Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Heres a line of questioning to find out stoned

Every argument with your average statist. It is no ones work but a simple example since Ush fails to understand. This is a debate, not fishing for arguments, as Ush fails to understand yet again.




Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong ' except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a 'social contract,' that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a 'social contract.' Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a 'contract,' then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it 'charity.'

Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ?

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

Mariuzu

would you define the term "social contract", because it seems you really don't understand what it is referring to.

EDIT: for instance, unless you are the most avid follower of the "Nobel Savage" idea of human prehistory, even anarchist societies have a social contract. ffs, you can apply the concept to the evolution of every pack/social animal in existence

What does prehistory have to do with growing out of such an immoral institution? Evolving passed the need to use violence to gain virtue as we evolved out of overt slavery. Everything else is just progress.

There is no such thing as a social contract. Its made up so its pointless to define it. Its meant to say I am bound by majority vote. Theres a difference between actual contracts signed and this "social contract" that I somehow agreed to by coming out of my mothers womb onto this piece of dirt.

Originally posted by Oliver North


Don't strawman. Taxation is coercive. Its extortion. Don't let the changing of words fool you, they're tricky. This can ultimately lead to violence if not obeyed but just because it usually doesn't does not change the moral aspect.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Don't strawman. Taxation is coercive. Its extortion. Don't let the changing of words fool you, they're tricky. This can ultimately lead to violence if not obeyed but just because it usually doesn't does not change the moral aspect.


Yes, I agree.


There is no way to "opt out" of the system while in this nation (or most modern nations) without incurring violence against you.

So what's the alternative? No taxes? No govt/state at all?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What does prehistory have to do with growing out of such an immoral institution?

I don't know, why don't you enlighten me, what do Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Nietzsche's views on the natural state of man have to do with the rationale for the social contract... I suppose you could throw Madison in there too.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Evolving passed the need to use violence to gain virtue as we evolved out of overt slavery. Everything else is just progress.

biological evolution was my point. The social contract is almost certainly a biological precondition for any type of animal that lives in groups.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
There is no such thing as a social contract. Its made up so its pointless to define it. Its meant to say I am bound by majority vote. Theres a difference between actual contracts signed and this "social contract" that I somehow agreed to by coming out of my mothers womb onto this piece of dirt.

see, its stuff like this that makes me think you have no idea what the term means, or at the very least, almost no familiarity with any arguments in support of it.

yes, thats cute, but nobody ever said the social contract was a legally binding document that was litigated by attorneys, but gee, you can blather on as if your point means something, simply by pointing out that the word "contract" can mean something different.

Like, seriously, unless you are an anarchist who thinks that the natural state of man is tranquil co-existence (Nobel Savage, read up on your Rousseau), you support the social contract, by tautological definition. Or, I suppose you could support isolated individuals who don't form societies, thus removing the need for it... is that it Mairuzu, are you a hermitist?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So what's the alternative? No taxes? No govt/state at all?


Well alternative is just what is. The" government" does not exist. Its an illusion of authority that has been apart of our existence/culture forever therefore accepted by the majority. Its a very powerful thing and dangerous. People fight and die in the name of their gods *erm* governments. Sure the people exist, the tanks exist, the men in suits exist, but the illusion is their authority to do is just as no one imagines the mob having the right to do so. Stealing money from us because we are too dumb to think of a way to come up with roads? Just to bring the rest of the destruction to come along with it.


The alternative is freedom.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is no way to "opt out" of the system while in this nation (or most modern nations) without incurring violence against you.

to quote Mariuzu's response when questioned about states rights:

just move

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well alternative is just what is. The" government" does not exist. Its an illusion of authority that has been apart of our existence/culture forever therefore accepted by the majority. Its a very powerful thing and dangerous. People fight and die in the name of their gods *erm* governments. Sure the people exist, the tanks exist, the men in suits exist, but the illusion is their authority to do is just as no one imagines the mob having the right to do so. Stealing money from us because we are too dumb to think of a way to come up with roads? Just to bring the rest of the destruction to come along with it.


The alternative is freedom.

so you have adopted anarchy as a political belief now?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well alternative is just what is. The" government" does not exist. Its an illusion of authority that has been apart of our existence/culture forever therefore accepted by the majority. Its a very powerful thing and dangerous. People fight and die in the name of their gods *erm* governments. Sure the people exist, the tanks exist, the men in suits exist, but the illusion is their authority to do is just as no one imagines the mob having the right to do so. Stealing money from us because we are too dumb to think of a way to come up with roads? Just to bring the rest of the destruction to come along with it.


The alternative is freedom.

Oh, the government very much exists. It's asinine to claim otherwise. I see your point though: you're denying its legitimacy. So, again, what's the alternative?

freedom, c'mon

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't know, why don't you enlighten me, what do Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Nietzsche's views on the natural state of man have to do with the rationale for the social contract... I suppose you could throw Madison in there too. I can care less what they say. The fact of the matter is that its nothing but force and mob rule.

You tell me your definition of this social contract that I did not sign to a collective that doesn't exists when there is only individuals.

Originally posted by Oliver North

biological evolution was my point. The social contract is almost certainly a biological precondition for any type of animal that lives in groups.


I'm referring to this obligation to pay taxes due to this social contract. I think we are side tracking here.

Originally posted by Oliver North

see, its stuff like this that makes me think you have no idea what the term means, or at the very least, almost no familiarity with any arguments in support of it.

yes, thats cute, but nobody ever said the social contract was a legally binding document that was litigated by attorneys, but gee, you can blather on as if your point means something, simply by pointing out that the word "contract" can mean something different.

