Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Brian Blackwell]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Do you understand that you don't get to decide when I give my consent?

One party cannot validly determine the terms of what constitutes consent unilaterally. If you believe they can, then what's stopping anyone from saying, "By wearing a low-cut top to a night club you imply your consent to being raped"? Even if the club posted a sign to this effect, wrote up documents confirming the implication and had a million people sign it, that does not mean the woman gives her consent; it does not make the rape justifiable. Do you understand this???

Man does not have the power to alter morality. Not by any means. 100% universal consensus would still not make an immoral act moral. To believe in this bogus, indoctrinated hogwash of "implied consent" is to grant license to anyone to do anything. If you say I imply my consent, and I expressly deny my consent, both claims can't be valid, so whose takes precedence? Considering that we're talking about personal consent, I'd say the person saying "Hey! I don't give my consent!" has the greater claim. I mean, ffs, what could be more bloody obvious?!

Telling me to "love it or leave it" is just bully bullshit. Love that I take your lunch money everyday, or leave the school. Love that I have shootouts at the park while your kids are playing or leave the neighborhood. Love that I rape you every night or leave the marriage. Hey, you're free to leave, so you must love it since you're still here. I'll stop now because I'm getting mad. Snap the **** out of it and be a human being, for God's sake.

You live in a Republic. There's no crying in a Republic.

Yeah, because that logically addresses all I've said. You have no respect for critical analysis if you're satisfied with smarmy retorts in the face of sound reason.

 

[Oddball]

Our Republic is weak when it doesn't protect liberties and allows the thievery. That is why we need a stronger Bill of Rights to prevent oppression.

I don't want all the assholes that live in the big city shitholes electing dumbassea that pass laws to take money away and give to the welfare queens that elected them, do you? If you do then you are an idiot or one of the welfare queens.

Because The State has such a tremendous track record of protecting the ones already spelled out.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

That is like saying since I have an AR-15 then why don't I have the right to come to your home and steal everything you have?

Thieves have the ability to steal things but that don't make it right.

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

Because we live in a Republic.

The correct answer is, "Because it's wrong."

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Can you scare me up a copy of this contract?...I'd like to have my attorney give it the once-over and see if it's worth signing.

It's called the constitution. Your representative signed off on it.

I didn't sign off on it, and I have a "representative" only because the Constitution imposed one on me.

 

[bripat9643]

Government sucks.

The best thing you can say about it is that it is a necessary evil.

The thing that makes Democracy government sucks so much is that Democracy allows 51% of the people to steal from the 49% and that is thievery.

I consider myself as Libertarian although I don't believe in all Libertarian positions such as abortion and free and open borders.

We need to have a stronger ironclad Bill of Rights to prevent the government from taking our money and giving it to others and to protect our liberties.

I have no problem paying my share of the minimal and necessary government programs like defense, courts, police, roads etc. However, absolutely no welfare, subsidies, entitlements or bailouts.

Why don’t the 51% have a right to dictate law to the 49%?

Because we live in a Republic.

Democracy is as terrible as any other form of government when it takes away Liberties and enables thievery.

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Our Republic is weak when it doesn't protect liberties and allows the thievery. That is why we need a stronger Bill of Rights to prevent oppression.

I don't want all the assholes that live in the big city shitholes electing dumbassea that pass laws to take money away and give to the welfare queens that elected them, do you? If you do then you are an idiot or one of the welfare queens.

The only thing worse than taxation without representation is taxation with representation. Under the king we paid 5% of our GDP in taxes. Under democracy we pay 50%.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't reason with anarchists.

They are not even real anarchist, they do not have a problem with authority, all they want to do is change where that authority lies.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yeah, we only want people who don't use guns to have it, but that's a meaningless distinction to you, right?

Of course, we all know you're just spewing crap because you have been fully defeated on all the main issues under discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

Do you understand that you don't get to decide when I give my consent?

One party cannot validly determine the terms of what constitutes consent unilaterally. If you believe they can, then what's stopping anyone from saying, "By wearing a low-cut top to a night club you imply your consent to being raped"? Even if the club posted a sign to this effect, wrote up documents confirming the implication and had a million people sign it, that does not mean the woman gives her consent; it does not make the rape justifiable. Do you understand this???

