Europe might break Google up

[jazzc]

I do think your point about totalitarianism or failure being the only possible results is an unnecessarily dystopian outlook though.

It stems from historical experience and more importantly from praxeological argument. If you are interested in some hardcore reading, I'll be more than happy to provide references and guidance.

The (bare, totally incomplete) gist of it is that a state apparatus can never function in an economic way ("as a business") by design. Bureaucracy is inherent in it. Because the state functions by appropriation ("theft") and is a monopoly of violence (by definition), its only evolutionary path is to get bigger by keep doing what it does best ("theft"). The bigger the state becomes, the closest to totalitarianism. There is nothing that goes contrary to this progression other than economic failure, which ironically is caused by the greater and greater parasitic actions of the state. That is why I said totalitarianism or failure, whatever comes first. Historically, it's most usually totalitarianism.

The scale of this progression is almost in half-centuries. So, it's natural to not see it unless you're pointed at it.

 

[Trepanated]

It stems from historical experience and more importantly from praxeological argument. If you are interested in some hardcore reading, I'll be more than happy to provide references and guidance.

The (bare, totally incomplete) gist of it is that a state apparatus can never function in an economic way ("as a business") by design. Bureaucracy is inherent in it. Because the state functions by appropriation ("theft") and is a monopoly of violence (by definition), its only evolutionary path is to get bigger by keep doing what it does best ("theft"). The bigger the state becomes, the closest to totalitarianism. There is nothing that goes contrary to this progression other than economic failure, which ironically is caused by the greater and greater parasitic actions of the state. That is why I said totalitarianism or failure, whatever comes first. Historically, it's most usually totalitarianism.

The scale of this progression is almost in half-centuries. So, it's natural to not see it unless you're pointed at it.

Suggesting that all states operate by theft and violence is an opinion though, not a fact. And everyone's opinion on that would be influenced by their own experiences.

Solzhenitsyn's opinions for example are different to Machiavelli's are different to Friedman's are different to Keynes' - different people, different times, different experiences, therefore different opinions.

And although history is littered with economic failures, there are many, many states/countries/societies which are neither totalitarian or failed - and which have also been around for far, far longer than half a century.

There's no perfect way for a society to function, except in mind of an ideologist who forgets that societies are comprised of people who all think and act differently.

All a society can do is experiment, learn and evolve - sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, depending on which person/people are the most influential at any one time.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

This discussion is going far deeper than I envisioned. Proud to be a part of this community and watching this take place.

 

[jazzc]

Suggesting that all states operate by theft and violence is an opinion though, not a fact. And everyone's opinion on that would be influenced by their own experiences.

I assume we agree that there are things that we can observe or deduce for any given subject that we can call facts. Theft is defined as forceful transfer of property, either of an object ("I'll take your house, thank you") or a person ("do this or I'll kick your ass"). Given this, I don't see how the state's modus operandi ("theft") is an opinion and not a hard fact.

 

[Trepanated]

I assume we agree that there are things that we can observe or deduce for any given subject that we can call facts. Theft is defined as forceful transfer of property, either of an object ("I'll take your house, thank you") or a person ("do this or I'll kick your ass"). Given this, I don't see how the state's modus operandi ("theft") is an opinion and not a hard fact.

Yes, we agree. We can deduce facts for any given subject. That is a fact.

That fact however, does not mean that all deductions we make are correct.

You have defined what theft is, and then you have said that states operate via theft - but you haven't given any examples of the 'theft' that states engage in.

And those examples, whatever they may be, would need to be universally agreed to be 'theft', universally agreed to be practised by every state and universally agreed to be the only practises/purposes of states before we can say that 'all states are based solely on theft'

For example, your premise may be that taxation is theft and all states have some form of taxation - therefore all states are thieves.

But for the conclusion to be correct, we would all need to be in agreement that taxation is theft. And that's not the case.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that some states operate in that way - but where we differ, is that I don't believe all states operate that way.

And I wasn't assuming your statement was based on taxation - that was just the first thing that came to mind.

 

[jazzc]

Yes, we agree. We can deduce facts for any given subject. That is a fact.

That fact however, does not mean that all deductions we make are correct.

You have defined what theft is, and then you have said that states operate via theft - but you haven't given any examples of the 'theft' that states engage in.