Like, seriously, unless you are an anarchist who thinks that the natural state of man is tranquil co-existence (Nobel Savage, read up on your Rousseau), you support the social contract, by tautological definition. Or, I suppose you could support isolated individuals who don't form societies, thus removing the need for it... is that it Mairuzu, are you a hermitist?

Lol, it is you who has no clue what I'm referring to by this social contract. Its not that I don't know what it means, its that you have your own strict definition for it yourself.

Its the idea that I am bound to the collective because I am here living in this country therefore I must pay this taxation or be punished. You cannot justify this theft.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to quote Mariuzu's response when questioned about states rights:

just move


This was when I was a sad little minarchist thinking government can change or help things. I'm open to what is true. You should try it.

States don't exist.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Oh, the government very much exists. It's asinine to claim otherwise. I see your point though: you're denying its legitimacy. So, again, what's the alternative?

The government is nothing but a definition for a group of people who claim the moral right to initiate force within a given geographic area. As I said, the people that pretend to have this right are definition real. The government, as an abstract term, does not exists. What exists are things like gravity, and matter. You must not be aware of whats subjective and objective.

You are asking something akin to "What is the alternative to no slavery?"

Like I said, freedom from theft. Nothing left but a voluntary society.

Originally posted by Oliver North
freedom, c'mon

That's not an argument.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Its the idea that I am bound to the collective because I am here living in this country therefore I must pay this taxation or be punished. You cannot justify this theft.

actually, the social contract is not connected to government policy, taxation, or even the existence of government itself. It is used often to justify those policies, or certain policies are rationalized by appealing to "social welfare" (which is NOT the same as the social contract), but at the end of the day, even the person-to-person interactions you have, say, while engaged in criminal activity or without any interference from the state at all, are all bound by the social contract.

Since you have already declared that you don't care what the political and philosophical history of the social contract is (which I take to mean copying text from Libertarian sites is the extent you have read about the issue), I'll put it with less nuance than I'd like:

You give up the right to behave in socially destructive ways because it benefits you to live in a society. You can deny it all you want , but this behaviour is empirically reproducible, cross-culturally, and almost certainly a product of your genes.

so, in my interpretation, sure, I believe it is reasonable to not own assault weapons such that I benefit from being much less likely to be shot by one. This is a matter of policy, not the necessary outcome of the social contract. We can disagree on what restrictions there may be on guns, but unless you are saying "it doesn't matter what is good for society I will do only what I want", you endorse the compromise at the heart of the social contract . Also, if your opinion is to absolutely refuse to weigh the outcome of your actions to society against your own personal motivations, I have no problem with society treating you like the sociopath you are.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to quote Mariuzu's response when questioned about states rights:

just move

Move where?

Exactly.

There is no avoiding it.

The alternative is something I desire:

1. Buy my own island,
2. Make it a sovereign nation.
3. Write my own constitution/rules.
4. ???
5. Live the rest of my life under the rules I want and die in my own personal utopia.




How realistic is that? The chances that any of us posting in this thread will make tens of millions of dollars in the next 2 decades is very slim. No island purchases in sight for me or anyone in this thread.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The government is nothing but a definition for a group of people who claim the moral right to initiate force within a given geographic area. As I said, the people that pretend to have this right are definition real. The government, as an abstract term, does not exists. What exists are things like gravity, and matter. You must not be aware of whats subjective and objective.

You are asking something akin to "What is the alternative to no slavery?"

Like I said, freedom from theft and a voluntary society.

And yet it exists. We may(here, mainly you, I guess) not like it, disagree with it, question its legitimacy, or even outright deny it. Doesn't change the fact that the state is real and has very real domestic and even foreign power. Sure, it's ultimately enabled and powered by schmucks like you and me, but as of Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013; 4:48:00AM, the govt is real.

Freedom is the opposite of slavery. Both of these things also happen to be real.

That's all nice and dandy, but then, going by your logic, what's exactly preventing me from saying "Bah, bullshit. There ain't no such thing as a voluntary society! Only states are legitimate!" Also, a voluntary society does NOT mean 'freedom from theft.'

Originally posted by dadudemon
How realistic is that?

that was actually the point

though, looking at it, you are talking about taxes rather than the social contract, so we aren't really arguing about the same thing

Originally posted by dadudemon
Move where?

Exactly.

There is no avoiding it.

The alternative is something I desire:

1. Buy my own island,
2. Make it a sovereign nation.
3. Write my own constitution/rules.
4. ???
5. Live the rest of my life under the rules I want and die in my own personal utopia.




How realistic is that? The chances that any of us posting in this thread will make tens of millions of dollars in the next 2 decades is very slim. No island purchases in sight, for me or anyone in this thread.

Your little island paradise would still probably get invaded by the glorious US and A. Don't sweat it too much.

Originally posted by Oliver North
freedom, c'mon

No need to free Dom, I feel fairly free. uhuh

Originally posted by Oliver North
that was actually the point

though, looking at it, you are talking about taxes rather than the social contract, so we aren't really arguing about the same thing

I agree: the section of Mairuzu's post I quoted was about taxes because I don't like income taxes. I don't really care for a discussion about the political philosophies of Locke (I assume that's the flavor of Social Contract that everyone is using in this thread).

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Your little island paradise would still probably get invaded by the glorious US and A.

Why?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why?

To annoy you, I guess. Also, oil.

@ so that we can force you to pay us taxes and/or take your natiural resources. Duh.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, the social contract is not connected to government policy, taxation, or even the existence of government itself. It is a collective idea. You can refrain from sidetracking the argument about governments morality. The social contract I am referring to is what people argue for their reasoning as to why I am being extorted. Its used to justify it and it is false.