Man does not have the power to alter morality. Not by any means. 100% universal consensus would still not make an immoral act moral. To believe in this bogus, indoctrinated hogwash of "implied consent" is to grant license to anyone to do anything. If you say I imply my consent, and I expressly deny my consent, both claims can't be valid, so whose takes precedence? Considering that we're talking about personal consent, I'd say the person saying "Hey! I don't give my consent!" has the greater claim. I mean, ffs, what could be more bloody obvious?!

Telling me to "love it or leave it" is just bully bullshit. Love that I take your lunch money everyday, or leave the school. Love that I have shootouts at the park while your kids are playing or leave the neighborhood. Love that I rape you every night or leave the marriage. Hey, you're free to leave, so you must love it since you're still here. I'll stop now because I'm getting mad. Snap the **** out of it and be a human being, for God's sake.

You live in a Republic. There's no crying in a Republic.

Meaningless twaddle.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying that if a mugger pointed a gun at you and said "give me your wallet," that you would prefer to take a bullet in the belly rather than comply?

Why should anyone believe you aren't a ******* moron?

I would like to hear why he thinks that taxes aren't theft.

Are they not:
- Taking of property.
- Without consent.

Which of the two conditions isn't fulfilled? This isn't exact rocket science.

You give your consent when you freely choose to be a member of the society.
You do not have to live here, but by living here you are giving your consent to the taxes. The state of Cali has really high taxes, so many people are choosing to leave the society instead of paying taxes. You can do the same, if you do not wish to pay taxes, leave the society that is collecting them.

Exactly. Living here is conditional to accepting the social contract. They can pack up their bags and leave anytime they want.

No court system has ever upheld that being born constitutes agreement to any contract, so your claim is obvious horseshit.

If you disagree you can always leave.

Or you could try to find a court that agrees with you and get an injunction.

And you can always hand over your wallet to a mugger. Why would you obect to that? You were given a choice, weren't you?

 

[Flash]

[Q

i agree with you. It's wrong to take any portion of people's wealth by violence coercion. How do you feel the relates to taxation for defense, courts, police, roads, etc.?

There are a few necessary government functions we need. We need to pay for it. After all "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

However, none of that includes taking money away from somebody that earned the money and giving it to somebody else that didn't earn it.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't reason with anarchists.

You can't reason, period.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't reason with anarchists.

Come on, don't do that. If you accept the premise of natural law, that man has inherent, unalienable rights, then everything I've said is entirely reasonable, as it follows directly from that idea.

He doesn't accept it.

 

[Flash]

[Q

The only thing worse than taxation without representation is taxation with representation. Under the king we paid 5% of our GDP in taxes. Under democracy we pay 50%.

Once somebody gets elected it becomes a power thing. They forget about serving the people that elected them.

I hate Democracy. Terrible form of government. However, like the man said, all the other forms are worse.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

 

[bripat9643]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

There is no right to be free of discrimination, and regulations are not the only way to prevent corporations from "preying on people." No corporation preys on people 1/100th as much as the federal government preys on people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I'm not well versed in the different brands of Libertarianism. However, my general understanding is that they will rail against government oppression- which they see in just about everything the government does from ensuring clean air and water to laws against discrimination- but are quite ok with allowing others to be oppressed by those who have the power to do so.

They bleat about loving freedom, but care little about others right to be free of discrimination, or to be preyed upon by banks and other corporations in all of the ways that they happily would if not for regulations.

There is no right to be free of discrimination, and regulations are not the only way to prevent corporations from "preying on people." No corporation preys on people 1/100th as much as the federal government preys on people.

To be free of discrimination is a human right, and if you are going to claim that the public does not need protection from corporations through regulation, you are either a shameless liar or hopelessly stupid.

 

[TNHarley]

To be free of discrimination is a human right

You entitled little shit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To be free of discrimination is a human right

You entitled little shit

Thank you for that brilliant, sensitive and cogent response to an important philosophical question relevant to our troubled times. You are a true asset to the conversation and constantly raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB.

 

[TNHarley]

To be free of discrimination is a human right

You entitled little shit

Thank you for that brilliant, sensitive and cogent response to an important philosophical question relevant to our troubled times. You are a true asset to the conversation and constantly raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB.

There is no human right to be free from discrimination. Thats just dumb.
Only statists think bullshit like that. Stop bein such a puss, dude.
Oh, and you are welcome