True. First we had to agree that there exists a way that we can undoubtedly identify theft. Now that we do, we can go ahead and do that

And those examples, whatever they may be, would need to be universally agreed to be 'theft', universally agreed to be practised by every state and universally agreed to be the only practises/purposes of states before we can say that 'all states are based solely on theft'

For example, your premise may be that taxation is theft and all states have some form of taxation - therefore all states are thieves.

But for the conclusion to be correct, we would all need to be in agreement that taxation is theft. And that's not the case.

Indeed, tax is the outcome of theft. Conscription is another one, but since it's less universal that taxation, let's ignore it for now (unless you'd like to get into that).

Why is taxation theft? Because it is a forceful transfer of property (in this case, wealth). If you do not pay the extorted amount by a certain time, people with guns come to your house and take you away to a big place (soap provided gratis).

 

[Trepanated]

Indeed, tax is the outcome of theft. Conscription is another one, but since it's less universal that taxation, let's ignore it for now (unless you'd like to get into that).

Why is taxation theft? Because it is a forceful transfer of property (in this case, wealth). If you do not pay the extorted amount by a certain time, people with guns come to your house and take you away to a big place (soap provided gratis).

But this is my point - you believe taxation is theft and I don't. Some people's opinion will be the same as yours and some will be the same as mine.

There is no consensus that taxation is theft, therefore you can't say that all states are thieves.

Even if there was consensus that taxation is theft (which there isn't), there are states that have no taxes, so the premise still doesn't hold up.

 

[jazzc]

But this is my point - you believe taxation is theft and I don't.

We are not discussing religion There is no issue of belief. That's why I insisted on agreeing there is a way of identifying theft (to which you agreed). I also gave a definition of theft. Based on the definition and our direct observation (we see there is the act of taxation and we see that it is by force), the conclusion naturally arises.

there are states that have no taxes, so the premise still doesn't hold up.

You are probably referring to income tax. In those states, there are property taxes, sales taxes and other fees.

 

[Trepanated]

We are not discussing religion There is no issue of belief. That's why I insisted on agreeing there is a way of identifying theft (to which you agreed). I also gave a definition of theft. Based on the definition and our direct observation (we see there is the act of taxation and we see that it is by force), the conclusion naturally arises.

You are probably referring to income tax. In those states, there are property taxes, sales taxes and other fees.

I said 'belief', as in 'opinion' - and you know I did

Yes, we agree on the definition of theft.

But there is no consensus that taxation is theft. Not between you and I and definitely not between you and everyone else.

1. You have defined what theft is
2. You say states use taxation
3. You say 'therefore taxation is theft'

If you are basing your conclusion on your opinion that taxes are taken by force, then for your conclusion to hold up, we need universal agreement that taxes are taken by force.

And again, I do not agree. Some people will have the same opinion as you and some will have the same opinion as me - again, no consensus.

In the state I live in for example, yes there is taxation.

But it is a framework of rules, designed by successive, freely elected governments, and applied and administered within the laws of the state, which are also designed by successive, freely elected governments.

There is agreement between the voters and governments on what those laws are.

Any of those laws and rules can be changed by the voters.

If I wanted the country to have no income tax for example, I am free to be able to try to change that.

1. I form a political party
2. I set out my manifesto and state that my party, if voted in, will abolish income tax.
3. I campaign in a general election.
4. If enough people think that abolishing income tax is a good idea, they will vote for my party and I form a government
5. My government abolishes income tax

So taxes are not taken against people's will. They are taken in agreement with the voters, and the voters are able to make changes to that agreement

If I enter into an agreement with you that you will pay me 'x' amount of money each week, then if I use the law to have that agreement enforced, I am not stealing from you.

This is also how taxes in a democracy work.

 

[jazzc]

I said 'belief', as in 'opinion' - and you know I did

Opinion, belief, name is whatever you like - it is not what we are talking about. My opinion matters exactly zero. I wouldn't be talking about my opinion. What matters is facts. Since you have agreed that there is a way of recognizing facts, I think we can have this discussion. How do I recognize facts? Definition, observation, hard logic. If we also agree that's the way to recognize facts, we can actually have a discussion that will end with conclusions.

But there is no consensus that taxation is theft. Not between you and I and definitely not between you and everyone else.

Consensus is neither necessary nor relevant. We don't vote if the Earth is flat and then it magically becomes flat. This goes back to the "black & white" of things we were talking about earlier.

If you are basing your conclusion on your opinion that taxes are taken by force, then for your conclusion to hold up, we need universal agreement that taxes are taken by force.