Do you have arguments as to why its not false?


Originally posted by Oliver North

Since you have already declared that you don't care what the political and philosophical history of the social contract is (which I take to mean copying text from Libertarian sites is the extent you have read about the issue), I'll put it with less nuance than I'd like:

I'm aware of it already so I didn't care to your rambling so we can stick to the main topic of taxation being coercion.

Originally posted by Oliver North

You give up the right to behave in socially destructive ways because it benefits you to live in a society. You can deny it all you want , but this behaviour is empirically reproducible, cross-culturally, and almost certainly a product of your genes.



So you're a collectivist? It doesn't make it moral because of some abstract fictitious "greater good" nonsense.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
There is no such thing as a social contract. Its made up so its pointless to define it.

We can do away with coercion in exactly the same way, its made up. Obviously we have no need to worry about it any longer. There is force, sure, that is a very real thing but this "coercion" is an invention of yours. Merely pathetic objection: "I am weak." and nothing more.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree: the section of Mairuzu's post I quoted was about taxes because I don't like income taxes.

I'd entertain arguments against it, but taxes to me are like a byproduct, not an actual issue themselves. Like, tax rate should be = spending rate, and I'm sure there are interesting arguments about how or where to raise that revenue from, its just not as interesting to me. If it isn't reasonably possible to pay the bills without the income tax, then you sort of need to have it, or you need to rethink spending.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't really care for a discussion about the political philosophies of Locke (I assume that's the flavor of Social Contract that everyone is using in this thread).

I'm a bit more Hobbsian, almost because I see social grouping as a survival behaviour because it benefited our ancestors (evolution itself almost becomes the Leviathan), but I'm actually really a fan of how Nietzsche put it. Some people are naturally more powerful and willing to harm others for, literally, no good reason. Some limitations need to be put on those "powerful" individuals to prevent them from enacting the worst forms of violence against us. Thus, the social contract is like, a self-limiter. What is more interesting to me, is there must be a window of how much limitation a person needs vs their own personal desires designed by evolution, and we only limit as much as we had to so that we survived. Its like, the limit of how much of a dick we can be to each other... idk, I'm a geek for evolutionary arms races...

Originally posted by Mairuzu
taxation being coercion.

ok, if this is the specific topic you want to talk about.

given I think taxation is, or at least should be seen as, a byproduct of policy, the literal question is moot, but otherwise, sure, I believe all things the government does are coercive, if we define it broadly enough. I think that might actually be tautological...

I don't think taxation is violence, and I don't think you can draw an immediate line between such broadly defined "coercive behaviour" and morality. If I see someone passed out and give them CPR, that is immensely coercive.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
And yet it exists. We may(here, mainly you, I guess) not like it, disagree with it, question its legitimacy, or even outright deny it. Doesn't change the fact that the state is real and has very real domestic and even foreign power. Sure, it's ultimately enabled and powered by schmucks like you and me, but as of Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013; 4:48:00AM, the govt is real.

Freedom is the opposite of slavery. Both of these things also happen to be real.

That's all nice and dandy, but then, going by your logic, what's exactly preventing me from saying "Bah, bullshit. There ain't no such thing as a voluntary society! Only states are legitimate!" Also, a voluntary society does NOT mean 'freedom from theft.'

You can keep repeating "its real its real, I say its real" over and over but you've yet to provide any proof. The arbitrary lines drawn on a map that we imagine in our heads? That's not REAL. Have you ever thought about what the word "real" even means? It seems like this is yet another inevitable semantics battle. The people in costumes are real. They have guns, those are real. They have buildings with logos, those are real. What is NOT real is the AUTHORITY that is IMAGINED by a COLLECTIVE to have. That authority is not real.


What is Freedom to you? Are you free from taxation? Are you free from democratic rule? These laws that say you cannot do this and you have to do that?

What is slavery to you?

You said freedom is REAL and then you're trying to say voluntary (which is freedom) isnt real?


Its amazing how you guys bash Anarchy while you live with it everyday.

You don't have the government in your social affairs do you? You love having the freedom to pick what to eat, what to buy and what to wear. Yet you are indoctrinated so well to defend your masters you call government and need them to be there for everything else and then some. I'm sure you dont favor the wars and killing children with drones we collectively pay for. If you do then, theres no point arguing with me. You'd be a fool.

It's all well and good if you dislike taxes on principle, but I have trouble envisioning a successful modern society built without them or something similar.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We can do away with coercion in exactly the same way, its made up. Obviously we have no need to worry about it any longer. There is force, sure, that is a very real thing but this "coercion" is an invention of yours. Merely pathetic objection: "I am weak." and nothing more.

Yes you can deny coercion but that does not mean you are not being coerced and that does not change the morality of it. Have you not been in contact with anyone who hasn't paid their taxes? Coercion CAN BE very real in the sense that if you do not pay, you will be punished.

Its like two slaves saying that coercion isn't real because they haven't gotten whipped since they are obedient. Its a pointless argument like most of what is going on in here

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Its amazing how you guys bash Anarchy

... I'm a anarchist

actually, if that is an anarcho-capitalist symbol as your avi, our core beliefs are probably not that far off. /shrug

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, if this is the specific topic you want to talk about.

given I think taxation is, or at least should be seen as, a byproduct of policy, the literal question is moot, but otherwise, sure, I believe all things the government does are coercive, if we define it broadly enough. I think that might actually be tautological...

I don't think taxation is violence, and I don't think you can draw an immediate line between such broadly defined "coercive behaviour" and morality. If I see someone passed out and give them CPR, that is immensely coercive.

