[MCRed]

Libertarians are using the word violence correctly.

If a person rapes, murders, beats, stabs, uses force or otherwise is violent against another person, then libertarians would call that "violence".

Statists seem to believe that all of the above is not "violence" when done by a government or an agent of the government.

It seems that by definition the Statists are watering down the word violence.

Why is it wrong to molest a child... unless you're in an Airport and wearing a TSA uniform?

Because government is somehow magical, right?

Please.

[vacri]

I must have missed government agents raping people. Is that a regular occurrence where you are? Because I don't think you have to be libertarian to be against that sort of behaviour. I certainly haven't heard of anyone being raped because they didn't pay their tax.

In any case, if that's your definition of violence, then libertarians are actually anarchists - there can be zero law or tax at all, because as soon as you don't feel like complying, any enforcement becomes 'violence', since ultimately, at the end of the chain, it has to be enforced physically. Unenforceable laws and zero taxes = anarchy. And anarchy is not particularly workable above the level of hunter-gatherers and nomads.

I pay my taxes, various kinds, gladly and without a hint of violence anywhere. As does almost everyone (perhaps a few are resigned rather than glad, but still no violence). It's only when you refuse to pay that a chain of events begins which eventually ends up with you being manhandled by government agents, and then only if you're continuing to physically resist. At that point you can call 'violence', but before then, you're just speaking nonsense.

Edit: Also, you might just find it isn't just libertarians who have a problem with minors and TSA pat-downs. You don't have to classify that as 'violence' to have a problem with it. You say governments aren't magical. I'm saying the word 'violence' is not magical. Something doesn't have to be considered violence to be wrong.

[MCRed]

So, wait, a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. You give him your wallet and he runs off. Your argument seems to be that since he ran off without shooting you, no violence was involved?

> I certainly haven't heard of anyone being raped because they didn't pay their tax.

Oh really? IF you don't pay tax you go to jail. What happens in jail? Do you know the statistics on rape investigations in jail? Well, lets put it this way- they basically don't bother to investigate, and consider it part of the punishment.

Libertarians believe the initiation of force is immoral. Many of them are anarchists because, yes, it is quite hard for a government to exist without initiating force given the definition of government is basically "the mafia that conquered and rules a geographic region." But still there are many libertarians who support the idea of a voluntary government.

>And anarchy is not particularly workable

Prove it.

>without a hint of violence anywhere

Oh really? But you just made the threat of violence quite clear:

>In any case, if that's your definition of violence, then libertarians are actually anarchists - there can be zero law or tax at all, because as soon as you don't feel like complying, any enforcement becomes 'violence', since ultimately, at the end of the chain, it has to be enforced physically.

So, which is it. Are you paying taxes under the threat of "physical enforcement" aka violence? Or are you free to not pay your taxes?

Are you free to not be mugged?

>Something doesn't have to be considered violence to be wrong.

Not the point. Initiating violence against the innocent is wrong.

We point this out to force people like you to admit that you want to do violence against innocent people to pay for things that you value but that you don't want to pay for yourself (what you call taxes.)

By the way, given that Democrats voted for Obama and Obama is the one who signed the legislation that has the TSA molesting children, and the Republicans have done nothing to oppose it, yes, you DO have to be libertarian to claim to oppose the TSA. Otherwise what should we believe? It's not y our fault that this government whose violence you endorse is using it in way you don't approve of? Did you vote for Obama the second time? If so, you endorsed the TSA molestation regime.

[vacri]

you DO have to be libertarian to claim to oppose the TSA. blah blah Obama blah blah

No I don't, because I'm not fucking American^. You're so wound up in this story of yours that you've got blinders on, and can't see the outside world. You're so proud of this 'third way' that libertarians think they've got the lock on, when my country has multipolar politics, as do several others. In my country, Australia, there are two major political blocs (and one of those is itself made of two blocs), but the balance of power is currently held by small parties and independent politicians. So fuck you, fuck you very, very hard for trying to imply that I endorse TSA pat-downs, characterised by you as 'molestation' to make it sound like I was a sex offender by association. I should probably note that at this point in my life, I feel far more abused by libertarians than by the tax department, despite libertarians prattling on about not doing harm to others.

You're so proud that your libertarianism is the 'only' alternative (in your eyes), because if you're not Republican or Democratic, you have to be libertarian? Fuck, Australia considered itself a member of "Third Way" politics[1] decades ago, and that 'third way' is not 'libertarian'. Have you even seen Germany, which has no political parties strong enough to rule in their own right, so they have to form coalitions to get a majority?

All throughout your diatribe you're using simplistic concepts and overdramatised demonisation (like tax = street muggings), which you consider 'inescapable logic' or somesuch. The simple, plastic, PlayMobile philosophy you peddle is directly offensive (you're not a libertarian? then you condone rape!) and has no understanding of political nuance or necessity.

So, I leave you with this: If you hate government as much as you say you do, then move to Vanuatu. Good weather, happy people, no tax at all (unless you're a landlord). Less than a thousand police, and they also double as the army. Tiny government. It's exactly what libertarians say they want, and yet few seem to want to move there - they seem to much prefer the infrastructure bought by taxes. So, you don't want to pay for anything that you're not going to use yourself? Then put your money where your mouth is and move to Vanuatu, instead of implying that people who disagree with you are child molestors.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

^Edit: I don't have anything against the US, I'm just pissed off at being associated with child molestors just because I disagree with libertarians.