Now this is a valid argument! You are claiming that taxes are voluntary. And certainly, if they are, my conclusion is wrong. Nevertheless, I am perplexed by that statement, so would you like to argue exactly how taxation is voluntary?

But it is a framework of rules, designed by successive, freely elected governments, and applied and administered within the laws of the state, which are also designed by successive, freely elected governments.

So, the argument here is that a sum of people have the right to enslave others. I think this doesn't even need to be refuted. If I can't tax someone and you can't tax someone, how exactly us banding together gives us the right to tax bartosimpsonio? Sure, we agreed to (and he probably didn't). How does our collective agreement gives us the right of theft ("tax bartosimpsonio no matter if he doesn't agree to")?

There is agreement between the voters and governments on what those laws are.

I certainly do not agree to being taxed.

Any of those laws and rules can be changed by the voters.

If I wanted the country to have no income tax for example, I am free to be able to try to change that.

1. I form a political party
2. I set out my manifesto and state that my party, if voted in, will abolish income tax.
3. I campaign in a general election.
4. If enough people think that abolishing income tax is a good idea, they will vote for my party and I form a government
5. My government abolishes income tax

So taxes are not taken against people's will. They are taken in agreement with the voters, and the voters are able to make changes to that agreement

In other words, a band of people has had the power to commit theft and their legitimization of it is that "hey, if you don't like us, fight for it". How is this different from slave owners legitimizing their claim by saying "hey, if you slaves don't like it, fight for it"? Yes, in both cases people can fight. That (the option to resist) does not legitimize the previous aggression ("theft"). I hope we agree on that.

If I enter into an agreement with you that you will pay me 'x' amount of money each week, then if I use the law to have that agreement enforced, I am not stealing from you.

Exactly. IF we enter in an agreement voluntarily. The keyword here is voluntarily.

 

[Trepanated]

Opinion, belief, name is whatever you like - it is not what we are talking about. My opinion matters exactly zero. I wouldn't be talking about my opinion. What matters is facts. Since you have agreed that there is a way of recognizing facts, I think we can have this discussion. How do I recognize facts? Definition, observation, hard logic. If we also agree that's the way to recognize facts, we can actually have a discussion that will end with conclusions.

You are the one who tried telling me when I said 'belief', I was meaning 'religion'. Don't now tell me I am the one splitting hairs about opinion/belief - you made that false accusation in the first place.

But you are not stating facts, you are stating your opinions. Just because you want your opinion to be a fact, does not mean it is. And the same applies to me.

Now this is a valid argument! You are claiming that taxes are voluntary. And certainly, if they are, my conclusion is wrong. Nevertheless, I am perplexed by that statement, so would you like to argue exactly how taxation is voluntary?

No, I am stating that taxes are an agreement between the public and the government. Once an agreement has been made though, it is binding - voluntary no longer comes into it.

Once an agreement has been made, then both sides abide by it. If someone decides after the event they are not going to pay taxes, then the agreement can be enforced.

Enforcing an agreement is not theft.

I certainly do not agree to being taxed.

Then change the system, change the government, change the tax laws - you are free to do so.

You can either choose to live with the system the way it is, or you can choose to change it - but by choosing not to change it, you are also choosing to accept it.

Either way, you are making a choice

Even if you think the concept of government in any form constitutes theft, you are also free to find a state that has none and live there.

Admittedly that is hard to do, but they can be found from time to time - in fact, until a couple of years ago, Somalia had no functioning government whatsoever.

I am guessing you don't live there?

As an aside, I presume if the state made an exception and let you pay no tax, you would happily agree to no longer make use of anything that taxes provide...

... you would not use the road or transport infrastructure, or the health service, or the electricity grid, or the education system, or any other publicly provided system or service (services may change from state to state of course )?

 

[RosuC]

So, you're saying the EU must send you in jail and confiscate all your property because the software your selling is manipulating the search results, damaging the ones who'd rank top otherwise? Really?

No Jazzc - I'm saying that based on the main discussion that was suppose to be debated on this thread - Google stated that is an independent searching engine that is not manipulating the searching results. Based on the proofs that were stated by EU Specialists there are many searching items that were "manipulated" by G in order to obtain profit. This is what I'm saying and I'm glad that I participated with solid proofs against them. About the rest of the discussions regarding who is copying whom and which country is 1st power in world is not my field

 

[jazzc]

You are the one who tried telling me when I said 'belief', I was meaning 'religion'. Don't now tell me I am the one splitting hairs about opinion/belief - you made that false accusation in the first place.

