Agna:

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO... Once again she comes to flee the argument and thus concedes to that which she chooses to ignore...

Which is fine, given her distinct lack of options...

they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...

-prove z creator
-prove such an endowment by said creator

No problem... You exist... and given that you didn't create yourself, then reason requires you were created... and where such is the case, the necessity then exists that there must be a Creator.

Now to the reasoning for the Creation... reason requires that where the creator bothers to create, he must have a purpose for such; since the creation was life, that life was therefore endowed and with that life, one must conclude that such comes with a purpose; reason suggests that the purpose is to observe and associate with; for the individual to fulfill that life, thus the life is necessarily endowed with the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life... and so on...

It's not terribly complex, as such is self evident... it's simply more complex than those who have willingly succumbed to the deceit are able to consider, as to do so, requires one to accept the inherent responsibilities which are intrinsic with that right and to that life... and that's just so HAaaard, MAN!

you do not believe that such rights exist, thus there is no means by which you can associate yourself with Americans

you already ran away on the other thread; you would be wise to be silent here, as well.

No... this is a lie, which you hope the reader will simply accept... of course if the reader has read the thread they know that you've been indisputably proven to hold the position of the lowly atheists... you're entire argument is founded on nothing less... the full measure of the "Social Contract" relies on it; thus this is merely your latest attempt to flee your own closely held position; one which discredits you in every facet of every would-be identity in which you try to cloak this dead horse.

One can't repeatedly demand that proof for the existance of a Creator be established, and then claim that rights which stem directly from that Creator and which are sustained on the authority of such, exist.

You've made the incontrovertibly clear sis... and that you want to demand that you should have it both ways is simply proof of the absolute variety that you're a common, soft-headed troll...

I've made no other contracts with anyone else, regarding the culture or society

Actually, you made one with me and everyone else earlier in this thread:

I tend to my responsibilities and hold the rest of you accountable for your responsibilities....

Admit it. You've been proven a liar across two threads, and you have shown to be both wrong an an idiot

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

You've asserted that the US exists and is governed through a 'social contract'; I explain that I have entered into no such contract and instead of establishing through sound reasoning or tangible evidence, you return to plead for me to admit that I wrong...

My Contract is with the Creator, not with society... And where a society denies the existance of such, that society stands in direct conflict with that contract...

Again you come to demand to have it both ways... you deny the existence of the Creator, repeatedly assert that the endowed rights of such do not exist and you now come to claim that the responsibilites to which I hold you accountable, which stem directly from the rights endowed from the Creator, constitute a contract with your society...

But such is the nature of impotence... you grope for a reason to be... but you reject from the outset, the only potential for such; which stirs you into this hysterical madness where you find that you want freedom; but reject the principles which sustain it and you want a virtuous culture, but advocate for that which prevent the potential for such.

There are no social contracts... there are only unalienable individual rights, which come with sacred and unalienable responsibilities; responsibilities which sustain those rights and the liberty which results from that sustenance..

The illusion of of the social contract, comes from the observance of that which is real and the desire to immulate such, without suffering the hard work of serving the responsibilities... where such comes to power, the only potential result is the loss of the liberty which was sustained solely through the adherence to the aforementioned responsibilities and the jealous defense of the rights...

The Social Contract idiocy is fodder for fools and children... with the distinction being that children eventually grow past believing in myth and specious little theoretical fairy tales; while fools simply never do.

 

[JBeukema]

through a 'social contract'; I explain that I have entered into no such contract and instead of establishing through sound reasoning or tangible evidence, you return to plead for me to admit that I wrong...

I have proven the social contract and presented the legal codification thereof. You are unable to refute the evidence, and so you resort to parenthetic personal attacks.

Your trollish nature and lack of manhood, honor, or humility clearly makes it impossible for you tro admit that you are wrong.

There are no social contracts...

You deny the DoI and the Constitution>? You deny the existence of law and ethics?

there are only unalienable individual rights, which come with sacred and unalienable responsibilities; responsibilities which sustain those rights and the liberty which results from that sustenance..

right... so Americans have an inalienable right to drive on one side of the road, and the British on the other?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the member returns to ignore the bulk of the argument and in so doing concedes to that which she has chosen to ignore.... She has further opted to segment the argument to which she HAS responded to better suit her failing position and in so doing attempts to resurrect a red herring, which implies that she recognizes the weakness of her argument; leaving her little choice but to do so...

