judgement of an action we MUST find that why- which is odd for the reasons I have given, and for the reason that when we see an apple falling, we don't need to know why it fell to make the objective judgement that the apple fell from that tree and fell on that patch of ground. To say that we must always assume a necessaries of Whys when deciding what something is is ludicrous and is simply not true.
The burden of proof, as it was you who initially asked the "why" and brought this argument into discussion and into the flow- it is the burden of making a valid proof or induction is on you.
â„–4000875[Quote]
>>4000869it'd be different If I came to you asserting that taxation is theft, but it is you asking about the nature of why the government does taxation (going in the route of "because its good") therefore its you making the claim, and me attacking it. Now Ill ask you; why must there always be a why in any sort of judgement on things?
â„–4000890[Quote]
>>4000567here is (you) starting this conversation with a loaded question and assumed premises that I am pointing out
â„–4000903[Quote]
>>4000869You just conceded the whole point.
>what I'd need to show you is a valid induction of what theft is, what is taxation and why it is wrong-This is exactly the "why" you spent this whole exchange refusing to answer lilbert. Call it induction instead of a priori if you like it is still an argument not a perception.
The apple analogy fails for the same reason as the cup one. "The apple fell" is a descriptive report of an event nophono needs a reason why it fell. So that they can report that it happened. But "taxation is theft" is not a descriptive report it is a classification, it says this act satisfies the definition of theft. That requires showing the property claim being violated is valid, same as calling something "theft" requires showing the taken item wasn't rightfully the takers.
On burden of proof you dont get to flip it just because I asked "why" first. You made the actual claim, taxation is theft is your assertion, not mine. The person asserting a category claim owes the justification for it.
You were the first to make any claim about taxation in this thread.Me asking why does not transfer my burden because I made no claim.
>>4000875Lilbert you were the first in this thread to make a claim about theft is taxation in this threadOn your question, not every judgment needs a "why". Direct reports from perception, the apple fell, do not need justification to state as having happened. But classifications and normative judgments are different in kind, calling something theft, a crime, or wrong is asserting that it fits a definition or violates a principle, and that fit is exactly what is contested when people disagree.