No false accusation. Opinion and beliefs have the same characteristic - they are worthless as facts. And in this case, I only care about facts.

But you are not stating facts, you are stating your opinions. Just because you want your opinion to be a fact, does not mean it is. And the same applies to me.

So, before we go any further, please enlighten me on how we can differentiate facts from opinions. Otherwise, there is no point in this and we'll be going circles with you trying to avoid answering by waving the "opinion" banner.

I have already said how I differentiated facts from opinions and I'll repeat it. Definition, observation, hard logic. Name your way.

No, I am stating that taxes are an agreement between the public and the government. Once an agreement has been made though, it is binding - voluntary no longer comes into it.

Once an agreement has been made, then both sides abide by it. If someone decides after the event they are not going to pay taxes, then the agreement can be enforced.

Enforcing an agreement is not theft.

That's all fine and dandy, but has nothing to do with reality. I did not sign any agreement with anyone to take wealth from me. Ergo, what's your point?

Admittedly that is hard to do, but they can be found from time to time - in fact, until a couple of years ago, Somalia had no functioning government whatsoever.

Absence of a centralized oppressive regime, does not miraculously mean peace on earth. Requirements exist. Otherwise, freedom would not have been a happy historical accident in 18th century Europe, but abundant left and right. Kinda like when you don't have peas for supper, doesn't mean lobster is going to fall from the sky in your plate.

As an aside, I presume if the state made an exception and let you pay no tax, you would happily agree to no longer make use of anything that taxes provide...

... you would not use the road or transport infrastructure, or the health service, or the electricity grid, or the education system, or any other publicly provided system or service (services may change from state to state of course )?

Yes sir! I am audacious enough to demand to actually pay for services I receive instead of having others foot the bill for me. Only thing I ask is to be allowed to choose from competing providers. I know, I know...

Then change the system, change the government, change the tax laws - you are free to do so.

I have already answered that. Just because I can fight the thief, it does not legitimize his thievery actions.

You can either choose to live with the system the way it is, or you can choose to change it - but by choosing not to change it, you are also choosing to accept it.


Either way, you are making a choice

Nice "choice". "You are our plantation slave. You may choose to fight, but we'll kill ya. If you don't fight, it means that you implicitly agree to being a slave and legitimize us". Sounds reasonable, can't find any logical fallacy here...

 

[Trepanated]

I think we need to agree to disagree.

Nice "choice". "You are our plantation slave. You may choose to fight, but we'll kill ya. If you don't fight, it means that you implicitly agree to being a slave and legitimize us". Sounds reasonable, can't find any logical fallacy here...

This analogy for example, gets us nowhere.

In the state I live in, deciding to change things is a right, not a fight.

Anyone can do so and everyone is free to do so.

And if they choose to do so, the state won't kill them for doing so

Because the state I live in is not an oppressive regime.

Nor are the citizens of my state slaves.

Absence of a centralized oppressive regime, does not miraculously mean peace on earth

You say 'oppressive regime', I say 'freely elected government'

And I never said it did. I am saying the opposite. You have a habit of trying to put words into my mouth.

You are the one whose argument would imply he thinks the world would be better without governments, not me.

As I said, we should agree to disagree - unless you are now going to tell me that by disagreeing with you, that means I agree with you

 

[sirgold]

The (bare, totally incomplete) gist of it is that a state apparatus can never function in an economic way ("as a business") by design.

Thank god it doesn't. It's not the role of the State. And thank god the State isn't just run according to a "maximize your profits" bottom line... Also you don't need to be a dirty ol' commie to relate or agree with that, I know I am certainly not...

Bureaucracy is inherent in it. Because the state functions by appropriation ("theft") and is a monopoly of violence (by definition), its only evolutionary path is to get bigger by keep doing what it does best ("theft").

As Trepanated already explained well, this is a personal opinion based on some libertarian utopia that comes up from time to time embellished with some supposedly historical analysis and all the same "latinorum jibber jabber" that is routinely cited to give some sort of credibility to this point...

The very idea that taxes are the same as "theft" is ridiculous: it's at best YOUR own perception of them because you probably see the State as a useless entity and/or don't agree with the function of taxes since you probably wouldn't spend THAT money on the same things a State does. But here's the good news.

