Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictions are false therefore all of these are wrong — 🤡

• Advocates for the govt stealing peoples money to pay for goods/services/protection
  • Believes it is necessary to fund healthcare (but muh cancer patients 🤒), but refuses to diverge funds from crappy ministries (arts and culture) back to the citizens or towards the healthcare ministry (so much for fighting cancer 😞) 🤡
  • This implies that their are some fields/sectors/interests that need not be essential for wider society, but for a select minority who engage in it
    Then why are private actors punished (taxes/regulations), for doing the same (engaging in their own specialised interest), and their money used to fund the govt's special interests? Are we saying the govt's interests overrides the individual's interests? Isn't the govt supposed to be for the people? 🤡
    • Believe without these taxes, essential goods/services the govt provides (as monopolists btw), would cost way more — eg. I pay $100 in tax but I receive goods/services that are $150 in value. But if everyone pays $100 in tax how would we all get $150 in value? Where is the extra $50 coming from? There are only 2 answers
      • 1. Some people pay more in taxes — eg. moe-boy pays $100 in taxes and Larry pays $200 in tax
           This means the extra $50 afforded to moe-boy is from Larry, and Larry is receiving goods/services that are $150 in value despite paying $200, so he has lost $50, that $50 goes to moe-boy. So Larry is punished for being more successful that moe-boy? moe-boy is a grown-ass man relying on the govt to force another man to subsidise his living? Now as a whole this would mean 'rich people' are the ones taking care of the rest of society and there in lies the fallacy, the govt isn't taking care of you, other successful people are under the threat of violence. moe-boy is fine with being a parasite/cuck, having others pay for his life.
      • 2. Govt just prints money (Inflating the money supply)
           The govt printing money devalues all current holders of that currency. It is taking purchasing power away from savers without them having a say. But I thought govt is for the people?
• Holds the strong belief that central planning is good (very pro-govt bureaucracy 🪦), yet leaves his Ministry of Education job in favour of a private sector job 🤣
  • Would go on for months telling us the ridiculous failings of working in the Ministry of Education in detail and how incompetent everyone is, and the minute someone brings up how these things are non-existent in private organizations (due to economic reality — aka profits & losses 🧠), immediately defend the inefficiencies govt organizations with golden statements such as "public servants need to buy bread so its okay that they dont perform at their jobs", "a $1M neck pillow for those travelling to city gate is justifiable as cost does not matter, at least one person will smile on their way there"
  • Instead of finding another Ministry to work at, proceeds to look at private companies and expresses the glee he had in sending in his resignation to the Ministry of Education
  • The mantra is "costs does not matter", but when evaluating possible job offerings at private companies namely between Fujitsu/RBC, proceeds to say he will go with the one that is paying more (ah, rules for thee, not for me 🧐)
• Cares about how rich/other people save/invest/'hoard'/splurge their money — (shakes fists grrrr damn you ELON/BEZOS!! 😠), but does not care about how the govt uses other people's money
  • When people buy luxurious items with the money they earned it is seen as a waste, and that it could be put to better use for the benefit of 'more people'
    However, govt spending is more wasteful and demonstrably so (cough cough spending 50-35k USD on azure for 3 PHP sites with like 5 users 🤯), yet is seen as a necessary waste (no matter the cost) for providing xyz goods/services to the 'public'
    Unlike the rich person 'wasting' his own money and having to deal with the consequences himself, the govt wastes everyone's money and suffer little to no consequences since they are assured taxes by gunpoint, the taxpayer however is the biggest loser since it is their labor that goes in vain. 🤡
  • Cares about 'smiles' over the cost of providing xyz (we must maximize the utils!). Wtf is this 'smile' metric?, this is a made up subjective unit that has no objective way of measuring it — therefore rubbish. Given this rubbish metric, then the same could be said about the rich guy spending his money on luxurious items (over 9000 smiles in a Mercedes-Benz AMG - 3000 in a Rolex 😂)
    If we want to maximize 'smiles', then why would we ignore costs? Efficiency by definition is ratio of useful work vs output, which means if we provide xyz regardless of cost, that we are not efficient therefore we are not maximizing 'smiles/utils/etc' 🤡
• Dislikes monopolies, especially for "essential" goods/services but advocates for centralisation of these "essential" goods/services, i.e. monopolies on "essential" goods/service 🤨
  • Supports public goods/services since its "cheaper" for all, (side note: no, the rich subsidies it with their higher tax contribution), but these same govt organisations prevent individuals from paying less with regulations/laws that protect their monopoly as sole provider of these essential services 🤡
    eg.
    - T&TEC makes it illegal to install solar panels in an equatorial country unless the household makes <10kTTD/month 🤪
    - WASA makes it illegal to use rivers/streams or collect rainfall (ah yes they own the sky 🫡)
  • In favour of import customs/duties on products we don't/can't produce which obviously restricts access to goods + bolsters existing businesses strangle hold on these goods 🤡
  • Against big businesses 'price gouging' yet is okay with preferential laws/regulations that favour businesses that import goods vs the average person importing goods
    i.e., it is only those with wealth via business that can import goods at decent rates that are then sold on for big profit margins and the individual who has no need to import goods in bulk, has to choose between a 'price gouged' import or a highly taxed import which leads to a monopolising of goods through existing or new businesses 🤡
  • Dislikes bitcoin, a decentralized monetary system capped at 21M, but in favour of central banks who monopolize the counterfeiting of currency — essentially stealing purchasing power from savers (increased money supply = less value per unit) 🤡
• Believes Capitalism leads to slavery due to wage labour but advocates for socialism
  • Slavery is not impossible through any system, evil exists get over it.
    Wage labour is not slavery in the slightest, it is a completely consensual agreement by worker - employer. You get paid what the market deems fit and it's your choice to accept it or move on. Feeling 'underpaid' does not equal slavery, that is an intellectually bankrupt conclusion . No one owes you your desired salary they aren't your daddy (but muh minimum wage 😫). You have the choice to either level up, or leave and go elsewhere — neither of which are afforded to a real slave.
    Socialism however has slavery aspects built in as it is the institutionalised redistribution of private property through coercion — you cannot opt out. The productive class (private sector) is forced to pay a percentage to the unproductive class (public sector) — straight up percentage-based slavery baked into slavery. 🤡
  • The 'shmuck' Robert Breedlove has coined the phrase "A slave is someone with an effective tax rate of 100%". This is self explanatory since the slave's entire labour goes towards his master. If we contrast it with today's democracies where we believe in the west that slavery is over, we find that not to be the case, we are all a percentage of a slave be it 10/20/25/30% of a slave as we are held by gunpoint and thrown in a cage if we refuse to fund the state. Show me a free-market business that behaves like that? 🤡

