Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Why is this argument only made against people who reject politics entirely? Rarely do you hear Republicans telling Democrats to leave the country. I guess if you don't believe in SOME kind of clown suit you are just way out of line, you need to LEAVE. Reminds me of this screed against atheists that was just posted on digg.com:
Text
This is exactly the same same mentality rabid statists like Evan have towards those who are against politics: you can believe in whatever political faction you want (Republican, Democrat, Green etc.), but you MUST believe in some faction. If you don't believe in politics, then get out of this country.
Generally, a society starts out this way. However, the power of the people to decide what is or is not ethical is gradually diminished in one way or another. In Rome, it was the marginalization of the senate. In the US, it was done through the courts. Now, the courts determine what is or is not allowable and the people have no recourse. This is completely obvious given the recent string of amendments disallowing non-traditional marriages, which generally pass by an overwhelming margin only to be overturned by the courts shortly thereafter. I'm in no way implying my support for such amendments, only pointing them out as one obvious case where the people decided one thing only to have that decision cast aside by the powers that be.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Yet you never even questioned the supposed 'air tight' logic of the social contract. The social contract is pure mysticism.
It is very easy to refute.
We start off with proposition A:
The social contract is good.
Now, because the social contract is good, I should be able to enter into a social contract with my neighbor down the street, right? I tell him I am going to collect $10,000 a year from him for mowing his lawn every week and that he is tacitly consenting to this arrangement by not moving away. But if I do that, then those who were in the original social contract via the Constitution will stop me and say that is bad.
Now we have proposition B:
The social contract is bad.
Now we arrive at a contradiction. The mysticism of the social contract is that it only applies to a select group of people arbitrarily chosen by a ritual political process. These individuals give themselves titles such as 'king,' 'prince' or 'representative.' These are what I call clown suits. They claim that the social contract is only good when applied to them and no one else, in other words, that which is bad mysteriously becomes good when applied to clowns Gonzo, Bonzo and Fonzo. When it is applied to Lanzo, Yanzo and Manzo, not only is it bad but it is outright criminal.
Wait. Before we can begin to talk about alternatives we have to settle our ethical questions. Because otherwise, why bother talking about change? Again, if its ethically unacceptable for you and I to forcefully take money from another human and threaten to lock him in a room unless the person pays us then how is it ethically acceptable for someone in the government to do this to you or I?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
As I said before, you aren't forced to live here, so it can't be coercion unless you have a fundamental inability to interpret English definitions accurately. It has nothing to do with some nonsense about dissent, which is the lifeblood of this country. There's reasonable dissent and lunatic dissent. Guess which one yours falls under.
See above. Also, as I predicted, you wimped out of answering the fundamental point of the video in the OP; what superior alternative solutions did he provide to a strong federal government and taxes? None, and that's the reality. Nothing but loony rambling that sounds good on the surface to laymans but can't actually happen in reality. That's why you guys go nowhere.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Because people who live in the U.S and honestly don't like it are free to leave if they find it truly morally and ethically questionable. This is not like North Korea where you're born into bondage and physically cannot leave the country. You aren't forced to pay taxes here if you move.
But of course, the inevitable conclusion is an obvious one; what other superior alternative exists to distribute income that isn't government or taxes? You nor Dissipate can answer this question.
Of course. I have posted a million times:
"You own only that which you can take with you after a ship wreak." A saying
No thanks. I'd much rather choose to live in where I reside. When Blacks were infringed upon they stood up for their rights and claimed their freedom. They did not need to run to another country. I feel I should be able to do the same.
Plus, if we run away to area of the world unclaimed by the brute violence practiced by the state what's to say that some state won't come along and try to steal our wealth and land?
The whole point of what Dissipate and I point out is that its wrong to force someone to give up money through the barrel of a gun. Voluntary association works just fine in creating and distributing wealth.
First let's assume that we seek freedom, which is currently debatable right now unfortunately. Assuming that our forefathers were the closest to creating a free society while maintaining the archaic religion of the state and assuming that our system is broken then that means that some concept is driving us towards this consolidation of power in society which, imho, is leading us towards a totalitarian state.
If you agree with the above and you're truly seeking some sort of positive change in society, then the next step is to think outside the box that our forefathers created because their experiment was a failed experiment. We need to start with the basics and see if we can imagine or create a better form of society.