You're -hopefully- part of a system where you have the right of vote: if things don't look good where you are and there are enough people sharing your discontent I'm sure the majority will eventually see this libertarian genius idea you're suggesting as the most efficient or simply a better way compared to the status quo. If that choice were to be made in my society, the one I'm a proud citizen of, I wouldn't be neither delighted nor enlightened by this concept of not paying taxes that I heard a million times, though, so you gotta accept that in a democracy things work like this and -evidently- the majority of people around the world -not necessarily because they are unaware of this brilliant alternative- while not finding paying taxes a particularly fun chore consider not paying them far worse in the long run. Because, as Bartsimpsonio wrote well before, not everything in life is black or white so sometimes you have to put your hands in your pockets -that's never fun- to get a few benefits or something you recognize as such...

Personally, I'm more than glad to pay my share for the services I receive from the State. And to paraphrase your statements I'm more than glad to pay for "the monopoly of violence" as opposed to the alternative of having to choose among a "multitude of violences" to donate my kickback to in exchange for "protection" for me, my family, my friends or my business and I'm so so glad to live according to the way this entire system evolved in, managed by a UNIQUE ENTITY instead of many private competing ones -IN A FEW BUT CAREFULLY SELECTED AREAS- where "maximizing the profit" might not always serve the best interest to govern a complex set of different needs.

I certainly do not agree to being taxed.

*You* are probably free to give up your citizenship if you don't agree with the core values of the government you're a citizen of... So no more taxes to pay, no more allegiance to some entity you despise, no more calling yourself a slave to a tyrannical monster you don't agree with...

Personally I believe that saving a few bucks as an individual to prove myself I'm free not to give a penny to this horrible, evil idea of a central State is a counterproductive and futile ideological exercise that wouldn't bring the entire system any concrete advantage at the end of the day. Nor would make myself happier. So, by means of my vote, I'm fine with offloading some of the decisions I would have to make myself in choosing a company if EACH and EVERY sector were private or the only logic governing a society would be the bottom line... Yours is just a point of view, a very naive one if I may add, personally I don't feel robbed at all, it's by educated choice that I agree on paying taxes...

There is agreement between the voters and governments on what those laws are.

Again, the guy who wrote this is spot on. If you don't agree with a certain tax, just contact your local representative, discuss it, try to change the current state of things but if you don't agree with the role of taxes altogether, I'm afraid my friend, that's YOUR problem and you are free to give up your passport and look for alternatives -real ones not theoretical hyper-uranium's- out there where a State -or lack thereof- is run according to the rules of sheer economics where every sector is privately run and where the individuals can be rightfully "audacious enough" to just pay for their own services regardless of what the needs to govern a complex system might be... And most of all, if this model eventually yields the most benefits for the most citizens...

I'd honestly love to see all the libertarians act instead of nitpicking trite arguments of supposedly tyrannical states, slaves, etc... Try changing it yourself if you don't like it: saying that "you can fight the thief doesn't legitimate the robbery" doesn't make any sense: YOU are perceiving that the state has an agenda to defraud you, but not ME, probably not the majority of ppl (thing you seemed to imply at some point): if the *majority* did share your sentiment you can be certain it would act like history proved over and over again. Again, you try to sell a personal point of view as something objective, set in stone. It's NOT.

I'm sure the system I live and believe in would give me a good chance to at least give my best shot to attempt accomplishing a change if I felt so defrauded given I could find enough people that share my feelings that's a necessary condition to make your *own* point socially relevant... And I'm grateful to that. If you or anybody else is really convinced enough you're enslaved by taxes and the state is so bad and whatnot -a personal belief not an objective fact by any means- it's gonna be a worthy cause to fight for, after all... Because a lot of this talk involving out of line "pocket logical demonstrations" always seems to me a vague, theoretical complaining for the sake of complaining, a tedious rant that's fine as long as it's taken as such...

 

[jazzc]

In the state I live in, deciding to change things is a right, not a fight.

Sure it's a right. You are given the right to try and make a bigger band to take power over the current band. How does negate the act of thievery that happens until you actually be able to stop it? How does it legitimize it?

In other words, I come in, take your wallet and I give you the right to fight me for it. How does it make what I did "not stealing"?

And if they choose to do so, the state won't kill them for doing so

That's true. They are content enough with just stealing and keeping the cow alive, because the production loss and replace-ability cost of each slave unit is much more than it used to be.