Taxation being violence is something you brought up and for some reason did it again just to bulk the post I guess.

Taxation. Extortion. Coercion. Pick whatever you want. Its a group of people telling you that YOU have to pay because they said so. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's all well and good if you dislike taxes on principle, but I have trouble envisioning a successful modern society built without them or something similar.

Too harsh stoned I misread.


Do you enjoy paying taxes to fund a government that is involved with destructive behavior?

Just because you have no idea who will pick the cotton doesn't change the moral aspect. You're doing a good job at avoiding it, probably due to the obedience instilled into you by the state and its collective worshipers.

The state is the only religion atheist still believe in. The illusion of authority. Its sad.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You had to edit something to say something idiotic?

Do you enjoy paying taxes to fund a government that is involved with destructive behavior?

Just because you have no idea who will pick the cotton doesn't change the moral aspect. You're doing a good job at avoiding it, probably due to the obedience instilled into you by the state and its collective worshipers.

The state is the only religion atheist still believe in. The illusion of authority. Its sad.
Your smugness and sanctimonious attitude hasn't changed. Please answer this, what is your solution to this grave moral problem? What are you doing right now besides complaining about it on a forum?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Taxation being violence is something you brought up and for some reason did it again just to bulk the post I guess.

ya, where could I have gotten that idea:

Originally posted by Mairuzu
"In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to those who argue that government is voluntary, if I don't like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc.

I thought this might also be of use to you, because life is short."

cool though, we don't have to talk about that either

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Taxation. Extortion. Coercion.

in most instances, those words have different meanings to me.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Pick whatever you want. Its a group of people telling you that YOU have to pay because they said so. It's that simple.

well, sure, in the broadest terms we can say paying protection money to a gang is similar to paying taxes. I guess I hear you, but, not to just echo everyone else, if all you are saying is that we are forced to pay taxes, then, ok...

like, I think the way you interpret the moral application of this is academic, but what do you want me to do, try to convince you that you don't feel the way you do about something?

Smugness is irrelevant. I just like verbally roughhousing with yall. stoned You all indulgence in it from time to time, no ones a saint here. I know nothing about any of you on a personal level so don't take it to heart.

What is wonderful about the free market and mankind is that we will find solutions. Just because we don't know what will happen if we free the slaves doesn't mean it shouldn't happen and that there are very destructive things occurring on such a incomprehensible scale with this illusion of authority.

But the freedom of slaves happened throughout the world. Except in this secret little collective one. Which brings enormous wealth to the masters as the free-ranged cattle use state capitalism and as the economy grows, the state along with it.


oh and yeah, I edited the other post dammit.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Smugness is irrelevant. I just like verbally roughhousing with yall. stoned You all indulgence in it from time to time, no ones a saint here. I know nothing about any of you on a personal level so don't take it to heart.

What is wonderful about the free market and mankind is that we will find solutions. Just because we don't know what will happen if we free the slaves doesn't mean it shouldn't happen and that there are very destructive things occurring on such a incomprehensible scale with this illusion of authority.

But the freedom of slaves happened throughout the world. Except in this secret little collective one. Which brings enormous wealth to the masters as the free-ranged cattle use state capitalism and as the economy grows, the state along with it.
You'll forgive me if I call this a copout response, won't you?

Edit: I saw that, and I was pleasantly surprised, but you still come off as smug. And I know smugness because game recognizes game.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ya, where could I have gotten that idea:


Lol, ah yeah, I blame STR on that typo. I'd correct it to "Taxation is not extortion". Its violence in the sense that it will require violence to operate. You can give it a pass, no biggie.

Originally posted by Oliver North

cool though, we don't have to talk about that either



in most instances, those words have different meanings to me.


You get the idea.

Originally posted by Oliver North
well, sure, in the broadest terms we can say paying protection money to a gang is similar to paying taxes. I guess I hear you, but, not to just echo everyone else, if all you are saying is that we are forced to pay taxes, then, ok...


I'm say a lot more if you pay attention to anyone else I'm talking to. I'm trying to stick to what YOU are introducing to me in this conversation in replies to what I've just introduced.

Its destructive and counter productive for what the collective thinks its accomplishing.

Originally posted by Oliver North

like, I think the way you interpret the moral application of this is academic, but what do you want me to do, try to convince you that you don't feel the way you do about something?

I don't care what you do. Just don't hurt anyone

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You'll forgive me if I call this a copout response, won't you?

Edit: I saw that, and I was pleasantly surprised, but you still come off as smug. And I know smugness because game recognizes game.

Sure because I have no clue what it would be a copout to. I've responded to everything. What am I copouting out of? lol


Yeah its a malfunction in the brain that self knowledge can aid. One day one day.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm say a lot more if you pay attention to anyone else I'm talking to. I'm trying to stick to what YOU are introducing to me in this conversation in replies to what I've just introduced.

Its destructive and counter productive for what the collective thinks its accomplishing.

to be fair, the tract you have posted, twice, contains explicit reference to and pretends to be a critique of the social contract.

I assume I can be forgiven for thinking that is something we might discuss in the thread.

I suppose in the end I don't disagree enough with you about taxes...

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Sure because I have no clue what it would be a copout to. I've responded to everything. What am I copouting out of? lol


Yeah its a malfunction in the brain that self knowledge can aid. One day one day.
It's a copout because I asked if you had a solution for this moral travesty and you replied with a paragraph of "fight the machine, throw off the shackles of the system" tripe.

Since you seem so certain of your enlightenment, it shouldn't be hard for you to outline a plan for replacing the current system of coercive taxation and oppressive governance once the "slaves" have been "freed."

@mairuzu

while the government is an abstraction, its reality is self-evident, because its agents aren't just random individuals, their behavior is coordinate and largely determined by said government's hierarchy and ideology. this very concrete collective agency justifies the use of the term. now, you may claim it has no legitimacy and therefore no authority, but it most certainly has power, which is really the core of the issue.

now please: how would the non-aggression principle be maintained in a hypothetical voluntary society? how would the economy of this hypothetical society be organized exactly?

@inimal

Its a brief summary of what most people argue against telling them that taxation is coercive. I'm sure that is the main point. As well as the social contract not existing in the sense that I have to pay because a group of people say I have to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's a copout because I asked if you had a solution for this moral travesty and you replied with a paragraph of "fight the machine, throw off the shackles of the system" tripe.

Since you seem so certain of your enlightenment, it shouldn't be hard for you to outline a plan for replacing the current system of coercive taxation and oppressive governance once the "slaves" have been "freed."


I am only one man. If I say I have a solution I would just be government and force everyone to do as I say. All that is needed is for people to give up the religion that is statism and their illusion of authority and realize how destructive it is. You can imagine all the types of governments theres been around with people imagining their right to rule. I can't blame them though, indoctrination works well on the child mind as they grow.

I can only free myself. It begins in the mind.

"I prefer the tumult of liberty over the quiet of servitude" as that slave owner would say.

I shake the cages all I can and let people know how compliance is destructive. How these turn to empires and empires fall. It most likely wont happen in my time but I'll gladly aid it.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I am only one man. If I say I have a solution I would just be government and force everyone to do as I say. All that is needed is for people to give up the religion that is statism and their illusion of authority and realize how destructive it is. You can imagine all the types of governments theres been around with people imagining their right to rule. I can't blame them though, indoctrination works well on the child mind as they grow.

I can only free myself. It begins in the mind.
If you'd read 1984 you'd know that even the mind isn't safe. sneer

aTYWGrfo-ao

2G6kf7XM9Nk

we are talking about anarchy, these are pretty good

No its not but the first step is seeing the cage you're in.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
No its not but the first step is seeing the cage you're in.
We're not actually having a real conversation, are we?

Ya and we don't even need an authoritative mod of some kind.


As for the 3D printers, I hope that advances quick.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You can keep repeating "its real its real, I say its real" over and over but you've yet to provide any proof. The arbitrary lines drawn on a map that we imagine in our heads? That's not REAL. Have you ever thought about what the word "real" even means? It seems like this is yet another inevitable semantics battle. The people in costumes are real. They have guns, those are real. They have buildings with logos, those are real. What is NOT real is the AUTHORITY that is IMAGINED by a COLLECTIVE to have. That authority is not real.


What is Freedom to you? Are you free from taxation? Are you free from democratic rule? These laws that say you cannot do this and you have to do that?

What is slavery to you?

You said freedom is REAL and then you're trying to say voluntary (which is freedom) isnt real?


Its amazing how you guys bash Anarchy while you live with it everyday.

You don't have the government in your social affairs do you? You love having the freedom to pick what to eat, what to buy and what to wear. Yet you are indoctrinated so well to defend your masters you call government and need them to be there for everything else and then some. I'm sure you dont favor the wars and killing children with drones we collectively pay for. If you do then, theres no point arguing with me. You'd be a fool.

I agree with you there, it's more or less semantics we're talking about here.
The power a state can and does exercise is very real and that's more than enough proof for me(all moral, philosophical, and ethical questions aside).

I know very well that I'm not free from taxation or democratic rule, I know that my freedom is not unlimited, but I'm not a slave either. It's always nice to hear someone call me a slave so I can be reminded just how far off from a slave I really am.

I'm not saying a voluntary society isn't real or couldn't be real, but there's nothing preventing someone from declaring it not real and attempting to enforce his/her rules on others.

Actually, my government doesn't build drones or start wars and only helps with peacekeeping missions. I have my hands more or less clean on that one. Regardless, I have nothing but cold apathy for my government and wouldn't be sorry to see it go if we had some sort of a post-scarcity tech going on. That, however, is still a pipe dream. Until then, it's better the devil you know...

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
To annoy you, I guess. Also, oil.

Stupid USA, even invading my make-believe islands for oil.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd entertain arguments against it, but taxes to me are like a byproduct, not an actual issue themselves. Like, tax rate should be = spending rate, and I'm sure there are interesting arguments about how or where to raise that revenue from, its just not as interesting to me. If it isn't reasonably possible to pay the bills without the income tax, then you sort of need to have it, or you need to rethink spending.

This may seem odd but 3-4 years ago, we had this same exact conversation. We both agreed that, while we would prefer the utopia where everyone gets along without the need of government, things like government and taxes are a necessary evil.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
...but I'm actually really a fan of how Nietzsche put it. Some people are naturally more powerful and willing to harm others for, literally, no good reason. Some limitations need to be put on those "powerful" individuals to prevent them from enacting the worst forms of violence against us. Thus, the social contract is like, a self-limiter. What is more interesting to me, is there must be a window of how much limitation a person needs vs their own personal desires designed by evolution, and we only limit as much as we had to so that we survived. Its like, the limit of how much of a dick we can be to each other... idk, I'm a geek for evolutionary arms races...


We (coursework) never covered that stuff regarding Nietzsche (the powerful and social contract). That sounds interesting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We (coursework) never covered that stuff regarding Nietzsche (the powerful and social contract). That sounds interesting.

Wait, I didn't say that!

