|
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?
No. You don't pay anything simply for being born, you pay for services that you use while you are living in your society.
In fact, most of those services you don't even have to pay for until you're legally an adult.
|
On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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?
no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt.
all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal.
|
On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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.
The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders.
On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
"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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal.
But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing.
|
um...
the government doesn't own everything I need and use. mostly that's owned by private capital...
|
On February 24 2013 07:19 sam!zdat wrote:
um...
the government doesn't own everything I need and use. mostly that's owned by private capital...
Sam, I am debating several people at once. I am not arguing against you solely. Some people are relying on premises you do not.
|
I'm objecting to your response to mcc. I can do that.
|
On February 24 2013 07:21 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm objecting to your response to mcc. I can do that.
No, you are rejecting a premise that someone else proposed, not me.
|
|
|
On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing.
So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for?
|
On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for?
I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft.
Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another?
|
On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for?
have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly
|
On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly
I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped.
|
On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly
People think they know the solution to a problem before they even understand the problem. That's part one of the issues with partisan ideologies.
|
On February 24 2013 07:32 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft. Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another?
How is asking you to pay for things that you use theft?
|
On February 24 2013 07:40 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped.
Black markets tend to be the best cures for widespread corruption of this sort. They force competition to take place.
On February 24 2013 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft. Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another? How is asking you to pay for things that you use theft?
Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal five dollars from your wallet.
|
On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:40 NoobSkills wrote:On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped. Black markets tend to be the best cures for widespread corruption of this sort. They force competition to take place. Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:32 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? I never said any of these things..... In fact I said taxation is justified theft. Can you actually debate without leaping from one straw man to another? How is asking you to pay for things that you use theft? Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal a dollar from your wallet.
The very fact that you have the right to anything means you're using them...
|
On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:40 NoobSkills wrote:On February 24 2013 07:32 Lightswarm wrote:On February 24 2013 07:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 mcc 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. 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. The government owning everything you need and use equates to the government owning you, so long as you live within it's borders. On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing. So what this basically comes down to is you expecting the government to provide the things you need free of charge? And that you feel no responsibility to society by "existing" using resources other people are paying for? have ppl already forgotten the more important question on the US medical bills? its not about who pays for it, but why its so high. how has this been derailed so quickly I think maybe subconsciously they know that we actually can't change those prices. Medical + Pharmacy companies keep the prices high. Meanwhile our representatives enjoy kickbacks in congress, so nothing will ever change. I really don't think you can change that amount of corruption. Eventually anyone who attempts to make a dent in that widespread corruption will be stopped. Black markets tend to be the best cures for widespread corruption of this sort. They force competition to take place.
Which backroom doctor are you going to trust to put in your new heart? Also I don't think there is a black market big enough to support what the US needs. We would really need a warrior of a president, his staff, and leaders in congress to really combat this issue, but again they would probably waste 4 years battling something and wont turn in good results.
|
On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:
Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal five dollars from your wallet.
You didn't ask, you just used them. You also didn't ask for permission to use the streets or utilities, did you? You can't just take a cheeseburger and not pay just because no one asked if you wanted it.
And, as I have mentioned several times over, which you have ignored just as many times, a large percentage of taxes aren't applicable until you are legally an adult. You had plenty of time to refuse to say no to taxes and move somewhere that wouldn't have them (or utilities or services).
|
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things.
|
No idea about that. If I have acute pain, I go to the ER and get it checked out.
I had surgery once in my life, the doctor wanted to wait for six week for it to clear up by itself, when it didn't, I got it done a couple of days afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
