[smokeyj]

You need evidence that economic prosperity should not come at the expense of human rights? Or that America was founded on the principles of restricted government and individual liberty seeking freedom from religious persecutions? Or that shaping moments of this nation was a tax revolt that led to the American Revolution? I don't have time to give history lessons, but I'm not making it up. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

[quinnchr]

Ahahahahah the entire history of the United States is based on expanding economic prosperity at the expense of human rights. For fucks sake slavery was enshrined in our constitution because it was so profitable. Then there was the whole genocide of native populations at the expense of economic growth.

And yes obviously they were revolting over having to pay taxes not you know the whole taxation without representation thing (hmmm... taxation in exchange for representation, that sounds almost like some sort of social contract). Maybe try reading some history through a different lens than "waaaaah taxes!" Why don't you give this a try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_Unite...

Also I was dead serious about accepting your offer to buy me a ticket to Cuba, you can email me at [e-mail]

Thanks!

[smokeyj]

You made the case that the US should be a poster child for unrestricted government, citing Somalia as a contrast. I'm simply saying that the beginnings of the US more closely resembled the Wild West than a well-regulated market place. You're only supporting my point in arguing that even the most "civilized" of governments are founded in death and despair, but you probably won't realize that as you're not arguing out of principle.

I will seriously buy your ticket if you promise to stay in Cuba. Email me in a year with proof and I'll send some bitcoins your way. Maybe they'll have computers in Cuba by then.

[quinnchr]

Yes you are correct when the U.S. was founded it had almost no regulations, no taxes (aside from tariffs), and federalism hadn't quite been worked out yet so the U.S. government was as small as it could have been. I would argue that that's about as close to a truly "Free Market" as America ever got.

...and the result was enslavement, genocide, and subjugation. Yay! I don't know what you mean by saying I'm not arguing out of principle. I'm citing specific events and facts while you sit there and say "but history!" while not responding to any of the evidence I'm providing or providing any of your own.

You offered to buy me a ticket, not promise to reimburse me if I stayed for a year. If you're already trying to back out of your verbal (written?) contract you must be a pretty shitty libertarian. How about this, I'll draw up a contract in which I agree to stay for a year on the condition that you pay for my ticket with the requirement that if I fail to prove residency after one year I will reimburse you for the ticket. A ticket from where I live to Key West (an hour boat ride away) is less than 200$. What do you say? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

And hey maybe when (if) I come back in a year the U.S. might have a functional education system and get that healthcare thingy figured out. I mean it's kind embarrassing we're doing worse than a country that doesn't have computers. Except they do have computers despite the efforts of the U.S. embargo.

[smokeyj]

> I don't know what you mean by saying I'm not arguing out of principle

Let me put it another way. The efficacy and morality of taxation cannot be deduced via extrapolating historical economic and sociological data points. If a country has high taxes and is economically well off, that doesn't refute that taxation constitutes theft. It also doesn't prove that they couldn't have been better off with lesser or no taxes. Just because a region has low taxes or low regulation doesn't mean it's the epitome of what a decentralized society has to look like either. I can tell you think you have my ideology in a little libertarian box, but you're only fooling yourself.

As for your ticket, I'm not backing out -- but the condition is you have to stay. I'll buy your ticket and send it to you, but you have to put down a safety deposit on a mutually agreed upon arbitrator for the amount of $400. Every year you can prove residency you get $100 back. If you can't prove residency, I keep the remaining funds.

[quinnchr]

Right, and simply stating that taxes constitute theft isn't an argument either. What exactly is your argument? Because so far all I've gleaned is "waaaaah taxes."

And supposing I accept the fact that taxes are theft. If I can show with my stupid "evidence" and "historical record" that lack of government regulation has tended to cause oh say, slavery, genocide, and subjugation. Am I simply supposed to accept the risk of those because you can make the unfalsifiable claim that no taxes could theoretically lead to a different outcome? Why is theft the ultimate immorality in your ideology. Is the capitalist exploitation of the worker not theft?

So now you want me to put up twice the cost of the ticket and stay for at least four years? Somehow I don't think you made your initial offer in good faith. I'll accept if you lower the bond to the price of the ticket and stick to the initial one year (mostly because I sincerely doubt I could manage to stay in Cuba for 4 years without getting booted out). You can pick the escrow agent (obviously I'd prefer an established service).

Oh in just in case you think you've got my ideology in a box. I'm all for a decentralized government. I'd say I identify most closely with anarcho-syndicalism. But I do most definitely reject any sort of libertarian or capitalist ideology.

[smokeyj]

> Right, and simply stating that taxes constitute theft isn't an argument either.

1. I made observation X.

2. You argue observation X is wrong because Y and Z.

3. I claim arguments Y and Z don't negate observation X

4. You claim I don't offer any arguments besides "waaah taxes"

I just want you to realize how ridiculous your method of communication is. Your communication style reveals that you're more interested in being "right" than understanding why an argument is made. That's fine, but I'm not really interested in scoring fake debate points here. This isn't a debate -- and if it was, you would be in trouble. Instead of asking why I hold an observation to be true (thus, allowing me to make an argument for it), you immediately go on the offense, forcing me to rebuttal your arguments. I stopped responding because it became clear you're here to reaffirm your own ideology rather than discuss ideas.

X = If you do it, it's theft. If they do it, it's a tax.

Y = I will personally buy you a plane ticket to Somalia (or any other place with limited government)

Z = Imagine if the government hadn't invested it's tax revenue back into national defense and infrastructure for the past three centuries.

[quinnchr]

I'm still waiting for that ticket, sure seems like you're backing out.