Originally posted by 753
@mairuzu

while the government is an abstraction, its reality is self-evident, because its agents aren't just random individuals, their behavior is coordinate and largely determined by said government's hierarchy and ideology. this very concrete collective agency justifies the use of the term. now, you may claim it has no legitimacy and therefore no authority, but it most certainly has power, which is really the core of the issue.

now please: how would the non-aggression principle be maintained in a hypothetical voluntary society? how would the economy of this hypothetical society be organized exactly?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What is Freedom to you? Are you free from taxation? Are you free from democratic rule? These laws that say you cannot do this and you have to do that?

This line of reasoning leads to absurd results.

"I should be free to do this and that."

this = raping children and old people

that = hunting down humans for sport


We give up "this" and "that" for other freedoms. You are free to live your life without having to fortify your abode from the perpetrators of "this" and "that." If you have to constantly watch your back and the backs of your loved ones, your other freedoms take a drastic hit.

I am positive that there are those out there that really really really wish they could openly exercise the freedoms of "this" and "that", but they are restricted from doing so because we have, as a people, generally agreed that some sort of laws and police-force are necessary.


Now, you and I obviously agree that we've gone a bit ape-shit with all the rules we call "laws" in the US. There are so many different opinions out there at what level these laws should govern that we cannot do much about our current situation. However, I noticed something: those people that are between 15-35 are getting pretty damn tired of this over-governing. Just guessing, but I think we will eventually see quite a few law changes over the next 3 decades...at least, a loosening of the laws. It would help if people like you ran for public office.


Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Wait, I didn't say that!

DAMN QUOTE TAG COPY-PASTE SHIT!

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree with you there, it's more or less semantics we're talking about here.
The power a state can and does exercise is very real and that's more than enough proof for me(all moral, philosophical, and ethical questions aside).

I know very well that I'm not free from taxation or democratic rule, I know that my freedom is not unlimited, but I'm not a slave either. It's always nice to hear someone call me a slave so I can be reminded just how far off from a slave I really am.

Its definitely not overt slavery. People operate better when they are allowed to choose in a free-ranged farm. We become batteries of the state or tax cows. Its whatever you want to call it but definitions should be put down before debates

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory

I'm not saying a voluntary society isn't real or couldn't be real, but there's nothing preventing someone from declaring it not real and attempting to enforce his/her rules on others.

Oh well yeah, there's nothing preventing free speech and people preaching their religions either but they do. I'm sure the mob does this but they mostly profit off government created black markets in the first place, due to their "laws" and all. Words backed up by guns and collective acceptance.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory

Actually, my government doesn't build drones or start wars and only helps with peacekeeping missions. I have my hands more or less clean on that one. Regardless, I have nothing but cold apathy for my government and wouldn't be sorry to see it go if we had some sort of a post-scarcity tech going on. That, however, is still a pipe dream. Until then, it's better the devil you know...

Do we truly know our governments or what they do and the sort of control placed on our economies? hmm

Better no devil at all.

Government/taxation/etc are not a perfect system, but they are better than the alternative. Without them there would be little choice but to live in small collectives each eking out an existence. If one had need of something from another locale, then one would have to communicate with the people there and make some kind of arrangement. Likely a consensus would have to be reached by a group within that collective to make sure that everyone would feel safe about the transaction, and so on and so fourth. This would either remain small time and be a situation in which everyone lives with a general sense of unease, or it would build into a government system of some sort.

The only times I read or see anything close to utopias is in novels and films in which there is an incredibly small population whose entire set of needs is met without issue, and this generally accomplished by a great utilization of advanced technology. A planet with billions in population, haves and have nots, and a myriad of cultures and religious in all likelihood is an environment incapable of existing as anything like a utopia. We could come relatively close if interactions were kept to a relatively small scale, but that's not likely to happen either. Governments may give the illusion of freedom in some senses, but it is that same system that makes it relatively safe to travel as you like and to interact with those you choose to.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may seem odd but 3-4 years ago, we had this same exact conversation. We both agreed that, while we would prefer the utopia where everyone gets along without the need of government, things like government and taxes are a necessary evil.

well, I'd say in the modern world they are currently necessary, sure

Originally posted by dadudemon
We (coursework) never covered that stuff regarding Nietzsche (the powerful and social contract). That sounds interesting.

I only really know him from a Religion and Violence course I took. He doesn't talk about it specifically, but his conflict between the Ubermench and social norms can kind of be seen as that compromise between liberty and society. I'm not even sure Nietzsche would support a social contract, as he saw these moral systems as destructive in many ways. Which is true, for as much as society does benefit us, it also does tremendous harm.

God, now that I'm even thinking about it, that struggle, the strong being oppressed by the many, is like, personified in its most terrible way by Elsworth Thooey in Rand's Fountainhead...

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Oh well yeah, there's nothing preventing free speech and people preaching their religions either but they do. I'm sure the mob does this but they mostly profit off government created black markets in the first place, due to their "laws" and all. Words backed up by guns and collective acceptance.

that sort of misses the point though... yes, government makes the black market because it specifically makes things illegal. sure. And with no government, there is no black market. However, what you still have are people willing to exploit each other for financial gain, now operating as the only market that people have no choice but participate in.

the government isn't the absolute cause of all exploitative behaviour.

Originally posted by 753
@mairuzu

while the government is an abstraction, its reality is self-evident, because its agents aren't just random individuals, their behavior is coordinate and largely determined by said government's hierarchy and ideology. this very concrete collective agency justifies the use of the term. now, you may claim it has no legitimacy and therefore no authority, but it most certainly has power, which is really the core of the issue.

