These are the posters I am not responding to due to previous, and likely current, posting dishonesty--- GXB WXB Fatantic ExtraGoatRoper ShiteTrader ScumTrader Fraid Foreshite SuckSand Dupey
And yet he reads everything. Well @spy, @Buy1Sell2 has recognised your worth and wants to put you under his patronage in the army of Trumpness.
Objectivist ideology is the Gish Gallop. You better just have some time to kill if you engage with it. Which I do at this moment. Tax = Contracts and Fees: You pay for essential services like security, infrastructure, and arbitration one way or another. Whether through taxes to a government or private contracts, you're funding the same fundamental services that create a stable business environment. In the end, it’s not about labels, taxes versus contract and fees, it’s about paying for what you need. The focus should be on the practicality and efficiency of the services, not the ideological label attached to the payment method. Those who can’t see past these labels are being taxed intellectually. They’ve been manipulated into thinking they’re avoiding costs or having costs "their way," when in fact, they’re naive to the inconveniences and inefficiencies of a purely contract-and-fees society. What matters is the value and effectiveness of the services, not the name of the payment system. Objectivists will remain in intellectual poverty for as long as they prioritise ideology over practical realities. As long as certain dogmas, such as the absolute rejection of taxes, are seen as non-negotiable, the conversation stays confined to labels rather than outcomes.
The way I deal with it, and it's amusing you mentioned jem, is to stop reading/listening at the first false premise, and that's the one I reply to. Any properly constructed argument requires all premises to be true.
I deleted my reply before as I used a poorly attributed quote Yes, that's definitely the best way to handle it. Though even if they say a lot of things that are technically true, they may still not add up to a substantial point; this is where the Gish Gallop can trip you up.
Thinking about it, during in-person discussion I make people retire/withdraw their arguments if poorly founded so they don't just pop up again. I have not been much good in developing a more concise, assertive style of social meda writing that reflects my in-person approach, convincing body language, ensuring weak arguments don’t resurface. Or are just not even attempted.
I'm not disputing any of this. It's smart to pay for those kinds of essential services. The problem you don't address is that there is monopoly control of those services for which you are coerced into using. You can't just "change providers" without being thrown in jail. "Thus, the State has invariably shown a striking talent for the expansion of its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it." (1) This is because your ideas are hogwash and you can't organize hogwash. I contend that you are, in fact, the person who is using the gish gallop technique. Otherwise, you'd go ahead and write your ideas down, cohesively, comprehensively, and publish them for the world to consider... like Rothbard did. Instead you're on the net spouting "good government bullshit" to common folk; and you're not even doing a good job of it
You want my advice @Tuxan.... first, read Anatomy of the State. You must actually read the book first, a few times; else you won't learn what good writing is. Then, re-write it in the same vein and style, but paint the state in a favorable light, as a panacea instead. Make sure to explain why people should want to pay more in taxes, put themselves in jail or the military, and buy things from state sponsored stores. Finally, make sure it doesn't sound like a fairy tail but perfectly serious instead. Good luck!