As such, her concession to that which she avoided, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

through a 'social contract'; I explain that I have entered into no such contract and instead of establishing through sound reasoning or tangible evidence, you return to plead for me to admit that I wrong...

I have proven the social contract and presented the legal codification thereof. You are unable to refute the evidence, and so you resort to parenthetic personal attacks.

Your trollish nature and lack of manhood, honor, or humility clearly makes it impossible for you tro admit that you are wrong.

This response is raw, fallacious ad ignorantum; wherein the member opts to appeal to the flaccid projection of facts which have not not demonstrated.

The simple fact is that the US Constitution, US Jurisprudence and the supporting legal code serve no other purpose than to hold each individual accountable to the responsibilities inherent in their endowed, unalienable individual rights...

This member comes to DEMAND that by its very existence, the US Constitution and the ensuing legal code, represent a social contract, by which each citizen is bound... which represents little more than a misnomer born of the erroneous conclusion that such a contract begins and ends with those legal instruments; a subjective conclusion, which is born on nothing else, beyond the personal opinion of the member; an opinion which she has repeatedly demonstrated rests upon the premise that there is no Creator, thus there is no endowment of life, thus no endowment of rights, thus no means for such rights to be unalienable, thus such rights are, within the scope of her argument, predicated upon nothing else beyond what the US Constitution, and the US Legal code prescribe.

This is demonstrated by her position in this post, wherein she requires that the existence of the Creator and the Unalienable rights, which are in and of themselves self evident; evidence which she simply chooses to reject; http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/79416-agna-post1290800.html#post1290800 ...

And in this post, wherein she goes out of her way to note that she feels the USC is a flawed instrument, which she would like to pattern, minus the above noted 'inherent flaws' to which she vaguely refers... noting here that she needs to reference these would-be flaws in as vague terms as can be accomplished and still impart the target concept... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/79416-agna-post1291312.html#post1291312

And in this post where she argues with her own stated positions; again in as vague terms as possible, to avoid the accountability for her lack of veracity....

Note here that she is unable to simply state the obvious; that where reason would otherwise require one who brings this argument to simply declare their strong, certain belief in the Creator; thus in the endowment intrinsic to that Creation and the inherent rights and responsibilities stemming from such; all at the IMPLIED soul of these stated arguments; this member chooses instead to lean on the implication and avoid making a declaration of any kind... she simply mouths facts which are not at contest, by anyone in this discussion, EXCEPT HER!

And she does so, to lead the reader away from the fact that she has vociferously contested those facts at every relevant point; in hopes of setting aside the accountability for the position which she, HERSELF, recognizes as a fatal flaw in her reasoning.

i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I support a republic far less centralized than our own and more in line with that setup by the Constitution (although I do not intend to in any way imply that said document ios without its own flaws)

Ah, I get it. Since I view the Constitution as a fallible document and think the progress made in civil liberties and the recognition of human rights sine the 1700s is a good thing, I must not be a 'true American' per your ignorant partiasanese non-logic

Wow... you really are thick headed

You {PI} were the one who sought to produce a moral argument based on 'natural rights'; you bear the burden of demonstrating that they exist.

Just so you know, since you're too ignorant to grasps this very simple matter: The USC annd the FF '[held] these truthsd to be self-evident'. They did not choose to engage in a philisophical debate. They stated that for the purposes of the SC they were codifying via first the DoI and then the USC they such rights were, by the agreement of all parties, declared as axioms that all would accept within the confines of the SC (Law). This was for two reasons:
-To avoid religious debate
-To avoid a long and darwn-out philisophical diatribe that would have served merely to distract from the matter at hand

AGAIN... The member comes to have her rhetorical cake; and eat it too...

She wants to declare that her position is much closer to and fundamentally the same as the Founding principles on which America rests; 'only different'...

She wants to declare that the cornerstone of American Liberty rests in the 'Social Contract' which stem from the Rights enumerated in the US Constitution and the ensuing US Legal Code... and that the necessary cooperation of each citizen to maintain their responsibilities which rest within that legal code... where, should they fail, they will reap the wrath of the awesome police power of the State...