Because the state I live in is not an oppressive regime.

Nor are the citizens of my state slaves.

Sure it is, it's just nicer compared to the past. You may not consider being partially owned and having half your labor's worth appropriated, but well ... it is

You say 'oppressive regime', I say 'freely elected government'

So do the North Koreans. As I said, facts, facts, facts. The fact is that a bunch of people decide which band of thieves will be the acting chief thieves and responsible for distributing the loot every 4 years. You can call it free to choose the band, sure. So what? How does that negate or legitimize the act of thievery?

You are the one whose argument would imply he thinks the world would be better without governments, not me.

I clearly say that government is oppression by definition. To be in a state without government, does not mean to be in a state of competing bands who can't overcome each other yet. To be in a state of freedom is costly in effort and blood. No free lunch. Freedom isn't going to drop from the sky because we "deserve it" or what not.

 

[jazzc]

@sirgold

Everything you wrote is a reiteration of trepanated's points and I've already covered them, so feel free to read my posts as your response. I do like how you too can't differentiate between opinion and fact.

I do have 1 comment I can't resist to make though:

I'd honestly love to see all the libertarians act instead of nitpicking trite arguments of supposedly tyrannical states, slaves, etc... Try changing it yourself if you don't like it: saying that "you can fight the thief doesn't legitimate the robbery" doesn't make any sense: YOU are perceiving that the state has an agenda to defraud you, but not ME, probably not the majority of ppl (thing you seemed to imply at some point): if the *majority* did share your sentiment you can be certain it would act like history proved over and over again. Again, you try to sell a personal point of view as something objective, set in stone. It's NOT.

The state does not have an agenda that I somehow divine. The state ACTS. And action is observable. The state forcefully takes property from tax payers. Taking by force is theft. Ain't rocket science, doesn't require Mensa membership, should be simple enough to grasp.

For the sake of completeness to this quote, let me also add this: What the majority perceives is irrelevant to reality, already covered that along with everything else. Do read my previous posts.

 

[Trepanated]

So do the North Koreans.

Did I say North Korea was a freely elected government?

An oppressive regime and a freely elected government are two different things.

I live in the latter.

I clearly say that government is oppression by definition.

Yes you do. And when I said you have an option to live in a state without that, you implied I was suggesting that would be 'peace on Earth', when my point was the exact opposite - more words you tried to put in my mouth

You could go and live in Somalia if having no government was that important to you, but presumably you don't?

You could go and live deep in the jungles of PNG or the Amazon and be well away from the reaches of government - but presumably you don't?

Or you could be preparing yourself to move to the next country that becomes a failed state as soon as it happens (and it will) - but presumably you aren't?

I'm guessing the reason you don't do any of those things is because you would rather choose to live in a country with a functioning government, and avail yourself of all the luxuries and freedoms that come with that.

My point is that you have the choice of how you live and where you live - and you make that choice voluntarily.

And if that choice is voluntary, there is no theft.

 

[thejake]

I made a Polandball to help put this into perspective:

 

[jazzc]

Did I say North Korea was a freely elected government?

I meant that North Koreans say they have a freely elected government, not that you did.

Yes you do. And when I said you have an option to live in a state without that, you implied I was suggesting that would be 'peace on Earth', when my point was the exact opposite - more words you tried to put in my mouth

Wait, so you just happened to mention Somalia, but you did that not implying that I what I propose (no government) has to equal with chaos?

You could go and live in Somalia if having no government was that important to you, but presumably you don't?

Already answered that a little above, you missed it.

You could go and live deep in the jungles of PNG or the Amazon and be well away from the reaches of government - but presumably you don't?

Or you could be preparing yourself to move to the next country that becomes a failed state as soon as it happens (and it will) - but presumably you aren't?

No, I certainly don't. Your argument here is that because thieves are stealing from me, I should abandon my property, my friends, my life and I should leave. Not the thieves, for they are obviously sacred and pious.

My point is that you have the choice of how you live and where you live - and you make that choice voluntarily.

And if that choice is voluntary, there is no theft.

Causation, causality - google it. Again, the same fallacy. Just because the slave master presents a limited set of options, does not negate the fact that he's your slave master. If I put a gun on your head and give you the choice of death or rape and allow you to decide, that's not what we call voluntary choice. Hopefully we agree on that.