So in your society, let's say we have three people. One of them is twice as rich as both the others combined. Would it be ethical for one of the less rich individuals to initiate a vote for all three members that if passed by the majority the rich would have to give up 50% of his or her wealth to the other two or be locked in a box with a gun pointed at him and have all of his or her wealth stolen?
I think we should all be free, don't you? Wouldn't you like the ability to freely make choices in society without being forced to do anything through a gun?
Culling of humanity? You mean through ideas or violence? I hope not the later, we have enough food, water, and shelter that there's no reason to become violent over these resources.
If individuals of Gen Y is currently voting for third parties despite the size and scope of the current big parties then its not unreasonable to suggest that they'll continue to vote for these parties in the future.
Same concept, if the idea of property only applies to individuals then "corporate property" makes about as much sense as "government property." In fact, the idea of defining a corporation as a legal person is just as retarded as defining the government as a collective "we." There is no government individual because the government is not a person. You and I are individuals, however.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Black rights were debated and heatedly argued in every branch of government since the founding of this nation, particularly in the last 50 years but in also several of our founding fathers. Paying taxes? No, just fucking asinine shit that has never been seriously questioned and for good reason; it's inane to think we shouldn't.
Welcome to Earth. :laugh:
You use public services and therefore you must pay taxes. This has been explained to you and Dissipate ad nauseum.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
You talk as if the U.S. is some monolithic entity that is A. immoral or B. moral. When in reality there are individual people within the geographic region known as the U.S. which are moral and there are individuals which are immoral. Why should I cease interacting with those who I consider to be moral just because there exists an immoral gang around the corner? Unless you think a piece of land mass can possess the quality of being immoral....
Once again you are implying two things:
A. The government and what it does is legitimate.
B. There is 0 cost of moving.
This is the classic begging the question fallacy. Clearly if I went to your home and did things to you without your consent and I said: you can just move away, you wouldn't agree with this situation.
The mafia goes into a neighborhood and shakes down some shopkeepers for money. The shopkeepers can move away but they don't. Why not? They already have established lives/businesses in that neighborhood and leaving that neighborhood has a bigger cost than staying. This says NOTHING about the legitimacy of the mafia, which is clearly illegitimate.
Similarly, those who oppose the government have voluntary relationships with businesses, families, friends in this geographic location known as the U.S. Therefore, they consider the cost of moving higher than staying. This says NOTHING about the legitimacy of the government.
There is a superior alternative, it is called unbridled competition in a free market. When anyone can compete in any industry without any red tape the total share of income will be much more evenly distributed. If you want more wealth 'distribution' you can start by getting rid of an organization like the American Medical Association which exists only to restrict the supply of doctors in order to drive up individual incomes. As it is now, in a lot of states you even need a license to be an interior decorator! Text
We need to stamp out rogue interior decorators who simply have no color coordination! If anyone so much as suggests a shade of color for a curtain without a license they shall be imprisoned!
Good to see Dissipate going on about his old anarcho-capitalism again. Dissipate, the government did not just suddenly move in, it was here before you were born, it will be here after you die. You have known for most of your life exactly what sort of demands would be placed upon you by that government. The examples you give are not the same in that respect.
Anyways, please do tell me when you set up your anarchistic utopia. I'd love to stop by and see it for the 3 months it lasts.
Anyways, please do tell me when you set up your anarchistic utopia. I'd love to stop by and see it for the 3 months it lasts.
It has been explained to you. It's called implied consent. If you accept money or services from someone, knowing full well that there is a cost for these, then you have implicitly accepted the stated cost.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
You fail once again to answer two central questions:
A. Are those demands legitimate.
B. Are those demands beneficial to society or should they be eliminated.
Knowledge of their existence says nothing about these issues. Zip, zlich, nada.
Furthermore, that is already assuming that I even know what those demands are, which in fact I do not. As I already pointed out to Evan, he isn't even aware of a small fraction of the laws that he lives under. Here is a challenge: go into a law library, pick up any book and start reading. Tell me how coherent these demands really are.
Yes, I was born into an established order, as were millions of other Americans. This says nothing about whether or not that order should be abolished. What I am saying is we should keep the good part of society: voluntary relationships and get rid of the bad: coercion, mysticism and hegemony.
The anarchistic 'utopia' is already here and it is already 99% built.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
How can I stop 'accepting' these services? The government has monopolized all infrastructure necessary for survival.
It is not like walking into a restaurant asking for a meal and then not paying the bill. It is much more like having a pie crammed down my throat and then being charged for the pie.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter