On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
The Somali struggle shows that there is hope, but it does not come easy. The oppressors relentlessly try to regain control. Maybe if Ron Paul wins the election.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject.
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 01:02 Gamegene wrote:
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more.
It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
Not really, that is kind of different "branch" of that ideology. And mostly it is not that simple. They have to assume million and one thing apart from the non-initiation of aggression to even get anywhere. Big problem is also the actual definition of aggression as it is highly subjective and all definitions that try to make it objective suffer from a lot of other problems.
Oh please, enough with the assumptions. Rothbard's work is in fact based on non-aggression. That's not to see he is right or anything, that that is the basis of it.
I think we both are kind of talking about something slightly different as I was thinking about the human action axiom when I said it is a different "branch"(for the lack of better work in my head right now), which is a slightly different beast. But which guy did what is not really that important. My main point is that they do no simply logically infer things from just one axiom or assumption.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
The Somali struggle shows that there is hope, but it does not come easy. The oppressors relentlessly try to regain control. Maybe if Ron Paul wins the election.
I would bet almost anything that Somalia becoming successful will only result in one government or another stepping in and setting up shop. That was basically the case of pre-Israel Palestine - one of the best examples of peaceful anarchy in modern times - which only invited the rest of the world to say "hey these guys can't defend themselves, lets make a country". Now it is one of the worst places to live on earth. Then you have the ignorant masses who fund these governments thinking that is all just fine.
Sorry to sound so pessimistic! I mean we don't want government, that's some form of progress right?
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
EDIT: just to avoid misunderstanding I will quantify it more : All big organizations are corrupt. We can quantify big if necessary, but I don't think it will serve any purpose.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity. I mean, statistically speaking, being born in Somalia gives me pretty poor odds of uh... being literate...
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
There is the action axiom - and then the conditions in which it is applied. The additional conditions - scarcity of time and space for proving relation of real world observations to demonstrated preference; actions involving identical object for proving law of diminishing marginal utility, law of diminsihing marginal utility for proving supply and demand, supply and demand for proving firm theory.
All of these conclusions from the more abstract to the more practical come from the main premise the action axiom, and the additional condition that the application of the axiom assumes to be true. That is, the additional condition is already assumed to be true by the inquiry on the subject, so it does not dispute claims following from action axiom.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really. Trust me you will have guns pointed at you if you refuse to pay.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really.
You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too.
And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
The Somali struggle shows that there is hope, but it does not come easy. The oppressors relentlessly try to regain control. Maybe if Ron Paul wins the election.
Ron Paul 2011 slogan: Vote to help make America better, vote to make America more like Somalia. After he's elected we all bring our guns from our houses and knock over the nearest wallmart, because that's how shit's done in Somalia and it will create a major economic boom in the security industry.
Seriously tho, what is this obsession with showing off how awesome Somalia is? The Somali aren't actually struggling for 'anarchy', they're struggling just to live and eat. Somalia is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to the world, and the only reason there have been (minor) gains in Somalia over the last few years is because of how disconnected they are from the rest of the world economically and how far they are behind in the first place.
On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote: I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government.
I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity."
Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say.
Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave.
The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend?
Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys."
Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave.
That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
580
444
246
EPT