Yeah they are working within the illusion of it just as people put up christmas trees and hand out presents on christmas except your gifts suck ass (for those that celebrate) Its imagined and part of it is the wide acceptance toward it, similar to slavery. I have to keep bringing it back to that

The power, and what I'm trying to tell others if its possible, is their acceptance and silence about it. The obedience. But you can be apathetic to it of course as well as rattling some cages.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory

now please: how would the non-aggression principle be maintained in a hypothetical voluntary society? how would the economy of this hypothetical society be organized exactly?

That's what I'm currently trying to look into and there are many who would like those answers as well, whom already embrace the principle. I'd hope that people would do whatever type they'd like as long as its voluntary. I'm not saying there wont be bad people but I'd say they are products of government in the first place with the war on drugs and the police state. I'm sure people, as we've become more advanced, will figure these things out. Just have to start at home in the family, with the correct parenting and using the non-aggression principle there.

There would be Dispute Resolution organizations as some would call them, that would handle protection. I'm sure, with a free market, there will be many wanting to provide their protection as a service. Its hard to tell what it would look like because I'm sure a lot of people would want different types in their own towns as they somewhat do now.

The transfer toward it is another good question. Might take generations. Maybe sooner if you say something.

Originally posted by Oliver North
God, now that I'm even thinking about it, that struggle, the strong being oppressed by the many, is like, personified in its most terrible way by Elsworth Thooey in Rand's Fountainhead...

The weak cannot oppress the strong. Power is a relationship, you can only be powerful relative to another person. The oppressed are always the weak. Any argument based on the idea that its bad for the weak to control the strong is absolute gibberish.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This line of reasoning leads to absurd results.

"I should be free to do this and that."

this = raping children and old people

that = hunting down humans for sport

The key, and the "sun" of ethics, is the non-aggression principle. Porcupine.

People can and already do rape children and possible old people, law doesn't prevent it. If we're talking about absurd then that's an absurd conclusion to the point of the message and the immorality of the state. The necessary evil always crumbles and the citizens screwed in a state of unprepared destructive anarchy, not the good awakened to reality kind.

I mean, you're already free to rape children. But you will have consequences. If you want a government to keep you from raping children and old people then by all means pay for one! While they do the same thing with your taxes But do you think I am free to not be a tax cow for them?


Originally posted by dadudemon

We give up "this" and "that" for other freedoms. You are free to live your life without having to fortify your abode from the perpetrators of "this" and "that." If you have to constantly watch your back and the backs of your loved ones, your other freedoms take a drastic hit.

So the government has to take your freedom to give you freedom? Take your freedom from doing this and that, like smoke pot in certain places and all these regulations, and to keep what you earn? Its sounds illogical doesn't it? It never turns out good. The freest society that the US was turned out into such a giant beast and does insane unimaginable things with our acceptance and imagination toward it.

We can do what they provide, better. Its silly to think otherwise


Originally posted by dadudemon

I am positive that there are those out there that really really really wish they could openly exercise the freedoms of "this" and "that", but they are restricted from doing so because we have, as a people, generally agreed that some sort of laws and police-force are necessary.

So we have to pay for a government to disobey these laws and commit these acts we dont want done? Authority to PEOPLE because we are all PEOPLE. It doesn't make sense and look how it ends up. You dont think we can have voluntary police without a group of people who claims to have authority to force us idiots to do it? Come on. It sounds like instilled fear. Its a tool of the state.


Originally posted by dadudemon

Now, you and I obviously agree that we've gone a bit ape-shit with all the rules we call "laws" in the US. There are so many different opinions out there at what level these laws should govern that we cannot do much about our current situation. However, I noticed something: those people that are between 15-35 are getting pretty damn tired of this over-governing. Just guessing, but I think we will eventually see quite a few law changes over the next 3 decades...at least, a loosening of the laws. It would help if people like you ran for public office.


DAMN QUOTE TAG COPY-PASTE SHIT!

Theres no voting back freedom. These are just people, sociopaths aiming for domination and power most likely. You're worried about killers so you open the gate for the most destructive ones. We can do better than the ugly we's.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The weak cannot oppress the strong. Power is a relationship, you can only be powerful relative to another person. The oppressed are always the weak. Any argument based on the idea that its bad for the weak to control the strong is absolute gibberish.

touche

both Nietzsche and Rand have fairly similar views of what constitutes "power", namely individuals who excel in spite of the machinations of society. Like, "the powerful" isn't a reference to the power relationship, but a group of individuals who posses certain traits that the authors thought were "power", and really just reflect traditional masculine views.

The Ubermench's ability to crush others had to be resisted by the imposition of morality by the non-ubermench. and ya, in relative terms, that is their power...

/rambling needlessly

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Government/taxation/etc are not a perfect system, but they are better than the alternative.

I think otherwise. You're saying you don't know what to fund so you need someone to force you and others to do so? While they do whatever they want with the rest after they rip you off with their services?

Originally posted by Ascendancy

Without them there would be little choice but to live in small collectives each eking out an existence.

There could be big cities. It doesn't have to be small. I'm sure you can do that if you want to be in a rural area. When people are free, they operate much better. The regulations aren't to help you but restrict you. Its a scheme. You can do better without them. As can we.

Originally posted by Ascendancy

If one had need of something from another locale, then one would have to communicate with the people there and make some kind of arrangement. Likely a consensus would have to be reached by a group within that collective to make sure that everyone would feel safe about the transaction, and so on and so fourth. This would either remain small time and be a situation in which everyone lives with a general sense of unease, or it would build into a government system of some sort.