When in reality... such is not and has never been the case... the cornerstone of American Liberty exists as a result of the endowment of life, from Nature's God; an endowment which results in the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL to pursue the fulfillment of their LIFE and in so doing to maintain their sacred responsibility to NOT EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER... and to jealously defend that life and to prejudicially maintain those rights; and to defend such and hold each one accountable for such in the process; where the failure to do so will be accounted for, finally, by the awesome, irresistible, self evident power of the Creator...

Thus the authority for such stems from THAT source and decidedly NOT with the State; a State which possesses NO RIGHTS, but only the power which results from the sum of the collective; a fact which, in the final analysis, demonstrates the fatal flaw in the species of reasoning on which the opposition rests her argument; in that it is THIS POWER, which her thesis UNLEASHES upon the individual and which the natural order of ENDOWED, UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS and the US Constitution ITSELF; as DESIGNED BY THE Founders of America, sought to PRECLUDE and restrict...

Thus the truth, being self evident; that the endowed, unalienable human rights and responsibilities inherent in those rights, are a sustaining natural force, which can only promote liberty... that the self evident truth illuminates the certainty that the spurious reasoning born of the Social Contract is a liberty usurping concept, which the responsibilities inherent in our unalienable individual rights require each individual to oppose with the full measure of their strength and to the extent of their mortal means.

Thus, the member's argument is demonstrated to represent little more than a deceit; all that's left to be considered is the irrelevance of whether or not this deceit is known to her, or that it is such which exists within a cognitive ignorance, an intellectual delusion... or an intentional deception born of the natural evil which seeks to destroy liberty.

The good news here, is that her next response should demonstrate which species of deception that is...

But without regard to its personal manifestation within her mind and her heart; be it an intentional deceit which she projects as a willing conspirator of evil or a delusion born of ignorance... it's origins remain the same; as does the certainty of the consequential outcome for those who succumb to the desire to find an easier way... a middle way... a Godless way...

Where people shun the light; the only possible result is that they will inevitably find themselves suffering in darkness; where they just as inevitably come to bray and gnash their teeth in the delusional cries: '... what did we do to get ourselves here?"

There are no social contracts...

You deny the DoI and the Constitution>? You deny the existence of law and ethics?

there are only unalienable individual rights, which come with sacred and unalienable responsibilities; responsibilities which sustain those rights and the liberty which results from that sustenance..

right... so Americans have an inalienable right to drive on one side of the road, and the British on the other? [/QUOTE]


I deny nothing... I simply reject your conclusions that there exist any contract beyond that which exists between the individual and their maker... and that where cultural law serves to sustain that contract, it serves justice, thus represents little more than an extension of THAT contract... and where such does NOT; where such contests that contract, through either ignoring it or through the rejection of the immutable principles on which it rests, that such is to be ignored and that it is the sacred duty, born of the inherent responsibilities represented by unalienable human rights to change those laws and to NEVER give such laws any form of respect by having adhered to them, or join with those who advance them.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey JB, Pub.I

What are you guys arguing about again?

It seems that you both in support of the same basic concept of government( a Representative form of government based on the concepts of liberty, egalitarianism, and human rights) but differ on how such a government can be justified.


Treat me like a six grader here. What are your points of contentions?

 

[editec]

Hey JB, Pub.I

What are you guys arguing about again?

It seems that you both in support of the same basic concept of government( a Representative form of government based on the concepts of liberty, egalitarianism, and human rights) but differ on how such a government can be justified.


Treat me like a six grader here. What are your points of contentions?

I thought he made his point clearly enough

Pubbie wrote:

You've asserted that the US exists and is governed through a 'social contract'; I explain that I have entered into no such contract and instead of establishing through sound reasoning or tangible evidence, you return to plead for me to admit that I wrong...

What more must he write?

Pubbie has a somewhat sociopathological personality.

He believes that he owes his society nothing.

He's told us as much repeatedly.

 

[JBeukema]

Hey JB, Pub.I

What are you guys arguing about again?

It seems that you {} support ... a Representative form of government based on the concepts of liberty, egalitarianism, and human rights)

Treat me like a six grader here. What are your points of contentions?

