|
On February 24 2013 06:40 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:39 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:38 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:
Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. yup. welcome to the human condition. guess you'd better start thinking about what kind of government you'd like to have. "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." bummer, huh? Humanity invented government. Therefore it is not inherent and cannot be part of the human condition. Some of you really live in a scary world if you think slavery is the human condition.... humanity invented your strange notion of "freedom," too. go tell the Ur-Father that you wanna be free, and see how he reacts. five bucks says he throws some poo at you and kicks you out of the troupe. nice freedom you got there Humanity invented the term, of course. But as it is defined, it has existed before we created the term. Human beings have existed in a state characterized by the absence of human coercion. no, sorry, you know nothing of anthropology. your state of nature has never existed. It is not common, but it has existed. You are definitely wrong about that. In fact, an individual living alone in the wild would fulfill this criteria perfectly.
Person living alone in the wilderness is irrelevant when talking about society.
|
On February 24 2013 06:44 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:42 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:
[quote]
Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Not government, society. And yes society you live in dictates the rules. That is fact of life, it is not ethical position, there is no escaping it. The government is the one taking the money. You can say government is synonymous with "society," whatever that means, but you cannot say it is not government.
The government is a construct of society built as a centralized system of leadership.
|
On February 24 2013 06:44 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:42 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:28 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:19 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 06:09 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 05:40 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 05:31 GTPGlitch wrote:
[quote]
Oh that's right tax which is used to keep the country that you live in functioning and also to pay for services that keep people from dying is definitely theft... Yes, definitely theft. Often morally justified. Apparently people are incapable of making such a distinction... Does not satisfy definition of theft, and calling it theft is just a rhetorical trick mostly used by anarcho-capitalist, so do not be surprised by the generalization, The real rhetorical trick is when we take the meaning of a word and then make the exception "unless the government is doing it." We operate under different definitions. I define theft to mean "taking a person's property without consent." That definition does not make me an anarcho-capitalist. Paying taxes is part of the social contract you agreed to in order to remain in the country you live in. You consented to paying those taxes by choosing to live in a nation that provides services and structure by using those taxes. No one is forcing you to pay those taxes, but as long as you enjoy the benefits that those tax dollars are providing, then you must pay for them. I was born into said country. It was not a choice. And consent cannot be implied by forcing a person to leave their nation of origin. It was a choice to remain in that country once you reached the age of adulthood. And for someone who seems to waive all responsibility because you were born in a nation, you seem oddly quick to take all the privileges of being born there. A choice to remain in the country when I reached adulthood? It is my home. I cannot come into your home and make demands of you because you refuse to leave. "Your choice to stay in your home means you are granting consent for me to rape you." What???? Are you saying that governments own the entire planet and human beings are therefore born into their ownership? That we should have no basic human rights except what governments choose to grant us? That morality is determined solely by government dictate? You live in a very strange world indeed. Not government, society. And yes society you live in dictates the rules. That is fact of life, it is not ethical position, there is no escaping it. The government is the one taking the money. You can say government is synonymous with "society," whatever that means, but you cannot say it is not government.
It is not synonymous, it is tool of society. Society creates a lot of coercion that states have absolutely no say in.
|
On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this.
"We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway."
Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
It's far more sad to discount all of reality to justify some anti-government grudge.
|
On February 24 2013 06:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. It's far more sad to discount all of reality to justify some anti-government grudge.
What anti-government grudge? I started this whole conversation off by calling much government action morally justified.
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
lol you have no idea about my philosophy. i'm just explaining why yours is a) wrong and b) impotent. because you are already trapped in statist logic when you make recourse to the "state of nature."
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say.
|
On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government.
Pseudo intellectual trolling, combined with thread derailment. That's the stuff.
|
On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say.
I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government."
And I am not anarcho-capitalist.
|
On February 24 2013 06:38 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:31 W2 wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included). What test are you talking about? You can't tunnel vision on purely the materialistic cost. Services aren't cheap, and these are professionals you are hiring. This isn't purely materialistic cost - this is after factoring in the professionals you are hiring - read the article, it is one of the centerpieces in it.
Okay I read the article. What the article references are Medicare's compensation, which I think you might have mistaken for the true "cost" of a service. Medicare compensation is notoriously low (way lower than what regular insurances pay) and many clinics/hospitals lose money by accepting medicare patients. If you had a Chest x-ray from a good institution, you'd know the service deserves way more than $20. The "cost" is decided by some bureaucrat and does not take into the quality of service most of the time (rather, it corresponds to bare minimum)
|
On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist.
So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you.
If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government.
|
On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government.
You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments.
|
On February 24 2013 07:02 W2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:38 Ghostcom wrote:On February 24 2013 06:31 W2 wrote:On February 24 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:
Instead of beating the dead horse, perhaps talking about how it makes sense to charge 200 USD for a test that costs 10 USD (all costs included). What test are you talking about? You can't tunnel vision on purely the materialistic cost. Services aren't cheap, and these are professionals you are hiring. This isn't purely materialistic cost - this is after factoring in the professionals you are hiring - read the article, it is one of the centerpieces in it. Okay I read the article. What the article references are Medicare's compensation, which I think you might have mistaken for the true "cost" of a service. Medicare compensation is notoriously low (way lower than what regular insurances pay) and many clinics/hospitals lose money by accepting medicare patients. If you had a Chest x-ray from a good institution, you'd know the service deserves way more than $20. The "cost" is decided by some bureaucrat and does not take into the quality of service most of the time (rather, it corresponds to bare minimum)
Hospitals are not losing money by accepting medicare patients - go back and read the article again - that too is explained in there. Alongside with how medicare calculate the compensation.
|
On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments.
well, no. capital owns everything, and the government works for it
|
On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments.
No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no".
So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up.
|
On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up.
But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society?
|
On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society?
yes, obviously
|
On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously
But this is not indentured servitude?
|
On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:On February 24 2013 06:51 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:43 sam!zdat wrote:
an individual would only be living alone in the wild if he'd been kicked out of his tribe.
you realize that the "state of nature" you are theorizing was originally developed as a philosophical JUSTIFICATION of the modern state, right? If you are using this notion, you are always-already inside statist discourse. a much more radical break would be to reject this notion entirely - I recommend that you go read Locke, Rousseau, et al and ponder this. "We are all born slaves and it's always been this way, so there is no point is striving for freedom, which is a meaningless concept we invented anyway." Very sad philosophy you have. I'm glad I don't think that way. Personally I have some moral gripes with the concept of all of humanity being born slaves of government. That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist.
Quacks like a duck ... well you know how the saying goes.
Government does not own you, even if we accepted that government owns all the property in the country, it would still not own you. So yes you are changing the definitions so you can say provocative things like "You are all slaves.". Ok, I accept your new definition, and then I can tell you I have absolutely no problem being that kind of slave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2367
760
164
EPT