I can't say I know for sure what would happen. This would possible be one small scenario. People often wondered where the slaves would after after freeing them. Who will pick the cotton and where they would go but whats important is that you end slavery first. If we can't figure out how to operate it then how can we elect people to figure out how to operate it and give them guns and a funnel of money? Its crazy.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
The only times I read or see anything close to utopias is in novels and films in which there is an incredibly small population whose entire set of needs is met without issue, and this generally accomplished by a great utilization of advanced technology. A planet with billions in population, haves and have nots, and a myriad of cultures and religious in all likelihood is an environment incapable of existing as anything like a utopia. We could come relatively close if interactions were kept to a relatively small scale, but that's not likely to happen either. Governments may give the illusion of freedom in some senses, but it is that same system that makes it relatively safe to travel as you like and to interact with those you choose to.

Its not a utopia. Its freedom and voluntarism. Its not going to prevent bad things from happening because they just happen. Theres a lot of people. But giving someone the power to do bad things on a huge scale is just insane and a huge step in the wrong direction. Its just that we are taught that it isnt. The master controls that

Originally posted by Oliver North
that sort of misses the point though... yes, government makes the black market because it specifically makes things illegal. sure. And with no government, there is no black market. However, what you still have are people willing to exploit each other for financial gain, now operating as the only market that people have no choice but participate in.

the government isn't the absolute cause of all exploitative behaviour.

If you want to voluntarily be exploited, go for it. Government regulations make it hard to compete. No one is going to exploit anyone, it doesn't sound possible. Corporations are government created entities. All these guys make money off intellectual property backed by government power as well.

It is one of the biggest causes. How many people has governments killed this century? I'm sure you know of our wars. It is the most destructive. Its imprisons victimless crimes. Sanctions countries. 500,000 dead iraqi children that were deemed justified. Its a very destructive superstition. The most, probably more than religion even though I say It is a religion.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The key, and the "sun" of ethics, is the non-aggression principle. Porcupine.

People can and already do rape children and possible old people, law doesn't prevent it. If we're talking about absurd then that's an absurd conclusion to the point of the message and the immorality of the state. The necessary evil always crumbles and the citizens screwed in a state of unprepared destructive anarchy, not the good awakened to reality kind.

I mean, you're already free to rape children. But you will have consequences. If you want a government to keep you from raping children and old people then by all means pay for one! While they do the same thing with your taxes But do you think I am free to not be a tax cow for them?

I'm pretty sure war-time anarchy has proven your point completely and utterly wrong: all sorts of human atrocities occur. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons why people go apeshit in situations like that...but you cannot argue that a decent policing system actual prevents crimes from occurring. You cannot reasonably expect old people and children to be able to fight off attackers, either. A trained and educated police-force is a great way to prevent things like "this" and "that".




Originally posted by Mairuzu
So the government has to take your freedom to give you freedom? Take your freedom from doing this and that, like smoke pot in certain places and all these regulations, and to keep what you earn? Its sounds illogical doesn't it? It never turns out good. The freest society that the US was turned out into such a giant beast and does insane unimaginable things with our acceptance and imagination toward it.

To your first question, yes: that's been covered/stated already. To the rest, I pretty much agree.


Originally posted by Mairuzu
We can do what they provide, better. Its silly to think otherwise

I also agree, here.


Originally posted by Mairuzu
So we have to pay for a government to disobey these laws and commit these acts we dont want done?

This question makes no sense. As in...it is incoherent. I think I know what you're trying to ask so I'll rephrase your question:

"We end up having to pay for a government and wend up with people disobeying these laws, anyway?"

or maybe you meant to make a statement instead of asking a question:

"There are those that can pay the government to disobey these laws and commit these acts that we don't want done."

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Authority to PEOPLE because we are all PEOPLE. It doesn't make sense and look how it ends up. You dont think we can have voluntary police without a group of people who claims to have authority to force us idiots to do it? Come on. It sounds like instilled fear. Its a tool of the state.

We can certainly have a voluntary police force. But that does not solve the problem I responded to and you are addressing. You only eliminate taxes by having a voluntary police force. You still create the problem of the loss of freedoms because:

1. You created laws that restricted freedoms/choices.
2. You established a police force to enforce #1.





Originally posted by Mairuzu
Theres no voting back freedom.

Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of gay couples that are now married.

Or how about our great grandparents that saw the fall of Prohibition?

What about the granting of voting rights to our women (my great parents are all dead, now, but most of them were around when it happened).

Finally, what about all the fine African American men and women that got some nice new freedoms after the Civil Rights movement?

The defeatist attitude you're using is unproductive. You're sounding just like every single other person out there that complains but does nothing. You as a person can do something about the things you don't like about the government. Run for public office, get elected, push your freedom agenda, and get followers.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
These are just people, sociopaths aiming for domination and power most likely. You're worried about killers so you open the gate for the most destructive ones. We can do better than the ugly we's.

I'm not too worried about killers. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws with your argument about freedom. It leads to absurd/stupid conclusions about freedom.

Closed. Mairuzu, if you re-open a thread I straight out closed from you again, or argue my decisions, you will be banned. This is just a copy/pasted info dump (done without giving due credit), and you are not advancing any sort of useful line- merely baiting others into responses so you can criticise them. It is an utterly void process that is functionally identical to a lot of conspiracy threads. The very title of this thread is a presumptive trolling. This sort of poor quality thread will not lead to any sort of useful debate beyond 'yes it is' 'no it isn't'.

Do not do it again.

Incidentally, you lying about about it being 'no-one's work' that you just pasted in here is contemptible. At this point, you are just a liar causing trouble, not the slightest bit interested in any actual useful process of debate or argument, and on that basis I don't want your threads.