Here's the tldr as to why your concoction of socialism is false and Anarcho-capitalism is true (Aggression vs Non-aggression)

1. Semantics so everyone's on the same page, (I know its hard for you, but grant me a smidge of intellectual honesty will ya 🥺)
   Aggression: The initiation of conflict — self-defense is not aggression, that is a justified response towards aggression
   Conflict: Contradictory actions

eg. Desert island, Robert finds a stick and fashions it into a spear to go spear-fishing, Murray wants to use it to stoke his fire — conflict arises, both Robert and Murray cannot spear-fish + stoke fire at the same time with the stick.

2. Two ways we can solve conflicts over scarce resources
   a) Using aggression — (steal/murder/harm/coercion etc)
   b) Using non-aggresion — property rights

3. Aggression-based ethics (🤮)
   These are ethics which permit aggression in some configuration, eg:

   • Racism - by race
   • Marxism (full on socialism) - by owner vs worker dynamic
   • Monarchy - by royalty
   • Democracy (mild socialism) - by vote
   • Imperialism - by military force
     Forget the technical details and merits of each, they all allow for aggression in some form, so firstly can aggression be justified?

4. Argument from Argument — showing aggression to be false 🤓

   • argumentation is and must be a conflict-free interaction used to derive truth values - arguing otherwise results in an obvious contradiction
   • arguing for aggression in particular, presupposes the norm of non-aggression as argumentation is a conflict-free interaction meaning this pro-aggression argument is a performative contradiction.
     This is akin to saying, "I ought not speak" or "People are always indifferent to doing things" or "We ought not argue" — the very act of proposing these propositions, presupposes the very opposite of the claim being made therefore contradicting oneself and thus being false. i.e. "I ought not speak (by speech)" = FALSE = "I ought aggress (by non-aggression)" 😎
     Trying to evade this conclusion by saying you don't need to argue for your "pro-agression ethic" is the same thing religion does which would mean you become the very thing you are against.

5. Aggression is false so Non-aggression is true 💡
   From argumentation we know aggression is false and additionally we know property rights exists, as to deny this in argumentation would be to presuppose one's self-ownership as well as the interlocutor's — (why else would you need to engage with him if you truly owned him? clearly you do not and cannot)
   Basically, through argumentation we know that people own themselves (SHOCKER! 😱), therefore you cannot justify aggression towards another individual no matter your arbitrary reason.
   This is the justification of the NAP (Non-aggression Principle), which underpins consensual trade — the free market — Capitalism at large.

   So if you hold logic to be true, any ethic that allows even the tiniest form of aggression is FALSE
   QED Bitch. 🖕

The Clown's response (Last thoughts on evasion of the argument)

Instead of addressing the main point of aggression (the underlying mechanism for the policies he supports — taxation/extortion by govt), he hand-waves it by saying they are imaginary points with no evidence.

The Aggression vs Non-aggression excerpt LITERALLY states the point that under scarce resources conflicts arise and we have 2 ways to dispute them. In what world is that imaginary? This is our reality.

This kinda response is a failed attempt of trying to hold frame and steer the argument into tit-for-tat on specific policies where he wants us to assume taxation is not theft and so he can pick out irrelevant talking points like the legality of things/its utility etc etc.
That is all irrelevant bullshit — the core idea behind taxation/central planning is the use of aggression by the state.

Its bewildering to me that he once argued rightfully for consent in rape discussion/debacle with another guy, but can't see that taxation is theft since it is without consent. He may agree personally to being taxed so to him it is not theft but thats not how theft is defined. Who on earth would use "feeling like they are being stolen from" as a basis for whether or not something is theft? An action cant be theft in one instance and then in another instance the opposite, this is the law of excluded middle. Taxation is either theft or not it. Is consent involved in taxation? No, therefore it is theft and a form of aggression.
This is why the basis for the excerpt above is to show that aggression is false.

His claim that its not related to anything he's said is testament to the fact that he is intellectually inept and cannot string 2 thoughts together. He is dumbfounded by how I could dive deeper into the ethical underpinnings of these policies which he supports. (We've had extensive calls in which he states his favour for govt interventions/taxation etc - even called Flow and Digicel monopolies which are literally 2 companies that provide the same things) This is the individual we are dealing with.

At the end of the day I can back up my ideas but he cannot. Instead he evades by ignoring my justification altogether rather than dispute it. This is not uncommon for ideologues who have too much ego invested to be seen wrong so they deflect.

Aggression is the uncomfortable truth all socialists/redistributionists/utilitarians etc do not want to engage with. Some of those with a little more intellectual honesty will cede that it is aggression but state its for the greater good. This guy outright shows ignorance and refuses to engage with an inconvenient truth.