Dumbass is too stupid to see the first quoted observation and denies the existence of the Constitution, federal statues, any law, and the Declaration of Independence. He also fails he grasp the consent of the governed He tried to call me a liar, I challenged him in another thread- and he ran away.

 

[JBeukema]

such a contract begins and ends with those legal instruments

yep, because no laws have been passed since then and the Constitution has never been amended

And in this post, wherein she goes out of her way to note that she feels the USC is a flawed instrument,

Seeing as one of its conditions was that the fed wouldn't outlaw slavery for x many years ansd it's had to be amended to protect the liberties of women and those of color- yea, it's a flawed document, written by flawed men.



It's not my fault that you fail to understand the most basic principles of rudimentary sociology

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hey JB, Pub.I

What are you guys arguing about again?

It seems that you both in support of the same basic concept of government( a Representative form of government based on the concepts of liberty, egalitarianism, and human rights) but differ on how such a government can be justified.


Treat me like a six grader here. What are your points of contentions?

I thought he made his point clearly enough

Pubbie wrote:

You've asserted that the US exists and is governed through a 'social contract'; I explain that I have entered into no such contract and instead of establishing through sound reasoning or tangible evidence, you return to plead for me to admit that I wrong...

What more must he write?

Pubbie has a somewhat sociopathological personality.

He believes that he owes his society nothing.

He's told us as much repeatedly.

And such is the nature of the pseudo-science of psychology... It's intention is to simply set aside the adherence to principle and to disparage those who hold to such, through the assertion that the adherence to principle is a form of psychosis...

It's a long standing farce, which serves to corral the sheeple and seduces the weak behind the facade of compliance...

But such is the nature of the feminine mind set and the basis for why such is to be avoided.

Notice how this buffoon projects that society is holding some debt over the individual... and notice the stark absence of any substantial argument in support of that assertion. The leftist ideology is as wide as the eye can see and not quite as deep as it's shadow.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hey JB, Pub.I

What are you guys arguing about again?

It seems that you {} support ... a Representative form of government based on the concepts of liberty, egalitarianism, and human rights)

Treat me like a six grader here. What are your points of contentions?

Dumbass is too stupid to see the first quoted observation and denies the existence of the Constitution, federal statues, any law, and the Declaration of Independence. He also fails he grasp the consent of the governed He tried to call me a liar, I challenged him in another thread- and he ran away.

And what we find are more empty assertions designed to promote more obfuscation...

There are no threads within the full measure of the internet which have found me running from any argument, anywhere... there is no post wherein I've denied the existence of the USC, the Federal government, neither the existance of any law, nor the founding charter...

This member simply wants to continue the ruse where she is found championing freedom, while she rejects the immutable principles which sustains such; and advocates for a government which is designed to destroy it.

That's all we disagree upon... And that's why with every post she runs from the core of the argument; and flings in it's stead, the slivers of that argument which she hopes she can sufficiently skew to sustain her failing position.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

such a contract begins and ends with those legal instruments

yep, because no laws have been passed since then and the Constitution has never been amended

And in this post, wherein she goes out of her way to note that she feels the USC is a flawed instrument,

Seeing as one of its conditions was that the fed wouldn't outlaw slavery for x many years ansd it's had to be amended to protect the liberties of women and those of color- yea, it's a flawed document, written by flawed men.



It's not my fault that you fail to understand the most basic principles of rudimentary sociology

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

 

[JBeukema]

 

[JBeukema]

I wonder which of those two classes Agna would be a part of...

Such a shame he got banned.

Agna was fun.

 

[gautama]

Here's a brief summary that's been posted elsewhere of full-fledged anarchist communism, though most elements of it are adaptable to any form of libertarian socialism:

Public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action.

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them.

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

Anarcho-communism fundamentally seeks to abolish and dismantle hierarchical, authoritarian relationships, both in the social and economic realms. Communism would be implemented from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In this manner, it would be based on free association, not on forced collectivization. True and legitimate communism can never be coercive.

Agnaprostate is an obvious whackjob.

Ignore this phenomenom.

Period.

End of story.

 

[Toro]

Agnaprostate is an obvious whackjob.

Ignore this phenomenom.

Period.

End of story.

We all ignore him gaytardma. He was banned years ago.

But thanks for the heads up.